Sitting of 15 July 1887

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED— For Gloucester (Forest of Dean Division), v. Thomas Blake, esquire, Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough, and Bonenham, in the County of Buckingham.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Second Report—Army and Navy Estimates [No. 223].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, Further Vote on Account, £1,885,100; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 2, 3, &4.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Boundaries * [324]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment * [325]; Marriages Confirmation (Antwerp)* [320]; Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) * [327].
First Reading—Land Transfer * [328].
Considered as amended—Truck * [299].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) * [141], and passed,

QUESTIONS.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—DISMISSAL OF MR. J. G. FITZGERALD, INSPECTOR OF NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. CAREW(for Mr. J. E. REDMOND)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  933
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald, A.B., T.C.D., who was appointed, on 1st November, 1854, an Inspector of National Schools, Ireland, was, on the 29th January, 1879, after a service of nearly 25 years, during which he frequently secured the strong approval of his official superiors, dismissed from his post, on a charge of making in his journal a false entry relative to a sum of 5s. 6d.; whether the gentlemen appointed by the National Board of Education (Ireland) to investigate this charge arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Fitzgerald was guilty, because of his inability to produce a voucher relative to the item referred to, which he had mislaid, being at the time in ill-health, and suffering from great mental depression; whether, when he subsequently found and produced said voucher, one of the two gentlemen who had originally investigated the charge recommended the Commissioners of National Education to grant a re-investigation of his case; whether he could state at whose instance the re-investigation was refused; and, whether, inasmuch as Mr. Fitzgerald has since (as shown by the Papers relative to his case laid upon the Table of the House on the 30th May, 1886) proved his innocence of the charge made against him, and considering the terrible injury inflicted on Mr. Fitzgerald by his dismissal, whereby he is left in absolute want, he will grant an inquiry into all the facts of the case, and afford Mr. Fitzgerald the opportunity he has so long sought of clearing his character?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said: the hon. Member will find in Parliamentary Paper No. 33 of Session 2, 1886, a full statement of all the circumstances connected with Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald's dismissal. The present Government agree with the decision come to by successive Governments that this is not a case calling for further inquiry.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether it was not a fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary was one of the deputation which waited on the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), when Chief Secretary, and requested him to grant an inquiry into the case of Mr. Fitzgerald?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was a member of that deputation; but further acquaintance with the case showed him that the question of the voucher was not the one on which the Commissioners had acted.
  DR. KENNYasked, whether it was not a fact that one of the Inspectors who had originally investigated the charge recommended a re-investigation, and stated he would have given a different decision if further evidence subsequently produced by Mr. Fitzgerald had been before him?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he understood that was not so.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that a case had lately turned up in Ireland where an Inspector under the National Board was found to have kept and used a horse and car of his own against the Rules, and charged the Commissioners the cost, and also charged for sleeping in hotels when he slept at home, and yet he was merely transferred from one district to another; and, whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would ask the Board of Commissioners to consider the inequality of punishment between that case and the case of Mr. Fitzgerald?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANreplied, that the only information he had of the matter was from a communication received from Mr. Fitzgerald himself, who seemed to think that his case ought to be re-opened because somebody else had done something wrong and had not been adequately punished.

  WAR OFFICE—SERGEANT INSTRUCTORS OF MUSKETRY—THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Sergeant Instructor of Musketry, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, and of unexceptionable character, having completed 12 years' service, applied to extend his service for nine years further, in accordance with the Queen's Regulations, and was refused; whether Sergeant Henry Gonvyn, of the same battalion, who has been a non-commissioned officer for nearly ten years, has made a similar application; and, whether any decision has been come to thereon?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPAETMENT (Mr. BRODRICK): A non-commissioned officer may be personally of an unexceptionable character, and yet inefficient in the working of a regiment; and before exercising the veto which, under the Army Act and consequent Regulations, he is bound to exercise, the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that it is not for the good of the Service that the two men named in the Question should be re-engaged as sergeants. There is no desire, however, to stop their military career, or to prevent their serving on for pension in a lower capacity.

  LUNACY COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND)— THE ANNUAL REPORT.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any reason for holding back the Report of the Irish Lunacy Commissioners; and, why it is not printed earlier in the year?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said: The Inspectors of Lunatics state that there is no reason for holding back their Annual Report, beyond the fact that it is still in the printer's hands. They expect to be in a position to submit it fur presentation next week. I think the hon. Member will find that this is the usual period of the year for the presentation of the Annual Reports of Public Departments.

  LUNACY COMMISSIONERS (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE ANNUAL REPORT.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Lunacy Commissioners do not bring out their Annual Report; and, why the Statistical Summary, in accordance with the promise made last year, was not issued in April?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Report was presented to the Lord Chancellor on June 27, and copies were laid on the same day on the Table of both Houses. It is now in the hands of the printers, and will shortly be issued. The Commissioners inform me that no formal engagement was entered into on
  936
  their part as to presenting a Statistical Summary in April; but there will be no difficulty in giving the Summary asked for next year, and a note has been made to that effect.

  POST OFFICE—PENSIONERS FROM OTHER SERVICES UNDER THE CROWN.
  MR, P. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, What is the limit of age for the admission of pensioners from other Services under the Crown, military or police, to be enrolled in the Service of the Post Office, and to what positions are they generally appointed, and also at what age is the compulsory retirement of such persons enforced; whether, on entering the Post Office Service, pensioners are called upon to sign a contract form in which they declare their age, and waive all claim to compensation or a pension for Service in the Post Office, and by whom is such contract form retained; whether periodical examinations of these contract forms are made with the object of calling upon such pensioners as may have reached the maximum limit of age to resign; and, whether it is usual for pensioners in the Service of the Post Office to hold dual positions and to discharge the duties of one by proxy?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): There are two classes of Service in the Post Office which should be kept distinctly in view—the Established Service and the Unestablished Service. Established Service carries a right to pension; admission is by examination; a maximum age is prescribed; and a Civil Service certificate is necessary under the provisions of the Order in Council. Unestablished Service is free from any such restrictions, and candidates may, therefore, accept employment at any age and without examination; but the employment carries with it no pension. A pensioner who wishes to become an established country postman, porter, or lineman has the advantage of an addition of 15 years to the prescribed limit of 30. A pensioner who happens to obtain an established appointment, accompanied by a Civil Service certificate, is eligible for a pension on account of his service in the Post Office. If he is a candidate for an unestablished situation he is required to sign before his engage-

