Sitting of 10 May 1883

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Harbours of Refuge, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Poor Law Conferences* [187]; Agricultural Holdings (England) [186]; Medals* [188]; Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) [190]; Burgh Police and Health (Scotland)* [191]; Land Improvement and Arterial Drainage (Ireland)* [189].
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue [140].
Third Reading—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders* [144], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—CASE OF JAMES M'GOWAN, JUNR., CONACLOON, CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether James M'Gowan, junior, of Conacloon, county Leitrim, settled his rent up till the 1st of November, 1881, under the Arrears Act; and, whether the special bailiff of his landlord has threatened to seize the goods of M'Gowan for said arrears; and, if so, whether he is entitled to any redress?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have not thought it part of my duty to inquire whether or not Mr. James M'Gowan has paid his rent. In the latter paragraph of the Question the hon. Member asks

  381
  me whether a private individual threatens to commit a breach of the law by seizing goods for a debt already paid. All I can say is, that if such a thing happens the person aggrieved has his legal remedy.

  THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— NON-ENFORCEMENT OF COMPULSORY EXAMINATION—WITH-DRAWAL OF THE POLICE FROM CHATHAM—ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is correct that a protest has been sent to him from the Medway Board of Guardians against the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police from Chatham; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay a Copy of this document upon the Table of the House, and further to state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received the protest; but there is no object in laying the document on the Table of the House. I have already explained to the House the course that the Government have felt themselves bound to take in consequence of the vote to which the House has come. I suppose the House was fully aware that the local authorities in places where the Acts were in operation were in favour of them. I do not see that a protest of this kind alters the situation at all. The action the Government has taken is consequent upon the vote of the House. The police generally will be withdrawn; but a limited number of Inspectors will remain, so far as may be necessary for carrying out the Acts as to those who voluntarily submit themselves. This is almost a ministerial duty on the part of the Inspectors of Police.
  MR. HOPWOODasked if voluntary submission was to be revived with all its imperfections?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was not revived; it was in the Act of Parliament. It had already been stated that the action of the Government would be confined to that part of the Act which was condemned by the Resolution of the House—namely, compulsory examination.
  MR. HOPWOODgave Notice that he should challenge the employment of these police on the Estimates.

  ARMY—MUSKETRY INSTRUCTORS.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will be good enough to state whether it is intended at once to abolish the office of musketry instructors (Officers and Sergeants) in Militia Battalions as well as in those of the Line?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is not intended to abolish the musketry instructors (either officers or sergeants) in the Militia Battalions; as Militia officers, from not being constantly on duty like officers of the Line, cannot be expected to be generally qualified to impart musketry instruction. Moreover, very few hold Hythe certificates.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC— AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENSLAND.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph which has appeared in many London and provincial newspapers:—
  "The Exchange Telegraph Company learns that as long ago as June last Lord Kimberley had received an intimation as to the annexation of New Guinea. At that time the Governorship of Queensland had been promised definitely to Sir John Pope Hennessy, but as soon as the intention to annex became known to the Colonial Office, the appointment was not made, as it was well known that Sir John Pope Hennessy was opposed to any such annexation, and would offer the scheme of the planters to introduce the blacks of Now Guinea into Queensland to work the plantations on the northern shore the most determined opposition;"
  and, whether these statements are true?
  MR. COURTNEY: In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend, I have to say that the statements in question are altogether incorrect. No intimation was received by Her Majesty's Government until February last that the question of the annexation of New Guinea was likely to be revived by any Australian Government.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT ACT— THE "HOTEL METROPOLE."
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the design for the vast building in the Northumberland

  383
  Avenue, designated as the "Hôtel Métropole," has received the sanction of the Institute of British Architects, as required by the Act of Parliament?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: The design for the Hôtel Métropole was submitted to the Institute of British Architects, as required by the Act of Parliament; but, after due consideration, the Board did not think it necessary to put the tenant to the expense of carrying out the alterations suggested by the Institute, having regard to the fact that the plans for the building had already been amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Board's architect, who was himself then a member of the Council of the Institute.

  IRELAND—STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the State-aided emigration to the United States which is conducted by Mr. Tuke's Committee consists entirely of persons who are likely to be able to support themselves; whether it is true that the United States authorities absolutely decline to take any others; and, by what arrangements Her Majesty's Government hope to relieve the burden of pauperism caused by a system of emigration which compels an ever-increasing proportion of persons who are infirm and ailing to remain behind?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The State-aided emigration conducted by Mr. Tuke's Committee consists entirely of persons who are likely to be able to support themselves and the members of their families who accompany them. I have before stated in the House that the pro-portion between workers and non-workers is carefully observed. The United States Government have made rules to prevent the introduction into the United States of persons likely to become a charge to the public. With regard to the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, the Government consider that the emigration of many of the occupiers of small farms, and the consequent enlargement of the holdings in the congested districts, must improve the position of the occupiers of land left behind. ["Oh!"] I think it is a well-founded opinion. I may observe, also, that one feature of the assisted emigration under
  384
  the Arrears Act is that we assist no one to go who is a means of support to those whom he would leave behind. In the few exceptions of assisted emigration of single individuals this point is carefully observed. Those who remain are not in a worse, but in a better position than they were before.
  MR. O'KELLY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the protest of the Governor of Massachusetts as to persons landing in that State who have no adequate means of support? I would ask, also, whether the exportation of these poor people takes place for the benefit of the ratepayers here at the expense of the American ratepayers?
  MR. MAYNE: I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman in what way he considers that the assisted emigration of people who are able to support themselves adds to the prosperity of the district they leave?
  [No reply was given.]

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can say why the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Law Act are not to hold a Court at Granard, county Longford, this time, as usual, but are to hear all the cases belonging to Granard Union in the town of Longford, thereby in some cases compelling suitors to come in from places more than 20 miles distant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I can only repeat what I stated in reply to the hon. Member's former Question on the same subject a few days ago. The Land Commissioners fixed upon the town of Longford as the best place for opening the Court, and the Sub-Commissioners had power to adjourn for the hearing of cases to any other town in the county that may be more convenient to the parties interested, which it is understood they consult.

  HALL-MARKING (GOLD AND SILVER PLATE)—REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE (1878–9).
  MR. CALLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, with a view to giving effect to the recommendation

  385
  of the Select Committee on Hall-Marking (1878–9)—
  "That the duties upon gold and silver plate should be abolished, as soon as the state of the revenue may admit,"
  Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain the probable amount of a fair and reasonable drawback upon stocks of new and unused plate in the hands of licensed manufacturers and dealers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that although the Select Committee of 1878 and 1879 on Hall-Marking incidentally reported against the continuance of the duties on gold and silver plate, that question was not mentioned in the reference to them, and their Report contained no allusion to the drawbacks on stocks of unused plate, the only real difficulty in connection with the question of duty. I have already stated that I have no intention to propose to repeal the duty; and I may say that until some understanding is arrived at as to what would be a reasonable drawback it would be useless to endeavour to ascertain its amount. The claim of the majority of the trade is for the return of all the duty paid on unused plate, without limit of time, if the duty should be repealed.

  ITALY—RENEWAL OF COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to give any assurance to the House that the Commercial Treaty between this Country and Italy will be renewed prior to the expiration of the existing Treaty on the 30th June next; and, if he cannot give that assurance, whether Her Majesty's Government will take measures to obtain the most favoured nation treatment for this country, so as to protect the British textile trades from the serious injury they would suffer from the new General Tariff of Italy?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Negotiations are now in progress for the renewal of the Commercial Treaty between this country and Italy; and I hope that I shall be in a position immediately after the Whitsuntide Recess to give a full reply to my hon. Friend.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Secretary the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the fact that the List of Dormant Funds in Chancery, issued in 1881, has long been out of print, so that suitors are unable to obtain copies; and, if he will take steps in future that copies shall always be available?
  MR. COURTNEY: I learn that it is the fact that the Supplement of The London Gazette which contained the last list is out of print, owing to the demand for it having been greater than was expected. Care will be taken in future to print a sufficient number of copies. But I believe copies of the list are filed in the Report Office and exhibited in the several offices of the Court, so that suitors can have access to it. I may remind the hon. Member that a new and improved list will be published in six months.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ROSSCLARE PIER AND HARBOUR.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with respect to the additional loan applied for to complete Rossclare Harbour, Whether he is aware that the said loan was recommended to the Treasury in November 1881 by the then Chief Secretary, on the grounds that the only way to make productive the large sums already spent on the Pier and on the Railway was for their Lordships to sanction such further loan as would enable the work to be completed; and, whether he will recommend a further inquiry?
  MR. COURTNEY: Yes, Sir; the late Chief Secretary did make the statement quoted; but he did not give the grounds upon which he formed his opinion. Since that date the case has been further inquired into by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who are responsible for the loan, with the result I stated on Monday. I fear the case is a very hopeless one, and that a further loan would only be throwing good money after bad.
  COLONEL COLTHURST: Will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiry?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have made inquiry.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL OFFICER TO THE CASHEL DISPENSARY DISTRICT.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that no appointment of a medical officer has yet been made to the Cashel Dispensary district, though the vacancy has existed since December; whether, in obedience to the instructions of the Local Government Board ordering them to proceed without delay to the election of a medical officer, the Dispensary Committee met on the 1st of May, but again postponed the election till the 14th of July; and, what steps the Local Government Board now intend to take?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, it was a fact that no appointment had yet been made. The Local Government Board wrote to the Dispensary Committee, on the 19th of last month, expressing a hope that the necessary steps would be taken at once to make the appointment. The Committee, on the 1st of May, considered the subject, and postponed the election until the 14th of July. The Local Government Board had no power to override this decision of the Committee.
  MR. MOORE: Am I to understand that the Irish Local Government Board have no power to appoint a medical officer for the district, by sealed order or otherwise, when the Guardians persist in keeping open the vacancy?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he presumed such a case as this had probably never occurred before; and he could assure the hon. Member that when the appointment was made the Local Government Board would carefully consider the qualifications of the candidate, with a view of ascertaining whether there was any connection between his appointment and the keeping open of the vacancy for so long a period.
  MR. MOOREasked how long, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, was this large district to be left without a medical officer in order to allow an unqualified practitioner to become qualified for the vacancy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I thought the hon. Member would have understood that what I said a moment ago had reference to that phase of the question.

  NAVY (THE BLUE RIBBON).
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Graham, a warrant officer's servant on board H.M.S. "Royal Adelaide," lying at Devonport, who had on 30th April fourteen days' leave stopped by Commander Dugdale, for wearing on shore what was called an unauthorized decoration, generally known as the blue ribbon; and, whether such interference with men in the Navy wearing temperance badges while off duty meets with the sanction of the Admiralty?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the fact that Frederick William Graham, warrant officer's servant, belonging to the Royal Adelaide, was arrested by the patrol on the 29th ultimo, while on shore on leave, for being improperly dressed, as he was wearing a blue ribbon on his uniform jacket, which ribbon is only authorized to be worn by persons who have been awarded the Victoria Cross, Egyptian Bronze Star, or Royal Humane Society's Medal, none of which decorations have been received by him. For this offence his leave was stopped for 14 days by the commanding officer. Directly upon the circumstances being brought to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief he remitted the punishment as unnecessarily severe, in which opinion the Admiralty concur. The House will, however, see how much inconvenience would arise if it were allowed that badges, however innocent and even laudable their significance, should be worn by men when in uniform. Besides the danger of their being mistaken for authorized decorations such as those I have named, badges might come to be worn indicative of different opinions on social, political, and religious questions; and it is, therefore, undesirable that any additions should be permitted to the regulated uniform of Her Majesty's Service.

  BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in Committee on the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, he will give favourable consideration to the proposal to extend the provisions of the Bill to the election of Local Boards,

  389
  Town Improvement Commissioners, and Boards of Guardians?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As the addition of any further provisions to the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill might delay its progress through Parliament, I regret that I cannot consent to my hon. Friend's proposal to extend its provisions to the election of Local Boards, Town Improvement Commissioners, and Boards of Guardians, which have never before been included in legislation having reference to Parliamentary and municipal elections. Her Majesty's Government is, however, favourable to the application of the ballot to such elections, and hope to deal with the matter at a future date.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, in consequence of the reply which he had received, he would not press the matter further in regard to this Bill; but on an early day he would submit a Resolution to the House on the subject.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—WESTMINSTER HALL (WESTERN SIDE).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Commissioner of Works, If it is true that he has employed an architect to devise a plan for the restoration of the western side of Westminster Hall; and, if he will come to the House for a Vote before any considerable work is undertaken?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have appointed the eminent architect, Mr. Pearson, to advise and superintend the restoration of the west front of Westminster Hall. It is certainly not contemplated to erect any buildings there. The hon. Member will find an item of £2,000 for this purpose in the first Vote which will be taken in Supply tonight.

  HALL MARKING (GOLD AND SILVER PLATE) (INDIA).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any communication has been made to Her Majesty's Government, on the part of the Government of India, with reference to the taxation of gold and silver plate, and the practice of compulsory hall marking of gold and silver wares; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence relating thereto?
  MR. J. K. CROSS, in reply, said, that the Treasury had been corresponding with the Indian Government on this subject. If the hon. Member chose to move for the Correspondence he would lay it on the Table of the House.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)— MARTIN NASH.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Martin Nash, aged 19, a native of Queen's County, Ireland, was, on the 23rd ult., brought up before the Penzance Borough Bench, charged on remand with wandering abroad, and having no visible means of subsistence, and whether he made the following statement to the magistrates:—
  "I have been from home 17 months. I have worked in coal pits near Newcastle. Last Tuesday I went into Newcastle to buy a pair of boots intending to return, having 15 s. in my possession at the time, but I met two sailors who took charge of me and said they would take me to America, I having said I would like to go there. I gave them six shillings, and we spent the rest of the money I had in drink. They put me down where the coals were, and I was there from Tuesday evening to Thursday morning. I had some bread in my pocket while in the coal place. On Thursday morning I came before the captain, who kept me on deck till Friday, when he put me on shore at a place called Mousehole. I then had three pence in my pocket. I had no luggage. I came on to Penzance, and went into a public house and had a glass of beer. I did not go to see any person;"
  whether this account was confirmed by the police, so far as regarded the putting ashore of the prisoner from the steamer, and whether the magistrates sent him to Bodmin Gaol for a fortnight as a vagrant; and, whether he will cause any compensation to be given to Martin Nash?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that he had been informed of this case. Nash, who had been a stowaway on board a vessel going to America—in itself an offence—was found as a vagrant at Penzance, and for that offence was imprisoned. The hon. Member had asked him if compensation would be given to Martin Nash. He was afraid a practice of giving compensation to persons under these circumstances would tend to make the grants very large.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether a person who practised an honest industry, who

  391
  went to a locality where that industry was carried on, and who did not loiter or ask any alms, which was the case with Nash, could be sent to prison as a vagrant?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreplied, that an erroneous view of the facts appeared to have been communicated to the hon. Member.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE BELFAST WORKHOUSE—IRREGULARITIES IN BOOK-KEEPING.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the Belfast Guardians agreed on the 24th of April 1883 to accept as "satisfactory" a written explanation from the workhouse master respecting the tampering with the books in his charge; if the Local Government Board have censured the guardians, by implication, by declining to confirm their resolution respecting the falsification of the books; if it be true that the Local Government Board have stated in a communication to the guardians that food has been charged in the master's books, as having been supplied to paupers, who were not inmates of the workhouse on the particular dates shown in said books; if it be correct that, by this system of book-keeping, large surpluses of certain articles of food were created which were not credited on the provision book; and, whether, after considering the letter of the Local Government Board, he will continue in office the officials so acting?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case that on the 24th of April the Belfast Guardians received an explanation from the workhouse master respecting the manner in which the diet books had been kept, and that they unanimously resolved that they considered it satisfactory. The Local Government Board, on learning this, informed the Guardians that they did not consider it altogether satisfactory, as it was the duty of the master to report to the Guardians any departure from the approved scale of dietary, and they requested that the matter should be further inquired into, which was done by the Visiting Committee, who made a Report on the subject, and gave directions as to the manner in which the books should be kept in future. The imperfect manner in which the books were formerly kept
  392
  has met with the necessary attention. The Local Government Board inform me that there is no ground for supposing that fraud was intended or committed, and there is no reason why the officers concerned should not be retained in office.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CONDUCT OF THE POLICE.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Westmeath Examiner" of Saturday, which states that on Tuesday last a detective and head constable visited a man who resided at Collinstown, in the county of Westmeath, and questioned him as to his knowledge of the murder of Mrs. Smythe; that they stated to him that they did not suspect him of the murder, but that he must know all about it; and that before leaving, one of them addressed him with clenched fist, called him a ruffian and puppy, and said the day would come when he would be glad to give information, but would not get the opportunity; and, whether the statements in this paragraph are true?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have seen the paragraph referred to; and, having made inquiry on the subject, I am able to state that it contains a very garbled and incorrect account of what occurred. The allegations of misconduct on the part of the police are without foundation.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EMPLOYMENT IN CULTIVATING FARMS OF EVICTED TENANTS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If sub-constables Kilvehan and Murphy have been employed in ploughing a farm on the estate of Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald, at Ballyculhane, county Limerick, from which a tenant had been evicted; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's advisers in Ireland are prepared to employ the Constabulary in cultivating the evicted farms, so as to render eviction profitable to the landlords?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he had called for a Report; but it had not come to hand, owing to telegraphic communication having broken down, he

  393
  believed, in consequence of a snowstorm.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DUNFANAGHY WORKHOUSE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report in the "Derry Journal" of May 2nd, of an investigation held by Dr. Woodhouse with respect to gross abuses in the administration of the Dunfanaghy Workhouse; whether he is aware that it was sworn that an imbecile pauper inmate named Annie Haigney, daughter of a broken-down tenant, was delivered of an illegitimate child in the workhouse; whether he is also aware that the girl's sister, who had also been an inmate of the workhouse, swore that the Master, Mr. Greer, had misconducted himself towards her during her residence in the workhouse, and that her imbecile sister had complained to her of similar misconduct on his part; whether the Rev. Father Kelly swore that Jane Easton, a nurse in the infirmary, had reported to him certain irregularities in the house, and whether this statement, though disavowed by Jane Easton, was confirmed by the evidence of another nurse, Frances O'Donnell, who swore that Jane Easton had reported to her that the Master was looking after all the women in the house; whether the Master denied that he was the father of Anne Haigney's child; what steps the Local Government Board have taken to purify the administration of the Dunfanaghy Workhouse; and, whether the workhouse in which an idiot girl was subject to outrages of the character disclosed in the evidence is the only refuge, except emigration, offered by the Government or by the Board of Guardians to the thousands of distressed persons in the Dunfanaghy Union?
  MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to this very serious question the Local Government Board inform me that they have under consideration at present the Report of their Inspector, and that when they come to a conclusion they will inform me as to the result. At present the Local Government Board cannot say whether all the evidence produced is reliable; but the matter will receive attention.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUTDOOR RELIEF—DUNFANAGHY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to his statement that complaint was not made of any neglect by the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians, in the administration of outdoor relief, Whether the Rev. James M'Fadden, P. P., Gweedore, has repeatedly complained since January last that the guardians were systematically refusing out-door relief in all cases, and that the communications No. 359 and No. 37,617 from the Local Government Board, are acknowledgments of representations to this effect; whether, as stated to the Rev. Father M'Fadden by the relieving officer, that that official has received strict directions from the Board of Guardians to "offer nothing but the workhouse;" whether out-door relief was in fact refused in all cases, including a number of cases represented by Father M'Fadden as those of persons qualified by law to receive it; whether the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians is under the control of landlords who are liable for the entire poor rates of large numbers of holdings under £4 valuation; and, what expenditure was actually made by the Guardians or the Government to assist private charity in aiding people during the last three months?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that in December last the Rev. Mr. M'Fadden wrote to the Local Government Board saying that distress was impending, and, in many cases, existing, in certain town lands, and urging some scheme of remunerative employment. This is the letter referred to as numbered 39,617. In January Mr. M'Fadden wrote again to the Board, forwarding a copy of a letter which he had written to the Guardians mentioning several cases of distress. The Board sent an Inspector to the Union, and there did not appear to be any default on the part of the Guardians or their officers in regard to the administration of relief. This is the communication numbered 359. The Guardians deny having ever given the relieving officer instructions to refuse all outdoor relief; but they did direct him to be very cautious about it in places where they believed the reports of distress were exaggerated. It is evident that the

  395
  Guardians of Dunfanaghy Union have given indoor, in preference to outdoor relief, to destitute poor persons requiring it. In doing so, they exercised a discretion expressly vested in them by the Poor Relief Acts. There is no doubt that a large proportion of the holdings in Dunfanaghy Union are valued at and under £4. I am unable to say to what extent the Board of Guardians is under "landlord influence." I am not aware that any expenditure was incurred in this Union during the past three months to aid private charity in assisting poor people beyond that involved in the administration of the Poor Law.

  IRELAND—HUNTING IN CARLOW CO.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a report of a case tried before a Dublin Special Jury on February 13th last, in which Mr. Patrick Fenlon, a tenant farmer of county Carlow, brought an action against one John M'Clintock Bunbury for assault and battery; if it is a fact that Mr. Bunbury and others attempted to ride over the lands of Patrick Fenlon, although a notice was served on the Master of the Carlow Hounds prohibiting hunting over said lands; if Fenlon warned off the trespassers, but Mr. Bunbury refused to turn aside, and struck Mr. Fenlon on the head with a whip; if Mr. Beauchamp Bagenal, who was examined as a witness for the defence, gave in evidence that he was a justice of the peace for Carlow county, and that he would have acted as Mr. Bunbury did under similar circumstances; if it is a fact that the jury found for the plaintiff, with damages; if, since then, one W. B. Pearse, J.P., who was also a party to the assault on Mr. Fenlon, has tendered in damages a sum equal in amount to that recovered in the action; and, if the facts are as stated, and if the three persons mentioned are justices of the peace for Carlow county, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland intends removing them from the list of magistrates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: My attention has been drawn to this case, which has also been under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and I have received a Report from his Lordship's Secretary, from which it appears that the facts are not correctly set forth in this Question,
  396
  but are as follows:—A number of farmers of the county of Carlow had served a notice on the Master of the Hounds prohibiting hunting over their lands; but many of the persons whose names were attached to that notice informed the Master that they had signed under pressure and were in favour of the hunt being carried on as usual, and accordingly hunting was carried on until the day of the occurrence which became the subject of the action referred to. On that day a number of persons who were following the hunt crossed Fenlon's land without objection from him, and even caused a gap to be broken to allow a lady to pass. It was not until Mr. Bunbury came on the farm that Fenlon make any objection. He did not refuse to go when warned off. On the contrary, he said he would leave if Fenlon would show him the boundary of the farm, and that he would pay any damage caused by the trespass. The assault was occasioned by Fenlon catching Mr. Bunbury's horse by the bridle and forcing him back on his haunches. The Lord Chancellor has accepted Mr. Bunbury's assurance that he will in future use every means in his power to avoid going on the lands of those persons who object to his doing so, and he does not consider it necessary to take any further action in the matter. With regard to the other gentlemen named, the Lord Chancellor is not aware that anything transpired at the trial to warrant his withdrawing the Commission of the Peace from either of them. I gather that the Lord Chancellor's letter to Mr. Bunbury was more stiff than was mentioned in the letter of his Lordship's Secretary. I wish to say that people who follow the hounds ought to be careful not to go over farms on which a farmer has posted a legal notice against it. However, this matter does not rest with me, but with the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. KENNYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered that part of the Question which inquired what justification there was for the assault upon Mr. Fenlon.
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that this was the first time the matter had been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, and his Lordship had written that he was inquiring into the case.
  MR. O'KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what would have happened to Mr. Fenlon if he had attacked Mr. Bunbury under similar circumstances?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I would do exactly the same.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some young men who were convicted of preventing a hunt at Loughrea, county Galway, were sentenced to seven years' penal servitude?
  MR. HARRINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he considers that Mr. Bunbury's own assurance is sufficient, considering the high securities required from others for keeping the peace?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would put his Question formally, and he would make inquiries.

  PREVENTION OE CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SECTION 14—POLICE SEARCHES.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Kerry Sentinel" of Friday last, which complains of the midnight raids now repeatedly made by the police at a time when the county has settled down, and when outrage has almost disappeared; whether it is true, as stated in that article, that peaceable and respectable people are suffering as much now from police raids by night as they did a year ago from the terror of the moonlight gang; and, whether it is true, as stated there, that the police recently entered at night the house of Mr. Leahy, P.L.G., and, although his wife was dangerously ill, persisted in entering and searching the room where she lay ill?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The police had very good reasons to search Mr. Leahy's house. Papers of a compromising character were found there. The search was conducted with as little as possible inconvenience to the inmates of the house. Respectable people have not complained of the searches which it has been necessary to make.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether Mrs. Leahy was not ill when the search was made?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, she was; but the police had very good reasons for going to the house. The case was a very serious one.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Sub-Inspector Hamilton, stationed at Crossmolina, county Mayo, while prosecuting one of two searches for arms and treasonable documents in the house of Mr. T. A. Macaulay in November last, seized and still retains an empty powder horn and shot bag, and a photograph; if this seizure was not illegal; and, if he will make an order to have these articles returned to the owner; if it is true that two police inquire for Mr. Macaulay every day at his house, and are ordered to report where he is, and how occupied; and, if it is true that Sub-Inspector Hamilton has, on two occasions, entered his house with a party of armed police at an unseasonable hour of the night without a warrant, and without stating his business?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have to state that, for reasons of an urgent character, it has been deemed necessary to keep a close watch on one of the inhabitants of the house referred to, and to seize certain articles therein. I have no reason to believe that the action of the Constabulary has been in any respect illegal. With reference to this, and some other Questions that have been sometimes asked, I cannot believe that hon. Members are always aware of the motives which must actuate those who originally suggested the Questions. Between hon. Members and the persons in whose interest these Questions are asked I have no doubt there are intermediaries, and hon. Members are probably quite ignorant of the bearing of some of these Questions. But knowing what I know about several of them, including this one, I am positively appalled at finding the House of Commons used for such a purpose as that to which it is now put.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Perhaps, after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, the House will permit me to explain that my object in asking this and other Questions is to bring under the notice of hon. Members a state of facts in Ireland which is simply a scandal to civilization. With regard to this Question and the other Questions which I may have asked—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into an explanation.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this search, in reference to which the hon. Member for Westmeath has asked a Question, was made under the provisions of a section of the Prevention of Crime Act which the Government stated in the House of Commons Lord Spencer did not require, and the insertion of which in the Prevention of Crime Act was forced upon them by the Conservative Opposition?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of Order in making those statements.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask under which section of the Prevention of Crime Act this search was made? I ask the Chief Secretary in the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Inconsequence of the answer which I have received, I beg to give Notice that on an early day I will call attention to the gross inaccuracy and untruthfulness of the information supplied to this House in the answers to Irish Questions.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will give the House a specimen of what I mean. I was asked if a photograph had been seized. You might imagine from that that it was the photograph of the man's sweetheart. It was the photograph of a man in character, representing an assassin in ambush, with a revolver in his hand.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to give Notice that I will ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the issue in England every week of portraits of assassins with various kinds of weapons in their hands?

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB-INSPECTOR SMITH.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any complaints have reached the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary with regard to the conduct of Sub-Inspector Smith, of Moville, county Donegal; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay Copies of such Reports upon the Table of the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Complaints have been made against the officer named, and the Inspector General ordered a
  400
  Court of Inquiry to investigate them. The inquiry has not yet been completed, and I cannot undertake to lay Copies of the Reports upon the Table of the House.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JURY PANEL—TRIAL OF JOSEPH BRADY.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If one of the special jurors engaged on the trial of Joseph Brady, in April last, named Thomas Bowers, and described as "gentleman," is the same Thomas Bowers employed as messenger at the office of the Board of Works Custom House, Dublin; whether it is customary to apply the term gentleman as accurately describing the occupation of those discharging humble functions at a small salary in Irish Departmental Offices; if the services of persons in the employment of the Crown are usually taken advantage of at such trials; and, if it is proposed in future to select such persons to perform the responsible duties of jurymen at Dublin Special Commissions?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Bowers was a qualified juryman, and I must decline making any other statement about him. Quite enough mischief has come from the names of individual jurymen having been brought before the public; and I am not going to be a party to giving those names the prominence that results from discussion in the House of Commons.
  MR. KENNY: May I ask if this Mr. Thomas Bowers, who was described as being a qualified juryman, was qualified by reason of the fact that he was a messenger at the Custom House? I beg to give Notice that I will ask further Questions with regard to this Mr. Thomas Bowers.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE TELEGRAPH OFFICE, DUNDALK.
  MR. KENNYasked the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that the female telegraph clerks attached to the Dundalk Office are required to perform the entire of the telegraph Sunday duty of that office in addition to the limit of forty-eight hours per week, as laid down by his late revision; and, if this be so, has any compensation been allowed for this extra duty, and if not, will some

  401
  now be made; is it also a fact that they are required to enter on duty as early as seven a.m. all the year round, and has not the surveyor and his senior clerk frequently surveyed the office without taking any notice of this irregularity, and what notice will be taken of their remissness; and, would the fact of the surveyor and the postmaster coming from the same district have anything to do with the ignoring of those grievances from which these females suffer?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have ascertained that the two female telegraphists employed at the Dundalk office work during the six week days the usual time of 48 hours. In addition to this, each of them works two hours on each alternate Sunday. They are entitled to extra pay to the extent of two hours a fortnight, and I have given instructions that the amount due to them shall be paid. The night work is done entirely by the male staff.

  THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— NON-ENFORCEMENT OF COMPULSOEY EXAMINATION—WITHDRAWAL OF THE POLICE—ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will delay the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police from the districts protected under the Contagious Diseases Acts until Parliament has been enabled to decide on the Bill for the protection of young girls announced to be brought forward by the Government?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he was afraid that the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not be consistent with the view which the Government had taken. The Government wanted to carry out strictly the recommendations of the Lords' Committee. A Bill would be introduced into the House of Lords, the effect of which, it was hoped, would be to diminish the serious evils of juvenile prostitution. That was not the direct or immediate object of the Contagious Diseases Acts, though the administration of those Acts have tended indirectly to that object.
  In answer to further Questions from Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF and Mr. PULESTON,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, in order not to terminate the operation of the Acts too abruptly, the withdrawal of some of the Inspectors would be postponed.
  MR. PULESTONasked whether orders to that effect had been given?
  [No reply was given.]

