Sitting of 8 August 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 16 to 23
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Authorities (Expenses) * [361]; Charity Commissioners (Officers) * [362]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [363]; Public Works Loans*[364]
Second Reading—Friendly Societies Act (1875 Amendment (No. 3)* [353].
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Board of: Works (Money) [345].
Withdrawn—Limited Owners (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [341]: Agricultural Holdings * [87]: Places of Worship (Sites) * [5]; Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) * [11].

QUESTIONS.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—LOSS OF THE "CARMONA."
  MR. EDWARDS-MOSSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has read the Report of the Court which inquired into the circumstances attending the loss of the Carmona; whether he has considered that Report in connection with the evidence which was submitted to the Court, especially in regard to the stowage of the cargo; and, whether the Board of Trade propose to take any further steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Yes, Sir; I have read the Report in the case of the Carmona; but the Board of Trade have no power to review the evidence given to, or the decisions of, any Court of Inquiry. In the present ease, as the Court has finally reported that—
  "There was no evidence before the Court to enable them to form an opinion of the cause of the loss of the vessel,"
  and as no further evidence has been obtained, the Board of Trade do not propose to take any further steps in this particular case; but the question raised with regard to the shifting of iron cargoes is too important to be lost sight of.

  SOUTH AFRICA (NATAL)—THE CHIEF LANGALIBALELE.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether since the return of Langalibalele to Natal, definite arrangements have been made for that Chief's residence and support; and, whether the Governor has made any recent Report on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): As to the definite arrangements for Langalibalele's return, I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 11th of March. About two months ago a despatch was received from the Governor of Natal announcing that Langalibalele, with his family and attendants, having arrived on the 27th of

  1523
  April; and, pending the completion of; the preparations at Swart Kop, had been lodged in a block of buildings in the outskirts of Pietermaritzburg, where they were comfortable and satisfied with their accommodation and treatment.

ADMIRALTY—INSTRUCTION OF ENGINEER OFFICERS.
SIR EDWARD J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that Executive Officers of the Royal Navy, not of the Engineer Class, are employed in some eases as Instructors of Engineer Officers or students in the construction and working of the gun machinery of Her Majesty's ships; if he will state why this course is pursued; and, whether he is aware that it is a cause of dissatisfaction to engineer officers?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD)(who replied): said: The lieutenant of the senior staff of the Excellent does give instruction to those qualifying for gunnery officers and to engineer officers in relation to the practical manipulation of the hydraulic; machinery as applied to gunnery. The theoretical and purely engineering instruction in regard to hydraulics is given by engineer officers to engineers. This procedure, adopted in 1886, was arranged in consultation with the Engineering Chief of the Admiralty. It has worked well; no dissatisfaction has been expressed, as far as the Admiralty are aware, nor do they think any reasonable grounds exist for such a feeling.

BOARD OF TRADE—BUREAU OF LABOUR STATISTICS.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will communicate to the House, or lay upon the Table, the Minute establishing the Bureau of Labour Statistics and showing the duties of the Labour Correspondent?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): There is no such special Minute as that referred to by the hon. Member; but I find that on Mr. Burnett's appointment the then President of the Board of Trade decided that any inquiries that would have to be made of Trade Unions, Trade Societies, or from the labouring classes, either individually or collectively, should
1524
be conducted by the Labour Correspondent; and that, in addition, he should be consulted with regard to the Forms and Schedules which were to be sent out to the representatives of all manufactures, with a view to obtaining minute and accurate information relative to the economic condition of the working classes. As regards the arrangements made by the Board of Trade for collecting and publishing statistics relative to labour, a Memorandum was prepared and presented to the House of Commons last Session.

HER MAJESTY'S JUBILEE—THE AMNESTY.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether several men who had given incorrect answers on attestation, and who had reported themselves to obtain the benefit of the recent Royal Proclamation, have been placed under arrest; and, whether the benefit of the Proclamation includes men who in re-enlisting had concealed the fact of previous discharge?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE: The Royal Proclamation did not extend to men who had given false answers on attestation; but those who have confessed to such an offence, under the idea that they would be pardoned, have been allowed to serve without trial for the offence.

WAR OFFICE—CABUL PRIZE FUND.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in October 1879, a prize fund was formed, in consequence of captures made at Cabul by the forces then commanded by General Roberts; how much that prize fund in all amounted to; and, what disposition has been made of the moneys?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied)said: The value of the property captured at Cabul, and paid into the Treasury by the Prize Committee, was 10¼ lakhs of rupees. Most of this was given to the Ameer Abdurrahman. The troops received donation batta, amounting to about 60 lakhs, in lieu of prize.

POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—DELIVERY OF LETTERS IN FIFESHIRE—LESLIE, MARKINCH.
MR. E. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called; to the delay in the delivery of letters at Leslie, Markineh, and neighbourhood, which has resulted from the now arrangements of trains through Fife in connection with the opening of the Tay Bridge; whether he is aware that serious inconvenience is being suffered by the manufacturers and other business men in this district; and, whether he will make inquiry into this matter, and take steps to remedy the inconvenience complained of as soon as possible?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to state that I am aware of the inconvenience occasioned at Leslie, Markineh, and neighbouring places by the later time (about 20 minutes) at which letters are now delivered, consequent upon a change in the working through Fife, since the opening of the Tay Bridge, of train service over which I have no control. The change has been made by the Railway Company for their own purposes, and I have ascertained that they are unwilling to revert to the old hours. To remedy the inconvenience complained of by running a special mail train to serve the several towns affected would, I very much regret to add, involve an expenditure far greater than the circumstances of the case justify. I shall, however, not neglect to press the matter again upon the Directors.

IRELAND—EMPLOYMENT OF THE POLICE AS BAILIFFS.
MR. ELYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen the report in. the Cork papers of the seizure of cattle at Mitchelstown, County Cork, on the night of Monday the 1st instant, on which occasion the police acted as bailiffs, and searched for and seized some cows on the farms of Mrs. Finn (widow), Mr. Thomas Barrett, and others; whether, in so constituting themselves as bailiffs, they acted within their duty as constables; and, whether he will issue explicit instructions to the Con-
1526
stabulary Authorities as to the limits of their duty in such matters?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities informed him that the allegations that the police had acted as bailiffs were without foundation, A party of police accompanied some Sheriff's bailiffs on the occasion referred to, in order to afford them protection while making seizures on an estate where the Plan of Campaign was in operation; but the police took no part whatever in seizing the cattle.
MR. FLYNNasked, whether there was any Rule in the Police Regulations which required that the police should go on such duties at unreasonable hours of the night?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he should ask the hon. Member to put the Question, on the Paper.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—GENERAL GORDON'S PAPER MONEY.
MR. MUNRO-FERGUSON&c.)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether General Gordon's paper money has been honoured by the Egyptian Government; whether the advances made to General Gordon at Khartoum, by merchants and others, have been repaid to those who have proved their right to receive them; whether the widows and orphans of Egyptian officers, soldiers, and civil employés killed in the Soudan have received the pensions to which they are entitled under the Regulations in force at the time of their death; and, whether the Civil and Military employés, who succeeded in escaping from the Soudan, have been paid the back pay and pensions or gratuities to which they were entilted under the Egyptian Regulations?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I am informed that all such claim a have been paid. They require, and receive, careful investigation, as many are fraudulently made.

BOARD OF TRADE—BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT—RETIRING ALLOW ANCES.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to

1527
the fact that, since 1884, clerks, messengers, &c, ranging from the age of 39 to 67, in the Bankruptcy Department of the, Board of Trade, have been granted yearly allowances, amounting in the aggregate to £3,135 17 s. 3d., on abolition of their offices; and, whether it would be possible to relieve the Treasury of a portion of this charge by appointing some of these gentlemen to other Departments as offices fall vacant?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I believe that the hon. Member has stated with tolerable accuracy the charge for pensions granted since 1884 to officers of the Bankruptcy Department. I doubt whether it is possible with advantage to relieve the Treasury of any portion of the charge for these gentlemen; but I quite sympathize with what I take to be the hon. Member's view—namely, that before sanctioning retirement on full pension from any Department, except for ago or ill-health, careful consideration should be given to ascertain whether work could not be found in other Departments in all cases where the power of transfer exists.

CROFTERS' COMMISSION, 1883–4— CROFTER WITNESSES FROM UIST.
DR. E. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, If it is true that the Crofters' Commission is to proceed to Uist, after finishing at Tiree; if so, is he aware that the very large majority of the crofters of Uist are away at the fishing elsewhere, and cannot possibly appear to give evidence before the Commission?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Crofters' Commission has now gone to Uist. The Commissioners were instructed, before deciding on this or any other arrangement, to satisfy themselves by inquiry that those interested in the proceedings were qualified to give the necessary information, and would be able to be present at the place the Commissioners went to. Presumably this direction has been attended to.

CROFTERS' COMMISSION, 1883–4—THE GAELIC LANGUAGE—APPOINTMENT OF SHERIFF SUBSTITUTE IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
DR. K. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whe-
1528
ther, in conformity with the advice of the Crofters' Commission, 1883–4, that Crown officials in the Highlands should be conversant with the language of the people there, it is his intention to appoint a gentleman with a knowledge of Graelic to the office of Sheriff Substitute in the Island of Lewis?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I certainly intend to keep in view the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission in considering what gentlemen shall be nominated to the Secretary of State for Her Majesty's approval; but it would be obviously improper that I should say any more than this at present.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
DR. R. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the salmon fishings on the sea coast of the Atlantic around the Island of Lewis now belong in property to the Crown or to the proprietrix of the Island, Lady Matheson; and, if to the latter, the date of their sale by the Crown and their purchase price; whether, assuming that Lady Matheson has a legal right to the said salmon fishings, she is entitled, through her servants acting under her instructions, to seize the trawl and saith nets of fishermen fishing in the Atlantic for other than salmon; and, whether, in the case of said salmon fishing not being-the legal property of Lady Matheson, the Crown would now dispose of them to the Lewis fishermen on equitable conditions, and under proper and necessary restrictions as to close time, &c.?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Salmon fishings in Scotland belong prima facie to the Crown; but may be acquired by a subject either by a direct grant or by means of a title which, coupled with possession and enjoyment, has been held to establish a right by prescription. The Island of Lewis is held under a title which convoys fishings in fresh water and salt water; and the proprietrix claims the salmon fishings as having been possessed and enjoyed by her and her predecessors for much longer than the prescriptive period. The Commissioner of Woods has to exercise his discretion as to proceeding in such cases; and on the infor-

1529
mation before him he has not deemed it expedient to attempt to recover possession of the salmon fishings around the Island of Lewis, being satisfied that Lady Matheson could establish her light to them. If by the Atlantic is meant the waters beyond the three mile limit from the shore, Lady Matheson could have no right to interfere with anyone fishing in these waters. As regards the waters within the three mile limit, Lady Matheson can have no right to interfere with persons fishing for white fish, and not for fish of the salmon kind.

THE RIOTS AT BOLTON—RETENTION OF THE MILITARY FORCE.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now state the decision of the Government as to the continued retention of the special military force in Bolton?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he had that afternoon, received a telegram from the Mayor of Bolton stating there had been a special meeting of the justices; and it was resolved that, having regard to the greater tranquillity of the town in the last few days, the presence of the military might be dispensed with.

WAR OFFICE—INSANITARY CONDITION OF THE BARRACK AT NEWTOWNARDS.
MR. M'CARTANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the barrack of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifle Brigade at Newtownards has been condemned by medical gentlemen and by officers as unhealthy, and totally unsuited to the requirements of the men; and, whether, having regard to the health, comfort, and convenience of the men, he will take steps to have the necessary alterations made or a suitable house built?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: the barracks at Newtownards have not been condemned as unhealthy, though they have been complained of as inconvenient for officers in the matter of accommodation. The permanent staff do not live in the barracks. If any questions of large structural alterations or new buildings are
1530
raised by the Local Authorities they will be considered when next year's Estimates are framed.

INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—ALLOCATION OF THE GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION OF £.50,000—THE RIVER BANN.
COLONEL SATTNDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the River Bann at Portadown Bridge has been allowed to fill up to such an extent that there is now only one arch of the bridge available for either drainage or navigation, and that, in consequence, the land on the south side of the bridge suffers from flooding in wet seasons; and, if so, what steps the Government will take to have this evil remedied; whether part of the £50,000 set apart for the drainage of the River Bann should be expended on the Upper Bann, in the neighbourhood of Portadown; and, whether, should the water in the Lower Bann, as is proposed, be lowered five or six feet, the Government will cause the bed of the Upper Bann to be lowered a corresponding depth, so that the water traffic may not be interfered with?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Neither the Government nor the Royal Commission have any special information as to the state of the bridge at Portadown; but I understand that if it has been allowed to fill up as stated, any sufferer from floods due to this cause should complain to the Local Drainage Board, the matter not being one for which a grant of public money would be justifiable, nor one over which the Government have any control. The proposals for dealing with the Lower Bann will not injure the water traffic at Portadown, as it is not proposed to reduce the summer level of Lough Neagh; but they will, by preventing the lake from rising in time of flood, as it now does, relieve the low-lying lands in the neighbourhood of that town.

CEYLON—SIR ARTHUR GORDON.
MR. COBBasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, as the appeal in the ease of "Bryce v. Rusden" has been disposed of, and the cause which last year prevented any action being taken

1531
with respect to the conduct of Sir Arthur Gordon has now been removed, he will now state what representations on the subject have been made to Sir Arthur Gordon, and what is the effect of any reply which has been received from him; and, whether any complaints have readied him that the unexplained conduct of Sir Arthur Gordon has seriously affected his authority as Governor of Ceylon?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have nothing to add to the answer given by my Predecessor in August of last year; and I concur in the opinion that the matter, which has no connection with Sir Arthur Gordon's present employment, should not be re-opened. I have heard nothing which would lead me to suppose that the people of Ceylon have taken any interest in this personal question; or that the authority of Sir Arthur Gordon in Ceylon has been affected by the transaction, which, related to affairs in another Colony.
MR. COBB: Seeing that it has been distinctly proved in a Court of Law that Sir Arthur Gordon has been guilty of illegal and even dishonourable conduct, and that this is well known to every Member of the late and the present Government, I wish to ask whether any steps will be taken to remove Sir Arthur Gordon from his present position?
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: My answer to that is that I am not aware that it has been so decided by a Court of Law.

THE CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND (IRELAND).
MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, from what sources the Constabulary Force Fund has been maintained since its creation in 1836; whether members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who have joined since 1866, contribute in any way to this Fund; and, if so, how; whether they or their relatives participate in its benefits: and, whether there are any published accounts showing the amount of money paid into it annually; the amount paid away annually; the names of those to whom the payments have been, or are being, made, and for what services; and, if not, whether the Government has any objection to cause such accounts to be published annually?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The sources of income of the Constabulary Force Fund are as follows:—(1) Deductions from pay of the effective force; (2) deductions from the pensions of pensioners voluntarily subscribing; (3) fines on members of the Force; (1) portions of fines awarded by magistrates, or payable to the Fund under Act of Parliament; (5) interest on the accumulated fund which is invested in Government Stock. Prior to 1866 the rate of contribution to the Fund was ½ per cent on pay. Up to that date the benefits of the Fund to widows and children were restricted to the families of those who died while serving. There was accordingly no deduction from pension. The Act of 1866 fixed the deduction from nay at 1½ per cent, and from pension, in the case of subscribers, at 1 per cent. Members who joined the Force since 1866, but prior to the 18th of June, 1883, contribute by deductions at the latter rates. Their widows and children are, on fulfilling the conditions regulating the Fund, entitled to gratuities, based upon the rates of pay drawn by the contributors while serving. Those who joined after the 18th of June, 1883, are exempted from deduction by Section 11 of the Act 46 & 47 Vict. c. 14, which section excludes them or their families from benefit. This Act, it may be mentioned, provides pensions or gratuities for widows of men who die while serving, and an allowance for each of their children under 15 years of ago. All proposed payments from this Fund are submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, whose sanction is necessary before they can be made; and each item of receipt and expenditure comes before the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose duty it would be to disallow any payment made for a purpose not authorized by the Act of Parliament, and the Regulations made thereunder. There are at present no published accounts. An account has been prepared for actuarial purposes for the seven years ended March 31, 1887, showing in globo the total receipts and expenditure under the several heads during each of those years; and and if hon. Members so desire this can be laid on the Table. It would not be practicable to give a detailed Return of each

1533
payment, as the vouchers have been sent from time to time to the Audit Department. As regards giving a detailed account in future years I understand the sole objection is the question of expense, which will presumably fall upon the Fund. I shall, however, confer; with the Inspector General on the subject.
MR. SEXTONasked, whether the officers of the Constabulary Force received payments out of this Fund, although they never had contributed towards it; whether an officers' fund had not been wound up at the request of the officers; and, whether the Government would now act upon the opinion and desire of the constables and pensioners and wind up the present Fund?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought the hon. Member was wrong in supposing that the officers did not contribute. They contributed and received gratuities in proportion to their pay and subscription. He believed there had been an officers' fund for sick pay.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the accounts which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to lay before the House would show the amount given to officers separate from that given to the men?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he could not say whether the Return would give the items separately. He could not say how far the vouchers were available.
MR. SEXTONasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would undertake to have the accounts produced before the Estimates were discussed?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am afraid not; but I will do my best.
MR. SEXTONsaid, in that case he must refer to the subject on the Estimates.

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT— RETURNS.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, If he will supply the omission in the Estimates and Monthly Returns of the Army of the numbers and ranks of the medical officers serving in India, but belonging to the British Establishment; and, with a view of providing for comparison of
1534
numbers, if Returns of all medical officers in India, as well as in Colonies and at Home, can be laid before Parliament for each year of the period since medical officers ceased to be borne on the strength of regiments; and, the cost of all these medical officers, including those in India, to be shown, assuming for officers in India the rates of English pay?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY (Mr. BRODRICK): If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the Estimates for the present year, he will see that the numbers and ranks of the medical officers on the Indian Establishment who belong to the British Medical Staff are shown. A Return can be given, if moved for, of the number of medical officers serving in India, in the Colonies, and at Home for any particular year. The Army Estimates do not purport to show the effective charge for any person serving in India; and it would be contrary to the whole principle on which the Estimates are prepared to include a charge for the medical officers in India.

SUGAR BOUNTIES—AN INTER NATIONAL CONFERENCE.
MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any further answers from Foreign Powers on the subject of a Conference on the Sugar Bounties; and whether he has hope of being able to arrange for the meeting of such Conference during the ensuing Autumn?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No further replies to the invitation of Her Majesty's Government have been received than those which I specified in my reply to the Question of the hon. Member on the 2nd instant. It depends upon the dates at which the replies of the Governments concerned are received when the meeting of the Conference can be proposed.
MR. KIMBER: Has any communication been received from France, as stated in The Daily Telegraph?
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I think I may say no communication has been received from France; but I think one may be expected shortly.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— UNSAFE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY-LE-STRAND.
MR. KIMBERasked, the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have declared the Parish Church of St. Mary-le-Strand to be a dangerous structure, a portion of its cornice having fallen into the street; whether other portions of the; church were reported by the architect, Mr. Vicars, to be unsafe, and a source of danger to the public; whether the public had been warned by the police not to go near the church; whether the attention of the Board had been directed to the enormously increased vehicular traffic in the Strand, which suddenly narrows at that point; and, whether the Board have it in contemplation to widen the Strand by the removal of the south side of Holywell Street, or to adopt the suggestion, which appears to have been made in the Vestry, respecting the removal of the church?
MR. TATTON EGERTON, in reply, said, that a portion of the cornice on the north side of the; church having fallen, the Metropolitan, Board of Works, following the usual course adopted in such cases, declared the church to be a dangerous structure. Previous to the hoarding being erected, persons were warned by the police not to go near the church. The repair of the damaged portion of the structure was being proceeded with. The Board could only deal with such portion of the structure as was certified by its own surveyor to be unsafe; and it had no knowledge of any report said to have been submitted by the architect of the parish. The attention of the Board had been directed to the large amount of traffic in the Strand; and there was now before it a suggestion that the Strand should be widened, cither by the removal of the south side of Holywell Street, or the removal of the church. The Board, however, was not in a position at the present time to act on either of those suggestions.

WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION—THE RIOTS AT LLANGWM.
MR. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
1536
ment, Whether it is decided yet where the 31 persons concerned in the tithe riots at Llangwm, against whom a true bill was found at the last Ruth in Assizes, are to be tried; and, whether, should they be brought to London, or some other distant town, their and their witnesses expenses will be paid by the Treasury?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The place of trial of the persons concerned in the tithe riots has not yet been decided upon; the trial will take place at Ruthin, unless the Court shall otherwise order. There is no intention whatever of moving the trial to London, or any other distant town. The question of the particular individuals to be put upon their trial requires careful consideration, and the examination of the statements of numerous witnesses.

EGYPT—THE RED SEA PORTS—TRADE WITH THE SOUDAN.
MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has readied Her Majesty's Government, from trustworthy sources, tending to show that the opening of one or more ports on the Red Sea north and south of Suakin would tend to the development of trade with the interior, and promote the pacification of the Soudan tribes; and, whether the Government will take the matter into consideration, with a view to the attainment of the above objects?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The coast to the north of Suakin has been open to trade for several months. The question of opening to trade the coast to the south is under consideration, with the view indicated by my hon. Friend; but it is attended with some difficulty.
In reply to a further Question by Mr. BRYCE,
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that Sir Evelyn Baring, as soon as he returned to Egypt, would pay particular I attention to this matter. He did not think he should be able, at any very early period, to make any further statement.

CIVIL SERVICE—LOWER DIVISION CLERKSHIPS—PROMOTION OF WRITERS.
MR. PICKBRSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will now fulfil his promise to state to the House the decision of the Treasury with regard to the promotion of meritorious Writers to Lower Division Clerkships, in accordance with the Minute of December last?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I shall fulfil my promise as soon as I am in possession of the information to enable me to do so. At present the examination is not quite complete.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE MILITARY WITNESSES AT ATHLONE.
MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that five soldiers were convicted at the Roscommon Summer Assizes for complicity in the recent military riots in Athlone; whether these riots were of a very serious character, the Government having found it necessary to give considerable sums as compensation for the damage done during their continuance; whether two police constables swore positively to the identity of the prisoners; whether the only defence made was an attempt to prove an alili; whether the jury disbelieved the alibi, and convicted the prisoners; whether the prisoners were then sentenced to six months' imprisonment; whether they were discharged after having put up only a few weeks of their sentence; and, whether any further evidence has been laid before the authorities, to make them disbelieve the evidence of the police, disagree with the verdict of the jury, and order the discharge of the prisoners?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Five soldiers were convicted at the last Roscommon Assizes for a grievous assault upon one John Coffey. As regards the evidence, one constable gave evidence against each of three of the prisoners, and two constables against the other two prisoners. The Chief Baron, who tried the case, considered that this evidence, although perfectly honest, was weak. Twenty-live military
1538
witnesses, including an officer of the regiment to which the prisoners belonged, were examined for the defence. The jury convicted the prisoners. The Chief Baron was dissatisfied with this verdict, and so expressed himself in passing sentence. He sentenced the prisoners to six months imprisonment with hard labour, being the sentence he would have passed had he approved the verdict of the jury. He, however, directed the prisoners to be treated as untried prisoners for 14 days, pending the result of their Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant. A Memorial was duly submitted to His Excellency, who, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case elicited at the trial, and the Judge's dissent from the verdict, ordered the immediate discharge of the prisoners. The jury appear to have found the prisoners guilty because they were soldiers. In a cross case tried the next day against a civilian for inflicting a dangerous wound upon a soldier, although the evidence of identification was very strong, the jury acquitted the prisoner.
MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman toll us how the Irish Government ascertained that six months would have been the punishment inflicted by the Chief Baron had he been satisfied with the verdict?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I saw it in the Memorial signed by the Chief Baron.

VACCINATION ACTS—MR. A. MAIN— ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTIES.
MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the following case:—Mr. A. Main, of 345, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green, was prosecuted in August last, by Mr. Ward, a vaccinating officer, for non-compliance with the Vaccination Acts, and a penalty was imposed; and in July, 1887, application was made for a distress warrant in respect of the said penalty by Inspector Ford, of the Division of Metropolitan Police, to whom a warrant was issued; whether an application for a distress warrant is pan of the "proceedings" within the meaning of the Vaccination Regulations Order of 31st October, 1874; whether such application is re-

1539
quired to be made by the vaccination officer; and, if so, whether the action of Inspector Ford was legal; and to whom penalties imposed in London under the Vaccination Acts are pavable?
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention had not been called to the, case referred to prior to the Notice of this Question having been given. The application for a distress warrant is considered by the Board to be part of the proceedings within the meaning of the Vaccination Regulation Order of October 31, 1874. That Order contemplates that the application for a distress warrant shall be made by the vaccination officer. The action of Inspector Ford was not, however, illegal. The penalties under the Vaccination Acts imposed in a Metropolitan Police Court are payable to the Receiver of Police under sec. 47 of the Act 2 & 3 Vict., c. 71, the Statute under which the Metropolitan Police Courts were established. The sums so received by the Receiver are paid by him into the Exchequer. The Law Officers three or four years ago, when consulted on the subject, advised that whereas in these cases the penalties imposed were to go to the Crown, or to such an officer as the Receiver of Police, the Crown was entitled, in the public interest, to apply for the enforcement of the penalty.

CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)— WILLIAM FAHEY.
MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) (for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If William Fahey, who pleaded guilty to a burglary committed in Rathmines on the 7th of June last, was allowed out upon his own bail by the Recorder of Dublin, on his promising to go to Australia; and. if so, whether he has kept his promise; and, whether he is the same William Fahey who was arrested in the Conservative Working Men's Club, York Street, Dublin, on the occasion of the firing last year upon the people outside, by armed Orangemen inside the building?
MR. JOHNSTONasked, whether, on the occasion referred to, there was not a dastardly attack by a Home Rule mob on the Working Men's Conservative Association; and, whether there was any evidence to prove that
1540
any of the parties inside the house were Orangemen?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he understood there was an attack on this particular Club. Fahey appeared to have pleaded guilty to burglary; and it was arranged, with the approval of the Recorder of Dublin, that he should be emigrated. He sailed for America, the Recorder having taken a merciful view of his case in consideration of the fact that there was no previous conviction. Fahey was the same person who was in the house in York Street, and he was conveyed with others to the police station, but no charge was preferred against him.
MR. DILLONasked, whether the man was released because he was an Orangeman; and, whether the same indulgence would be shown towards Nationalists coming from America?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that the only reason why Fahey was dealt with so leniently was on account of his youth. He was under 18 years of age.
MR. DILLON: There are a great many Nationalists under the age of 18.
MR. SEXTON: What happened with the money?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid the question had better be put upon the Paper.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that no person can be initiated into an Orange Society under the age of 18?
[No reply.]

WOODS AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT— PENSIONS.
MR. CLANCY(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE (Dublin Co., S.)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Government have a Bill in print dealing with the pensions of old employés of the Woods and Forests Department; and, if so, whether there is any intention of proceeding with it this Session?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): There is no such Bill as that referred to by the hon. Member in print or in preparation.

IRELAND—THE NATIONAL REGISTRATION ASSOCIATION, BLACKROCK, CO. DUBLIN.
Mr. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) (for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE) (Dublin Co., S.)
1541
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the meetings of the National Registration. Association, at Blackrock, County Dublin, are watched by the police by order of the Local Authorities or of Dublin Castle?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Commissioner of Police states that the police have never received any orders with regard to these meetings.

WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION— SALES AT MOYLGROVE.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give the House any information with regard to the renewal of rioting in Wales in connection with the levying of distraints for Tithe Rent-Charge, and especially as to the numbers of the police force who accompanied the auctioneer at the sales at Moylgrove, in Cardiganshire, and the numbers and attitude of the crowd, and the ill-treatment of the bailiffs?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the Chief Constable of Pembrokeshire, in which County Moylgrove is situated. The number of police on duty at this place was 20. The crowd, which numbered about 500, was boisterous and noisy. Excitement ran high, the auctioneer and bailiff were hustled and pelted with eggs, but no other violence was resorted to. I have no further information to communicate to the House with respect; to any renewal of rioting.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS— TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
MR. MOWBRAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, if the Government persevere in raising the limit of deposits in Post Office Savings Banks from £30 to £50 in one year, they will be prepared to extend the same privileges to Trustee Savings Banks?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The First Lord of the Treasury, the Postmaster General, and myself are going to receive a deputation to-morrow of representatives of
1542
Trustee Savings Banks, when various points will be laid before us and considered.
MR. MUNDELLA: When will the Bill be taken?
MR. GOSCHEN: On Friday.

SCOTLAND—SASISES OFFICE, EDINBURGH—THE CLERKS.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that eight clerks of the first class in the Sasines Office, referred to on page 4 of the Treasury Minute of 27th March, 1881, perform the duties assigned to them by said Minute; and, whether six such clerks act as second in command to the assistant keepers of each of the districts of said Register, as required of them in said Minute; and, if not, why the terms of said Minute have not been complied with in this respect?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Secretary to the Treasury gave to a somewhat similar question on the 28th of last month—namely, that it is within the province of the Head of the Department of the Sasines Office to distribute the work of the Office among his staff as he may think best in the public interest.

POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—THE NORTHERN MAIL SERVICE.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The John O' Groat Journal, of the 3rd instant, drawing attention to the seriously defective nature of the Northern Mail service between Inverness and Wick, and that on the 27th ultimo the mail train was; 35 minutes late, on the 28th ultimo 15 minutes late, on the 29th ultimo eight hours late, on the 30th ultimo 10 minutes late, on the 1st instant 20 minutes late, and on the 2nd instant upwards of an hour late, and that on the 29th ultimo, although the connection was made by special train, yet the usual evening delivery of letters did not take place till the next morning; and, whether he will arrange for the more regular and rapid despatch of mails from Inverness to, Wick?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that my attention has not been called to the paragraph referred to; but the facts are simply as follow:—The mails to Wick are conveyed over a single line 305 miles long; and I am unable to admit that delays of a few minutes, such as occurred on the 27th, 28th, and 30th ultimo, and 1st instant, amount to a seriously defective service. Moreover, apart from the difficulties of maintaining exact punctuality on a single line of this great length, the service of trains from Perth to Inverness and Wick is dependent on the punctual arrival at Perth, during the busiest season of the year, of the mail train from Euston Square, running at high speed throughout the night, over a journey of 450 miles. In the delivery of mails at a point 757 miles from London, within a few minutes of the appointed time, there is—I think the House will agree with me in the opinion—very little to complain of the delay which occurred on the 29th ultimo was due to an accident on the Caledonian Railway, which blocked the main line for a considerable period. Such letters as could be sent forward from Perth, in advance of the delayed train, were duly delivered at Wick the same evening, while the letters which were not delivered until the next morning only reached Wick at 2 a.m. The delay of an hour on the 2nd instant appears to have been occasioned by the increase of traffic due to Bank Holiday movements, and a part only of the delay occurred on the Highland line.

SCOTLAND—COLLECTIONS FOR THE CROWN IN ORKNEY.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, What amount of money per annum is collected by Mr. Barnett, in the County of Orkney, on behalf of the Crown?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Mr. Barnett collected in the financial year 1885, £775 6s. 5d.; 1886, £687 10 s. 11 d.; 1887, £640 0s. 7d. In addition, he received into store victual duties paid in kind, which he realised in money as follows:—1885, £9 12 s.; 1887, £9 2s. 3d.; 1887, £9 17 s. 4d.

RAILWAYS (CEYLON).
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the extension of railway from Naumoya to Haputale, Whether, in the event of private individuals undertaking to complete the 25 miles of railroad from Naumoya across the hill range to tap the Uva traffic at Haputale, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to carry the traffic caught by the new line, at cost price, over the existing line to Colombo?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The question of rates over the Government line would have to be carefully considered; and, while I am unable at present to give any pledge as to the basis on which they would be calculated, I may say that the Government would, in the event of steps being taken to form a Company, be ready to make such liberal arrangements as are possible, consistently with the condition laid down by my Predecessor, that adequate precautions should be taken, for protecting the Government railway system.

INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT— CENSURE OF MR. HERBERT BURROWS.
MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Mr. Herbert Burrows, of the Inland Revenue Department, has been officially punished by the Board of Inland Revenue for taking part against the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, in a demonstration in Victoria Park, in May last; and, whether he will state what Regulation, if any, Mr. Burrows infringed by taking part in such meeting?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, that Mr. Burrows had not been punished, but cautioned. That was done, not by the Political Heads of the Department, but by the Inland Revenue Board as a matter of internal discipline.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that he would call attention to the case when the Inland Revenue Estimates were brought on.

CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW—THE INDIAN PRINCES.
MR. CLANCY(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is a fact, that on the occasion of the Jubilee Volunteer Review the Indian Princes were compelled to leave their carriages outside the precincts of Buckingham Palace and to walk across the courtyard, while others were allowed to drive up to the Pavilion; if it is a fact, that those of the Indian Princes who attended the laying of the foundation stone of the Imperial Institute were not provided with seats on the daïs reserved for Royalties and their attendants, but had to sit in the arena; that they were not even given front seats; and that after the ceremony they had to struggle through the crowd like ordinary visitors; if it is a fact that the Princes were required to pay their railway fare to Portsmouth and back on the occasion of the Naval Review; that they were not accommodated with places on board of one of the Royal yachts; and that the Maharajah of Kuch Behar had to travel in the same railway compartment as his servants, as a seat in a first class carriage was not reserved for him; if it is a fact that this lack of attention towards these notabilities has aroused considerable ill-feeling in India; and, who is responsible therefor?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I have made the best inquiry I could into the events of the State ceremonial to which the Question directs my attention, and this is what I am informed. I am told that at the Volunteer Review arrangements were made for the carriages of Indian Chiefs to set down at the entrée door of Buckingham Palace, where the Chiefs were met by officers and conducted to their seats. This arrangement was made by the India Office, in consultation with the Lord Steward. The arrangements at the Imperial Institute were entirely in the hands of the committee, to whom the hon. Gentleman must address his Question on the subject. At the Naval Review everyone who was the guest of the Admiralty on the occasion paid his fare to Portsmouth and back. The Indian Chiefs had places
1546
on Her Majesty's ship Malabar, and were entertained on board by the Government. I am told that the Maharajah of Kuch Behar had a first class reserved saloon, in which ha travelled with his suite. For this arrangement the India Office is responsible. The Secretary of State has heard nothing of ill-feeling in India on the subject.
THE CLARKasked the hon. Gentleman, whether he considered Indian Chiefs the proper title to apply to Rajahs and Mahnrajahs—to His Royal Highness the Maharajah of Holkar, for instance, and others?
SIR JOHN GORST: Will the hon. Member give Notice of the Question?

CHINA—HONG KONG—SHIPMENT OF CHINESE LABOURERS.
MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has any reason to believe that Hong Kong is being used for the despatch of Chinese labourers to America, or other parts, with a view to their ultimate re-shipment to Panama; and, if he has no information on the subject, will he make inquiries, in order to ascertain whether the Chinese coolie trade has been revived in this or any other form?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Chinese labourers emigrate from Hong Kong to America and British Columbia; but I do not know whether they ultimately find their way to Panama, Her Majesty's Government have consented to permit the free emigration of Chinese labourers from Hong Kong to Panama, not under contract, if the Chinese Government, to whom the application will have to be made, approve the emigration and the conditions proposed by the Panama Canal Company for the protection of the emigrants. The shipment would take place in British ships; and the requirements of the law relating to such emigration will have to be duly complied with. The approval of the Chinese Government has not as yet been I given.

RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— STRIKE OF ENGINE DERIVERS, &c. ON THE MIDLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What answer he has received

1547
from the Midland Railway Company to his inquiries with respect to the strike of engine drivers and firemen; and, whether, in view of the great public inconvenience and danger attending it, he can do anything to promote a settlement of the dispute by arbitration?
MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the hon. Gentleman had been informed that, in consequence of the employment of incompetent engine drivers and firemen, five engines had been already burned—that was, the fireboxes and tubes had been ruined by the incompetency of the men.
MR. WEBSTER: I should like to ask, whether the hon. Member is not aware that all our firemen are sailors of 30 years of ago, and are men thoroughly competent to do their work?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WEMYSS): The Question of the hon. Member for Northampton does not refer to the fireman employed in extinguishing fires. I have not received the information alluded to by the hon. Member for Northampton; but I will make inquiry. With reference to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson), I think it is covered by the answer which I gave on Saturday to the hon. Member for the Hallamshire Division of Yorkshire (Sir Frederick Mappin). With reference to the concluding portion of the Question as to arbitration, although the Board of Trade would be glad if their good offices could in any way tend to an amicable and equitable solution of the difficulties which have arisen, they have no power to initiate any action or offer any advice in the matter.
SIR FREDERICK MAPPINasked, if the hon. Member would inquire how many fireboxes and tubes had been burnt on the Midland Railway in comparison with other railways throughout the country?
BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, if any information was sent to him he should give it.
SIR FREDERICK MAPPINsaid, he understood the hon. Member to say he should make inquiries.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, if he received any information he would see what he could do.
MR. CHANNINGasked whether the attention of the hon. Gentleman had been called to a specific statement made in The Standard of that morning that—
"Of the men taking the place of the strikers some were cripples, some had lost their sight qualification years ago, one man had been allowed to go on duty whilst drunk, and another, who cost the Company £16,000 some years ago by a collision, had been reinstated."
Could the hon. Gentleman give any information as to the truth of this statement, or would he make inquiries?
BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he could give no information, nor could he promise to make any inquiry. This was a dispute between the Midland Railway Company and their own employés.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the hon. Member realized the dangers of the situation—that the lives of thousands of the public were involved.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must point out to the hon. Member that in this matter the Government have no power. It would be going quite beyond our powers to interfere with the Railway Company, and we must leave the responsibility where it properly belongs.

POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —CONTRACTS FOR CONVEYANCE OF MAILS—THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Government have any contracts with, the Midland Railway Company (England) for the carriage of mails; and what is the amount of such contracts; and, whether the Government have any powers under these contracts to inquire, with a view to the safety and despatch of the mails, into the efficiency of the trains by which these mails are conveyed, and the competency of the men by whom they are conducted; and, if so, whether he will take steps to satisfy himself that the Midland mail trains are not placed in charge of engine drivers unacquainted with the Midland line?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that the Midland

1549
Railway Company does contract with the Post Office for the conveyance of mails, and the annual payments made under the contracts with that Company amount to £54,075. Up to the present moment I have seen no sufficient cause to complain of irregularity in the moil train service. Moreover, having regard to the great length of time during which the Midland Railway Company have performed, to the entire satisfaction of the Department, the mail services contracted for, the magnitude of the Company, and the excellence of its management, it will be obvious to the House that any interference in the direction pointed to in the question of the hon. Member would be quite uncalled for, and, especially in the difficult circumstances in which the Company have recently been placed, inconsiderate and ungenerous.
MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what power he possesses by law?
MR. RAIKES: There is no power on the part of any Department of the Government to interfere with the internal management of any Railway Company. The Postmaster General has the right to complain if the mail service is inefficient or irregular.

POST OFFICE—THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
MR. LAWSONasked the Postmaster General, If he has received a Petition from the male staff (established) of the Central Telegraph Office, drawing his attention to the grave disadvantages under which they labour as compared with clerks in other brandies of the Post Office, and to the increasingly harassing nature of their duties; and, whether he has considered the scheme of reform proposed by them for the removal of their grievances; and, if so, what answer he is prepared to give?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have received several Petitions from various classes of the staff of the Central Telegraph Office praying for alterations in the scales of pay, hours of duty, &c, and having given to them full consideration, I have found myself unable to grant the requests. I understand that a further Petition will be placed before me in the course of a few days, and I
1550
shall, of course, take the requests fully into consideration.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE PAPERS.
MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Government will lay upon the Table further Papers on the Finances of Egypt, in continuation of Egypt, No. 3 (1887); and, whether the Government will undertake, be long as Egyptian finance is administered under English control, to publish an annual Statement on Egyptian finance of the same character as the Indian Budget?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A further collection of Papers of the finances of Egypt is in course of preparation, and will shortly be presented. Her Majesty's Government will, from time to time, inform. Parliament of the condition of the Egyptian finances as known to thorn; but they cannot undertake to publish an annual forecast.
MR. DILLONasked, whether the Government would undertake for the future to afford the House every year an opportunity of discussing the administration of the nuances in Egypt, no such opportunity having been afforded to the House for the last two or three years?
THE FIRST LORD OF THIS TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give Notice of that Question.

WAR OFFICE—QUARTERMASTERS AND RIDING MASTERS.
SIR. SAMUEL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can hold out hope of any further promotion for those Quartermasters and Riding Masters now holding the rank of Captain, who have served for many years as commissioned officers, in addition to long previous service in the ranks, and many of whom have a number of years yet to serve?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): A certain number of appointments carry the rank of Major; and if any of the Quartermasters and Ridingmasters referred to should be selected for those appointments they would have that rank. But, otherwise, Quartermasters

1551
and Riding Masters, with the rank of Captains, have, under present Regulations, no further promotion to look forward to.

ADMIRALTY—THE NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT.
CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the business of the Naval Intelligence Department includes the collection and tabulation of information for the use of the Admiralty, respecting the distribution of British Commerce in British Waters at Home and Abroad, and also on the various oceans and seas of the world; whether, by the aid of this Department, or by any other means, the Board of Admiralty receives and records the most recent information available respecting the approximate total average value of British commerce passing, during the different periods of the year, over the sea routes I of the world, and over areas of its greatest accumulation in British waters and on the high seas; and, whether such information is furnished by the Admiralty periodically to the officers of the Royal Navy serving in the Fleet; and. if so, how often, and about what dates?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD)(who replied) said: It is an important part of the functions of the Naval Intelligence Department to obtain, and to note in a convenient form, all information as to the distribution of British commerce over the principal trade routes. This information, when collected and collated, will be communicated to the officers of the Fleet at such times, and in such a form, as may, in the opinion of the Admiralty, seem most desirable to meet the requirements of the moment.
CAPTAIN COLOMBasked, whether the hon. Gentleman could give any information as to the value of British commerce passing through the Suez Canal; and, whether he was aware that the figures laid before the Colonial Conference were nine years old?
MR. FORWOODsaid, he had no information as to what took place before the Colonial Conference.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, the figures referred to were prepared by the Royal Com-
1552
mission on Colonial Defence; but it was thought well to keep back certain figures.
CAPTAIN COLOMBasked, whether all the figures would be supplied to Parliament?
[No reply.]

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—COUNTIES PROCLAIMED IN IRELAND.
MR. MAHONYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the large areas proclaimed under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in the Counties Louth and Meath; it so, whether he will state why the parishes of Tullyallen, Philinstown, and Ballymakenny, in the County Louth, and the parishes of Dowth and Donore, in County Meath, which, are several miles from the infected farms, have been proclaimed, and other parishes, which are much nearer to the infected farms, have not been proclaimed; whether it is usual in England to proclaim areas so far removed from the infected farms; whether the cases of pleuro-pneumonia in Louth and Meath have been directly traceable to animals brought from Dublin; and, whether the Government intend to take any decided steps to deal with the disease in the Dublin dairies?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied) said: the following telegram appears to afford a full reply to the hon. Member's Question:—
" The areas referred to were necessarily large in order to make certain that, all cattle intended for shipment at the Port of Drogheda should be accompanied by a certificate of health from the place from which they were moved, in addition to examination by the Government Veterinary Inspector at Drogheda. I am not aware of the practice in England in declaring areas; but much larger areas have been declared by the English Privy Council. In some instances whole counties have been declared. There is a strong presumption that the outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in Louth and Meath are traceable to animals brought from Dublin, and the Drogheda Local Authority have made Regulations prohibiting the entry of cattle from the Dublin district into their union. As regards the Dublin dairies, there is in operation in the Dublin district a stringent order prohibiting the exportation of any Dublin dairy cattle, and restricting their sale in the Dublin Cattle Market except for slaughter. The closest observation is being paid to the whole district."
MR. COXasked, why it was inland districts were proclaimed, while places near the port of debarkation were not proclaimed?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the reason so large an area was declared infected westward was because in two cases cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, which had been slaughtered in England, had come from the Port of Drogheda, and one especially was traced to the house of a farmer in the western district of Drogheda, who had several farms in different parts of the county, and it was necessary to proclaim all the districts surrounding each one of these farms. As to the reason why some parishes were not proclaimed which were nearer, the answer was that the Port of Drogheda was situated in one of those parishes, and it would cause great inconvenience, amounting practically to a closing of the port, to proclaim that parish.
MR. COXsaid, he should raise the Question on the Estimates, and, in the meantime, he called the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the map, which showed the vagaries of the Privy Council.
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have seen the map, and know it perfectly.

LAW AND POLICE—ARREST OF FRED HENDERSON AT NORWICH.
MR. M'CARTANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the arrest and treatment of Fred Henderson, of Norwich, on the occasion of the visit to that town of the Marquess of Salisbury on the 27th July last, Whether he is aware that the Mayor of Norwich, from whom he received the Report as to the charges against Henderson and the conduct of the police, was one of the most active supporters of, and also a speaker at the meeting addressed by the Marquess of Salisbury on the night of the arrest of Henderson; whether, according to the evidence given at the trial before the magistrates, Constable Mills did "hear Henderson shout 'Groans for Salisbury!'" and he also swore that "his hand came in contact with Henderson's head;" whether he can now state if Henderson's head was bruised and injured by the constable on the occasion; whether Constable Mills and Con-
1554
stable Fuller, after arresting Henderson, got him between their two horses, dragged him off at a quick trot through London Street to the Guildhall, and kept him in custody all night and next morning, up to the time when he was discharged by the Bench of Magistrates; whether there was any disorder previous to the attack on Henderson; whether the Bench held that there was no riot on the occasion; whether he is aware that there is a large number of most respectable witnesses in Norwich prepared to testify to the misconduct of the police and to the serious nature of the attack made on Henderson by the police; whether any inquiry was made from Henderson, or from any person save the promoters of the meeting addressed by the Marquess of Salisbury; and, whether he will now take into consideration the advisability of having an inquiry made into the conduct of the police on the night in question?
MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMalso asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman can now state if the Agricultural Hall Plain, in which Fred Henderson was holding a meeting at Norwich on the 27th July, when he was arrested by the police, has been frequently used for public mooting without hindrance or interference by the police; whether it was in pursuance of orders given by the Chief Constable that Fred Henderson was arrested by Mounted Constable Mills; whether he was dragged off to the barrack between two horses at full trot and kept a prisoner till nest day; and, whether an inquiry, open to independent witnesses, will be held into the conduct of the constables?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have written to the Mayor of Norwich, to obtain the information desired by the hon. Members. There has not been time as yet to receive an answer; but I must repeat what I stated to the hon. Member for South Down on the 4th instant—that the local police are, by Statute, under the control of the Local Authorities. Complaints as to their conduct should be addressed to, and investigated by, the Watch Committee of the borough, and not by me. They, and not I, have the power to suspend and dismiss borough constables; and the hon. Members must, at any rate in

1555
the first instance, address their demands to the proper authoritiy.
MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, the first part of his Question, which had been omitted, referred to the fact that orders were given to the police, in the hearing of several persona, to ride the people down.

INCOME TAX—REMOVAL OF OFFICE OF CLAIMS FROM EDINBURGH.
MR. M'EWANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If there is any truth in the report which appeared in The Edinburgh Evening News on the 4th instant,
"That it is in contemplation to remove thy Office of Claims for repayment of Income Tax from Edinburgh to London?"
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCTTEN): The Scotch claims for repayment of Income Tax are now all settled by the issue of money orders from Somerset House, London; and the only change contemplated is that henceforth the claims themselves should com ft direct from the various Scotch surveyors, or from the claimants themselves, to Somerset House, in order that the repayments may be thereby accelerated and an economy effected. The present practice of focussing such claims at the Edinburgh Office for the purpose of transmission to London only occasions delay, and answers no useful purpose.

COLONIZATION—GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES.
MR. KIMBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the admitted importance of colonization, Her Majesty's Government see any objection to communications being made during the Recess by the Colonial Office to the several Colonial Governments, to inquire whether, and how far, they would be disposed to join with the Home Government (subject to the necessary Legislative sanction on both sides) in guaranteeing or securing a moderate interest on the funds which might be raised in England for effecting such colonization, and to ascertain the conditions or arrangements under which the respective Colonies would recommend that such colonization should be effected?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Various schemes, such as the Question of the hon. Member appears to refer to, received much consideration last year. As Parliamentary Paper No. 4,751 of 1886 will show (pages 27 to 35), Her Majesty's Government were not able to satisfy themselves that this country could safely undertake to guarantee advances made to settlers, nor did the Colonial Governments approve of any of the proposals submitted. Her Majesty's Government are quite alive to the importance of the subject; but as they are not in a position to propose to Parliament any scheme for the guarantee of funds raised for effecting colonization, they do not perceive that any good would be attained by officially inviting the cooperation of the Colonial Governments.
MR. KIMBERasked, if the question had ever been put to the Colonial Governments on the particular method of co-operation?
MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that no such question had been put to the Colonial Governments.

METROPOLIS—PREVENTION OF FIRES.
MR. WEBSTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact of several large fires having recently occurred in the Metropolis, involving loss of life and property, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works had for the third time promoted a measure for the purpose of further strengthening the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and rendering that force adequate to emergencies which might arise, he would re-consider his decision, and give facilities for the discussion of this question of paramount importance to a population exceeding 4,000,000?
MR. M'LAGANasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the Metropolitan Board had been assured I for more than two years that if they would withdraw the clause requiring persons who were insured to pay extra for the benefit of those who were not insured, not only would all opposition to their Bill be withdrawn, but it would be helped forward?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman opposite refers. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend (Sir. Webster), I have to say

1557
that there is a Question, on the Paper for to-morrow in the name of the hon. Member for Newington, in almost identical terms; and I think it would be more convenient that I should reply to that Question to-morrow. But I wish to remark that I have searched the Order Book, and cannot find the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers.
MR. WEBSTER: I beg to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan Board of Works (Fire Brigade Expenses) Bill was in the Order Book this morning.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is not in the Order Book at all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
In reply to Mr. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside),
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he had every hope that the Technical Instruction Bill would be reached to-morrow evening at 11 o'clock. He could not indicate the exact date when the Education Vote would be taken; but he trusted it would be in their power to take it on Friday.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, whether the Government could not suspend the 6 o'clock Rule on Wednesday, so that if the Scotch Business put down for that day was not finished by that hour, the discussion could be proceeded with?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I should like to ask the hon. Member, in return, whether, after the exhausting labours of the House, and of the officers of the House, it would be reasonable that the House should continue to sit after 6 o'clock?
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall very much resist taking any Bills of local interest before those of general interest to Scotland.

ROYAL APPOINTMENTS.
MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked, whether, seeing that the Return for which he intended to move had been blocked by a Member of the Government (Sir Herbert Maxwell), the First Lord, of the Treasury would state the reasons for that proceeding. The Notice referred to by the hon. Member was as follows:—
"Return showing the number of Royal Princes, or persons allied by marriage with the
1558
Royal Family holding Appointments in the Army, Navy, and other Departments of the Public Service, or receiving any salaries out of public funds; the salaries attached to these several posts: the income otherwise derived in each ease from the public funds; and, the number of senior officers or officials passed over where an appointment, if any, of the persons aforesaid has been made."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)In the judgment of the Government, the Return asked for is of an invidious character, and ought not to be granted by this House.

EMIGRATION (IRELAND)—MR. R. V. STONEY, OF ROSTURK CASTLE.
MR. DEASYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice—Whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to a private inquiry by the Local Government Board in Westport with reference to the system of free emigration in the County of Mayo, and the practices alleged against Mr. R. Vesey Stoney, of Rosturk Castle, the Chairman of the Committee for carrying out the free emigration scheme; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will immediately direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of Mr. Stoney as a magistrate and deputy lieutenant, and have him prosecuted for his malpractices?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the inquiry was instituted by his directions to investigate certain alleged irregularities in the Emigration Act; and as the inquiry was not yet finished, he thought it would be unfair to take any action until the Report was before him.
MR. SEXTONasked, when the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House full information on the subject?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the time did not rest with him, but with the gentleman conducting the inquiry.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED FIRING FROM AN EXCURSION TRAIN AT PORTRUSH.
MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

1559
tenant of Ireland, Whether he had received any information of an occurrence alleged to have taken place at Portrush, in the North of Ireland, on yesterday, in which parties in a Catholic excursion train fired out on some persons, and shot one man dead, and wounded a Presbyterian clergyman?
MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether this unfortunate and serious disturbance was commenced by an attack by an Orange mob upon a body of Irish National Foresters?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had no information to give on the subject. He asked at the Irish Office just before he left for the House, and learned that no information had been received from Dublin.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—ALLEGED MALVERSATION IN WEST MAYO.
In reply to Mr. LEAMY (Cork Co., N.E.),
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, an investigation had been commenced by his direction into the alleged malversation of an official in West Mayo. The inquiry was not yet finished; and, meanwhile, it would be improper to offer any information on the subject.
MR. LEAMY, in consequence of the answer, gave Notice that he would call the attention of the House to the scandalous conduct of this man in West Mayo.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  (1.) £8,227, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
  (2.) £36,789, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
  (3.) £8,966, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
  (4.) £34,204, to complete the sum for the Patent Office, & c.
  (5.) £16,190, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office,
  (6.) £6,077, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
  (7.) £10,393, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
  MR. DILLON: This Vote is one which I cannot allow to be passed without entering a serious protest against it. The Veto for the Public Record Office includes the sum granted every year for the publication of certain historical documents that have been in course of publication now for many years. I find, among the details given here in a note, that the publication of the calendars and Public State documents commenced in the year 1857, and that up to the present day 191 volumes have been published. The original purpose for which this Vote was put upon the Estimates was to secure the publication of the State documents and calendars of the United Kingdom, and I shall be able to prove, if necessary, that for some years after the commencement of the publication the Vote was fairly distributed between the various parts of the United Kingdom. But I am afraid that the publication of the Irish Records has been gradually diminishing until, for at least two or three years past, no public record or State document has been published in Ireland at all, although the usual publications have been continued in England. I am afraid that there must have been some underhand or corrupt influence at work in the matter, for while 21 editors have been occupied on English Records, not a single editor is at present engaged on records relating to Ireland. The entire Vote is absorbed by the English work, and I ask for a full explanation of the matter from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I regret that I should not be able to make any satisfactory explanation to the hon. Member, unless I were to go into the details with which, however, I am not sufficiently acquainted. I know that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has taken a great interest in the publication of certain Irish Records, and I have already promised him that I will endeavour to make provision for the publication of some of them which I understand to be ready and to have been approved by the hon. Gentleman

  1561
  himself. Indeed, the publication is recommended not only by the hon. Member, but also by those in Ireland who have charge of the business. I can only regret that I cannot give the information as to the details of the work which the hon. Gentleman has asked for.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I am glad that the hon. Member opposite has called attention to this matter. The publication of the Irish Records is a matter of great importance to Ireland, and I hope that I before the next Estimates are produced steps will be taken for providing for their issue. English records are constantly published, although they are already accessible in some other form to the historical student. But there are in existence in Ireland a large number of valuable State documents and records which are not accessible, and which it is of the highest importance that the State should publish so that they may be rendered accessible, to all who are concerned in studying the history of the country. I may mention, in addition to other records, that there is in existence in connection with Christ Church Cathedral, a book containing a number of unpublished Acts of the Irish Parliament. Those documents are of the greatest possible interest, and contain information of the utmost value with reference to the past history of Ireland. I sincerely hope that sufficient funds will be devoted to the publication of these Irish Records, and that the Government will deal with the matter in a liberal spirit. I understand that there is an annual sum of £2,000 a-year voted for the publication of similar documents and records relating to England, and I think that at least £1,000 should be devoted to the publication of Irish Records.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have no wish to contrast the importance of a large country like England with that of a small country like Ireland; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that it is of less importance to spend money on historical investigations in Ireland than upon the publication of English Records. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has pointed out one fundamental difference between English and Irish Records. As a matter of fact, English documents are
  1562
  accessible to persons who like to search for them, whereas Irish Records are not. Now that the question has been raised, I think it is the duty of every Irish Member, and of every historical student, whatever his nationality may be, to urge on the Government the vast importance of inviting literary research in reference to Irish history. Nearly all the investigations into Irish history, and certainly all the investigations into Irish chronology, have been conducted not by Eng-glishmen or Irishmen, but by Germans; and I think it is in the highest degree discreditable to the English Exchequer that subjects which are fairly subjects for English investigation, should be allowed to remain in the hands of Germany. I do not know that my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that no money has been spent on Irish investigation, because I find, under Sub-heads B and C, that a sum of about £200 has been spent in. the examination of certain Irish documents. Now, I think that a very careful investigation into everything concerned with Irish history is necessary in order to correct the wilful or unintentional errors of Poole in his Irish History. It is a matter for much regret that Irish scholarship should be grudged even a small grant of the public money in this respect, seeing the large sums which have been spent in England and Scotland. I will not say that it has been money lavished or wasted, because I think it has been well spent; but what I say is that money has been more freely spent in similar work in England and Scotland than in Ireland. While I am alluding to this Vote, I must say that there appears to be a somewhat startling disproportion in the amount spent on the permanent staff and the sum spent in investigation. I find that the permanent staff cost £18,743, while in the publication of the calendars and documents themselves the sum of £2,580 only was spent. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain this large disproportion, which certainty does appear, at the first glance, to be very great.
  MR. DILLON: I understand that the Secretary to the Treasury, in my temporary absence from the Committee, made some statement upon this subject, and in the course of which he intimated that he was unable to give any information in detail, because he had not got

  1563
  the figures. Now, there cannot be the slightest doubt that this Vote was originally taken for the publication of historical documents connected with, all parts of the Kingdom; and what I contend is, that there is a much stronger case for using the money for Ireland than for England. Let me take the matter as it stands. The calendars and volumes published in this series until recently stood as follows, the figures bringing the facts down to last year:—In the shape of calendars, 126 have been published for England, and 20 for Ireland, Journals and memorials are largely represented for England; there are no less than 176 for England and Scotland, and 8 only for Ireland. In the press, of both classes, there are 11 for Great Britain and 1 for Ireland; and awaiting publication, there are 11 for Great Britain and none for Ireland. That is the state of the figures; and it would appear that, whereas in previous years, up to a certain date, about 15 per cent of the money was given to Ireland, there is now a very limited amount indeed devoted to the publication of Irish State papers. Indeed, it would appear that some extraordinary or occult influence is at work, by which the money voted for this purpose is absorbed almost exclusively in England and Scotland—Ireland being deprived of its fair share of the grant. But these figures do not give a full representation of the real facts of the case. The fact is this—that so far from there being a strong ease for using the money in the preparation of historical records and documents in connection with England, there is an infinitely stronger case in regard to the history of Ireland. Anybody who will take up the catalogue of these publications in the Record Office will find that nearly the whole of the English publications, although undoubtedly of great interest, are mere reprints which have been put into a more convenient shape for the benefit of scholars. No doubt, that is a laudable object, and the money may be said to be applied to a useful purpose; but it is nothing as compared with the printing of documents of equal value which are at present only in manuscript, and of which there is, perhaps, but one copy in the world. I find that the documents which have been published in regard to Ireland have been largely, if not
  1564
  altogether, edited from manuscripts almost entirely unknown to learned men previously. For instance, Mr. Gilbert edited a number of documents relating to a treasonable conspiracy in Ireland in 1601, together with the contemporaneous history of the country at that time. It is a work of extraordinary interest; but only one copy existed in manuscript until the document was published under this Irish Vote. I have heard it stated that there are other documents of equal interest and importance actually awaiting publication, which have been edited by the same editor and by others. It seems to be monstrous that manuscripts of this kind should remain unpublished, while republications are going on which may be useful, no doubt, to English students, but which simply supply reprints of documents already published, such as the Chronicles of Matthews of Paris and others, all of which have been presented to the public in print more than once already, and can be readily obtained. There is a document mentioned by the late Sir Edward Sullivan, in connection with the death of More, which is of extraordinary value, but which is absolutely unknown to the historical student. These documents are contained in a manuscript book, of which there is only one copy, and probably there are not 10 men who are able to read it, seeing that, it is in Norman-Latin, with a large number of abbreviations, and it is only students of that period, and very experienced and learned students, who can make out the manuscript at all. Besides, it is exceedingly difficult to got men to edit records of this nature, however valuable they may be. O'Donovan and O'Curry died before their great work of editing the ancient laws of Ireland was completed. That is one of the most valuable works that exists in the whole civilized world, and I am afraid that it is now impossible to get the work completed at all. In many instances the money is voted to men who know nothing whatever of the work. The great difficulty is not so much to get the money as to get the men, and when we have the men it is shameful that we should allow them to waste their lives without utilizing their talents. I think I have made out an extremely strong case for some portion of this money being devoted to Ireland. I think I have shown that for the last

  1565
  three or four years there has been gross injustice done to Irish literature, and I trust that the Government will exhibit some readiness to undo that injustice, and to be generous for two or throe years to come. As to one of the books to which I have inferred, and which is, I believe, now ready, containing certain records connected with the ancient See of Dublin, I trust that means will be taken for putting it in the press as speedily as possible.
  MR. JACKSON: I have already intimated my willingness to inquire into the facts of the case, and it will be my endeavour to deal as fairly as I can with the applications which are laid before me. When the Estimates were under preparation last October, we gave to Ireland all that was asked for on that occasion. I am told, however, that there are many existing manuscripts which ought to be published, and I have already promised the hon. Member to institute an inquiry into the particular cases he has mentioned.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £30,693, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
  (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £336,260, 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 1888, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates."
  MR. JENNINGSin rising to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of£10,000, said: I wish it to be understood, at the outset, that I have not the slightest intention of casting any imputation upon the management of the Stationery Department, by Mr. Pigett, the Comptroller. I think there is evidence in his reports that he has made every effort to cut down unnecessary expenses, and to introduce economy into the Department; but he can go no further without the assistance of the Government and of this House. This
  1566
  Vote is for a very large sum—namely, £556,260, and I think there can be no doubt that a material saving may be made in it. It will be seen, under Sub-head E, that the printing for Public Departments cost £185,000, being an increase of £5,000 over last year, and of £9,100 for 1885–6. This, therefore, is obviously a rapidly increasing item, but no details are given of the expenditure. It is only stated that the Vote is for the Public Departments. In addition to the item for printing, the paper supplied to these Departments costs £120,000, as will be seen from Sub-head F; so that these two amounts come to £305,000, or considerably more than one-half of the total Vote. And, be it observed, that this printing is totally apart from Parliamentary printing, which comes under Sub-head J, and represents an expenditure of £70,000. Now, it does not appear that there is any efficient chock upon the printing for the Public Departments, and that being the ease, it is very evident that there must be great wastefulness in this branch of outlay. The Foreign Office alone gets rid of nearly £12,000 a-year in this way, an increase of more than £1,000 over the previous year. The Board of Trade cost £9,727 in 1S85-6, as against £7,779 the previous year, or an addition of nearly £2,000, besides £3,000 in connection with Mercantile, Marine, and in other forms. We are not informed how much is taken for it this year. The Patent Office and its belongings cost nearly £28,000, an addition of nearly £5,000. A mere glance at the Papers before the Committee will not throw the slightest light on the way in which this money is disbursed; but I find, on further examination, that there are over 300 offices supplied with stationery and printing, many of which may very well be left to take care of themselves. There is, for instance, a Department of "Polish Refugees' Agents," "The Liberated African Department," "The Pipe Office," "The Disembodied Militia," and so forth. Surely, if a disembodied Militiaman wants to use stationery, he ought to supply it for himself. In fact, the list of offices supplied at the public expense might be cut down by at least one-third, and the supply all round might probably be cut of? by at least one-half. Then the Parliamentary Papers under sub-

  1567
  head are estimated to cost £70,000. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be of great advantage to the House, and to the public, if this amount were greatly reduced. A largo part of it, under present arrangements, might as well be thrown outside into the Thames. One of the numerous penalties of being a Member of Parliament is the avalanche of Blue Books which is continually pouring upon one's head. No ordinary house will hold them; if you sell them, the proceeds do not go very far towards paying one's election expenses. Some of these books are very costly in production, they are often illustrated with coloured diagrams and expensive maps and drawings, und yet they remain quite unknown to the bulk of the people. The expense of producing them must be enormous, and out of all proportion to their value to the public. I think the Government might, with great propriety, decline more frequently than they do to produce those costly books at the public expense. They answer no other purpose as a rule than the gratification of an individual caprice. There is scarcely any public demand for Parliamentary Papers. According to the Auditor and Comptroller General, the cost of producing these papers in 1885–6 was £68,383, and the total sum realized by their sale was only £1,285. Acts of Parliament and other Papers are scattered about in an unnecessarily profuse and foolish manner. It is only justice to the Comptroller of the Stationery Department, Air. Pigott, to say that he has protested against this in the two reports he has issued, and that he has urged upon the Government the propriety of acting upon the recommendation of the Committee which inquired into the subject of making the distribution of these reports less objectionable than it is now. I am aware that some of these Papers have to be applied for, and are not issued generally; and I think that the Government might, with advantage, carry out that rule much further, and leave Members to apply for all documents without tumbling them into their houses whether they want them or not. There are special Reports printed of which the general public seldom hear, and I question the wisdom of printing them. The Exports of the Challenger expedition, for instance, have already cost the country
  1568
  £53,000, and very few copies indeed have been sold. They have value from a scientific point of view, no doubt; but they have been produced in a very extravagant and unbusiness-like manner, and they are not accessible to the general public. In regard to Acts of Parliament it appears from Mr. Pigott's first Report, issued in 1881, that "the free list," so to speak, was last drawn up in 1801, and he says—
  "The municipal authorities of the "boroughs of Gatton and Dimwich—the latter a seaport of importance in the reign of Henry VIII., but now for many years almost entirely submerged—still appeal in the List as public functionaries for whoso use Acts of Parliament are supplied and paid for at the public expense."
  He does not tell us in his second Report that the papers have been discontinued, or how they are delivered at the submerged port of Dunwich. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty undertakes that service, and will be able to throw some light upon the matter. Obviously there is considerable room for saving money in this direction. And so there is in regard to the printing of Private Bills. I think there ought to be some judicious restrictions placed upon the privilege now accorded to every Member of having any Bill he chooses to introduce printed at the public expense. There was an immense crop of Bills introduced at the beginning of this Session, of which very few remain alive now, and. some of them were of enormous length. One of them forms a good thick volume of 115 pages which, I am told, would make an octavo volume in print of more than 300 pages. Nobody is likely to road it, except its illustrious author. I would rather not mention which Bill it was, because I do not wish to make it appear that I am attacking either one side of the House or the other. Then, again, there was another Bill of 111 pages, another of 60, and so on. Not one of these elaborate measures over had the slightest chance of receiving the attention of Parliament. I may say that among the more voluminous Bills were "The Companies Consolidation Bill," "the Parliamentary Elections Bill," & c. I will now glance at the salaries, some of which appear to be very high. I say nothing of the salary of the Comptroller who, considering his duties and responsibilities, is not over paid with £1,500 a-year.

  1569
  But there is an Assistant Comptroller at £800 a-year, three clerks receiving between them £1,650, one with £500, 12 receiving £4,147, and so on. There can be no doubt whatever that these clerks are all greatly over paid, taking the salaries paid by any mercantile house as a standard, And it must not be forgotten that in a mercantile house the clerks would not be entitled to large pensions as these Government clerks are, no matter how little they may have done to deserve it. Therefore, I think that the high salaries paid ought to be taken into consideration when the pensions are fixed. Then the Superintendent of Printing gets £550 a-year, undoubtedly a great prize in the printing trade. There is also a deputy assistant, with £500 a-year, and an Assistant Examiner of Printing with £225, 12 a-year, together with two examiners of printers accounts who receive £400 a-year each. It would puzzle anyone to explain what duties those functionaries perform. Some of them, I venture to say, hold sinecure offices. Then I ask the Committee to look at the entry on page 150 of £1,260 for porters, followed by another probable amount required for wages of porters and boys, £4,687. Surely that is a very large amount, very loosely and inadequately accounted for in these Estimates. Women are to be paid £80, and then men, women, and boys having been accounted for, there is a charge of £1,021 for certain mysterious nondescripts described as "others." What sort of "others" can these be, and what kind of service do they render the State for £1,000 a-year? All I ask the Government is, whether they cannot see their way to make a considerable reduction in the charge for printing for the Public Departments and for the paper used, which, together, represent an expenditure of £305,000 a-year. I believe that your own officer is in favour of reducing these charges for Parliamentary printing, he tells us there can be no question as to the value of the Reports made to the President of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosives Act of 1882. The Act requires that the Board shall cause oven such Report "to be made public in such manner as it thinks fit." Now, in the first place, the Reports are published separately as they are received, and I think that ought to answer every con
  1570
  ceivable purpose. The Comptroller ays—
  "It is difficult to understand what further object is pained by afterwards collecting the reports and presenting them, in the form of a ponderous Blue Book, to Parliament; but since the passing of the Act three collections of the kind have already been presented, and a fourth f the series, containing 96 pages of letterpress and 111 lithographic illustrations, is now passing through the press."
  What value they are it is impossible to conceive. They can only be sold as waste paper, or be allowed unnecessarily to fill up a room. No doubt the Reports relate to matters which involve the expenditure of millions of money; but we are told that if we wish to effect economy we must begin by looking at the sixpences. I believe there are a good many sixpences which might be saved in this Department, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give the Committee some assurance that the number of Blue Books issued will be considerably restricted in future. I would suggest not only that the distribution should be restricted, but that the cost of these books, which involve the production of expensive engravings, coloured prints, and so forth should be cut down, and at the same time that all the salaries should be overhauled with a view to reduction. These are the recommendations I wish to make, and I bog, in conclusion, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £10,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £326,260, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Jennings.)
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether still more real and effective control cannot be provided in connection with what is really the publishing department of the Government. At present, there does not appear to be any proper control or supervision in the department at all, and publications are sent out by the Government in a most unsatisfactory manner. The Comptroller might, I think, by judicious editing, do much to popularize the Government publications, and I think that in that way a good many of the publications issued might be rendered very useful. For instance, there are the Reports relating to colliery accidents, which contain information of

  1571
  considerable value to the districts where such accidents have occurred. If they were in the hands of a regular publishing firm, steps would surely be taken to make their contents known, and they would become of much greater value than they are now, under the supervision of the Comptroller. If these publications were in the hands of ordinary publishers—such as Macmillan or Cassells—I am satisfied that a great deal would be done to popularize them. If not, I think we might cut off a good deal of this expenditure altogether, seeing that it is entirely wasted, because what is done is not sufficiently made known. Let me take the case of the Report of the Commission on Technical Education. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into that subject have issued an exceedingly valuable Report; but the most important volume has been allowed to run out of print, and I believe there has been no attempt to reproduce it. That certainly would not have happened if the publication had been in the hands of an enterprising bookseller. The Comptroller, I dare say, know nothing whatever about the matter, and only allowed a limited number of copies to be issued. Let me take another instance. Last year, the Report of the "Accidents in Mines Commission," the Commissioner, having been at work for seven years or more, was printed. They published, inside their Report, an admirable summary of the evidence, together with their recommendations contained in about 15 or 20 pages. The Report itself, which was full of illustrations, cost 11 s. 6d.; but although many of the miners who are most interested in it could not afford to pay that sum, they would gladly have purchased the summary, which might have been published separately at a cost of 2d. or 3d., and could have been circulated all over the mining districts. I asked one of the Government officials whether that could be done, and I was told that it was impossible. Therefore, I ventured to take up the work myself, and having privately printed the summary so that it might have been sold for a profit of 1½d., I have done the best I could to get it well circulated among miners; but I think that a work of that I kind ought to be done by the Government themselves through the instrumentality of a Department of this sort.
  1572
  They ought either to hand the work over to booksellers, who would make a good speculation out of it, to be published under reasonable control, or else the Comptroller ought to go into the subject thoroughly, with a view to popularize that part of our publications. I believe the Secretary to the Treasury fully recognizes the importance of the matter, and I am aware that the Report of the Depression of Trade Commission has been published, in a useful form, for 6d. That is quite a departure from the usual course, and as I am afraid the fact is very little known, I think something ought to be done to make it more widely known. I also think that with a little effort on the part of the Postmaster General arrangements might be made to hand over part of the windows at the post offices, so that it may be made known that useful publications of this kind are being issued from time to time. It is a work, however, in which the head of the Department ought to take the initiative; but I am satisfied that something ought to be done to make the heavy expense incurred in printing Reports of this nature really worth while. Cheap publications of this sort might be freely issued; and I think it should be the duty of some of the heads of the Departments to see how they may best be popularized and got into the hands of the public. That is a work which, as far as I can judge, the head of the Stationery Department might take in hand. I know that a good deal was said about the duties of the Office when the present Comptroller was appointed. I have no wish to allude to that matter further than to say that when a man receives £1,300 or £1,500 a-year, and is the head of a most important Department, he might do a coat deal for political education, in no Party sense at all, by helping to spread among the people information which it costs the country so much to get. I think that his attention ought to be drawn to the matter; and while I believe the present Secretary to the Treasury fully recognizes the force of these suggestions, I wish to press upon him their very great importance.
  MR. HOWELL: I should be very sorry to do anything to prevent the observance of strict economy in the administration of any public Department, and I certainly think there is