  937
  ment a printed paper, the object of which is to make him clearly understand the nature of the engagement which he is making. In neither case is there any compulsory retirement on the ground of ago. Pensioners employed at the Post Office do not perform their duties there by proxy.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—A TELEGRAPH OFFICE FOR SMITHSBORO', CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether the inhabitants of Smithsboro', County Monaghan, some time since applied by Memorial to the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, requesting him to have the post office in that town created a telegraph office, and offering to guarantee the sum of £30 for the purpose, and also to defray the cost of working for one year, the telegraph service to be withdrawn at the expiration of that time if it were found that it did not pay the Post Office to maintain it; whether the Secretary refused to accede to this request by insisting that a seven years' guarantee should be given, and if there is any precedent for making such a demand; whether he is aware that Smithsboro' is a Provincial trading town of considerable trading importance, and is situated on the main line of Railway between Clones and Belfast, and that the post office is only 25 perches distant from the Railway Station, by which several telegraph lines pass, and consequently that the cost of extension would be but trifling; and, whether he will be good enough to have inquiries instituted as to the creating of Smithsboro' Post Office a telegraph office, and if a guarantee is deemed necessary to accept it for one year?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that about two years ago an application was received for a telegraph office at Smithsboro', and, after some correspondence, it was arranged that two of the residents should enter into a guarantee of £30 a-year for seven years. On a draft agreement, however, being sent for approval, the intending guarantors withdrew from their undertaking —partly on the ground that a reduction had been made in the charge for tele-
  938
  grams, and partly because, on examining the draft agreement, they found that they would not be credited with the value of messages addressed to Smithsboro'. They were of opinion that the guarantee would prove too onerous; but I cannot find that there was any question as to the period of the guarantee, or any suggestion that the telegraph service should be withdrawn at the end of a year. Guarantees are invariably for seven years, and there is no precedent for a guarantee of one year. A guarantee for seven years is calculated so as to secure to the Department the repayment within the term of the capital expenditure as well as of the working expenses; and it is obvious that if the telegraph office were withdrawn at the end of one year the Department would not secure the repayment of the capital. The neighbouring wires, to which the hon. Member refers, would not be used for the purpose of serving a telegraph office at Smithsboro'. It would be necessary to erect a now wire from Clones. A considerable period having elapsed since the last inquiries were made I shall be very glad to call for further Reports, and I will in due course acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  INDIA—TRANSFER OF THE PROVINCE OF SCINDE,
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to transfer the Province of Scinde from the Bombay to the Punjaub Government, thus uniting the two Provinces, according to the suggestions made in Blue Book, "Beloochistan, No. 3," published in 1878, which commences with a Despatch from the Marquess of Salisbury, then Secretary of State for India, dated 3rd February, 1876?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): the transfer of the Province of Scinde from Bombay to the Punjaub is not at present under the consideration of Government. But the hon. Member's Question will have the effect of drawing the attention of the Government of India to the subject, which will receive the attention which its importance deserves.

  DOG TAX (IRELAND)—COLLECTION OF THE TAX.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who are the salaried officials that are paid for the collection of the Dog Tax in Ireland; whether it is a fact that 350,000 dogs were licensed in Ireland during the past year, yielding a total of £35,164; whether the cost of collection amounted to £31,867 or nearly 90 per cent of the amount collected; and, what is the usual percentage cost for collecting the Dog Tax in England?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said, clerks of Petty Sessions were the officials who collected the Dog Tax in Ireland. 351,644 dogs were licensed in Ireland during the year 1886, yielding a total of £35,164. From this sum £31,993 was deducted, of which £15,814 was for the cost of collection, and the balance, £16,179, was required to meet increased salaries under the Act of 1881.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that the cost of collection is 90 per cent in Ireland and only 5 per cent in England? Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make the deduction?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  EMIGRATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN (METROPOLIS)—INCIDENCE OF COST.
  MR. RANKINasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether he would take into his consideration the advisability of altering the existing law so as to permit a portion (say one-half) of the cost of the emigration of pauper children in the Metropolitan District to fall upon the common fund of the district, instead of being borne, as at present, entirely by the Union?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. LONG), in reply, said, the matter was one which deserved consideration, and the hon. Gentleman might rely upon careful attention being given to it.

  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS—ACREAGE OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
  MR. RANKINasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Returns
  940
  of the acreage of woods and forests in Great Britain could be published along with the Agricultural Returns, so as to show the real acreage which is under cultivation in every way?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS), in reply, said, this Question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—EMIGRATION TO THE COLONIES—TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, considering the want of employment in many manufacturing districts, and the consequent increasing desire of artizans to emigrate, and that the only manual labour which those artizans know is, for the most part, entirely useless in the Colonies, it would be possible, in any scheme providing for technical education, to afford means by which artizans desirous of emigrating might, prior to doing so, obtain some slight rudimentary knowledge in agriculture and other labour likely to be serviceable in the Colonies?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, no measure having for its object the improvement of the industrial training of our workmen would be complete which did not offer some facilities such as those referred to in the Question of the hon. Member; but he thought the chief object of legislation would be to enable English artizans to gain a bettor livelihood in their own country than circumstances now permitted.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886—EVASION OF THE ACT—THE BARCALDINE ESTATE.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been directed to the following Circulars issued to all the tenants on the Barcaldine Estate, near Oban, by the proprietrix, Mrs. Ogilvie:—
  "I (Archibald MacArthur, senior), now residing in cottage, and having crofts on Barcaldine Estate, do hereby agree to proceed no further with the application which I have made to the Crofters Commission for fixity of tenure, &c. And I further hind myself to make no further application or claim under the

  941
  Act upon condition that I be allowed to hold and occupy the said cottage and croft and land on the same conditions as heretofore during the remainder of my life, but without power to transmit the same to anyone.
  "Dated and signed this day of "May, 1887; "
  whether, on the refusal of the said Archibald MacArthur and others to sign this document, the following notice was sent to them by Mrs. Ogilvie:—
  "Barcaldine, 25th May, 1887.
  "Sir,—I beg to intimate to you that, in accordance with the printed regulations of this estate of Barcaldine, I will, upon Martinmas next ensuing, resume possession of all that land in your occupation and rented by you, for the purpose of planting the same. I beg to add that this notice stands without prejudice to the 'notice to quit' received by you in November last;"
  and, whether, if Mrs. Ogilvie and other Highland proprietors attempt to defeat the Crofters Act by reserving part or all of their estates for planting purposes, he will bring in a short amending Act to prevent such evasure of the Act of 1886?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Mrs. Ogilvie bought the estates of Barcaldine and Ballachulish, with entry at Martinmas last year, with the intention of farming them herself. Before she got possession, notice to quit was, at her request, given to certain tenants. Five or six of these served notices on her under the Crofters Act; and with all of these, except one, she arranged amicably, giving them money and other compensation, and in some cases employment on the estate, upon which she is executing extensive improvements. In respect of the arrangements made, the tenants signed agreements similar to those described as circulars in the hon. Member's Question. I understand that only one notice to resume land for planting was given by Mrs. Ogilvie. The circumstances do not appear to call for any Act amending the Crofters Act of last year.

  LAND LAW ACT (IRELAND) 1881—BONA FIDE OCCUPATION—FAIR RENTS— SUB-LETTING.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the decision just given by the Land Commissioners at Ballymoney, County Antrim, and referred to in The Northern
  942
  Whig of the 12th instant, under which it has been held that a tenant who sublets a garden or allotment to a labourer is not "in bonâ fide occupation of his holding," and not entitled, therefore, to the advantages of the Act of 1881; whether this decision of the Sub-Commissioners is based upon a Judgment given in the Superior Courts; and, whether the Government will introduce a clause in the Irish Land Law Bill now before the House to amend the law in this respect?
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the recent decisions of the Land Commission, to the effect that a tenant who has sub-let a labourer's cottage on his holding, and cannot prove express consent from his landlord, is disentitled to have a fair rent fixed under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," and, in particular, to the Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Greer, given at Ballymoney on the 11th July instant, in which he stated that he was constrained to dismiss a number of tenants' applications owing to their having allowed the cottages on their holdings, together with small gardens or patches of land for manuring, to be occupied by labourers; whether that interpretation of the Statute was objected to by Mr. Greer's lay colleagues, as being opposed to the general policy of the Land Laws, and to the Ulster tenant right custom, and calculated to deprive the majority of Ulster tenants of the benefits of the Act; and, whether the Government will introduce a clause into the Irish Land Law Bill now before Parliament, to remedy the evils complained of? the hon. Baronet also inquired, whether this decision would not be most injurious to labourers, as it would mean their dismissal by farmers in order to get under the Irish Land Law Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), in reply, said, he had not been able to get exact information as to the cases referred to, as the decision had not yet been returned to the Land Commission. His only acquaintance with the decisions referred to was derived from the Questions. If this had been unauthorized sub-letting, it deprived the tenant, under the Act of 1881, which

  943
  limited the benefits to tenants in occupation, excluded middlemen, and distinctly prohibited sub-letting. But if a tenant sub-let with the consent of his landlord, expressed or implied, he was deemed to be in occupation of the holding, notwithstanding that sub-letting. If hon. Members brought forward Amendments on the subject to the new Irish Land Law Bill the Government would give them the most careful consideration.
  MR. T. M. HEALYmentioned the case of a widow who had occupied a farm of half an acre for 20 years, and who had been deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1881 for having in her house a labourer who paid 6d. a week.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLintimated that he would put down an Amendment to the Irish Land Law Bill, with a view to amend the law in this respect.