  TURKEY (ASIATIC PROVINCES)— GOVERNORSHIP OF THE LEBANON.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will support the re-appointment of Rustem Pasha, who has maintained order and peace in the Lebanon during his tenure of Office?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In a Protocol, signed at Constantinople on the 8th instant, the Representatives of the Powers have agreed, on behalf of their respective Governments, to accept Wassa Effendi, who, it is believed, is eminently qualified to continue the able and successful administration of his Predecessor, Rustem Pasha, from which the Lebanon has derived so much benefit.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is the noble Lord aware that the organs of the French Government admit that the object was to got rid of Rustem Pasha?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a Question, of which I should have Notice.

  POST OFFICE—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Postmaster General, What arrangements he has made for carrying on the Irish Mail Service after October 1st?
  MR. FAWCETT: No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the arrangements to be adopted for carrying on the Irish Mail Service after the 1st of October next. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that the importance of the subject is fully recognized.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  MR. GREERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet arrived at any decision as to the advisability of accelerating the promotion of the Subalterns in the Royal Engineers; and, if so, whether he will communicate such decision?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 5th of April; and I can only repeat that I do not contemplate adopting any exceptional measures as regards the Royal Engineers unless greater necessity should arise than now appears.

  ARMY—CAVALRY REGIMENTS IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, What regulation or custom guides Military authorities in Ireland when fixing the annual moves of Cavalry Regiments; and, in keeping the roster, whether no consideration is given to the fact that some stations are more healthy and popular with officers and men than others; and, if he will explain why the 5th Lancers have been quartered at Newbridge since March 1881, the Royal Dragoons in Dublin since May 1881, and the 21st Hussars in Dublin since September 1881?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is no unvarying rule or custom as regards the movements of Cavalry regiments. Subject to public requirements, regiments are retained at one station for two years, more frequent moves being inconvenient to both officers and men. Consideration is given to the strength of a regiment, and whether it arrives from, or is going to, a good and popular station. The only Cavalry station in Ireland lately reported unhealthy is Dublin; and of all Irish stations this is the most in favour with the troops.

  MOROCCO—SLAVERY.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Daily Chronicle:"—
  "Gibraltar, May 7.
  "The following is a list of slaves sold during a recent week in Tangiers, and some of the prices which they realised: Three female slaves were sold on as many successive days, one for 55 dollars, equal to £11 sterling; a negro boy, aged eight years, sold for 35 dollars, equal to £7 sterling; a woman, aged twenty, sold for 54 dollars, equal to £10 16 s. All these slaves were sold in the public streets by an auctioneer, who assigned them to the highest bidder;"
  and, if it is true, what steps he proposes to take to put a stop to such a condition of affairs?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Report from Her Majesty's Minis-
  404
  ter at Tangiers, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) on the 17th ultimo, has now been received, and states that it is the fact that slaves are occasionally sold in Tangiers, but that the annual number does not exceed 30 or 40. The status of slavery in Morocco at the present time is said to be still as it was described at page 112 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Fugitive Slaves, which was laid before Parliament in 1876. Sir John Hay adds that he has called for Reports from Her Majesty's Consular Officers at the Western Ports, and his attention will be called to the paragraph to which the hon. Member refers.

  PORTUGAL—INTERNATIONAL SAILING CODE—THE "CITY OF MECCA."
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Portuguese Government has finally refused to submit to arbitration the dispute regarding the "City of Mecca" collision case, in which the Portuguese Courts had given a decision in violation of the International Sailing Code, and as to which Her Majesty's Government Despatch states that there has been a "grave miscarriage of justice;" if he is aware that that grave miscarriage of justice has caused heavy pecuniary loss to British subjects; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to take to compel the Portuguese Government either to arbitrate or to redress?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am glad to have been privately informed by my hon. Friend that the course hitherto adopted by Her Majesty's Government with regard to this case meets with his full approval. They are now awaiting a reply to the Note which, by Lord Granville's direction, Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon addressed to the Portuguese Government on the 18th ultimo, and which will be found at page 14 of the Papers recently presented to Parliament.

  MRTROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— HYDE PARK CORNER—REBUILDING OF THE WELLINGTON ARCH.
  MR. A. PEASEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the progress of the works at Hyde Park Corner has shown that it would be a mistake to

  405
  re-erect the arch at the west end of Constitution Hill?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The rebuilding of the Wellington Arch at the new entrance to the Green Park was part of the arrangements explained to the House when the improvement of Hyde Park Corner was determined on, and I see no reason for departing from that arrangement.
  In reply to Mr. GERARD NOEL,
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would consider the advisability of cutting a little more from the Green Park in order to relieve the traffic from Grosvenor Place to Piccadilly.

  NAVY—VICTUALLING ACCOUNTS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Mr. Martin and Mr. Laycock on the Victualling Accounts of Her Majesty's Ships, together with a Copy of the Admiralty Order, dated October 4th, 1882, and any other Papers relative to recent frauds and irregularities connected with the victualling of Her Majesty's Ships?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in consequence of the state of things disclosed by the proceedings of certain courts martial held last summer, the Admiralty, on the 4th of October, issued an Order directing an inquiry to be made into the system under which the books of the ships in the Home ports are kept. The inquiry was conducted by Mr. Martin and Mr. Laycock, and their Report is dated 21st February. That Report is a confidential Paper, for the information of the Board, and cannot be laid upon the Table. I may add that this important subject is still engaging our attention, with a view to an improvement of the system.

  FACTORY ACTS (INSPECTORS)—MR. WILLIAM PATERSON.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the fact that Mr. William Paterson has been appointed an Assistant Inspector of Factories; whether Mr. Paterson has been recently general secretary of an important association of artizans in Scotland; and, if he can state the qualifications of Mr. Paterson for the office conferred upon him?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The first two Questions of the hon. Member I have to answer in the affirmative. With reference to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I must refer him to an answer which I gave on February 21, 1881. I then explained that I desired to introduce into the body of Factory Inspectors an element which was thought likely to prove very valuable. That element consists of persons accurately acquainted with the business which, as Inspectors, they have to superintend. I have taken considerable pains to find such persons, and no appointment has been made except upon the highest recommendation.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to know whether Mr. Paterson was not for many years the Secretary to the Carpenters' and Joiners' Union; and whether he could in that position have obtained any experience in factory work?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I could only act upon the recommendation of persons who knew Mr. Paterson, and he was recommended by persons who had a knowledge of him extending over many years.
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that on a future day he would ask further Questions for the purpose of eliciting from the Government their views on the subject of the appointment of trades union officials to Factory Inspectorships.

  SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR—COLONEL MACEO.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can assure the House that the Spanish Government has carried out its promise to treat Colonel Maceo as a prisoner of war, and with the consideration due to his rank; and, if not, whether he will communicate at once by telegraph with the British Minister in Madrid to urge on the Spanish Government the necessity of carrying out immediately their promise in reference to Colonel Maceo?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, in a despatch, dated May 6, has informed Her Majesty's Government that, in reply to inquiries on his part, he has received definite assurances from the

  407
  Spanish Government that the treatment of Maceo is in conformity with the promises made on that subject, and alluded to by the hon. Member.

  CIVIL SERVICE (RE-ORGANIZATION)— PROMOTION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that, under the Play fair Scheme now in operation in the Civil Service, the clerks of the Lower Division are ineligible, except under very exceptional circumstances, for promotion to the Higher Division; if it is a fact that the majority of these clerks have entered the Service with the same qualifications as the clerks who now satisfactorily discharge the duties of the Higher Division; and, if so, whether he would modify the rules which appear to preclude duly qualified persons from rising in the Public Service?
  MR. COURTNEY: It is the fact that the Order in Council forbids promotion from the Lower to the Higher Division of the Civil Service except after 10 years' service, and on the ground of special merit; but there are a number of staff or superintending appointments throughout the Service which it is intended to fill up from the ranks of the Lower Division; and, personally, I hope to see the ranks of the Upper Division in many of the offices largely recruited hereafter from among Lower Division clerks. I am not sure what the hon. Member means by the word "qualifications" in the second paragraph of the Question. If he refers to the standard of examination, I cannot admit the accuracy of his allegation. There is no intention of disturbing the present organization of the Civil Service.

  EXPLOSIVE ACTS—ORDERS IN COUNCIL, APRIL 20, 1883—EXPLOSIVES.
  MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state what will be the charge (if any) for the granting of certificates to keep explosives under the provisions of the Orders in Council of April 20th, 1883?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There is no authority to make any charge of this kind under the Orders in Council.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS— PETITIONS—PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL —PROXY SIGNATURES.
  MR. LEWISasked the honourable Member for Walsall, Whether, in consequence of the last Report of the Committee on Public Petitions stating that in the Petition in favour of the Affirmation Bill, presented by Mr. Labouchere on the 23rd of April last, from a place called Suay, the Committee were of opinion that many of the names are in the same handwriting, and that the Orders of the House relating to the signatures to Petitions have not been complied with, it is the intention of the honourable Member to take any and what further steps in the matter?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will also be able to state whether it is a fact that one person may sign Petitions for others with their consent; and, whether he has any reason to suppose that these inhabitants of Suay did not give their consent to the persons who, it appears, signed more than once?
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in reply, said, that the Petition referred to in the Question was a very small one. It had only 87 names appended to it. Of that number some 17 or 18 were undoubtedly in the handwriting of the same person. No doubt, this was an infraction of the Rules of the House, which the Committee, in accordance with their usual practice, noticed in their Report, and the names were not counted among the signatures. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton, in accordance with the Standing Orders, if a person signed for others the fact ought to be notified at the bottom of the sheet. He was not instructed by the Committee to whom Petitions were referred to take any action in the matter to which the attention of the House had been drawn, and therefore it was not his intention to take action.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the pledges given by the Government, to the state of Public Business, and to the fact that three months of the Session have already elapsed, he will give an assurance to the

  409
  House, and to the Country, that the present Sitting of Parliament will be continued until the measures named in the Speech from the Throne shall have been considered and disposed of by this House?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Might I be permitted also to ask the Prime Minister whether, with a view to expedite Government Business in general, and the progress of the Grand Committee on Law in particular, he will instruct the Attorney General not to delay the progress of the Committee by talking against time, for the purpose of preventing the Committee from arriving at a decision; and if he will also use his influence with the hon. Members for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) and Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) to the same effect.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will leave it to my hon. and learned Friend to answer for himself what the noble Lord has now alleged; and, for my own part, I distinctly decline to give any instructions, oven if I were entitled or qualified to give instructions, to my hon. and learned Friend with regard to any portion of his Parliamentary conduct, because I know no man who needs them less. I am hardly in a position to answer the general question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, inasmuch as I have said that for three, if not four, nights after the Recess we must proceed with Business in Supply, and until we have disposed of some of those nights it is not intended to refer to any of the important measures of the Session. When we reach that point of time I will endeavour to give such information as I can.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSgave Notice that he should repeat the Question on a future day.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): If I did not take any notice of the Question it might be supposed that there was some foundation for it. I must appeal to any Member of the Committee, except the noble Lord, as to whether there is any foundation for that statement? The noble Lord introduced an Amendment of the gravest importance in the Committee, and I felt that we ought not to arrive at any hasty conclusion. I therefore took upon myself the whole burden of bringing that important Amendment before the Committee; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire
  410
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) asked me personally to put down my views in the form of a Proviso, so that they might be considered before the next meeting. I did not ask any Member of the Committee to speak against time, and the Committee acquiesced in the course which I took.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to me, perhaps I may say that I do not think that the noble Lord intended to imply that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself spoke against time. But as he has appealed to me to say whether there was any delay of that kind in the proceedings, I am bound to say that if the action of the hon. Members for Stockton and Stockport did not amount to talking against time, I have never seen anything that did.
  MR. HOPWOODrose to speak, but—
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the observations which had been made with regard to the proceedings of a Committee of the House had been, from the very commencement, altogether irrelevant and irregular.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—EXECUTION OF MYLES JOYCE, CONVICTED OF MURDER.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the execution of Myles Joyce, in Galway Gaol, on the 5th December; whether he has read the declaration made, in reference to this man, by Patrick Joyce and Patrick Casey, who were executed on the same day; whether there is any foundation for the belief that the man was unjustly executed; and, if so, whether he will cause a provision to be made for this man's wife and famliy?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to this Question, my attention has been called to the incident mentioned in the first part of it. But with regard to the question whether there is any foundation for the belief that the man Myles Joyce was unjustly executed, I must say that I distinctly decline to enter, in an answer to any Question, into the discussion of any matter relating to the execution of the capital sentence. It is for the hon. Member to consider whether he will make any charge against the Govern-

  411
  ment in that respect. I do not part, however, from the subject without stating what is only due, I think, to my noble Friend the Viceroy of Ireland—that, in common with all my Colleagues, I repose the most entire confidence in the judgment, the care, and the humanity with which he endeavours to exercise one of the most delicate and important duties of his high Office.
  MR. HARRINGTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will afford me an opportunity of raising this question, and I promise him that if he does, I will convince the House—or at least a large portion of it—that not alone has Myles Joyce been unjustly executed, but that certain others have been also unjustly executed in Ireland?

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL CONVENTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps are being taken to secure the future observance of the Convention in the Transvaal; and, whether he can state if any arrangements have yet been made in the interests of any Chiefs or others who may have just claims upon the Home Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The mode of procedure with regard to any actual or supposed infraction of the Convention with the Transvaal is by a remonstrance, conveyed through the Resident; and from time to time a correspondence of that character has taken place upon what appears to us to be a neglect of duty on the part of the Transvaal Government. The first part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman is general, and does not suggest any further answer. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I can only repeat what I said the other day, in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), to the effect that no facts have yet been laid before us in such a form or of such a nature as to afford any plan for arrangement.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether any further remonstrances or despatches had been addressed through the Resident of the Transvaal on the subject of any infraction of the Convention since the last issue of Papers; and whether they would be laid before the House?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that a further Correspondence was in progress; but he could not give any answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last Question until the Government had had an opportunity of communicating with Sir Hercules Robinson, whose arrival in this country was expected almost immediately.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would repeat the Question after Whitsuntide.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake not to submit the Vote for the Resident's salary before the question of presenting the Correspondence had been decided?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that care would be taken not to bring on the Vote until all information had been given to the House that would enable it to be properly discussed.

  THE VICEROY OF INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE (PROCEDURE) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETThaving given Notice of the following Question—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the widespread agitation in India caused by the proposed alteration in the Criminal Law, and of the fact that the Viceroy is constantly slighted in public, Her Majesty's Government will recall Lord Ripon from India?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I received just now a Notice from the hon. Member for Eye politely informing me that it was not his intention to put his Question; but, Sir, this Question has appeared on the Notice Paper, and, therefore, I cannot entirely avoid a reference to it, because it conveys a statement that the noble Marquess the Viceroy of India is constantly slighted in public. It mentions this as a fact. What may be the information of the hon. Gentleman I do not know; but no information of that kind, or tending in that direction, has reached Her Majesty's Government, and they deem it to be in the highest degree improbable. With respect to the Question whether the Government intend to advise the recall of the Marquess of Ripon from India, all I can say is that I wish that we or any future Government may, for the benefit of India, at all times when a vacancy in the Viceroyalty occurs, be able to secure for that post the services of a

  413
  person so admirably qualified as the Marquess of Ripon for the discharge of every duty connected with it.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsubsequently said, he would take an early opportunity of proving in that House the correctness of every statement contained in his Question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE SUGAR DUTIES.
  MR. SAMUEL MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with the German Government upon the subject of the large bounties now given upon the export of sugar from Germany; and, if so, what is likely to be the result; and, whether, considering that the French sugar growers are pressing their Government (in consequence of the large export from Germany under bounty) to raise the surtax upon all sugar imported into Prance to a rate that will be prohibitory to British as well as to German sugar, Her Majesty's Government will now carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Sugar Industries, and obtain a Conference of the Powers interested, or take other steps to bring about a settlement of the question?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with the British Ambassador at Berlin, and have unofficially communicated to the German authorities the representations of the West India Committee with regard to the German sugar bounties. Her Majesty's Ambassador is of opinion that a proposal for a Conference would not be entertained. I would remind the hon. Member that in 1881 inquiries were made of the Governments of France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, and Austria as to whether they would agree to take part in an International Conference for the removal of bounties on the export of sugar; that the German and Dutch Governments then declined to participate in such a Conference, and that the French Government would only accept the suggestion conditionally. As regards the pressure which the hon. Member states the French sugar growers are bringing to bear upon the French Government to induce them to raise the surtax upon all sugar imported, I have no information
  414
  which would lead me to suppose that such an agitation is likely to be successful.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND)—GRANTS TO TRAINING COLLEGES.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What changes the Government had made with regard to the training of teachers in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that if the hon. Member asked this Question in consequence of letters he had received from Scotland—and he (Mr. Trevelyan) had received similar letters from Scotland—he could not help thinking that some people in that country were under a grave misconception as to what the Government had done. The action of the Government consisted simply in extending to Ireland the system of grants to Training Colleges which at present is in force in England and in Scotland. They thought the whole of the United Kingdom should be on the same footing in this respect. There was no intention of interfering with the Marlborough Street College, which, in the opinion of the Government and people who understood education, was doing very good work indeed.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether a Supplementary Estimate would be laid before the House to meet the proposed changes, as no provision was made for them in the Estimates now before the House?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was unwilling to answer a financial question of this kind; but he was inclined to think that sufficient money for this year would be found out of the existing Estimates. If there was any feeling in the House as to the step that had been taken, the Government would introduce a Supplementary Estimate, if only for the purpose of enabling the House to express an opinion upon it.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SECTION 16—SECRET EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the secret inquiries which have been held or are being held under the provisions of the sixteenth section of the Crimes Act, witnesses are examined only concerning the offence named in

  415
  the summons, or whether the questions range over a much wider field, in some cases extending to occurrences which happened several years ago; whether Mr. John O'Connor has been twice summoned before Mr. Home at Cork to give evidence in the inquiry proceeding into an alleged conspiracy there to murder public officials and to damage and destroy public buildings; whether Mr. O'Connor has offered to answer any question put to him with reference to such alleged conspiracy, but was informed that he would be compelled to answer every question on any subject put to him by the magistrate, and has consequently refused to be sworn and been committed to prison; whether he can inform the House if any guarantee exists that the magistrates entrusted with these secret inquiries do not take advantage of their secrecy to exceed the powers conferred upon them by the Statute; and what way is open for a person who considers he has been unjustly committed for contempt of court, under the provisions of the sixteenth section, to challenge the action of the magistrate committing him; whether any guarantee exists against the falsification, intentional or otherwise, by the officials employed for the purpose of taking down evidence at these inquiries of the evidence so taken down; and, whether, for the protection of witnesses at these inquiries, the Irish Government will consider the desirability of permitting to a witness the presence of his legal adviser during his secret examination?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that I have no reason to believe that at the inquiries held under the 16th section of the Prevention of Crime Act witnesses have been examined as to other matters than the offences named in the summons. Some of these offences—such as the murder conspiracies in Dublin and else where—were of a character necessarily involving a large field of inquiry; but in these, as in other cases, the questions put were relevant to the matters inquired into. As regards the case of Mr. O'Connor, I find that he demanded, as a preliminary to being sworn, that an undertaking should be given to him as to the line of examination to be pursued. He was not entitled to such an undertaking, and, having refused to be sworn, was committed to prison ac-
  416
  cordingly. As regards the guarantee referred to by the hon. Member, I can only repeat that the character and integrity of the responsible magistrates appointed to conduct these inquiries will prove a sufficient guarantee for the upright discharge of their duties. If a witness be unjustly committed he can challenge the action of the committing magistrate in the High Court of Justice. As regards the concluding paragraph of this Question, I have to point out that the main object of the inquiries instituted under the Act has been to break up murder societies. For this purpose, it is essential to examine persons believed to belong to those societies. In the case of the Dublin "Invincibles," it was the examination of the man Farrell which originally led to the discovery and bringing to justice of the assassins of Mr. Burke and Lord Frederick Cavendish. If at that inquiry a legal adviser appointed for Farrell—as would most probably have been done by his confederates—had been present, he would never have spoken out, or, if he had spoken out, he would have been murdered within 24 hours, just as Bailey was murdered in Skipper's Alley, Dublin, in an earlier part of the year. Bearing these matters in mind, I do not intend to propose any alteration in the existing law.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of his reply to my Question, whether, in the first place, the guarantee that Mr. John O'Connor demanded previous to his examination was that questions should be confined to the offence named in the summons, and whether that was the guarantee refused by the examining magistrate; and, in the second place, whether the evidence upon which the "Invincibles" were discovered was not evidence voluntarily tendered by the man Farrell to a policeman in the street, who subsequently brought him before Superintendent Mallon, at Dublin Castle; whether Farrell, in examination at the secret inquiry, did not positively deny all knowledge of the conspiracy in question; and whether, subsequently, on the Phoenix Park trials, he did not declare that he committed perjury at those private examinations in order to save himself and his friends?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that Mr. O'Connor's stipulation was very much,

  417
  if not exactly, that mentioned by the hon. Member. Considering, however, the fact of the immense number of witnesses that had to be called to throw light upon the enormous mass of undetected crime, it was quite impossible to make any difference between witnesses, who ought, as good citizens, to come forward to give evidence. If Mr. O'Connor had been allowed to make that stipulation, other witnesses must have been permitted to do the same; and magistrates could not be bound in that manner. He could not answer the Question about Farrell without Notice, and he doubted, from their nature, if he would answer them at all.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to say that I put the Question about Farrell because I was challenged about him in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman; and when ha challenged me on the subject I naturally concluded that he knew all about the man of whom he was speaking.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he had inquired very carefully into the bearings of Farrell's evidence with reference to the Dublin murder convictions, and he had likewise inquired very carefully into the connection between the other evidence and the secret inquiry, and he was quite satisfied that without the secret inquiry they would never have had Farrell's evidence or the convictions.
  MR. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYhere rose.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on Mr. O'Shaughnessy.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. O'Connor—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Mr. O'Shaughnessy.

  INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)— THE UPPER SHANNON.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What decision had been come to upon the question of the tolls on the Upper Shannon, of which he had given private Notice?
  MR. COURTNEY: After much consideration we have come to the conclusion that it is best, on the whole, not to attempt to increase these tolls pending further legislative action with respect to the navigation. The tariff will, therefore, be restored to the point at which it stood prior to 1882.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would undertake that the National Debt Bill should be put down as a first Order of the Day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that he could give no such undertaking. He hoped to proceed with the Bill after the Recess.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked if the Bill would be delivered to Members before the rising for the Whitsuntide Recess, or whether it would be accompanied with a Financial Statement, which was indispensable in connection with the Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)replied, that the second reading of the Bill would not be taken until after the Whitsuntide Recess, and before it was read a second time the information asked by his right hon. Friend should be given.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired the order of Business for the night? He wished to call special attention to the circumstance that it was understood to be the intention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to bring in that night the Bill which he presumed was the same as that mentioned in the Queen's Speech for amending the Agricultural Holdings Act. No Notice had, however, been given for allowing the Bill to be taken out of its order, and it only stood fourth among the Notices of Motion. Therefore he presumed that the intention must have been abandoned. He should be glad to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Business generally, and especially with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was proposed not to keep the House till an extreme hour in Supply that night, and then to take the questions that would be raised on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would ask leave to introduce the Bill relating to agricultural holdings at whatever time of the night his Motion might be reached. ["Oh, oh!"] It was very desirable that he should make a statement to the House. In the view of Her Majesty's Govern-

  419
  ment it was for the interest of all concerned that the Bill should be in the hands of Members as soon as possible.
  In reply to Mr. RITCHIE,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that most undoubtedly the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken that night. It would be brought on before 12, and as soon after 11 as possible.
  MR. W. H. SMITHobserved, that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill contained provisions to which personally he had great objection. He could not help feeling that there would be a great deal of discussion upon it; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it was reasonable that such a discussion should be brought on after 11 or 12?

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I rise to a point of order. I wish to know from you, Sir, whether I should be in Order in moving that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) in reference to the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: Motions in reference to the order of Business are taken at this hour only when they are made by a Minister of the Crown.
  MR. GLADSTONE: We shall make an effort to close Supply between 11 and half-past 11.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would appeal to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether it was fair to Members who had been sitting on a Grand Committee since 12 o'clock that, after taking Supply and the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, they should be asked to wait for this Bill, which was one of the gravest importance? Was it right, also, that it should be laid on the Table without remark?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished to support the appeal.
  MR. GLADSTONEwished to point out to the House the position in which the Government was placed. They were desirous of making every effort to forward Supply, and the Customs and Inland Revanue Bill had already been
  420
  postponed for various reasons for some time, and it was necessary for the Public Service that it should now be brought forward. In deference to what had been said by the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), they would endeavour to break off Supply somewhat earlier than he originally stated. With regard to the Agricultural Holdings Bill, the Government had every desire to take it earlier, and if there were co-operation on the part of the House it might be done. The statement of his right hon. Friend on the Bill would not be lengthy, and would, if possible, be made at an hour to suit the convenience of Members. Of course, there was no absolute guarantee as to the hour, because the Notices of other Members intervened. He might be asked why, under those circumstances, he did not move the postponement of the Orders of the Day, and his reason was that, although such Motions were extremely convenient to the House at a time when they were passed by the general consent of the House, and without discussion, that would interfere with the Business of the day. Of late the practice had sprung up of debating those Motions, and therefore he could not run the risk of such an interference with the regular Business of the House.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked what would be the Business taken at the Morning Sitting on Friday?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House would take precedence, and after that they intended to proceed with Supply.

  INLAND REVENUE—CULTIVATION OF TOBACCO.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would cause inquiry to be made during the Recess into the practicability of protecting the Revenue, and, at the same time, repealing the 3rd chapter of 1 & 2 Will. IV., which prohibits the growth of tobacco in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have already stated that the whole subject of the home growth of tobacco is one which I shall have to consider, not only in reference to Ireland, but to the whole United Kingdom. The matter will receive my best attention.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,220, 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 1884, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, there was one matter in connection with this Vote to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. He wished to point out to that right hon. Gentleman the smallness of the accommodation provided in the House as compared with the requirements of modern times, in so far as the accommodation for the general body of Members was concerned. With regard to Ministers a great improvement had been made. His experience of Parliament extended over a great many years, and he had not been displeased to see that in recent times, and particularly since the present Government came into Office, greater facilities for carrying on their work had been provided for the several Members of the Administration. he believed there was scarcely a Member of the Government who had not a suitable apartment at his disposal. As far as private Members were concerned they were without any accommodation of the kind to which he referred, with the exception of what was called the Conference Room. That, he ventured to say, was one of the most uncomfortable apartments in the whole House. In Bummer it was insufferably hot; in the colder months of the Parliamentary year—that was to say, in the first two months of the normal Session—it was cold and dirty, and, moreover, the chimnies were Bill-constructed that it was only necessary to light a fire in the grate in order to till the room with dense smoke. Only as lately as the day preceding that on which he was speaking that had occurred. He really thought it was time
    422
    that something should be done in regard to this matter, and suggested that if no other course was open in order to give further accommodation to private Members, the Committee Room now appropriated to public Petitions might be placed at their disposal. The smoking accommodation was also another point of no inconsiderable importance. The right hon. Gentleman promised last year to give greater facilities to Members who wished to smoke, and he had done so to some extent; but the facilities in this direction were not what they ought to be. When the late Mr. Adam was First Commissioner of Works, it was suggested to him—and the suggestion came from a considerable number of Members—that the interior square in St. Stephen's Cloisters should be covered over with glass, so as to afford a sheltered promenade for Members who wished to enjoy a cigar or a pipe. Mr. Adam promised that inquiries should be made, in order to ascertain the cost of making the necessary structural alterations; but, as far as he knew, nothing had been done, or, at any rate, decided upon. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman who succeeded Mr. Adam, and now filled the Office of First Commissioner of Works, had had the subject under his consideration, and had stated either publicly or privately—he did not know which—that the estimated cost of making the alterations was so excessive that he did not think the Treasury would assent to it. As far as he was personally concerned, he did not think the cost would be so large as that it could be reasonably objected to. Leaving this point, and passing to another, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he remembered that last year he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) applauded his resolution to hang three valuable pictures belonging to the nation in the new Smoking Room? Among these was one of the best works that had been produced in this country in modern times—he alluded to the picture illustrating a passage in the life of King Alfred, which was painted by Mr. Watts, R.A. Last year he called attention to the neglected condition of these pictures; and he now regretted to find that nothing had been done towards placing the pictures in a proper condition. They only required washing and varnishing, and all that was neces-

    423
    sary could be done at a comparatively small cost. If the right hon. Gentleman had no official in his own Department who was equal to the task, there could be no doubt that he would have no difficulty in securing the services of some one of the officials in the National Gallery, who would do all that was necessary. Whether the pictures were or were not fine examples of Art was a matter of taste; but in any case it could not be denied that they had been left in a sadly neglected condition.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, in the progress of the Questions that afternoon the right hon. Gentleman had been asked what he intended to do with regard to the exterior of Westminster Hall. He had noticed that a portion of the house occupied by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms, which was part of the buildings intended to be taken away, still remained. It was very difficult to form an estimate of what would be the effect of any changes made as long as that portion to which he referred remained standing. He quite admitted that, for many reasons, the Deputy Sergeant at Arms should reside within the precincts of the Palace; but he should imagine that there would be some mode of providing him with rooms without allowing the building to which he referred to stand. That, of course, would involve some expenditure; but he did not think the House would begrudge it, in view of the fact that, as the buildings now stood, it was not possible to form a fair and accurate idea of what would be the effect of any alterations that might be made. There was another point to which he wished to refer, and concerning which some hon. Members might be surprised that he was going to suggest a little extra expenditure. The amount would not be more than about £50; but he thought it would lead to an increase, perhaps to a doubling, of the working power of the Session. When hon. Members got up in their places, and said they were only going to detain the House for a few minutes, he always trembled; because he almost invariably found they wore so carried away by their own eloquence that they did not perceive the lapse of time, and their few minutes sometimes spun themselves out to half-an-hour or an hour. That was because they did not look at the clock, which was behind
    424
    them, when they were addressing the Chair; and he would, therefore, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should cause a clock to be placed at the Speaker's end of the House, in order that hon. Members might see how the time was going, in which case he believed the speeches would be reduced in length by an average of one-half. Hon. Members would be ashamed of themselves when they saw how the time was going, and would put a curb on their eloquence. It had, therefore, occurred to him that much good would be done by a small but useful increase in the expenditure of public money.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend who opened the debate had suggested a large and somewhat vague expenditure for the additional comfort of Members. He hoped the Committee would be slow to sanction such expenditure. Now that they were all anxious, as far as possible, to promote economy; now that the Estimates were criticized with great care, and that a considerable amount of criticism had been passed upon the amount of money spent even upon the maintenance of Royal Palaces, it certainly would not become them to incur a serious expenditure for no other purpose than that of securing their own comfort. He was not sure that promoting their comfort would materially increase their efficiency. The more comfortable they made the Smoking and other Rooms for the accommodation of Members the smaller would be the attendance in the House itself of Members who listened to arguments concerning measures under discussion before voting upon them. And so they would help to perpetuate that great scandal which had been so often commented on, of Gentlemen coming in to vote upon a question respecting which they had heard nothing. He hoped the ardour for economy which all Parties professed would prevent the expenditure of money for the making of more comfortable Smoking and other Rooms, in which Members might engage in more pleasant but not equally profitable occupations than that of listening to the debates within the House.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was bound to admit, with regard to the Conference Room, that his attention had been called to it more than once.