  1573
  plenty of room for economy in the Department now under discussion. At the same time, I should deprecate any hasty cutting down of our printing arrangements, although I should he glad to see the publications issued by the Government thoroughly supervized and edited. That there is a considerable amount of waste I think most hon. Members of this House will be prepared to admit; but I certainly cannot agree with the opinion which has been ex-pressed that the Parliamentary Reports, Hills, Blue Books, and other Papers issued by this House constitute so much waste paper. On the contrary, I think they contain a very valuable amount of information—so valuable, in my opinion, that I have done what I believe few other hon. Members have done—namely, gone through the whole of the publications issued by this House during the last two years. I know that it has been a somewhat labourious task; but I am able to say that I have not only gone through the Papers, but that I have made very considerable use of them. At the same time, I cannot help protesting against the way in which our Papers are issued. In many of them the same information is detailed over and over again, and I am sorry to say that very often the same information, obtained apparently from the same sources, does not always correspond in the different editions in which we find it. I think it is quite sufficient to issue for general circulation by means of a Blue Book the special information which it is considered desirable to present to the public; but it is not necessary that the same information should be published over and over again in a different form in the publications issued by this House. I did not happen to be in the House when the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) commenced his speech; but I understand that he made some observations in reference to the publication of Bills introduced by private Members, and suggested that they should be printed by the private Members who introduce them, instead of being printed at the public expense. Now, I would venture to ask whether, in many instances, these Private Bills have not paved the way for much of the useful legislation which has been passed by this House? With due deference to hon. Members on the other side, I be-
  1574
  lieve that within the last two years the Bills introduced by private Members have shown a considerable advance in education oven on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves. I find that many excellent measures which were strongly deprecated two or three years ago by hon. Members on the other side have now been adopted by them, and that many of those hon. Members are now acting as a vanguard, and are engaged in educating their Party, leading them on to useful legislation, when the Government they support can see their way to adopt the measures submitted to them. I certainly wish that the Government could see their way to deal more freely with some of the Bills brought in by private Members.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. HOWELL: I bow to your decision, Sir; but I think I may be allowed to say, with regard to the Bills introduced by private Members, that they are useful as indicating the views of hon. Members, and that they have considerable interest for the country. I venture to think that a number of the Bills which have been introduced here have been widely circulated among the constituencies, and they have materially helped to educate the people in every way. In regard to some of the more elaborate Reports which have been issued by this House from time to time, I must say I think something might be done to curtail the expense, which is often very considerable At the same time, I know there are great difficulties to be contended with. For instance, you must not put a power in the hands of any officer of a Public Department which will enable him to judge for himself what is to be left out of the evidence laid before a Commission or Committee. When an investigation has been conducted by a Royal Commission, or by a Select Committee of this House, I think the evidence laid before it should be published as it is. No doubt there are a number of the huge Blue Books, such as that upon technical education, and the Blue Book in regard to the Land Commission which, although, containing very valuable matter, are unnecessarily elaborate in their form, and something might be done to curtail their dimensions from time to time. I think, that a smaller number of copies of the expensive books

  1575
  might he printed with a supplementary issue containing- a separate digest of the evidence as a whole. Such a summary could be published at a cheap; rate together with the Report. I hope the time is not far distant when the House will be able to supervize the printing and publishing Departments of the Government, so as to curtail the expenses; but, at the same time, I hope that nothing will be done in the way of curtailment that would be likely to interfere with the full expression of opinion, called forth, in various ways, through the publication issued by the House. It is in order to preserve that full expression of public opinion that I think there should be no restriction as; to the nature of the information circulated to the public
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the suggestious which have been made by the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) in regard to the distribution of Reports, of great local interest, through the Post Offices. At the present moment, local booksellers will not take the trouble to procure them. Applications may be made over and over again, for copies of the publications issued by the Government; but the booksellers make all sorts of excuses, the real fact being that there is very little profit to be got out of them, and a good deal of trouble Yet those Blue Hooks contain very interesting information, as for instance, the reports in regard to accidents in mines, and upon many other subjects. I do not see why the Officers at the Treasury should not work with the Postmaster General, and arrange that public documents may be issued all over the Kingdom and sold in the Post Offices, at the prices at which they are published. I hope the Secretary of the Treasury will take this matter into his serious consideration.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL& c.): I also concur in the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire has done excellent service in calling the attention of the Government to this subject. I think that a great deal is required to he done in order to popularize these publications, and much might be
  1576
  done in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member. It seams to me, however, that in order to popularize the Blue Books issued by Parliament, not only must we have publishers to push them, but something must be done in order to make the Blue Books themselves popular. Now, it strikes me that a great many publications are issued which are not only unpopular, but are simply unreadable. An hon. Member once told me that in making a speech he always found it much easier to be long than to be short, so it is in the case of these publications. It is much easier to pitchfork an enormous number of documents before the public than to supervize them and render them readable. I think a great deal of the blame attaches to the Government themselves. No doubt, they occasionally issue documents which are not only interesting, but useful. There are, however, many documents of the same kind which they do not care to give to the House, and in other cases, they are frequently accompanied by a good deal of unnecessary padding. For instance, in the Blue Books issued in regard to Egypt the Government contrived to suppress very carefully everything that anybody cared, to know, yet they give an extraordinary amount of useless information, full of details about things it was not probable any human being cared to read. By that means they made all the volumes issued in respect of Egypt uninteresting and unreadable. Therefore if we are to popularize our Blue Books and Bills, we must begin by condensing them, and making them interesting and readable. When we have done that, we should endeavour to secure the services of a good publisher, in order to push forward the sale. In that way, I think that an enormous amount of information which is contained in these Blue Books would be popularized and would not be lost to the world, as at present. For my own part, I have been in the habit of sending the Blue Books I receive to my constituents, so that they may be made acquainted with the information published by the Government. No doubt, a good many of the Parliamentary Papers issued by this House are in the highest degree imperfect, and unfortunately Parliament has no control over its own printing, and it is with the utmost difficulty that Members are able to obtain

  1577
  important in formation upon any subject when an opportunity is about to be afforded for discussing a particular question in this House. When Notice has been given of a Motion, and Papers are asked for, they are very rarely produced until the moment the subject itself is coming on for discussion; and if any complaint is made, the fault is thrown upon the printers. The Government say—"We have no control over the printers, and we cannot guarantee when the information which has been promised may be published." Now, it seems to me most extraordinary that such a state of things should exist. There is no second-rate newspaper in London, or in the Provinces, which would not, in the course of 12 hours, supply this information to the public if it were handed over to it. It does seem to me very extraordinary that the House of Commons should have no control over its own printing, and in consequence the House is unable to insist upon important documents being produced within a reasonable time. At present the head of any Department is able to put off the production of important Papers by merely saying that he has no control over the printers. In many cases it is not until Parliament has been prorogued, and when the information is of no service whatever, that it supplied to the public. I trust that we shall receive some explanation as to the way in which departmental printing conducted, and who is responsible for having it done in a reasonably rapid time.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Before the discussion closes, I should like to say a word or this matter; because I have, on former occasions, endeavoured to place my view on the question before a Committee of this House. I will not allude to the question of popularizing these documents, because I am afraid that in that direction we may find ourselves in a long lane which has no turning. But I think that something may be done in the way of economy in connection with the publication of Parliamentary Papers. I have ventured to suggest before, and I will do so again, whether it is not a matter worthy of consideration that the Government should leave a large number of these books to be asked for by Members, instead of circulating' them as a matter of course. At present, I am
  1578
  afraid that the neighbouring butterman is the only individual who derives any benefit from a large number of the Blue Books now circulated. Instead of sending all the Parliamentary publications to the residences of hon. Members, I think that Members themselves should be required to notify to the Stationery Office what Blue Books they require for their own personal use. By that means, think a considerable economy may be effected.
  MR. PROVAND: I am of opinion that if some of the Reports and Papers issued by Parliament were published in a heap, attractive, and well-edited form, many Members would be encouraged to purchase largo numbers of copies for distribution among their constituents. Unless, however, they are put in a proper form, they are entirely valueless for general circulation. As an instance of what I mean, I will mention the sixpenny edition of the Report of the Commission on the Depression of Trade. I believe that that Report, so far as it has been circulated, has done much good; but if it had been advertized in some way, a very much larger number of copies would have been disposed of. At present many people are not aware that it can be purchased for 6d.; otherwise I have no doubt that the publication would have been profitable, and it would certainly have been instrumental in circulating important information through the country. I believe, if it is made possible that the Parliamentary literature to be issued can be obtained cheaply from this new Department—this bureau of labour statistics, I presume it may be called—it will be of great value to the constituencies.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I believe that I am the only Member of the House now remaining who sat on the Committee of 1873 and 1874 on this question of the stationery. Many of the improvements that were then recommended have since been carried out. I have watched this Vote very carefully ever since, and I have certainly seen improvements effected in a variety of ways in the printing arrangements which have been made by the Government. But, considering the length of time which has elapsed since the Committee sat, I would suggest to the Secre-

  1579
  tary to the Treasury the propriety of taking steps for the appointment if a new Committee. If such a Committee were appointed, say next Session, I believe that it would be found practicable to carry out many of the suggestions which have been made in the course of the discussion.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Before the Secretary of the Treasury rises to reply, I should like to call attention to a matter upon which. I asked for information at the commencement of the Session—I refer to the sale of the copyright of the Government in the publications they issue. My hon. Friend the Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) is anxious that there should be a cheap popular reproduction of the useful Blue Books published by this House, and he believes that if there were a more cheap reproduction, these Parliamentary Papers would have great educational value with the people of this country, and that they would be largely read and much appreciated. But if the Government has disposed of its copyright in the republication of its own documents, it is impossible for hon. Members to hope for such a cheap and popular republication of Government documents as is generally desired. [Mr. JACKSON dissented.] I am glad to see that the Secretary to the Treasury expresses dissent, but I remind him that up to the present moment we have had no information on the subject, although the assertion has been frequently made that the Government have parted with their copyright in Parliamentary documents. If it is true that they have sold the sole right of publishing Government Papers, for a specific sum, then I think that they have practically parted with the copyright. I hope, however, that the statement will turn out to be untrue. If these documents are published, as I think they ought to be, for the advantage of the public, the Government ought to be grateful to anybody who will reproduce them cheaply, und if the newspapers or any public associations would publish them and distribute them, I think they would do a good service. With reference to the labour publications issued by the Board of Trade, I would venture to express a hope that they will be published periodically, and at regular intervals, in a cheap form, so that they may
  1580
  reach the masses of the country, but not in the ordinary shape of a Blue Book. They might be issued at a very much smaller cost than the documents which have recently been published, and hon. Members would then be able to send thorn to trades union clubs for distribution among the working classes who are specially interested in such subjects. I think those documents would be exceedingly useful and very educational, and that they would practically do great service in reference to the labour question. As we are anticipating Reports in reference to foreign labour, the wages paid in foreign countries upon co-operation, and other kindred questions of great interest to the working classes, I hope some means will be taken for publishing these papers at the lowest possible rate, so that they may be largely distributed throughout the country. I know that that was what was contemplated when the Department was formed. I must congratulate the Secretary to the Board of Trade on the first fruits of Mr. Burnett's work, which I think are very excellent. There is no one who is capable of doing the work better than he has done, and I only hope that the work will be published sufficiently cheap to bring it within reach of the masses.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I did not intend to obtrude myself upon the Committee in the discussion of this Vote, and I only rise for the purpose of saying that although I quite agree with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) as to the advantages of publishing these Parliamentary Papers at a cheap rate, I do not at all agree with him in the comments he has made upon the labour statistics which have just been issued. A publication which professes to deal with trades unions, but only deals with 18 out of more than 250, and tells very little about those which has not already been published, cannot be of much use to the people whom it is intended to serve. Unless there is some reference to the rate of wages from time to time, and if these statistics are only to be published at long intervals, I shall feel inclined to regret that I have put the country to the expense of giving them at all. I shall be glad to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury what the Government intend to do in the matter. Nothing has as yet

  1581
  been done to give effect to the intention with which the Returns were asked for.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: There is another point to which. I wish to direct the attention of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, whether the cost of printing, as an article of production, has been sufficiently reduced. I believe there will be no doubt among men who have had to deal with printers' bills during the last few years, that they have been largely reduced: and. further, it is a matter of experience, that with proper and legitimate pressure, even a farther reduction might take place. I would ask my hon. Friend whether, as a matter of business, he has endeavoured to secure a reduction in the printing charges? The next point to which I desire to draw the attention of my hon. Friend is the necessity for the exercise of greater discrimination in the number of copies published. I quite agree with what has been said in regard to the valuable Report of the Commission upon Technical Education—namely, that it should have been allowed to run out of print. In the second volume there are constant references to the first volume; but when application is made for the first volume, it is found impossible to obtain it. I think it is not asking too much to urge that at an early date there should be a republication or reprinting of the first volume. The next point I wish to press is the necessity for some more careful selection of the matter of the Blue Books, Reference has been made to the abstract which has been issued of the Report on Accident in Mines, which naturally embodies a summary of a large mass of evidence. I think the attention of heads of Departments should be directed to the subject, in order to insure that the valuable parts of an inquiry should be submitted in the nature of a precis or summary apart from the larger volume containing the evidence in full, so that those who have neither the time to wade through a ponderous volume, nor the purse that would enable thorn to pay for it, should be able to obtain, in a cheap and simple form, what is likely to be of real use to them. There is another question to which I wish to call attention which has not been referred to in the course of this brief debate, and that is, that the great cause of the increase in the printing bill is the action of Parlia-
  1582
  ment itself. I do not refer to the printing of Returns, but to the creation of new Departments. Some reference has been made to the Explosion of Boilers Act. The passing of that Act involved the appointment of an Inspector, and. of course, an Inspector must report. If he did not, his appointment would be almost a mockery. An Inspector who gave no information would be of little service, and his influence upon the public at largo would be very little. I would venture to say that when once Parliament has appointed an Inspector it is bound to publish his Reports. I know, from my own experience in these matters, that not only the persons employed in the management of mines or as superintendents of boilers have derived great benefit from the diagrams contained in these Reports, but that much advantage has been obtained by the workmen themselves.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Stockport that this Vote, including, as it does, an item of £185,000 for printing and £130,000 for paper, is a very large one. What I wish to know is the mode which is adopted in the Stationery Office for submitting the printing to public competition. I may be told that it is submitted to public competition already; but the competition is that of three or four leading business houses. I do not call that public competition in the strict sense of the term, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will let the Committee know that in future these large contracts will be submitted to, at least, 12 of the leading business firms. I believe that if that were done we should be able to make a very large saving on that head alone. It was only the other day—I will not mention either the Vote or the specific item, but it was a Vote for a very considerable sum of money—that it was pointed out that of four firms who had submitted prices, two happened to represent the same firm, so that they obtained 50 per cent of the advantage of the tender. I think that these tenders should be spread over something like a dozen firms at least, in which case it would be impossible for a circumstance of that kind to arise. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that at least 12 leading firms shall have an opportunity of com-

  1583
  peting for the various items embraced in the Stationery Vote.
  MR. CHILDERS: I had almost hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury had spoken before now upon the points which have been under discussion, because I am anxious to bring forward a mutter of interest which has not been alluded to by any previous speaker in connection with this Vote. I had hoped that the interesting questions raised by the hon. Members for Stock-port and the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire, as to the general expense of printing and publishing Parliamentary Papers, would have been disposed of before I referred to the charge for the printing of the Parliamentary Debates. If hon. Members will refer to page 21 of the Estimates, they will find there is a charge of something over £5,000 for the Parliamentary Debates. Now, we all know that for very many years the printing of the debates has been in the Lands of Mr. Hansard.
  THE CHAIRMAN: A separate Notice has been given in regard to the particular item to which the right hon. Gentleman is now referring, and it would, therefore, be better to reserve the discussion upon it until that Motion is made.
  MR. CHILDERS: I was not aware of that.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I myself have an Amendment upon the Paper in reference to that question. But before we reach it, I wish to say a word upon the observations which fell from the right hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). The right hon. Gentleman said that it is desirable to publish and widely circulate a great many of the Reports submitted to the House, and he suggested that it should be done at the expense of the Government. Now, I do not think that that is quite the best plan. As hon. Gentlemen well know, the mere fact of publishing a Parliamentary Paper in a Blue Book will not in any way save expense if it is desired to re-issue it in another form. The whole of the original cost of publication would have been already incurred. I think the better plan would be to have an understanding that those who do the printing of Blue Books and Returns shall not have an exclusive right to these publications, and then other pub-
  1584
  lishers would make it their business to go into the market and bring out, in a cheap form, such matter of that kind as may be likely to be demanded by the general public. I think the Secretary to the Treasury will find that that is not only the best, but infinitely a cheaper plan than getting the Queen's printers to republish a document. I wish, further, to ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee, when he rises to reply to the general discussion, why it is that the printers take so very long in submitting to Parliament the Blue Books which are ordered to be printed. The reason I take it to be is this—that the printers employ a certain number of compositors and a certain number of boys, and find it cheaper to keep the public waiting, rather than increase the number of compositors and pay for the work upon a better scale. There ought to be some plan by which the House of Commons would not have to wait so long as it now does for these Papers. A trumpery Return, which might easily be produced in three days, is often not presented for ninny weeks.
  MR. JACKSON: In reference to the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), I may say at the outset that I am extremely glad that the Committee seem disposed to give a general support to the Government in endeavouring to limit, as far as they can, the useless printing and publication of Blue Books, and may say at once that I cordially welcome the assistance of the criticism which my hon. Friend has brought to bear on this Vote. But I would point out to the Committee that the Stationery Office is in a most peculiar position in this matter. I need hardly remind the Committee that the Stationery Office, as far as it is concerned, has, practically, no control over the amount of paper and printing which may be required by the Public Departments. I see no remedy for that the Stationery Office has been constituted for the purpose of supplying all the stationery and printing which may be needed for the various Public Departments, and I have no doubt whatever that the Stationery Office, dealing as it does with the whole of the printing which the various Departments of the Public Service require, does effect an enormous amount of economy as compared with what the result would be if

  1585
  each Department were allowed to control its own printing in its own way. The hon. Member for Stockport has spoken of the very large sum expended upon paper and printing for the Public Departments. Now, according to the information which I have received, not only is the paper bought by open competition, and not only are tenders invited, as an hon. Member has suggested, from at least 12 firms, but I am told that any firm occupying a reasonably responsible position, which applies to be put on the list of the firms which receive from time to time notice that tenders are being invited, is at once placed on the list, and at the present moment there are more than 100 firms on the list to whom the tenders are sent.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Are they paper manufacturers?
  MR. JACKSON: I believe they are manufacturers and merchants.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: How many manufacturers are there?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know; but I believe that some of them are manufacturers, and some of them, are merchants. I know, from my own personal experience, that it is a great fallacy to suppose that it is always an advantage to purchase direct from the manufacturer. I have known a great many instances in which it has been possible to buy cheaper from the merchant than from the manufacturer. Therefore, I do not think the Government should be limited in their dealings to the manufacturer, but that they should go openly into the market and buy where they can get the article they want at the cheapest rate whether it be from the manufacturer or from the merchant. I admit that that is a very large question, and I have a sort of conviction that there is an enormous waste in connection with the publication of Blue Books and the printing for the House, but the Stationery Office has no control over it. Let me take the case of printed Bills introduced by private Members, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. Now, the House has ordered the printing of Bills, and unless the House reforms its own procedure, it is absolutely impossible for the Stationery Office to exorcise any real economy in the matter. I should only be too glad, if it were possible, in some form or
  1586
  other to limit the extraordinary amount of printing for which the public have now to pay. I readily admit that a great many useless publications are issued, and, as far as I am concerned, I should most cordially welcome any proposal that would have the effect of limiting this expenditure. I can assure the Committee that from time to time, within the last 12 months, I have myself made strenuous efforts to induce hon. Members who have moved for Returns which seem to me to be of small public interest, to accept the presentation of the Returns giving the information sought for, and thus saving the country the enormous cost of printing them; but I can assure the Committee that I have met with very little sympathy in the efforts I have made in that direction, and I should be very glad indeed if the Committee would support me in future endeavours to limit that expenditure. We have extended what is called "the short list." We have endeavoured to limit and to place on that list all such papers as we think ought to be put on the short list. But from time to time we have complaints from hon. Members that they have not received their Papers, and as they are quite within their right in putting down their names to have all the Papers sent to them, their wish must be complied with. I may further remind the Committee that in regard to the question of the Stationery Office it has been quite recently the subject of investigation, by a Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) presided, and which I believe did extremely good service in connection with that matter. The whole question was most carefully gone into, and the cost of printing, partly from the result of the labours of that Committee, in connection with fresh contracts, has been enormously decreased; something like £30,000 a-year less being paid now than was paid formerly. Therefore, what I want the Committee to understand is this—that while I sympathize with what I cannot but feel is the general impression, that the amount of money expended in these publications is enormously large, it is almost impossible to adopt any measure for limiting the amount, unless Members of the House of Commons will themselves assist in carrying out that object. My hon. Friend the Member for Stock-

  1587
  port spoke of illustrating the Blue Books with costly engravings and coloured plates. I need hardly remind the House that as far as the Stationery Office is concerned, and as far as the control of the Stationery Office is concerned, they are absolutely powerless in. the matter. These Reports are issued by the Departments—many of them by the Foreign Office—and all we have to do is to accept them as they are presented and sent to the Stationery Office. All other questions must be dealt with by the Department itself. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade represents a Department which is largely responsible for many of these costly publications, although, no doubt, they have great public interest, and some of the matters to which they relate are of the utmost consequence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made some complaint as to the employment of women and girls.
  MR. JENNINGS: No; I asked for an explanation as to the item for porters.
  MR. JACKSON: No doubt, the charge for porters is very large; but I can assure my hon. Friend that these porters are fully employed and are absolutely necessary, ft must be borne in mind that the Stationery Office have to deal with an enormous quantity of paper and of publications, and that they have to meet sudden demands which at any time may come upon them from various Departments. It is therefore absolutely necessary to keep up a large staff of porters. Indeed, I am afraid that it is absolutely essential to keep up at all times the maximum staff. As to the suggestions which have been made by the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire about popularizing the Government publications, and insuring a large circulation of thorn among the constituencies, I can only give one word of caution on that subject—namely, that it certainly does not mean economy. It does not moan limiting the cost of the Stationery Office, because, although you may increase the circulation, it must be borne in mind that every one of these Government publications is sold at less than cast price. Therefore, the larger the circulation the more the Government have to pay out of pocket. I entirely sympathize with the views which have been expressed in regard to the wider circulation of Parliamentary Papers of
  1588
  general interest, and as fur as I can give effect to what I believe to be the view of the Committee with reference to such Reports I shall certainly do so. I have given general orders to the Stationery Office in regard to this question that they are always to bear in mind that whenever a Report is of itself an interesting document, and one likely to have a large circulation, it is, wherever practicable, to be issued as a separate Paper, so that it may be obtained at a small cost. This is especially desirable, I think, in a case where the details and the evidence are voluminous, and likely to be sold at a high price. In reference to another subject to which attention has also been called—namely, the printing of Acts of Parliament—hon. Members will be aware that we have been pressed from time to time to print such Acts at a small price. Acts of Parliament have been printed hitherto, and mainly published by one firm. It is the intention of the Government, in the future, to have the Acts printed under Government sanction and authority, and sold in the same way as other Government publications, which means practically the selling of them under cost price. It is thought desirable that everybody should be able to obtain the Acts of Parliament which are passed from year to year. The hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire spoke of the Report of the Commission on Technical Education being out of print. I understand that that Report is out of print; but I think the fact illustrates the difficulty of dealing with this Vote—namely, that it is almost impossible to gauge exactly the number of copies that may be required of any particular Paper. There has been no desire whatever to restrict the printing of this Paper. No doubt, from time to time the Office has sailed very close to the wind in the supply, and in this particular case the demand has exceeded the supply which was prepared. I understand that the Report will be reprinted if there is any general demand for it. Before I go further, I may say, in reference to the increase in the cost of the Papers, that it was found that last year's estimate was £15,000 less than the actual expenditure. Therefore, in the present Vote, we have taken a larger sum, although not a sum equivalent to that increase, because there has been a considerable reduction in prices

  1589
  by which we hope to make the two ends meet. Owing to certain changes which have been, made, and the probable saving which will be effected, we have been encouraged to take a sum of £10,000 less than we ought to have taken, having regard to the increase of last year's Estimate. The demands which are sometimes made upon us in consequence of the action of Parliament are difficult to estimate accurately. Let me take the case of the Post Office. In 1883, the cost of supplying the Post Office Department on the average of the two years preceding the introduction of the Parcels Post was £67,000; but the cost of supply in the following year was swollen up to a total of £88,000. Next year it dropped to £78,000, but that sum was nearly £12,000 higher than it was before the introduction of the Parcels Post. Then, again, with regard to the 6d. telegrams; in 1885, the year in which they were introduced, the cost of supplying the Telegraph Department rose to £89,000, or £22,000 in excess of the cost before the new 6d. telegrams were introduced. Similar changes have affected the cost of supplying to the Patent Office, the Bankruptcy Department, the Ordnance Office, the Revenue Department, and several others. The expenditure has jumped up from time to time in consequence of alterations which have been made in connection with the Department. It is scarcely necessary to remind hon. Members that it is not in the power of the Stationery Office to decide what shall appear in the Blue Books; all they have to do is to print that which is presented to them. In reference to what my right hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) said as to the Blue Books being kept until a demand is made for them, I can assure the Committee that we have done everything to decrease even the number on the short list, and we shall be very glad to carry out that decrease still further. The right hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) made some remarks in reference to the reported sale of the Government copyrights. Now, I have no knowledge of any such transaction, and I believe it to be an entire misapprehension. What the Government have done is this—the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware
  1590
  that tenders wore advertised for in regard to the right of selling certain. Government publications; but that does not prevent the Government from exercising all the control it now possesses in regard to printing and publication. There has been no sale of the copyrights of the Government whatever, and there is no restriction imposed, as far as I know, upon anybody who desires to print extracts or summaries of Government publications.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: The hon. Member has not said whether he is in favour of the appointment of a Committee similar to that which sat in 1873–4 in regard to these questions.
  MR. JACKSON: I think the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member is well worth considering.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I may inform the hon. Member that the result of the inquiry of that Committee was to bring about a large decrease in the expenditure.
  MR. JACKSON: I think I have now gone through, although, I am afraid, in a very discursive manner, most of the points which have been brought forward in the course of this discussion. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport will be satisfied with having brought the matter before the Committee, and I need hardly say, that as far as I am concerned, every suggestion which has been made with a view of-reducing the very large charge which is included in this Vote will be carefully considered, I trust that my hon. Friend will now withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. JENNINGS: I said, at the outset, that I did not consider that the expenditure involved in this Vote was one which was in the discretion of the Comptroller, or that any blame attached to him in regard to it. I consider that the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury is perfectly satisfactory, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will now withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Before I proceed to move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, I wish to make one remark upon an expression which foil from the hon. Gentleman the

  1591
  Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman told us that the Blue Books, Parliamentary Papers, Reports, and Acts of Parliament are published at less than cost price. Now, I have here, in my hand, the Report of the Civil Service Commission, and I see the price at which it is sold is 1s. 3d As this is a matter with which I am practically acquainted, I may inform the hon. Gentleman that the cost of producing this Report is much, less than 1s.3d. For my own part, I should be delighted to deliver to him 10.000 copies at 6d. each, and I can assure him I should make a handsome profit out of the transaction. The cost of publishing a document of this kind is principally the cost of setting up, and is a first cost which does not affect the remainder of the copies. As a general rule, the cost is taken in this way—for 500 copies so much, and so much for all copies beyond 500. [Mr. JACKSON dissented.] Well, all I can say is, that I should be glad to take the contract myself. I have now to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper for the reduction of the Vote by £2,000 in regard to the publication of Parliamentary Debates and Records. The Committee will be aware that, at the present moment, the Parliamentary Debates are printed by Mr. Hansard. I am not complaining, in the least, that they are badly printed; but what I do complain of is that this item is excessive and unnecessary. In times gone by, the newspapers did not report our debates at length. The Times and other London daily paper, owing to the exigencies of printing, had to leave off reporting half an hour after midnight, and it was arranged that special reports should be taken by Hansard's reporters from half-past 12, and also when the House is in Committee of Supply, or in Committee upon a Bill. "With these exceptions, no special reports are taken for Hansard, and the entire reports of the debates of the House, distinguishing "the House" from "Committee," are cut out of The Times and sent to Members for correction. At present, everything that occurs in "the House," whether it is before half-past 12 or after, is taken from The Times; nor does Hansard have its own reporters there the only matters they report are the speeches which are delivered in Committee—such conversations as that
  1592
  which is now going on. The debates having been taken from The Times, sent to Members, and returned corrected, are then printed in Hansard. Now, it seems to me that the grant to Hansard is an entire waste of £5,150. The public are certainly not voracious in regard to the eloquence of this House when it is published. Of late, The Times have been republishing weekly a report of the speeches which have been delivered in Parliament during the week. The debates seem to me to be well done, and I think this republication would suffice for all practical purposes if it was taken in by Members and supplied to the library at a price of one guinea per annum. No doubt, it will be said that The Times does not report as fully as Hansard our proceedings in Committee; but, with, all respect for hon. Members, I do very much doubt whether anything beyond what appears in The Times is worth to the country £6,000 per annum. It seems to me that the reports in The Times are quite adequate to meet every general want. However, if a different opinion prevails, nothing would be more easy than to make an arrangement with The Times to take fuller reports than those which appear in the daily paper, and to put a little more into their weekly edition. I do not know why this sum of money has been kept up at this rate, except that it has been for a long time the habit of the House to take the reports of its proceedings from Hansard. Now, I do not know what Hansard is, whether it is a "Messrs." or a "Mr.," or whether it represents anybody of the name of Hansard at all. Moreover, I am not speaking in the interests of The Times, but simply in the interests of economy. I think the whole arrangement ought to be altered. We ought to be perfectly contented with The Times reports in the weekly form, particularly if supplemented in the way I have suggested. If it is objected that there would not be the same facility of correction that there is in the case of Hansard, then I confess that I am against such corrections. I often hear wonderful things fall from the lips of Ministers. I generally make a note at the time, in order to quote it afterwards; but I very frequently fail to find the particular expression I had noted. In the revised report I find the published

  1593
  speech, quite different from the spoken speech. Second thoughts are evidently best. Now, if the reports of our debates are to be official reports, let us have them officially reported. I do not understand having one speech delivered hers in the House and another put on record and sent out to people in the country. I will not say that a Minister ever says a foolish. thing; but very often he says what is not a wise thing, and he thinks it may be made a little hotter by altering it. It therefore comes to this—that we are paying £5,150 a-year in order that we may have fuller reports of proceedings in Committee than those which appear in The Times, and in order that Ministers, and other eminent Gentlemen, should have an opportunity of deluding and misleading the country by correcting their speeches, and sending out to the people speeches entirely different from those actually made in the House. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £334,260, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. CHILDERS: I submit to the Committee that the question is somewhat more important than my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) appears to think from the notice he has taken of it. What I understand is this—that Mr. Hansard received notice at the beginning of the year that his arrangement with the Government would come to an end at the close of the year, and that the Treasury would meanwhile negotiate with, other firms. If that notice is acted upon the series of Hansard will cease with the volumes that will be issued for the present year, those volumes being the last of Hansard that will over be published. I wish the Secretary to the Treasury to tell the Committee whether that is the case or not. I believe I am not overstating the present position of the matter—namely, that Mr. Hansard will not continue to issue the usual debates after the end of the Session, or, at any rate, if there is an Autumn Session, after the end of this year. If that is so, I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what course the Government propose to take? Do they propose to arrange with any other
  1594
  I firm for the publication of our debates as they have been published by Mr. Hansard, or are we to have, in any shape, an official publication under the I control and responsibility of a Government Department? Now, I am myself very strongly of opinion that it would be objectionable in the last degree to make the publication of the debates of this House an official publication. We have been accustomed to the system of Mr. Hansard, and so far as the correction of speeches is concerned, to which my hon. Friend has jocosely referred, I think that is a matter of comparatively small importance. I cannot altogether agree with what my hon. Friend has said, nor do I think that we can expect that what may happen in the small hours of the morning will not be better given if the speakers are allowed to correct their speeches. But there is I another matter which appears to me to be of real importance in regard to the publication of the debates of this House. If the publication is made an official one, for which Government is to be responsible, I venture to predict that it will lead to a great multiplication of Questions at half-past 4 o'clock from Members complaining that their speeches have been misreported. They will assert that instead of having said one thing, they stated another, and Questions will be repeatedly asked whether their embellishments have not been omitted. Government is every year expected to do more and more; but the idea of creating an additional Government Service for the reporting of debates is to my mind about the worst function they could assume, and I hope and believe that the Treasury have not yet come to any such decision. I think, therefore, that it is important that we should hear from the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have, at this moment, agreed to any form of publication other than the present. At any rate, we are entitled to know whether the publication is to be an official one, or a service such as Mr. Hansard has supplied under his arrangement with the Government. The House must not be led to suppose that there is no danger of an official publication of the debates. In the hands of the present Secretary to the Treasury, we may be pretty safe; but, at the I same time, I cannot forget that official publication is almost the invariable rule

  1595
  abroad where parliamentary government exists. It is the rule in America, the rule in America of our Colonies, the rule in France, in Italy, and wherever there are Assemblies to be compared with our own. Therefore, there are many precedents for it; but I think that this House should set its face against official publication. I do not think we ought to add to the responsibilities of the Government, which are heavy enough, that of having under their charge the delicate question of the accuracy of the reports of the debates. That is the only point on which I think it is necessary to have an answer, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will not object to give me the information I desire at once, or as soon as he can, in order that the Committee may know and criticize what it is that the Government have in contemplation.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think the speech which has just been delivered calls for a counterblast. I trust that we are within a measurable distance of the publication of something like, decent reports of the debates of this House. The right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience of Parliamentary tactics, could only meet the objection to our present system of reporting by an admission that every Legislative Assembly in the would that can be compared with the House of Commons docs publish an official report, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to show by what process of reasoning he arrives at the conclusion that the House of Commons should differ from every other Assembly in the world. I do not know what the Secretary to the Treasury has done in regard to Hansard; but I certainly think that the present arrangement is about as stupid a form of compromise as could possibly be devised. Let me inform the Committee what that arrangement is. All speeches which are made when a Bill is first brought in, unless they are reported in some newspaper, and can be copied by Hansard; and all speeches on the second reading are not reported in full, unless they happen to have been reported verbatim in some daily paper. But when we come to the Committee stage, there is not a sneeze that any hon. Member can make that is not taken down and given by the special staff of Hansard. As the result of this system, we have this extraordinary
  1596
  anomalous and imbecile state of things A debate upon the Second Heading of a Bill is given in 10 or 12 pages, although the speeches are of the utmost importance; and then, in Committee, we find 20 pages devoted to the speeches which are made upon the first clause of the same measure. In fact, there is no proportion whatever in the present system; what should be reported in a line is given verbatim, whereas what should have been given verbatim is given in lines. I am not surprised that the Secretary to the Treasury and the Government should desire to put an end to such a system, which is perfectly absurd. I have never, except on one melancholy occasion, revised a single copy of anything that has been sent to me by Hansard. It is quite bad enough to make speeches, without having to read them afterwards. Therefore, my speeches go down to posterity unconnected by me; and I do not hold myself responsible for them. But the speeches made in this House are part of the history of the country, and I am surprised that so experienced a Parliamentarian as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Guilders) should not realize that fact. Let me give an illustration of it. I do not suppose there was ever a speech delivered in this House to which history looked with greater curiosity and interest than the first speech made by the late Lord Beaconsfield. Everybody knows that it was a failure, and that it wound up with one of the most self-confident prophecies soon to be realized, ever made—I mean the passage in which Mr. Disraeli declared that although the House would not listen to him then, the time would come when it would do so. That was in 1837, and since then there have been revolutionary changes in newspaper Parliamentary reporting. In nearly all the popular daily papers we now find the most imperfect reports of Parliamentary proceedings. The newspapers themselves cannot help it. They find that there are a great many things the public care more for than the long speeches delivered here. The only newspaper that attempts to report the speeches at anything like decent length is The Times. [An hon. MEMER: And The Standard.] And The Standard to some extent. But The Tunes reports are extremely imperfect, because they dif-