  LAW AND POLICE—OPEN-AIR SERVICES AT GRANTHAM—ARRESTS.
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether certain persons in Stamford have recently been sent to Leicester Gaol (on refusal to pay a fine), by order of the Borough Magistrates, for holding open-air services in the Market Square of the borough; if it is true that the said persons were dragged from their beds at half-past 5 o'clock in the morning, and taken to Leicester without being allowed to break their fast; and, if it is true they were handcuffed and marched through the streets as common felons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): It is a fact that two persons were recently convicted by the Borough Justices, not for holding open-air services, but for wilfully obstructing the free passage of the highway, and refusing to move away when requested by the police. The police, anticipating disturbance, apprehended the two men between 5 and 6 in the morning, in order that they might take them to Leicester by the 6.40 train. They were not dragged from their beds; in fact, the constables did not enter their bed-rooms. It is true that they were handcuffed. I cannot say whether the sergeant had good reason for anticipating violence, or an attempt at escape; if not, in my opinion, handcuffs ought not to have been used.

  ADMIRALTY—CASE OF BERTIE WILMOT MAINPRISE—LITERARY EXAMINATION.
  MR. EVELYNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, relative to the case of Bertie Wilmot Mainprise, of the Royal Naval School, New Cross, nominated by the Lords of the Admiralty for a Naval Cadetship, and rejected on medical examination in June last, Whether it is in conformity with usage that Mainprise should have undergone the literary examination before the Civil Service Commissioners notwithstanding such medical rejection; whether there are not precedents for re-instating a candidate who has passed the literary examination after such medical rejection; and, on what grounds the Civil Service Commissioners have declined to assign marks to Mainprise, or to publish such marks if assigned, thus concealing the result of the literary examination?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): the case of Mr. Mainprise was not in accordance with usual custom. Mr. Mainprise had been rejected as medically unfit; but a request asking for a reversal of this decision having been received at the Admiralty, the usual intimation was not sent to the Civil Service Commissioners pending a final decision. There are no precedents for admitting candidates after medical rejection. The assigning and publication of marks rest altogether with the Civil Service Commissioners. I am unable to say for what purpose they have been withheld on the present occasion.

  ZANZIBAR-RECALL OF SIR JOHN KIRK, HER MAJESTY'S CONSUL.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir John Kirk, Her Majesty's Consul at Zanzibar, has been recalled?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Sir John Kirk has not been recalled, but has resigned his appointment, and retired from the Service, owing to ill-health, the result of long tropical service. He has received the highest pension applicable to his length of service, which has been valuable and devoted.

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL—LEGISLATION.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill is abandoned for this year; and, whether it is his intention, or the intention of the Government, to re-introduce the measure, or a similar measure, next Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that this measure is so far abandoned that they have ceased to hope for the passing of the measure in the present Session. It is not, so far as I can foresee, the intention of the Government to introduce this or a similar measure next Session; but the Metropolitan Board and the City Corporation will, I am informed, submit to the Legislature a Bill on the subject.

  BURMAH—REVENUES FROM TEAK FORESTS AND MONOPOLIES OF EARTH OIL AND PRECIOUS STONES.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a very large part of the Revenues of Upper Burmah under King Theebaw was drawn from leases of the teak forests and monopolies of earth oil and precious stones; whether Memorials have been received by the Government of India from merchants, traders in teak, and foresters in Burmah, in the end of 1885 and beginning of 1886, pointing out the wasteful and objectionable mode adopted by King Theebaw's Government of dealing with the valuable sources of Revenue derived from the teak forests, and praying the Government of India itself to undertake the working of the forests; what answer has been given to those Memorials; and, what course the Government intend to adopt to protect the merchants and traders in Burmah from the evils of the system of monopolies granted by ex-King Theebaw?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I answer the first Question in the affirmative. Memorials have been presented to the Chief Commissioner of Burmah; but the Secretary of State has not received copies of either the Memorials themselves or the replies made to them. He
  946
  will cause inquiry to be made. The general policy of the Government is to do away with monopolies; but in reference to the teak forests claims have been advanced, based on concessions from King Theebaw, which are now under the examination and consideration of the Government of India.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired, what was the number of claimants to the teak forests?
  SIR JOHN GORSTasked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is it part of the policy of getting rid of monopolies in Burmah that the Indian Government should have been treating with Messrs. Streeter alone?
  [No reply.]

  FISHERIES—HOME OFFICE AND BOARDS OF CONSERVATORS.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade has the power of altering, modifying, or cancelling bye-laws respecting fishing, made by Boards of Conservators, which have been confirmed by the Home Office or Board of Trade?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade has no power to "alter, modify, or cancel bye-laws" made under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts. Under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 71, ss. 39, 40, and 41, such a power is vested in Boards of Conservators, who
  "May from time to time, by any new bye-law, revoke, vary, or alter, either in whole or in part, or as to its application to the whole or to any part or parts of the district, any bye-law previously made"
  by them. The power of the Board of Trade is limited to the confirmation or disallowance of bye-laws.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—INCREASED MAIL ACCOMMODATION, CO. DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can now state definitely when arrangements will be made to give increased mail accommodation to Newtownards, Downpatrick, Ballinahinch, and other towns in the County of Down?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, a correspondence was going

  947
  on with the Treasury, and he would announce the decision as soon as it was received.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, if the matter was not settled before the Vote for the Post Office carne on, he would call attention to it.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT) —CONTRACTS FOR COLLAR HIDES FOR THE CAVALRY.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the Report made by the officer commanding 2nd Dragoons on the collar hides recently issued to the Cavalry at Aldershot referred to one hide only, or to several; and, if so, how many; whether, when re-dressed by Messrs. Ross and Company, after they had been condemned as "worthless," these hides were re-examined, and "passed" as fit for issue, by the same viewer or viewers who passed them as sound and good in the first instance in 1886; and, whether the opinion expressed by the Inspector General of Cavalry in his Report, that—
  "Someone ought to be blamed for passing such inferior articles into the Service,"
  has been notified and acted upon; and in what manner; and on whom?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The text of the Report made by the officer commanding the 2nd Dragoons is as follows:—
  "The collar hide issued from Ordnance Store for the repair of saddlery," &c.;
  apparently, therefore, only alluding to one hide. The Viewer who originally passed this and the other three and a-half hides complained of is no longer in the Service; it was, therefore, a different Viewer who passed the hides after re-dressing. The Inspector General of Cavalry's remarks have been carefully noted. As I have already stated, a full, independent investigation is being made into the whole circumstances of the case, and when finished the Secretary of State will decide what action may be necessary. I should like, in conclusion, to call my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the fact that his Question purports to give, and does give, textually an extract from a confidential Report to the Secretary of State, and to ask him
  948
  if he cm give me an assurance that no Government employé has been guilty of the offence of communicating the contents of confidential Papers.
  MR. HANBURY: By whom is the investigation being conducted?
  MR. NORTHCOTE: The Judge Advocate General has undertaken the task.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the inquiry include the question whether the harness which was reported rotten in the Egyptian Campaign came from the same firm as supplied these hides, and whether the deterioration is due to the same causo—adulteration of the leather?
  MR. NORTHCOTE: I have not heard.