    425
    Everything had been done to cure the defects which were complained of; but there seemed to be some radical defect in the chimnies and flues, which defied all attempts at cure. With regard to what could be done to increase the accommodation for Members in other parts of the building, he had, since he had had the honour of filling the position of First Commissioner of Works, been able to do something. He had provided an additional Smoking Room, and he had contemplated providing another Tea Room; but further demands of a more pressing character came upon him, and the room which he intended to utilize for thi8 purpose had to be taken for another. He had been enabled to do much of what he had accomplished by reason of the liberalty of the House of Lords; and while the necessary works were being carried forward he had considered the possibility of covering over the interior square in St. Stephen's Cloisters; but he found that to do that would cost not less than £5,000, and, at the same time, the surveyor of the House did not at all recommend the operation as a mere matter of construction. There were very weighty reasons against it in that point of view, and also on account of the difficulty of ventilating that part of the House. Unfortunately, therefore, he could not hold out any prospect of the Treasury entertaining a proposal to cover the interior yard at the cost which he had mentioned, and in face of the structural difficulties to which he had alluded. Whether it would be possible hereafter to increase the accommodation for Members he could not at present say; but no doubt the shape which such increased accommodation would take would be a limiting of the number of private residences under the roof of the Palace. In that case, he thought the limitation would apply to the residences now occupied by officials employed in the other House of Parliament, whose duties were not nearly so laborious or onerous as those of officials employed in the House of Commons. Whether they would have the sanction of the House of Lords in so obtaining extra accommodation he did not know; but, at all events, that seemed to him to be the direction in which they must look for the purpose. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had alluded to a part of the block of buildings which re-
    426
    mained standing after the removal of the old Law Courts. That was at present a source of difficulty to his Department. The house of the Deputy Serjeant at Arms extended out into that block of buildings to the extent of two or three of his rooms, without which his residence would be comparatively useless. It would be, no doubt, necessary to pull the block down; but he was unwilling to disturb the Deputy Serjeant, at all events until after the end of the present Session, and he hoped before then to be able to make some accommodation of the matter. If the Deputy Serjeant was to remain resident under the roof of the Palace, and it should be necessary to remodel his house for the purpose of obtaining further accommodation, this would be a rather costly operation. It would involve an expenditure of some £2,000 or £3,000, and it would, moreover, be an exceedingly difficult operation to remodel the interior of the house. Whether that might be the better mode of dealing with the question, or whether it might not be found advisable to give to the Deputy Serjeant an allowance wherewith to provide himself with a residence elsewhere, was a question which had not yet been determined; but before the end of the Session he would fully consider it. In the meantime, he did not think the House would wish that its official should be deprived of his residence. His hon. Friend had also made a suggestion that an additional clock should be placed in the House, in order that Members might, without turning their backs upon Mr. Speaker, note the passing of time, and the length at which they had been occupying the time of the House. His hon. Friend must be aware of the fact that not infrequently Members looked at the clock with a view not of limiting but of continuing their speeches; and he did not think that, on the whole, anything would be gained by adding a second clock to the furniture of the House. As far as the pictures in the Smoking Room were concerned, he had done last year all that he then thought necessary.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works a question in regard to Westminster Hall. He understood that, the whole question of the western front had been committed to an eminent architect; and what he

    427
    wanted to know was, whether the northern front had also been placed under the supervision of the same gentleman? A considerable expense seemed lately to Lave been incurred in repairing the architectural or ornamental work outside, mainly, he supposed, because the stone was in a rotten state; but that had no reference to the two Towers, which had been allowed to remain standing, and which were most inconsistent, in an architectural point of view, with the rest of the building.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had not entered upon the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman with the architect; but he thought it probable that lie should take that gentleman's advice upon the question and submit it again to the House. At present, he only asked for money for the restoration of the west front of the Hall. The total cost of this was estimated at about £6,000; and in the present year he asked for a third of that sum, as the works at present undertaken were of a tentative character.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he presumed the greatest care would be taken, in removing the foundations, to see what buildings had existed on the site in former times. This was the more important, because no one had the smallest idea as to the character of the ancient foundations.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, as far as he knew of the buildings comprising the Palace of Westminster, the two Towers to which his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had referred were built in the year 1822 from the designs of an architect of evanescent fame. He would suggest that it would be well to suspend the work of reparation at the north end, and leave the whole business in the hands of the distinguished architect who now had charge of the restoration of the western front.
    MR. BROGDENsuggested the advisability of giving a speaking communication by telephone or speaking-tube from the Lobby of the House to the Attendants' Room adjoining the Ladies' Gallery.
    MR. RYLANDS, while agreeing that it was necessary to clear away the whole block of buildings, of which the old Law Courts formed by far the largest part, hoped that satisfactory arrangements would be made for the accommodation of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
    428
    He desired to direct the attention of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to the charge for the maintenance of buildings. He found that, including the £2,500 for external repairs to stone work, they were paying no less than upwards of £10,000 a-year. It struck him that was a very large sum for the purpose. Allowing for the £2,500, which he presumed was expended in consequence of the stone work giving way, then he should have thought there was sufficient left out of which the ingenuity and ability of his right hon. Friend would have enabled him to provide the necessary convenience for the Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Under the Sub-head C he intended to move a reduction, and he should do so in conformity with a principle which had been already recognized in Committee. The Sub-head C provided for the maintenance of the approaches to the House, and of the Gardens in the immediate neighbourhood of the House. The maintenance and repair of Abingdon Street, St. Margaret Street, Old and New Palace Yards, Parliament Square Gardens, St. Margaret Square Gardens, and Victoria Tower Gardens, was put down at £870; and he wished to point out to the Committee that the greatest part of this expenditure was of a character which ought to be borne by the parochial authorities. It so happened that a portion of the space which was covered by the Vote—the Victoria Tower Gardens—was formerly covered by a low description of buildings, and was purchased by the Government some years ago, in order that there might be for the Houses of Parliament greater protection from fire. Viscount Sherbrooke, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed to erect on this plot of ground a very extensive series of public buildings; and he (Mr. Rylands) raised an objection to the Vote, on the ground that the Government had only put down a sum on account—he believed £10,000, or £20,000—and did not state what was the entire sum they contemplated expending upon the buildings. The result was the Government had to give way, the idea of erecting the buildings was abandoned, and a very large and useless expenditure was prevented. When the right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster

    429
    (Mr. W. H. Smith) that he could secure a great boon for the inhabitants of Westminister. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that the plot of land in question should be left as an open free space for the benefit and advantage of the people of Westminster, and said he would give £1,000 towards the expense of the suggested conversion. He (Mr. Rylands) had the best authority for saying that if the Government, instead of making this plot of land into an open space and devoting it to the purposes of the people of Westminster, had thought it right to sell the land, they could have got as much as £70,000 for it. He had no wish to complain of what the late Government did; he did not desire to raise any objection to the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster thought it right and proper to pursue; but what he did contend was that, practically, the people of the Kingdom had made a present to the inhabitants of Westminster of property of the value of £70,000. If any locality or Corporation in the country had wished to possess itself of a similar plot of land for the purpose of a garden or park, they would have been obliged to lay a rate upon the property of the ratepayers of the borough in order to raise the necessary funds. Certainly, the argument was a very strong one, indeed, that the ratepayers of Westminister ought to pay their fair share, at all events, of the maintainance of the open spaces which were intended for their special benefit. Old Palace Yard might be said to be of special service to Members of Parliament; that it ought to be maintained at the national expense; but clearly, in the case of Abingdon Street and St. Margaret Street, Parliament ought not to be called upon to pay anything. Those streets ought to be kept up by the local authorities; and therefore he objected to their becoming a charge upon the general taxpayer. The last item was a most singular one, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would afford the Committee some information respecting it. The item was—"Horticultural works for ditto, £550," and if they looked at the Estimate they saw immediately above the word "ditto," the words "lamps and supply of gas." He did not understand what the "horticultural works for ditto" were. They could not
    430
    belong to any of the streets; and, therefore, he supposed they were connected with the Victoria Tower Gardens. Now, the item of £550 for horticultural works actually included the pay and emoluments of a constable. It was a most extraordinary thing to include the pay of a constable in horticultural works. It appeared the Vote altogether was one that ought to be recast. He considered more money was spent than there ought to be; and, therefore, he should move to reduce the Sub-head by £500.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: £1,800.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would not do that. He did not wish to run the thing too close, and he considered that Palace Yard must be kept up for the convenience of Members.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £27,720, 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 1884, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, it would be wise to consider the advisability of facing the exposed part of Westminster Hall with Portland stone, instead of with the freestone from the West of England. He hoped the work would not be delayed until, as it was suggested, some suitable architect could be found who understood the work. Any ordinary intelligent stone mason—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that a proposition has been made to reduce the Vote by £500 in respect to Sub-head C, which relates to the maintenance of the approaches to the House, and Gardens. The hon. Member is discussing a former question.
    MR. BROADHURSTasked if he was to understand that the subject could not be further discussed?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will be able to refer to it later.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwished to say a word or two in answer to the observations made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The Committee should not lose sight of one thing, and that was of the almost paramount necessity there was of retaining in their own hands the approaches to the Houses of Parliament. The amount that was put down for

    431
    horticultural works he supposed related to the bedding-out which took place in Parliament Square Gardens, and in New Palace Yard, in the immediate precincts of the House. Parliament Square Gardens formed, he imagined, that portion of the ground in front of the Houses of Parliament on which the statues were erected. His hon. Friend had evidently lost sight of the advantage it was to them to retain in their hands the maintenance of the order and beauty of this particular piece of ground. That remark would apply also to the Victoria Tower Gardens. Now the space was laid out as a garden, he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) hoped it would not meet the views of the Committee that they should be handed over to a body which changed from day to day. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had said with respect to the maintenance of the streets. The subject had not escaped the attention of the Government, and it was one of the matters they proposed to deal with whenever the Bill respecting London Municipal Government was brought in. It was, however, very undesirable that the Government should give up the custody and care of the open spaces in the precincts of the House.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERcould not support his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) in the Motion he had made. It was only on Tuesday last they had a very long debate, at the time of Private Business, on the desirability of preserving open spaces, and a very large minority of the House opposed a Bill which was to do away with an open space. This seemed to be a similar case. The hon. Member for Burnley advocated building on the space he referred to; he told them they might have saved £70,000 by doing so. It was very important, on many grounds, that open spaces should be maintained. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when he said they ought to deny themselves comforts. Hon. Members of the House gave up a great deal of time in the performance of their public duties, and the public ought not to begrudge them any of the conveniences they required.
    MR. SALTsaid, he had no wish to prolong the discussion; but he considered some further explanation was required. In the first place, there was the item of £870 for the maintenance and repair of the streets and gardens, and then there was the mysterious sum of £550, which was said to be for horticultural works. The latter item had not yet been explained. If it was for bedding-out, what was meant by the Vote for the maintenance of the Gardens? And, besides, a charge of £83 for a constable appeared to be mixed up with the cost of geraniums and other bedding-out plants. The Vote appeared excessive, and, at any rate, should be more clearly explained.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there appeared to be a little misapprehension with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Mr. R. N. Fowler) said the hon. Gentleman wished to abolish the open spaces around the Houses of Parliament; but it did not appear to him (Mr. Biggar) that that was the object of the Motion. He imagined that the object of the hon. Member for Burnley was to secure that the cost of repairing the streets in question should be defrayed by the proper authorities—namely, the parochial authorities of Westminster. Such an object was perfectly legitimate and reasonable. He was clearly of opinion that the ratepayers of Westminster should pay for the repair of the streets in their parish; and he did not see that the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was of any value. He did not think there was any occasion to defer the settlement of the question until the London Municipal Reform Bill was brought in. That Bill might not be introduced for 10 years; and yet, in the meantime, the Committee would have to vote a sum annually towards defraying a charge which properly belonged to the locality. The Government ought to submit to the reduction which had been proposed, and allow the custody of the streets in question to pass into the hands of the proper authorities.
    MR. LABOUCHEREquite agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) in the remarks he had made in favour of a reduction of the Vote. At the same time, they had received some sort

    433
    of assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that the subject would form part of the new Municipal Bill for London, which, no doubt, would be brought in some time this Session. Under the circumstances, it would, perhaps, be well to rest satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. RYLANDSasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. O'DONNELLobjected to the withdrawal of the Motion. Even admitting that a constable was a horticultural growth of a rare order, there were items in the Vote which required explanation; £870 was set down for the maintenance of the approaches and Gardens. Of course, some hundreds of that must go to the Gardens. In addition, there was £550 directly charged for horticultural works for ditto. Considering the limited extent of the garden space, and the limited amount of horticultural display that was ever perceptible, he would like to know would any private gentleman be able to expend £800 a-year upon a similar amount of garden space for a similar amount of horticultural return? It seemed to him they ought to get some explanation, or otherwise the country would be justified in considering that it was being charged at least twice as much as any private person would be charged for the same return. He certainly would not push his opposition to a division if he could get anything at all like an estimate of what were the works for which they were asked to pay so highly.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the £870 went towards the repair of the roads, repairing the railings, and so forth. The actual gardens were provided for out of the £550.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINasked who was the responsible architect in the case of alterations and improvements of the Parliament buildings?
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONobserved, that under Sub-head E there was a charge of £2,500 for police. The charge was a large one, although he did not suppose too large. All he desired to ask was, why the charge was placed on the taxes, and not on the rates? He had the authority of the Home Secre-
    434
    tary for saying that the protection of persons and buildings all over the country was absolutely, by law, laid on the rates. Why the inhabitants of London should be exempted from such a charge he could not understand. When any public servants went into the country they were protected out of the rates. Why were they not protected out of the rates when in Westminster?
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to the electric light in the Library and Dining and Smoking Rooms of the House. No doubt, the lighting of rooms in the Houses of Parliament was very valuable to the Lighting Company, because it was a splendid advertisement. He understood that it was the Edison Company who were lighting these rooms; but, without wishing to throw any discredit upon that Company, he must say that the lighting was not at present extremely well done. Those who used the Library knew that the light was excessively unsteady, and was very embarrassing; and nothing was more irritating to anyone who was reading or writing than a perpetual change in a bright light. He had been told that the contract for this lighting had been given to the Edison Company without anything like public competition. The Swan Company had lighted the new Law Courts extremely well, and nothing could be more satisfactory than that light. It was very good and very steady, and seemed to be free from all the evils of the light in the rooms of the House; and he should like to know whether the Swan Company were invited to tender for lighting these rooms, and if not, why not? Were any other Companies than this American Company invited—such as the Brush Company, which lighted the City, or any other of the many Companies in London, any one of which would have been only too glad to have the contract for lighting the rooms of the House of Commons? There was another reason why he thought great care should be taken in connection with the electric light. In no business in modern times had there been more corruption and gambling and intriguing on the Stock Exchange than in electric lighting; and if the same feeling was to be brought into the House of Commons it would be a great misfortune. He wished for an explanation as to why this contract had been given to the Edison

    435
    Company without any communication with, or invitation to, other Companies to tender, if that was so; and also for a pledge that if the other parts of the House were to be lighted by electricity, the First Commissioner of Works would undertake, before any further arrangement was entered into, that there should be the usual invitations issued for tenders from the public, and that the work should be given to the Company which would do it most satisfactorily and at the least cost.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he understood the Committee were now upon the main Vote, and he wished to say that if any more money was spent on the ornamentation of Westminster Hall until something was decided as to what was to be done with it; it would be wasted. The Hall was now deserted and forlorn; the time would soon come when owls would hoot in the Palace, since the step of the lawyer no longer echoed there. The Hall would never be of any use again until it was made what it ought to be, the centre of the Houses of Parliament. It was wholly deserted, while the passages of the House were crowded in a most disgusting manner. It was scarcely possible for a Member to get to a Committee Room without going through an unseemly crowd for the want of accommodation. Matters would not be put in a proper condition until Westminster Hall was restored to its proper position as the centre of the House of Commons, and Committee Rooms were made by the side of it for the use of people concerned in Public and Private Bills. Money spent in ornamenting the outer side of the Hall would simply be wasted.
    MR. MAYNEsaid, that, as a Director of an Electric Lighting Company, he was able to say that the introduction into that House of a foreign system of incandescent lighting had given a most serious blow to one of the most meritorious systems in the world—that of Joseph Swan, of Newcastle. His beautiful lamp had made itself a name in almost every capital in Europe, and the most serious check it had received was the fact that its most pressing rival had been apparently chosen for lighting the most important building in the United Kingdom. Certainly, if this foreign system, which was known to be not better than the Swan system, had been
    436
    introduced into the House of Commons without such notice as would have enabled the Swan Company, or whatever Company was working their patent in London, to compete, it was a most unfair arrangement, and one which, if it was possible, should be gone back upon, so that a grievous wrong might be remedied.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), he understood that Mr. Pearce had been appointed architect for a special object. That being so, and the right hon. Gentleman having said that the first work was to be only tentative, was it intended to case-in the buttressess, in order to protect them from the weather? The observations of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had come a little too late; his arguments ought to have been put forward earlier in the year. He would suggest that smokers should be transferred to the Conference Room, and the Smoking Room given up for he general use of Members.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that what was greatly wanted in the Smoking Room was an electric communication with the House, to tell these who were there what was going on in the House. At present they were more distant than the Clubs; and it was absolutely necessary that they should have some means of knowing what Business was proceeding in the House.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, with respect to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he had answered that a few nights ago.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: You did not answer it at all.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, his answer was this. A proposal was made to him, some time ago, by the Edison Company to light the Library and other rooms experimentally, till the end of the Session, for a small sum. He thought it desirable that Members should have an opportunity of seeing what the effect would be, and he therefore accepted the offer. At that time the Company had a working station within easy reach of the House, and it appeared to him reasonable to employ them. Subsequently, they ceased to supply the light from their own depôt, and made use of an

    437
    engine in the House. He did not invite competition—first, because the lighting was only to last for a few months; and, secondly, because it did not appear to him that, in the present state of electric lighting, it was a proper subject for competition. When, some months ago, he had to consider the question of lighting the Law Courts, he came to the conclusion that it was a matter upon which he could not invite competition. There was considerable difference between the systems; and it appeared to him better to select that which he thought most satisfactory, and invite the Company to tender. After careful consideration, and the exhibition of the various systems at Paris and at Sydenham, he decided that the Swan Light was the best adapted for the Law Courts, and he invited the Swan Company to tender for the work. He gave them the work; and if there was any Company which ought not to raise objections to his having followed the same course with regard to the House of Commons, it was the Swan Company, because he had given them the preference in the Law Courts. Between the two systems he saw very little difference. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh, oh!] Perhaps the noble Lord was connected with the Swan Electric Lighting Company? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHIL: Not even a shareholder; I wish I was.] He saw very little difference between the two lights. He gave the work at the Law Courts to the Swan Company, and he thought it only reasonable to give the work at the House to the Edison Company. He should consult hon. Members as to whether, on the whole, they wished the lighting to be continued; and if they did, then it would be a question whether it should be extended to the Chamber or not.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to his hon. Friend, had thought fit to insinuate that he was a Director of the Swan Company. He thought that was as improper as it was inaccurate. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman had ventured on that ground, he would follow him, and tell the Committee what information he had as to the Edison Company getting the work in the House. The Swan Company had lighted the Law Courts in a manner which had satisfied everybody; and not only had they done that, but they had made
    438
    superhuman efforts to get ready for the opening of the Law Courts; so that if anybody ought to be taken into consideration in regard to lighting that House, it was the Company who had thus acted so well towards the public. But what they complained of, and what other Companies complained of—and he was no more interested in one than the other—was, that without a word to any of them the right hon. Gentleman concluded an arrangement with this Yankee adventurer, who was suspected of having stolen the Swan patent, and had let him into the House of Commons. That was no small matter, for it was without question the greatest advertisement that could possibly be given to an Electric Lighting Company. It was now known all over the world, wherever there was a Parliamentary Assembly, that the Edison Company were lighting the English House of Commons. The First Commissioner of Works knew that these Electric Lighting Companies had been the subject of most disreputable cheating and gambling on the Stock Exchange; and he ought, therefore, to have exercised particular care in the matter; and, at all events, he knew that the Swan Company had done good work, and he had no right, without letting them know, to let the Edison Company in. He was not connected with the Edison Company; but the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) was a Director, and the Right Hon. Mr. Bouverie, a faithful supporter of the Whig Party, was a principal proprietor in that Company. It was also a notorious fact that Mr. Preece, the Electrician to the Post Office, was a very large shareholder in the Edison Company. He stated that on very good authority; but, if it was not true, the sooner the statement was contradicted the better. Was it not, above all things, desirable, in a matter of this kind, which had been the subject of so much gambling, that when a Government official thought it right to introduce the electric light into a public building, there should be no unfair advantage of the least kind given to one Company over another? But the case was stronger still. The right hon. Gentleman had given the House to understand that he wanted the Edison Company to be allowed to have a trial, in order to let

    439
    the House and the public see what they could do; but he had not stated that the Edison Company had been lighting the Post Office for some time; and, therefore, so far as a trial was concerned, that Company had had all they could desire. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to give to an American adventurer, whose patent was obtained in a most extraordinary way, and not until after the Swan patent had been disclosed, all the advantage, and so send up the value of the Edison Company, and become unwittingly the victim of great Stock Exchange speculation. He hoped, before the right hon. Gentleman concluded any further arrangement with this adventurer's Company, he would put everything out to tender with respect to this House, or any other public building—of course reserving to himself the right to choose any tender he thought best—and so let everything in connection with this lighting be fair and above board.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was sorry if he had done the noble Lord an injustice by supposing that he was connected with an Electric Lighting Company. Certainly, the noble Lord's speeches and questions appeared to him to be directed, not to the interest of the public, but to the interest of some rival Company to that which had been lighting the House. But there was not a word in the argument which the noble Lord had used against the action he had taken which did not equally apply to the lighting of the Law Courts. If he had done wrong in giving the Edison Company the right provisionally to light the House of Commons rooms at a cost of £100, how much worse must his conduct have been in permitting the Swan Company to light the Law Courts at a cost of £7,000 or £8,000, without inviting any other Company to tender? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: They did tender.] He had told the noble Lord the other day that he invited a tender merely from the Swan Company after the most careful consideration, and after satisfying himself that theirs was the best system for the Law Courts. There were a great many different Companies with various systems, and he thought it better to choose the light which he considered the best, and invite a tender for the work. He thought that in that respect he had done some service to the
    440
    Swan Company; but when it became a question with regard to this House, he had other matters to consider. The Edison Company laid before him reasons which led him to think, as he still thought, that, on the whole, their system was best adapted for that House—namely, that they had noiseless dynamo-engines, and he thought they were the only Company that had them. As to Mr. Edison being an American adventurer, he thought that was a misrepresentation. He was one of the most respected and distinguished scientific men of the day, and the Company which was working this patent was one of the most respectable character. The noble Lord had insinuated that the contract was given to the Edison Company on account of Mr. Bouverie's political support; but there was no ground for such a suggestion. He had already given one great work to the Swan Company; and, under the circumstances, he thought it well to try the Edison Company for a short time. Whether that Company's light would ultimately be adopted was not yet decided, and he would consult Members upon the subject.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman's exposition of the economic principles which had guided him would be instructive. He had told the Committee that, as between the foreigner and the Englishman, the Liberal Government would always give the foreigner a fair chance; but as the right hon. Gentleman proceeded he thought he cut the ground from under his feet, because he said he had chosen the Swan Company to light the Palace of Justice because he considered their light the best. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: At that time.] And having given that proof of his conviction as to the excellence of the Swan Company's light, it was very strange that he did not, at any rate, let the Swan Company know that he intended also to try the electric light in the House of Commons. When public works had been well done by a particular contractor or body, one would fancy that it would be only reasonable to give these who had served the State well once, at least a chance a second time. He was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman was only actuated by a desire to give fair play all round; but, at the same

    441
    time, it was to be observed that in his reply to the noble Lord, he entirely passed over all notice of the fact that besides Mr. Bouverie, a much more trusted and more influential Liberal was connected with the Edison Company, which had got this preference in so remarkable a way in the House. It was hardly meeting the case to refer to Mr Bouverie, when a much stronger argument was left untouched. He was sure that the impression that would be left in the minds of independent Members who were neither Directors nor shareholders, by the cropping up of this question from time to time, would lead to a strong conviction that the more care they could expend in watching the influence of Directors in that House, the better it would be for the country at large; and from that point of view he was extremely sorry, without casting any slur upon the hon. Members concerned, but simply in view of the public interest, that the House had recently not shown enough jealousy of the interference of Directors of powerful Companies in the legislation of Parliament—legislation which might mean good to the public, but which certainly meant a largo pecuniary profit to the Companies in which these Directors were interested. Like every other Member he, of course, accepted the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman; but he hoped that an opportunity would be given to hon. Members to try the effect of the rival system of electric lighting in the House before any long time had elapsed. He could bear his own personal testimony to the discomfort experienced in trying to read by the hard and crude light now in the Library.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREstated, in reply to an earlier question, that the buildings of the Palace of Westminster were in charge of the principal clerk in the Office of Works.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, the salary of that officer was £250 a-year, rising by £5 per annum to £300. Could it be the fact that that House, with all its important buildings, was in charge of a clerk of the Works at a salary of £5 a week. If that was not so, in whose charge were the buildings? In order to have the matter thoroughly explained, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the clerk's salary.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £27,880, 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 1884, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Sir Edward Watkin.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the building was in the charge of Mr. Taylor, the principal surveyor to the Board of Works, who was a most competent man. He had, of course, a clerk of the Works under him. The salaries being paid by the Board of Works Department, they did not appear in the present Vote.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINexpressed his surprise at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this important building was under the supervision of no architect whatever. It was, he thought, well that the public should know that the entire responsibility rested upon a surveyor and a clerk of the Works.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to whether the Government had any definite design or destination in view for Westminster Hall? He asked whether the works there were intended to carry out any special purpose for the convenience of hon. Members, or for the convenience of persons having business at the Houses of Parliament? It appeared to him that at present Westminster Hall was simply a huge annex, for which there was no particular use, except so far as it might be preserved under the designation of an ancient monument.
    MR. MAYNEsaid, it would be well to receive some assurance from the First Commissioner of Works that some arrangement would be made with regard to the stone used in public buildings in future, so that they might not again witness the extraordinary spectacle, presented by the exterior of the Houses of Parliament, of the stone crumbling away almost immediately after the work was finished. The hon. Member opposite suggested that a competent architect should be employed, and that Portland stone should be used as being more durable; but he would point out that it was not a question of architects, either competent or incompetent. An architect would not be able or willing probably to give that attention to the selection of the stone which was

    443
    required. It was the opinion of some persons that the stone selected for the Houses of Parliament was more durable than Portland stone, and that the fact of its not wearing well was due to some remissness in its selection; and he had heard it stated that, owing to false economy, when the building was half completed, several competent officers had been dismissed whose business it was to select the blocks of stone at the quarries before they were carved. It was a well-known scientific fact that both very good and very bad stone would come out of the same quarry of Magnesian limestone; and if there was not some competent officer charged with the selection of the stone before carving, it was only to be expected that it would wear badly. With the lesson afforded by the Houses of Parliament before them, he thought it would be a satisfaction to the Committee to be assured that there was to be some official, either the surveyor of the Board of Trade, or his clerk of works, charged with the selection of the stone to be used in future, or someone who was capable, at all events, of distinguishing good Magnesian limestone from inferior qualities of the same material.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was not the intention of the Government to erect any building on the west front of Westminster Hall, the restoration of which had been undertaken by the eminent architect, Mr. Pearson. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), he would repeat that the principal surveyor to the Board of Works (Mr. Taylor) was a thoroughly competent architect, who had already for the Government executed some most important works, and was capable of doing everything demanded from him in connection with the Houses of Parliament. He could assure the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne) that every possible care was taken to select the best stone for the purpose of the repairs to the Houses of Parliament.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, it was a great satisfaction to him that the First Commissioner of Works had not employed a permanent architect on the building. So long as they had permanent architects they would have permanent expenses, and new buildings in continual course of erection. On the other hand, he hoped
    444
    his right hon. Friend would always continue his policy of having a thoroughly practical man to look after works of the kind in question.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, with the permission of the House, he would, having received an explanation from the First Commissioner of Works, withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked whether, in the case of the charge for the restoration of the west front of Westminster Hall, the sum they would be ultimately asked for was the difference between the sum of £7,900, the whole sum stated to be spent, and the amount to be realized by the sale of the old materials of the Law Courts?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the sum estimated as the value of the old materials had been more than realized, the total sum received being over £3,000. The cost of the restoration of the west front of the Hall would be, approximately, £6,000.
    MR. MOLLOYasked for information on what appeared to be the extraordinary item of £3,650 for the Supply and Repairs of Furniture. He found that £10,000 had already been charged for repairs to the Houses of Parliament. So that this was purely a question of chairs and tables—not of building. He would like to know the position occupied in the building by this large amount of furniture that required to be repaired. The whole thing appeared to him to be very much in the nature of a serious overcharge.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the charge referred to did at first sight appear to be a large one; but he thought if the hon. Member were to see the details of it, he would admit that it was not unreasonable. It included a vast number of items—amongst others, the sum of £800 for supplies of glass, plate, linen, &c, for the Refreshment Rooms. This was a charge that passed through the Refreshment Committee of the House, and it must, therefore, be regarded as having met with their approval. The charge also related to the Refreshment Department of the House of Lords, and other rooms in the building—especially the Speaker's house—some of the fittings of which were very