  1597
  ferentiate—it is very natural that they should—the speeches made by Members of the Front Benches. When a Minister speaks, every word is given; but if any hon. Friend below me the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) makes one of his sparkling speeches, "which would not only be read, but keenly devoured by the country, I find that not even The Daily News gives one half of it. At the time Mr. Disraeli made the speech to which I have referred, in December, 1837, there were none of the long continental telegrams we have now, and the debates in this House were reported at full length. What was the result? Mr. Disraeli was reported almost in full, and the people for generations, perhaps oven for centuries to come, who may desire to road the speech, can do so by going to one of the papers of the period; and my modesty permits me to say that there is even a more ready way of finding the speech. Weil, supposing Mr. Disraeli had come into this Parliament for the first time, and had made a maiden speech in 1887 instead of 1837, it would have been crushed into three lines, and the result would have been that future Parliaments and future generations would have no record of the remarks he made upon so memorable an occasion. I do not know what other Members think of the matter; but I regard the history even of the present time as quite as important as the history of the country 10 or 17 centuries ago. Only a few-moments ago, we wore discussing a Vote for the purpose of publishing MSS. which throw a light upon the condition of affairs in the world some centuries before, or two or three centuries after, the foundation of Christianity. I not only did not begrudge that money, but I brought to bear as much pressure as I was able to upon the Secretary to the Treasury to induce him to increase the grant; because, in my opinion, history, besides the interest which is attached to it, is the signpost, the warning, and the guide with regard to polities, as well as legislation. To my mind, the history of to-day is as important as the history of 10 centuries ago; and I think that if for £5,000, or £10,000, or £20,000—[An hon. MEMBER: Or £40,000.] Yes, or £40,000, we can secure an accurate report of all the proceedings of this House, the money will be well
  1598
  spent. The money would be well spent in order to preserve to future generations the words used in this House. I might be told that a great deal of rubbish would find its way into the reports; but is not that the case just now? Besides, I should like to know what is rubbish, and what is not rubbish. What a man says to-day when he is below the Gangway may be rubbish so long as he is there; but it becomes sacred gospel when he changes his place to the Treasury Bench. In the debates on the Irish Church Question in 1867—I think it was—I do not think there was a speech delivered which did not contain some reference to Mr. Disrael's utterances with regard to Ireland many years before. The speech in which he referred to Ireland as being alien in race and religion was brought forward over and over again, and I think very properly, and what did Mr. Disraeli say in reply to such references? Why, he said that at the time he made the speech it did not appear to him to excite so much attention—it seemed to him to be pouring water into the sand; but now it would seem as though the water had come from a golden god. But that put my argument into a nutshell—what a man says from any part of this House may become a part of the history, not only of the man himself, but of the country of which he is one of the politicians; and I therefore say, that though trifling and irrelevant observations may sometimes find their way into Hansard, I would take the risk of that, and I would say that this country, like every other country, ought to have something like an authentic national record of the proceedings of its Parliament. For these reasons I take an entirely opposite view to that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken; and so long as I am in this House I would urge on the Government the desirability of conforming, in the matter of official reports in this Assembly, with the practice which prevails in every other Assembly of the kind in the world. There is one point in the statement of my hon. Friend to which I would specially allude. I wonder at my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) proposing that The Times reports should be taken in this matter. In the first place, I say The Times reports—I do not say The Times is to blame for it, but from the necessities of the case—make

  1599
  an essential distinction between the speeches of different Members of this House. In the first place, an official Member gets a great deal more space than an unofficial Member; in the second place, an English Member gets a great deal more space than an Irish Member; in the third place, an Irish Member gets a great deal more space than a Scotch Member—[No, no!"]; in the fourth place, a Scotch Member gets a great deal more space than a Welsh Member—[Renewed cries of "No, no!"] Well, I will leave Scotland and Wales to fight the question out between themselves; but my experience certainly is that the Irish Members are very unfairly treated in comparison with the manner in which official and unofficial English Members of this House are treated, and that the Scotch and Welsh Members are unfairly treated even as compared with the Irish Members. I say it would be unfair to ask us to take, as an official record, reports which are prepared not on the principle of fairplay between all the Members, but on a system of preference between one Member and another. I will not find fault if the Secretary to the Treasury changes the present arrangement, unless I find that he is going to drive Hansard back into the old ruts. If he is doing that I think he is taking a very retrograde step, because many hon. Gentlemen take up Hansard I suppose in the innocent belief that they are reading the reports which are taken by the independent staff employed by Mr. Hansard. As a matter of fact, that is not the case. The only part of our proceedings now taken by Mr. Hansard's own reporters are those in Committee—I do not know whether they do not take the Report stage of the bills; but I rattier think they do. the rest of the report is cut from the different newspapers, and if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury withdraws from Mr. Hansard the grant which he has given in previous years, the Committee stage of Bills will be reduced to the same condition as the others, and the reports, instead of being independent reports, will be taken omnium gatherum from the newspapers of the country.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): When the discussion took place on last year's Vote, I listened with very great interest and attention to what was said, with the
  1600
  view of ascertaining, if I could, what was the general fooling of the Members of the Committee, and I felt then, as I feel now, that the present condition of the arrangements for reporting our debates is not one which is satisfactory to Members of the House. Sir, when I made inquiries as to how the arrangements stood, I found that, although there was some uncertainty as to whether notice was necessary to be given is order to terminate the existing arrangements before any modification of such arrangements could be made, it would only be fair and reasonable that, at any rate, we should err on the side of dealing quite fairly with those who now publish Hansard's Debates. Therefore, I caused notice to be given to terminate the agreement. That was the first step which was necessary in order to enable us to act with free hands. There have been no arrangements made with regard to what should take place in the future. I was very anxious to hear what the Committee had to say. As the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has said, there are official reports in most other countries; but I must point out that if an official report is undertaken in this country, I am quite sure that the cost will have to be enormously increased over the sum we now pay. I would go further, and say that I entirely sympathize—speaking my own personal views after inquiries on this question—with what the light hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) has said, that it would be a most unwise proceeding on the part of the Government to accept the great responsibility of publishing an official report. I think the Committee will also feel—and in this I sympathize with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool—that there ought to be some record of the debates and transactions which take place in this House, and not only in this House, but also in the other House of Parliament. It must be remembered that Hansard deals not only with debates in this House, but also with debates in the other House of Parliament. I think it will be the general opinion of the Committee that something will have to be done in order to preserve a record of what takes place in Parliament, and that, therefore, some arrangement will

  1601
  have to Lo made. Sir, as a question of cost, I believe that in the United States, where an official report is published, the cost is, or was, about £50,000 a-year. [An hon. MEMBER: Not dollars?] No; pounds. I believe there has been some reduction obtained on that of late, understand that the following countries have official reports of debates:—Austria, Prance, Germany, Italy, the United States, Victoria, Queensland, and Now Zealand. The following have official reports—that is to say, reports published at the public cost, the work being done by contractors—in the other case it is done entirely by a staff, under the control of the Government:—Nova Scotia, Now Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and South Australia. In the following there are reports published by private enter-prize, without, apparently, any official authority being; attached to them:—Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, the Capo of Good Hope, New South Wales, and Tasmania. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Are those reports in full?] I believe they are full reports; but they are left entirely to private enterprize. Well, there are several alternatives open to us. One is to publish, an official report; another is to improve or modify the existing arrangement; and a third would be to make an arrangement with some new firm. I have said that notice was given to Mr. Hansard early, to enable the Government to act. That notice will not take effect until the end of this Session. I need hardly say, with, regard to those who are responsible for the publication of Hansard's Debates, that publication having gone on from the year 1803 consecutively and continuously, some consideration is due to them when it is proposed to break up an arrangement of that kind. I am sure the Committee will not desire in any sense to treat Mr. Hansard unfairly or unfavourably in the matter. I am not in a position to say what course will be taken; but I have listened to what has been said, and I will endeavour to inform myself still further as to what is most agreeable to the House. My own impression leans to the making of a modified arrangement, because I think there are two points to bear in mind; one is the question of cost, and the other the question of time—so that the reports will be published in good time, so as to be in the
  1602
  hands of Members a little earlier than they have been hitherto. But the position is simply this—that we have given notice, so that our hands are free, and we shall endeavour to make arrangements that will be satisfactory to the House.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I beg to remind the Committee that a Select Committee, under the Presidency of the present Leader of the House, sat to consider the question of Parliamentary reporting in 1878, and made a Report in 1879. Two Reports were submitted, one of which recommended an official report of the same nature as that which at present exists; and for that 10 Members of the Committee voted. Three Members voted for an altogether official report. With regard to cost, when this Select Committee—of which I was a Member—was sitting, an offer was made by a gentleman to do the whole of the reporting of the House—I do not know that it was actually an offer; but his representation was considered of sufficient importance to be printed along with the Report of the Committee. This gentleman, who was the proprietor of a publication issued for some years called Lords and Commons, undertook to present 1,200 copies of the debates in both Houses of Parliament to the Members of those Houses, the report to appear twice a-week, for the sum of £3,500. From inquiries I myself made at that time, I came to the conclusion that a much more voluminous report than that supplied by Hansard at that time could be had for less than £5,000. Of course, there was a difficulty raised as to the responsibility of an official report; but in answer to that it was pointed out that the Government could not altogether divest itself of responsibility under the existing arrangement, looking at the large sum already paid to Mr. Hansard. I think if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would consult some of the experienced reporters in this House, he would find it possible to organize a complete system of reporting much more satisfactory than that now adopted, at very little more than, if so much as, the present cost. I quite sympathize with what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to the consideration due to Mr. Hansard, having regard to his having carried on the publication of a report of our debates at a time when

  1603
  no other person was prepared to undertake the responsibility. Doubtless, Mr. Hansard's reports are considered of great value. With regard to the Select Committee which I have referred to, I myself made a draft Report which was supported at that time by a Gentleman of considerable experience in matters relating to reporting; I refer to Mr. Joseph Cowen, who was then Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. That Gentleman considered with me that it would be more satisfactory to Members of the House if there were a staff of reporters attached to the House, who would be responsible for reporting the speeches in the House. Such a staff—a most competent one—could be selected amongst the staffs of the newspapers, without the slightest difficulty. I am sure a number of gentlemen could be found who would report the speeches of Members in this House to the satisfaction of everyone. The gentleman who made the offer to which I have referred said he was prepared to undertake the reporting to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will consider this matter. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) will recollect a great deal of the evidence that was given before the Select Committee. Things have changed very much since then, and probably the cost of getting out a report would be much greater now than it was estimated in those days; but I would point out that probably the development which has taken place in type-writing and other means would enable the reports to be issued much more easily and quickly than formerly.
  DR. CLARK: I do not feel very strongly one way or the other regarding an official report; but I do feel very strongly with reference to the present system. I am strongly opposed to its continuance in any shape or form whatever. At the present time you have what is neither an official report nor yet an accurate report, and you spend as much upon it as would probably enable you to give an accurate report. At the present time this Report is simply a speculation on the part of Messrs. Hansard and Co., and the basis upon which they act is this—if they think they can sell a large number of their
  1604
  copies, they give instructions to their reporters to report more fully than they otherwise would do the speeches which are delivered. Latterly, Members of the House have not been in the habit of buying so many copies, and the result has been that Hansard has been curtailing its reports. With regard to an official report, I do not think we ought to have one under the control of the Government. The Government would be badgered night after night regarding it; but I think the report could be carried out under the supervision of a Committee—a Committee like the Committee of Selection. You might have a Committee of Reporting, and upon every question coming before that Committee the decision of the Committee should be final and binding. I do not think there would be any objection to such au arrangement as that. There is this great argument in favour of an accurate report of some kind—namely, that just as our constituents have a right to know how we vote, so, to a certain extent, they have a right to know what we say in their names here. I am not very strong on the point as to whether your report ought to be official or otherwise; but I am very strongly opposed to the continuance of incorrect reports. The junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) said the other day in reply to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that though the Hansard report very often is condensed, yet you could not find in it what has not been said. Now, my experience has been the reverse of what I have found in Hansard. I have only opened it once this year.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not think I went the length the hon. Member attributes to me. What I said was that I could not understand how the process of compression could bring in words which had never been used.
  DR. CLARK: the reporting is so wonderful that sometimes what has not been stated is put down as having been uttered. You get the reports sent to you for revision, For my own part, I pitch them into the waste paper basket, because I will not revise incorrect speeches. The speeches of hon. Members, except those who sit on the Front Benches, are so condensed that one cannot make anything out of them as to accuracy. The cost of this is a very

  1605
  serious matter, and, from the standpoint of expediency and economy, I sympathize very much with the remarks of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I think the present system is a very bad one, and if Hansard is continued next year we shall do what we did last year, and what we shall have to do in the future—namely, protest against the public money being spent upon an incorrect report sent out by a private firm.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I think it would be little short of a national calamity if the publication we know as Hansard were to be discontinued by this House. It has become so popular that, in the Dominion of Canada, the name has even been adopted for the official reports of the Canadian House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) complains of the inaccuracy of the reports; but I would remind him that hon. Members themselves are very often to blame for many of these inaccuracies. The reports of their speeches are sent to Members for revision, and Members sometimes desire to substitute for the reports so sent to them speeches which they have not made. For myself, my complaint would be not that the reports are inaccurate and too much condensed, but that matter of trivial importance—some speeches in Committee—are given at undue length. The Irish Members get a full share of the reports. I do not, so far as I am concerned, throw into the waste paper basket reports which are courteously sent me for revision; but I endeavour to make them as accurate as possible. Hon. Members from Ireland get at least their due share of reports—three-fourths of the speeches reported being theirs. I trust that, before coming to a decision and discontinuing the valuable reports supplied by Mr. Hansard, the Government will give this matter the most careful consideration.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I do not often trouble the House with my opinion; this is the first time, indeed, that I have spoken in these debates. I must say, however, that though I do not very often agree with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), having heard his speech on this occasion I can thoroughly en-
  1606
  dorse what he said. I frequently—in fact, I may say almost always—agree with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; but on this occasion, as I understand his speech, I cannot quite agree with him. I understand him to say that he contemplates—I hope he will forgive me if I am misquoting him—the possibility of handing over the reporting of speeches in this House to some unofficial source—probably to a newspaper firm. Now, I must say that that is a course I strongly oppose. I should not like the reporting of speeches in this House to be placed in the hands of any newspaper—no matter how eminent—over whom the House has no authority whatever; and 1 should deprecate the placing of the official reporting of the speeches of Members of this House in the hands of any newspaper staff whatever. There are influences brought to bear on the reporting Staff and the newspapers of this country which, under certain easily conceivable circumstances, would be adverse to the interests of the country; and I hope that the reporting of the proceedings of this House will be full, and, above all things, correct, whatever the circumstances may be. I would advocate that there should be an official report of the speeches of Members of this House kept for reference—a report which shall be correct in all respects, and which should be under the control of a Committee formed from all sections of this House. I endorse the opinion of the hon. Member who spoke last, that it would be little short of a national calamity if Hansard, which has recorded the speeches of so many Members of this House, were done away with to make way for a newspaper report as the official record of the speeches delivered in this House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The system that has been pursued up to now is precisely the system which, according to the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), will bring the country to ruin. There is no official report at the present moment—Hansard is practically unofficial. Hansard is a publishing firm. The reports are now in the hands of newspapers, because Hansard takes his reports from The Times. The Secretary to the Treasury made an important statement to-night. He said he had given notice to Hansard, and intended to make some fresh arrangement next

  1607
  year. He was anxious to hear what were the views of the Committee upon the point. Now, the Committee is not very full at the present moment, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman will acquire the full views of the Committee from the speeches make this evening. I hope the hon. Gentleman will place the matter in the hands of some Committee to look thoroughly into it before we bind ourselves to any further arrangement. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers)—I think it would be a very great mistake to have an official report. We have been told that we ought to have such a report for the use of future generations. Now, I think future generations will care uncommonly little about what we are saying at the present time. Future generations will not care to look back at our debates, and I think that even if they do we ought not to minister to their folly. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thinks it is really desirable that there should be tin official report, and he actually quoted the figure of £10,000 a-year as the sum we ought to spend in order to make a complete historical record of our debates. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be worth while spending this £40,000, and he pointed out that if we had spent this sum for a considerable number of years past we should be able to turn to the first speech, of Mr. Disraeli. We know what Mr. Disraeli said at the end of his speech—namely, that the House would hear him someday. That was the only interesting part of Mr. Disraeli's speech. Probably the House was exceedingly wise in not listening to the speech, and probably, if we know what he said, we should not pay much attention to it. Now, you have in America a Congressional Record, and what is the result? The debates are not reported in other newspapers, and nobody reads The Congressional Record. The person would be looked upon as a lunatic who sat down to his Congressional Record, which is only published to gratify the stupid and silly vanity of the Members of Congress themselves. Let us quite understand what happens. Let us suppose that a Gentleman has spoken for five minutes, and nobody has been listening to his speech, he may move
  1608
  that the rest of his speech be taken as spoken and printed in The Congressional Record. If we could introduce some such system here, I should be rather inclined to vote in favour of a Congressional Record; but what I want to point out particularly is, that the public do not take an interest in this official record, but are satisfied with the reports they get in the newspapers. As a rule, a quick speaker speaks a column in 15 minutes, so that a Sitting of 10 hours' duration will yield about 40 columns of speeches. The fact is that the newspapers take a practical view of this matter; they know pretty well what the public want, and they give the public what they want. It has been, complained that official speeches are published atgreater length than the speeches of independent Members. It is only natural that such should be the case. A Minister speaks as a Representative of the entire Government; and it is more desirable, from the point of view of the public, that his speech should be reported than that the eloquence, which may be greater, of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway should be recorded. A newspaper is always having complaints from some persons that it does not report sufficiently lengthily. Constituents like to see reports of the speeches of their Members. [An. hon. MEMBER: Not all.] Not all; but some do. No doubt, a Member always likes to see himself reported as lengthily as possible; but the general public do not, and if a newspaper were to give all speeches, it would be found that there would be a very vast amount of repetition. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the reporters for not reporting us fully, for what would the public say of us if they did? They would see we stammer and stutter; that we very often use the wrong word instead of the right word; that we frequently do not finish our phrases; and that our phrases are very rarely grammatical. I wish hon. Gentlemen could see a few speeches reported verbatim; I wish gentlemen in the Gallery would report a few speeches verbatim, in order to convince hon. Gentlemen of the miserable figures they cut when their words are taken down verbatim. As I have said, I trust we shall have a Committee to look into this subject. I will not prejudge the decision of the Committee; but I do believe a Committee will be

  1609
  opposed to any official record. I look upon Hansard as a kind of middleman. Subscribe to some sort of record—The Times, if you like, or any record which is considered sufficiently full—but, in the name of goodness, I do hope we shall not have verbatim reports, and that we shall have no official record. The Amendment I have proposed has done what I wanted—namely, concentrated the discussion a little on this point; and, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, I beg to withdraw it.
  MR. JACKSON: the hon. Gentleman haw really expressed much better than I can my views. We consider that some Committee should be appointed to consider the subject before a final decision is arrived at.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I understand that no final arrangement will be made until a Committee has been appointed and reported. Now, I only wish to make one observation. My hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) is mistaken in supposing I said I was willing to spend £40,000 a-year upon an official report. An official report would not cost £40,000 a-year, or anything like it. If the hon. Gentleman would seriously consider the question, he would rind that he could get the work done for £10,000 a-year at the very most.
  MR. SINCLAIR&c.): I have a practical question to ask—namely, when it is proposed this Committee shall sit? We are approaching the end of the Session, and, of course, there is no time now to consider the subject. If the Committee is not to sit until next Session, the present arrangement must continue for some time longer.
  MR. JACKSON: I think I had better say at once that I do not propose to appoint a Select Committee in the ordinary sense of the word; but what I propose to do is to ask certain Members of the House to form a Committee to assist the Department in coming to some decision as to what the arrangement should be in the future. Some difficulty exists in the matter. In all probability a Select Committee could not report before the end of the Session, while it is very necessary that before the commencement of next Session we should make some arrangement or other.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. T. P. GILL: I wish that we should receive some statement from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) as to the working of the Commission on the Bre-hon Laws. I find that instead of there being a saving of £200 there is a second £200 put down, and we are anxious to know what is being done for the money. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Colonel King-Harman) informed me recently, in reply to a Question, that the translation of these laws is being conducted by Professor Atkinson, in Dublin. Now, the proceedings of the Brehon Laws Commission in the discharge of work which, I venture to think, is one of the most important literary, archæological, and historical enterprises which has ever been undertaken by any of the historical societies in Ireland, are simply scandalous—the money which is spent on the Commission at the present time is simply wasted. This Commission was first appointed in the year 1857, and it employed for the purpose of translating these laws, upon the importance of which I will not dwell, two very well-known Celtic scholars, perhaps the most celebrated Celtic scholars who have lived in Ireland during the century—namely, Dr. O'Donovan and Professor O'Curry. The system under which these scholars were set to work was such as deserves the utmost condemnation, for it has hindered and marred, to a great extent, the efficacy of the work they undertook. They were paid by the day; 10 s. a-day was paid to each of the two finest Celtic scholars in Europe, and for every day they did not attend at the office in Trinity College a day's pay was stopped. They did not take vacations lest their pay should be stopped. The consequence was that both of them died early. As is, unfortunately, often the case with eminent literary men, these gentlemen were needy. They had large families, and having to work in this fashion, not being able to take a day's rest for fear that a day's pay would be stopped from their stipends, both of them died at an early age, and before their work was finished. The work began at the latter end of 1857, or the beginning of 1858. Dr. O'Donovan died in 1861, and Pro-

  1611
  fessor O'Curry died a year afterwards. These gentlemen were killed by the system. From the day Professor O'Curry died to the present moment, there has never been, as a matter of actual fact, one line of those laws genuinely translated. This most important subject, which requires a specialist of such skill, of such rare knowledge and rare accomplishments as these two men possessed to deal with it, has actually been in abeyance since the death of these gentlemen; and the volumes of the laws which had been published—the last was published in 1879, 18 years after the death of Professor O'Curry, and 19 years after the death of Dr. O'Donovan—are simply compilations consisting of the work of these two gentlemen. As I have said, this Commission has been re-organized. I am inclined to believe it was not re-organized until one evening last year. I and some of my hon. Friends put a Question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury concerning these laws, because until that time since the publication of the last Report the question had never been raised in the House. Before the Commission was re-organized it had actually ceased to exist, and yet was drawing money from this House. The Commissioners had died off one by one, and only one member of the original Commission, Dr. Graves, was living. As I have said, the translation of these laws is of the greatest archæological and historical value and importance. Anybody who knows anything about these laws knows that they are studied by scholars all over Europe, because they are capable of throwing most valuable light upon the jurisprudence in general, and upon the history of the Constitutional development of the Irish people. The laws existed before Christianity was introduced into Ireland, and were codified and reedited when St. Patrick came to the country.
  MR. AIRD: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I desire to know from you, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the point?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gill.
  MR. T. P. GILL: The translation of these laws and their publication is a work in which scholars and men who take interest in such matters all over Europe are most deeply interested. The constitution of the Commission,
  1612
  with, perhaps, the exception of two gentlemen, is perfectly absurd. Lord Ashbourne is Chairman of the Commission, I the Bishop of Limerick is another Member; he is one of those who, we may say, are really qualified to act upon the Commission; he was a member of the last Commission, and he is a well-known Irish scholar. Then there is Mr. Porter, the Master of the Rolls, what zeal or qualification he has for such work I do not know, neither do I know what qualification Judge William O'Brien has for such work, and so on. Perhaps Professor Ingham is another of those who may be considered as qualified for such a task; but the reconstitution of the Commission, as a whole, is absurd. As a most convincing and conclusive proof of that, we have only to consider that the gentleman in whose hands the Commission have placed the translation of these laws is Professor Atkinson, a gentleman who is assailed and jeered at by every man in Ireland who has any knowledge of Celtic literature. Professor Stokes, one of the best known Celtic scholars in the world, referring to Professor Atkinson in an article recently published in The Academy, a very well-known literary newspaper, says that Professor Atkinson is thoroughly incompetent to deal with the subject with which he has been entrusted; that he is incapable of correctly speaking, writing, transcribing, or translating three consecutive sentences of any Celtic tongue; unable to decline a common Celtic noun, or conjugate a common Celtic verb. I do not think there has ever been an instance in which failure, and incompetency, and waste has been so singularly exhibited as in the whole of the proceedings of this great Law Commission for the past 30 years. They have produced four volumes which do not contain the work of any scholar except that of the two scholars who died, the last in 1861. £200 is set down in the Stationery Vote in respect of this work. I ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) to take some steps by which the present state of affairs may be put an end to, to take the work out of the hands of this incompetent gentleman, who has a great many qualifications as regards other languages, but who in regard to the Celtic language in which these laws are written has no qualification whatever, as the evidence of all scholars who know any-

  1613
  thing about the subject goes to show. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take the work out of Professor Atkinson's hands, and to re-organize the Commission—to appoint men who do know something about the subject, and who have a certain amount of enthusiasm for Irish historical matter. I trust the hon. Gentleman will place upon the Commission active Celtic scholars, of whom there are many in Ireland, and even those men from France and Germany who take an interest in the translation of these laws.
  MR. DILLON: I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. Gill) that the translation of these laws is a matter of the very greatest importance. The code of ancient laws contained in these manuscripts is acknowledged to be one of the most remarkable in the civilized ancient world. The original manuscripts from which these volumes have been prepared were given to Trinity College by Edmund Burke so long ago as 1790, with a request that some time or other the College authorities would have them translated. At that time no man living could understand the language in which the laws were written; no Irish scholar could translate the language. About 30 years ago there did arise in Ireland two men who, for the first time in modern, history, were able to comprehend this ancient Irish text, and a Commission was then issued for the purpose of arranging for the translation of these manuscripts into the English, tongue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Louth has described the way in which these two men were treated. There is no use, however, in going back on that now, but I say the same system prevails to-day. Nothing could be more monstrous or outrageous than to see ordinary common clerks in the Record Office at Dublin, men of no attainments beyond that of ordinary civil servants, drawing £500 a-year, and men of attainments absolutely unique, labouring 12 hours a day, doing work which no other man who had lived for 100 years could do, or any man living in Europe could do, obtaining the princely reward of 10 s. a-day, a reward which was denied to them if upon, any day they failed to attend to their work. The system is a disgrace, to the people who employed them. These men passed away, and they left behind them a monument of patient labour which has not
  1614
  been surpassed in similar work in any country in the world. They left behind them a complete transcript of the whole of these ancient laws, gathered together from the Bodleian, the British. Museum, Trinity College, and other Colleges. They loft also a complete translation so far as they could translate the text into the English language; but considerable passages were omitted because they were not able to be certain of them. Men, however, who know nothing of the Irish language in comparison with Dr. O'Donovan and Professor O'Curry have undertaken to translate passages which, were left blank. It may be asked what do we want the Government to do? There is but one course left for the Government to take up, and that is to move the work of translating these manuscripts from the hands of men who who are about as capable of doing it as I am—to publish the work of these two Professors to whom I have referred, every word of which is worth its weight in gold. I would urge the Government to do this, and not to go on spending money recklessly, without voting money which would simply be wasted. I maintain that every word that these two Professors have written will commend itself to scholars. Scholars well know when they take the work of these two men into their hands that they have got the truth. There may be defects in their work, but the defects will not be absolute inaccuracies. Every single Hue they wrote is of great value; in their work you are certain of accuracy; and I would, therefore, ask the Government to break up the present Commission, and to give orders to some intelligent man to ascertain whether the documents as prepared by Professors O'Donovan and O'Curry cannot be given to the world. If that were done, I say the publication would be one of immense value. What scholars desire to know is, if they cannot he certain that they have got the whole truth, at any rate, that they have not got the truth mixed up with, falsehood in inextricable confusion. Let some intelligent man examine the documents and see if they are not in such a shape as they can be given to the world. If that is done the publication will be one of great value to the scientific world. There is no doubt, in ray opinion, that the money the Government is at present spending' upon this publication can be better em-

  1615
  ployed. The Commission who had the task in hand undertook to carry it on after the death of those who had commenced it. That Commission, however, was mainly composed of men who had no knowledge of the subject, and as; time went on the difficulties which beset them in the matter accumulated enormously. They would not, owing to reasons which I will not enter into, put the work into the hands of the next best men, who were the most capable men in Ireland of performing it. They confined the work and the money that was to be made out of it to a narrow clique in Ireland. Of course, they could not get the work done at all, under these circumstances in a decent and respectable way. They employed Dr. Hancock—a man who had no knowledge of the Irish language whatever, although he was, no doubt, very learned in other matters. Then they employed Dr. Mitchell, a person also deficient in knowledge of the Irish language. They then got a certain Professor O'Mahoney, of Trinity College, to assist them. This gentleman, no doubt, did know Irish; but I do not think his knowledge was of a very complete kind. Some years ago Dr. O'Mahonoy died, and most of the Commissioners died, and the work remained in a state of torpor, no one seeming to take any interest in it. Some years ago the Commission transferred the entire stock of original translations into the hands of Dr. Atkinson, a man who is a Professor, and who had no more knowledge of the Irish language than any Gentleman in this House. He applied himself to the study of that language a few years ago, and I believe has acquired a superficial knowledge of it. But I think that for such a man to be entrusted with the work of translation of these manuscripts—a work which has defied the most learned men of our country for centuries—is absurd on the face of it. It is perfectly ridiculous that such a gentleman as this should be entrusted with the work which has occupied the attention of the greatest Irish scholars, and has only yielded up its secrets to men of the typo of Dr. O'Donovan and Dr. O'Curry. What I object to in this matter is not alone the waste of money which occurs, because the amount is not very extravagant. My complaint is not alone that the money is absolutely thrown away, but that we are to have
  1616
  given to the world a publication of this great body of laws, which are of enormous importance from the point of view of the study of Irish antiquities, where absolute accuracy is of the greatest importance, and that we should have to depend entirely for accuracy and truthful translation upon such a person as Dr. Atkinson—a man who has the audacity to say that he makes such alterations in Dr. O'Donovan's translations as, it is reasonable to infer, Dr. O'Donovan, if he had been alive, would be inclined to make himself. Did anyone ever hear of such audacity on the part of a man who was not fit to tie the latchet of Dr. O'Donovan's shoe? Then he goes on at a later period to explain the system upon which he intends to carry on all the rest of this work. He points out that he is actually at present engaged in turning to account all the materials which have been accumulated by his predecessors. He say she is engaged in translating, in supplying omissions, and in correcting the errors which cannot but be regarded as blemishes. Well, these books it seems are to be published, and no one is to know what are the corrected errors and the supplied omissions of this Professor Atkinson—the errors being those of Dr. O'Donovan, and the work in which the omissions are supplied being also that of that eminent Professor. You might just as well put into that man's hands the original text of Homer, ask him to correct according to his own ideas of rhythm and sense, and to publish it to the world as the true work of Homer, in which only such corrections have been made as it was reasonable to infer that Homer himself would have made if he had been alive. Such a course of action I look upon not merely as a gross scandal and waste of time and money, but as something far worse, and I think that if the Government cannot see their way to do what I suggest they should stop this work altogether. Let the work die out—let these books be locked up in one of the safes of the Irish Academy—we should then be spared the publication of books which profess to give that which they do not give, and which in the end will be found out to be impostures, and only valuable as waste paper. The man who has undertaken this great work is not even conversant with dialects of the modern Irish, or with any of its ancient

  1617
  dialects. I fail to see how it is possible I for any work dealing with the antiquities of Ireland to be so feeble as a work carried on in the way I describe. Three volumes of those manuscripts are well known in Irish history, and are said to have been written by St. Patrick. I do not believe that there exists a body of ancient laws so valuable as this book Seanchus Mor, which is well known in authentic history to have Leon composed by St. Patrick when he took the laws of the ancient Kings of Ireland and compared them with the Gospels. Those laws have descended in ancient manuscripts of such a character as to lead one to believe that they were undoubtedly laid down in the fifth century. One of the books is even more ancient, and was written by one of the great Kings of Ulster who; retired to the Island of Achill, and engaged himself in this task. The value of the translations is absolutely and entirely dependent on the trust you can repose in the scholarly accuracy and knowledge of the translators. When you introduce the element of ignorance into the translations you destroy the whole value of the book, because in certain difficult passages, where a man takes upon himself to alter the translation of a scholar more eminent than himself and better acquainted with the subject, it is very reasonable to suppose that the inaccuracy is likely to be on his part. If a scholar were able to say "every word in this book bears the sanction of: such men as O'Donovan and O'Curry," he would know that the work was to be relied upon as having the sanction of the greatest scholarship Ireland was able to I produce; but when the work is "corrected" and added to by a man who has no scholarly qualifications for the work he has undertaken, the whole work must become entirely valueless. The student never can know where the translation is to be relied upon—he will always be at a loss to know whether he has the authority of the scholar, or whether he is simply under the guidance I of the ignorant person who "corrects" the scholar. I would, in conclusion, I urge the Government to do what I suggest, and to give us some assurance that either the original transcriptions and translations will be published in the form in which they left the hands of the great scholars I have alluded to, or else
  1618
  that the work will be suspended altogether.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I will not pretend to follow the two hon. Gentlemen who have discussed this question of the translation of the Brehon Laws; but I think everyone who has listened to these Gentlemen, particularly to the hon. Gentleman for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), must feel that there is a great deal of force in what has been said as to the desirability of setting, at all events, an accurate publication of this work in the form in which it left the hands of the great scholars who have been referred to. All I can say is that I will, without delay draw attention to the subject of tills Commission as it exists at the present time, and of the views of hon. Members who have given so much attention to the matter. Hon. Members could hardly expect me to promise more than that. I am quite sure that the views they have expressed will be received by the Commission with respect, and will have that importance attached to them which they deserve. I promised, in answer to representations which were made to me last year, to consider this subject, and it was in performance of that promise, owing to representations of hon. Gentlemen, that I made the allowance in respect of this Vote.
  MR. DILLON: thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,761, 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 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Laud Revenues, and of the Office of the Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
  DR. CLARK: There are one or two items in this Report of the Woods and Forests Department which I should like to press upon the attention of the Treasury, with the view of putting a stop to the further sale of Crown rights either to piers, salmon fishings, or mussel fishings. In the Report for the present year I find that the Crown have been selling to proprietors the rights of

  1619
  fishing at two or three years' purchase, and that they are selling piers and mussel beds which are very much required by the fishermen at preposterously low prices, and there is very little doubt that before long they will have to buy them back again at ten thousand times the price paid. The fact is, these rights are being frittered away by the Woods and Forests Department. If they wish to sell these rights, let them sell at something more like a fair price, and something more like the amount for which they would be likely to get them back again if they desired to re-purchase. Do the Government think it fair to sell these valuable rights for two or three years' purchase? I see they have been selling pier rights down at Tighnabruach, in the Firth of Clyde, and in Argyllshire, In one case a man has purchased the rights for a, merely nominal sum, although probably the proprietor would ask £20,000 for the pier if he came to sell it. Some of the Perthshire salmon fishings Lave been sold at ridiculous prices. All these sales of Crown rights, indeed, which have taken place, have been at preposterous prices. The sale of mussel beds to adjacent owners has led, and will lead, to disturbances amongst the fishermen. I desire to impress upon the Government the desirability of buying back the mussel beds they have sold, so that the fishermen may not have to go to Ireland for their bait.
  MR. JACKSON: I did not quite clearly follow what the hon. Member was referring to when he commenced speaking about these sales. I know that there have been several questions brought before the Treasury from time to time with regard to the sale of certain fishings in Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman opposite will probably know that the matter has been made the subject of a Question in this House, the allegation being that these rights have been sold for less than would have been received for them if they had been put up to auction. I have gone into the question, and I think it is quite clear that there are certain rights and responsibilities attached to certain portions of a river which it is necessary to consider. It has been the custom to sell, with the right to re-purchase, to those who own property along the shore, and it may have been very possible that, in some instances,
  1620
  more might have been obtained from other persons than was received from the riparian owners to whom the sales were made; but probably if such sales had been made the result would have been to damage the fishings over the whole stream, and to cause more harm than good. I have no information to give the hon. Member as to the sale of the mussel beds.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I can corroborate what the hon. Member for Caithness says about the Scotch fishermen going to Ireland for mussels for bait. The Irish fishermen are very loudly complaining of those mussels being taken away, and I know that the question is causing considerable irritation.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think the Secretary to the Treasury might give us some pledge that no more of the fishings which are still held by the Crown in Scotland will be allowed to go into the hands of private proprietors. Within the last year or two these exclusive rights in certain lochs in Scotland have been sold at a merely nominal figure to adjacent proprietors. Well, a strong feeling exists in Scotland on the question of fishing. The public think they ought to have the right of fishing with rod and line in the larger streams of the country, and in the larger lochs; but the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, by their action in making the fishings the exclusive property of private individuals, have prevented this. The sums the Commissioners have received for those fishings are so small that they are not worth the trouble the Treasury are taking in the matter. In any case, if they wish to make money out of these Crown rights, they should only give them on lease for a temporary period, and that only after advertising to the public generally that they are prepared to do so. I am sure that by this means they could get more money into the Treasury, and give the public much more satisfaction. There is no doubt as to what the Secretary to the Treasury says. No doubt these rights are sold under a certain contract with the purchasers; but I would not recommend the Crown in every case to go into a Court of Law to establish their title. If the hon. Gentleman will only give the public a chance I have no doubt you will find associations and bodies amongst the