  WAR OFFICE—DIRECTORS OF ARMY CONTRACTS—AN ANNUAL REPORT.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will authorise the Director of Army Contracts to make an Annual Report to this House, giving a Summary of all Contracts entered into with firms or persons not being themselves manufacturers of the stores supplied by them, the supply of stores by such persons being an exception to the established rule that only actual manufacturers should receive such contracts?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied)said: No, Sir. The Secretary of State does not consider that such a course would be conducive to the public interest.
  MR. HANBURY: Then I beg to give Notice that in Committee of Supply I shall move to reduce the salary of the Director of Contracts.

  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE ACT, 1886— THE LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BROOKFIELDasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he can inform the House of the progress made by the Land Commissioners in their work connected with the Extraordinary Tithe Act, 1886?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)(who replied)said, that the work of the Land Commission was nearly completed.

  THE COUNCIL OF INDIA—REPRESENTATION OF THE BOMBAY PRESIDENCY.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, in the filling up of vacancies in the Council of India, regard will be had to the Bombay Presidency being represented like as the other Presidencies are represented in that Council?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Yes.

  BURMAH (UPPER)—THE RUBY MINES.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the principal person connected with the syndicate formed by Mr. Streeter, junior, to provide capital to work the Ruby Mines, was recently prosecuted by the Crown under a criminal indictment; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take care that Indian officials grant contracts or permits only to persons of good character and repute?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): No. But I have been informed that a Mr. Baird, who was prosecuted for an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act and acquitted, had formerly a small interest in the venture. My answer to the second paragraph is, Yes.

  EGYPT—DEPARTURE OF SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFF—AHMED MOUKTAR PASHA.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why it is that, notwithstanding the departure of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff from Egypt, Ahmed Mouktar Pasha still remains; what is his present official position; and, whether there is any intention that he shall remain in Egypt either as permanent Imperial Commissioner of the Sultan, or in some other capacity; and, if not, how soon he may be expected to leave?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Ghazi Ahmed Mouktar Pasha is a high officer of the Sultan, and is not in any way employed by the Government of Egypt. It rests with the Sultan to recall him at his pleasure;
  950
  and, as far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, this has not yet been done.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Is there any truth in the rumour that Mouktar Pasha is to leave Alexandria within the next few days?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I have not heard the report.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Any news about Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to-day?
  [No reply,]

  EGYPT—THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN THE DESERT—THE LAKE MOERIS SCHEME.
  MR. WOODALLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Report has been received, made by Major Western, R.E., to Sir C. C. Scott-Moncrieff, R.E., C.B., K.C.M.G., of the Egyptian Public Works Department, in which it is stated that a depression has been shown to exist in the Desert to the south-west of Cairo, which would probably contain 30,000 million cubic metres of Nile water, with a surface of about 400 square miles, and which, it is said, could be utilized to store Nile water, so as to ultimately redeem an area of 2,300,000 acres of land in Lower Egypt; whether this is the Lake Moeris scheme, with which the name of Mr. Cope Whitehouse has been connected; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Report, together with a map, if any exists, and any observations made by any officers in Her Majesty's Service, tending to show the value of the project?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Report in question has not been received by Her Majesty's Government. It would naturally be made to the Government of Egypt, and considered by them. I believe that Mr. Cope Whitehouse has taken a deep and long-continued interest in the scheme of filling Lake Moeris or Wady Raian for the irrigation of Upper Egypt. We are not in possession of Reports on the subject from officers of Her Majesty's Service. I have seen the Report of Major Western, and a map of the locality, but, unofficially; and they could not be presented to Parliament until they have been considered by the Government of Egypt.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FUND—THE JUBILEE MEDAL.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Metropolitan Police Fund is composed partly of public taxes and partly of Metropolitan rates, and by what authority he is taking a portion of that fund to buy 14,000 Jubilee medals; and, whether be can now state the estimated cost of the medals?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir. The Metropolitan Police Fund is made up in the manner stated in the Question. The medals are given in acknowledgment of extraordinary exertions of the police, and their cost is a charge which, I am advised, I have power, under 10 Geo. IV. c. 24, s. 12, to direct to be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund. The cost of the medals has not yet been settled.
  MR. PICKERSGILLfurther asked the estimated cost?
  MR. MATTHEWSreplied, that be had bad estimates submitted to him by an officer of the Mint for a certain class of medal, and the medal bad been forwarded to the Chief Commissioner for his approval, which had not yet been obtained. The preliminary estimate was £83 per 1,000 medals.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—REWARDS FOR EXTRA SERVICE ON JUBILEE DAY—POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Police, for their services on Jubilee Day, are to receive one day's extra pay and three days' extra leave; and, whether, in face of this fact, he will make some special acknowledgment, either in money or grant of leave, of the services of the telegraphists who were required for the public convenience to remain on duty during that day?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have heard that the Metropolitan Police are to receive extra pay and leave for their services on Jubilee Day. As I before stated, the question of giving extra pay or leave to the telegraphists, who were employed on Jubilee Day as
  952
  on other week days, has been considered by the Government; but it was not considered that their employment on that day justified any such special acknowledgment as that suggested by the hon. Member.

  ARRANGEMENTS OF THIS HOUSE— THE LIBRARY—COMMUNICATION WITH THE HOUSE—THE READING ROOM—EXCLUSION OF THE "UNITED IRELAND."
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take steps to give to Members of Parliament engaged in study in the Library of the House of Commons facilities for learning the course and progress of Business and Debates in this House equal to those enjoyed by their fellow-subjects in other parts of the Empire?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I quite agree that it would be a great convenience for Members engaged in study in the Library—[An hon. MEMBER: And the Smoking Room.]—and also in. the onerous duties of the Smoking Room, if they had constant communication of what was going on in the House. I think seriously it would save time; and I have matured an excellent plan, which I am prepared to carry out whenever I can persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me the money.
  MR. DILLON: In answer to the First Commissioner of Works— [Cries of "Order !"]
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: What would be the cost of the plan?
  MR. PLUNKET: I do not think it is an extravagant cost—£500 the first year, and £400 a-year afterwards to keep up the service.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to give Notice that if any such proposal is brought forward I shall give it my most strenuous opposition.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If be can state whether he is aware that The United Ireland is excluded from the newspapers in the Members' Reading Room; and, will he use his influence for the purpose of providing a few copies for the use of Members in the proper quarter?
  The FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. Smith): In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I may say that the Serjeant-at-Arms will make arrangements for the paper to be taken in, if he should understand it to be the general wish of the Members of the House that he should do so.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked, why there were so few copies of The Pall Mall Gazette?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was not in his power to give an answer to a Question like that. It was a matter of detail, and hon. Members had the opportunity of representing their views to the proper officials of the House.
  DR. KENNYasked, how was the general sense of Members on the question to be ascertained?
  [No reply.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE OATHS BILL.
  MR. BEADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of what happened in the House on the 9th of May, he will allow the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Oaths Bill to be taken before midnight?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. Smith): I am sorry to say that, owing to the present state of Public Business, I am unable to comply with the hon. Member's suggestion and request. It is intended, if we are able to suspend the Government Business in sufficient time, to take the Truck Bill to-night.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that, while he admitted the Truck Bill was of wider importance, he would ask whether, in view of what took place when the Oaths Bill was under debate before, the Government did not think he had some claim for facilities being afforded him for getting the decision of the House on that Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman could complain of any want of disposition on the part of the Government to afford him facilities for the consideration of the questions in which he took an interest; but he was afraid he could enter into no undertaking with respect to that measure.