    445
    costly. The silk curtains in that house had last year to be replaced, and the charge under this head was thereby increased.
    MR. MOLLOYpointed out that the plate could not be included in this Estimate, because there was a separate charge for it of £830. He repeated that this charge of £3,650 was purely and simply for the supply and repair of chairs and tables. He gathered, from the statement of the First Commissioner of Works, that the curtains for the Speaker's house were in the Estimates of last year; that point had, therefore, no bearing upon his argument.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that under the head of Furniture was included plate, linen, and glass for the Refreshment Rooms. No doubt the other item was a further sum required in consequence of the addition to the Refreshment Rooms.
    MR. MOLLOYasked if he was to understand that £830 was necessary for the plate in one Refreshment Room?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was the sum asked for by the contractor. As it had passed through the Refreshment Committee, he concluded that the item had met with their approval.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped that something would be done to make the seats in the Library of the House more comfortable for Members. Some of them were as hard as boards; and as he had drawn attention last year to the condition they were in, he trusted the Whitsuntide Recess would be made use of to render them more comfortable.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that the item of £3,650 was for two years. If the £850 for plate was in addition to that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as for last year, it would seem that the Government were asking for double the sum required.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, while they were upon this subject he thought it only fair to call attention to the deficiency of accommodation supplied to persons who had business at the House. The arrangements for dining, for instance, were very imperfect. He did not wish to press the point at that moment, as an opportunity would doubtless present itself later on; but he thought an early opportunity ought to be taken for reviewing the whole question as to that which fell under the domain of the
    446
    Kitchen Committee. Certainly, in view of the amount set down for providing utensils and accommodation of all kinds for the Kitchen department, he did not think Members had any reason to congratulate themselves on the result, either in respect of comfort or the excellence of the arrangements.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £550, to complete the sum for the Monument to the Earl of Beaconsfield.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had heard it stated, and seen it in the newspapers, that a very large sum of money would be necessary for the purpose of putting Westminster Abbey in an efficient state of repair. As the statue to the Earl of Beaconsfield was to be placed in the Abbey, he trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to state that no sort of arrangement would be made for charging the country with the money required without the distinct understanding that the consent of Parliament should be previously obtained.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £117,762, 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 1884, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings in Great Britain and the Isle of Man, including various special Works; for providing the necessary supply of Water; for Rents of Houses hired for the accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
    MR. GORSTsaid, he intended to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £5,000, and he believed that the proposed reduction was one to which the Government would be willing to agree. The Charge was stated as follows:—"£5,000, National Gallery; improvement and accommodation; on account; total cost uncertain." He wished to point out that the first business of these who came to the House for money was to state the works for which the money was wanted, and to present an account of the cost. On a former occasion some sanitary alterations were requisite with reference to a Public Office, and the same proceeding took place as that which he now complained of. The First Commissioner came down and asked for a Vote on Account for

    447
    certain alterations, without letting the House know what was the amount that would be required. On that occasion strong objection was made on both sides of the House, and he believed a Motion was made to reduce the Vote by the amount asked for. It was only on the representations of the right hon. Gentleman that the proposed sanitary arrangements were most urgently required, that the lives of public servants were in danger, and that unless the money were granted it would be impossible to set about the alterations which were indispensably necessary, that the House was very reluctantly induced to consent to the Government taking the Vote in the objectionable form in which it was presented. He (Mr. Gorst) well remembered the protestations of the Secretary to the Treasury on that occasion, that the proceeding should never occur again; and that credit should be taken in the Estimates of the future in such a manner as would show the nature of the work, and the total expenditure that would be incurred. He was astonished to see that a Government who valued their pledges should have forgotten their protestations, and again committed the same financial sin as that for which, on the occasion he had mentioned, they had expressed so much contrition. Here was a Vote proposed for the improvement of the accommodation of the National Gallery; the large sum of £5,000 was asked for on account, no information being given to the Committee, and no information apparently being in the possession of the Government as to the total cost which would have to be voted by the House after the sum of £5,000 now asked for was granted. It could not be pleaded, as it was on the last occasion, that the matter was of the greatest possible urgency; the requirements of the National Gallery were not so pressing that they could not wait another year; and, therefore, he thought that as soon as the Government recognized the mistake they had made in putting this sum on the Estimates, they would consent to the reduction he was about to move, and postpone the improvements until, in the Supplementary Estimates, proper information could be given to the Committee. He did not know whether he should be in Order in moving to strike out this sum of £5,000; his wish was not to stand in the way of
    448
    any Gentleman who might wish to move the reduction of the Vote by a larger sum.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERasked if it would be afterwards competent to him to move the reduction of the Vote by the larger sum of £7,000?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would be in Order in moving that reduction after the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was disposed of.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he would then move the reduction of the Vote by the specific item of £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £5,000, being the sum required for the National Gallery (Improvement of Accommodation), be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he should certainly be open to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham if he were to ask for a Vote of £5,000 on account for improvements and alterations in the National Gallery, without giving the Committee full information as to what was to be done with the money. In this case, when the Estimates were framed, no actual arrangement had been made as to the nature of the contemplated improvements; and it was, therefore, impossible to put the whole cost in the present Estimates. A few days ago he had placed in the Library of the House a plan showing, in detail, the work intended to be executed at the National Gallery. He thought the hon. and learned Member would have been aware, from the statements in the public Press, what the nature of the work was; but, at all events, he would inform him what was contemplated by the Government in this matter. Before doing so, however, he might be permitted to remind the hon. and learned Member and the Committee of the demands which had been made, from time to time, in connection with the National Gallery for further accommodation than at present existed there. Every Member of the House would know that these had been extremely pressing. In 1881 the Trustees brought the subject before the Government, and said that the pictures there were increasing so rapidly in number that the space at their disposal was totally inadequate for the purpose of hanging them. Last

    449
    year the Trustees again memorialized the Government on the subject, saying that the larger Galleries were so blocked as to cause great inconvenience. Many of the pictures had to be hung on screens; and at length these screens, owing to the increase in the number of pictures acquired by purchase or donation, had caused a block in the Galleries. He might also remind the Committee that that question had been raised from time to time in the House, and that considerable pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government in connection with it. So long as the Government had in progress the important works of the National History Museum and the Law Courts, they were unwilling to take the work of the National Gallery in hand; but when these were finished, they came to the conclusion that they could no longer refuse the demands of the Trustees; and, accordingly, a plan was prepared with the view of affording the increased accommodation that was required. Hon. Members would see, by the plans placed in the Library, that they proposed the addition of two long Galleries—one 90 feet by 40 feet, and the other 70 feet by 40 feet, and two smaller rooms, each 30 feet by 20 feet. The accommodation asked for by the Trustees was a hanging-room of 700 lineal feet; at the same time, they pointed out that this was absolutely required for the pictures they then had, and that by the time this addition was made they would probably have further pictures to place; and that, therefore, the number of feet stated did not represent quite the limit of their demand. The proposed alteration would give 958 lineal feet, equal to two-thirds of the last addition made by Mr. Barry, and about one-third of the existing space in the building. The total cost of the two Galleries and the two smaller Rooms would be about £50,000. They would be erected immediately behind the Gallery, and would extend in the direction of the Barrack Yard, a small portion of which would be taken; and he thought hon. Members would see that they would be extremely well placed in view of the circulation of the visitors to the Gallery. He had stated to the Committee the actual cost of the additional Galleries; but it was further contemplated, when these were completed, to convert the present Turner Gallery,
    450
    now objected to on account of the deficient light there, into a grand staircase, and to convert the present staircases into two rooms for pictures. This would cost an additional sum of £15,000; but that expense was not at present to be incurred, because it was not thought advisable to proceed with the last-mentioned alterations until the two new Galleries were completed. It was not desirable that the Turner Gallery should be undertaken at once, because it would involve the displacement of the pictures which were hung there, and accordingly it would be postponed. All that the Committee would pledge itself to now was the sum of £50,000 for the erection of the two Galleries and Rooms he had described. The application for £15,000 for the conversion of the Turner Gallery into a grand staircase would form the subject of a separate application some two or three years hence. The completion of the works to be proceeded with at once would probably require a period of three years. The whole work would probably be completed in about four or five years. He trusted the Committee would be of opinion that, on the whole, the proposed addition was the best that could be made to the National Gallery. It had received the entire approval of the Trustees, and he hoped it would supply their wants for some time to come. In concluding the remarks he had to make, he would also express the hope that, having gone over all the points of objection which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had stated with so much moderation, the hon. and learned Member would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the sum of £5,000 now asked for on account to be taken.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he did not think the First Commissioner of Works had met the objection which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman had explained, it was true, that the total cost of the alterations, described in the Estimates as uncertain, was £50,000. But what he and other hon. Members found fault with was that the Estimate should have been put forward when the cost was uncertain. It was admitted that at the time the Estimates were framed the total cost was unknown. While he approved fully of the alterations to be made at the National

    451
    Gallery, he thought the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that no work had to be done there on a sudden, might have left out this item to which they objected from the Estimates, and then, when the cost had been ascertained, come forward with it on a Supplementary Estimate. The objection which the right hon. Gentleman had, in his opinion, not met was, that he was infringing a very important financial principle, by asking for a sum on account of an undertaking the total cost of which was uncertain. He hoped it was clearly understood that they approved the alteration to be made at the National Gallery, their objection being to the mode of putting it in the Estimates.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not consider the course adopted in this case was unusual. If he had not been able to give full details of the cost and the works to be undertaken, he would not have thought it right to ask for the money. He trusted, however, that the Committee would forgive him if he had infringed any financial rule in not putting the total cost in the Estimates.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that it had been customary for Ministers to place amounts upon the Estimates on account of works the cost of which was unknown. It was possible to find bad precedents for everything. He had known cases, year after year, in which attempts of the kind had been made, but which had been objected to by the Committee. When Mr. Lowe was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was proposed to place a number of buildings for public purposes on the space near the Victoria Tower, and a small sum of money—£10,000 or £20,000—was entered on the Estimates without any statement of the total cost, the effect of agreeing to which would have been that the House, without any sufficient explanation, would have committed itself to an altogether unknown cost. He (Mr. Rylands) opposed that Vote from the seat he now occupied, and he remembered that when the Prime Minister came down next day the Vote was not proceeded with; it was, in point of fact, practically withdrawn. Again, there had been cases where the Government had come down with an Estimate without giving the full cost, and where, objection having been taken to the proceeding, the Votes had been postponed,
    452
    with the view of placing on the Table of the House at a future time the full particulars which were demanded. Therefore, although he could not dispute that demands of the kind in question had been made, yet the practice of the Committee had been to look with great jealousy upon the House being committed to an unknown amount by a Vote on Account being placed on the Estimates. He was by no means opposed to the extension of the National Gallery, and he should be sorry if it were imagined that he was raising any objection to that proposal; but he hoped, before the Committee passed the Vote, they would receive a definite statement from the First Commissioner as to the amount to be expended, so that if that amount were exceeded they would be able to call the right hon. Gentleman to account. His recommendation was, therefore, that the Vote for this £5,000 should be withdrawn; that the exact plans should be settled, and the total expenditure stated; and when these were laid upon the Table of the House he felt sure the Committee would support his right hon. Friend in supplying what was, no doubt, a public requirement.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was, no doubt, responsible for the form in which this Estimate was presented. Originally, it was not known what sum would be required for the completion of the work; but the sum was ascertained before the Estimate was presented to the House. It was desirable that, as far as possible, the total expenditure to be incurred in works of the kind under consideration should be stated; but it frequently happened that, although they knew that money would be required for certain purposes, they were unable to say what would be the total sum required for the completion of the work to be done, although they were sure that before the matter came on for discussion they would be able to give the Committee all the information required. That was what had occurred in the present case. Some days ago his right hon. Friend placed in the Library plans of the proposed alterations, and during the last half hour his right hon. Friend had made a statement, of which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had not heard a word, showing the total amount of expenditure involved, and the probable time that would be occu-

    453
    pied in the completion of the alterations.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the Committee would do well to accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. They were indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) for having called attention to what was, undoubtedly, an unsatisfactory point in the Estimates. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that £50,000, and possibly a further sum of £15,000, would be required for alterations at the National Gallery, he thought the Committee would agree that they had before them all the information which, in regard to Votes of the kind, they were bound to require. Under the circumstances, he trusted his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he could not imagine there would be any objection, on the part of the Committee, to agree to this sum. There was nothing he desired more than that there should be an adequate national expenditure upon Art and kindred objects. So far as he was concerned, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity of withdrawing the Vote, for the purpose of doubling or even trebling it. He would be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman saw his way to removing or modifying these objectionable structures on the top of the National Gallery which were known as the "pepper boxes." The Committee must know that, in its present form, the inhabitants of London had no cause to be altogether proud of the National Gallery as a building.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if, in the event of the Motion before the Committee being withdrawn, the First Commissioner of Works would undertake to place upon the Table before the end of the Session an Estimate of the total cost of the alterations. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE assented.] In that case, he thought, on behalf of his hon. and learned Friend, he should be justified in asking leave to withdraw the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent to the noble Lord to withdraw the Motion before the Committee.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there were several points in the Estimates on which he wished to obtain information before he made his Motion for the reduction of the Vote; and whether that Motion would be for a reduction of £5,000, £7,000, or £10,000 would depend upon the answer given to one of the questions to which he was about to call attention. In the first place, there was the item—probably the most extraordinary in the whole of the Estimates—of £5,000, for "Sanitary Improvements in the Public Offices (Further on Account); probable total cost, £30,000; probable expenditure up to 31st of March, 1883, £10,550." Now, these sanitary improvements meant the communications between the lavatories and water closets of the Public Offices with the main drains. These Offices were erected at an enormous cost, and if there had been proper supervision on the part of the Architect, and on the part of the Board of Works, the sanitary arrangements would have been properly carried out when the buildings were being erected. It had, however, been stated, with regard to the drainage at the Home Office, that "instead of going into the main sewer it drained back into the Home Office," which showed an amount of ignorance on the part of these which were responsible that would disgrace any builder. But, admitting the necessity for improvements, he could not conceive how £30,000 could possibly be spent in connecting the lavatories and other offices of the buildings with the main sewer at Whitehall. It seemed evident to him that the persons who had this matter in charge would derive a very comfortable annuity from the work of restoring the communications between the Offices and the sewer. This was the first question upon which he desired to have information. The next question related to the Royal Courts of Justice—"Works and Alterations that may become necessary" (they had not become necessary yet) "and other Alterations in the Refreshment Department." Now, if the Committee would turn to page 38 of the Estimates they would find a separate Vote for the Royal Courts of Justice, the House being asked to vote this year the sum of £51,013 under that head. He thought that if the £30,000 for alterations which might

    455
    become necessary at the Royal Courts of Justice was to be voted at all, it should have been included under the Vote to which he had just directed the attention of the Committee. But it was in this way that these expenses were increased; they were put down partly under one Vote and partly under another, and, in the present instance, two items were taken out of the Vote for the Law Courts and included in the Vote for Public Buildings. Again, he wished to know why the Consolidated Fund had to bear the expense of £60 for the Maintenance and Repair of the Chapter House of the Dean of Westminster? He thought the Chapter at Westminster was sufficiently wealthy to pay for their own repairs. Then there was a charge of £50, the cost of repairing Whitehall Chapel, which he would like to be explained, as also the item of £400 for "Rent, &c, Bridge Street, Westminster Palace Chambers; Ecclesiastical Courts Commission." This latter sum, for the rent of the room in which the Commission met, appeared to him to be far in excess of the necessities of the case. Then there were items for rents in connection with the Law Courts—"Rent in Lincoln's Inn, Appellate Court, including Land Tax redeemed £99; rent of Mr. Justice Fry's Retiring Room, £50." He wished to know why these items were still to be paid, and with regard to them he had no doubt an explanation would be forthcoming. Finally, there was the item on which he had not only to make a Motion, but also to divide the Committee, whatever explanation his right hon. Friend might give. This was the sum of £4,700 under letter G—"Westminster Bridge; maintaining, watering, cleaning, and lighting the Bridge, and for Police and periodical painting." He anticipated the answer that would be given. There were a certain number of houses belonging to the Bridge Trust, the rents of which were received by the Government, and went in reduction of cost to the country. But he ventured to say that these rents did not represent to the country 2 per cent of the amount spent in building the Bridge; and, therefore, if they were to enter into accounts with the City of Westminster, the Government would have to claim from the City of Westminster a very large sum
    456
    for the cost of the Bridge. But the Government had no more right to put upon the Consolidated Fund the cost of repairing, cleaning, and painting the Bridge than they had to charge that fund with similar expenses on account of bridges in Manchester, Liverpool, and other cities. His contention was that matters of this kind, relating to the Metropolis, should be paid for in the same manner and to the same extent by the ratepayers of London, as the ratepayers of other cities had to pay in respect of their bridges. Whatever promises were made about the Municipal Government (London) Bill, he intended to take a division on the question as to whether an expense, which ought to be borne by the London ratepayers, should be thrown in this unjustifiable manner upon the Consolidated Fund.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman replied to the questions of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he wished to ask for some information upon the item in respect of the Royal Mint. He observed that for this year the total cost of the operations at that Establishment was £12,750, of which £9,000 was voted last year. His object was simply to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman in what position the building was at that time, and what was proposed to be done with it this year?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he observed that the Government took exactly the same sum last year; and, no doubt, if he looked at the Estimate for 1881–2, he would find another similar sum. It was clear the Office of Works had got into the way of putting down the round sum of £5,000 a-year, not for any particular work, but in case they might want to spend so much on little improvements of their own. He was also told that the Government Departments had lately acquired an extremely objectionable practice. The rule was that they did not specify works costing less than £100, but only those costing more. He was told, by an hon. and learned Friend who had been on the Committee of Public Accounts, and had watched the accounts very carefully, that the Government had a way of getting a number of works, really of an important character, executed without spending large sums on them at a time

    457
    —by putting against them sums of under £100 every year. By this means works could be undertaken without the House of Commons becoming at all enlightened as to their cost. In order to get the money from the House of Commons, a number of small beginnings were made on various works, the individual amounts of which did not come to £100, and then they lumped them together, and put the total down at £5,000. That, he thought, was probably the secret of the £5,000, and he could not conceive anything more objectionable. They had no right to let the Committee vote sums of £100 for works that they knew were going to cost much more. That was not the way to ask money from the Committee of Supply; and if he should not be interposing between the Committee and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he would move to reduce the Vote by leaving out the item at the end of Sub-head A—"New Works and Alterations of a minor character not particularly specified above." He wished to draw attention to another matter which raised a question to which he had attracted notice the other night in Committee of Supply, and that was the item for Maintenance and Repairs of Public Buildings. He wished the Committee to give attention to this item, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would be able to give them some explanation with regard to it; but, before he proceeded to deal with it, he desired to say that they allowed the right hon. Gentleman to take the Vote for Maintenance and Repairs six weeks ago, on condition that he laid on the Table the detailed accounts of three separate items. The right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he was wrong; but he believed that as yet no such statement had been produced. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: It will be produced.] He was glad to hear it. £37,000 was charged for bricks and mortar—surely there was a great deal of extravagance there. There was a large item for Burlington House, and for the London University there was an increase of £230. If they went to Chelsea Hospital they would find an increase of £810; and he should like to know why this place was not treated like Greenwich Hospital, which was repaired out of its own funds? This £810 did not
    458
    include new works, as he was always endeavouring to impress on the Committee. Then they went to the Tower of London and the Royal Military Asylum, and there were other items making £1,695 increase. He could not think the Office of Works were exercising a proper control over these Estimates unless they kept down this item for Maintenance and Repairs. It was clear that these payments, instead of decreasing every year, went on increasing, and that the items were enormous and beyond all reason, and far beyond what an ordinary private individual would pay. There was no reason why the Department should not exercise economy, as a private individual would; and he would, therefore, press on the right hon. Gentleman to give them some explanation, and to promise that these matters would receive his personal supervision and attention, which, there could be no doubt, they had not done hitherto. He moved the omission of the last item under Subhead A.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he wished to call attention to the Vote for Works and Restorations of the Tower of London. He desired to move the omission of the item of £3,500.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is an earlier part of the Vote. The Committee is about to consider the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, and if we go on to that, we shall not be able to go back afterwards to the item for the Tower of London.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had put a number of questions to the First Commissioner of Works, and, pending the answer he received to them, he had reserved his right to move the reduction of the Vote. Also pending the answer given to a question, he (Captain Aylmer) reserved his right of moving a reduction. If they could not go back after moving a reduction, he wished to ask what they were going to do? He was waiting to hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he would move to leave out the whole of the item for Works and Restorations at the Tower of London.
    THE CHAIRMAN: My duty will be to put the Questions as they arise.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It will be more to the convenience of the

    459
    Committee if I do not propose my reduction now.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord has not moved it. The hon. Member (Mr. Percy Wyndham) moves a reduction.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: I move the reduction of the Vote by £3,500 for Works and Restorations at the Tower of London.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £3,500 for the Tower of London (Works of Restoration) be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Percy Wyndham.)
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance as to how far these restorations had gone on? The subject was of considerable interest to people out-of-doors, who had been considerably alarmed by a statement made last night, to the effect that a portion of the Tower was to be restored to the condition it was in in the time of Henry III. It was difficult to tell what its condition in the time of Henry III. was, and even if it was known it would not be possible to reproduce it. There had been several unfortunate restorations during the last 25 years, one of them having been to entirely scrape away the plaster from the walls, so as to show the rubble-work, which was never intended to be shown since mediæval times. The effect was quite ridiculous. He did not mean to say that there had not been a great deal of improvement effected at the Tower. Some 25 or 30 years ago an addition had been made, which resulted in hiding the main Tower from the River. This addition had been taken away, which was a great advantage; but there were a large number of people out-of-doors who were anxious that these restorations should not be carried any further, and especially that the Record Keeper's Office, which had existed since the time of Edward III., and which was mentioned in Strype's History of the Tower, should be preserved. The building had been twice restored, no doubt; but it was a lineal descendant of the old mediæval office. Would the right hon. Gentleman assure them that in any new building put up there would be no attempt to masquerade the architecture of previous periods traceable in the Tower;
    460
    but that the building would be constructed solely with a view to the purposes for which they are required?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would deal with this Question before he went to the wider one to which his attention had been directed. The item alluded to was part of one agreed to last year. Last Session he informed the House that it was the intention of the Government to effect considerable alteration in the Tower of London. They had determined to pull down some enormous warehouses which hid the Tower from the River—they proposed to demolish them altogether and rebuild the old ballium wall. Exception had been taken to a restoration of that character; but he might inform the Committee that he had obtained the sanction of the War Office to the demolition of the warehouses, on the express understanding that accommodation would be found elsewhere for some of the officers of the garrison who would be displaced. Then arose the question, in what particular style should the buildings they would have to put up be erected? Were they to be modern buildings? Should they pull down these ugly old buildings in order to put up, in their place, ugly modern buildings, which would be equally objectionable? He did not think so. It had appeared to the Department with which he was connected that it would be desirable to build on the plans of the old ballium wall. This could be done at very little expense—at an expenditure of not more than £6,000, for which sum, they believed, they would get an exact counterpart of the old building. In doing this they would really be continuing the restorations they had now been carrying on for some years. As to the Record Building, he must altogether dispute its claim to antiquity. The general opinion was that it was no older than the time of Sir Christopher Wren.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: You can see it in a print of the Tower of 1598.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he disputed that. He had examined the print referred to, and had come to a totally different conclusion. He believed the building was no older than the time of Sir Christopher Wren. It was proposed to build in the stones of the old wall—they did not intend to destroy the stones of the building, but to replace them in

    461
    the wall they would rebuild. The hon. Member need not be under any alarm in regard to the works of restoration, for the Department were contenting themselves with the demolition of the warehouses and the rebuilding of the ballium wall. They would see, from the old foundations, whether the walls should be continued through the Record Keeper's House, or whether it would be possible to save that building. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, but would allow the work to be completed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was interested in that miserable failure, the Land Registry; and he wished to ask his right hon. Friend how it happened this year, apparently for the first time, there was a charge of £1,000 in regard to the Registry in Staple's Inn? It seemed to him that this year, of all years, when the failure of the Office was most complete, only 14 estates having been registered in the whole year, it was most remarkable that there should be this charge.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that one question had been asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and another by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); and he (Captain Aylmer) had intended, before they rose, to ask the two together, because they appeared to bear on each other. They were the last two items under Sub-head A, and the first was—"New Works and Alterations of a minor kind not particularly specified above, £5,000." That had been referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, and then there was the other item—"Works and Alterations which may become necessary." It seemed to him that about "works not specified above," and "works which may become necessary," there was much of a muchness. He wished to have some explanation of these items, or he should be inclined to move that one or the other of them be reduced. He wished, also, to ask a question on Sub-head "F," "Supply of Water to the Houses of Parliament." The right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, explain how it was that there was an extraordinary charge for this supply of water this year.
    THE CHAIRMAN: To what Vote does the hon. and gallant Member refer—Vote 7?
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was alluding to Sub-head "F." He had asked some questions on the point last year; but this year, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give more certain information than he was last. With regard to new works, they were going to have a new War Office and other buildings erected at great cost on land which it would require a great deal of money to purchase. He wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do with the land belonging to the Government adjoining the new Government Offices and facing Parliament Street, which he believed he was correct in saying had cost £2,000,000. This question would, perhaps, more properly arise under the head of Public Offices, and not Public Buildings. There was a house, now occupied by Lady Clifton, belonging to the Government by the side of the Horse Guards, the lease of which would fall in this year. What did the Government intend to do with it?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the House referred to—Dover House—was not under his Department. It was under the charge of the Department of Woods and Forests; and he believed the hon. Member was right in saying that the lease would fall in this year. It would be in the discretion of the Government to hire the house from the Department of Woods and Forests, and in some future arrangement of the Public Offices it might be desirable that the Government should become possessed of the house, as it might be found a convenient site for the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury. As to the Mint, about which the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had put a question, the hon. Baronet would be glad to hear that the works had been completed at a total cost of £14,000, £9,000 of which was spent last year; therefore no item occurred this year. It was, no doubt, most satisfactory that this work, which would cause a great saving to the public, should have been carried out. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked a question as to an item of £5,000 for minor works. That sum was always put in the Estimates for small works which unexpectedly be-

    463
    came necessary, and it was due to the great extent of the Public Offices. To this sum was charged small works, which amounted each to less than £100, and which they would not be justified in putting in the Estimates—works which were, for the most part, unforeseen. At one time the item was always included in "Works and Maintenance;" but for the last three or four years it had been shown separately, as it was, in fact, an item for new works. It was considered better to lump all these small works in one large item. As to the £2,000 for the New Courts of Justice, for financial reasons it had been necessary, as soon as the work of constructing the Courts was completed, that all expenditure under the Vote for Construction should cease, and that all expenditure for alterations, or on account of fresh additions found necessary in the practical working of the Courts, should fall under the general Vote for Public Buildings. The item of £2,000 had, therefore, been inserted to meet these possible claims; and he was sorry to say that already many claims had come in which had had to be met out of this money. For instance, no sooner were the Courts completed and the Judges in occupation of them than it was discovered that innumerable small works were required in them. Many complained of draughts, and it was found necessary to put up screens and doors in all directions. He had now before him demands from the Judges and the Bar which would involve an expenditure of at least £1,800. It was always found, when a new building was erected, that a great many little things wanted doing which were not originally foreseen and provided for; and, no doubt, hon. Members had experienced that when themselves building new houses. Unexpected demands were made for small alterations and for fittings in the building which had not been allowed for in the contract. Some alterations demanded were almost fanciful; still, it was not possible for the Department he represented to altogether disregard them. The persons who made the demands for additions and alterations had been persuaded that some of the things they wanted doing were unnecessary, but other things had to be carried out; and he should be thoroughly satisfied if, in connection with such an extensive new building, no more than £2,000
    464
    was required to meet works of this kind. As to repairs and maintenance, the noble Lord had referred to several buildings, in regard to which it must be observed that in some years a larger expenditure was required on some of them than in other years. As an illustration, let them take the case of Chelsea Hospital. The Vote for the Repairs and Maintenance of that Building was £2,600, as against £1,800 last year; but the increase had been brought about by the necessity for painting the building, which was of considerable extent. Again, there was Burlington House, the expenditure on which had been £1,600, as against £1,400 last year, in consequence of its being necessary to effect certain alterations in the sanitary condition of the interior. He could only say he had gone carefully over the items of this large sum for repairs, and believed that if hon. Members had a specific account rendered, and knew the work done, they would agree with him that the item was not a large one. No doubt, in the aggregate, it was large; but the number of buildings over which it was spread was very great. The item was increasing; but in regard to that no fault was to be found with these who were concerned, as several buildings had been thrown on the Department during the past two or three years which had nothing to do with it previously. The whole of the costs of the repairs of the Admiralty were now paid out of this Vote; whereas, two or three years ago, they were paid out of the Admiralty Vote. He now came to the item mentioned by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The hon. Member had specially dilated on the largeness of the Vote for Sanitary Works. No doubt, the total sum of £30,000, including what had already been spent, was very large. £14,000, or nearly half the amount, had been expended up to the end of the present financial year. He regretted the expenditure; but the demands made by the Public Departments in this matter were so serious, and the responsibility of leaving the Public Offices without proper attention, and neglecting to do the utmost to improve their sanitary condition was so great, that he would not have felt himself justified in asking for a smaller sum. The hon. Member appeared to think it a large item; but if he knew what the cost of making these