  1621
  public—particularly amongst the rod and line fishing associations—who will very readily endeavour to vindicate the rights of the Crown as against the private owners. In the case of the mussel beds, a very great grievance is felt by the Scotch fishermen. They do not think they ought to be sold——
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that no mussel beds have been sold.
  DR. CLARK: I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for Woods and Forests. He will find there statements made to the effect that mussel beds have been sold in the Moray Firth. I believe they were sold for 14 years for £10.
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that there has been only one sale of the kind during the past 14 years.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Such sales are constantly taking place in Aberdeenshire.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The Government, I believe, are considering the question of putting a stop to the sale of mussel beds to private individuals instead of to fishermen. If the Government have the power to do so, I trust they will intervene, so that fishermen may have the first claim upon the mussel beds. The riparian proprietor simply wants them for the purpose of making money out of them. The fishermen want them not merely for the purpose of making money out of them, but for obtaining bait to enable them to carry on their industry. In one case with which I am acquainted these mussel beds have been laid hold of by a proprietor, and considerable doubts exist as to whether he had any right to them. The fact of the matter is that the fishermen have to pay very large sums annually for the mussel beds they use, upon winch beds the proprietors have never made the smallest expenditure so far as can be ascertained. The riparian owners, wherever they can, seize upon these mussel beds, finding them to be of value, and make the fishermen pay for the mussels. Another question has been raised with regard to certain fishing rights, and I am sorry that the Secretary to the Board of Trade is not in his place in order that he may have an opportunity of learning what are the views of the fishermen of Scotland upon this subject. I trust, however, that the Secre-
  1622
  tary to the Treasury will transmit to the Secretary to the Board of Trade the expression of opinion which has been delivered hero to-day. I trust the hon. Gentleman will learn that the fishermen of Scotland feel very strongly on this subject. I trust that we shall have an assurance from the Board of Trade that the possession of these mussel beds will be transferred from the adjacent proprietors, who only hold them for the purpose of making money out of them, to the fishermen, who will make use of them for the development of their industry and for the general advantage of the public. It is desirable in the interests of all parties that the fishermen should be enabled to obtain their bait at something like a fair cost. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will be prepared to say that he will not allow the public rights to fishings in Scotland, whatever they may be, to be sold to private proprietors to the exclusion of the fishermen. At any rate, if these rights are sold by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests they should be put up to public auction.
  MR. JACKSON: I certainly sympathize, more or less, with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. My own impression is that in the only cases, at any rate in recent times, which have come before me in which these rights have been sold, the sales have taken place not so much on account of the money which has been realized as with the object of giving to the adjacent owners or proprietors a greater interest in and encouragement to the protection of the fishings. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No, no;" but I know that this is so in certain cases, the particulars of which I have ascertained by careful inquiry. The motives which I have explained are clearly those which have actuated the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in dealing with this question. [An hon. MEMBER: In what case?] In the case brought forward by the hon. Member who sits on the other side—a case in which a fishing had been sold. Some angling club made a complaint about the sale of the fishing—complained that they had not been allowed to compete for the purchase of it. It seems to me that, on the whole, it was the best course they could have adopted. I will take care the Board of

  1623
  Trade is informed of what has been said about those mussel beds.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that in his county the salmon fishing rights had been rented by the Woods and Forests Department to the very persons who ought not to have them. Instead of being managed by these renters, these rights were sub-let to others at a considerable profit. In Kincardineshire the sea salmon fisheries were the highest in value of any other county; but no benefit resulted to the people from this profitable income to the Department. The Fishery Board ought to have the control of all sea fishings.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. CALDWELL: I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the very strong- feeling which the people of Scotland entertain regarding the rights of the Crown in Scotland to foreshore and other fishings. The people fool that these rights are for the enjoyment of the public, and that they ought to be handed down from generation, to generation as public rights. There is no reason, "why one generation should convert these Crown rights into money. At present you are confiscating the rights of your successors. There is a strong feeling, too, that the rights which have been already granted ought to be curtailed. In 1885 a piece of the foreshore was sold for £1 to a private individual, for the purpose of erecting a pier in the Kyles of Bute. I am not here for the purpose of disputing that the Crown ought to exact anything more than a nominal figure for the site of a pier; but I am here to maintain that in a matter of this kind the grant should only continue as long as the pier is used for public purposes. In the case in question the pier has ceased to be used as a public pier. Then, again, some of the salmon fishings have been sold for merely nominal sums. For instance, there were fishings on the Blackadder which had been sold for £10 and £15. I think it is a fair principle to lay down that no Crown rights should be sold. These rights may be leased for a reasonable period, and when they are leased the Crown should do what the Corpora-
  1624
  tions of Glasgow and elsewhere do under similar circumstances—namely, put up the property to public sale. If the Crown is prepared to make a lease of either foreshore or a salmon fishing, the matter ought certainly to be publicly advertised—a proceeding which the Corporation of Glasgow, having regard to the feeling of the people, find it necessary to adopt. In no case should a lease be granted for more than five years.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I can give my personal assurance that no member of the public would have given £10 for the fishing at Blanerne, and that no sane man who is not connected with the neighbourhood would have given £15 for the other fishing referred to. It is up in the wilds, and no salmon are ever seen, except after a heavy spate, when one or two fish may run up. Certainly there have not been 10 salmon caught there in 20 years. It is said the gentleman who owns the property ought only to get a lease for 10 or 20 years. Men will not take such leases, and they are quite entitled, without leases, to prevent people fishing. [An hon. MEMBER: That is not the question.] There is no law in Scotland by which the public can claim the right of fishing on the rivers, nor is there any case in which the proprietor has a right of salmon fishing, except by title from the Crown or through prescriptive right. I have never heard of a case in Scotland in which the proprietor of lands, having water running through them, has not with the lands the right of fishing and the right to prevent anybody else fishing. But that gives the proprietor no right to the salmon fishings, and no one can fish there unless they have a right from the Crown.
  MR. CALDWELL: My contention is that Crown rights either to foreshores or salmon fishings ought never to be parted with at all. There is no doubt that if a landowner has a Crown grant by prescription, that includes the right to salmon fishing. But it is equally clear that the House has power to change the law. There is no doubt that the law brought in by the landowning class, who were then the governing class, allowed Crown grants to become the property of the landlords by mere prescription. That is a state of matters which ought to be altered, and there is no reason why next

  1625
  Session there should not be a Bill introduced to the effect that all rights acquired by mere proscription should cease.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I desire to bear emphatic testimony to the strong feeling there is in Scotland upon the mussel bed and foreshore questions. As to the foreshores, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are simply incorrigible. Crown rights are invariably managed to the disadvantage of the public. In the case of the Epping Forest, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests disposed of the hunting rights, which were of immense value to the public, for a merely nominal money value. It it had not been for the Corporation of London those rights would have been hopelessly lost to the public. It may be perfectly true, as the Lord Advocate says, that from a marketable point of view the fishing rights upon a particular river may not be worth £10; but from the point of view of the enjoyment of the general public these rights are of immense value. They are public rights, and ought not to be parted with. The Lord Advocate has not alluded to the valuable salmon fishings. I should be much surprised if he were to say that the salmon fishings at the mouth of the Erne and Tay are not worth a great deal more than £100, for which sum they Lave been parted with to landlords. I do not want to enter into details; but I maintain that the rights of the Crown as administered by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are not private rights; they are public rights, which convey great privileges to the public, and as such should not be disposed of. The mussel beds are invaluable to the fishermen; and, therefore, every effort should be made to preserve them. In reference to the Lord Advocate's statement of law, I should like to say I own a very excellent fishing river. My father and myself were advised to keep the public out. I did not desire to contest the point. Certainly the public were thoroughly convinced they had a right, and I, as the proprietor, did not dare to stop them if I had wished to do so. These rights are indisputable. The public feeling and sentiment in Scotland is very strong that there are certain public rights in the property.
  MR. ANDERSON: I do not think hon. Members have the faintest idea of the extent to which the
  1626
  rights of the public in Scotland, in respect to the mussel beds and salmon fishings, have been confiscated by the landed proprietors. I particularly invite the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to this question, because I know he has a very anxious desire to spread happiness and contentment in all parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. I am only sorry Scotland is part of the Empire which he has not often visited, and with which he is not very familiar, or, at any rate, that Scotland, so far as this Parliament is concerned, is a place to which he has paid very little attention. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will condescend, if I may use the word without giving offence, to enter into this question, because it is a very serious question indeed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): What is the question?
  MR. ANDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman is impatient. We have been discussing the mussel question, and that is a question in which I am very deeply interested, because many constituents of mina have had to pay very heavy fines for having ventured in what are called tidal waters, and dredged for mussels which they use for bait. The present state of things is a most monstrous one, and if it were thoroughly investigated it would be found that although, technically, according to what the Lord Advocate is pleased to call the law of Scotland, it may be justice, the laird has no more right to mussel beds than the Lord Advocate himself. There is another question which is quite as important as the mussel question, and that is the salmon question. Hon. Members can hardly understand the extent to which the salmon fishings have been dealt with by the Crown in Scotland. It is perfectly incredible that such a state of things could exist as exists at the present moment in the county I represent. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury has ever been in Morayshire. If he has not I hope he will go there some day, because he will find there a magnificent salmon river called the Spey. During the salmon season the Duke of Richmond nets the Spey for seven miles from the mouth up, in pursuance of some alleged right obtained from the Crown. The result is that for 100 miles above——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly justified in questioning the action of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in alienating fishing rights; but he cannot enter into the question of original title acquired long since by a particular proprietor, or into the general condition of the law of Scotland.
  MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps I was going too far in that direction. Let me say that there is a strong feeling existing in Scotland upon this question. I am sure the Committee has arrived at the conclusion that the rights of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in respect to Scotch salmon fishings have been grossly abused. There is a unanimous feeling in Scotland that these rights have been dealt with in a way they ought not to have been dealt with, and I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will see that the time has come when a Commission or Committee, ought to be appointed to inquire into this important matter.
  DR. CLARK: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has left his place, because my reason in rising was to protest against the action of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in two respects—first of all, in alienating the rights of the Crown and giving them to private individuals, and thereby compelling the public, if they wish to re-acquire them, to buy them back at an increased cost; and, secondly, in selling the fishery rights at the preposterously low price of two, or three, or, at the utmost, five years' purchase. Furthermore, I wish to impress upon the Woods and Forests Department the necessity of getting back as soon as possible the possession of all the mussel beds around the Scottish Coasts. These mussel beds are now let merely for profit, and our fishermen have to go to Ireland for the purpose of getting mussels to use as bait. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) has told us that when he was Inspector of Irish Fisheries it was intended to make bye-laws to prevent Scotch fishermen going over to Ireland for bait. We ask that these mussel beds shall be brought under the jurisdiction of the Fishery Board; that there shall be a close time; and that the younger mussels shall not be destroyed as at present,
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is travelling very wide of the ruling I laid down. He can discuss the alienation of these rights by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; but he cannot enter into the improvement of mussel beds.
  DR. CLARK: I have said all I wanted to say, Mr. Courtney.
  DR. TANNER: we are dealing with a marine question, and it is evident that some of us are rather at sea. I think, however, that the charges against this Department have been thoroughly substantiated. It is quite clear that those mussel beds have been given away to people, and that the rights of the foreshore have been parted with in a way which deserves the consideration of the Government. The hon. Gentleman requests that there should be a Commission appointed to inquire into the alleged grievances. I really think that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), who has charge of this Vote, ought to get up at once and accede to the request. Not only are there difficulties in connection with the foreshore in Scotland, but there are difficulties of the same character in connection with the foreshore in the South of Ireland. During the past two years we have heard a great deal of evictions in the South of Ireland. [cries of "Question!"] I am not going to discuss the right of eviction, and I merely wish to allude to it en passant. The rights of the foreshore at Crookhaven, County Cork, have been granted by the Government, for the consideration of £5 a-year, to a nobleman of the name of Lord Clinton. Although Lord Salisbury not long ago laid down the rule that it was to be either pay or quit, Her Majesty's Government have not followed out that theory; because we find that Lord Clinton—perhaps because he happens to be a noble Lord—has not paid any rent for two years, and declines to pay it. Still, the Government have not as yet thought fit to put him through the process of eviction. I dare say it would be rather difficult to evict a nobleman, or to cut him off from his rights to foreshore if the tide was in. Be that as it may, I ask from the Government some little explanation of this matter. There is only a small sum at stake, £10; but, still, what is right for

  1629
  the peasant ought to be right for the Peer. I hope that before this Vote is disposed of the matter to which I have called attention will receive some explanation at the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. JACKSON: There is an item of £7 10 s. a-year and a-half's rent, which was unpaid on the 31st March, 1886. I find that endeavours have been made to get the money since 1880 without success.
  DR. TANNER: What were those endeavours?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not sure whether the process of eviction is practical. I will make inquiries as to the merits of the case.
  DR. TANNER: Has the hon. Gentleman exercised judicial pressure within the law?
  MR. JACKSON: I am exercising what pressure I can at this moment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It is sometimes said that the discussion in the Estimates doss no good. I am not going into that question., but I want to point out that the accounts of the Office of Woods and Forests are very incomplete. The consequence is that the Department of Woods and Forests is a perfect preserve of jobbery, waste, and extravagance. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury smiles; but I think I can convince him of the truth of my statement. We are asked to vote for the Office of Woods and Forests the sum of £23,700. There is a very largo expenditure for what is called the legal branch. For instance, £2,700 is taken for salaries, £800 for fees to counsel, £400 for law stationers' bills, and £650 for incidental expenses. I merely cite this as an instance of the way in which money is in all probability wasted. The total amount received by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests is £467,589. In order to collect this sum £102,782 is expended. Besides this you have £23,000 that we are now asked to vote, £125,782 is required to collect £467,589—that is to say, the collection amounts to about 25 per cent of the receipts. I wish to conclude by moving the reduction of the Estimate by £1,000, which will represent the salary of one of the Commissioners who might, I think, be very well dispensed with. I will take Windsor Park and Woods. Well, most persons would think if we were
  1630
  made a present of Windsor Park and Windsor Forest we should make the two ends meet in some way; but we do not. We pay a large amount for the Home Park. Let the Committee remember that the Home Park is not included in these Estimates, which are only for the Great Park and the Forest. The total receipts from Windsor Park and Woods are £4,631; but the expenditure in order to obtain that amount is £25,873. I remember calling the attention of the Committee to this subject on a former occasion, when I was told by the Secretary to the Treasury—" But you do not consider the cost of the roads." But deducting the cost of the roads, which is £9,916, it will still be found that Windsor Park costs us £11,306 more than it brings in. Well, if the Committee looks into the matter in order to see how that figure is made up, it will not be very greatly surprised. We have a ranger and a deputy ranger, a chaplain—a chaplain for a forest!—and a junior chaplain. What on earth these chaplains do in the Park and Forest I cannot tell, and why we should pay them any money I cannot tell. We have an item for gamekeepers—I would ask the Committee to remember that—and then we have items for general management, provender for cattle, horses, and saddlery. Whoever heard of such items in connection with a park and a forest? Saddlery, harness, provender for horses—enough almost to keep a regiment. Then you have an item, food for deer, £327. I do not know why we should keep up deer. But here is a monstrous thing—food for game, £500. I have called attention to this item before, and, thanks to the Treasury, I have followed it out. The item is perfectly monstrous. Whoever heard of tenants—because we are tenants as a matter of fact—providing food for the pheasants of the landlord? No doubt tenants frequently provide food in a certain way—that is out of their unfortunate crops; but they do not make contributions of money over and above what they provide in that way. The Treasury in defence of these items can only say that this property was taken over by 1 Vict., in which 1 Geo. III. was repeated and recited, and they say we are liable for everything we were liable to at the time of the passing of that Act of Geo. III. It was stated that we took over all these

  1631
  charges at the time of the passing of this Act of Geo, III.; but I said at the time—"I do not know that; we may differ somewhat as to what the charges are." I pointed out—and it must be evident to the Committee—that we did not take over this contribution in respect of game for the reason that at the commencement of the Reign of George III. there were no battues, and we did not spend money in feeding pheasants. The Treasury were prepared for that and said—"Yes; that may be true, but the pheasants had in those days certain fields of buck wheat." Then it comes to this, that the pheasants in this Park and Forest have been deprived of their fields of buckwheat, and therefore they are entitled to compensation. I ask the Committee, if we are to be subjected to these charges, is it surprising that such an enormous amount goes in getting in this income? This is not the only case—we may take some other instances. The next item is for the Forest of Dean, and here the receipts amount to £9,821, and the total expenditure to £11,978. And there are several other cases of the same kind, so that the Committee will understand that the result of the figures is as I have stated. It does appear to me that we ought to register a protest against these charges. I think we are entitled to have an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury—no doubt these items were inserted in the Estimates before the present Government were in Office, and I therefore think they are not more responsible for them than their Predecessors—but I trust we shall receive an assurance that we shall have all those charges submitted to Parliament, and that we shall have all these salaries placed before us separately. We have to bear an enormous expenditure in this way, and we should insist upon having some Parliamentary control over it. I find spread over the accounts contributions to churches belonging to the Established Church. Why, Sir, are there not Dissenters in this House? Are we to give additional sums of money to the Established Church beyond that which we already give it? It may be said—" Oh, but we pay those sums because we are in the position of the Squire." Well, let the Squire give money to the Established Church if he likes, that is no reason why we should do so. I was asked the other day to
  1632
  subscribe to an Established Church, but what was my reply? "Why should you come to me—go to your Bishop; get the money from him; do not ask me." So far as I am concerned, I would contribute to any Church in the world rather than to an Established Church. I thank my God that I have never given a single penny to any Established Church except as a taxpayer, and I hope I never shall. I hope I have made it clear to hon. Members, not only on this side, but on the other side of the House also, that we do require some kind of reform in these accounts. We should have paid into the Treasury a larger sum than we now receive. The expense of collecting a revenue of between £4,000 and £5,000 should not amount to £125,000, and it would not were it not for your rangers, deputy rangers, deer, pheasants, Established Churches, and all that sort of thing—[An hon. MEMBER: And chaplains.—Yes; and chaplains, as my hon. Friend reminds me. Let us have a full account, and let it be submitted to Parliament like any other Estimate, and I am certain that if that is done and these things are submitted to the control of Parliament we shall save at least £60,000 a-year. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,761, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Sir, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton really deals with these subjects as though he took a pleasure in quarrelling with certain items. It seems to be most pleasant to him to bring forward such questions as the cost of deer, of pheasants, of chaplains, and all the rest of it. I may say, as to this £500 referred to, it is the actual cost of attending to the preserving of the game, and the whole of the charges are such—as the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Swinburne) with his own large establishments will know—as are incident to the amenities of such a great Park as this is. I want to explain how it is that this £500 appears-upon the Accounts, as the hon. Member for Northampton says that the Accounts do not come before Parliament for approval. As a matter of fact, and as the hon. Member oppo

  1633
  site (Mr. Labouchere) knows. Parliament did not make a bad bargain when it agreed to give £500 in substitution of a charge which in 1850, or prior to that, amounted to £1,200 or £l,300 a-year. The agreement entered into was in view of a charge of three times the amount. I am told that the amount voted here does not pay the cost, and that a considerable payment has to be made out of the Privy Purse, in order to keep up the Park. Putting Windsor Park in the position of a financial concern, no doubt it does not pay; but it is also certain that Windsor Park cannot and ought not to be looked at from that point of view. It is of great service to the country, and the public get great enjoyment from it. Notwithstanding all that has been said by the hon. Member for Northampton, when he travels through the Park I am sure he likes to see the deer and the pheasants there. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I have to pay for them.] You cannot enjoy any luxury without paying for it. I should not like it to be thought that the statement the hon. Member for Northampton has made, that really an estate which brings in between £400,000 and £500,000 a-year has to expend over £100,000 to earn its income in the ordinary sense. The cost of collecting the revenue, so far agricultural land is concerned, is regulated by the scale of payments made to the Receiver of Estates. It would hardly be fair to charge all the cost of collection of the revenue of Windsor Park the whole charges which are thrown on the Accounts. It cannot in any sense be deemed to be the cost of collection in that sense. The rates upon the income as collected range in the ordinary way from 4 per cent downwards. With regard to contributions to churches—to the Established Churches and schools, and so on—there is no use denying the fact that these lands have been managed and dealt with precisely on the terms on which the ordinary landowner deals with his own estate. Lot me say, further, that in some cases that is not only a moral obligation, but actually a legal obligation which was acquired and taken over by the Crown when those estates were purchased that these payments should be made. There are several cases where there is a legal obligation to maintain, say, the chancel of a church which is on the estate and
  1634
  which was bought with the estate. The estates have been bought with all the obligations and liabilities of the landowners which previously existed upon it. I know that these charges are not agreeable to the hon. Member for Northampton; but I will not put it in that way. You cannot escape from these obligations, and I do hope that the Members of the Committee will feel that in dealing with those estates we have taken over contributions to Established Churches and schools which were given for the direct benefit and advantage of the people attending them, and that we are only carrying out the obligations which each individual Member would carry out if they were obligations upon his own estate. I trust the Committee will not accept the Amendment the hon. Member has moved.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course, I enjoy these places that the hon. Gentleman has referred to. I have a right to do so. The hon. Gentleman says we have done an exceedingly good business, because up to 1850 we paid a much larger sum for the game than we do now. Well, my contention is that it is an abuse to pay anything on account of game. It is true that we pay less than we did in 1850, for it is admitted that we had to pay £1,200 a-year, and that now we only pay £500. But when the hon. Member tries to show that we had to pay £1,200, he has to go back to the Statute of Geo. III. under which, it is stated, we took over all these charges. Well, I defy the hon. Member to show that under that Statute there was any payment provided for in regard to food for pheasants. Therefore, we have not a word of justification for this charge. A person might think this amount is all we have to pay, but that is not the fact. Besides this £500 we have to pay for the gamekeepers, for food, for deer, and so on. I contend that we took this park over as a productive property at a calculated receipt per annum, and I contend that as tenants in taking over these estates in no case can the country have made itself liable to pay for the food of pheasants and other game. In the New Forest I think the hon. Member will find that permits are lot out for shooting, and that a sum of between £3,000 and £4,000 is made in this way. I am sure that if, instead of keeping up this Forest and its gamekeepers, the Government would let

  1635
  out permits to shoot in Windsor Forest, instead of losing tins amount I have referred to, we should make £3,000 or £4,000 per annum. We have this property in order to make money out of it—[Mr. JACKSON: For enjoyment.] The hon. Member says for enjoyment, but he knows very well that we cannot go on to all these lands; he knows very well that, in order to drive through it, you have to pay a guinea a-year or possess a residential qualification. He also knows that the game is shot by members of the Royal Family. Originally we did not enter into any engagement to keep up this game, and, seeing that that is the case, I do not think it is right that we should be asked to pay this money.
  MR. FERGUSON&c.): Will the hon. Gentleman give us some information with regard to the Scotch mussel beds, about which hon. Members have several times spoken?
  MR. JACKSON: That question has already been disposed of.
  MR. FERGUSON: It is an important matter, and I wish to refer to the investigations of the Commission.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is now an Amendment moved with regard to Windsor Forest, and until that is disposed of the discussion must be confined to that particular subject.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: With regard to the public having no admission to Windsor Forest, I should like to ask whether it is true that the public cannot go through without let or hindrance so long as they behave themselves well, or have they to pay to go through? I should also like to know how much, if anything, is paid by the State as donations or subscriptions to Dissenting churches or chapels.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to say a word on this subject. I cannot corroborate what the hon. Member for Northampton says as to the game, because I have never yet been in the Forest, and therefore cannot speak from personal knowledge of the matter, but with the sentiment he expressed I desire to express my complete satisfaction. I should like the hon. Baronet who has just sat down to be satisfied by Her Majesty's Government as to how we stand in this matter. I should like to know whether the public have a free right of entry into this Park,
  1636
  which is supposed to belong to the public, or if they have not. It has been definitely stated by the hon. Member for Northampton that those who wish to enjoy the beauties of the Park must either pay a guinea a-year or have a residence in the neighbourhood. If that is so, I think it is a shocking curtailment of public rights. I think we should either knock off the rent we are supposed to pay for the Forest, or whatever other form of payment we make for it, or we should insist upon having our money's worth in the way of recreation. Her Majesty's Government justify the existing position in regard to this matter, on the ground that it is not merely a matter of £ s. d., but of recreation. Well, I have never heard of anyone going into the Forest for recreation. I have heard of Royal Princes and Princelings going there to indulge in the amusement of battue shooting; and while referring to those Royal personages I should like to ask whether they have to pay for gun licences and game licences or whether they are——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: Well, Sir, I will not trespass upon the domain of the Inland Revenue, but I may not have an opportunity of referring to this matter again, and I thought it was not altogether out of the way to touch upon that point. I wanted to point out to the Committee that we ought to get a good equivalent for the £385,000, Civil List, as it is called, which is paid to Her Majesty's Government for these hereditary revenues. According to my reading of the matter we only get £380,000 worth, instead of the full value for £385,000. This arrangement was entered into originally 77 years before Her Majesty came to the Throne. But apart from history in this matter, it is perfectly well known——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that an Amendment has been moved in regard to the alleged extravagant management of Windsor Forest, and that the discussion upon that Amendment must be disposed of before any other subject can be entered upon.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Yes, Sir; but surely it is an a fortiori argument that we do not get an equivalent for the £385,000 we pay. However, I will not trouble the Committee with reference to what happened some years ago. I know that the memory of this House

  1637
  and this country is very snort. All I would say on that matter is that I will certainly follow my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton into the Lobby when he goes to a division upon this matter. I trust we shall have similar and equally interesting discussions to the present whenever an opportunity occurs. Referring to the question of the management of the foreshores——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: Oh, I understand; the question of mismanagement and extravagance in regard to Windsor Forest does not apply to foreshores!
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Then I will reserve what I have to say.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member is under the impression that the public are excluded from Windsor Forest. I understand that it is not the case, or at any rate, I understand that the hon. Member is hardly accurate. The public are not excluded——
  MR. CONYBEARE: Can they go and shoot in the Forest?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly not. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for a moment anticipated that the public were allowed to go and shoot in the Forest. If he had listened to the interesting statement made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he would have heard that the shooting was reserved for other persons. I believe that private residents may go into any portion of the Park.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No; it is not open to the public.
  MR. JACKSON: I am speaking of the Park generally; the Home Park is reserved. You can walk in those portions which are not reserved. ["No, no!"] That is the information which is furnished to me.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 143: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 365.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. MOLLOY: I want to ask a question of the Secretary to the Treasury upon a subject which I mentioned last year and upon which a long discussion then took place. It is with reference to Mr. Clutton, who, I
  1638
  think, is called Receiver General. Mr. Clutton is largely employed in the Department of Woods and Forests, and besides that he has also appointments of a very lucrative character in other Departments, but which do not appear on the Estimates. He receives considerable salaries for certain duties connected with the Ecclesiastical Commission, but as to these salaries one is kept completely in the dark. Last year, the first complaint made was that this gentleman, who is in receipt of large sums of money on behalf of the Government, had mixed them up with his own account. I do not mean to suggest that there was anything in the slightest degree dishonest in his so doing, it was merely an irregularity. That, I understand from the Secretary to the Treasury, has been settled in a satisfactory manner, and now the Government accounts are kept separately from those of Mr. Clutton's firm. Mr. Clutton receives large sums of money every year on behalf of the Government as Receiver of Crown Rents. Now, the complaint I made last year was that the collection of Crown rents is one of the simplest matters possible, it is unlike the collection of rents of any other kind since there is no difficulty. It merely entails the sending by post of a letter reminding the parties that the rents are due, and the rents are paid at once. Unfortunately for myself, I have not got my notes with me on the present occasion, and I may be wrong in the figures I am going to state. As far as my memory serves me, Mr. Clutton receives 5 per cent for the collection of these ground rents, and last year I complained very bitterly of the enormous percentage which was given for this work, which I then showed could be done by the youngest clerk in his office. I think the amount Mr. Clutton receives by way of percentage amounts to something like £8,000 or £9,000 a-year, and last year it was pointed out that the work could easily be done by intelligent clerks receiving £200 or £300 a-year. I then suggested to the Secretary to the Treasury that this very large payment should be decreased, that it was no unfairness to Mr. Clutton to say he should do this work upon the same terms as it could be done by any rate collector in the country. The Secretary to the Treasury promised

  1639
  to look into the matter, and see how far a deduction might be made in the amount, paid to Mr. Clutton, more especially as this gentleman, was also in receipt of large sums of money for the collection of rents on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and also in receipt of salaries from other Departments of the Government. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to inform the Committee that this work is now being done at something like a fair price. There is another point I desire to mention, and it is that a certain number of the Crown farms which are managed by the Receiver General under this Vote are now in hand. I am given to understand that these farms have been worked under the supervision of Mr. Clutton, who is an architect and surveyor. I do not know that his profession makes him a very good farmer, but, however that may be, I am given to understand that the loss entailed by the working of these farms is a very heavy item indeed in the national finances. I cannot find anything in this Vote to guide us; to show us what the expenditure on this account is; to show us whether there is a profit or loss. In point of fact, this Vote, like every other which comes before us, is a Vote which conceals knowledge which is useful, and tells us a great deal which is not useful. There is no statement as to the rent of these farms, and we have no means of ascertaining from the Votes themselves whether the farms are worked at a loss or not. If it is true, as I am given to understand, that the farms in hand are worked at a great loss, surely it would be better to let them at no rent at all rather than they should be worked by State officials who know nothing about farming, and that a loss should be on-tailed. I hope we shall receive some assurance from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that the percentage paid for the collection of the Crown rents has been reduced.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I recollect very well that a very strong opinion was expressed in the House last year upon Mr. Clutton's percentage, and that the Secretary to the Treasury promised to make inquiries. I think we have a right to be informed whether the same arrangement exists with Mr. Clutton as heretofore, and if so, why? I do not see why the Commissioners of Woods
  1640
  and Forests should not employ a receiver of their own to collect these rents which, in my opinion, could be collected without any trouble at all on the part of an ordinary collector. we have also a right to expect from the Secretary to the Treasury some statement as to the loss which accrues from the working of the farms in hand. It is well known that some years ago there was a great scandal in connection with the management of some estates in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and, if my memory serves me right, one poor man committed suicide in consequence of the harsh treatment he received at the hands of the Commissioners. If the Commissioners are managing farms, as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Molloy) says, at a very considerable loss, it is right we should know what the loss is. It is also right we should know whether the same arrangement as heretofore continues with Mr. Clutton, and, if it does, why some more economical arrangement has not been made?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) has referred to the fact that last year I promised to make inquiries as to certain payments made to Mr. Clutton for the management of these matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the question in a manner as though really there was very little to do, and as though the work might be done by a clerk receiving £200 a-year. The hon. and learned Gentleman, for instance, said that all that was required was the posting of a few circulars, and that the collection of the rents entailed no trouble at all. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows something about land, and about the difficulty agriculturalists have in paying their rents, and I can hardly believe that on consideration he will think that the rents of agricultural tenants can be collected so easily as he has said.
  MR. MOLLOY: They are mostly ground rents.
  MR. JACKSON: the right hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten the fact that Mr. Clutton does not collect ground rents, practically he only deals with agricultural rents. In Mr. Clutton's receivership there are 52,500 acres of land. These are scattered over 18 counties, many of them situated at Con

  1641
  siderable distances from London. The estates are let in 1,850 holdings, exclusive of garden allotments and manorial tenancies. As receiver of the rents of these estates it is the duty of Mr. Clutton to visit the estates several times during the year. It is his duty to consider, and report upon, and assess the amount of reduction which is to be made on any holding in respect to which an application is made to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and in addition to that it is his duty to advise as to the management of the estates generally. He has not merely to collect the rents, but really to manage the estates, and for the services he renders he receives 4 per cent upon the collection. In regard to the farms in hand I did, as I promised, look into the matter, and I found what I considered to be an unsatisfactory condition of things. As the result of my inquiries a fresh arrangement has been made, because under the old system farms in hand were dealt with by Mr. Clutton or his agent buying all the tenant's stock, and then selling it and charging the commission upon the total terms. I think that was not a satisfactory arrangement. To an agent a farm, in hand entails much greater labour and attention than a farm which is in the occupation of a tenant, and the arrangement which has been made is, that Mr. Clutton is to receive a commission upon the rent which the farm has been let at. I think that is an arrangement of which no one can complain. I am sure Mr. Clutton deserves some credit for the management of these estates, because during the past year no farm has come on the Commissioners' hands. Not only that, but there have been two farms measuring together 650 acres let from those which were in hand, and at the present time there are only 1,150 acres in hand throughout the whole of the estates. I think that is proof, if proof were wanting, that the practice which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Molloy) thought we ought to pursue—namely, that we ought to let the farms at a reduced rent if we could not get tenants for them at the rent originally asked, is pursued where requisite. Tenants are being assisted where assistance is necessary by the remission of rent; of course under proper safeguards, and we do the best we can in the interests of the property. I think
  1642
  these facts show to the Committee that both in regard to the charges Mr. Clutton makes, and also with regard to the farms in hand, the suggestions made last year have received attention. I hope, hon. Members will regard my answer as satisfactory.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It has been pointed out to the Committee that in all these different estates scattered over the country there are a numb or of officials who surely can collect rents. There is an official in the Now Forest with a salary and allowances of £670,who has a first assistant with a salary of.£250, and also a second assistant.
  MR. JACKSON: They are not under Mr. Clutton's management.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to know what Mr. Clutton really receives, because I find £7,900 per annum put down for the salaries of receivers, £520 for incidental expenses, and £3,726 for surveys and plans. Mr. Clutton is at the head of the whole thing, and I think it will be found, except in isolated cases, that there are two or three persons upon the estates receiving salaries which would lead one to suppose they are in a sufficient responsible position to look after the rents. Mr. Clutton gets an enormous salary. I should like to know what the gross amount he receives is. The only tiling I can see is the sum of £4,000 or £5,000 as balance of account, &c. The difficulty we experience in dealing with these Estimates is that we cannot get at the bottom of them. There is another thing I want to point out. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) said nothing about churches; but I find here an item of £4,000 towards the cost of building St. John the Baptist's Church in Great Marlborough Street. You cannot get at the bottom of these accounts, the whole arrangement of the accounts is a perfect hugger-mugger designed in order to prevent us from arriving at any satisfactory conclusion. There is nothing but waste and extravagance throughout. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us clearly what is the total amount Mr. Clutton receives.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has told us that Mr. Clutton receives 4 per cent upon the amount collected. Does that 4 per cent amount to the £900 which appears in the account we

  1643
  are now considering, or is it something in addition to that?
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: It is new to me that the receivers get commission besides salary.
  MR. JACKSON: I have already pointed out that that is not so.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: As the owner of a largo amount of Crown property, I have always paid the rental to Mr. Higgins; but I find figures in the Woods and Forests Estimates for salary. I was alarmed when I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite state that receivers received a commission of 4 per cent, and I inquired further into the matter, and I found that this is really not the fact. I found that the rentals for the property in the Regent's Park and the surrounding neighbourhood are received by the receivers, who get nothing but salary. There is one matter I must call attention to in connection with this Vote. I very much object to surveyors accepting posts under Government, and, having all the advantages of those posts, engaging in private business at the same time. It is a most iniquitous system, and a system which keeps a great many professional men out of work. The system not only obtains with regard to surveyors, but there are many gentlemen of the long robe who also receive considerable salaries, and yet are allowed to practice in Court. I hope that an end will be put to this objectionable system, and that professional men will be paid such salaries as they can be reasonably expected to give their entire services for to the country. That is not all. The present system does not only tend to deprive many professional men of work, surveyors under Government have many advantages. They frequently enter into contracts with a quasi-authority. They frequently obtain contracts where other men would not, and they do so simply because they are in a position to guarantee certain alterations which no one else could guarantee. This has really come under any personal observation. There are many occasions on which surveyors under the Woods and Forests are enabled to guarantee certain alterations of Crown property which no other surveyor could guarantee. I can bring evidence of cases of this kind occurring over and over again. I trust that the day will soon come when those
  1644
  who hold these lucrative posts will be prevented from engaging in private business, and preventing many other professional men from obtaining employment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am very glad indeed the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Isaacson) has been able to throw more light upon this subject, for the light he has thrown upon it I am bound to say casts a very lurid glare upon the performance of this Office. We heard lately of the performance of another Office—the Metropolitan Board of Works. It seems to me that if the hon. Member (Mr. Isaacson) is in a position to substantiate what he says, we shall find that this Office is only equalled in maladministration by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Whether what has been said is true or not, these charges should not be made on the floor of the House without notice being taken of them, or without some Committee being appointed to inquire into them. I am altogether in the dark as to where we are in this matter. We have heard, Mr. Courtney, of the largo salary-paid to the Receiver General; we have heard that the Receiver for the County of Middlesex is paid £900 a-year, and that £100 is allowed him for clerical assistance. I understand the Receiver General is Mr. Clutton. If I understood the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) aright just now, he said Mr. Clutton was net paid a commission in addition to his salary. [Mr. JACKSON: I did not say so.] At any rate, he told us that Mr. Clutton receives a commission of 4 per cent upon the rental of 52,500 acres, distributed over 1,850 holdings. I suppose we may reasonably assume that the rental is something like £50,000, in which case Mr. Clutton will get £2,000 as commission upon the collection of these rents. Then we are told that Mr. Clutton has a commission on the rent for which a farm has been let, and which apparently is now being farmed at a loss. So there are three distinct sources of income for the Receiver General as far as I can understand. First of all, there is the commission of 4 per cent upon the revenue from 52,500 acres; secondly, the commission upon the rental of farms which are being farmed at a loss; and, thirdly, this £1,000 a-year salary, which, if it does not go to