  RULES OF DEBATE—SCOTCH QUESTIONS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in regard to Scotch Questions, To whom Members may address inquiries or Questions in this House, in order to receive answers with the authority of Her Majesty's Government?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. Smith): The Lord Advocate is the Member of the Government who answers generally all Scotch Questions which may be addressed to the Government; and if from any cause the Lord Advocate fools himself unable to answer a Question of importance, it should be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is the responsible officer, superior to the Lord Advocate, for any Scotch Questions which may be raised in this House.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Will the First Lord of the Treasury exercise some discretion?
  MR. ANDERSONasked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the powers of the Secretary for Scotland were, by Act of Parliament, vested in the Secretary for Scotland, and could not be delegated to the Lord Advocate, or to the Home Secretary, or any other officer of the Government?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, whether the Home Secretary had any official authority over the Lord Advocate?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must ask hon. Gentlemen to consult the Act of Parliament under which the Office of Secretary for Scotland was constituted. But hon. Gentlemen are very well aware that in the arrangements of the Government one officer or another undertakes special duties; and naturally it falls to the Secretary of State, on any Question which the Lord Advocate cannot answer, to deal with that Question.
  MR. A. L. BROWN: Who is the responsible Minister, when the Lord Advocate states it is not his province to answer a particular Question?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald): I did not say anything of the kind.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order !
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Bill promised in the Queen's Speech relating to the Office of Secretary for Scotland was ever to be introduced; and whether the Government would postpone the Vote for the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland until that measure had been introduced, and the House knew what the duties of that Office were?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The duties of the Secretary for Scotland are expressed in the Act which exists. I have every reason to believe that the Bill will be introduced; but I am not able to give the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman asks me to give, unless it is his desire that the Office of Secretary for Scotland shall altogether be abolished.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will not reconsider what he has said, in reply to the Question about referring Scotch Questions to the Secretary for Scotland; whether it is not a fact that the cause for the Scotch Secretary Act was not this—namely, the confusion which had arisen owing to the arrangement of the Scotch business is the Home Office; whether in that Act all the Scotch powers vested in the Home Secretary, except law and justice, were transferred to the Secretary for Scotland; whether he has not promised, under the new Bill, that these powers will be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland; and whether all those permanent officials in the Home Office who were acquainted with the Scotch business have not been transferred to the Scotch Office; and that, therefore, the Home Secretary is hardly likely to be able to give a satisfactory answer to Scotch Questions?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not question a single word of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to indicate that ordinary Questions on Scotch business would be dealt with by the Home Secretary. But I understand the contention to have arisen from the fact that the particular Question addressed to the Lord Advocate was a Question which it was not fitting for the Lord Advocate, as a subordinate in the Scotch Office, to reply to, and only such Questions which might be addressed to the Government, as superior to the Secretary for Scotland, would be dealt
  956
  with by the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, who, having regard to the position he holds in the Government, would be the proper person to reply to such Questions.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS— TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN—VOTES OF THE IRISH JUDGES.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered in Trinity College, on Tuesday, 12th July, at the declaration of the poll, by the Hon. Richard Alan Parsons, the defeated candidate, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "The influences brought against me were very remarkable. My opponent was proposed by one of Her Majesty's Representatives in this country. A remarkable number of the Judges have recorded their votes, and their names have been published in the papers;"
  was Mr. Serjeant Madden's candidature supported by a letter from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of which public use was made; whether his attention has been called to the following statement of Lord Fitzgerald, on the 21st August, 1883:—
  "That he was on the (Irish) Bench for 20 years, and in consequence of a resolution made by all the Irish Judges he had during that period never voted."—[Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 233, p. 1458);
  was that resolution ever rescinded; and, if so, when; and, would he have any objection to lay a copy of that resolution, with its subsequent modifications, upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My only acquaintance with the speech referred to is derived from the quotation in the hon. Member's Question, the accuracy of which I do not dispute. My right hon. Friend informs me that, in offering the post of Third Serjeant-at-Law to Mr. Madden, he expressed in his letter his recognition of the learned gentleman's distinction at the Irish Bar, and his sense of the value of the assistance lie might render in the House of Commons should he be returned to Parliament. I am not aware that this letter was published; but it was not private, and there could be no objection to its being referred to by Serjeant Madden and his friends. I have seen the passage in Hansard referred to. I

  957
  know nothing of the resolution mentioned; but I understand that Judges have always voted at University elections in Ireland as they do in England. I would remind the hon. Member that at the last election for Dublin University both candidates were of the same political views.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—NAVAL REVIEW AT SPITHEAD.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it was possible to make any provision to enable Members of former Parliaments to witness the forthcoming Naval Review?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, that he took former Parliaments to mean the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The number of persons not at present connected with public establishments who imagined they had a claim to be present at the Naval Review was very large, and taxed the resources of the Admiralty in providing accommodation for them. If the door were opened which the hon. Member suggested, the Admiralty would be compelled to go outside their Department and charter steamers at a considerable cost to the public purse; and, therefore, he did not see his way to entertain the proposal.

  SUPPLY—THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, he thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if he were to mention that the Navy Estimates would be taken on Monday; and as there would probably be considerable discussion on the shipbuilding policy of the Admiralty, he proposed to take first the Dockyard Vote, No. 6.

  SUPPLY—THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could tall the House when it was proposed to take the Army Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply,
  958
  said, that he was unable to state when these Estimates would be taken; but he was afraid that they would have to wait for the Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill.
  MR. A. O'CONNORasked, whether the First Lord of the Treasury would take steps to expedite the printing of the Evidence taken before the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates, in order that they might be in time for the discussion on the Estimates?
  MR. HANBURYasked, when the Index to the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores would be ready?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he was unable to give an answer to the latter Question without Notice; but he would make inquiries. With regard to the other matter, he had to say that the Government were most desirous that the Evidence should be in the hands of hon. Members as early as possible; but, as hon. Members were aware, the printing was carried out under the orders of the authorities of the House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MORNING SITTINGS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREinquired, Whether the First Lord of the Treasury anticipated that it would be necessary to take a Morning Sitting on Monday or Tuesday in next week?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Not on Monday certainly; and I cannot say anything about Tuesday at present. "Sufficient for the day"—

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    FURTHER VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £1,885,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st, day of March 1888, viz.;—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain:

  £

  Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

  50,000

  Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  20,000

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

  England:—

  House of Commons, Offices

  6,000

  Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

  5,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  8,000

  Foreign Office

  5,000

  Colonial Office

  2,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  2,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  4,000

  Civil Service Commission

  3,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  4,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,000

  Land Commission for England

  4,000

  Local Government Board

  50,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  10,000

  National Debt Office

  1,000

  Patent Office

  4,000

  Paymaster General's Office

  2,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,000

  Record Office

  3,000

  Registrar General's Office

  4,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  55,000

  Woods, Forests, &c. Office of

  3,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  4,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  Secret Service