    465
    changes in any one Department was, he would not consider the aggregate a large one. Let them take the case of the new Public Offices. It had there been found necessary to replace every one of the iron pipes with lead pipes. Every soil pipe had been of iron, and had had to be replaced with lead, and the alteration had been one which necessarily occupied a long time to carry out, and occasioned considerable expenditure of money. It was, no doubt, too bad that a large expenditure should be necessary in respect of a building recently erected. The architect who designed them was, he believed, President of the Society of Architects when the work was carried out. [An hon. MEMBER: Who was he?] The architect was Sir Gilbert Scott, and at the time the building was in course of construction the Office of Works had for one of its principal officers a gentleman—namely, Mr. Galton—than whom there was not a higher sanitary authority in England. But if this was the case with the newest of our Public Buildings, what must be the state of the older buildings? Many of them were in such a defective state that the only question was whether he should not have included a larger sum to carry out these important works on a larger scale than they were being carried out or would be carried out. He might say that if it had been possible to proceed with the work quicker, even if the expense had been much greater, he should have done so, and have incurred the larger expense. But he could not proceed with a greater rapidity; it was not possible to do all the works at the same time, as it was necessary to avoid interfering with the work of the Departments. He should not have inserted the large item in the Vote if he had not had the fullest conviction that it was necessary for the Public Service, and the health and safety of the public servants. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had alluded to the question of Westminster Bridge. That was only one of the many questions affecting Metropolitan rather than Imperial Expenditure which had been raised. The question of Westminster Bridge had been complicated by a fact alluded to by the hon. Member—namely, that the Government had had to take possession of an estate commonly called the Westminster Bridge Estate—which represented a con-
    466
    siderable rental of £5,000 or £6,000 a-year, or more than enough to pay the cost of painting, repairing, and otherwise maintaining the Bridge. But, as the hon. Member had pointed out, this estate might be said to represent the capital spent on the Bridge itself. The Government had spent a larger sum than was represented by the value of the estate; it might be said, therefore, that the income of this property represented the interest on the capital already expended, and ought not to be set against the repairs of the Bridge. As to who should bear the expense of the maintenance, that was a question upon which the Government might take a different view to that they held now, when the scheme for the Municipal Government of London was carried into effect. He could only say to the hon. Member that this was one of the questions which must be dealt with, and would be dealt with, whenever the Bill for reforming the Municipal Government of the Metropolis was brought in. With regard to Whitehall Chapter House, it was the property of the Government, and did not belong to the Dean and Chapter. The Chapel Royal, which was not a consecrated place of worship, but really the old Banqueting Hall of Whitehall, also belonged to the Government. As to the increase in the item for the supply of water to the Houses of Parliament, the explanation was this. The water supplied was from an artesian well, which belonged to the Government; and he was sorry to say that a portion of it had broken in, rendering necessary repairs which had been carried out at a cost of about £400. As to the Land Registry, it was intended this year to amalgamate it with the Middlesex Registry of Deeds, and for that purpose larger premises had been required, to enable the two Departments to be worked together comfortably. The Ecclesiastical Courts Commission—one of the largest Commissions ever appointed—were not occupying the whole of the house appointed for their use. It was necessary to hire for them a house at a rather larger rate than usual, owing to the size of the Commission; and endeavours would be made to devote that part of the building which they did not use to the service of some other Commission.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he rose not for the purpose of opposing the

    467
    Vote, or of moving an Amendment, but in order to urge on the First Commissioners of Works the desirability and propriety of pushing on these sanitary works in the Government Offices as rapidly as possible. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of it; but at the beginning of the last decade there was an enormous amount of low fever and sickness amongst the clerks at the War Office. An enormous amount of suffering and loss of life was occasioned by the bad sanitary condition of the Offices in Pall Mall. That state of things went on for years; and it was not until two General Officers were affected, and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was taken ill, that any serious attempt was made to deal with this state of things. When a proper investigation took place it was found that Marlborough House, and the principal buildings outside of Pall Mall, drained not into the main drains, but partly into cesspools, and partly into the ornamental water in St. James's Park. Something was done at once; but it was done in an imperfect and insufficient manner, and for a long time there was a great deal of illness in Pall Mall. The state of things now, however, was more satisfactory there; but in many other public buildings there was a great amount of illness and suffering on account of their bad sanitary condition. The Government at last recognized the fact that it was necessary to deal with the matter on a large scale, and proposed to spend £30,000; but he could not understand why they proposed to go leisurely to work. Do not let them do the work piecemeal—let them spend the whole of the £30,000 at once, if necessary, and remedy the evils, and get rid of the complaints at once. The Government might say that they had a plan of proceeding drawn up; but if, in following that plan, they were obliged to proceed at a leisurely rate, it might be an unfortunate thing for the clerks concerned, some of whom might lose their lives through the delay. Many of these clerks occupied over-crowded premises, where the ventilation was as bad as it could be. If the Government had a plan drawn up, the best thing they could do would be to throw it overboard, and adopt a new one founded on the suggestion he was now making, which was to get all the sanitary work they had to
    468
    do carried out without delay during the present financial year.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained of the defective manner in which the Civil Service Estimates were prepared. When he contrasted the way in which the Civil Service Estimates were made up with the exactitude in which the Treasury required the Army and Navy Estimates to be introduced, he could not help thinking that the result was discreditable to the Treasury. The set of Treasury Minutes, presented to the House in 1856, ought to be applicable to the Estimates of the Civil Service, as well as to these of the Army and Navy. The excuse made for not putting forward correct Estimates was that they were liable to be altered. That was no valid excuse at all. These Votes on Account were a great evil, and he objected to funds being so obtained, because he knew them to be the cause of great abuse in delaying the public discussion of the Votes. Then the mode of mixing up Votes for rents, insurance tithes, &c, set down at £34,363, was calculated to prevent that knowledge of the separate items so necessary to facilitate proper check. In many instances, rent was put down without any explanation, without even any indication as to the Office for which it was charged. These rents, necessarily large in amount, required that a strict inquiry should be made as to whether the Offices were properly rented, and whether the accommodation was more or less sufficient for the duties transacted in the rooms; and also whether buildings belonging to the Government could be made available. He was sorry to say he did not believe the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had leisure to enable him to so make such very requisite inquiries.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL moved the omission of the item Sub-head A—namely, "£5,000, for New Works and Alterations of a minor character not particularly specified above." The explanation given by the First Commissioner of Works ought not to satisfy the Committee. When £24,900 was taken for the maintenance and repair generally of Public Offices, the Committee of Supply ought to make a protest against a lump sum of £5,000 being put down, and no genuine account being rendered of what the purposes were for which it was required.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £5,000, for New Works and alterations of a minor character, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought Her Majesty's Government ought to make some observations upon the present occasion.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had already made the fullest explanation. The noble Lord made a strong attack, and then left the House to refresh himself. He did not think it necessary to remain while he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) made his explanation, but came back afterwards and moved to omit the item.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was present when the right hon. Gentleman made his explanation, and he thought he never heard a more unsatisfactory explanation. The only explanation afforded was that the sum was put in the Vote because it always had been. He understand this was an economical Government, a Government which was going to make great reductions in the Public Expenditure. Where were they going to begin? What item could, with more propriety, be cut out than the one now under consideration? It was only put in the Estimates in order that the Office of Works might have a sum of money in hand to play with, and that they might be able to gratify the demands for money made by all sorts of people. The right hon. Gentleman told them that, as regarded the Courts of Justice, he was open to all sorts of demands from the Bench and the Bar. He knew they would ask for alterations and improvements, and therefore he thought he would ask Parliament for £2,000, in order to meet the demands. And so he now said he knew that, in the case of other Public Buildings and Offices, there would be a number of people who would ask for all kinds of alterations and improvements, and if he had not this sum of money he would not be able to gratify their laudable desires. He (Mr. Gorst) did not think Parliament could do a more useful thing than to refuse the Office of Works power to give way to all the applications made upon it. If they had not got the money the people would have to go without their alterations until next year. This was a most dangerous item. In the Appropriation Account there was no indication of what
    470
    the item was. If they now voted this sum of money it would be gone, and they would hear no more of it. How it was spent or squandered Parliament would never know. Next year the right hon. Gentleman would come down to the Committee, and say—"This sum has always been put in the Estimates, and let me have it again." The Committee knew well enough that the Office of Works was surrounded by architects, and surveyors, and valuers, and all kinds of people, who liked to make something out of the work of a Public Department. The only way in which Parliament could check this extravagant expenditure of public money was by refusing to give the Office of Works any money to play with.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that £5,000 was necessary to have in hand to carry out anything that might occur or might be required during the year. It appeared, however, that since the New Law Courts had been completed it had been found necessary to increase the sum to £7,000. If an increase was to be made for every new building there was no knowing where the Vote would stop. Although he should support his noble Friend, he was sorry he had not proposed to reduce the Vote by £2,000, the amount taken for the New Law Courts.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the item of £2,000 was totally different to the one of £5,000. It was an item provided in anticipation of demands which were certain to be made in the Courts of Law. These demands had been made on the Government, and were being carried out. They were of a nature that, in ordinary years, they would be specified in the Votes; but, inasmuch as these Votes were prepared before the Courts were occupied, it was totally impossible to say what they would be.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided;—Ayes 29; Noes 79: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 90.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he now intended to move a reduction of the Vote and to take a division. The question he was about to ask the Committee to decide was—Are the ratepayers of London

    471
    to pay for their own bridges and their own roads in the same manner, and to the same extent, as the ratepayers of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, and other places? He would not repeat the arguments he used at an earlier period of the evening, but simply move that the Vote be reduced by £4,700, which was the cost of painting and repairing Westminster Bridge, a charge which, in his opinion, ought to be borne by the ratepayers of Westminster and the Metropolis, and not by the Consolidated Fund.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £113,062, 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 1884, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings in Great Britain and the Isle of Man, including various special Works; for providing the necessary supply of Water; for Rents of Houses hired for the accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    The Committee divided:—'Ayes 40; Noes 69: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 91.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend for some information as to the item of £4,200 for additional alterations at Southampton connected with the Ordnance Survey. The Ordnance Survey was a subject in which the public took a very considerable interest, and he would, therefore, inquire in what position the Survey was at the present moment? A considerably increased expenditure was estimated for under this head; and it would be satisfactory if the First Commissioner would inform the Committee what progress had been made, and to what purposes it was proposed to apply the additional amount proposed in the Estimates for the work of the coming year?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would defer his question until they reached the Ordnance Vote.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had to call attention to three items in this Vote which involved three most pernicious principles—namely, £3,300 for Ordinary Repairs and Maintenance of Public Ecclesiastical and Collegiate Buildings,
    472
    Scotland; £200 for Aberdeen University, Marischal College, Improvements in Heating Arrangements; and £370 for persons in charge of premises taken for Public Offices, occasional caretakers, including wages to Warders of Glasgow Cathedral. These were the first items on which he desired information. He was quite unable to understand why the Consolidated Fund should have to pay for the maintenance and care of Ecclesiastical edifices in Scotland. The next item that required explanation was Gwydyr House, Whitehall, Offices of the Charity Commission, £1,350. Surely that ought to be paid for by the Charity Commissioners, and not charged upon the Consolidated Fund. Then there was a charge of £1,000 for the Chambers of the Land Registry in Staple's Inn. He understood the General Land Registry was about to be amalgamated with the Middlesex Registry; but was the Committee aware that a noble Lord received £5,000 or £6,000 a-year for the latter sinecure? He thought that a gentleman receiving that amount yearly ought to keep out of the way of everything connected with the Land Registry.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that no amalgamation between the two Land Registries was intended, although there was a proposal to that effect. Next, Glasgow Cathedral was a national edifice. It did not belong to the Church of Scotland, and ought, therefore, to be paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. This and the other Ecclesiastical Buildings referred to might be regarded as ancient monuments, which it was a national obligation to preserve. The third question of the hon. Member involved the larger question of the Charity Commission generally, and upon that he could not then enter.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished for information as to three items on page 24. First, there was the charge under Sub-head M for Ordinary Repairs and Maintenance of the Survey Buildings at Southampton, &c, £2,120. Upon this he had only to remark that the amount was £200 more than for last year; but as all the Estimates were bloated and increased, he should not have asked for an explanation simply on that ground. The next item was for Additions and Alterations to Buildings at Southampton, £4,200; and then there was the

    473
    charge of £1,500 for the Erection of New Buildings at Southampton, containing the Engraving Department and other works, total Estimate £3,000. He wished to learn what were these extraordinary additions to the buildings at Southampton, and why it was that, having already paid £3,000 for new buildings, they were now called upon to meet the additional charge of £3,000 in the present year?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there had been a general increase in the cost of the Ordnance Survey in order to accelerate the work, which it was supposed would be finished in 1890. The staff had been raised from 170 to 240 persons for this year, and that, of course, necessitated larger buildings; hence the increased charge under that head.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he wished to call attention to the charge for salary of the Surveyor for the Royal Court House, Douglas, Isle of Man. He believed the Isle of Man was in the enjoyment of Home Rule, and it was only reasonable that a country so situated should pay for the cost of surveying its public buildings. That would certainly be the case when Ireland obtained Home Rule, an event that he thought was not so far in the future as some hon. Members supposed. Unless he was told that the money in question, after being paid out of the Consolidated Fund, was repaid by the authorities of the Isle of Man, he should be bound to object to the item.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this amount was paid on account of property belonging to the Crown in the Isle of Man.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)—put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to, sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 140.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 140.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 30th April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.—CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
    Clause 7 (Extension of term carriage in provision (6) of s. 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14 to carriage moved by mechanical power).
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. BUXTONsaid, it was not his intention to move the omission of this clause, Notice of which Motion stood in his name upon the Paper. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this clause did not, for the first time, place tramways in a separate category as distinguished from railways, and thus propose to extend taxation of the traffic facilities of the public? He also asked whether the clause applied to tramways with carriages propelled by steam or electricity, and to bicycles?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was glad to reply to the hon. Member who had just spoken, and to remove the doubt which appeared to exist in the minds of some as to the object of this clause. As every carriage drawn by horses or mules paid an annual tax of two guineas, it had been suggested that if an ordinary carriage was propelled by electricity or steam on a road it might escape the tax. To avoid all possible misconception, it had been thought better to put into the Bill a clause imposing a tax upon such carriages. A bicycle would not be included in the clause; it would be propelled by manual or pedal, and not by mechanical power.
    Clause agreed to.

    PART II.—INCOME TAX.
    Clause 8 (Grant of duties of income tax).
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that last year a discussion had taken place upon a question somewhat similar to that raised by the Amendment he was about to move; but it referred to a different branch of the subject, and dealt only with the case of Companies which, trading in foreign countries, had their headquarters in London. The law was that they were liable for Income Tax, even upon income which never came into the United Kingdom. A case, in which this question was involved, came before one of the Courts a short time ago; and the Judge who tried it had ex-

    475
    pressed his opinion that, although the law was as he had stated, it was a very undesirable and very unjust law. Although the Income Tax was 40 years old, no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever attempted to do what was now being tried. He expected, and hoped, the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate the action of some of his lieutenants, who had been going about town calling upon persons to make returns of income received not in England, but left abroad, for the purpose of assessment, and telling them that they were liable if they did not immediately make a compromise with the Commissioners to three times the ordinary tax. He believed there was no authority for that in the Act; but it was a form of intimidation used by the Commissioners to obtain information. It was well known that many persons had a great objection to come into collision with the Commissioners and undergo an examination in public on the subject of their incomes. He held that the Rules issued by the Commissioners for the guidance of persons filling up returns conceded the point for which he was contending. Then there was another objectionable regulation, which related to the receipt of profits from abroad in the shape of imports. It was provided that those imports should be recorded in several different towns—Glasgow, Liverpool, and one or two others. But if the persons who made the importations were liable for the whole of their incomes arising abroad he could not see upon what ground the Government kept a watch upon their imports. It was stated that if a person invested money in foreign securities He was only liable for Income Tax on that part of the interest of those securities which came into the United Kingdom. If that were so, on what principle was it that a person who invested some of his money in trade in India, for instance, was liable to pay on the whole of his profits? The Government claimed to tax a person so placed for the amount which he was employing in the development of the resources of India. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would contend that this was right, or that it should be done. Supposing an Australian gentleman came over to this country, leaving property behind him of the value of £50,000 a-year, and that, for his own private use, he had
    476
    £10,000 a-year remitted to him here. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that, in a case of that kind, Income Tax should be paid on the £40,000 as well as on the £10,000? Then, supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer made good his claim to charge 20 years' Income Tax on this £40,000, but the Australian died hero, leaving an accumulation of £1,000,000 in Australia, and that he willed this money away to a local stranger. In that case, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer claim Probate Duty on the £1,000,000 of accumulation? If not, what right had he to make the Australian pay Income Tax on the money which had gone to make up the £1,000,000? He (Mr. Macfarlane) would be very much surprised if the right hon. Gentleman defended the question at all; but, if he did, he should be very glad to hear on what ground he made the one charge and did not attempt to make the other. He would take one other imaginary case. Supposing an American came over to live in this country. Supposing, for instance, Mackay, the Silver King, came to England, and became subject to the Income Tax. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer claim Income Tax on his $1,000,000 a-week in America? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would ever make such a claim; and, if he did, he was quite sure he would not realize it, because the American Minister would probably intervene, and would place himself between the Silver King and the Income Tax Commissioners, who would be acting for, and under the direction of, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he had said before, the Income Tax was so vague that there was no possession in the world in respect of which a claim might not he made under it; and the only method there was of testing its real meaning was by observing how it had been put in force for the last 30 years. There was one other point he wished to mention. He should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say what amount of income would be chargeable if he was able to charge Income Tax on money that never came into this country. It would certainly be a very high estimate if he put it at about £4,000,000. Taking it, however, at that sum, the amount realized from this demand, which caused so much annoyance and

    477
    irritation, would be something considerably under £100,000. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, even if the letter of the law was on his side, whether it was wise, or expedient, or reasonable, to tax visitors to this country in this way, especially when the amount obtained by the tax was so comparatively small? A great many of those who would be subject to this tax were visitors, strictly speaking; and probably large numbers of them would return to their own country if the right hon. Gentleman attempted to enforce this charge. They would leave England, not entirely on account of the actual amount they would have to pay, but because they would feel a sense of wrong and injustice. Everyone would admit that whatever money came into this country, from wherever it came, was justly liable to be taxed; but the money which a visitor left behind him was liable to the taxation of the country in which it remained. He would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer another illustration of how this system would work. The Australian he had spoken of came over to England, leaving a large amount of money behind him. He took a house in London, and purchased a couple of carriages. Of course, he would have to pay the duty on those carriages. But he left a dozen carriages at home in Australia. Would the right hon. Gentleman claim Carriage Duty on the 12 carriages in Australia as well as upon the two in London? The same thing would apply to dogs. The man might have two dogs here and 20 in Australia. He (Mr. Macfarlane) could see no difference whatever between the cases of the Dog and the Carriage Tax and the Income Tax in this matter, except that the amount to be obtained by the last-named tax would be much better worth having than that which would be realized by either of the others; and this might influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer to some extent. The right hon. Gentleman said that if a man came into this country he must pay not only for what he brought with him, but also for what he left behind. That reminded him of the old story of the showman, who was in the habit of informing visitors to his booth—"You cannot go in without paying; but you can pay without going in." But
    478
    the right hon. Gentleman went really much further than this, for the right hon. Gentleman said—"You must pay whether you come in or not; and if you do come in yourself, you must pay for everything belonging to you which you leave behind." With these remarks, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 41, after the words "five pence," to insert the words—"Provided, That the tax payable under Schedule D in the case of persons residing in the United Kingdom, but haying no place of business therein, and not carrying on any trade therein, but deriving their income from the profit upon trade in places outside of the United Kingdom, shall be upon the amount of such profits transmitted to and received by them within the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow was an exceedingly important one. It was important not only in its bearing on English interests, but also in its bearing on international rights. Going back some distance, he should like to call the attention of the Committee to the principle which was adopted by the establishment of the Income Tax. It superseded the principle of indirect taxation; and the consequence was that the principle was laid down that all property which arose in this country under the protection of the law, and all money which was expended in the country, were liable to be taxed. If they taxed all the property created in this country, thay taxed everything which really constituted the income of the people, and they need not, also, tax the expenditure. If the other countries of Europe and the world followed the rule of England, and taxed all the property created in their several jurisdictions, it was plain that, supposing we taxed foreign property on its arrival here, it was taxed twice over. He did not pretend that this was always an evil to be avoided, because many people who resided in this country, and had property created abroad, had in England the advantage of expending it under the protection and shelter of the English Government, and, therefore, might fairly be said to be under

    479
    an obligation to contribute to the expenses of the English Government. Looking at it in that light, the whole subject divided itself under four heads. The Government might tax incomes created in this country and expended in this country; they might tax incomes which were created abroad and expended in this country; they might tax properties created abroad and introduced into this country for expenditure; and, lastly, they might—and this was the point now at issue—attempt to tax incomes created abroad and not brought into this country. He admitted that, with regard to the three first of these categories, it was reasonable to place them within the grasp of the tax-collector; but he held, most clearly and distinctly, that neither in law nor in equity had they the slightest claim to tax property created abroad and not brought into this country. The Government claimed to call upon everybody who came to this country on pleasure, or who resided here, to make a return of all the income they possessed in any part of the world. As the hon. Member for Carlow had just pointed out, people might spend their thousands a-year here, and have tens of thousands accumulated in some other country, and the Government could ask them to make a return of all the property they possessed, both here and elsewhere, for the purpose of taxation. He looked upon this as a monstrous injustice, as an infraction of International Law and right, and he said it was a process for which the Government could find no justification in the Statute Book. He called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this last fact as one which might, perhaps, weigh more with him than any other. If the right hon. Gentleman would examine the Statutes on this subject, he would find that in describing property, whether it arose from securities, trade, or manufactures, or insurance, it was always brought to this test—that it was to be charged at the place of entry. Not a single exception to that rule was to be found. He had some extracts from the Statutes bearing on the subject; and he found that in Section 108 of the original Income Tax Act it was provided that profits or gains arising from foreign sources were chargeable at the place where they had been first entered.
    480
    Section 29 of the same Act was to a similar effect. Again, in the 16 & 19 Vict., it was provided that nothing in the first-named Act was to except any person resident in any part of the United Kingdom with reference to the profits or gains received from or out of any possessions or securities in any other of Her Majesty's Dominions. These were the ruling enactments, and there was not a single word in them which gave the slightest authority for the action now attempted by the Inland Revenue Commissioners—namely, that of taxing properties which did not come to this country at all. The authorities, by this "fad" of administration, called on men to do something which under the law they had no right to do, and which was an infraction of the law. It had never been the practice, until recently, to charge with Income Tax profits of this kind. The other day he put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Inland Revenue Commissioners were justified in calling on people to themselves assess properties which they did not bring into this country, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that they were. Then, if they considered themselves justified in doing that, the Committee would be justified in affirming the principle of the hon. Member for Carlow's Amendment, and in saying that such a gross infringement of international rights and of the law of justice to individuals ought no longer to be tolerated. He had very great confidence, indeed, in supporting the proposition of the hon. Member.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that a few nights ago he had to defend the existing arrangements with respect to Free Trade against the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). One of that hon. Member's great complaints was that there was a tendency to make large investments in foreign countries rather than at home, and the answer was that the persons making those investments abroad were liable to pay Income Tax on them. To-night he had to meet the opposite charge, for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macfarlane), and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hubbard), complained that persons carrying on trade here were not

    481
    allowed to make foreign investments, in cases where the proceeds of those investments did not come home, but were reinvested in foreign countries, without paying a tax upon them. He (Mr. Childers) differed equally from the hon. Member for Preston, who condemned these investments, and his right hon. Friend, who would have them untaxed. The right hon. Gentleman had used very hard words about this law, both with respect to its principle and its administration, and had quoted rather copiously from a Paper referring to various Statutes on the subject. He would respectfully state that he was acquainted with the extracts from the Statutes to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred; but they had no bearing whatever on the law as it had been laid down during the whole of the present century. Since the Income Tax was introduced during the French War, the principle had always been that annual profits or gains coming to persons residing in the United Kingdom, and accruing from trade, whether the same should be carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, were subject to the Income Tax. Two cases which had been decided in this century proved that this was the state of the law. Of these, one was settled in 1808, and was the case of a man living at Hemel Hempsted, in Hertfordshire; and the other, which related to a merchant in the town of Hull, was settled in 1810. In both these cases the contention was that the profits made out of the Kingdom, if they did not come into the Kingdom, were not, and should not be, subject to Income Tax. In both cases, also, the decisions of the authorities were to the effect that those profits were subject to Income Tax, and this had been the universal decision of the authorities ever since. All subsequent decisions had followed these decisions, as forming a distinct rule; and such a rule had been universally observed and acted upon ever since as the law. If persons making profits in business carried on abroad had not returned them, we might be sorry they had not observed the law; but the law was very plain, and, as a rule, such profits were returned, and the taxes were paid upon them. He wished to say a few words as to one contention of his right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow.
    482
    They said that the question of expenditure ought to be considered in connection with the subject when one came to deal with the equity of the case; and they urged that money derived from investments abroad, and which was not brought into this country, did not represent any expenditure in this country, and therefore should not be subject to Income Tax. He would, however, remind the Committee that the Income Tax had not anything to do with expenditure. It was levied upon income, and not upon expenditure; and if they laid down such a rule as that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, people who might have large incomes, but who spent very little, would claim exemption from a tax levied in such a way. The principle of the Income Tax was that a certain tax should be levied on income, and he was not now going to question whether that principle was good or bad. They had to deal with it as they found it; and if they introduced this element of expenditure they would land themselves in endless trouble. There was one other point to whether he would call the attention of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it would be perfectly fair for a man trading abroad to pay Income Tax on the profits thus made if those profits were remitted to this country; but he had contended that if they were not so remitted, and were re-invested abroad, he should not pay Income Tax on them. Well, what would be the result of adopting a system of this kind? They would have, undoubtedly, one law for the rich and another for the poor. The merchant of small means, who brought home for his own benefit the profits he made abroad, would be subject to the payment of Income Tax on them; but the more wealthy merchant, who re-invested abroad, would escape Income Tax on such re-investments. Thus, the wealthy houses would escape a large amount of Income Tax; whereas the poorer houses would be compelled to pay the tax upon the whole amount of their profits. The plain and simple rule which now existed was the best—namely, that the Income Tax was payable on the profits made by persons who resided in this country, wherever those profits were made. If they once made any exception to this rule they landed themselves in inconsistency and difficulty; and he

    483
    hoped the Committee would not approve of the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with a case which was not touched by his Amendment at all—namely, the case of persons trading in England. His Amendment referred to persons residing in this country, and not trading at all. Again, the Amendment did not touch upon the question of expenditure. He admitted that the Income Tax was chargeable on income.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): That is quite true; but I had to answer both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hubbard), who did not follow the same line of argument.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the Amendment under discussion did not stand on the ground of levying the tax on expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the case of a merchant trading in Hull in 1810, who was declared liable to be taxed on the income he made from trading in other countries. But that was not the kind of case he proposed to except from the payment of Income Tax. The case his Amendment referred to was that of persons not trading in this country, or doing any business in this country. The right hon. Gentleman had not really touched the point of the Amendment at all.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)remarked, that one of the cases he had quoted had been that of a person carrying on business in Hull; but the other had been that of a person who was not carrying on business in this country.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he should be glad to know if the second case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred had been a ruling case; and if persons in a similar position had been charged with Income Tax from that day to this?
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer accused him of introducing a new element into the question, he begged to observe that he was making a concession to the Inland Revenue Commissioners, by placing under their grasp properties coming from abroad and ex-
    484
    pended in this country. He would draw the attention of the Committee to an imaginary case. He would assume that there was a wine merchant here with large establishments in Oporto. He had a house in London and one in Portugal, and made £20,000 a-year by his business. Whether he spent all this or not, and whether he was an individual or the representative of a Company, he was bound to make a return of the whole of the £20,000 for taxation. But supposing the same individual had a share in a mine in Mexico, and was called on to return the profits of that mine, which had not brought a farthing into this country for years, he was under no obligation to do so. It was not at all a question of rich or poor, large or small houses. Every person established in business here, with a foreign trade, was bound to make a return of every farthing he made by that business at home and abroad; but in the case of a foreign business in which he had a share, or of a foreign property, and the profits of which were accruing abroad, in that case the Government had no right to demand a return, except for so much as might be received in this country. All the Amendment sought was to prevent the Government pursuing a course which would be equally futile and unjust.
    MR. MACFARLANEobserved, that the discussion had turned entirely on persons in trade; but he wished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of a personal investment of a large sum in securities, he claimed a return for Income Tax of the income arising from the whole of those investments, or whether he contented himself with a charge on what came into the United Kingdom? The rule was that, as regarded interest arising from securities out of the United Kingdom, the duty was to be assessed on the amount which had been, or would be, received in the United Kingdom in the course of the year.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that if the profits came as trade profits into Schedule D they would be chargeable; but if they did not so come into that Schedule they would not be chargeable.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that in the case he had mentioned the profits did come within Schedule D.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to lay down the law clearly and fairly; but, at the same time, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) had been thoroughly justified in bringing forward the question, and that the arguments were entirely in his favour. It was quite impossible, in practice, for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) to carry the law as it stood into practical operation. He would illustrate what he said by citing one or two cases that might, and would probably, arise. Suppose an Australian had made a large sum of money in sheep farming, and came to London and took a house, did anyone think it would be fair to ask him to pay the full amount of Income Tax here on his whole property in Australia, in addition to Income Tax on the money sent to London to him? Take a German—the late Prince Batthyany, for instance—who had a large amount of property in Germany, or Austria, or Hungary. Suppose he had property in the funds, on which the dividends were paid in the country in which the funds existed, was it to be considered that he should pay Income Tax on the coupons in that foreign country and in this country as well? It was clear the contention of the right hon. Gentleman could not hold water, and that, in practice, the scheme he proposed must break down. If a person held a small amount of foreign bonds, he could very well have the coupons paid through an English banker and pay Income Tax on them; but where there was a large sum in question the law would be sure to be evaded, and the Income Tax would be sure not to be paid. Seeing how certain it was that the law would be evaded, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to agree to the Amendment.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that, according to the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Income Tax must be paid twice over. Let them take the case of a man domiciled in this country who derived the whole of his income from Italian funds, and had only part of the profits remitted to him in this country. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was hound to pay Income Tax not only on the amount he received
    486
    here, and had protection for under English laws, but upon the whole of his profits. A member of an Italian Company domiciled in England would not only have to pay Income Tax on his profits in Italy, but, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the whole of those profits in England also. Take the case of an English subject domiciled in Italy, and the Italian Government demanding a second tax on the income he might derive from funds invested in England which already paid Income Tax in England. An attempt of that kind had been recently made in Italy, and our Foreign Office had intervened on behalf of the British subject domiciled in Italy, and had taken pains to point out to the Italian Government the extreme injustice of their demand. It was fair enough, said the British Government, to charge the British subject domiciled in their country on the whole of the income he derived under the protection of their laws; but it was a monstrous thing to attempt to make the British subject resident in their country pay Income Tax on funds which were not derived under the protection of their laws. No one saw the injustice of the demand more clearly than the British Government.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was not aware of the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member. The simple principle on which they proceeded was that the whole trade income should be taxed. If they adopted any other they would have to inquire in each case whether, in fact, the Income Tax had been paid in the foreign country or not.
    MR. PUGHsaid, it did not seem to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had even yet answered the question. The question was this—if a man who had a certain amount of capital invested in foreign securities, and did not receive profits from those securities in this country, should he be liable to pay Income Tax? To his mind, the answer should be, clearly not. The profits received in the foreign country might be left in the hands of a partner and treated as capital, and in such a case it would be most unjust to tax them in England. Was there no difference between money invested in Foreign Loans and money invested in a business in a foreign country?
    MR. BIGGARconsidered the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given a sufficient answer to the question put to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was very material whether the Income Tax was paid on dividends or on the profits of a business carried on in a foreign country; but he (Mr. Biggar) did not look upon it as an important matter at all, for if a person did not pay Income Tax on the profits he received out of a business in a foreign country he would be sure to pay some other tax in regard to those profits. What was complained of was that they should be taxed twice over. It seemed to him very clear that profits made in a foreign country should not pay Income Tax, unless those profits were really brought into this country. If they were brought to England and spent here, no doubt they ought to be taxed.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 158: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 92.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties hereby granted) agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Provisions as to duty on dividends, &c. paid prior to passing of this Act) agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Assessment of income under Schedules (A.) and (B.) and of the inhabited house duties for the year 1883–4. 32 & 33 Vict. c. 67.)
    MR. HICKSsaid, he very much objected to the clause, which appeared to him to be at the root of the objection to the Bill. It introduced an entirely novel principle and practice into the way in which the Income Tax was collected and assessed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I can assure the hon. Member this is the customary clause which is inserted in every Bill of this character. There is nothing novel in it.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he was very sorry if he had misunderstood the clause; but he wished to know what "assessors and surveyors" of the Income Tax were?
    488
    He understood what the assessors were—they were officers appointed by the local authorities of the country; but, as he read the clause, the surveyors were officials appointed by the Government. If he had misread the clause, he could only say that he was sorry for having taken up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. If it was not intended to interfere with the present system there was no objection to the clause; but if the present system was to be altered the Committee had a right to call on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state distinctly what the alterations were.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Member just now; but the object of his interruption had been to point out that this was the customary clause in the second and third year of the assessment. The first year was the local assessment; but during the second and third years there was nothing but formal work to be done, as provided for under the clause.
    MR. HICKS: Am I to understand that there is to be no alteration in the present system?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): None.
    MR. HICKS: In that case I will not go on with my objection.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties to be granted for succeeding year) agreed to.