  1645
  the Receiver General, I cannot understand whore it does go. He seems to be such a general receiver that he gets everything. This Gentleman really gets as much as our Ministers of State. He certainly gets as much as most Ministers of State, and even as much as the Lord Chancellor gets. We object to the Lord Chancellor getting £10,000 a-year, and I certainly object to the Receiver General getting as much as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, or as the Marquess of Salisbury himself. If a public servant receives a fixed salary he ought not to have, as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson) has said, a commission in addition. I maintain, until it is conclusively proved to the contrary, that according to the figures we have been supplied with, there is this commission paid in addition to a very considerable salary. I want to know what all the different officers under the Office of Woods and Forests, for which we are asked to vote £23,761, do. So far as I can make out, the information supplied us here does not enable us to ascertain at all what this £23,761 is for at all. We have heard the Financial Secretary explaining the enormous burden of the duties which Mr. Clutton has to bear upon his shoulders. Surely that is a reason for dividing his responsibility. If the burdens are very great, let them be properly paid for, but not paid for at an enormously high price. I want to know what all these clerks, assistant clerks, and messengers are for, if they are not to assist Mr. Clutton in the great burden of administering these estates. We have got two Commissioners at £1,200 each. Surely they do some of the work. I am very dissatisfied with the explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury, and if my hon. Friend the Member for "Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) presses his Motion to a Division, I shall have pleasure in following him into the Lobby.
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that I cannot make the hon. Member understand the case. I have endeavoured to explain what Mr. Clutton's duties are. I have endeavoured to make clear that he is not the person to whom reference is here made as Receiver General. He has nothing whatever to do with the fees of the Receiver General. The gentleman who is hero paid a salary of £900 is not paid for any of this work,
  1646
  but he acts as Receiver for the County of Middlesex, and receives a salary with no commission whatever. I believe that the rental upon which Mr. Clutton receives 4 per cent commission is about £80,000 a-year. Hon. Members speak as though this percentage were all net profit to Mr. Clutton, but I have endoavoured to explain that in order to do the work required of him, Mr. Clutton has to keep a large establishment of first-class dorks. In addition to this Crown property which Mr. Clutton manages there is a large amount of property scattered all over the kingdom, with which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have to deal. There is mining property, foreshore rights, Crown rights, and various kinds which are dealt with by these Commissioners, one of whom was a Member of this House—a man in whom every Member of this House had the utmost confidence upon agricultural questions. One Commissioner deals with one portion of the country, and another Commissioner with another portion. Their salaries of £1,200 each have nothing to do -with the sums which are paid to Mr. Clutton or to the other receivers.
  MR. MOLLOY: I should like to say I am very satisfied with the statement the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has made. I think the arrangement with regard to home farms is as good as it is in his power to make, and we know for the first time that the rents which are collected by Mr. Clutton are agricultural rents. Considering all the circumstances, I am bound to say I do not think 4 per cent is too largo a commission to pay. When I raised the question I was under the impression that these were ordinary Crown rents. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me that this discussion has boon of some use.
  MR. BEADEL: I was very much surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Isaacson). That hon. Gentleman appears to think that business of this kind can be carried on by salaried officers as well as it can by a gentleman who has risen to the highest position in his profession.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I said nothing of the laud. I said that to my certain knowledge ground rents were received by a salaried Commissioner. I

  1647
  expressed no opinion as to whether he was bettor qualified than the gentleman who was paid by commission.
  MR. BEADEL: The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) appears to find fault rather with the salary than with the percentage paid to Mr. Clutton; but he cannot think that a man of less intelligence than Mr. Clutton is capable of doing justice in the matter of agricultural rents. The difficulties which have arisen with regard to the management of Crown property are known only to those who are mixed up with the land of this country. The agricultural interest is now in a most frightfully depressed condition; and I am persuaded that if the hon. Member for the Camborne Division had to deal with landed questions at this moment, he would, instead of reprobating the payment of 4 per cent commission, be the very first to propose that the percentage should be increased.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Allow me to explain. I do not object to the percentage, but I object to a man being paid a salary in addition to percentage.
  MR. BEADEL: I happen to have an intimate knowledge of Mr. Clutton's business; and I can inform the Committee that it is necessary for him, in order that the work of his office may be properly done, to keep a staff—a very superior staff. I will undertake to say that, so far as he is individually concerned, that though his salary appears large, a considerable amount of the money he is paid does not go into his own pocket. In order to manage the Crown estates as they should be managed, so as to withstand criticism in this House, it is necessary that he should be above suspicion—which I venture to think all salaried servants, with the temptations which they at present have around them, can scarcely be. ["Oh, oh!"] At any rate, salaried officials would not bring the same amount of intelligence to boar upon the work of this office. Mr. Clutton is paid by a percentage upon the rents; and, unfortunately for him, agriculture being in a state of depression just now, his income is prejudicially affected, the less rent there is to be collected the less he receives in his capacity of receiver. He is really, I think, entitled to the consideration of this House; and I think
  1648
  he should be paid rather more instead of rather less.
  DR. TANNER: I should like to ask what are the qualifications necessary for a man to become a Forester? I should like to know that, because I have heard that most of these men are not trained in this country, but have to go away to study forestry to other lands. Well, if you wish to treat this matter in a particular way, I do not see why, if I may be allowed to offer a suggestion, you should not turn these forests to some practical account by allowing persons to learn the art of forestry in them. That would make this work reproductive work, and, at the same time, instead of requiring money to be spent out of the country, you would be enabled to train these young men at homo, and make what is at present unremunerative remunerative. I understand, from the inquiry going on upstairs into the question of forestry, that the conclusion arrived at is that probably the only place—at any rate, the most suitable place—in the Kingdom for the establishment of a school of forestry is in the Forest of Dean, to which reference has been made.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I understand that Mr. Clutton receives 4 per cent for the rents he collects. That yields him £4,999. We hear that he has 52,000 acres to let, and surely he does not get paid in respect of that?
  MR. JACKSON: I said he receives a commission upon what he collects.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then there are certain charges for surveying and for superintending the construction of buildings and certain works, the item being £1,910. It is evident that he receives payment over and above his 4 per cent.
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly; I said the 4 per cent was the commission he received on agricultural rentals; but that over and above that he received payment for certain work. If, for instance, cottages are to be pulled down and rebuilt, or if extensive drainage works have to be carried out, or if farm buildings have to be erected, that is work in connection with the estate that would not be included in the 4 per cent. For the 4 per cent he acts as surveyor; but if he superintends work or carries out work, he is paid, of course, for making plans and superintending.
  MR. CONYBEARE: we want to know if it is not possible to get some

  1649
  one to do this work for less than £6,000 a-year? Mr. Clutton receives £7,000 a-year under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He is under a Commissioner who only receives £1,200; and I should very much like to know why we pay this public servant, who is in an inferior position—why we should pay the manager of our estates—more than we are paying to our Judges, or to any single Minister of State, except, perhaps, the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. ISAACS: I venture to think that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall does not realize the facts of this case. He wants to know why in the case of a Commissioner £1,200 only should be paid, and in the case of Mr. Clutton £6,000 a-year should be paid. The reason is this—that in the case of the £1.200 salary it is purely personal. The whole amount goes into the pocket of the Commissioner without any deduction whatever; but in the case of the Surveyor of Woods and Forests he has to keep up a very large establishment himself; and I do not think there are less than 30 to 40 clerks in it. He has to pay the whole of these clerks out of his own salary. It is idle to suppose that an official who has only to collect rents should not be paid extra when he is called upon to render professional services of a totally different character.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to know what hon. Gentlemen opposite, Members of the Government, pay for the collection of rents?
  An hon. MEMBER: Five per cent.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Not 1½ per cent?
  Several hon. MEMBERS: No; 5 per cent.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What do they pay in Scotland, where the people are of a more practical turn of mind? I would ask the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), whom I see in his place, what in his experience is paid for the collection of rents? I am very much mistaken if in Scotland more than 1½ per cent is paid.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The amount very much depends on the nature of the rents, and 1 should think 4 per cent for some kinds of rents was not excessive No doubt there are cases where 4 per cent would be rather high;
  1650
  but there are other cases where it would not be enough.
  MR. MAJORIBANKS: I know many cases in Scotland where a factor only receives 1½ per cent.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: It seems to me that the question here is one of monopoly. It appears that this gentleman not only hold's the office of Surveyor of Woods and Forests, but he also holds an office under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If this gentleman has the management of the estates the salary he receives will be fair enough; but if he is paid this enormous amount merely for collecting rents. I think the payment is far too high. The amount this gentleman receives is brought up to nearly £8,000 a-year, and I think that a great deal too much. I think the office of Woods and Forests might do much better. I think we ought to protest against this monopoly of business by one individual, because whilst a man has several businesses to look after it is impossible that he can do any of them satisfactorily.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I should like to ask what are the special duties of the Commissioners?
  MR. JACKSON: The Commissioners look after the estates generally, and are responsible for their management, Mr. Clutton deals with a certain portion only of the estates as receiver of the rent.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think we ought to protest against the monopoly of this large amount of business by one individual. I will, therefore, move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,761, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I hope the Committee will take this matter into their serious consideration. Four per sent on the rental is sufficient to pay any land agent, for superintending the pulling down of houses, the building them up, carrying out drainage works, and indeed for the whole conduct and management of an estate. Four percent is a handsome sum—a generous ium—but here we find that a Government officer is paid £ 4 per cent on the rent he collects, and an additional sum for the work he does, besides receiving an enor

  1651
  mous sum from another Department of the Government.
  Question put,
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 150: Majority 72.—(Div. List., No. 366.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (11.) £30,967, to complete the sum for Works and Public Buildings Office.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to bring to the notice of the Government one other point. I understand that there are certain regulations in respect to filling up vacancies in the clerks of the works in connection with this office, and I am informed that one of the principal regulations is that only those persons are eligible—or, at any rate, there is a limitation which excludes from competition all persons except those who have been foremen for five years in some particular business. That restriction is complained of, and I think with justice. It is argued that it tends to exclude, and practically does exclude, a great number of able men who have a practical and minute knowledge of their business as builders and so forth, and who, for some reason or other, may not have been able to attain the position of foremen. Foremen are not necessarily men with the most thorough practical knowledge of their work; and what I would impress on the Government is that you want men in office who have not merely a theoretical or such a literary knowledge as would enable them to pass the examination required, but men with a practical knowledge of the details of the work as builders, carpenters, and so forth. For it can be shown, and I have information that satisfies me that it can be shown, that in many cases foremen do not become foremen through the intimate practical knowledge that they should have of their work, but through favouritism. It follows that if you make it a requirement that a man shall be a foreman for five years before he can be qualified for competition for one of these posts, you are limiting the field of selection. In the public interest you should have a fair field and no favour, and then you could get your supply of men for these posts from those who have a practical knowledge of their work, as well as from those who have only a
  1652
  theoretical knowledge of it. My informant who has asked me to press this matter on the Government says that as the regulations now stand, only the sons of builders who are appointed as nominal foremen can compete for these appointments; and what we contend for is, that not only such persons should have opportunities to obtain these appointments, but also those who have practical and technical knowledge. I would ask whether the examination for these posts includes such tests as would secure that the successful competitors have practical and technical knowledge? I believe that if there were such an examination, many of those who now succeed in passing would speedily be disqualified. That is as briefly as I can state it, the complaint made in respect of this examination, and I can only say, in addition to that, what appears to be a matter of common sense—that if a man has served an apprenticeship, has worked 10 years or more at the building trade, and has studied the practical and technical part of the business, whether as foreman or not, that implies that he must have such a knowledge of the business as entitles him to have a fair opportunity of showing that he is fit for a post in the Civil Service. One great disadvantage of the present restriction is that it discourages that technical education which we are so desirous to see extended. We are just beginning to talk of giving grants to technical schools, and establishing a system of technical education. But I believe that even greater advantage would accrue from throwing open this competitive examination to those who have worked their way up, and, by long practice, have made themselves masters of their particular branch of work. If you did this, you would afford a stimulus and an encouragement to the extension of technical education which would materially assist that system of technical education that we propose to establish.
  MR. JACKSON: I think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member is well worthy of consideration; and it will receive the consideration of the Government.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £ 10,000, to complete the sum for the Mercantile Marine Fund (Grant in Aid).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: From, the figures which are before the House, one would imagine that there was little room for criticism of this Vote. It would appear to be a Vote of £40,000 in aid of the Mercantile Marino Fund of the United Kingdom. A note on page 161 sets forth that under the 45 & 46 Viet., c. 55, the Mercantile Marine Fund is charged with certain services that have hitherto been provided for by Votes of Parliament, and that, on the other hand, certain payments hitherto made into the Exchequer are now transferred to the Mercantile Marine Fund; and that the balance against the Fund is at present estimated at £40,000, and is charged upon the Votes by Section 5 of the Act for five years from 1883–4 inclusive, after which the amount is subject to revision. This is a deliberate statement that the balance against the fund is estimated at £40,000. There then follow certain accounts of receipts and expenditure, amounting to an estimated sum of £78,000 for receipts, and £84,000 for expenditure. Now, that appears to be a very simple matter; but there is connected with this Vote the whole system of making safe, as far as possible, the commercial marine of this Kingdom in their dangerous avocations round the coast of the United Kingdom. The system of light-houses, light-ships, fog-signals, and buoys are really provided for under this Mercantile Marine Fund, and the services it represents. The duty of setting up these lights, and the care of the lighthouses, is performed for the English Coasts by the Corporation of the Trinity House, by the Commissioners of Northern Lights for Scotland, and by the Commissioners of Irish Lights for the Irish Coasts. Now, there is no question about the management of these bodies. They may spend a great deal of money in the dinners which, they give at two or three guineas a-head; but as to their management of the lighthouses, buoys, and signals, the mercantile community have never made any complaint. But under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, a great change was introduced. Until that date, the three bodies I have named were empowered to collect fees from ships that passed the lighthouses; and they were, under the Act of 1854, made accountable for the receipts and expenditure in connection, with this
  1654
  service. The 417th section of that Act provides that the following sums shall be carried to a common fund, to be called the Mercantile Marine Fund—the fees relating to the examination, engagement, and discharge of crows; the light dues, and other sums received by and accruing to the Trinity House, the Northern Light Commissioners, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights; and the fees in connection with the receipt of wreck. Now, although the Vote to which I have referred speaks of survey fees and of the Grant in Aid, yet by far the greater part of the fund is derived from the light charges. According to the Report furnished to the House, out of an income of £624,000, including the Vote in Aid, not less than £348,000 are derived from light dues; and out of £624,000 of expenditure, the payment on account of lighthouses, &c, amounts to £411,000; so that the services mentioned on the face of the Vote are a mere bagatelle compared with the important duty of keeping up the lighthouses. Now, it is clear that if there is a large sum derived from light dues, the balance of the fund which is represented as being covered by the £40,000 of the present Vote will be materially increased, or if there is a smaller sum from light dues it will be diminished, without any reference to the items on page 161 of the Estimates. As a matter of fact, the Mercantile Marine Fund is in a condition very different from that which anyone would suppose who took the Vote and examined it by the light of the figures vouchsafed to us by the Government. When the light charges were made lighter some 30 years ago, the Government relieved the shipowners materially by an Order in Council. An abatement was made off the previous charges of 20 per cent in regard to seagoing, and of 10 per cent for coasting vessels. But since then there has been a material increase in the number as well as in the tonnage of vessels, and with that increase there was, of course, an increase in respect of the light dues until the sum recovered from the vessels was immensely beyond the necessities of the lighthouse service and charges. Successive reductions were then made in favour of the shipping interest by successive Ministers at different times. By the year 1884 the shipping interest had been relieved to the extent of 60

  1655
  per cent of the total amount originally chargeable for light dues, but at the end of 1884 the Mercantile Fund, in spite of these reductions, was in a flourishing condition. Then, however, unfortunately for this Vote and for the Board of Trade which administers it, there was in Office a Gentleman exceedingly anxious to curry favour with the shipping interest—the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—who is a great adept in catchpenny phrases which tickle the ears of the groundlings, and he, being desirous to curry favour with anybody and everybody, recklessly proposed to reduce the light dues on shipping as some of his Predecessors had done. What has been the result? There was only 40 per cent of the original light dues then levied. The shipping interest, however, was, as it always has been, clamorous for relief and for the reduction of the charges to which it was subject, and this interest induced the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to reduce the 40 per cent to 30 per cent, thereby making a further reduction of 25 per cent on the amount then payable. Now, that deduction of 25 per cent upon the previously payable charges was a very serious blow to the Marine Fund, and from that day to this the Mercantile Marine Fund has been going from bad to worse, until, I believe, the Government have found themselves obliged to borrow, or propose to borrow, about £250,000 to save the fund from disaster. The £40,000 included in this Vote by no means shows the real state of things. I complain that the present Government have not put on the face of the Estimates, as they ought to have done, exactly how the matter stands. Of course, no one can blame the Government for the ridiculous and unfettered action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham when he was occupying the position of President of the Board of Trade, but still they are responsible for the acts they have done themselves. They have, I assert, submitted to the House of Commons a Vote which has completely deceived this Committee with regard to the circumstances with which the Department concerned in the matter has to deal. Of course, it may be said that the Government are not really under the necessity of raising this money to put the Mercantile Marine Fund in funds in
  1656
  order that it may meet the more expensive service it has to provide for; but they could, if they liked, instead of raising the fund, re-impose the 25 per cent. Here, again, I say that the Government are to blame. Instead of having the courage of their convictions, and there is, I think, no doubt they do hold the conviction that this 25 per cent ought to be re-imposed, they seem to be anxious to get into a state of discredit with our shipping commerce, corresponding to the credit which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham obtained when he made the deduction referred to. If they can afford to go into the market for the purpose of borrowing enormous sums of money for which they have to pay a percentage every year, they ought to be able to face the difficulty, and say—"If the ship dues are reduced to so low a figure, they are not sufficient to meet the requirements of those who have thrown upon them the management of the Mercantile Marine." So much with regard to the lighthouse dues and charges on shipping. I should now like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Vote if he will explain how the Mercantile Marine Fund stands at present, and what sort of a balance is at the disposal of the Board of Trade after all these months of falling income and increased charge? There is also another point with reference to which, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were here, I should like to dwell, and that is with regard to the charge put down for the Receivers of Wrecks. I may remind the Committee that years ago I expostulated against what I conceived to be the mistaken policy of the right hon. Gentleman as evidenced in the change of system under which the fees and salaries of the Receivers of Wrecks were arranged. I ventured to predict at that time that the change of system which was then introduced would result in an increased charge for salaries and increased charges in other respects; but the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham merely pooh-poohed my utterances, although in the end it was found that he was in the wrong and I was in the right. However, as the right hon. Gentleman is not present, I will not go further into that matter. There is

  1657
  another point in regard to which, I hope, the present Representative of the Board of Trade Department will kindly favour the Committee with, some information. It is a point which I submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade some days ago, with regard to the wages of deceased seamen; and here I may remark that this Paper which is put before us is of a very extraordinary character. Anyone who is at all acquainted with accounts will at once recognize the fundamental principle that when you have a cash account it is only possible to leave a balance at one side; it is impossible to pay away more than you have received. But this extraordinary account issued by the Board of Trade actually shows a cash balance. How it is that the Board of Trade can properly carry on its business in connection with the Mercantile Marine when its accounts show cash balances on the wrong side I really am at a loss to imagine. But I should like still further to analyze this Return, because I am fully satisfied that if the accounts of the Mercantile Marine Fund are kept in the same way in which the wages and receipts of the Receivers of Wrecks are kept the whole thing must be in a condition of hopeless confusion and muddle. They have shown a balance on the wrong side of the account, while their expenditure has been hundreds of thousands of pounds beyond their income; and yet they come before this Committee and say that a Vote of £40,000 is sufficient to balance the whole. The fact is that it is impossible for anyone who attempts to master the details of the Mercantile Marine Fund to make either head or tail of them, or to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion with regard to them. I very much regret that the noble Lord the Member for.South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) is not in his place on this occasion, because, if he were present, I should think he would use his influence in the endeavour to get the Government to agree to the appointment of a Committee next year for the purpose of inquiring into some of the Secret Service Votes in the same way as has been adopted with regard to the Army and Navy Votes in the inquiry which is now going on, and I am quite sure that if such a Committee were appointed it would find plenty of
  1658
  material in the Vote we are now discussing that would be well worthy of its investigation. I trust the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Baron Henry De Worms) will endeavour to afford some explanation to the Committee in reply to the questions I have submitted.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I will endeavour to answer the points urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor);but I cannot promise to follow him into all the details he has laid before the Committee. In regard to this sum of £40,000, I would remind the Committee that it is no new proposal. By the 45 & 46 Vict., it is provided that out of the moneys provided by Parliament an annual grant of £40,000 may be made to the Mercantile Marine Fund for a period of five years, and after the expiration of that period, such other sum as may be determined upon. The object of this grant was to assist the Mercantile Marine Fund, which has to depend on the light dues as its only annual source of income; and in case this source of income should prove insufficient Parliament very wisely determined to grant a sum of £40,000, so as to enable the Board of Trade to carry on the necessary works around our coasts, with a view of providing for the safety of our seamen and of our trade, on which the prosperity of our country so much depends. The hon. Member has asked me to give him some explanation as to what has been done with regard to this Fund, and I think I cannot do better than read a short Report on the subject which I hold in my hand. It says—
  "When the estimates on which the reduction of dues was made—i.e., in November, 1883—the accounts for 1882–3, which showed an excess of receipts over payments amounting to about £20,000 a-year, were taken as a basis, and the balance on the Mercantile Marine Fund was then £427,000. The abatement was increased from 60 per cent to 70 per cent which was, of course, equivalent to one-fourth of the existing dues. On the 1st of April, 1884, the light dues were reduced to the extent of 25 per cent. The estimated loss for the two years 1884–6 was £216,000; but the actual loss turned out to be £32,000 less, or £184,000. When these reductions were made it was not foreseen that the expenditure for the construction and maintenance of lighthouses would expand, In the two years the increase of outlay under this head was £140,000. The effect was to destroy the excess of receipts over

  1659
  payments and to reduce the balance by £276,000. The loss on miscellaneous items (receipts being short and payments in excess of average) had been £14,000. The loss by the Treasury arrangement (by which a grant of £40,000 a-year was made in consideration of this Board of Trade taking over certain duties) in. the two years had been £27,000. The total loss to the 31st of March, 1886, was £317,000. During the year 1886–7 the remaining balance of £117,000 was exhausted, and the Board of Trade were obliged to contract a loan of £250,000 from Greenwich Hospital moneys for the purpose of carrying on the works. Of that loan it was estimated that a considerable portion had been expended on the 31st March, 1887, say about £80,000. The accounts for the year 1886–7 were, however, not yet complete."
  Now, this Report would appear to show something very disastrous to the skipping interest; but I must remind the Committee that it has been the practice of the Board of Trade for many years to diminish the light dues whenever they found that the condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund was such as to allow it, and only to increase them when they have found that the Fund was not equal to the expenses which necessarily had to be defrayed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Has there been any increase in the last two or three years?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: In 1872 they were increased from 50 to 55 per cent, and in 1874 from 55 to 60 per cent. They have not always been reduced, but have sometimes been increased. In some cases there has been an abatement from 60 to 55 per cent, and then there has been a further reduction to 50 per cent, after which there was an increase to 55 percent, and again from 55 per cent to 60 per cent. There was an increase in 1880, but since that time I need hardly point out that the condition of trade has been such that it would not have been possible to levy a very heavy tax upon shipping-, and to the same reason the decrease of the Mercantile Marine Fund itself may be traced. The state of the shipping interest has been exceptionally bad during the last four years, and naturally the effect on the Mercantile Marine Fund has been very disastrous. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal has said that the accounts as presented do not show the real condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and I am bound to admit that that is the case. The reason is this—that in regard to our expenditure, we
  1660
  have works at present in progress, and there are the estimates for works we are bound to undertake; for at the present moment we have to pay £70,000 for the expenses of lighthouses, and shall have to incur a further expenditure of £90,000 for new works, making a total of £160,000, which, of course, does not appear in the account before the Committee, because it is not an actual outlay, but is one we shall have to make and which will appear in the accounts of next year. I must remind the Committee that on every occasion when there is a question of increased expense in connection with the lighthouses, harbours, and similar works, the Committee are only too ready to urge the Board of Trade on to make the increased expenditure. It was only the other day I had to defend the Department against an attack in reference to a proposal for increased expenditure at Holyhead Harbour, Therefore, I say it is impossible for the Committee of this House, if all these works are to be carried out at enormous expense, to be astonished at the Mercantile Marine Fund not continuing to wear that prosperous appearance which it presented some years ago. I am happy, however, to be enabled to inform the Committee that the trade of the country is improving. The amount received from the light dues is increasing, and if, as I earnestly hope may not be the case, this condition of affairs should not be maintained, it will be the duty of the Board of Trade to try some means of getting the Mercantile Marine Fund out of debt. Of course, we might pay off our debts by increasing the lighthouse tolls; but I must say that is not a thing which I should like to be called upon to do, nor is it one which I think would be at all likely to commend itself to the mercantile community. I should say that with regard to the Mercantile Marine Fund economy is misplaced. We have enormous interests at stake, and we only engage in works that are absolutely necessary; but the responsibility rests upon the Board of Trade of keeping the lighthouses all round our coasts in a state of efficiency, and when additional lighthouses are required, it is impossible for the Board of Trade to refuse them merely on the plea that they will entail considerable expense. I have now endeavoured, as far as I could consistently with the time at the disposal of the Com-

  1661
  mittee, to answer the questions put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal. I trust that the answers I have given have been sufficient to show that there has been no wasteful expenditure from the Mercantile Marine Fund, but that the large expenditure we have had to make has arisen from causes over which we have had no control.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman has by no means answered all my questions, although after the statement he has made I do not wish to press him further at the present moment. There is only one question I should like to put to him now, and that is with regard to the exemption of certain foreign vessels from light dues when they come into British ports for coaling purposes. A question in connection with this subject was raised some months ago, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with it. "What was the decision arrived at by the Board of Trade I do not know, but the point was with reference to the case of a vessel which comes into a port entirely for coal, and it not being the custom to levy the usual light dues against the tonnage under such circumstances. A system has grown up lately under which, a vessel on its way, say, to New York from Havre, will put in at Plymouth or Devonport or some other English port and lay in coal for the voyage, and make for that purpose the Southern port its headquarters for the time being, but in reality doing this as an excuse for getting rid of the charge as to light dues. Now, that certainly appears to me to be rather unfair to the home shipping interest, and I know that representations have been made to the Board of Trade upon the subject. The matter was under the consideration of the Board, but whether any decision was come to on the subject I do not know, and should be glad to be informed.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: That question was fully gone into between the shipowners and the Board of Trade, and it was decided that whereas every vessel formerly had to pay the light dues, supposing it touched at one port and continued loading at another, the Board of Trade now exempt vessels if they fill up their bunkers, having partly filled at one port and completely filled up at another. In such a case the light dues formerly charged for both ports
  1662
  are not now imposed. This, I understand, is considered satisfactory.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But I put the case of a vessel coming from Havre and coaling at Plymouth.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: If she breaks bulk she has to pay light dues, if she does not break bulk she does not pay.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to call attention to a very interesting dinner which was brought before the House some time ago in connection with the Northern Lights Commissioners. It was a dinner that cost a considerable sum of money, and it is stated that on that occasion the guests drank wine which cost four guineas a bottle. I would suggest that a little dinner of that kind is one of the unnecessary items of expenditure which might be got rid of. I only mention it now because I should like to obtain some further information upon the subject. I was not able to get a satisfactory answer when I put the question some time ago. It was an expenditure which did not approve itself to the Auditor General.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: In regard to the dinner to the Commissioners of Northern Lights, to which the hon. Member has referred, I would remind him that those gentlemen receive no salary whatever for the services they render. They have no pay at all, and they render very important services.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if he approved of what is complained of. He seems to think that because the Commissioners of Northern Lights receive no salary they are to be allowed to go to an inn and gorge themselves in the most disgusting manner, and at enormous expense, which is to be charged to the public funds. They are, in fact, to be allowed to swill down enormous quantities of: wine—almost enough to load a ship—under circumstances such as have just been stated. I want to know whether we can raise a question on this subject upon the present Vote? If we can, I for one shall most certainly object to anything that will permit such horrible gourmandizing. If the Commissioners render services that deserve the recompense of a salary, by all means let them be paid; but do not let us assist in the encouragement of orgies such as these,
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I do not see why, under the circumstances, the Commissioners of Northern Lights should not be allowed to have an annual dinner, and I think it exceedingly mean for my hon. Friend here to complain of their having had one such dinner. It strikes me as being very absurd to make this the groundwork of a complaint.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I ought to point out to the Committee, that in Scotland the Northern Lights Commissioners, and in Ireland the Commissioners of Irish Lights are unpaid bodies. Some expenses are allowed thorn when incurred in anything they may do, but they receive no salary whatever; and it would be very difficult to get the services of gentlemen in Scotland and Ireland of the position occupied by the Commissioners of Lights for anything like the small sum that is expended once a-year upon a dinner.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I would remind the Committee that the late Mr. Hume looked closely into this subject, and, after bringing it before this House, he moved that the Northern Lights Commissioners being an unpaid body, and having done their work so admirably, instead of having only one dinner they ought to have two. It so happens, however, that instead of partaking of two dinners, the Northern Lights Commissioners have only had one, in order to save expense to the country. I trust that after the matter has been so fully explained we shall hear no more of it.
  MR. CRAIG: It has been stated that an account is presented to this House showing the state of the Mercantile Marine Fund. I do not see where the cost of administering the lighthouses is stated, and surely the account ought to set that forth. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade will explain how this is?
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I rise to Order. I would suggest to you, Sir, that this discussion is entirely irregular.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is relevant to the subject-matter of the Vote before the Committee. This is a Vote which is fixed by Act of Parliament, and under the heading of the Mercantile Marine Fund would come the charge for lights, and also the!
  1664
  charge for the dinner to the Northern Lights Commissioners, which, of course, comes out of the Fund. Therefore a discussion on that point may be brought within the Vote, though it may possibly be rather remote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The balance against the Fund is stated at £40,000, and we have already obtained an admission from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to the effect that that statement is misleading, and that, instead of £40,000, the balance against the Vote is some hundreds of thousands, for which they have already gone into debt.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The balance against the Fund is put at £40,000.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have the accounts in my hand.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The question of this Mercantile Marine Fund is a matter which was brought under my attention some weeks ago, and I think that these accounts require to be most thoroughly examined. I will therefore undertake that the subject shall be thoroughly examined, and it may be that very important decisions will be come to with regard to it. There can be no doubt that the Mercantile Marine Fund is in a very unsatisfactory position.
  DR. TANNER: After the assurance we have just received from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might I be allowed to call attention to just one point? It seems to me a very extraordinary thing that we should be told that the Treasury has no control over these details. It seems to me that the surveyors did pass a number of ships lying at the various ports——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This is quite irregular. The matter the hon. Member is referring to will come under the Board of Trade Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £30,000, 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 1888, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have a few words to say with regard to this Vote for Secret Service. This Vote has grown

  1665
  up during the last 20 years from the sum of £10,000 to the very large sum of £50,000. It first grew up to £14,000, where it remained for a few years, and now it has got up to £50,000. I object to the whole system upon which this Vote is obtained. It is not asked for by Parliament, and we are not told in what Departments it is expended. I admit that there may be circumstances under which it is necessary to expend money not directly sanctioned by Parliament; but I. think we ought, at least, to know by what Departments it is used. We do not know whether the money is expended abroad or at home; whether for the Police Service or the Diplomatic Service; and that, I think, is an entirely wrong thing. We have the amount increased from £10,000 to £50,000; and, as a matter of fact, I do not think the main portion of it is spent in the Diplomatic Service. I have some knowledge of that Service, and know that exceedingly little is spent there. We may presume that a considerable amount is spent in looking after dynamiters and such like persons—those gentlemen in America whom Governments are so fond of parading here before us. If that is so, let us know it. Of course, we do not want a Minister to say "I spent so much in sending a man out to such a place," or "I devoted so much to bribing this or that man." That would be absurd; but if we are to have Secret Service money, we should not allow it to go on increasing year by year, nor should it be asked for in one grand total; it should be asked for under the heads of the different Departments who make use of it. I have given Notice of a Resolution to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000; and I confess I should like to move a reduction by a considerably larger sum; but I am always anxious to be moderate in my demands, and suggest £10,000 as a species of compromise, and I am sure many will vote with me who would not support the reduction by a larger sum.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I trust my hon. Colleague will not insist on moving this reduction, for if he does the Committee will be put to the trouble of a double Division, for I shall cer-
  1666
  tainly divide against the whole Vote. I divide against it on principle, and therefore ask him to withdraw his Motion for a reduction. I took the same ground last year, and do not think it necessary to repeat now what I then said; but I divide as a matter of principle, thinking that in a country like this we ought not to have a Secret Service Vote. I quite understand how it may be necessary to include different items of expenditure under the head of Sundries, the particulars of which need not be stated; but they ought at least to come under some sort of audit in connection with each Department.
  MR. DILLON: There is one question in connection with this Secret Service Vote I think of some importance; it is this. We vote every year a sum of £50,000, so we are led to suppose that sum is required. The sum was doubled at the time of the dynamite scare, and we know that then there was great expense incurred in the Detective Service; and in the state of public excitement, any Vote that was asked for was assented to. But is it not utterly out of reason to suppose that you can spend the same sum in Secret Service year after year?
  MR. JACKSON: The sum may not be expended in the year, and if not expended it is surrendered again.
  MR. DILLON: Where does this appear?
  MR. JACKSON: In the Appropriation Accounts. The hon. Member will find that there never has been £50,000 spent; the expenditure has ranged from £30,000 to £45,000.
  MR. DILLON: It is very desirable that we should have on the face of these Estimates, when we are asked to vote this sum; the amount surrendered in the previous year, the Committee would then know the sum spent each year.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member is aware that I am already under a pledge to the House to give explanatory notes with the Estimates, and in regard to this particular Vote the note will give the actual sum expended in the last year.
  MR. DILLON: Of course, that would be a very marked improvement, and some of my objection would be met, though my objection to the Vote cannot be altogether removed. one thing is remarkable in connection with the discussion of this Vote, and has struck me

  1667
  as absurd, and that is the amount of mystery with which, the Vote is surrounded. I am reminded of the habit attributed to the ostrich, of sticking its head in the sand when pursued, when I see the amount of mystery that is indicated when there is an allusion to this Vote. Of course, we do not expect a detailed return of the expenditure; but if Ministers refuse to indicate generally the method in which, the money is used, is there not one of them can got up and say—"I have examined the accounts, and I can certify that the money has been spent for useful purposes."
  MR. JACKSON: If I tell the hon. Member what a re the facts, it may tend to clear his mind of some false impressions in regard to the Vote. I do not wonder at the impression, for unless he has examined the accounts, he might suppose from seeing the round sum set down in the Votes each year that the whole of it was expended. But that is not the fact, as going back on the figures for a few years will show. In the year 1885–6, the amount surrendered to the Treasury was £6,952 8s. 1d.; in 1884–5, the amount surrendered was £1,398; in 1883–4, £1,949; in 1882–3. £4,862; and in 1881–2, £10,471. These facts are shown on the face of the Appropriation Accounts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It seems to me it will be the same thing whether we take a Division on a reduction of the Vote or divide against the whole Vote; all we want is a protest. I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. DILLON: Is there any Minister sitting on that Bench who holds himself responsible for the expenditure of the money, who will undertake to stand up and say—"This money has been honestly spent?" Is there anyone who looks after it?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The responsibility is divided between three or four different Ministers, to whom a portion of the Secret Service money is assigned according to their wants, and each Minister vouches for the money when spent. One Minister collects the demands of the Departments.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the Minister state for what the money is ex-
  1668
  pended, or is the expenditure entirely on the responsibility of the individual Minister?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Entirely on the responsibility of each individual Minister.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 42: Majority 95.—(Div. List No. 367.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will be for the convenience of hon. Members, I understand, if we now report Progress, and proceed to-morrow with the Scotch Votes in Classes II. and III.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The English Votes in Class 3 will be postponed until after the Scotch Votes in that class?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes. It will be convenient, having commenced Scotch Business, to proceed with it; but we break off at 11 to take the second reading of the Technical Instruction Bill.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 345.]
(Mr. Jackson, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Jackson.)
MR. BAUMANN: I do not, of course, wish to prevent the House going into Committee on this Bill, because I believe the money is really required for the service of the Metropolis, though, I may observe, that, up to this point, no statement on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works has been vouchsafed to the House. But, considering the very large borrowing and lending powers asked for—this Bill, I believe, contains borrowing powers amounting to over£3,000,000—and, considering the rate to be levied by the Metropolitan Board of Works has now reached 7d. and a fraction in the pound, and considering, further, that the second reading of the Bill was allowed to pass the other morning, owing to the lateness of the hour, without any debate or discussion, I cannot help thinking we Metropolitan Members would be guilty of