  2,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  1,000

  Exchequer and other Offices

  1,000

  Fishery Board

  3,000

  Lunacy Commission

  500

  Registrar General's Office

  500

  Board of Supervision

  4,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,000

  Chief Secretary's Office

  3,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  300

  Local Government Board

  10,000

  Public Works Office

  8,000

  Record Office

  500

  Registrar General's Office

  2,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  2,000

  MR. BRYCE: I wish to take this opportunity of calling attention on this Vote to the present position of the Special Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff and the manner in which the negotiations have been manipulated by Her Majesty's Government, I do not propose to discuss the Convention which is not before us, and with regard to which I may say that it seems doubtful if it will ever be signed.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIES (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I would point out to the hon. Member that it is not contemplated to take any money on account of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission.
  MR. BRYCE: I wish my right hon. Friend had told me that yesterday.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I said it was impossible then to say what money would be required. I have since found that no money will be asked for under this head, and therefore I doubt if it is in Order to discuss the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff.
  MR. BRYCE: I should think it is competent to me to make some observations on this subject, inasmuch as money will be taken under this Vote on account of the Foreign Office; and I shall therefore proceed unless the Chairman thinks I am out of order. On the 7th of March last, we had a debate on the subject of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission, when a Motion was made to reduce the Estimate for the Mission. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Fergusson) made a speech on the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff and on the Convention; he dilated much on the latter, and upon the favourable prospects held out by the negotiations of the speedy conclusion of the Mission, and he deprecated any interruption of the proceedings by an adverse vote of the Committee. The Vote for Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission was thereupon carried by a considerable majority, and some of us withdrew our opposition upon the strength of the statement made by the Foreign Office through the mouth of my right hon. Friend. It is now four months since the prospect was held out of a very speedy conclusion of this extremely costly Mission During that time the Mission has continued, and I must remind the Committee that we, on this side of the House, and particularly those on this Bench, have abstained in an unusual way from putting any pressure on the Government to disclose what has been passing, and from doing anything that could, in any way, interfere with their endeavours to bring the negotiations to a successful issue. We have had no great faith in the Convention, and never expected a great result from it; but we thought that we ought not to spoil the chance of the Government after the expense that had been incurred; we knew that they were making arrangements for the speedier evacuation of Egypt, we were glad to see the evidence of a better mind on that subject, and therefore we did not interfere. We carried this so far that when 10 days ago the hon. Member for Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) moved the adjournment of the House, we dissuaded him

  963
  from pressing that Motion, and even voted against it, so desirous were we not to interfere with, whatever chance of success still remained for the Government. Bat what result is there to show for the large sum of money spent through these years, and what becomes of the sanguine hopes held out by my right hon. Friend? I never could understand why the Government were not content to employ the unequalled knowledge and skill of their representatives in Egypt and Constantinople. Can it be supposed that Sir H. Drummond Wolff had more knowledge of the Eastern Question in all its aspects, or was better able to deal with Orientals than Sir William White? The result is just what we expected. Sir H. Drummond Wolff, who was to show so much more aptitude than our Ambassador, and who apparently w as to have supplemented and improved what could have been said by the mouth of Sir William White, does not seem to have reached any substantial result, and so far as the facts have leaked out, I cannot find anything which shows special knowledge on his part, and which might not have been equally well, or better, negotiated by Sir William White. So much for the result of the Mission. But I have something more to say as to the way in which the Government have managed the Mission and with regard to what has taken place during the last three or four weeks. It is now many weeks since the Sultan gave directions to his Ministers to sign the Convention, and it is now three weeks nearly from the day fixed for its ratification. It was then finally fixed for Friday, the 8th of July—that was the last day to be given for the ratification, after which Sir H. Drummond Wolff was forthwith to leave Constantinople. There has been another postponement, and we are unable to learn from the Government what is the precise position of Sir H. Drummond Wolff—whether he has or not absolute orders to leave Constantinople, or whether subsequent steps will be taken. I do not know that we have now any security that, although it was communicated to us that he would leave this week, there may not be some further postponement to next week. I take it from my right hon. Friend's silence that the Convention is not yet ratified; but although I hope, from the language lately used by the Government, that there will not be a
  964
  postponement after this week, still we have not obtained any security to that effect. Now, I cannot think there can be a position more humiliating than that in which the country is placed. Here is a Convention which has been the outcome of the Mission that has cost a large sum of money, extended over a period of two years, and the importance of which is expressed by the fact that our Special Envoy undertook work that was thought to be too difficult for Her Majesty's Representatives in Egypt and Constantinople to perform. This Convention would seem to be more in favour of the Sultan than of this country, and it is certain to give us no further rights and advantages than those which we at present enjoy. It involves, at least, one danger to which Egypt is not now exposed. Now, under these circumstances, is it right that we should stand in this position, waiting on the pleasure of the Turkish Government, and that Her Majesty's Government, in the person of Her Envoy, should be standing under a window serenading the Sultan, and waiting for him to come forward and graciously smile on us? I am astonished at the ignorance of Oriental methods, at the want of sense and tact, and the absence of appreciation of what is due to the credit and honour of this country, which the Government have shown by allowing these negotiations to proceed in the manner I have described. What, then, has resulted from employing a Special Envoy? Just this. That you have been landed in a difficulty which could not have arisen had you negotiated through our Ambassador, because, being permanently stationed at Constantinople he would have simply fixed a day for ratification, and, if he had extended the time, would, anyhow, not have been kept hanging on from week to week, with his trunks half packed, uncertain whether to go or stay. We used to hear of the duty of this country to maintain a spirited foreign policy, and we on these Benches, have been sometimes taunted with not showing a proper sense of what was due to the dignity of the country. I do not think, however, that any Foreign Minister—certainly not Lord Granville, or Lord Rosebery, and I will even say, not Lord Beaconsfield—has ever placed this country in so discreditable, and even ludicrous, a position as that in which it has been, placed

  965
  by Her Majesty's Government. I attach no great importance to the question whether the Convention is ratified or not; but what I do care about is that these undignified proceedings should cease, that Sir H. Drummond Wolff should return, and that Her Majesty's Government should undertake that they will not, in future, expose us to further slights.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think when last a conversation was sprung upon us on this subject, that we had no knowledge of the terms of the Convention; but we have since had the main features of it from the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken from the Front Bench did so as if, having paid the money, we ought to get a Convention after all. My feeling, however, is that we should not throw good money after bad; we may have thrown away good money, but rather than have a bad Convention I would rather have none at all. I supported, or rather declined actively to oppose, the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, because I supposed that he was a sensible and well-meaning man, and that his views on Oriental questions were not altogether bad, and because it was understood that he went to Egypt to make such military arrangements as would enable us to withdraw our troops from that country; but it does not seem to me that this Convention tends in any way to that effect. I altogether fail to see that it has any effect of the kind. We are pledged to the eyes to withdraw from Egypt as soon as law and order are restored there; whereas, as I understand from the Prime Minister regarding the Convention, we are, under no circumstances, to be called upon to retire for three years. It seems to me that the Convention tends to give us the term of three years, whether law and order are restored or not, during which we are to remain in Egypt; and, therefore, I think there is no advantage to be derived from the Convention. On the other hand, I do not think it can be denied that the terms of the Convention seem to mean a permanent Protectorate, with all the obligations and risks that are inseparable therefrom. Under the Convention in case of disturbance in Egypt, or of any difficulty to fulfil national obligations, I believe we are permitted, or practically bound to undertake the task of restoring
  966
  order and law, a task which in my opinion would be an onerous one and involve great complication and difficulty with other Powers. There was one phrase used by the Prime Minister which gave me a special dread of this Convention—we were "to return to Egypt to fulfil international obligations." What are they? I am afraid it may be held that the arrangement under which the debts of Egypt are paid is of the nature of international obligation, and that under the guise of international obligation we are undertaking to see that the bondholders are paid. I hope the Government will distinctly inform the Committee that this is not one of the international obligations at which the Convention, according to the language of the Prime Minister, is aimed. The first result of making this Convention would be the permanent alienation of France, and the giving to Russia an opportunity of backing up France in order that the two Powers might be disagreeable to us, and extort concessions from us in other parts of the world. That is what I fear from a Convention of this kind, and having regard to the fact that there has been strong irritation on the part of France for some time past, my strong advice is, that although we have spent a large sum of money on this Mission, we should not try to get anything further, but bring Sir H. Drummond Wolff away at once from Constantinople. It has been stated in the newspapers that the Sultan was going to get something in a pecuniary way by the Convention. There has been no clear answer on that point, and I shall be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no snake in the grass of that sort in this case, because my experience is that Orientals never give away anything without getting something in return; it is possible, therefore, that the Turkish Ministers and officials in constructing this Convention have got some advantage by it, and that perhaps there has been some way arranged in which the Sultan will be able to get a new loan, and in that way lay an additional burden on the people of Egypt.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I hardly understand what the hon. Gentleman the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce) intended to gain by a discussion of this question to-day. I acknowledge most sincerely that my hon.