    PART III.—COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX.
    Clause 13 (Extension and construction of this part of Act. 43 & 44 Vict. c. 19.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): On this clause, as it is the first clause in Part III. of the Bill, the Committee will expect to hear from me some explanation of the change which it is proposed to make in the collection of the Income Tax under Schedules D and E. Under the present system in Scotland, in Ireland, and in about one-eighth of the towns of England, while the collection and assessment under Schedules A and B, and the assessment under Schedules D and E are made by the local officers, the collection under

    489
    Schedules D and E are effected by the officers of the Inland Revenue. But in the other districts—in Ireland, Scotland, and about one-eighth of the English towns—the collections under Schedules D and E are effected by the officers appointed by the local Commissioners of Income Tax. We propose by this clause, as I have amended it, that as vacancies occur in those collectorships the collection shall be transferred to the officers of Inland Revenue, on the condition that the Treasury is satisfied in each case that the change will produce an economy. The Committee will observe that the provision is in Section 14. What is proposed is, that where it will be found advantageous to the Public Service, and an economy, that the collection under Schedules D and E should be transferred to officers of Inland Revenue; that transfer shall take place, not as against existing collectors, but on the voidance of office by them. I will state the reasons for the proposed change. The collection of Income Tax under Schedules D and E is a very delicate matter. The collection under Schedules A and B is similar to the receipt of rates. There is no secrecy as to the amount at which houses and property are assessed, and that collection may well go on in the hands to which it is now entrusted. But the Income Tax under Schedule D relates to the profits in trade. The system of employing locally-appointed collectors is open to the objection that by the process of collection a man gets to know the income of his neighbours. For these reasons the system of transfer from the local to the Imperial officer has been steadily going on. Whenever such a thing takes place as the failure of the local authorities to appoint an officer, or an officer's unwillingness to give security, from that day the collection of Income Tax under Schedule D is transferred to a responsible collector on salary, from an irresponsible official on poundage. Parliament has thus, in Scotland and Ireland altogether, and step by step in England, decided to transfer this collection from the irresponsible collector on poundage to a responsible collector on salary—that is, a public officer. In support of this view I may state that for three years the Associated Chambers of Commerce recommended us to make this change, and in each year I
    490
    think unanimously; and in the last year not only was a recommendation arrived at by the Chambers of Commerce, who may be understood to represent in the main the trade of the country, but Mr. Sampson Lloyd, who used to sit in this House, and was then President of the Chamber, was requested to address a letter in August, 1876, on the subject to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which, in describing the objections to the present practice, he, on behalf of the whole of the Chambers of Commerce, used these words—
    "The system is, further, objectionable to the taxpayer, inasmuch as it reveals the amount of tax paid, and, consequently, of income enjoyed by him, to a neighbour who may possibly be his rival in trade."
    These words, I think, sum up very simply the objections which are felt by a very large proportion of traders to the continuance of the present system. But I have another reason which I think will have some weight with the Committee, and that is the extravagance of the present system, and the very decided economy which will result from the change. The present charge for the collection under Schedule D is £52,000; and, after very careful inquiry, we compute the charge under the system we propose, when the whole of England is brought under it, at £21,100; so that there will be in the end a saving of £30,900 a-year. I may take particular districts which we have carefully inquired into. I will take, for instance, the collection in London. The whole amount of poundage received at the present time by collectors in London is about £41,000 a-year. Of this amount, £26,000 is in connection with Schedules A and B, and therefore would not be affected by the change; but the poundage under Schedules D and E in London is £15,438. There is no doubt that the whole of the Tax could be collected through the Inland Revenue at a cost of £4,500, so that in London alone there would be a saving of nearly £11,000. I may say that I allow in that calculation for the possibility of having, in some cases, to increase the poundage on account of other Schedules. There have been two arguments set up as practical reasons why this change should not be made. The first is, that if we make it the collection of the Income Tax will be slower than it now is; and that in that

    491
    way the Government would be the losers. We have carefully considered that argument, and I will give one or two facts as the result. I have taken the collection of last year. I find that in Birmingham, from which there has come a strong request on the part of certain persons that the collection should not be interfered with, the amount of tax under D and E collected before the end of March was 50 per cent, or one-half of the whole amount. In the same way, the amount collected in Southwark was 63 per cent; in Marylebone, 73 per cent; in Manchester, 64 per cent; but when we turn to the towns where the collection has been already transferred to the public officers we find a very different result. In Bristol the amount collected at the end of March, instead of being 50 and 60 per cent, is 96 per cent; in Bradford, 83 per cent; in Bolton, 91 per cent; and in Warrington, 92 per cent; and the fact is, that whereas, under the present system, the collection is extraordinarily unequal, and in many large towns extremely slow, where the collection has been transferred it is tolerably equal, and the collection is considerably more rapid. But there is one other argument which I have heard lately, and as to which I should like to give some facts to the Committee. It has been stated by hon. Gentlemen on the other side that the result of the present system is that, from the collectors knowing the habits and circumstances of those from whom they collect, they are able to apply to them at the right time; and that, therefore, the amount of bad debts is much less than it will be if the collection is transferred to Government officials. As to that, I have also made careful inquiry; and the result is that, so far from the amount of collection in respect to bad debts being larger under the old system than under the new system, the bad debts under the old system are about 2 per cent, whereas, under the new system, they are only about 1 per cent, so that on that point—which, when I first heard it, strongly impressed me—the result is exactly the opposite of that stated. The tax is more equably levied and better brought in under the new system than under the old; and from Liverpool downwards, where the new system is in force, I have not received a single complaint; whereas my box is
    492
    full of complaints from taxpayers, under the old system, that their neighbours have not paid their tax, all of which points to the inexpediency of entrusting this collection to persons who are not responsible public officers; and the expediency of transferring it to those who are responsible to the Government. These are the main reasons why we propose the change. I hope the Committee will adopt this plan, which not only is proposed by me, but was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1879; and that, this done, we shall, at any rate, carry out steadily and slowly the principle which has been adopted by Parliament during the last few years—namely, wherever the opportunity occurs, gradually transfer the collection under Schedule D to salaried officers of the Government. Clause 13 is merely formal; the actual clause is the 14th. Clause 13 says that the Bill shall only apply to England; but, as a matter of fact, the system we propose already applies to Scotland and Ireland; and, therefore, we can only apply it to England. I hope the proposal will receive the approval of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he was most unwilling to stand in the way of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said would be a great public advantage; but he must ask for an assurance on one or two points before he could assent to this striking change, which really aimed at the alteration of what might be considered the Constitutional collection of the Income Tax, and which was a serious step in the direction of compulsory centralization. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based his plea for this alteration on three grounds—public demands, great economy, and celerity in the collection of taxes. He did not wish to stand in the way of progress; but he must represent to the Committee opinions which had reached him of such irresistible force that it would be a dereliction of duty not to place them before the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that there was a strong popular feeling in favour of this alteration, which was expressed by a number of letters in his possession. But since it became a matter of public notoriety

    493
    that he (Mr. Slagg) was taking an interest in this matter, he had received a vast number of letters, and amongst them those in favour of the change were infinitesimally small in number; while those expressing a strong desire to adhere to the present system were exceedingly numerous. Of course, the system of Petitions was received with more or less cynicism by the House; but he thought Petitions might be weighed as well as counted. There were over 100 Petitions from influential ratepayers praying that the present state of things might be continued; and with regard to a Petition he had presented from Manchester, if he were to collect all the names to which he attached the greatest weight on any matter he could hardly collect a more influential list than those on that Petition. The same might be said in regard to a Petition from the City of London. The names of the leading merchants and bankers and Chairmen of great public Companies had been appended to Petitions to the same effect. What would this alteration do? It provided for the dismissal of one set of officials in order to appoint another set to do precisely the same thing. He gratefully acknowledged the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the continuance of the present collectors, although he was not specially concerned in their class grievances. It was said that this change was proposed on the ground of economy, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that this plan had worked well in Ireland; but he should like to call attention to the expense of its operation in Ireland. The receipts in that country for Property and Income Tax last year were £462,930, while the poundage paid to Government officers amounted to £10,500, or 2½ per cent. In England the net receipts were £8,653,364, while the poundage amounted to £122,500, or 1½ per cent. Of course, he would be told that the circumstances of Ireland were somewhat different, and that the cost was proportionately greater; yet this disparity was very remarkable. But this plan had been tried in Liverpool, and he had strong reason to believe that there was no great economy under the new system in Liverpool; and the right hon. Gentleman had not stated, and probably could not state, what the cost had been. But other experiments had been made, and
    494
    although they were on a small scale they would serve for illustration. At Enfield the officers' salaries last year amounted to £1,010, whereas the poundage under the old system was only £223. At Tooting the poundage was £40, whereas the now collector's salary came to £145. The cost of collecting the taxes under the old system, it should be remembered, included offices, furniture, stationery, and all other charges. As to the inefficiency of the present collectors, he should like more proof. The evidence in his possession was entirely in favour of the present collectors, and he had not met with any objections on the ground of a want of reticence on the part of the collectors with regard to their neighbours, which seemed to create so great an impression on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was, indeed, strong evidence of general satisfaction with the present state of affairs; and he would refer, in support of that statement, to the Petition from the City of London. There were on that Petition some names which must appeal in great force to the Committee—for instance, Mr. Thomson Hankey, the Eight Hon. J. G. Hubbard, Sir Thomas Chambers, the Chairman of the London and St. Catherine's Dock Company, Alderman Waterlow, Mr. W. H. Heath, and many others of great influence. In that Petition they said they were perfectly satisfied with the present state of things, and they further complimented the collectors in their speedy collection of the tax. But his strongest objection to the change was that it was not being done in a thorough manner. He should have no objection to discussing a complete change; but here, instead of the whole of the Schedules being transferred to the Excise officers, they were split up in a manner which would cause great public inconvenience and annoyance. He had read a letter from a collector in Hulme, in his own constituency, where this experiment had been tried, and he stated that in nearly all cases the taxpayers under Schedules A & B also paid under Schedules D and E, so that the whole of the taxes could be collected with the greatest convenience by the same persons. As to complaints with regard to disclosures by collectors, what was to prevent the Excise officers also making disclosures? Instead of one person able to make disclosures there would, in future, be two, because the

    495
    present collectors would still act as assessors; and he knew of nothing in regard to ordinary Excise officers which would serve as a safeguard for reticence. The Committee must bear in mind that it was now open to any community to alter the present system, and adopt the one which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed. Taxpayers might also select a number of methods of paying Income Tax which would avoid the possibility of disclosures to their neighbours; but very few availed themselves of these opportunities. He ventured to bring these facts before the Committee, because they had been brought under his notice by influential authorities, and because he thought they were entitled to the consideration of the Committee.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was anxious to say a few words, because his name, and that of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been brought before the Committee in consequence of a clause having been introduced into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill when he had the honour of being Secretary to the Treasury, under the late Government. When they introduced that clause they believed—as he had no doubt the present Chancellor of the Exchequer now believed—that there were a vast number of complaints throughout the country as to the present mode of collecting the Income Tax; and the facts the right hon. Gentleman had stated to-night as to the disclosures, and the delicate nature of the matter to be dealt with by the collectors, as reasons for an alteration of the system, were so pressed upon the late Government by the Inland Revenue authorities that a clause similar to that now proposed was introduced into the Bill. But what did they find? They found almost immediately the same storm as had arisen round the right hon. Gentleman now; and they were so satisfied by the evidence produced that the proposal would not be beneficial that they withdrew the clause, and substituted for it a clause giving the option which was now law. They introduced a clause making it optional for a locality to go to the Inland Revenue and place themselves in the hands of the Government collectors if they thought the existing mode of collection was objectionable. Since that time there had not been such a large number of people who
    496
    had availed themselves of that option as to show that the grievance was of such force as to necessitate a reversion to what was at first proposed. He would remind the Committee that besides the option being in the Bill, every taxpayer had the option called to his mind every time the papers were sent out. He was asked under which head he would be taxed, and he had only to notify that he desired to be taxed by the Excise officers to be freed from all inconvenience, such as was suggested. As to the advantages of this scheme, the right hon. Gentleman stated, in the first place, that all objections would be got rid of; but he thought he had shown that the complaints had not been of such a character as to render the alteration necessary. In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman told them they were to have a saving effected by this proposal. Well, he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would not set up his knowledge against the power of acquiring knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman possessed in regard to such a subject; but the cases which had been submitted to him showed that in consequence of the change a larger amount would have to be paid for collection than was now paid to the local collectors. The hon. Member who last addressed the House (Mr. Slagg) had mentioned one or two cases—one, no doubt, dated some time back; but there were several others in which it appeared that the amount paid to the Inland Revenue collectors since the transfer took place was in excess of the amount paid to the local collectors. And they ought not to lose sight of this fact—which formed one of the most important features of the case—that if they handed over the collection of these taxes to the officers of the Inland Revenue, there would not be the same guarantee which existed at present that the feelings of the people would be respected as far as possible, and a knowledge of their circumstances considered in the manner in which it ought to be considered. A hard-and-fast line would have to be drawn, and the demands of the collectors would be made without any consideration for the feelings or the means of the people, all of which circumstances were taken into consideration by the local collectors, who knew the people's circumstances under the present system, and that was a fact

    497
    which now made the Income Tax more popular than it otherwise would be. By the change of system now proposed, much would be done to increase the unpopularity of a tax which was certainly not very popular in this country. These were reasons which convinced the late Government, in 1879, that they made a mistake in proposing this very system, and which obliged them to withdraw the proposal, and substitute for it one which left it optional with the taxpayers themselves to say whether the tax should be collected by the Inland Revenue officials or by the local collectors. He believed that that would be found now, as the late Government found it in 1879, the better course to adopt; and he trusted that the Government would see their way not to insist on the proposal they had made. He felt convinced that if they did insist on it it would result in a great deal of harm to the collection of the tax; and not only would that be the case, but it would never realize the sanguine expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to a saving in the collection.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. Friend who had just sat down had reminded them of the fact that the late Government made a proposal of this kind which was afterwards withdrawn; and no doubt his hon. Friend, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, had given the correct reason for that withdrawal. Of course, it was impossible to make any change, however much ultimate benefit it might promise, without giving to the class who might be interfered with by the change a very strong motive to use whatever power they possessed in stimulating opposition to it, even though it might be a public improvement. No doubt, the opposition, as his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had said, came from all parts of the Kingdom. It came from those who, when they found that under this Bill they would suddenly be removed from Office, naturally felt very much aggrieved, and they could make their voices heard, and applied to all their friends and neighbours to assist them in preventing the carrying out of such proposals. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester in a perfectly fair manner, and had recognized the feelings of that class whose mouthpiece the hon.
    498
    Member for Manchester had been that night, because the right hon. Gentleman had now put the matter in this position—that no existing Income Tax collector would be displaced, and that only as vacancies occurred in the existing body of collectors would the collection be placed in the hands of the officials of the Government. This was a matter which would commend itself to the Committee, not only on the ground of economy, but also because it would, he was satisfied, bring about a great improvement in the efficiency of the collection of the tax. When hon. Gentlemen talked of centralization, he knew that centralization had been increasing, and he was as much opposed to it as any hon. Member could be; but it certainly did appear to him that the Government taxation ought to be collected by the Government officers, and that was a kind of centralization which he could not object to. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, the new method of collection had been tried in the borough which he (Mr. Rylands) did not now represent, but with which he was connected—the borough of Warrington. In that borough they had now had an experience of both systems; and the result was that the old system had proved to be a most unsatisfactory system, while, so far as he could learn, the new system, under which the tax was collected by the Excise officers, had given perfect satisfaction. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, the money was collected promptly under the new system; and, so far as could be ascertained, there were no complaints. He (Mr. Rylands) wished to remind the Committee that in all their towns they had these Excise officers, who were paid by the Government, and engaged in the duty of collecting the taxes; and they could certainly be charged with the duty of receiving the Income Tax without the necessity of adding very largely to the number of officers. In fact, in many cases, he had no doubt, there would be no necessity for the appointment of additional officers at all—those who received the assessed taxes now could easily receive the Income Tax as well. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had offered a compromise, he (Mr. Rylands) hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester would be satisfied, and that the result would he to effect a considerable economy in the Public Service.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had furnished some arguments against the proposal of the Government, for if the question of economy ought to be chiefly considered, surely the present system ought to be adhered to. He (Mr. Smith) did not stand there as the advocate, in the least degree, of the interests of a class. He thought it most undesirable that Members of Parliament should at any time appear there to represent individuals or classes. His objection to the proposals of the Government was an objection founded upon principle; for he thought it most enexpedient, and most undesirable, that what seemed to him to be a fundamental alteration should be made in the law relating to the Income Tax, and that the functions of the Government should be unnecessarily extended. He had for some time watched the course of events with regard to the functions of Government, and he had come to the conclusion that they were discharged in a manner which was more costly and less efficient on the I whole than work done for the Government by private means, and by means independent of the Government, when that work could be accomplished without the aid of public servants. In saying that, he made no aspersion whatever upon the officers, or upon the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. He believed his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been convinced by the arguments addressed to him that the change which was now proposed was for the public advantage; and, on the other hand, he had not the least doubt that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in urging this matter on the Government, were perfectly convinced that it would be accompanied by all the advantages which they so strongly urged; but it certainty was opposed to the principle on which the Income Tax was originally established. ["No, no!"] Well, he would quote some words which would, he thought, show that he was right. He maintained that the principle on which the Income Tax was originally established was this—that there should be Commissioners representing the people who should appoint their own clerk, their own assessors, and their own collectors; and that, on the other hand, the Crown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Com-
    500
    missioners of Inland Revenue should have their surveyor and their inspector, to see that the Crown received no damage, and that the duties, as charged, were realized. That was the principle of the Act originally, and it remained the principle of the Act still. Now, what was it that was proposed by the change now before the Committee? It was proposed that one of the ancient safeguards which were thought to be necessary in raising the tax originally should be done away with. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had properly designated the tax as a very delicate tax, which required to be dealt with with very great care and consideration. It was proposed to withdraw one of the original safeguards; and, undoubtedly, the officers of the Inland Revenue, in the discharge of their duty, would show zeal and activity, and would press for the recovery and realization of the tax, probably at an earlier period in some cases than the ordinary collector would do, when acting under the directions of the Commissioners. He was not sure that that would be an advantage. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in the result there would be a considerable saving. He (Mr. Smith) had never heard any change proposed in the way of an extension of public duties which was not recommended as an economy. That was always the case; and the Inland Revenue, no doubt, believed that an economy would result from the adoption of the present proposal. But what was their experience at that moment? Why, that the cost of the collection of the Revenue was far greater now than it was only five, six, or seven years ago, when there were similar duties to collect. The charge for the collection of the Revenue by the Inland Revenue was greater now by some £100,000 or more than it was seven years ago, and the amount collected, £1,000,000 a-year less. That, he was sure, was a fact known to the right hon. Gentleman; and, if that was the case, they had better leave things as they were with those who were responsible for the collection of the Income Tax. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said was the case, there were people who complained bitterly of the present system, and who preferred to have the officer of the Excise, they could, under the law made in 1879, have him at once. The

    501
    door was open for them. There was no difficulty whatever in their way. But he (Mr. Smith) did object—and he objected on principle to a change which he believed to be fraught with mischief, and which, he maintained, would endanger the tax itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head when he (Mr. Smith) said that the change was opposed in principle to the doctrine laid down by Sir Robert Peel. He (Mr. Smith) went into the Library that evening to look at the speech made by Sir Robert Peel in introducing the Income Tax in the year 1842, and he found that Sir Robert Peel used these words—
    "I hope that I shall he able to retain that provision, because the policy of the law hitherto has been with respect to the assessed taxes, and it was the principle with respect to the property tax, not to make the collection depend upon the will of the Government, because it was thought more consistent with Constitutional Law to entrust the amount to local parties, and that those who may have the confidence of their neighbours shall be employed for this purpose."—(3 Hansard, [61] 912.)
    There was a sound principle of human nature embodied in the views thus expressed by Sir Robert Peel. That great statesman said it was necessary that the collection of the tax should be left to the people themselves; and he (Mr. Smith) believed it to be essential that the tax should be so collected, so long as the people were willing to collect it; and he, therefore, trusted that the Committee would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would give way upon the subject, when the matter had been so strongly urged upon his attention. The right hon. Gentleman had said that a great advantage would be gained by getting rid of certain individuals—the neighbour, the tradesman in the same street, who became acquainted with the affairs of his fellow-tradesman, and was cognizant of the amount that he paid; but he (Mr. Smith) could see no provision in the Bill which would relieve that tradesman, that neighbour, in the same street, from the duty of making the assessment. He understood that the assessment was to remain with the officers appointed by the Commissioners; and they would, therefore, have the tradesman, the neighbour resident in
    502
    the same street, making the assessment, while there would be the addition of a good many Excise officers to make the collection. That, he thought, was clear as the Bill now stood; and if it were intended that Excise officers, or other persons not appointed by the Commissioners, were to make the assessment, then new provisions of a very grave and serious character would have to be introduced into the Bill in order to effect that object, and he believed they would make the raising of this tax at all a very difficult and a very serious work.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he did not desire to trouble the Committee at any length; but, as an Income Tax Commissioner in the City of London for 10 years, he felt bound to say a few words. He could say, without hesitation, that there would be no economy in the change now proposed; and he was sure that any prediction to the contrary would not be fulfilled. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, in addition to giving them his own opinion—which they were all bound to listen to with the greatest respect—have favoured them with some substantial statistics showing that where the change had been in operation there had been a considerable saving of expenditure. What was the principle followed in the present law of collection? The collectors now received 1½d. in the pound, or 1–160th per cent, on the amount collected; and what he wished to ask was, whether it was not the fact that in numerous districts where the tax was not collected by collectors appointed by the Commissioners the Government were paying 6d., 8d., 10 d., and even 1s. in the pound? But the whole thing, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to depend upon the celerity with which the tax could be collected. Well, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the most favourable case he could—because if he did not take the most favourable case he was not doing justice to himself or to his own proposal—and what was the result? The right hon. Gentleman quoted the case of Warrington, where, he stated, 92 per cent of the tax was collected before the end of March—that was to say, that of the duties due in January 92 per cent was collected before the end of March. But he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the case of London,

    503
    where the largest collection had to be made under great difficulties, and where they had had to ascertain the profits on all kinds of trades and all sorts of processes of manufacture. In that great City, up to the 31st of March in the present year, 86 per cent was collected, amounting to £933,421; and the whole of the collection closed a very short time afterwards. It was now proposed to appoint as collectors a number of persons who had no knowledge of the taxpayers, and no knowledge of the circumstances under which they were able to pay the tax in the easiest manner; and these men were to be appointed in the place of persons who had had long experience. It was said—"We do not propose to make the change until vacancies occur in the existing body of collectors; and when that happens you yourselves would have to appoint new men." But who were the new men appointed to fill vacancies under the present system? Why, they were men who had had experience in the collection of local taxes, who knew the taxpayers familiarly, and the taxpayers were more than satisfied with the manner in which the collection was conducted. His hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had referred to one Petition; he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would refer to another. It was a Petition presented in favour of the present system, and it was signed by C. J. Morgan and Co., Frühling, Goschen and Co., and a number of firms of that character holding the very highest standing before that House and the country. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Committee the relative cost of collecting the Income Tax in Liverpool under the old system and under the new. That would be a fair comparison. Liverpool was a large town—not so large as London; but large enough to afford a fair test in comparing the two systems. He would venture to put this to the House—was it likely that where two persons were to be employed in future instead of one it could be done for less money than was paid now? Was it likely that, under such circumstances, a cost which now amounted to £52,000 a-year would be reduced to £21,000, and that £30,000 a-year would be saved? He would ask those hon. Gentlemen who had any business experience to remember this—that it was
    504
    proposed to give up paying for piece work, and to pay for day work instead. Did anybody ever know a man to earn as much when on day work as when on piece work? No. The work was to be done by the ordinary officers of the Excise, and he understood that about 500 of these officers were to take the places of the several thousands now employed by the Commissioners. Those who were now employed gave six weeks of their time at the beginning of the year to the collection of the tax, and they went to other employments afterwards; but what would have to be done with the extra number of Excise officers who would have to be employed under the new system? They could not be employed for anything else; there would be no need for thorn; but they would have to be paid all the year through, and that would increase the cost to a very much larger sum of money than it amounted to now. He asked the Committee to hesitate before making a change which was a breach of the original condition under which the Income Tax was originally imposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. Smith) had quoted the words of Sir Robert Peel in putting forward the conditions arranged for the imposition of the tax; and one of those conditions was that the tax was to be collected by people who were known to the taxpayers, and who could collect it with the least amount of irritation, and with the least amount of disclosure of the private affairs of those who had to pay the tax. But what was now proposed was to double the extent of the disclosure, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to take away the duties of the present assessors; and, therefore, there would be one class of men to assess, and another class of men going round afterwards to collect the tax, and this other class must learn all that the assessors knew. He would ask whether the man who made the assessment, and who knew all the circumstances under which it was made, could not collect it better, and be in a more favourable position to answer questions which the taxpayer might wish to put, than a man who knew nothing whatever about the business? It should be remembered that a large number of people made no Returns at all, and the assessor went on putting up the amount until they did make Re-

    505
    turns. When the collector was the assessor, he knew all about it; but what was the collector to do under the new system? He could only act on the principle—"Your money or your life! I know nothing whatever about it; but pay this money, or I will put in a bailiff!" The new collector, it must be remembered, would have no experience at all to go upon. The present Government ought to do what they could to lessen the irritation of the tax, for it was a tax which had always been unpopular, and they should not take a course which would only increase its unpopularity.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in his opinion the concession made by the Government in this matter was a proof that they were aware that the collection of the Income Tax was an affair of confidence. The question was, whether the taxpayer would have more confidence in the local collector whom he knew, than in the Government collector who was a stranger to him? He (Mr. Newdegate) had been in communication with the Mayor of Birmingham, and on this subject Birmingham needed an independent Representative, owing to the close connection of her Members with the Government. He represented Birmingham, and those whom he represented preferred local collectors. He did not believe that the concession made by the Government would, in the least degree, remove the objection to the change proposed, which existed amongst the taxpayers. He was assured by the best authorities on the subject that the traders of Birmingham much preferred the present system of collecting the Income Tax to that proposed by the Government, by means of a system of central police.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he should be extremely sorry to disturb the existing arrangements with regard to the Income Tax Commissioners; but the matter was quite different as to the persons who actually received the money. Those persons, although they were called assessors, were not so in reality, because, as was well known, the assessment, in the true sense of the word, was made by the Commissioners. He was able to say that a considerable economy had resulted from the changes that had been already effected. The entire expense of the arrangement, at the highest calculation,
    506
    was put down at £20,000, although he did not believe it would amount to as much as that. At any rate, there would be a distinct saving of the cost of collection to the extent of £30,000 a-year.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 168: Majority 7.