1669
something like a dereliction of duty to our constituents the ratepayers of London if, before the House goes in Committee, we did not raise some discussion and make some remarks on the policy and expenditure of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I desire, before the House goes into Committee, to call attention to one or two anomalies in the relations between the Metropolitan Board of Works and this House, and to the conduct of Business of this kind in the House. The first anomaly I find in the fact that this Money Bill, this Budget of the Board, is introduced into this House by two Members of the Government, who are neither responsible for, or even acquainted with, the purposes for which the money is required. I do not mean to say, of course, that the items of the Bill have not been examined by some one on behalf of the Treasury, but let any ton. Gentleman ask the Secretary of the Treasury for an explanation of Clause 5, or the history of the Blackwall Tunnel, and it will be found that the Secretary to the Treasury will be obliged to refer to the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire (Mr. Egerton), a private Member of the House for an explanation. Of course, neither the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) can give any explanation of the clause, for the good reason that they are not members of the Board who want the money, and therefore can say nothing as to the policy of the Board, or the financial condition of the Metropolis. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of the two hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred; but once every year, at all events, two Lords of the Treasury are content to figure as the financial dummies of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The anomalous relations between the Board and this House have always been felt to be inconvenient; bat since the translation of the Chairman of the Board to "another place" these relations have become almost intolerable. Here we have a body like the Metropolitan Board of Works—and this is anomaly number two—which presents annually a Budget of £3,000,000 to the House, which lends large sums of money to Vestries, District Boards, Boards of Guardians, Metropolitan Asylums Board—to all the local bodies of London,
1670
which makes new streets, erects artizans' dwellings, builds bridges, makes tunnels, manages parks: which performs a variety of functions too numerous to mention, which is perpetually bringing forward Bills of importance, and yet this Board has never had in the House any official recognized representative. Why the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works need not be a Member of Parliament at all. I believe the Predecessor of the present Chairman was not a Member at all, and even Lord Magheramorne when he sat in this House had no recognized official position, and was only allowed to answer questions in defiance of practice, by the indulgence and courtesy of the House. But he has now vanished under an unpronounceable title to "another place," and for a long time there was no one in the House to whom a Question could be addressed; but at last the noble Lord the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works has appointed and deputed as his Successor my hon. Friend the Member for the Knutsford Division, whose competence I do not for one moment question—indeed, it is beyond question, and I congratulate him on his appointment as a deserved tribute to his character; but he will forgive me if I say that Angelo the deputy is not quite the same as the Duke himself. We could not well have a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Lords and a Deputy Chancellor here; but here we have the Chairman in the House of Lords and a deputy here. Well, it may be said all these matters concerning the business of London are for the ratepayers of London, and not for this House. So they would be; so they ought to be, if the Metropolitan Board of Works were directly elective. But if these matters are the concern of: the ratepayers, then I say, submit your Budget to the ratepayers. I am far from saying it would be wise or expedient to transfer all control over the Board of Works from this House to the ratepayers, for it should never be forgotten that London is the capital of the Empire. But what is not arguable is—and I address myself specially to Metropolitan Members—the fact that we, the Metropolitan Members, are the only protection the ratepayers have against the Board of Works; because the peculiarity of the Board's position in regard to this Money Bill, and, indeed, to all its public

1671
Bills, is, that while, on the one hand, it escapes the control of the ratepayers, it often, on the other, escapes the ordeal of a Private Bill Committee upstairs. And this brings me to the last and not the least anomaly which disfigures the conduct of the business of the Board, the anomaly that its finance is separated from its policy, that its schemes go before one tribunal and its finance come before another. All the schemes of the Metropolitan Board of Works which involve questions of property are, in accordance with the Rules of this House, introduced as Private Bills, and are sent upstairs to a Private Bill Committee: but the money which is wanted for the carrying out of these schemes is obtained by this Bill introduced into this House by the Government as a Public Bill. Well, the inconvenience of this is obvious. Of course, in dealing with, other public bodies or Companies, the Private Bill Committee has before it the financial as well as the engineering, or works, part of the scheme, and the Committee can overhaul the scheme as a whole; but when a Private Bill Committee comes to deal with a Board of Works proposal, it is told, "Oh, here is a beautiful scheme for the making of a tunnel under the Thames. It will cost so much; but never mind about that; the money will be provided by the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill which will be introduced by the Government." Then this House is told, "Here is the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill, which you must pass, because the money is wanted for schemes already sanctioned by Committees upstairs." So the Committee is asked to pass the scheme without a thought of the money, and this House is asked to vote the money without the scheme. Now, I venture to think and to say that that way of doing business is very unsatisfactory because it enables the Board by these moans to escape all direct control whether from the ratepayers or from this House, because Metropolitan Members of this House are prevented from criticizing with any effect the clauses of this Bill. For this reason I will not attempt the task at this hour. But I may make the general remark as to the loading powers sought for in this Bill, that it seems to me the Metropolitan Board of Works and the local bodies that it feeds have got into the habit of mortgaging the
1672
rates with much too great facility. I have thought it my duty to draw attention to what appeared to mo some anomalies in the conduct of the business of a great public body which has, on the whole, deserved well of the public. I say this with the greater emphasis in the face of recent scandals, and I hope that the anomalies may be remedied some way or other, but until such time as the Metropolitan Board of Works is directly elected by the ratepayers, I repeat, in my opinion, it is essential that the Chairman of the Board should sit in this House, and, if possible, he should have a recognized official position; and, if I may say so, to my hon. Friends who are Members of the Board, I do not think the Metropolitan Board of Works quite realize the enormous change in its own position, the altered position of the Board brought about by the passing of the Redistribution of Seats Act. When there were only 20 Metropolitan Members in the House it was no doubt easy to slip a Metropolitan Board of Works Bill through in the small hours, but now that there are 60 Members sitting for London constituencies, unless the Board shows a desire to consult the convenience of those Members, and the wants and wishes of their constituents, the Board cannot expect to find their Bills passed through the House with such facility.
COLONEL HUGHES: The hon. Member has been somewhat unjust to the Board of Works in his criticisms on the mode in which its Members are elected. The Metropolitan Board has nothing whatever to do with that, that was settled by the Act passed by Parliament in 1855, so I do not think the Board is a fair mark for the sarcasms levelled at it on this account. Then, Sir, as to the form in which this money Bill comes before you. The method of setting forth the accounts of which we have an elaborate specimen, was laid down in the l2th clause of the Metropolitan Loans Act. It was thought at that time a matter of interest, and well for the public to have information, annually in the form of a statement showing how the rates had been mortgaged, and how far the redemptions had proceeded, and this statement finds a place in this Bill every year. This is prepared under Statute. I understand my hon. Friend to say he has no doubt that this money is really required by the

1673
Metropolitan Board. But how did he I arrive at this opinion? He said no statement had been vouchsafed to the House for what this money was required, but I suppose he has read the Schedules, and he must have come to his conclusion from that reading, for there every authority is quoted, and every Statute mentioned under which powers are granted. Information is given in very considerable detail, and upon this the hon. Gentleman must have come to the conclusion that the money was required. If that statement requires amplification there are Members in the House willing and desirous to give further information; but I assume, hearing nothing to the contrary, that this is not necessary now. As to the way in which the Metropolitan Board is represented in the House, allow me to say I am surprised at my hon. Friend's remarks. I thought we were all in favour of decentralization, and it seems a strange thing to hear my hon. Friend say the Metropolitan Board should be a Government Department. I thought we were all in favour of local self-government, but my hon. Friend, in a speech in which he says the Board ought to be elected by the ratepayers, advocates the creation of the Board into a sort of Government Department with a Representative in the House to answer all Questions that Metropolitan Members are disposed to put on Metropolitan affairs. There is something of inconsistency in his speech. Now, in regard to this money—it is required for the service of the Metropolis in respect to schemes sanctioned by this House, or in respect to contributions to Local Authorities authorized by the Government and sanctioned by Parliament as proper expenditure. The policy of the Board is the policy of Parliament, because all the expenditure is in consequence of Statutes passed for the regulation of the Metropolis. The Board introduces a Bill to obtain Parliamentary sanction for certain works, and the cost of the work is stated before the Committee. The reason why the money required for the tunnel works at Black-wall was not put in the Tunnel Bill itself was because we thought it more convenient to come to Parliament and ask for the whole of the money for the year than that the Board should put the money in its Bills for many purposes—
1674
sometimes for a tunnel, sometimes for a common, sometimes for a bridge, and so on. You would have to look through 50 Acts of Parliament before you could get at the amount of the expenditure; but here we show the expenditure as a whole, and give opportunity for the discussion of any item. It is, I believe, a much better plan than submitting the financial proposals in fragments. The Blackwall Tunnel Bill received the Royal Assent to-day; surely Parliament would not, in the same Session, authorize a scheme which, beyond doubt, if carried out, would greatly benefit the inhabitants of the East End of London on either side the river, and refuse to grant the money for carrying it out? The hon. Member says our annual budget is about £3,000,000, but our annual budget is much less, it is usual about £1,500,000; but it happens to be £3,000,000 this year, because of the addition of this Blackwall Tunnel. A discussion in regard to the Metropolitan Board must be regarded in connection with the interests of the ratepayers, and if the habit of attacking public bodies is indulged in towards the Metropolitan Board, that body can only be discredited at the expense of the ratepayers. We go on the Market and raise the money we require at 3 per cent, and our Stock stands as high as Consols. If you injure the credit of the Metropolitan Board of Works you injure the interests of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, and I would advise Metropolitan Members to be careful of attacks upon that body, which, will only recoil upon their own constituents. No doubt, there are many points of interest in the Bill, and the Board will satisfy any inquiry; but I believe the House is not now desirous of going into the details. We have had to satisfy the Treasury, and with that authority we now ask Parliamentary sanction. The Government bring in this Bill, for theirs is the responsibility to see that the details in the Schedule correspond with the statutory powers of the Board; and this Government control is most useful. A great deal of the money required is for the renewal of powers previously granted. Large contracts have been entered into, especially in regard to sewage, on the faith of previous grants. The money has not been borrowed, and we ask to have the power renewed. The expenditure is subject

1675
to a public audit, and ratepayers may object to any part of it. The whole thing may be surcharged, even to the pockets of members of the Board. Surrounded as the whole transaction is by safeguards, I think the House may pass the Bill satisfied that there is no injustice to the ratepayers, and allow works of great public utility to be constructed.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It may be for the convenience of the House if I state the circumstances under which we are responsible for the promotion, of this Money Bill every year, and how it was that the practice was set on foot. I was Secretary to the Treasury in 1874–5, and at that time the Treasury was responsible for the auditing of the Metropolitan Board of Works accounts, and for seeing that the Board proceeded under their statutory powers. It was represented to me at the time that the practice of the Metropolitan Board then, in promoting Bills in Parliament, which gave them the right to raise money on loan in respect to particular works, was accumulating an amount of liability, so far as the Metropolis was concerned, unknown to the ratepayers. When a bridge, or a tunnel, or a system of sewage was undertaken by the Board, they passed a Bill through Parliament—a Private Bill—containing all the powers for raising the money in respect to the particular work, the borrowing and taxing powers for that object. The result was that there were many concurrent powers running at the same time, and the gross amount of indebtedness was unknown to the inhabitants of the Metropolis. It appeared to the Government at that time desirable that all these powers should be brought into one focus in a statement made to Parliament every year of the unexhausted powers of the Metropolitan Board, of those terminated each year, and that this should be attached to an annual Bill, providing for the amount required in the year, not only for works incomplete, and for which authority had been given in previous years by legislation, but, also, for works, if any, which would be carried out within the year. Thereupon legislation was passed by Parliament, and the system which now prevails was adopted. Hon. Members will understand that nothing is provided for in
1676
this Bill to which Parliamentary sanction has not already been obtained. Subject to this Parliamentary sanction, it is the duty of the Treasury carefully to check the demands made by this Money Bill with the powers obtained by previous Bills promoted by the Board, and investigated by private Bill Committees. It was thought desirable that the Metropolis should be made aware in this statement of the total liabilities incurred year by year, and the statement accompanying the Money Bill introduced into Parliament each year, shows the whole of those liabilities. That is the extent to which the Government are responsible for the Bill. We are not responsible for the policy under which the powers are taken, but for the accuracy of the demands as agreeing with the statutory powers conferred on the Board by Parliament. My hon. Friend has referred to anomalies that exist in the procedure, and I admit the existence of anomalies in the organization and operations of the Board, but I do not think a remedy would be provided by the representation of the Metropolitan Board of Works in the House. I think it is far better for the Metropolitan Board to rely on the representation of any of its members who may be Members of the House, than that any Member of the Government should be entrusted with the duty of representing the views of the Board. I have thought it right to give this explanation, and I think it will be obvious that it is a great advantage to the ratepayers to have this annual financial statement, and not remain in ignorance of growing liabilities that might at any time lead to the imposition of a very heavy rate.
MR. SYDNEY BUNTON: I did not understand that the objection of the hon. Member for Peckham was to the control exercised by the Treasury; and I think that so long as the Board maintains its present non-representative character, it is essential that there should be such control, imperfect though it may be, over the expenditure. I was myself very glad to hear such a speech from that quarter of the House, and Metropolitan Members will agree with it in the main. the hon. Member pointed out an anomalous state of things in connection with the Board, but so far as I see, he has failed to draw the con-

1677
clusion most of us here would draw therefrom—namely, that the only remedy is to have in London some central and representative authority directly responsible to the ratepayers in a way that the Metropolitan Board certainly cannot be under existing circumstances. The hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich seems to think that the policy of the Board is almost of a sacred character, which Members should not challenge or criticize; but while I admit the valuable work done by the Board, I must say their action is sometimes open to question. If we had some system in which the ratepayers had direct control, we should have the money of the ratepayers properly spent, and it would not be necessary for us to discuss the Metropolitan Budget in the House in the way it is now absolutely necessary it should be discussed. I do think that, considering that the House of Commons is the only way in which popular control of any sort or kind that can be exercised over the Board, that this Bill should come before us at a time when the 60Metropolitan Members could have a full opportunity of discussing the important matters therein contained. One word further in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham, on the Thames Tunnel. He pointed out that the expenditure under the scheme would be very great, and so far as I could gather from what he said, he seemed rather to object to that expenditure. But I would point out that the proposed tunnel is the only means of communication between the North and South of the Thames east of the Tower Bridge, which is not yet finished, and many of my constituents are five or six miles even from the Bridge. It costs many of the manufacturers in the Isle of Dogs as much to send goods to Greenwich as to send them to Sweden. This is a state of things that should be put an end to, and the £1,500,000 will be well spent upon a scheme that will bring great benefit to the whole of the East End of London. The West of London has received much from the ratepayers in recent times, and it is only right that the East.End should have a means of communication across the river. I hope the discussion of this evening, the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham, and the speech from the First Lord of the Treasury, in which he
1678
acknowledged the very anomalous position of the Board of Works will do something towards that reform and towards the formation of a central authority on a representative basis which, I believe, every Metropolitan Member, Liberal or Conservative, regards as the essential thing to be carried out, however much we may differ in the actual reform, we propose.
MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIE: I should like to say one word before the Financial Secretary to the Treasury speaks. I should like to point out one omission—namely, that there is no provision made for the acquisition of Parliament Hill. Only last year an Act was passed authorizing the Metropolitan Board to acquire that particular piece of land extending from. Hampstead Heath, and power was also given to the vestries immediately concerned to make contributions towards the cost. The vestries have performed their part; they have promised Hampstead £20,000 and St. Pancras £30,000, on the understanding that the Metropolitan Board will fulfil its part. But so far as I can see, that Board has done nothing to carry out this scheme. It is not necessary for me—as this House last year fully concurred as to its utility—to go into details of the improvement, but let me say there must be no delay in regard to it. Those who have been engaged in the promotion of the schema are well aware of the attendant circumstances which will not permit of any delay whatever. My object in rising is to impress on the Metropolitan Board not to delay if they intend to carry out the scheme for the acquisition of the Hill.
MR. WEBSTER: I would first point out to the hon. Member for North St. Pancras who last spoke that the reason why the Metropolitan Board of Works have not yet asked for Parliamentary powers to borrow £200,000 for the purchase of Parliament Hill is that at the present time they are pressed in every direction to carry out undertakings of this character, and if they acceded to every request—and these requests are urged on them in some cases by Members of Parliament—they would expend a sum of £10,000,000. At the present time, we are not aware whether the powers we have to receive a quota from the Coal

1679
and Wine Dues will be renewed. It may be asked, why, if we have delayed the purchase of Parliament Hill, we propose to spend a vast sum of money on the Blackwall Tunnel? Now, the question of making this important intercommunication has been pressed on the Metropolitan Board for many years past. It will be very useful to the East End of London—a district representing in trade and commerce a population greater than the combined populations of Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham. The population of the district of East London on the North side of the bridge is 894,000; and the combined populations of Manchester and Birmingham is 860,000;the population on the South side of London Bridge is 655,000, while that of Liverpool is 552,000. This question has been carefully considered by the Metropolitan Board. I am quite prepared to hear the argument that that Board is a non-representative body; but, Sir, to my mind, it is not absolutely so. The major portion of the gentlemen who sit on that Board are men who have sat for many years on local governing bodies in London, and who have been found to be men competent to serve on the central body. They have had their training in local government in smaller bodies, and it is their duty to go to those bodies from time to time and report upon what has been done by the central board. In many instances there has been great contests over the election of members of the Metropolitan Board, while many of those so elected have also had to fight an election in order to secure a seat on the local body appointing them, so that it is altogether wrong to say it is a totally non-representative body. Just look for a moment at the Ministry of the day. The Members of this House are elected, the dominant Party selects a Leader, who nominates certain men to sit in the Ministry. Of course, those nominated have to go back to their constituencies, and to be re-elected; but after all the constituencies simply ratify; they do not appoint similarly on the Metropolitan Board; we would be quite willing, after being elected on the Central Board, to go back to the general constituency to be re-elected. My hon. Friend has pointed out the fact that at the present moment the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board does not sit in this
1680
House. But let me remind him that on a former occasion not only was the Chairman of the Board not a Member of the House; but no single member of the Board had a seat in the House of Commons, whereas at the present time you have three Members sitting here, either of whom surely is able to answer any question that may be put as to the proceedings of the Board. Incidental reference has been made to what is called the "recent scandal." I should like to say it is not a "recent" scandal in the proper sense of the word. It is connected with a matter which occurred some years ago; we have had a thorough inquiry into the matter, and let me remind the House that there are occasionally—in the Army and Navy, in banks and in other institutions, where 400 or 500 men have to be looked after—small scandals.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now getting rather wide of the mark in discussing on this Bill the past history of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. WEBSTER: All right, Sir. ["Order, order!"] I will not refer any further to that fact. Before I conclude my remarks, I would point out to the House that this Money Bill has to be presented from year to year. The Board's present powers will expire on the 31st December, 1887, and unless this Bill is passed the Board's liabilities and contracts now in existence cannot be met. We are under a vast number of liabilities and contracts, and I am bound to point out that every year those liabilities are increasing owing to the action of Parliament itself. For instance, in this very Bill we have had to provide for a sum of £20,000 to be spent in connection with the Public Parks Bill, which has just passed this House. That means one-sixth of a penny in the pound, and Parliament from time to time throws fresh obligations on the Metropolitan Board of Works. We would not willingly spend one farthing of the ratepayers' money, but we are obliged to do what you order. We are an executive body; we have to carry out, to the best of our ability, the various Acts of Parliament. The Board does its work well; its debates are brief, and to the point. When you have the new Central Government of London, which will not have the check of the House of Commons which

1681
we have, I venture to say you will have a vastly increased expenditure.
MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I do not think that there are any of us speaking on this matter who are prepared to say that the money asked for is not in all cases required and for good objects. We are thankful to the First Lord of the Treasury for the statement he made, and I think no one of us who holds a strong opinion against the constitution of the present Board does not also think that a very great improvement was made—and for the benefit of the ratepayers—when Parliament undertook that this annual budget of the Board of Works should come before it. Bat we do complain that the Central Authority for governing London should be so very badly constituted that the Government should consider it necessary for Parliament to give it this dry nursing every year. We in London believe that we are as capable of governing ourselves as are the people living in large Provincial towns. We only want to have a directly elective Board—one directly elected by the ratepayers, which shall control its own finances. Such a Board could be elected just as well as we can elect 60 Members of this House. I think the case, so far as we have had one made out by two hon. Members of the Board of Works who have seats in this House, is a very poor one indeed. They have entirely failed to grasp the point made by the hon. Member for Peckham, that the state of things in London has changed. They seem to fret under the criticisms directed against them. I should like to give them one word of warning, that if this Bill in future Sessions is not brought in at an earlier hour we shall have to take stronger action instead of confining ourselves to criticism, and I venture to say that in that stronger action we shall have a very strong public opinion at our back. I have yet to find that the Metropolitan Board of Works possesses the confidence of the ratepayers, for those ratepayers have never yet had a chance of showing whether or not they feel any confidence in it. A most amusing illustration of a thing which has no existence was given by the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. He said that Ministries in this House were formed out of the Party having the majority, and that the Ministers had to go back to their, constituencies to get their
1682
appointments endorsed. The inference he drew from this—and I am sure I do not know where the point came in—was that they did not do this thing on the Board of Works, and that therefore there was some similarity between that Board and Parliament.
MR. WEBSTER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. What I said was that if each member of the Board was to go back to the parish where he had a seat on the Local Body to be re-elected, it would be an analogous case.
MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: Unfortunately it does not take place, and when one uses an illustration in a speech, it is generally intended that it should point to an existing state of things, and it is not usually applied to a practical question as to what might occur if a totally different state of things existed. Now, Sir, with regard to this being an elective body in a certain degree, let us consider what its constitution is. The members of the Board are nominated by Vestries, District Boards, and the City of London, who may or may not be members of the bodies nominating them. The Vestry may choose someone outside their body, and who has never had any connection whatever with the ratepayers of that particular parish. I know that in a good many cases the local bodies do choose the members from among themselves, and I think that that is a very good thing; but, after all, that is only an accident. How is the Vestry itself constituted? Let us take, for instance, the Vestry of the parish represented by the Member for East St. Pancras. Why, the great majority of the ratepayers of that parish are not qualified to sit on that Vestry, because it is necessary to have a £40 ratal qualification. In one Division of the parish of St. Pancras a vast percentage—I should think at least five-sixths of the entire body of ratepayers—could not stand as Vestrymen if they wished, because their ratal qualification would be under £40. You have no representative system, and if our Friends from the Provinces on both sides of the House will just give a little attention to the wants of London, they might usefully employ some of the time of the House which is wasted on other matters. An hon. Member opposite said just now—"Do not attack the Board of Works; do not say anything against them, or else down will go

1683
their credit." Just fancy that! The credit of which, he boasted so much is to go to smithereens if we criticize a Money Bill! Does he really think that that credit depends on the constitution of the Board? What is it the credit relies upon? the credit is that of the ratepayers of London; and to interfere with that credit and bring it down, you must do something which will affect the stability of London itself. You can abolish the Metropolitan Board of Works altogether, and I venture to think that the people of London will not even shudder at it, and the effect on credit will be to improve it rather than otherwise. I do not like this Bill, nor the way in which we are called upon to vote this money; it is too late an hour at which to deal with so important a question. The Metropolitan Board of Works year by year spend an enormous sum of money on sewerage; but if we had a directly-elected body, you would have that important question properly dealt with. You would have the necessary amount of public attention drawn on it, schemes for dealing with it would receive consideration, and people would see how money was now wasted on that. An attempt would be made to utilize the sewage. This is one of the questions which will have to be thoroughly discussed in public, and by a thoroughly representative authority, before the people of London will be satisfied. Now, with regard to the confidence which we are told the Metropolitan ratepayers have in the Board of Works, why if one takes up the papers day by day you will see that there are members of the Board who are under very grave charges. A City paper last Saturday had a series of interrogatories for which it demanded the attention of the members. Members of only two years' service cannot, I know, speak with authority on what has taken place; but I am confident of one thing, and that is that before long the whole of the transactions of that Board will have to go before a Royal Commission. The Robertson scandal is only the commencement of it, and it is because I think good is to be done by drawing attention to this Board that I have said these few words.
MR. EVELYN: It is not my intention at this hour of the night to continue the discussion at any length; but I venture to say that the
1684
remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down have very little bearing on the matter before the House. He speaks of the scandals of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he appears to me to look forward to the possibility of future scandals. I shall not deal with such topics, because I do not think that they can be properly discussed on this occasion; but I do desire to make some remarks with regard to points that have arisen in the course of the debate. In the first place, I think we are very much indebted to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has brought this matter forward. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a very interesting account of the system on which the Board was formerly managed. As to the present system, it is admitted that there are anomalies in it, and I do not wish here to go into that matter. But when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woolwich got up to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham, I cannot help thinking that he avoided grappling with the real arguments that were advanced. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham did not enter into the question of the present mode of electing the Metropolitan Board of Works, nor did he make the absurd assertion that there is no statement of the purposes for which this large amount of money is demanded. Of course, we have in the Schedule a full account of the purposes to which the money is to be applied. But the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich seemed to entertain the superstitious feeling that the Metropolitan Board can do no wrong—in fact, he seems to claim from us greater confidence in the Board than, judging from the reports in the newspapers, that august body has in itself. Now, let me refer for a moment to the provision in the Bill dealing with the Blackball Tunnel. I have put down a Notice adverse to that project; but I consider that the thing is practically decided as the Bill for it has received the Royal Assent. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, or with my hon. Friend the Member for East St. Pancras, as to the great advantages of this scheme; in fact, I have as little faith in this hole under the Thames as I have in the hole projected under the Channel. Speaking on behalf of those I have the honour to represent, I can

1685
only say that the people of Deptford do not expect any great advantage from the tunnel; they would much have preferred a free ferry from Deptford to the Isle of Dogs, which would only have cost £4,000 or £5,000, as compared with the £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 which will be expended, on the tunnel. Surely, Sir, this tunnel project should not be allowed to pass sub silentio; and Her Majesty's Government should give us some account in regard to so gigantic a scheme. I do not see why the Metropolis should bear the whole cost of it, as it is intended that the Government should make use of it. Then as to the phraseology employed in the Bill. I wish to know if it is consistent with Constitutional usage? Is it right to ask us to vote money for a project which does not become law until it has received the Royal Assent? I know that, as a fact, the Bill received the Royal Assent to-day; but I would suggest, as a verbal Amendment, that we omit from Subsection 2 of Clause 9 the words "if it becomes law." In Sub-section 4, the same words recur, and in reference to the London Parks and Works Bill, which has not received the Royal Assent, but which is now before the House of Lords, is it quite respectful on our part towards the Crown to presume that the Bill will not only pass the Lords, but that it will receive the Royal Assent? I do not like to vote money on any such assumption. To the list of anomalies mentioned by the hon. Member for Peckham may be added the greatest of all—that at this late hour we should be called on to discuss a Bill of this important character, and one which so nearly and intimately concerns our constituents.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Power to expend moneys for the purposes of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act, 1887, the Thames Tunnel (Blackwall) Act, 1887, the Artizans, &c., Acts, and. the London Parks and Works Act, 1887).
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 35, omit the words "if it becomes law."—(Mr. Evelyn.)
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I hope my hon. Friend will not press this. It is perfectly true, as he says, that it would make this clause in accordance with facts, and it is also true that in the subsequent clause you have another anomaly arising from similar words applied to a matter which has not yet received the Royal Assent. I would further point out it would be undesirable to lay down a precedent on this occasion. My hon. Friend will see that if compulsory powers to take property are given by Parliament in this Session, it is only reasonable that Parliament should simultaneously make provision to pay for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SYDNEY BUNTON: I see £20,000 has been put down for the Metropolitan Parks, which have just been transferred to the ratepayers. The Committee will, perhaps, remember that the First Commissioner of Works, when he introduced the Parks Bill, stated that the Parks would be handed over to the ratepayers free of all charge; yet here this £20,000 seems to be capital expenditure. I wish to know how it is that the promise of the First Commissioner of Works has not been kept, and that the ratepayers are to be saddled with this sum of £20,000 capital expenditure, in addition to the annual cost of maintenance?
MR. JACKSON: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension as to this capital expenditure. The Bill itself, which has passed this House, states that the Parks pass to the Metropolitan Board of Works as they stand without charge; but it is necessary to make provision in this Bill for the expenditure for the remainder of this year. The Government, of course, will meet the charges which accrue during the remainder of the period that the Parka remain in their hands.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Special powers to expend money for purposes of main drainage and main sewers).
MR. ISAACS: I rise to protest against the expenditure of £370,000 for fouling the River Thames, and I ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill under what special

1687
power the Metropolitan Board expend this money? I can understand in regard to bridges, tunnels, and other matters they submit their scheme and the Committee passes it; but it seems to me they also have the power to go on from year to year expending sums to which, there appears no limit under the generic title of Main Drainage Works. I do not hesitate to say that the proposed expenditure of £370,000 would be a wicked and wanton waste of the ratepayers' money. It will utterly fail to do what it is intended to do, and, if persisted in, the river will be a worse receptacle of filth than it is at the present moment. It is idle to allow the Board of Works to go on peddling with this subject, they not having the courage to deal with it in a broad and comprehensive manner. I do not know whether it is in my power to move the omission of the clause. I certainly think it should be expunged, and that the Board should not be allowed to spend the money.
MR. WEBSTER: It was only last Saturday I went down to Barking and Crossness, and I can assure the hon. Member that the works are being carried out on a gigantic scale. At Barking there are 1,200 men at work upon enormous tanks for precipitating purposes, and a large number are employed at Crossness. We propose barging a portion of the sludge to sea, and one steamer is already constructed for that purpose; and we hope to make the sludge available for agricultural purposes, and I am sure the hon. Member would be surprised at the trouble and the amount of investigation undertaken by the Thames Sewage Committee of the Board. How the sewage is to be disposed of has occupied the unremitting attention of the Board's Committee, and they have consulted the most eminent chemists in this and other countries. The expenditure was first pressed upon the Board by the Report of a Royal Commission, and it will be less than the Report of the Commission anticipated. I know there are great complaints of the state of the Thames during the summer months; but let hon. Members remember that it is not many years ago that they could not use the Terrace or the Embankment owing to the effluvia from the river, and now they can. I appeal to them whether the state of the river is not much better here,
1688
and it is gradually becoming better lower down, When we have thoroughly completed the works we have in contemplation, hon. Members may find it possible to catch salmon off the Thames Embankment, although I need hardly say I will not guarantee that such will be the case.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2.
MR. LAWSON: I believe it was agreed, when the Parks were handed over to the Board, by the Office of Works, that the transfer should be free absolutely from any debt or liability. If so, I cannot understand the item of £20,000 which has to be paid on capital account.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that question, arises on the 2nd Schedule.
MR. LAWSON: It deals with, the Parks.
THE CHAIRMAN: No; it does not arise on the Schedule.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
(Mr. Charming, Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr.Cobb, Mr. Francis Stevenson.)

[BILL 87.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CHANNING: In moving that this Order be discharged, I wish to express the hope that, as the Government have persistently blocked this Bill, and as they have done nothing themselves for the tenant farmers of England this Session, they may take into consideration the advisability of re-remembering the existence of the English farmers before next Session.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged,"—(Mr. Channing,)—put, and agreed to.
Order discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MOTIONS.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to amend the Law relating to Expenses of Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Lone.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 361.]

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (OFFICERS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to amend the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1869, so far as respects the Officers of the Charity Commissioners for England and. Wales, and the Official Trustees acting under those Commissioners, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. William Henry Smith.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 362.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill363.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans; and for other purposes relating to Local Loans, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor or the Exchequer, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 364.]
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Settled Land Act (1882) Amendment * (220); Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment* (216); Trustee Savings Banks* (221).
Second Reading—Agricultural Labourers' Holidays (Scotland)* (212).
Committee—Truck* (179–222); Criminal Law (Scotland) Procedure (No. 2) (re-comm.)* (209).
Third Reading—Coroners * (210), and passed.
Royal Assent—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) [50 & 51 Vict. c. 21]; Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2) [50 & 51 Vict. c. 22]; Incumbents Resignation Act (1871) Amendment [50 & 51 Vict. c. 23]: Crofters Holdings (Scotland) [50 & 51 Vict. c. 24]; First Offenders [50 & 51 Vict. c. 25]; Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation [50 & 51 Vict. c. 26]; Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) [50 & 51 Vict. c. 27].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Royal Assent—Public Health (Scotland) (Cowdenbeath Water) [50 & 51 Vict. c. cxliv]; Public Health (Scotland) (Duntocher and Dalmuir Water) [50 & 51 Vict. c. cxlv]; Local Go
1496
vernment (Ireland) (Dublin, &c.) [50 & 51 Vict. c. cli]; Gas and Water [50,& 51 Vict. c. clvii]; Pier and 5 Harbour (No. 2) [50 & 51 Vict. c. clviii] Local Government (Ireland) (Ballyshannon, &c) [50 & 51 Vict. c. clix].

THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION— PROPOSED REMOVAL—WIMBLEDON COMMON.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to call the attention of the House to the proposed removal of the National Rifle Association from Wimbledon Common, said, that the wise use made by the Admiralty of the Fleet had taught a very useful lesson—the lesson that we could not depend for the inviolability of our vast ports and shores simply on what was called our first line of defence—namely, the Fleet. As General Brackenbury recently pointed out, it was necessary in organizing a system of sound national defence, as regarded our commercial ports and dockyards, to rely mainly upon our Reserve Forces. Of these, owing to their number—something over 200,000 effectives—the Volunteers were now the main element. In 1803, after the threat of invasion, a Volunteer Force arose that numbered 100,000; but when the fear of invasion passed away they also passed away. But the movement of 1859 sprang from the patriotism and public spirit of the people, and instead of falling away in a few years it had gone on increasing in number and efficiency, and in everything that constituted an effective military force. Why was this? It was partly, no doubt, owing to the patriotism and public spirit of the people; but it was also largely owing to the attraction that there now was in rifle shooting, and the friendly rivalry which existed, and the great improvement in small arms. Those who were engaged in advancing the Volunteer movement came to this conclusion—that this rivalry gave an element of permanence to the Force, and that it was desirable to establish a great National Rifle Association. It was also early seen how important it was to attend to the shooting of the men, so that this might be not only a nation of Volunteers but of riflemen, and the National Rifle Association was accordingly formed in 1800. The Association having carefully considered the question,

1497
came to the conclusion that no place was better suited for the object they had in view than. Wimbledon Common. Its advantages were that it was attractive in itself; it was near London; and there was an enormous tract of ground, and great care had been taken to insure safety—as regarded the general public—in the laying out of butts and ranges. They desired to attract everyone, and to mix classes and masses on the same ground. Aliberal allowance had always been made to the tenant of the ground where the bullets might fall, to compensate him for any loss in connection, with his agricultural operations. Wimbledon was secured in 1860. The success of the Association had been beyond the fondest hopes of its founders. Since then the total sum received from all sources up to the end of 1886 was £532,865, and out of this £251,876 had been given as prizes and pools; £3,743 had been spent on the purchase of freehold buildings, and £39,522 had been laid out in plant. The working expenses and general administration had taken £224,065. The amount of the Association's investments was £13,357. The prizes given were numerous and costly. In 1860 they were represented by a money value of £2,069, which had increased to £15,000 in 1886. The additional private prizes amounted to a money value of £5,000. The growth of the Association was also rendered plain by a comparison of the entries in 1860 and in 1886. For the Queen's Prize competition in the former year the entries were 299; in 1886 they were 2,463. For the St. George's competition the entries in 1862 were 98; in 1886 they were 2,366. The total entries in 1860 were 1,266; by 1886 they had grown to 40,568. Among the teams that competed at Wimbledon were 17 public school teams and teams from the Cape, Canada, and India. The example of the Association had been followed throughout the country and the Empire, and in 1886 they had 79 federated County Associations and 54 Colonial and Indian Associations. It had also been followed by other nations—France, Germany, and Italy, each of which countries was promoting a similar system—but he believed ours was the only country in which the success of such associations was the result, not of Government or State assistance, but of private indi-
1498
vidual enterprize. Not only did the Volunteers shoot at Wimbledon, but representatives of the Regulars, the Militia, the Yeomanry, and the Navy were encouraged to shoot there. The Association had done good in other ways, and he attributed largely to its instrumentality the improvements that had been effected in small arms. But all along there had been a "little rift within the lute." Unfortunately for the Association it did not enjoy fixity of tenure. Its tenure of the present ground depended largely upon the goodwill of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief (the Duke of Cambridge), who had kindly allowed firing in the direction of his property. In 1870 the Council of the Association gave an undertaking to vacate Wimbledon when required to do so. He (the Earl of Wemyss) had, while at Cannes, read in the newspapers with dismay that His Royal Highness had intimated at the annual meeting of the Association that this must be their last meeting at Wimbledon, and that he felt compelled to call upon the Association to fulfil that promise in consequence of the danger caused by the practice with long-range rifles. That announcement, indeed, had been received with dismay, as it was feared that it meant the death-knell of the Association as a National Association as it had hitherto existed. He felt that it would be a great national misfortune if the field of the Association's work were changed, and that belief was shared by all who were connected with the Volunteer Force. The Earl of Wharncliffe had written the following letter to him on the subject:—
"I see that you are to call the attention of the House of Lords on Monday to the proposed removal of the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association from Wimbledon to some other quarter. I can conceive nothing more fatal to the encouragement of rifle shooting, both by the Volunteers and Englishmen generally, than the change from Wimbledon to another spot, as none can he found so available for the public generally, or be reached so quickly and cheaply as Wimbledon Common. Many men look forward to their Wimbledon week either as residents in camp or as shooting visitors all the year round, and a spirit of friendly feeling among all classes and nationalities of Volunteers and of interest in their performances is thereby kept up throughout the country. The camp has now lost the character of being for some individuals a long picnic, which was at one time the case, and is a real

1499
working gathering of men devoted to rifle shooting. The harmless amusements aftėr evening gun fire, which have never caused any disturbance or scandal, also serve to attract competitors to Wimbledon. I think that removal elsewhere would seriously damp the enthusiasm and ardour for rifle shooting which obtains at Wimbledon, and would probably lead ere long to the death of the National Rifle Association, after which melancholy event you may fairly expect the Volunteer movement to decline in numbers and popularity."
He had also received communications from Lord Burton, and from former Presidents of the Association, expressing regret at the threatened removal, and which Lord Burton feared would make the Association's meeting sink to the level of a Provincial gathering. From the earliest the locality of Wimbledon and its proximity to London led to the annual meeting being largely attended by members of the public of all classes, with many accompanying pleasant social gatherings around the camp fire. The entertainments provided by his noble Friend and others, and the other attractions of the meeting, made the camp one of the pleasantest resorts near London during the summer. None of these advantages were possessed by Pirbright or Hassock's Gate, which were the alternative places suggested. Could any man suppose for a moment that Volunteers from the North, of Scotland, who now came to shoot at Wimbledon, or to spend a pleasant fortnight in London, would care to go to Pirbright, which was a desert, or to Hassock's Gate? Those who were in favour of the change did not appreciate or understand that one of the main objects of the meeting was to interest every class in the community, from the highest to the lowest, in rifle shooting. He, therefore, respectfully entered his protest on public and national grounds against the change if it could possibly be avoided. Why was it to be removed? His Royal Highness had in his speech given his reasons for asking the Association to fulfil the undertaking they gave in 1870. His Royal Highness thought it desirable, in the interests of the neighbourhood and the safety of the people about there, that it should be removed. They were all greatly indebted to His Royal Highness for the assistance he had given to the National Rifle Association, and he (the Earl of Wemyss) hoped to be able to satisfy him that the danger was not so great as he imagined, and that the
1500
neighbourhood itself did not look upon the National Rifle Association with the hostility which His Royal Highness thought they were looked upon by them. As to the danger, he would remind the House that since the institution of the camp there had been, scarcely any accidents directly attributable to the meeting, and none of a fatal character. It was true that one man was shot; but that was because some firing took place at a pasteboard target, and the shot penetrated both target and man. During the 27 years of their existence there had not been a single accident to anyone off the grounds. That was a wonderful immunity, considering that last year alone it had been roughly estimated that some 500,000 shots were fired in the course of the meeting; and if they were to multiply that figure by 10 or 15, they might get some idea of the total number of shots that had been fired on the Common at their meetings, and some idea also of the safety and of danger there. If Wimbledon was dangerous with the precaution they took, it was dangerous elsewhere. Therefore, if men were not to be allowed to let off their rifles unless there was to be absolute certainty that there was no possibility of accident, they would be shut up at once. But His Royal Highness even in that district engaged in cover shooting. Was there no danger in that sport? There was danger in all sports—hunting, steeple-chasing, and everything else—but he maintained that he had shown that the danger at Wimbledon had been reduced to a very minimum by the precautions which had been taken. The other reason urged for the removal of the National Rifle Association from Wimbledon was its disagreeableness and annoyance to the neighbourhood. He admitted that Wimbledon was a delighful place for residence; but supposing the villa holders were opposed to the meeting, which they were not, the Association was there first; therefore, the villa holders came there knowing the National Rifle Association was there, with whatever its concomitants might be, pleasant or disagreeable. Then the meeting lasted only for a fortnight, including practically but two Sundays, every year, and nothing like a crowd came down of anything like a disagreeable character. The Association did what it could to got rid of any evils in

1501
this respect, and they were prepared to extend their efforts. With reference to the feeling of the residents, it was by no means all the residents who objected. He had received a letter from n. well known resident—Mr. Trelawny Boodle—who said that although his house faced Wimbledon Common and was not far from the annual camp, he and his family experienced no inconvenience whatever from the yearly gathering, and that there were local advantages from the presence of the camp. It afforded a change from suburban routine, brought business to trades people, enabled people to let their houses, and prevented overbuilding along the Kingston Road and Coombe Wood; that he considered that the removal of the camp from. Wimbledon would be a blow to the Volunteer movement and to the National Rifle Association; and that, therefore, it would be a national calamity which he sincerely trusted would not occur. That was the view taken by one resident of Wimbledon. He (the Earl of Wemyss) knew he was touching on delicate ground; but one ought not to be afraid when one's conscience was clear. The Association was enormously indebted to the illustrious Duke, who became its President on Lord Herbert's death, had given prizes, diligently attended all the meetings, and from the first manifested a strong interest in its welfare. He was perfectly certain that if His Royal Highness would be satisfied with the reasons which he had given for the retention of the camp at Wimbledon, and his action was directed, not to asking the Association to fulfil the letter of its bond, but to enabling it to remain at Wimbledon—meeting as far as possible the objections which His Royal Highness had made at the United Service Institution—HisRoyal Highness would, if possible, gain an even greater popularity than he now enjoyed. He would conclude by saying that he considered it his national duty to bring this subject before their Lordships. Happily, it was a subject which was outside Party politics, and his noble Friends on both sides of the House would, he believed, take the same view, and he hoped this combined opinion would have the effort of avoiding or warding off what he could not but think the removal from Wimbledon of the National Rifle Association would be—nothing short of a national
1502
calamity, affecting very seriously the numbers, and, possibly, the very existence, of the Volunteer Force. He moved that the removal of the National Rifle Association from Wimbledon Common is a question of national importance, deserving the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government.
Moved, "That the removal of the National Rifle Association from Wimbledon Common is a question of national importance, and deserves the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government."—(The Earl of Wemyss)
THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF (The Duke of CAMBRIDGE): I am quite aware that the question brought forward by my noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) is an important one, and that it should be treated with every care. I am very anxious that your Lordships should understand that I do not put forward my personal interest in the matter; but I consider that there are reasons which make it necessary, unfortunately, that the meeting of the National Rifle Association should be held elsewhere. My noble Friend has said everything that could possibly be said in favour of the Association, and I agree that every word he has uttered is correct. Still, I do not come to the conclusion at which my noble Friend has arrived, that it is absolutely necessary for the Association to remain at Wimbledon. Your Lordships will decide as you like, and I will leave the House as soon as I have concluded my observations, and I hope everybody will say exactly what he thinks. I have no wish at all to interfere. I can assure my noble Friend that I entirely agree with him that the National Rifle Association has taken most extraordinary precautions to prevent accidents, and I believe there has been no external accident, though but for those precautions there would have been accidents every year. Not a single year during the 27 years they have been shooting there but I have wished them to go elsewhere. Yet I have been silent, because I was as anxious as my noble Friend to see this institution assume a national character. Its removal might for the moment have a material effect; but I do not think that it would in any respect ultimately upset or damage the great interest which the nation has in this annual gathering. I can only tell my; noble Friend what has come to my knowledge. Every year a considerable pro-

1503
portion of bullets go through the whole of the ground behind the butts. Now, I ask your Lordships whether that is a proper condition of things? Wimbledon is really now becoming London. Not only is London growing in that direction, but the villa, and even the town, population are extending in every direction. If the National Rifle Association expect long to remain at Wimbledon I believe they will find themselves very much mistaken, because the neighbourhood must extend and houses must be built; and all I can say is that I should he very sorry to live in any house within the neighbourhood of or behind those butts where they shoot. This is the present condition of things; and this is the only reason why I have certainly expressed a hope that they should go elsewhere. I have not pressed the Association. I gave notice that they might shoot this year. They have asked me to give a further year, and I have willingly assented. I have no wish, as I said, to press them at all; but I wish to impress upon them that I think they ought to find another range less dangerous than Wimbledon. The place is so unsafe that it has to be guarded all round. I know that one of the residents happened to go into their garden, and was in the act of picking a flower, when a bullet whistled past their head, though, fortunately, no accident occurred. This was a person who lived just behind the butts. Now, would any of your Lordships like to run a risk of that sort? I go further, and I say that all the ranges near London are most dangerous. Even with the small amount of shooting at Wormwood Scrubbs it is, I consider, dangerous; and surely at this great gathering at Wimbledon, with an immense number of men assembled, many of them most anxious to do well, hut many of them careless, it is almost impossible to prevent risk of accident. All I wish your Lordships to understand is that I would in no way damage the National Rifle Association. I am its President. When I suggested the removal of the range I suggested that they should elect another President; but they very handsomely re-elected me, and I am very grateful for it. This, however, is not a question of the National Rifle Association, but of the safety of the range to be used, and I warn your Lordships that the range at Wimbledon is not safe. 1504
There was talk about considerable outlay on the butts at Wimbledon, and I thought it would be very unfair if I did not frankly say—" Do not spend your money on butts at Wimbledon, because I think you will have to go elsewhere." Consequently this year I gave the notice. My noble Friend says they could not go anywhere else, but I would remind my noble Friend that the Royal National Artillery Association hold very successful meetings at Shoeburyness, and if that is not an out-of-the-way place I do not know what is——
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: That is a different thing.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: I cannot at all see why there is any difficulty in going to Pirbright; but I do not adhere to Pirbright—there is Hassock's Gate. People go to Good-wood and to Epsom to see the races, and why should they not go a little further than Wimbledon for the shooting, which is of the greatest national importance and of the greatest possible value. As to Pirbright, which has been mentioned, I have no reason to think it is at all a bad place. Hassock's Gate I know-nothing about, but there is more range accommodation at Pirbright than at Wimbledon. Lord Spencer, Lord Brownlow, Lord Wantage, and Lord Wemyss have done everything in their power to make Wimbledon agreeable by inviting the Prince of Wales and others, and I dare say yon will find people ready to sacrifice to some extent their convenience, even to go to a place like Pirbright. I speak of Pirbright, because, perhaps, there Her Majesty's Government might be of some use to the National Rifle Association. It comes to this, whether we are to have a range or a "raree" show? If a raree show is agreeable, then Wimbledon is the proper place, but I think the feeling now is in favour of good shooting competition, and where-ever that takes place you will always find riflemen, although you may not find a smart company. The question is whether Wimbledon is a proper place for the National Rifle Association to hold its annual gatherings at. I believe that if my noble Friend and others, and the Council of the Association, were to put their heads together they would be able to find quite as good a place as Wimbledon, and one which was not dangerous in any respect. My Lords, I have said

1505
my say. I thought it was only fair that the matter should be placed in a proper light by those who take an opposite view to that of my noble Friend. He agreed with everything his noble Friend had said, except his view that there was no other place but Wimbledon where the National Rifle Association meeting could be conducted as it was. I go thoroughly with my noble Friend in wishing to keep up the National Rifle Association, and I will do anything and everything I can to help and maintain it; but I differ from my noble Friend as to its being impossible to find a suitable range to take the place of Wimbledon, which is a most dangerous piece of ground for this most useful and most valuable annual gathering.
LORD WANTAGEsaid, he was desirous to put the House in possession of a few circumstances which were necessary for the adequate comprehension of the case. Previous to 1870 the National Rifle Association held their annual shooting meetings on Wimbledon Common by permission of Lord Spencer, the then lord of the manor. When Lord Spencer made over his right to the commoners, it was stipulated that the National Rifle Association should continue to use it for their annual meeting, under certain terms that were embodied in an Act of Parliament. One of two clauses in this Act provided that, in the event of the National Rifle Association being dispossessed of their rights over the common pecuniary compensation should be made to them for losses sustained, and for money expended. At the same time that this Act of Parliament was obtained the National Rifle Association entered into an agreement with his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, who had just addressed their Lordships with so much good taste and feeling. His Royal Highness's land at Coombe adjoined Wimbledon Common, and was liable to be somewhat affected by bullets flying over it, and it was agreed that the Association should withdraw whenever called upon by the noble Duke to do so. The present crisis had arisen not from any action taken by the people of Wimbledon, but from the Duke having given notice that he demanded the fulfilment of the engagement entered into between himself and the National Rifle Association—namely, that Wimbledon Common should be given up. The National Rifle As-
1506
sociation had asked His Royal Highness for a year's grace, which he had granted to them. But after next year, unless a fresh arrangement could meanwhile be made, the Association would be compelled to seek other rifle ranges and to hold their meetings elsewhere. The Association were fully conscious of the obligations they owed to His Royal Highness for the facilities he had hitherto afforded them, and without which the Wimbledon meetings could not have been held. His Royal Highness had generously done on a large scale for the National Rifle Association, what other landowners throughout the country had done for local Volunteer Corps; and in all honour and good faith such liberal concessions should not be taken advantage of in the direction of further claims. But so singularly unanimous a feeling prevailed among Volunteers and the shooting public in favour of Wimbledon above all other possible sites that an obligation seemed imposed upon those responsible for the management of the Association to make every effort to secure its retention. Clearly, however, nothing could be done unless His Royal Highness was willing to give the matter favourable consideration, and to agree to some new arrangement whereby his pecuniary rights should not suffer and full compensation be given him for that portion of his land the value of which for building purposes was likely to be affected. Should His Royal Highness consent to any such arrangement the funds necessary for the purchase of property must be sought for in a grant of public money which might be supplemented by contributions from Volunteers and others interested in maintaining what had become a national institution of 28 years' standing. There was reason to believe that the people of Wimbledon and the neighbourhood looked with no favourable eye upon the prospects of land in close proximity to their common being built over, and they apparently preferred to keep the Volunteers at Wimbledon rather than have the slopes of Coombe covered with houses. On the other hand, it could hardly be expected that either the Government or the public should advance anything like the sum required for the purchase of the land in question, unless something more than an annual fortnight's use of the rifle ranges could be

1507
secured. The National Rifle Association should endeavour to obtain from the commoners of Wimbledon, in consideration of the Coombe land, which would be permanently added to the common, the concession of the use of a portion of their common for permanent ranges. These ranges, which would be used by Volunteers throughout the shooting season, would be limited in number and would be rendered absolutely safe by the construction of a system of screens which would effectually prevent bullets from passing beyond the limits of the butts. Such ranges in close proximity to London would be of immense advantage to the Volunteers of the metropolis who, year by year, were being excluded from the use of ranges they had hitherto enjoyed. Without some such facilities the practice of rifle shooting necessary to the efficiency—indeed, to the very existence—of the Volunteer movement would become impossible except under circumstances involving almost insuperable difficulties of expenditure and of transit to distant ranges.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion, on the ground that the withdrawal would permit the subject to be discussed with greater freedom, and enable some of their Lordships to take part in the discussion who otherwise would not do so.
EARL SPENCERsaid, that as his name had been frequently mentioned during this discussion, he should like to say a few words on the subject. He was associated with his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) in the original formation of the National Rifle Association, and it was his lot, as lord of the manor of Wimbledon, first to introduce the Association there, and he had always felt the deepest interest in its prosperity. At the present moment he was no longer connected as lord of the manor with that part of the Common over which the Association held its meetings, and he did not speak, therefore, as lord of the manor, but as one who had been so long connected with and interested in the National Rifle Association. It would not be necessary for him to follow his noble Friend in what he had so clearly and ably said as to the work of the National Rifle Association. He fully shared with him the belief that that work had been of great good, not only
1508
to the Volunteers, but to the Nation at large. As had been pointed out by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge who had now left the House, the Volunteers were now established on an efficient and permanent basis. This was due to a variety of causes—first, to the patriotism of those who had joined the Force as officers and men; secondly, to the public both in town and country who had assisted the Volunteers with moral and material support. It was also largely due to the officers and men of the Army, from His Royal Highness to the humble private who helped to mark at Wimbledon, who had always given great assistance to the Volunteer movement. Those had been the causes which had contributed to place the Volunteers on the present efficient and admirable footing; but they must not forget that the National Rifle Association had also had great influence on the Force. As his noble Friend had said, rifle shooting, which had been stimulated at Wimbledon, had done a great deal to keep men together in the Volunteer Force and to make others desirous of joining it. He knew numbers of men who would never have joined the Volunteers but for the shooting. The National Rifle Association had really created a now national pastime. Through their efforts rifle shooting had become throughout the length and breadth of the land one of the pastimes of the nation. This had had a great influence on the Volunteer Force; the National Rifle Association had not only made the Volunteers efficient in the use of arms, but had kept in the ranks many who would not otherwise have joined. He need not speak of the use which the National Rifle Association had made of the meeting on Wimbledon Common. Its meetings had become friendly gatherings of men, not only from this country, but from all parts of the Empire, India, and the Colonies, to compete at the butts and had largely promoted a spirit of brotherhood between the Army and the Volunteers. All this had been done at Wimbledon, and it was possible, though he thought it very doubtful whether the same good effect would have come about if they had not been able to hold this great national gathering so close to London, he would venture to say that thousands of Volunteers would have been unable or unwilling to shoot

1509
at Wimbledon if they had not come to London for the purpose. Moreover, thousands of visitors from all parts of the United Kingdom and abroad would have been ignorant what the Volunteers could do with their arms if the place where the National Rifle Association held its meetings had not been close to London. The great success which had attended the Volunteer movement, and the great influence which the National Rifle Association had had on that movement, had been greatly due to its meetings being held in the near neighbourhood of London, he would, therefore, deeply regret that what had been productive of good in the past should be taken away from the meetings of the National Rifle Association in the future. His Royal Highness had remarked that the meetings of the National Rifle Association would have been successful if not held at Wimbledon, and he referred to the success of the meetings of the National Artillery Association at Shoeburyness. But there was a great difference between those meetings. The object of the meeting at Wimbledon was not only to promote rifle-shooting by the Volunteers, but to improve the arm itself and to make rifle-shooting, as it had become, a national pastime. It was altogether different with Shoeburyness, for it was impossible to make Artillery shooting a national pastime. That was the distinction between the artillery and the Rifle Volunteers. He was not for a moment inclined to derogate from the importance of the meeting of the Artillery Volunteers; but the circumstances of the two Associations were altogether different. One must necessarily have a place like Shoeburyness at which to hold its meetings, but the other might have a place which should be the most convenient for people to congregate at. His Royal Highness had spoken of Wimbledon as now being surrounded by villas, and of rifle-shooting there as constituting a permanent danger. He ventured to think that His Royal Highness was under some misapprehension. He quite agreed with what his noble Friend the present President of the Association (Lord Wantage) had said as to the limitation of the area over which there was any danger. The Common was singularly situated. There was a long range on the fiat over 1,000 yards. Then there was a great fall in the ground,
1510
which still belonged to the Common, and beyond that there were fields which were at present merely agricultural land. It was only on that agricultural land—a very small area—that there was any danger. That was the only place where there was any risk of the Volunteers firing over the butts. He would venture to say that there was no ground available for villas at all within the range of the National Rifle Association butts. It came to a question, then, of this land immediately behind the butts. Most of their Lordships would probably agree with him that it would be a monstrous thing to take advantage of the position of His Royal Highness, and of the great interest which he took in the Association, in regarding the situation in which land which principally belonged to him was placed. If there was any prospect of this land being used for building land, it ought, in his opinion, to be secured for the National Rifle Association, and it might be done in a variety of ways. He confessed that he attached such immense importance to keeping the National Rifle Association at Wimbledon, that he thought that alone would justify a great effort being made to secure this land behind the Common. It might be possible to secure further permanent ranges at Wimbledon, but that opened up questions of great difficulty, and he should deprecate mixing up that subject with, securing the retention of the Common for the National Rifle Association. He therefore ventured to hope that Her Majesty's Government would take up this matter and consider it from a national point of view, He did not think there need be any practical difficulty in the way of coming to a satisfactory settlement. No doubt, during the meeting the Common had to be guarded from 9 o'clock till firing ceased, and during that time those who habitually used the Common could not make use of it. But that was not a large sacrifice for those who lived in the neighbourhood to make for a great national object when they had the free use of the Common during all the rest of the year. During the meetings extreme precautions had to be taken, and the police to be protected in iron huts, but that was a necessary accompaniment to rifle-shooting in such a locality. The public could be fully secured from danger, audit was of great national importance that a satisfactory

1511
arrangement should be come to with those who had land in the district, he should view with alarm the decision that henceforth the National Rifle Association, which had been such a success at Wimbledon, would have to move to some other locality, and there to make the experiment of continuing its existence, he sincerely trusted that Her Majesty's Government—although they could hardly expect them on the present occasion to come to any decision—would fairly consider this great national question, and would do their best to secure the retention of Wimbledon Common for the meetings of the National Rifle Association.
EARL BROWNLOWsaid, he was glad the Motion had been withdrawn, or he would have had considerable difficulty in taking part in the discussion. There was no one more fitted to bring this subject before the House than the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), because it was due to his indomitable perseverance, coupled with the patriotism of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), that the National Rifle Association was founded. As a member of the Council of that Association who had passed the Chair, he would like to be permitted to say that he agreed with what the noble Earl and other noble Lords had said with regard to the removal of the annual meeting of the Association from Wimbledon. He firmly believed that the removal would be a tremendous blow, not perhaps at the National Association, but at the national usefulness of the Association. They must remember that at that annual meeting those who assembled were not all Volunteers. There was, in the first place, a large camp of ordinary gentlemen, who were not Volunteers—who were eminent rifle-shots, and took a deep interest in the whole question of rifle-shooting; and the honorary members' camp would probably be a very small one if the Camp were removed from Wimbledon. Then he was glad to say that every year they had teams sent from Colonial Corps to compote in friendly rivalry with the Volunteers of the Mother Country. From time to time, also, they had had foreign guests—American teams, Belgian teams, and individual foreigners—who came over to take part in our great national rifle meeting; and it in us also be remembered that besides these and the Volun-
1512
teers and others who were in camp, a great many competitors came daily from London who lived in London, and who were unable to go into camp. Now, if the meeting were removed from London, very few of these would be able to become competitors. He firmly believed that the removal of the meeting from Wimbledon Common would be a bitter and grievous disappointment to the persons he had named, and he trusted that some means might be found of keeping it where it was now, and where it always had been.
LORD TRUROsaid, that the National Rifle Association might be called the parent of rifle-shooting in this country. The two main questions which they now had to consider were, in the first place, how far the Association was essential or even vital to the Volunteer Force; and, secondly, whether the danger to the community was or was not such as to entitle anyone to anticipate grievous injury either to individuals at Wimbledon or to the value of property in that district. When he had heard the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) say, and his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge admit, that no person had suffered death or even injury within the ranges of the National Rifle Association, it was very strong evidence in favour of its continuance. His Royal Highness had referred to Shoeburyness; but, for his (Lord Truro's) own part, he contended that there was no comparison between the two cases. Unless those who were opposed to the retention of the Camp at Wimbledon were prepared to show that amazing benefits would occur if it were transferred, he could not conceive a greater calamity.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, he was sure their Lordships would agree with the noble Lord (Lord Truro) in saying that they were all much indebted to the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) for having brought this question forward. It was necessary that in a matter of this kind the country at large should understand what were all the circumstances that surrounded the case before it was possible for the Government to decide the point. He had been appealed to by several noble Lords to say that the Government would take the question of the National Rifle Association meeting staying at Wimbledon into considera-

1513
tion. There was not the slightest doubt that the question of rifle-shooting was now a national question; but if the noble Earl had pressed his Motion he could not have accepted it, because it, implied that the retention of the National Rifle Association at Wimbledon was a national question. He had heard on all sides that the National Rifle Association could not exist unless it met at Wimbledon.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I never said so.
LORD HARRISsaid, the noble Earl had referred to various competitions which, would not take place if the Camp were removed from Wimbledon. He did not suppose anyone denied the advantages which the National Rifle Association had been to the Volunteer movement; but he confessed he should not have believed it possible, if it had not been for the mass of opinion which had been offered by the noble Lords, that blood was only to be found in the heart, and that it did not go through all branches of the body. He believed there was immense vitality in the different county and district Rifle Associations, and the private meetings held by Volunteer Corps, and he could not believe that they were to be supposed to die away because the National Rifle Association was not at Wimbledon. He absolutely declined to believe that there was not more public spirit and patriotism in the Volunteers of England than that the movement would dwindle and decay because the National Rifle Association did not go on at Wimbledon. He believed the same respect and affection for an Institution which had done so much would remain, and would follow it to its new quarters. He did not think the Government could fail to recognize and to take into consideration the opinions of noble Lords who had expressed themselves to-night upon this subject to the effect that they thought the National Rifle Association could not got on or be to successful if removed from Wimbledon. That statement, he was sure, would attract the attention of the Government, and, no doubt, they would consider any proposals that the National Rifle Association might make when the time came. At present there was not, so far as he understood, anything practical that the National Rifle Association were prepared to put forward, and therefore it would be
1514
impossible for the Government to pledge themselves with their eyes shut to accept any scheme which might be put forward. This, however, he could say, that the Government recognized the fact that the encouragement and support of rifle shooting was of national importance. They had already recognized this for 10 years, by the assistance which they had given every year. In this year's Estimates a sum of £3,000 would be found for expenses in connection with the meeting, for ammunition and wear and tear of material. He did not think that any Government, if there were any chance or prospect of the extinction of an Institution which had been of such national value, would hesitate to give what assistance lay in its power in order to keep it going. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge had spoken of Shoeburyness and of Pirbright. Of Shoeburyness, however, he had only spoken with regard to the meetings of an Association not exactly parallel, but similar, which was successful though its meetings were at a long distance from the Metropolis. With regard to the suggested removal to Pirbright, he might say that ample range accommodation could be obtained there, besides excellent railway accommodation, with water and other essentials; and if the National Rifle Association were placed in the position that they could not continue at Wimbledon, and could find no place nearer London than. Pirbright, then he could assure them that so far as the present Government were concerned, every facility would be given to make them welcome guests there. He understood certain schemes had been put forward from different places, and he hoped that before the time came—which would be nearly two years from the termination of notice to quit—it would be possible to put forward some scheme which the Government could support, and which would place the National Rifle Association in a position not loss favourable to their supporting the National pastime of rifle-shooting than that which they had hitherto held.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he believed great good would come of this discussion, and he only rose now to express his thanks to his noble Friend (Lord Harris) who had replied on behalf of the Government. He trusted they might be in a position to place some such

1515
scheme as had been spoken of before the Government.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TRUCK BILL.—(No. 179.)
(The Lord Macnaghten.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clauses 1 and 2 severally agreed to.
Clause 3 (Workmen to be entitled to advance of portion of wages).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving to strike out the clause which deals with advances to workmen, and provides that whenever by agreement, custom, or otherwise a workman receives in anticipation of the regular period of the payment of his wages an advance as part or on account thereof, it shall not be lawful for the employer to withhold such advance or take any profit, discount, or interest, I or make any charge or reduction, or impose any condition for or in respect of any payment of a part of wages, said, he thought it was a very inexpedient and very violent one in its interference between employer and workmen. Not only did it specify modes and times of payment of wages, but it provided that there was to be no deduction for advances. Such powers as these had nothing to do with the subject of truck, and he thought it undesirable to provide that whore circumstances had led to a certain arrangement there should be no liberty to change the arrangement though circumstances might change. He was entirely in favour of the principle of the Truck Acts, which he considered most valuable legislation; but this clause was foreign to that principle.
Moved, "To strike out the Clause."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought the clause so worded as to be in part nugatory, and to defeat its own object, and he hoped it would be rejected.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it was absolutely impossible to understand the clause as it stood, which he thought was absurd.
LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he must confess that the clause had little to do with the main principle of the measure, and that it was extremely difficult to
1516
understand it. It did not seem to arise out of the main principle of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; clause struck out accordingly.
Clause 4 struck out of the Bill.
Clause 5 (Workmen in Scotch quarries to be paid fortnightly).
Moved, "To strike out the Clause."—(The Viscount Cross.)
EARL BROWNLOWsaid, he would rather amend the clause. It dealt with the period of payment of wages to workmen; but it dealt only with the workmen in stone quarries in Scotland, and he could not understand why these should be particularly picked out for this treatment.
Motion agreed to; clause struck out accordingly.
Clause 6 (Saving for servant in husbandry).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he would point out that the framers of the clause seemed to be under the impression that, by a reference in it to the existing law, they brought this mode of payment within the law. Now, he held that they had done nothing of the sort; and, therefore, he would suggest to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Macnaghten) to bring up an amended clause dealing with it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was the case that all over Scotland shepherds and others received a portion of their pay in the form of cottages, and he had never heard it suggested that that practice was illegal.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11, inclusive, severally agreed to.
Clause 12 (Artificer to be paid in cash, and not by way of barter, for articles made by him).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the clause practically forbade barter, for it provided that when persons worked at their own homes, the shopkeepers to whom they took their goods to sell should not be allowed to pay for them in groceries or bread, or otherwise, except by money. That, he would point out, converted the shopkeepers into employers, and those who made the articles into employés. He knew many parts in

1517
the Highlands and Islands of Scotland where borne industries were common, and it was almost impossible to avoid barter of this kind. The women made stockings, and in Shetland they made most beautiful shawls, and exchanged these goods for provisions; and it would be most inconvenient to prevent them doing so. He objected altogether to that, and had he noticed it in time before the second reading, he would have moved that it be read a second time this day three months, so that the Bill might be wholly recast.
LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, there was a provision at the end of the clause suspending its operation in cases where it was desirable to do so.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Then that was to say that the framers of the Bill were so conscious of its impropriety that they said the Queen in Council might suspend it. Nothing more clumsy was ever attempted.
LORD HALSBURYalso objected to the clause, which related to people who were wholly independent of each other.
Clause struck out.
Clauses 13 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, he would point out that there was an enormous amount of repeal of parts of existing Acts of Parliament, and it would be an endless puzzle to the Judges to ascertain what the law really was.
Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 222.)

MARRIAGE ACTS—THESEBRIGHT MARRIAGE—REGISTRAR OF MOUNT STREET.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Government, Whether any Notice has been taken of the conduct attributed to the Registrar of Mount Street, who would appear from the Report of the proceedings in the Divorce Court in respect of Mr. Sebright's marriage, to have been blind to the compulsion used by Mr. Sebright and his friend? It was not necessary to go into details, since compulsion was the ground on which the marriage had been annulled, and this had been confirmed by the decree having been made absolute about six weeks or
1518
two months ago. He thought the Registrars required to he cautioned to prevent their offices being abused in a similar way.
LORD BALFOUR. (for the Local Government Board)said, he was rather surprised that the noble Lord should have thought it worth while to raise such a question as the one under notice after this lapse of time. The Local Government Board had no direct control over the Registrars, who were subject to the Registrar General. But he (Lord Balfour) had received a communication from the Registrar, in which ha stated that he had no ground for suspicion in the matter, for he had seen an announcement that the parties were shortly to be married before he received the notices, and that he had observed nothing unusual in Miss Scott's demeanour until after the ceremony had been completed, when she forgot to sign the register. It was also true that after the marriage ceremony was completed, Miss Scott drew the ring from her finger—not at the time it was put on, as she stated to the Court—and then went to the door. The duties of the Registrar were simply to administer the law. He had to take care that the parties were of full age, and that the legal requirements had been complied with, and there his duty ended. The Registrar General had not thought it necessary to take any notice of the matter, and in that, he thought, the Registrar General was quite right. Being anxious to give as satisfactory an explanation as possible, he had read all the documents which had been brought before him in regard to this matter, and, as far as his humble judgment wont, he thought that the decision of the Registrar was right.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, the noble Lord's speech had convinced him that the case was an example of the great inconvenience of an inquiry of this description. They know now that a grievous compulsion was used. They knew it, because they were told not only what took place in the Registrar's office, but also what occurred days and weeks previously and subsequently. Yet this gentleman wan, as it were, by implication to be censured because he did not, with the materials before him come to the same conclusion as the Probate Judge, who formed his judgment on quite different materials.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' HOLIDAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 212.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it came from the other House, and that its object was to entitle by law farm servants to four holidays every year, in lieu of the fast days and fair days.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Earl had given a very short account of the Bill, which had passed the House of Commons. The noble Earl did not explain to them why the Bill was to apply only to agricultural labourers, or why it was necessary that Parliament should interfere in the matter at all. He thought it was a piece of unnecessary legislation. Then he objected to part of the 2nd clause, which said that no deduction on the wages of servants should be made in respect of such holidays. That was a most extraordinary provision, and it occurred to him on reading it to discover whether there was any similar provision in Sir John Lubbock's Acts with reference to Bank Holidays, and, on looking, he found that there was no clause of a similar kind.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he thought he could explain why the benefit of this Bill was confined to agricultural labourers. The agricultural labourers had lately been enfranchised, and at the Election before last they voted for the Liberals, because they thought the liberals had given them their vote, and now, after this Bill, they would probably be expected to continue to vote in the same way. He approved of the view taken of the measure by the noble Duke.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, the Bill appeared to him to be an absolutely unnecessary one. At the same time, there was this to be said for its being brought forward. In a great many places in Scotland it was proposed to do away with fast days, and the agricul-
1520
tural labourers who got these days as holidays would thus be deprived of them, while the Bank Holidays would not affect them. Those people would, however, have these holidays, whether by Act of Parliament or not. Still, he considered the Bill so harmless, after the omission of the words in Clause 2 to which the noble Duke alluded, that their Lordships might allow it to pass.
THE EARL OE CAMPERDOWNsaid, the noble Marquess had given the correct explanation of why the Bill applied only to agricultural labourers. It was intended to substitute for two fast days New Year's Day and the annual hiring day, which had been established, by universal practice, as holidays—the four holidays mentioned in the Bill. It was quite true that fast days had been abolished in some districts with the greatest possible advantage, he believed. If the Bill did no good, it would do no harm, and he hoped their Lordships would allow it to proceed.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought the Bill objectionable, and its drafting seemed to him crude and careless. If the Government thought the Bill would do no harm he would be sorry to oppose it; but it appeared to him that every clause of the Bill was open to objection.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had not answered the Question put by the Secretary for Scotland, as to whether, if the Bill were read a second time, he would strike out the words in Clause 2, as to there being no deduction of wages in respect of the holidays?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that no deduction was or could be made at the present time, because agricultural servants, or the great majority of them, were yearly servants. He believed that the provision would have no practical effect, therefore, he was perfectly willing to dispense with it. He would, however, urge that great store was put upon this Bill in Scotland. If it did no good, it, at all events, would do harm.
LORD BALFOLURsaid, no one had as yet alluded to what he thought was the real danger. He considered it a dangerous Bill in the interests of the farm servants, because a niggardly employer might take advantage of the Bill to limit the holidays of his servants

1521
to the four days; whereas, he believed agricultural labourers got many more holidays in the course of the year. He hoped the promoters of the Bill would consider whether it would really do the agricultural labourers any benefit, and, whether, in the circumstances, it was worth while going on with it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought the abolition of fast days affected only the population of large towns, like Edinburgh and Glasgow.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANreminded the noble Duke that fast days had been abolished in many of the rural districts.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)pointed out that the provision respecting the attending to cattle, as it stood, applied generally to other days than the four holidays specified.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that was a matter that would, of course, be subject to correction. He thought the intention of the Bill was that any servant who was called upon to perform service in the care of live stock would have to take his holiday on a different day. He would also consider the point raised by the noble Duke, and endeavour to meet his objection as well as he could.
On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.