  967
  Friend and the Opposition generally have behaved with great reticence during the course of the protracted negotiations which have taken place at Constantinople. They have not pressed the Government, and not only that—they have treated them in this matter with that consideration which is generally shown by those who have a due sense of the difficulty of conducting public affairs. Having had previous acquaintance with the difficulty themselves, they know that much harm but no good may be done by premature pressure in matters of this kind. Seeing, however, that on this occasion it is not necessary for the Government to ask a further Vote on account for the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, I scarcely see the necessity of initiating a discussion at this stage, because it cannot have any satisfactory issue, seeing that the House is not in possession of the Papers which will elucidate the proceedings of the Mission. It would, I think, hardly have been suitable that the Papers should have been distributed until the Mission had closed, and until it was certain whether the ratification would take place or not it would have been premature to discuss the matter, because prejudice might thereby be done to the public interest. We have reason to believe that ratification has not taken place, and that Sir H. Drummond Wolff will leave Constantinople to-night. The incident must therefore be considered as so far closed, and I hope the Committee will deem it well to postpone the consideration of the subject until the Papers are in the hands of the House, which I believe will be the case to-morrow or at the latest on Monday. While I think the Committee would gain nothing by entering now into the particulars of the Mission, I cannot however allow some observations that have been made to pass as if no answer could be made to them. My hon. Friend opposite spoke of the humiliating position in which Her Majesty's Government have allowed the country to be placed. I cannot for a moment allow that assertion to remain uncontradicted. It is absolutely without foundation. The only ground for the sense of humiliation under which my hon. Friend labours seems to be that whereas the Convention was signed on behalf of the Porte early in the present month, it has, up to the present, remained unratified, and that our Special Commis-
  968
  sioner remained at Constantinople. Take the alternative course. Suppose our Commissioner had refused to remain in Constantinople for a day, even when the Sultan had appointed a day for an audience. Would that have been a dignified position for this country to be placed in—that our Special Commissioner should leave hastily and without performing the usual ceremonies on such occasions, and which, in Eastern countries, have great weight, and receive much attention? I submit that it would have been very undignified. A great mistake would have been committed which would have placed us in a false position, because it would have been attaching too much importance to the non-ratification, and out of it a misunderstanding might have arisen. Too much importance should not be attached to the lapse of the Convention. It may perhaps be found to contain more of concession than gain for this country. Nevertheless, I think it will be seen that it was founded on an honest desire to fulfil international engagements, and to make due concessions to other Powers consistently with our own duty. I hope that will be found to be the case; and we say that we have our duty to perform whether the Convention be ratified or not. We should not have increased our desire to occupy a difficult position, and our departure from Egypt would neither have been accelerated nor prolonged beyond the time when our duty should have been performed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has referred to the mention which the Prime Minister made of the leading terms of the Convention. That, I think, shows no desire to keep from the House and the country the nature of the obligations entered into. It would have been impossible for Her Majesty's Government to commit themselves absolutely to a statement as to the final terms of the Convention; but now the whole matter will be made known, so that the conduct of the Government may be judged. There was no increase in the burdens or obligations on the part of this country by the Convention. Our position, therefore, remains where it was before; and I earnestly hope that when hon. Members have had the opportunity of seeing the course of these negotiations, the objects of them, and the manner in which they were sup-

  969
  ported, they will be of opinion that the dignity or the interests of the country have not been compromised, but rather that they have been faithfully and diligently maintained.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to say that if it were not for the promise of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Papers it would have been my duty to offer a strong remonstrance against this Vote. I trust the Government will take care that we shall have an adequate opportunity, when Sir H. Drummond Wolff returns, of fully discussing this matter.
  MR. S. WILLIAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has not touched the gravamen of the charge against the Government. It is that, having Representatives at Cairo and Constantinople, the Government committed themselves to the job of sending out Sir H. Drummond Wolff. I am glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) has taken this opportunity of calling attention to this subject. We make the serious charge against them of putting on the country grievous and heavy charges unnecessarily; and I am perfectly sure that the country will blame them for having sent out Sir H. Drummond Wolff to the East, and for having kept him there so long.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: There has been one explanation of the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff to the East which has not been referred to. The Fourth Party had to be provided for, and when the present Government came into Office they made one Member of it Chancellor of the Exchequer, another Chief Secretary for Ireland, the third became Under Secretary for India, and Sir H. Drummond Wolff was sent as Special Commissioner to the Sultan. We have now, at all events, the information that the Convention is of no value whatever; and we know that the Government has paid £14,000 for the employment of a Gentleman who has been of no use whatever.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think, in giving away the appointments referred to; the Government have shown a strong appreciation of the services of the Fourth Party. I do not complain of Sir H. Drummond Wolff for one moment. He was very able and intelligent in Bulgaria, and I have that
  970
  appreciation of his intelligence to suppose that if he were offered £4,000 salary and an allowance of £7,000 for expenses he would take it. I do not blame him—I blame the Government. The complaint is not that Sir H. Drummond Wolff was not a good negotiator, but that we had able men in Egypt and in Constantinople also; that it was a matter of negotiation directly at Constantinople with the Sultan and his Government, and that the negotiation ought to have been placed in the hands of our Ambassador there. It is that we complain of, and say that it is simply a waste of public money. I agree that it would be unreasonable to enter now into the details of the subject, because in a few days we shall have the Papers and shall be able to go into the question with the knowledge which they will afford us. The right hon. Gentleman has given a preliminary puff of his Convention and has protested against my hon. Friends on this side speaking of the position of Sir H. Drummond Wolff in Constantinople as being a humiliating one. I think it is a humiliating position. It is not the duty of Her Majesty's Representative to wait day after day on the Sultan. If the Sultan had asked that Sir H. Drummond Wolff should wait for a single day, I could have understood the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary's defence of the proceeding; but Sir H. Drummond Wolff has waited day after day, and anyone acquainted with the way in which matters are treated at the Porte will know that it is always a "fad" with the Sultan to put them off with a pretext about the Bairham, or something of that kind, in order to have a European Minister dangling about him. I say it is not consistent with the dignity of this country that its Representative should be kept waiting day after day for the ratification of the Convention. But whether the Convention is ratified or not, we shall equally complain of the wasteful expenditure and absurd action of sending out a Special Envoy when we had a Representative both at Constantinople and in Egypt who were well qualified in every way to conduct the negotiations.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am not surprised that the question of this Mission has been brought forward on the present Vote; but I do not propose to prolong the discussion, and I presume it is now at an end. I