    AYES.

    Acland, Sir T. D.

    Edwards, H.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

    Amory, Sir J. H.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Anderson, G.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    Armitage, B.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.

    Armitstead, G.

    Arnold, A.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Flower, C.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Fort, R.

    Barclay, J. W.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Barran, J.

    Fowler, W.

    Biddell, W.

    Gabbett, D. F.

    Biddulph, M.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Blennerhassett, R. P.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Borlase, W. C.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Brand, H. R.

    Grafton, F. W.

    Brassey, Sir T.

    Grant, A.

    Briggs, W. E.

    Grey, A. H. G.

    Brinton, J.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Hamilton, J. G. C.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Hayter, Sir A. D.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Henderson, F.

    Buszard, M. C.

    Heneage, E.

    Buxton, F. W.

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Hibbert, J. T.

    Campbell, R. E. F.

    Holden, I.

    Campbell-Bannerman, H.

    Hollond, J. R.

    Holms, J.

    Carington, hon. R.

    Hopwood, C. H.

    Causton, R. K.

    Howard, E. S.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Howard, G. J.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Howard, J.

    Cheetham, J. F.

    Inderwick, E. A.

    Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

    James, Sir H.

    Clarke, J. C.

    James, C.

    Clifford, C. C.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Cohen, A.

    Jerningham, H. E. H.

    Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

    Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

    Cotes, C. C.

    Lea, T.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Leake, R.

    Creyke, R.

    Leatham, W. H.

    Cropper, J.

    Leeman, J. J.

    Cross, J. K.

    Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

    Crum, A.

    Lloyd, M.

    Currie, Sir D.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Davey, H.

    M'Clure, Sir T.

    Davies, R.

    M'Intyre, Æneas J.

    Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

    Mackie, R. B.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    M'Laren, C. B. B.

    Dodds, J.

    Mappin, F. T.

    Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

    Marjoribanks, E.

    Duckham, T.

    Martin, R. B.

    Duff, R. W.

    Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

    Dundas, hon. J. C.

    Maxwell-Heron, Capt. J.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    507

    Mellor, J. W.

    Smith, S.

    Monk, C. J.

    Stanley, hon. E. L.

    Moore, A.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Moreton, Lord

    Tavistock, Marquess of

    Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Thomasson, J. P.

    Nicholson, W.

    Thompson, T. C.

    Noel, E.

    Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

    O'Shaughnessy, R.

    Paget, T. T.

    Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Parker, C. S.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    Pease, A.

    Walter, J.

    Peel, A. W.

    Waugh, E.

    Pennington, F.

    Whitbread, S.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Whitworth, B.

    Power, J. O'C.

    Wiggin, H.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Williams, S. C. E.

    Reid, R. T.

    Williamson, S.

    Richardson, J. N.

    Willis, W.

    Richardson, T.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Robertson, H.

    Wilson, I.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Woodall, W.

    Rylands, P.

    Woolf, S.

    St. Aubyn, Sir J.

    TELLERS.

    Shaw, T.

    Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

    Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

    Smith, E.

    Kensington, right hon. Lord

    Smith, Lt.-Col. G.

    NOES.

    Alexander, Colonel C.

    Elcho, Lord

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Elliot, G. W.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Ennis, Sir J.

    Aylmer, J. E. F.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Filmer, Sir E.

    Balfour, A. J.

    Floyer, J.

    Barne, Col. F. St. J. N.

    Foster, W. H.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Fremantle, hon. T. F.

    Bateson, Sir T.

    French-Brewster, R. A. B.

    Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Garnier, J. C.

    Bective, Earl of

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    Bellingham, A. H.

    Giles, A.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Goldney, Sir G.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Gore-Langton, W. S.

    Bourke, rt. hon. R.

    Gorst, J. E.

    Brise, Colonel R.

    Grant, D.

    Brogden, A.

    Grantham, W.

    Bruce, Sir H. H.

    Greene, E.

    Bulwer, J. R.

    Greer, T.

    Callan, P.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Chambers, Sir T.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

    Chaplin, H.

    Christie, W. L.

    Hamilton, I. T.

    Clarke, E.

    Harrington, T.

    Cole, Viscount

    Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

    Coope, O. E.

    Cotton, W. J. R.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Hicks, E.

    Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

    Hill, Lord A. W.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Hill, A. S.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

    Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.

    Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

    Dickson, Major A. G.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Digby, Col. hon. E.

    Kennard, Col. E. H.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Kennard, C. J.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Ecroyd, W. F.

    King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Egerton, hon. A. F.

    Knightley, Sir R.

    508

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Rankin, J.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Rendlesham, Lord

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Leighton, Sir B.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Leighton, S.

    Rolls, J. A.

    Lennox, rt. hon. Lord H. G. C. G.

    Ross, A. H.

    Ross, C. C.

    Lever, J. O.

    Round, J.

    Levett, T. J.

    St. Aubyn, W. M.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Salt, T.

    Lopes, Sir M.

    Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

    Lowther, rt. hon. J.

    Scott, Lord H.

    M'Arthur, Sir W.

    Scott, M. D.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Mac Iver, D.

    Severne, J. E.

    Macliver, P. S.

    Sexton, T.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Sheil, E.

    March, Earl of

    Slagg, J.

    Marriott, W. T.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Master, T. W. C.

    Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Mayne, T.

    Sykes, C.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Thornhill, T.

    Monckton, F.

    Tollemache, hn. W. F.

    Moss, R.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Murray, C. J.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Newdegate, C. N.

    Torrens, W. T. M'C.

    Newport, Viscount

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Nicholson, W. N.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

    Warburton, P. E.

    Warton, C. N.

    Northcote, H. S.

    Whitley, E.

    O'Brien, W.

    Williams, Gen. O.

    O'Connor, A.

    Wills, W. H.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Wilmot, Sir H.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Winn, R.

    Onslow, D. R.

    Wolff, Sir H. D.

    Pell, A.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Pemberton, E. L.

    Wroughton, P.

    Percy, Lord A.

    Wyndham, hon. P.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Yorke, J. R.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    TELLERS.

    Pugh, L. P.

    Fowler, R. N.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Waterlow, Sir S. H.

    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he should not proceed with Clauses 14 and 15.
    Clauses 14 and 15 negatived.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  QUESTIONS.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could hold out some hope that he would be able to afford a day for the conclusion of the debate upon the affairs of the Transvaal? He had understood

    509
    the right hon. Gentleman to say, on a former occasion, that he did not consider that the Amendment of which he had originally given Notice was one for the discussion of which he could set apart a day, because it raised a new issue. He had, therefore, sacrificed his own wishes in this matter, and had endeavoured to frame an Amendment which raised the same issue as that which had been already discussed. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it was not possible to give a day for the resumption of the discussion, either on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), or his own Resolution, or on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman himself; or whether, in any form whatever, he would enable the House to pronounce judgment on the question?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had already pointed out that if any arrangement could be arrived at which would simplify the issue before the House he would do his best to give a Government day for the discussion; but the state of the case was that there were a variety of Motions and Amendments on the Paper raising questions so complicated that, instead of progress being made on the last occasion, when a whole Morning Sitting was devoted to the subject, they had actually receded. He had then said that if arrangements could be made for simplifying the issue and taking the debate on the question in relation to the Transvaal, which the right hon. Gentleman was desirous to bring under the consideration of the House, he would then do his best to secure a Government day for its discussion, but that there was no chance of that in the then state of the Notice Paper. He had no desire to press the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He was perfectly willing to consent either to an immediate decision being taken on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and a subsequent discussion upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, or the entire withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, and the adoption of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman as a substantive Motion. That he was perfectly willing to do; but as long as the Motions and Amendments were complicated one with another, as they were then, it was impossible for him to relieve Gentlemen themselves and
    510
    their Motions from the state of entanglement into which they had fallen.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EAST INDIA (EXPENDITURE).
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, it would be in Mr. Speaker's recollection that last Tuesday they had a discussion on this Motion. In the "Votes and Proceedings" of the House he saw—
    "Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that early steps be taken to reduce the expenditure of India.'"
    And subsequently—
    "Amendment proposed, 'To leave out all the words after the word 'House' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'every effort should be made to effect economy in the Government of India,'—instead thereof.
    "Question proposed, 'That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.'"
    He wished to call attention to the fact that when Mr. Speaker left the Chair the Question before the House was, "That those words be there inserted." The Main Question was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question;" and it was stated in the "Votes and Proceedings" of Wednesday, the 9th of May, 1883, that "Question put, and agreed to." He thought he was right in saying that this referred to the Main Question—that of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope)—which was put from the Chair. He wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether what was done on the occasion referred to was correctly stated in the Votes of the House. He believed he was within the recollection of many hon. Gentlemen present who would agree with him when he said that the Motion of his hon. Friend was carried; and that after the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State was negatived, he (Mr. Onslow) rose to ask whether he could not move his Amendment as an addendum. According to his recollection, and that of other hon. Members, the "Votes" were not consistent with what had taken place. Finally, he asked whether his Amendment stood as a substantive one; because, if not, any hon. Gentleman might move an Amendment, just as the Under Secretary of State for India had done, at any word of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, according to his recollection of the circumstances, the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was put from the Chair after the Amendment of the Under Secretary of State for India had been negatived. The Speaker hung on the point whether the "Ayes" or the "Noes" had it, and the "Noes" did not in any way challenge the "Ayes;" and, after waiting for a second or two, the Speaker declared that the "Ayes" had it, and sat down. Thereupon the hon. Member for Guildford rose to Order, and asked whether he could move his Amendment. The Speaker at first said that the hon. Member was too late to move his Amendment, and the hon. Member then explained that his Motion was not an Amendment, but an addition. As he recollected the matter, the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was carried; and he certainly understood that that remained on the Books of the House as the Resolution of the House.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was present on the occasion, and his recollection of the circumstances agreed with that of his right hon. Friend. He was astonished to see how totally different the record on the Books was from the facts.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Guildford and the right hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House appear to me to lie under a mistake in supposing that the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was fully carried. The only point fully carried was—"That the words proposed to be left out of the Motion stand part of the Question." If the Main Question had been put to the House as a whole, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford would have been perfectly inadmissible, because, the whole matter being then before the House, no Amendment could be put.
    MR. ONSLOWasked, as a point of Order, whether, after that ruling, it was competent for any Member to move an Amendment to the Original Motion as it now stood?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire is now before the House, and until that is disposed of no other Amendment can be put.

    SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSstated that as he could not bring on the Motion of which he had given Notice on this subject at that time, he would avail himself of the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and raise the question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House at 2 o'clock tomorrow.
  MOTIONS.
    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.

      MOTION FOR LEAVE.
      MR. DODSON, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England, said: At this late period of the night I shall endeavour to compress what I have to say in asking leave to introduce this Bill into the shortest possible space. The Bill will provide that a tenant who has made on his holding any of the improvements enumerated in the Schedule of the Bill shall be entitled, after the commencement of this Act, on quitting his holding, at the termination of his tenancy, to obtain from the landlord, under this Act, compensation for such improvements. The measure of such compensation is to be the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant. That is laid down as the general principle and basis for compensation. It is not limited by any rule as to number of years, or the amount of the tenant's outlay, or by any of the other conditions attaching a limited measure of value under the Agricultural Holdings Act. We thought the measure of value, taking value simply, would be the most just and equitable measure of compensation as a general rule, because the value of similar improvements differs widely in different parts of the country, and according to the circumstances in which they are made. Value, measured by years, constitutes a Procrustean rule. Value, measured by the amount of the tenant's outlay, we do not take; we think the simple value is a more equitable basis, and for this reason. Supposing a tenant has laid out money unwisely, or even unfortunately, he ought not to be ex-

      513
      pect to be compensated for that. On the other hand, if he has laid out money wisely and successfully, he is fairly entitled to the value of the improvement to the in-coming tenant. This compensation by the value of the improvement to the in-coming tenant is termed in the Bill—"Compensation under the Act." The machinery for ascertaining the value is that of the Agricultural Holdings Act, for which purpose we preserve the Procedure Clauses of that Act. The improvements to which the Bill applies are enumerated in the Schedule. I will first speak of permanent improvements, executed after the commencement of the Act, which will be the 1st of January, 1884. The permanent improvements are these—(1) The erection or enlargement of buildings; (2) the laying down of permanent pasture; (3) making and planting of osier beds; (4) making of water meadows or works of irrigation; (5) making of gardens; (6) making or improving of roads or bridges; (7) making or improving of water courses, ponds, wells, reservoirs, or of works for supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes; (8) making of fences; (9) planting of hops; (10) planting of orchards; (11) reclaiming of wasteland; (12) warping of land. In order to entitle the tenant to compensation under the Act the consent of the landlord must have been obtained for these improvements. That consent may be given unconditionally, or upon such terms as to compensation or otherwise as may be agreed upon between the landlord and tenant; and in the event of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant, any compensation there under shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under the Act. Now I speak of another set of improvements, those that may be called temporary improvements. These are boning of land with undissolved bones; chalking of land; clay burning; claying of land; liming of land; marling of land; application to land of purchased artificial or other purchased manure; consumption on the holding by cattle, sheep, or pigs, of cake or other feeding stuff not produced on the holding. The tenant will be entitled to execute these improvements and claim compensation for them without being called upon to obtain the consent of, or to give notice to, the landlord. But
      514
      under any new contract of tenancy beginning after the commencement of the Act, where any particular agreement in writing secures to the tenant for any of these temporary improvements which I have enumerated, executed after the commencement of the Act, fair and reasonable compensation, such compensation shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under the Act. There remains another very important improvement which, perhaps, the House will observe is not included in the category of permanent or temporary improvements, and that is drainage. Drainage is an improvement of a durable character, of a very important character to both parties, a very general one, and one which it is desirable to promote. We make a special provision for that in the Bill. The tenant may execute drainage; but he is not entitled to compensation under the Act unless he gives notice to the landlord before, and the landlord on receiving notice has an option. He may either drain the land himself, and charge not more than 5 per cent to the tenant, or he may agree with the tenant on the terms upon which the drainage shall be executed. They may enter into any arrangement as to the terms upon which the work shall be done—as, for instance, dividing the expense, the landlord to find the pipes and the tenant the labour, or otherwise. But if the landlord will neither drain the land himself nor agree upon terms with the tenant for the drainage, then the tenant will be entitled to do it himself and claim compensation under the Act. Thus far I have spoken of improvements to be executed after the commencement of the Act. Now I will say a few words as to improvements executed before the commencement of the Act, and as to existing contracts of tenancy. The Bill applies to existing contracts of tenancy, but with a Proviso as to temporary improvements. Where an agreement in writing, or the custom of the country, or the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, provides specific compensation for any such improvement, compensation shall be paid as so provided, and not under the Act. Where no compensation is thus provided for, the tenant will be entitled to claim compensation under the Act. The enactment of the Bill as to compensation for permanent improvements and to drainage applies also to existing con-

      515
      tracts; but in this case it applies only to improvements executed after the commencement of the Act. The requirements of the Act as to the consent of, and notice to, the landlord cannot, it is evident, apply to improvements executed before the Act. The landlord is to be entitled to obtain a charge upon the estate either for compensation under the Act or for compensation substituted under any agreement authorized by the Act. There is a provision that when the owner of an estate is not the absolute owner the charge shall not be spread over an unduly long period of time. I have already stated that the Act is to come into operation on January 1, 1884. Now as to new tenancies. A year to year tenancy, current at the commencement of the Act, is to run on till the first day after the commencement of the Act on which either the landlord or tenant might by notice to the other have brought it to an end, and from that date it shall be deemed to be a now tenancy. The section as to notice to quit will substitute a year's notice for six months in all cases where six months is now only required, but with this Proviso—unless, the landlord and tenant agree in writing that they wish to retain the six months. This Proviso has been inserted mainly because we believe that many tenants like to be at liberty to quit at short notice. There is a provision that every agreement, covenant, or contract which deprives the tenant of compensation under the Act, except arrangement providing substituted compensation as authorized by the Act, is void in law and in equity. Therefore, the Bill is compulsory to this extent—that the tenant will always be entitled to receive compensation under the Act, except where he agrees to take substituted compensation or what he prefers or considers equivalent, in some other form. There is only one other part of the Bill to which I will refer, and that very briefly. That is the part dealing with the Law of Distress. The Bill substantially adopts the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). I may say here that the framers of the Bill are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), and that we have taken considerable liberties with his Bill. The Bill, I say, carries out substantially the recommendations of
      516
      the Committee over which the right hon. Member for Ripon presided—that is to say, distress is to be limited to one year's rent. Agisted stock and hired machinery are protected in the manner recommended by the Committee; and the Bill goes on to alleviate distress in certain minor ways—that is to say, with regard to the statutory table of costs under the Act of 57 Geo. III., the limit of £20 in which is to be raised and taken to be £50. The time for redeeming things distrained is extended from five days to 15, and appraisements may be dispensed with. I hope that in trying to be brief I have not been unintelligible to the House. It was my intention to avoid entering into any controversial or argumentative matter, and I only wished, so far as I could, to put the House in possession of our proposals.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That leave tie given to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in Scotland."—(The lord Advocate.)
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked whether the proposed Bill dealt with the Law of Hypothec in Scotland, and whether its provisions were at all similar to those of the English Bill?
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he had spent a good many years in bringing this question to the front, and he was very deeply disappointed with the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman upon the English Bill, and—
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that leave be given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in Scotland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): At this late hour of the evening I do not propose to go into any de-

    517
    tailed explanation of the Bill which I now ask leave to bring in. The object of the measure is to apply to Scotland the principles of the measure relating to compensation for tenants' improvements which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just now explained. It is essentially the application to Scotland of the principles of that Bill. As we have not had an Agricultural Holdings Act for Scotland similar to the English Act of 1875, there has been a necessity to expand some of the provisions of the Bill in that respect, inasmuch as we require to state the machinery by which we propose to work out the provisions of the Bill if it becomes law. In regard to those other questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) has indicated, I must point out to him that those Amendments which are proposed to be introduced into the Law of Distraint by the English Bill do not in that matter place the agricultural tenant in England in as favourable a position as that of the Scotch tenant under the existing law in Scotland. Under these circumstances, I do not know that my hon. Friend expects that we should deal with the matter to which he refers—namely, the question of Hypothec, which has been so recently under the cognizance of Parliament as 1880, there having been in that year a Bill which substantially abolished the Law of Hypothec, except in regard to existing leases. No doubt there were certain provisions contained in that Bill of a compensatory nature; but, undoubtedly, the Law of Hypothec was abolished so lately as 1880; and, therefore, in the two countries the matter is in no way in the same position. We are very much in advance of what is proposed to be introduced in England by the English Bill. I think I may sufficiently explain the nature of the Scotch Bill by saying that it is substantially the application to Scotland of the principles of the Bill explained by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked when the Bill would be in the hands of Members?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he hoped both the Scotch Bills would be in the hands of Members on Saturday morning. There might be a few copies in the Vote Office tomorrow.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge do consist of Twenty-three Members:—Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Mr. STEVENSON, Sir THOMAS BRASSEY, Viscount BARING, Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD, Sir DONALD CURRIE, Mr. HANBURY-TRACY, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. HENEAGE, Sir GEORGE BALFOUR, Colonel NOLAN, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. CHARLES ROSS, Mr. SALT, Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, Sir EDWARD WATKIN, Colonel WALROND, Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Lord ARTHUR HILL, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Colonel MILNE HOME, Lord RENDLESIIAM, and Mr. GUY DAWNAY were nominated Members of the Committee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the nominators of the Committee had, somehow or other, overlooked the Representatives of the Irish maritime districts affected by the scope of the Committee. Looking to the nature of the Irish coasts and their extent, and to the important Irish interests involved, he could not but think that at least another Irish Member ought to be added. If it was possible he would have great pleasure in proposing that Mr. Leamy, the hon. Member for the City of Waterford, should be added to the Committee.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the House had already agreed to the Motion that the Committee should consist of 23 Members, and therefore it would be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of any addition he might think wise. In the meantime, he might point out that there were already three Irish Members who had been appointed on the Committee, and that was the usual proportion of Irish Members on Committees of this kind; in fact, he believed it was rather above the usual proportion.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot move the addition of a name without Notice.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.

    FIRST READING.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday 28th May."
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he did not want to be too severe upon a Bill which he had not had an opportunity of reading; but judging from the outline of the measure as sketched by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy—
    MR. SPEAKER: A discussion on this Motion would be quite irregular.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDbegged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent for the hon. Gentleman to make that Motion. The Question is that the second reading be taken on Monday the 28th of May. The hon. Member must give Notice.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDbegged to give Notice that he would move, when the second reading was proposed to be taken, that it should be taken that day six months.
    Motion agreed to.

    POOR LAW CONFERENCES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. PELL, Bill to provide for expenses incurred by Guardians of the Poor in relation to Poor Law Conferences, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PELL, Mr. STANSFELD, Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, and Mr. HOLLOND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]

    MEDALS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill for preventing the Sale of Medals resembling Current Coin, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 188.]

    BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill for regulating the Police and administration of towns and populous places in Scotland, and for lighting, cleansing, paving, draining, supplying water to, and improving the same; and also for promoting the public health thereof, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 191.]

    LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts for facilitating the improvements of landed property, and for the drainage and improvement of lands in Ireland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]

    PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (LONDON) [SALARIES AND EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in the first instance, of the Salaries of Commissioners and Officers who may be appointed, and of Expenses incurred, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the better application and management of the Parochial Charities of the City of London.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Third Report with Evidence—Land Law (Ireland)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Cathedral Statutes* (58); Municipal Corporations (Unreformed)* (59); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (60); Naval Discipline and Enlistment Acts Amendment* (61).
Second Reading—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act (1882) Amendment (Audience of Solicitors)* (34); Medical Act (1858) Amendment (52).
Committee—Report—Glebe Loans (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (35).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Limerick Waterworks)* (3); Pluralities Acts Amendment* (42), and passed.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 52.)
(The Lord O'Hagan.)
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 52.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD O'HAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the Bill had been introduced with the object of enabling the Royal University of Dublin to be represented on the Medical Council of Dublin, in the same way that the Queen's University of Dublin was formerly represented on it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read2a."—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)expressed his approval of the Bill, which had been rendered necessary by an oversight in the existing Statute.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 24 th instant.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—MESSRS. NOLAN AND SMITH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CAIRNS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Why Messieurs Nolan and Smith, sub-commissioners under the Irish Land Act for the County Antrim district, have been removed from that district? said, the Question was a very short one in itself; but it required some explanation on his part. Their Lordships would remember that a few days ago a conversation had occurred in that House relative to the removal of a Sub-Commissioner for the County of Donegal. The circumstances under which that removal took place were these. Considerable agitation had been got up in the county with regard to the decisions of Sub-Commissioner Bailey on the subject of judicial rents, the tenants being of opinion that he did not reduce the rents sufficiently. There was no accusation whatever against him of any other kind; but simply that, while reducing the rents according to his own judgment, he did not reduce them so low as the tenants desired. The agitation in the county culminated in a public meet-

  357
  ing, at which very strong expressions were used, and very strong resolutions were passed, calling upon the Government and the Chief Commissioners to remove Mr. Bailey from his office. The result was that Mr. Bailey was removed from Donegal to Connaught, and his successor for the former place was appointed. It was, however, very soon manifested that the appetite grew by what it fed upon; because, when Mr. Bailey's successor began to discharge his duties, a Question was put in the other House by Mr. Sexton to the Prime Minister inquiring whether he was aware that the new rents fixed by Mr. Bailey's successor only averaged 20 1–3 per cent below the old rents, or nearly 2 per cent above those fixed by Mr. Bailey; and whether the latter had not been removed in consequence of a public meeting calling for his removal in consequence of his fixing the judicial rents too high? The fact was that the new Sub-Commissioner had not taken the hint, as it was expected he would have done, and a fresh agitation had been got up against him. His noble Friend (the Earl of Longford) had asked, the other night, for some explanation of the matter; and, in reply to his Question, the Lord President referred him to the answer which had been given in the other House to Mr. Sexton's Question, which was to the effect that the Chief Commissioners declined to give their reason for removing a Sub-Commissioner from one place to another, but that they went so far as to say that they did not remove the Sub-Commissioner in consequence of what had passed at the public meeting. There was, however, nothing in this statement of the Chief Commissioners that they were not aware of the general agitation which had been got up in the county against the Sub-Commissioner, and that they had removed him in consequence. The matter, however, went further than that, because he must altogether dispute the view which the Chief Commissioners took of their position—namely, that they were entitled to refuse to give any reason for removing a Sub-Commissioner. No one in Parliament would ask, and the Commissioners would be fully entitled to refuse to give their reasons for a judicial decision; but Parliament had a right to know the reasons for a particular administrative act done by an administrative body,
  358
  which, for this purpose, the Commissioners were. It was not, therefore, for them to say, sic volo sic jubeo—"We will give no reasons for our appointment." The question that was asked was not a frivolous one. Here was an agitation in the country, and a public meeting held, demanding the withdrawal of the Sub-Commissioner. Thereupon the Sub-Commissioner was withdrawn. Was that a question on which the Commissioners were justified in saying they would give no reason? But what had happened since then? He now returned to the County Antrim, where the two Sub-Commissioners—Messrs. Nolan and Smith—were engaged in fixing the judicial rents. After they had gone some Circuits, given a number of decisions, and fixed a number of judicial rents, it seemed that the landlords felt very much the extent of the reductions made; while, on the other hand, the tenants thought that the reductions made were not sufficient. That was the complaint—they did not reduce enough. They also held a public meeting; and again he found that the complaint there was that of insufficient reductions. Here was a decision in which it was complained that the reduction was insufficient. The Poor Law valuation was £6, the old rent was £12 15 s., and the judicial rent was fixed by the Sub-Commissioners at £4 10 s. He should have thought that even the most sanguine tenant would have been contented with that result—£12 15 s. reduced to £4 10 s. Another case was that in which the reduction was not so large, the rent only being reduced £11 6s. in £80. Yet the complaint of the tenants was that the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners were not sufficiently pronounced in their favour. At this meeting they thought of adopting a form of resolution by which to justify their dissatisfaction, and one or two resolutions were proposed; but one of the speakers said that would not do. The best way, this speaker suggested, would be to adjourn the meeting, and to accompany that with an intimation that they were adjourning the meeting in order to see what effect the meeting would produce. Accordingly, this was the ultimate resolution arrived at—
  "That this meeting stand adjourned till this day three weeks, when the administration of the Land Act by the Chief Commissioners will be considered;"

  359
  —he would ask their Lordships to note that it was not the administration by the Sub-Commissioners, but the administration by the Chief Commissioners, that would be considered—
  "and, in the meantime, tenants are requested to consider the advisability of abandoning all intention of entering the Land Courts, or those who have entered are asked to notice the advisability of withdrawing the same."
  Was not that a threat to the Chief Commissioners? It was tantamount to saying that they wanted a change in the Judges, that they made their complaints known to the Chief Commissioners, and gave them three weeks in which to decide what they should do. Another meeting was held a few days afterwards in a neighbouring part of the country, at which those present again spoke of the same decisions by the same Sub-Commissioners; and this was the resolution they passed—
  "We hereby condemn the members of the Antrim Sub-Commission"—Messrs. Nolan and Smith—"who, during the last sitting at Ballymena, visited the farms of several of our neighbours and friends, for their impertinent and high-handed conduct, and for the very unsatisfactory way in which they examined into the improvements executed by those tenants; and we protest against the reductions given in the several cases as quite inadequate, and hereby advise them to appeal; and that we hereby call upon the Government for the immediate dismissal of these Sub-Commissioners."
  Those were the steps taken by the meeting, and the two Sub-Commissioners were removed. Mr. Nolan, he understood, was removed to that penal settlement for over scrupulous Sub-Commissioners—namely, Connaught; and Mr. Smith, he was told, was removed nobody knew where, and a great deal of apprehension was felt lest he should have gone to some worse place. Perhaps his noble Friend the Lord President, when he spoke, would tell them where Mr. Smith had gone to, and throw some light on the subject. Since then another Sub-Commissioner had appeared upon the scene, and taken his place. Perhaps he ought to add, in order that their Lordships might have the whole of the case before them, that at the meeting in question allusion was likewise made to Mr. Greer, the Chairman of the Sub-Commissioners. It was said of that gentleman that there was not a man amongst them who was more inclined to do justice to the tenants than Mr. Greer. That appeared to be the chief deside-
  360
  ratum—to do what was called justice to the tenants. Mr. Greer was not, as their Lordships might expect, removed under those circumstances. What was the consequence of all this? The new Commissioners went into that district, and, unless they were very much more foolish than he took them to be, they went there with what was equal and equivalent to an instruction from the Chief Commissioners that they should avoid the errors of their predecessors. That was, their predecessors did not reduce the rents enough, and it was that which they were to avoid. What was the effect of this on the Sub-Commissioners who were sent away? In their new sphere of action they were to take care that they did not again incur in the same way the displeasure of their superiors. What, too, was the effect on the public at large—the tenants and farmers in all parts of the country? Let them consider what this meant. Here was a tribunal in Dublin, which was, at one and the same time, the Court of Appeal and the executive power which could remove the Judges. It did not hear the cases on appeal; it did not exercise any judicial determination as to whether the reductions were sufficient or insufficient; but, on the allegation of any party that the reduction was insufficient, it removed the Judges. What was the result of these proceedings? They had Sub-Commissioners who exercised their functions for a year, or two or three years, as the case might be, in a particular county, and who in that time decided a great number of cases—possibly thousands. Then a complaint was made that they had not made sufficient reductions, and they were removed. What was the result of that—he did not mean as regards the future, but the past? They immediately setup a batch of tenants—namely, those whose cases had been decided during those years—with a particular and specific grievance of their own. They said this—"Whatever else may be done in the future, we are the victims of these proceedings you have condemned. It is our misfortune that we have had our cases decided by those wicked men who have been sent elsewhere, and we have our rents fixed for a judicial or a statutory term which you have not sufficiently reduced." That was the feeling throughout the country, and, therefore, he was most anxious to submit this matter to

  361
  the consideration of their Lordships. He hoped they would have something more explicit in the shape of an answer from the Chief Commissioners. They, he must contend, ought, in a matter of this kind, to have an answer from the Chief Commissioners; and, further, he would say, they could not properly and constitutionally continue to refuse, in the manner they hitherto had done, to answer the question.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that while the noble and learned Earl was developing his intense suspicions of the four gentlemen who filled the posts of principal Land Commissioners in Ireland—gentlemen who, he (Lord carlingford) thought, were utterly undeserving of such suspicions, but, on the contrary, entirely deserving of the confidence of the Government and of their Lordships' House—he was struck by the fact that the noble and learned Earl had not been able to give them the smallest proof of the effects which he alluded to as being intended by the removal of certain Assistant Commissioners. The noble and learned Earl was compelled to state, at the very beginning of his remarks, that the change made in the composition of the Land Commission in Donegal by the removal of one Assistant Commissioner from one county to another—not a measure of censure or punishment, but a simple transfer from Donegal to Mayo, both counties, as desirable places of residence, being, he should think, very much upon an equality—the noble and learned Earl was obliged to tell them that the reductions of rent had been as great after the change had been made as before. That did not help the case of the noble and learned Earl. As to the Commissioners of whom the noble and learned Earl had been speaking, and what he supposed to have been the cause of the change made in the composition of certain Sub-Commissions, he was bound to say he never before heard of the meetings or speeches to which the noble and learned Earl had referred. He knew nothing of them, and he was absolutely convinced, from his information, that they had nothing whatever to do with those changes. However, he was glad the Question had been put, because it gave him an opportunity of making some explanation of the matter, which he ad-
  362
  mitted was one of some difficulty. As to the fate of the two gentlemen who had acted in Antrim, he believed that one went to Mayo, and the other, whom the noble and learned Earl appeared to think was wandering through space, had gone to County Armagh, which was not a very dreadful fate. It was quite true that there was something anomalous in these administrative functions being combined with the judicial functions of the Land Commission; but that state of things appeared to be inevitable. He did not know anyone who could so well judge as the Commissioners of the propriety and expediency of the composition of any of these Sub-Commissions, or of the public advantage or disadvantage of appointing a particular gentleman to a particular position, and of quartering him in a particular county. He was not aware that the executive authority, or anyone but the Land Commission itself, could judge of such a question as that. He was willing to admit that, this being an administrative and not a judicial matter, it would seem, on the face of it, that any inquiry as to the exercise of administrative powers should be freely answered in Parliament; but, at the same time, he asked any fair-minded man to consider whether there were not very serious difficulties, purely in the public interest and for the sake of the due administration of the Land Act, in the way of such Questions being freely answered. The Commissioners had strongly and unanimously arrived at the opinion that it would be scarcely possible to deal with these personal questions of appointments or changes, if they were required, in every or any case that suited the purpose either of the noble and learned Earl opposite from the landlords' point of view, or of Mr. Sexton or any other extreme Representative of the tenants in the other House, to state the grounds of their action. They say that, if they were bound to give to the public, by way of answers to Questions in either House of Parliament, their reasons for such administrative acts, they would find it scarcely possible to carry on their duties. Ha did not deny that there were many cases in which there would be no difficulty. There had been cases of changes made in the Sub-Commissions in which the reasons had been obvious, on the face

  363
  of them; and he ventured to say that those reasons, when they had been known, had been quite as much in favour of the landlords' side of the question as in favour of the tenants'. But there were also reasons, as any noble Lord would see who had ever considered the matter, that must be of so special and personal a kind as to make it scarcely possible to publish them to the world. Questions of the most personal kind must arise in those matters—questions of the harmony among Colleagues sitting on the same Commission; questions of the comparative capacity and ability for the fulfilment of duties, which had to be considered when the Land Commission desired to constitute in every part of Ireland Land Courts, which should be tolerably even in those respects; questions, again, whether the Commissioners possessed a fair knowledge of the part of the country where they had to act; and, on the other hand, whether they had unduly close connection with the district in which they were acting. All those matters were of a kind which might often be utterly unsuited for publication to the world; and if a distinction were to be drawn between a case in which an answer could be properly given, and a case in which it could not; if questions of this kind were to be answered to-day and similar questions to be refused answers tomorrow, the effect would be most undesirable, and probably unjust to the gentleman who was the subject of the inquiry. He thought he ought to say that the Irish Government, and the Lord Lieutenant especially, had looked closely into this matter, which, being one of administration, he was able to look into, and had been furnished by the Land Commission with the fullest and frankest explanations of every change that had been made in the constitution of the Sub-Commissions from first to last. If those changes were to be examined by anyone who know the country, and who knew the gentlemen concerned, he (Lord Carlingford) was ready to contend that the most suspicious eye, looking at the appointments all round, would find no cause for thinking that the Land Commissioners had been actuated by any undue bias whatever in the arrangements that had been made. Questions much of the same kind had been raised from
  364
  the opposite point of view in "another place;" and he dared say that it would be thought necessary to meet them in the same way that he had met the Question of the noble and learned Earl. He submitted to the House that there ought to be no suspicion of the motives and intentions of such men as wore appointed to compose the Land Commission in Dublin. [Cheers.]He hoped that was not an ironical cheer, because he knew no four gentlemen whose character more entirely entitled thorn to the confidence of that House and of the public. On that ground, and in the belief that any other course would prevent them from performing their duty in employing the Assistant Commissioners in the best way for the public interests, he was not able to answer the Question asked by the noble and learned Earl. He would only add that if the respectful refusal of the Land Commissioners, under those circumstances, to give reasons in any particular case why they had exercised their discretion, should impair the confidence of the House in their judgment, motives, and character, he could not conceive a greater misfortune, or one which would do greater injustice to those distinguished gentlemen.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council has concluded a speech, which, I think, evidences the consciousness of a weak case, by a device which counsel who have a weak case often have recourse to—namely, to call witnesses to character. But I think the noble Lord, on reflection, will feel that there is something very mysterious in the progress of these proceedings connected with the Land Act in Ireland. There seems to be an extension of the doctrine of coincidences which is very startling to us, and almost encourages us to believe that there is something in the theory of those metaphysicians who contend that you cannot argue any causation from the effect of one event having followed upon another. Last year we had something of the kind, but not so strong. There was an incident known as the Kilmainham incident, and I think that Mr. Parnell and others on that occasion intimated to the Government that, if they were let out of prison, they would support the measures of the Government; and it curiously did happen that

  365
  immediately after that they were let out of prison; but there was absolutely no connection whatever in point of causation between the first event and that which followed. Now, we have a very much more remarkable instance of the remarkable extension of the doctrine of coincidences. The noble Lord tells us that these Sub-Commissioners were removed for circumstances affecting their individual capacities and characters. But what happened was that, in these several cases, meetings of the farmers were called, loudly denouncing the decisions of these Sub-Commissioners, because they were too favourable to the landlords, and that in each case, after, and closely after, the denunciation of those meetings, the curious coincidence happened that the condition of character and capacity arose in reference to each of the Sub-Commissioners, and made it necessary to remove them to another place. We can only say that coincidences flourish in Ireland in a manner known to no other country. It is a circumstance which I may mention in passing, and to which we shall probably have occasion to recur when the Evidence which has been printed for the Committee on the Land Law, and which has been laid on the Table of the House, is in the hands of your Lordships. There is a rich harvest of undesigned coincidences in that Evidence. But I think the noble Lord is unreasonable in complaining that the action of the Commissioners in this matter is looked upon with some suspicion. Whatever their excellence may be, at all events they are all Liberals, and three out of four are very strong partizans. Therefore, I think it is too much to assume that necessarily and certainly, in all cases, their minds must be free from partizan bias, when circumstances exist that justify very strong suspicion in an opposite direction. It must be remembered that the whole of the jurisdiction of these Sub-Commissioners is exposed to this particular suspicion, not that it is exercised corruptly, not that it is exercised in a manner inconsistent with the honesty of those who administer it, but that it is exercised, not as a judicial system administering justice between man and man, but as a political measure designed to accomplish certain purposes at the expense of whoever may suffer from them. And this procedure of the Sub-Commissioners is marked by
  366
  three notes of suspicion attaching specially to these judicial proceedings. In the first place, many of these Sub-Commissioners were appointed from among not only the strong partizans of the Government—that would be a small matter—but they were men who had taken—and avowedly taken—a very strong line upon the precise matter that was the subject of litigation. They had avowed a very strong partiality for one of the litigants in the case; and while that avowal of partiality was fresh from their lips, and its publication was fresh in the knowledge of the public, they were appointed to a position which was nominally judicial. Again, we attach great importance in this country to the irremovability of Judges. We consider it to be one of the most precious guarantees for that independence and impartiality which we all recognize as the essential elements of justice. These men, or the greater number of them, in whose hands is the fortune of all the landlords of Ireland, are appointed from year to year, and they know perfectly well what it is that the Government require; they know perfectly well what the policy of the Government is; they know that the policy is so openly, so undisguisedly avowed, that the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons he could not appoint Commissioners from the ranks of his opponents, because they did not agree with him on the policy of the Land Bill. Knowing this, they know that their official existence—their very bread—depends on the will of the Government; and, with that knowledge before them, how could one expect them to administer stern and impartial justice? My Lords, if men's judgments were not obscured by the passions aroused by this Irish Question, I am sure that with regard to no other matter in the world would they permit such a mockery of judicial impartiality. There is a third note to my mind not less significant. These Judges—almost alone, if not quite alone, among all the Judges of the country—absolutely refuse to give any reasons for the decisions to which they come; they have refused so resolutely, kept their secrets so well, that—up to this time, at all events—not only have they never avowed what their reasons are, but no one has ever been able to form a guess as to the system upon which their decisions are arrived at.

  367
  Again and again have we asked witnesses what is the system on which the Chief Commissioners give, what are the grounds which actuate them in, the reduction of rents; and the witnesses have said—"It is impossible for us to give an answer; none of us have any idea." A different answer—an answer opening a new chapter in that science of coincidences which we have studied this evening—may be seen in the Evidence to which I have referred; but it is not an answer which will add to the confidence felt in the Chief or the Sub-Commissioners. These grounds of suspicion appear to me to make it very desirable that the Government should candidly answer, when they are asked upon what ground this great administrative discretion has been exercised. If it is a great administrative discretion to take away from a particular district men who are administering the Act—it may be men with one political colour—and to substitute others who regard their duty, perhaps, in a different light, without imputing improper motives either to the Judges who are removed, or the Judges who succeed them, I say it is about the gravest discretion which any administrative authority can assume—namely, to bias and to affect the course of legislation by the character of the decisions given, to shift the Judges here and there, and to manipulate the composition of the tribunals which pronounce the judgments. What is the result? You wish to promote calm in Ireland—you wish to promote confidence—but, I ask, have you promoted either in the minds of the landlords? They are thoroughly convinced that these tribunals cannot be relied on, and that it is not owing to any system of equity or justice that they have been despoiled of their property. They have been despoiled of their property in pursuance of mere political decisions, not as the result of the decisions of an arbitrator judging between man and man. But what will the tenants say? If they imagine that these reductions were the outcome of equitable decisions, founded upon some system of right, they might acquiesce in them, and say—"These judgments, having been once delivered, cannot be disturbed, and we must accept the system which they have laid down." But if you persuade them—as this manipulation is certain to persuade them—that you exercise an influence over the
  368
  judgments that are delivered, that they are really the outcome of the policy of the Government, and that, therefore, they will yield to all those influences which guide and affect the policy of the Government, they will say to themselves—"These processes of agitation which have produced this law; these processes which are in our hands, are able to affect the administration of the law; these processes which can drive Sub-Commissioners who are hostile to us from one field of action to another, if applied further and more freely, may give to us a still larger share of that property and of that land which we desire to obtain."
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the House to the question. The noble Marquess had made a bitter attack on the Sub-Commissioners wholly beside the Motion. He did not understand the noble and learned Earl opposite to make any charge against the Sub-Commissioners; but he could not help regarding this Question as a covert attack upon the Commissioners themselves. He wished to explain, however, that the Sub-Commissioners were not appointed by, nor were they removable by, the Commissioners—both the appointment and the removal must be acts of the Executive Government. The Commissioners, however, exercised a very large judicial supervision. The Sub-Commissioners, both legal and agricultural, were divided into Circuits of four each; and the Commissioners had to select the towns which they visited, the times when they visited them, and the cases that go before them. When a Circuit was over it was broken up, and new Sub-Commissioners might be appointed, or changes take place, at the discretion of the Commissioners. It would be exceedingly inconvenient and injurious to the Public Service were the grounds for the exercise of this discretion to be stated, as they would have to be in every case. He could not help interpreting the remarks of the noble and learned Earl as a charge against the Commissioners themselves. It was a charge of corruption against them. That being so, he thought the matter should not have been brought forward by way of a Question, but that the noble and learned Earl was bound to bring it forward in a distinct and pointed shape as a Vote of Censure on the Commissioners. He knew those

  369
  Commissioners very well, and he must say that they were gentlemen of the highest honour and integrity, and of the greatest ability, who would not stoop to do any act which savoured in any way of dishonourable conduct. He would advise the Commissioners not to answer any questions put to them on such a subject; they had a delicate judicial supervision to perform in the distribution of the Sub-Commissioners and the allocation of business, and ought not to be interfered with. As far as he could learn, one of the two Commissioners was changed to another district as he had no adequate knowledge of the custom of tenant right; and the other had merely been moved, on the breaking up of his Circuit, to the next county.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council had stated that the conduct of the Commissioners ought to be above suspicion. He quite agreed with that; but could it be said to be the case when they made alterations such as those referred to in the Question of the noble and learned Earl? He did not think it could be said, after the way in which the Land Act was administered, that its administrators were above suspicion. It had been stated publicly by the Sub-Commissioners that they were acting in the interest of the tenant, and, by so doing, necessarily neglecting to give fair justice to the landlord.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when the noble Marquess made such a statement as that which had just proceeded from him, they were entitled to call upon him to give them chapter and verse—the names, the dates, and the facts.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the noble and learned Earl asked him for facts. He had seen it stated in the newspapers among the reports of their judicial proceedings—and it had not been contradicted—"We will do what we can in the interest of the tenants." That statement had gone all over Ireland, and it ought to have been contradicted in the newspapers if it was not a fact.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, that after the speeches which had fallen from the previous speakers on that side of the House, he would not have ventured to address the House, but for the fact that he had some knowledge of the Northern counties of Ireland. Of the four Northern
  370
  counties three returned Liberal Members, and in the fourth there was an anticipation of the same result at the next Election. The consequence was that great pressure was put by some Northern Members on the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners; and if those decisions were not made in accordance with the exorbitant reductions expected by the tenants, public meetings were got up, and in these the Northern Liberal Members took an active part, either personally or by letter. As a result, the offending Commissioners had been removed and sent to Connaught and other places. Anyone who read the Liberal papers of the North of Ireland, and had seen the violent attacks made in them on the Sub-Commissioners, and the exultation with which they announced that those attacks had been responded to by the removal of the Commissioners complained of, could have no doubt that undue influence had been exercised. The Lord Chancellor had called upon his noble Friend to prove his assertion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had asked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) to explain a most serious charge, which should be justified if he believed it to be true.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, an illustration of the system which was adopted was to be found in the speeches made by Mr. Porter, now the highest legal exponent of the law in Ireland, during his canvass at Londonderry about 18 months ago. Mr. Porter, after referring to the advantages the Land Act had given to the tenants, mentioned cases in which 50 per cent had been taken off rents, and suggested that under Healy's Clause the tenant might hope to have one-half of his rent struck off. He went on to ask his hearers whether they would rather have a Representative who would do all he could to carry out the principles of the Land Act, or a man who would interfere with its development and would repeal it to-morrow if he could or dared? He (the Duke of Abercorn) thought this showed the partizan character which applied to this Act, and, with a knowledge of the political machinery into which the Land Act had been turned, he really could not be surprised at the removal of the Sub-Commissioners. The Lord President might shut his eyes to a disagreeable truth; but he could not controvert the fact which was patent to all—namely, that the Land Act had been

  371
  converted into a political means of bribing the tenants at the expense of the landlords in anticipation of future Elections.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is not my intention to give advice to noble Lords opposite on this question. But I cannot help thinking that it would have been much better had those noble Lords left a question of this sort in the skilful hands of the noble and learned Earl who introduced it, instead of delivering several speeches which did not support his case. I do not know whether it was judicious for the noble and learned Earl to have made the charge he did, a charge which was admirably answered by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Carlingford), and by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald). I do not know either whether it was judicious for the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to seize this opportunity, when the noble and learned Earl was complaining of an agitation calculated to influence the decision of the Land Commission and the Sub-Commissioners, for making a general attack on those two bodies. As to the statements made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) and the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn), containing the most serious charges against the administration of this law in Ireland, I must observe that they were made without the slightest support of any fact, excepting the quotation from the speech in which the Attorney General for Ireland expressed his desire to carry out the Land Act in its full meaning.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEwished to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Justice O'Hagan was said to be the person who drew up a famous address from the Roman Catholic Bishops on the Land Question, which certainly advocated views very confiscatory of the property of the landlords. If that statement were uncontradicted, Mr. Justice O'Hagan was hardly the person likely to inspire confidence in landlords as Chief Commissioner.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMPULSORY CLAUSES—ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he rose to call attention to a para-
  372
  graph in the "Times" of the 3rd instant, relative to orders, stated to have been given by Her Majesty's Government to the police not to enforce the Contagious Diseases Acts at Chatham and other places; and to inquire whether such was the case; and, if so, on what grounds Her Majesty's Government had discontinued to carry out an Act of Parliament? The paragraph to which he referred stated that the intelligence that the Acts were not to be enforced had been received with dismay at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, and other stations. It appeared, in consequence of the recent Resolution of the House of Commons, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to enforce the Acts in the same way as hitherto. The Government had also made the statement that they could not do so, because of the probability that the House of Commons, having passed a certain Resolution, would not, in all probability, agree to the Vote in Supply necessary for carrying out the Acts. For his own part, he thought it almost impossible that the other House of Parliament would not agree to grant the Supplies necessary for carrying out an Act of Parliament which was in existence. If, however, such a policy were to be adopted, what would be the result? It would, in fact, amount to this—that the House of Commons would be setting aside an Act of Parliament, and the whole Constitution of the country would come to an end. A policy of that kind would be most dangerous, and he, for one, would enter his protest against it.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the statement referred to by the noble Lord was substantially correct. As their Lordships were probably aware, the House of Commons, by a majority, had arrived at a conclusion against the compulsory examination of women under the Contagious Diseases Acts. Under these circumstances, the Government had considered which course it would be best to take. They found that the action necessary under the Acts was in the main permissive, and not obligatory. Therefore they thought that, under the circumstances, it was desirable no longer to employ the Metropolitan Police for the purpose of carrying out the compulsory clauses of the Acts, in regard to examination. Indeed, the carrying out of the Acts at all depended upon the

  373
  monies provided by Parliament. The Vote for the year had not yet been introduced; and his noble Friend must see that, as a practical question, it was impossible to expect the other House of Parliament to vote any sums for the purpose of carrying out compulsory examination, seeing that they had deliberately come to the conclusion—not by a snatch vote, as had been said, but by a majority of 72—against the operation of that portion of the Act. It had accordingly been decided to withdraw the Metropolitan Police from the duty of carrying out that portion of the Act, and at a later period of the Session to introduce a Bill modifying the Acts, retaining only those portions which referred to voluntary submission, and leaving out the compulsory examination. He believed that the action the Government had decided on taking was almost the only practicable course under the circumstances.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that the noble Earl laboured under some difficulty in answering the Question that had been put to him. He had told them that the Government intended to bring in a Bill to change the law; but, looking at the state of Public Business, it seemed improbable that any such Act of Parliament could be passed this Session. If that were so, the Government were practically surrendering the powers of the Executive into the hands of a body of gentlemen who were, no doubt, actuated by the most Christian-like feelings in wishing to alter an Act of Parliament, which, he ventured to say, was one of the most beneficial and charitable measures that ever had been passed. When these Acts were first introduced into Parliament, it was the most anxious desire of the then Executive Government that they should be passed in order to prevent the contamination of a large body of the people by men in the Naval and Military Services of the country. Those Acts had been most beneficial to the community at large, and he thought it most unwise, and, indeed, most illegal, for the Government, in obedience to a snatch vote in the other House of Parliament, to abrogate the most useful part of those Statutes. The question was one of a painful character, and one that had invariably been slurred over by Parliament when it happened to be brought under discussion. The illustrious Duke (the
  374
  Duke of Cambridge) knew perfectly well how the Act of 1866 had worked. Wherever it had been in force, the advantage had been most marked. He ought to tell the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty that he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had always thoroughly endorsed the operation of the Acts. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), when the question was brought forward by Mr. Stansfeld, had also endorsed the operation of the Acts. But what had been the course of Ministers since? Although the Prime Minister admitted that the question was one of great difficulty, and one over which Ministers themselves were divided, yet he had chosen a course of policy which, to his mind, ought to be resisted by their Lordships. He had letters in his pocket from a gentleman in the Naval Service, who was at present residing at Portsmouth. These letters had been given to him by Sir H. Drummond Wolff; and they had been slightly alluded to in the speech of that Gentleman made in the House of Commons 10 days ago. To him these letters seemed so intrinsically important that he would take the liberty of reading from them one or two extracts. The first letter—dated 5th March, said—
  "I think it is right you should know what a strong feeling exists in this place amongst men of all shades of political opinion in favour of retaining the Contagious Diseases Acts in their integrity. The abolition of compulsory examination will virtually annul the Acts, and will certainly deprive them of their efficiency. A strong remonstrance from the leading inhabitants has been prepared, and it is in course of signature."
  The writer added—
  "The moral tone of this place is immensely improved since the Acts have been in operation. I allude to the moral tone, because those philanthropic gentlemen who have addressed Parliament argue that it is against the principles of morality, and the instincts of a Christian nation, that such Acts should exist. We anticipate the most disastrous results if the Acts are abolished, or so modified as to do away with compulsory examination."
  Then the writer alluded to the number of unfortunate women who had been rescued by means of the Acts. That, he might say, represented the general feeling throughout the country—not only at Portsmouth, but at the whole of the towns brought under the operation of these Acts. He had, at the same time,

  375
  to express grave doubts whether the Government was legally justified in the course it was pursuing. Their Lordships had nothing to do with the necessary payments for carrying out the Acts. If the question had been brought up when the Estimates were brought forward it would have been properly discussed. That would have been a proper opportunity for Members to take part in the debate, and the question would not have been disposed of in the manner of which they had cognizance. In conclusion, he would express a strong hope that Her Majesty's Government would, in the discharge of a great public duty, give earnest consideration to the question whether they should not further inquire into this matter before they attempted to repeal these Acts.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I do not desire to prolong the discussion upon this painful, though most important subject. I must, however, say that these Acts have done far more good than people out-of-doors suppose, and that the physical and moral benefits which they have conferred upon the community at large, as well as upon the Navy and the Army, are enormous. It is perfectly true, as has been stated, that public opinion, in all places where these Acts have been applied, is uniformly in favour of their continuance. That being the case, it appears to me to be an extraordinary thing that it should be proposed to sweep away these Acts at once without more full discussion of the subject. I frankly admit that the question is a most difficult one; but I pray your Lordships not to allow these most beneficial measures to be swept away, simply because there has been a discussion in the other House which has led to a vote which, it now appears, will do away with the compulsory powers of the Statutes, and thereby effect a change in them which will greatly modify their useful effect. I am aware that this is a very disagreeable subject to speak upon; but I must repeat that more good has resulted from these Acts than is generally supposed, and I trust, therefore, that they will not be repealed without the fullest further consideration. I can assure your Lordships that I do not advocate the continuance of these Acts merely on the ground that they are most beneficial to the Service with which I
  376
  am connected, but because I conscientiously believe that they are of immense advantage to the community at large, and more especially to the unfortunate creatures who come under their operation, numbers of whom have been rescued from their unhappy life solely through the medium of these Statutes. I should wish it to be thoroughly understood that the moral effect of the Acts has been very great.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not rise to say one word on the question of the policy of the Acts, or of the alteration in regard to them in consequence of the vote in the House of Commons. But, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had suggested that there was illegality in the course which the Government had taken since that vote was given, he would say a word in explanation. Undoubtedly, it was not in the power of the Government, without an Act of Parliament, to suspend the operation of any Act of Parliament enforced at the time being, and the Government had not taken upon themselves to do so. The only matters of obligation cast upon the Government by the Act of Parliament was that the Admiralty or the War Office should appoint medical officers for certain purposes, to act in certain hospitals; but he could not discover in the Acts any direct obligation laid on Government, either expressly or by necessary implication, to take active steps with the view of putting in force those powers of the Acts which had reference to the compulsory examination of certain persons taking place. The power of compulsory examination depended upon an order of a Justice of the Peace, which order might be made when information on oath was laid before him by a Superintendent of Police and supported by certain proofs. The Government had not, and could not, take upon themselves to prevent any Justice of the Peace from acting in the manner authorized by the Acts upon information laid by a Superintendent of Police; and there was nothing in the Acts which imposed upon the Government the duty of using any powers which they possessed to set in motion the police authorities for that purpose. Undoubtedly, so long as there was no vote passed by the House of Commons adverse to the operation of this part of the Acts, it was perfectly right that

  377
  the Government should take measures, by the special employment of police, to see that the Acts were put in operation when they thought that public advantage would result from it; but when the House of Commons passed a vote expressing an opinion, by a large majority, that there should not be compulsory examination, the Government were, at all events, not transgressing any part of the enactments, nor were they neglecting any obligation directly laid on them by the Acts, if they abstained from taking active means contrary to the Resolution of the House of Commons.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was a little surprised at the doctrine laid down by the Lord Chancellor. It seemed to him to lead rather further than he contemplated. He understood that the action of the Government would prevent the police from laying those informations which were necessary to carry these Acts into operation. If that was the case, it was obvious that by the vote of the House of Commons it was practicable to suspend the operation of the whole Criminal Law of the land, so far as it depended upon the action of the police setting the provisions in motion. He could hardly imagine that the noble and learned Earl would lay down so large a doctrine as that, and he hoped to listen to some qualification of it from him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not lay down any such doctrine as that attributed to him. The Government had not power to prevent the police in those parts of the country from taking such measures as they might think fit to bring charges before the magistrates. What the Government had power to do, and certainly what they did, was to abstain from taking active measures on their own part to cause the police to make those charges.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he thought the noble and learned Earl did not understand what the Government had done, because the result of their action was the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police, who were the people appointed to investigate what was going on. That was the whole gist of the matter. The withdrawal of the money had nothing to do with the action of the magistrates, or with the unfortunate persons who were brought before them, but with the detective force.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE LAW ADVISER.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK (on behalf of the Earl of MILLTOWN)asked Her Majesty's Government, Why they have decided to refuse justices of the peace in Ireland the assistance of the advice of the law officers which has hitherto been always accorded them in cases of doubt or difficulty; whether they propose any substitute for the custom which has hitherto subsisted; or whether the magistrates, very few of whom have had a legal education, and none of whom have the assistance of a legal clerk, are to be left entirely to their own devices?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): The question really was whether the officer known by the name of the Law Adviser, with the special function of advising magistrates all over Ireland, should be maintained or not. That question had been decided in the negative, after it had had the most careful consideration of the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Law Officers; they came to the conclusion that the system need not longer be continued. The principle was objectionable, and it was no more desirable, if it could be avoided, that there should be a connection between the magistrates and a Legal Adviser in Dublin Castle than it was desirable in England. Among other considerations which had weighed with the Lord Lieutenant was the fact that the number of cases in which advice had been sought of late years had largely decreased; and, on the other hand, the Petty Sessions' clerks had, upon the whole, considerably improved. Though this change would put an end to the office which had existed, yet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that if any serious inconvenience should follow for a time by the change, the Government would be prepared to meet it, and to give such assistance as they might think absolutely necessary to the magistrates; and this could be done, of course, without continuing the office of Law Adviser.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he doubted the wisdom of the abolition of the office of Law Adviser. He did not think the noble Lord knew what the clerks of Petty Sessions in many cases were. The cases submitted to the magistrates were frequently very difficult to

379
decide; and the Acts of Parliament in force were so numerous that the magistrates often required the assistance of a Legal Adviser in their construction.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he hoped the result of the change would be that a higher class of men would be appointed to the office of Petty Session clerks.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that, as far as he was aware, the system which he now learned had been abolished had worked well, and he thought that this was not the time to make the changes proposed. There was no analogy between the two countries in reference to this matter, because in this country the magistrates had the advice and assistance of experienced solicitors as clerks, whereas in Ireland the clerks of Petty Sessions were not solicitors. The office of Law Adviser had originally been established by Mr. Drummond, when Under Secretary, in order to promote a uniform and homogeneous administration of the law at Petty Sessions. It was then proposed to be filled by a junior barrister at a very moderate salary. The office had grown to much larger dimensions, and he thought it ought to be brought back to its original position. It was an excrescence and an anomaly, and could not be defended as a permanent institution; but he had no doubt that, in the present period of crisis and difficulty, it was unwise to make the change. If it was a Treasury movement for economy, and if the Law Officers were to be substituted for the Advisers, he had no doubt that in place of a diminution there would be an increase of expenditure.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that the number of references to the Castle had decreased, probably owing to the increased number of Resident Magistrates. Gentlemen, however, were now being appointed as ordinary magistrates in all parts of Ireland, of a lower social status, and of less education, than that of the class to which formerly the magistracy was generally confined; and these would be, perhaps, even more in a difficulty sometimes than were the country gentleman Justices. He hoped that the magistrates in Ireland would be able to send to Dublin Castle for advice in cases in which they thought it necessary, notwithstanding the proposed changes.

CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the making or altering of Cathedral Statutes—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of CARLISLE; read 1a. (No. 58.)

NAVAL DISCIPLINE AND ENLISTMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, and the Naval Enlistment Act, 1866—Was presented by The Earl of NORTHBROOK; read 1a. (No. 61.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday the 24th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.