  971
  rise for the purpose of protesting against the Vote being asked for at all. It seems to me strange that when the Government ask for £2,000,000 there should be neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the First Lord of the Treasury, or even the Financial Secretary of the Government on the Treasury Bench. There is at this moment no financial officer of the Government in the House of Commons. We have to Vote a sum of a little over £2,000,000. This is the third Vote on account, and we have scarcely discussed one-fourth of the Civil Service Estimates. We are in the middle of the month of July, and anyone who takes the trouble to estimate the amount of work on the hands of the Government will know perfectly well that there will be little time left for submitting the Votes to the consideration of the Committee. This is a growing system. There are only two instances on record of a third Vote on account being taken in July—one in the exceptional year 1881, when the time of the House was monopolized for a very long time by a Bill of the first magnitude; and the other in 1883, when an opportunity was given of discussing the Civil Service Estimates. But we have not had that opportunity this Session; and if we had had it, this Vote on account would not have been required at all. I doubt whether the Vote is required, because out of £19,000,000 there has already been voted £6,000,000, and therefore until the end of the present month the Government are amply provided with funds, and the same remark applies to the Army and Navy Estimates. Again, the Land. Bill of the Government has not to be taken until next Thursday; and we have, therefore, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, on which the Estimates could be discussed. What is the effect of this system? It simply puts the Government in funds to such an extent that they are able altogether to shirk the duty of bringing the Votes seriatim under the consideration of Parliament; and if this Vote is passed, we shall be in this position, that the Government can put off Supply until the middle of August, when the discussion of the Votes would be a mere empty formality. Now I object altogether to the system of Votes on account, unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify them. One such Vote in the Session may be borne; when it comes to a
  972
  second Vote the system is being abused; but when we are asked for a third Vote on account, I submit that the whole thing is a scandalous abuse of the Rules of Parliament. It results in the passing of money for all the Services in a manner that prevents the adequate discussion of any of the Votes. The remainder of the Votes to be taken would properly occupy three Sittings, and I say that the action of the Government in asking for this further Vote on Account practically leads to a waste of the time of the House. So strong is my feeling on this matter that I feel inclined to move the reduction of the Vote by one-half, in order to compel the Government to come to Parliament as soon as possible, to complete the Votes on the Civil Service Estimates. We have the Navy Estimates to be taken on Monday, but the Army Votes not for some little time yet, because the Report of the Committee is not in the hands of hon. Members. There is sufficient time to discuss the Civil Service Votes seriatim, and I say that the demand for this third Vote on account is therefore an abuse of the forms of this House.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I cannot allow the discussion on the subject of Egypt to close without adding an observation or two which it is my duty to make. The appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff hardly comes up for discussion now for the first time in this House, since it was continued by the late Government deliberately, and was defended by the Prime Minister of the day. But I wish to state first that whatever has been done at Constantinople by Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and whatever has been his attitude in remaining there, has the entire sanction and direction of Her Majesty's Government; and, secondly, that in the course of all his proceedings Sir H. Drummond Wolff has the highest approval of Her Majesty's Government, and has, in their judgment, performed the duties of his high Office with dignity, discretion, and prudence.
  MR. BRYCE: I have said nothing to disparage Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and I do not question his abilities. The gravamen of the charge I have made to-day is against the manner in which Her Majesty's Government, have conducted these negotiations, more especially during the last few weeks. I must also protest against the statement that

  973
  the late Prime Minister defended the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff. That was done neither by the late Prime Minister nor by the Foreign Office under the late Government. We did not recall Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and on the 7th of March I gave the reasons which, in the opinion of the last Liberal Government, made it undesirable, during our short and uncertain tenure of office, to recall him. What the Prime Minister said was that there were reasons why he should not be forthwith recalled, but he neither justified the original appointment nor implied that if he had been in Office at the time he would have appointed Sir H. Drummond Wolff, still less did he suggest that his Mission should be allowed to run on to the length it has reached.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to point out that the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) is not carrying out the provisions of the Crofters Act, and that unless something is done to ensure that it is carried out, and to see that the Crofters Commission does its work when it is wanted to act, a very serious condition of affairs will come into existence. The last information which I had from the Scotch Office was that they had come to some decision in the month of May, but since then nothing has been done. Under the Act there is power to appoint sub-commissioners, assessors, and valuers, in order to get through the work; but that has not been done. The Scotch Office has allowed that most important portion of the Act to remain a dead letter, and the work has been performed in consequence in a very inefficient and expensive manner. You have a Commission of three gentlemen, with very large salaries of £3,000 a-year, doing work which could be easily done by men paid £300 a-year, and which work is in arrear to such an extent that it has given rise to legal proceedings in some cases. I impress on the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the necessity there is for the work to be carried on by responsible officers. Then with regard to the way in which the Treasury are carrying on this Act. It is of no use for Parliament to pass Acts authorizing money to be advanced if the intention of the Act is neutralized by the Treasury. Conditions have been laid down by them which have made it impossible for de-
  974
  serving men in the Highlands up to the present time to get a single loan under the Act. This is a very serious matter, and I hope it will be taken into consideration by the Government. It is also a matter of complaint that those districts were first visited by the Commissioners where the disturbances occurred, and I express a hope that in future the cases will be taken upon their merits. Matters in the Highlands are getting more and more lawless, and I take this opportunity of impressing on the Government the necessity of seriously turning their mind to this matter, because otherwise, before the Houses are prorogued, there is likely to be a good deal of trouble. I hope to hear from the Representative of the Government now on the Treasury Bench an explanation of the reason why not one loan has been granted under the Crofters Act.
  MR. SEXTON: I observe that since my hon. Friend complained of the conduct of the Government in asking for this Vote the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to the House, and I think the Committee will be pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will give them the advantage of his clear mind in discussing the matter. My hon. Friend has stated that the Government have enough money to last to the end of the month, and we say that £5,750,000 have already been voted; and we also say that there is money in hand for the Army and Navy. My hon. Friend has pointed out that, as the Irish Land Law Bill will not come forward in Committee till next week, the Committee might have expected that the Government would have waited to see what their fortune was with regard to Supply in the next three Sittings before they came down to ask for this Vote on Account, and I think my hon. Friend has made out a case for this course being pursued which is extremely reasonable. I join most emphatically in the protest of my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) against the absurd and ridiculous system which is growing every year in this House of disposing of Public Expenditure by the method of Votes on Account. I should not mind so much if this House were engaged in useful legislation. The House of Commons has two functions, the function of legislating and the function of granting Supply. If the House

  975
  were engaged in useful legislation, I should not be so querulous about the taking of a Vote on Account; but this Session it has done nothing but pass a Coercion Bill for Ireland. I certainly do not think a Coercion Bill is useful legislation; on the contrary, I think the time spent upon it as neither more nor less than wasted, and, seeing time wasted, I am disposed to insist that in the matter of Supply the Representatives of the people shall be allowed to hold the strings of the public purse. There was a time when the Representatives of the people had control over the public money. We were sometimes able to procure reductions in the Estimates; but what is the case now? The Public Revenue consists of many score of millions; but it is not the Representatives of the people who spend it or say how it shall be spent, but it is the permanent Heads of the Departments in Whitehall and elsewhere. They put down what Estimates they please, obtain for them the assent of the Minister, and place them before the House in the certainty that, under the present system, they will be able to get all the money they choose to ask for. This is the third time this Session we have had a Vote on Account. We get an evening for the purpose of voting several millions of money; and then at the end of July, or the middle of August, many Votes in Supply are forced through the House in the course of a single Sitting, when perhaps there are not more than a dozen or two wearied Members present. I join, Sir, in the protest made, and I assure you respectfully that the time is coming when that protest will not be confined to the floor of this House. The people are bound to take notice of the conspiracy which evidently exists between the permanent Officials and the Heads of Departments. I object altogether to this Vote on Account; but, having made those general observations, I wish to refer to a specific matter. I notice that the Vote contains an item for upwards of £100,000 for the Customs Department, and the question is one in which my constituents are very directly concerned. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present, because the question I wish to raise has reference to the condition and treatment of the Port of Belfast, as a port for the receipt of Customs. The Port of Belfast does not I receive the same fair and equal treatment
  976
  it would receive if it were a Scotch or an English port. An instance of this came recently before us. A firm of wine and spirit merchants in Belfast applied to the Customs Authorities for a bonded store. The firm, whose request was refused, is one of some importance, inasmuch as they paid to the Government last year in duties no less than £25,042. Their contribution has been progressive. In 1879 it was £13,000, and it has gone on increasing yearly. Their request for a bonded store—in which not more than £250 a-year was involved—was refused, and they issued a memorandum, laying bare the facts of the case. Their request was then conceded. What I complain of is, that it was necessary to issue a memorandum and invoke public opinion. I think that if that firm had been doing business in Liverpool, Manchester, or Hull, it would not have been necessary to have invoked public opinion in a matter of this kind. Then, again, I want to know whether there is a classification of ports which governs the number of the staff at the ports, and the general facilities afforded by the Department? Belfast in point of contribution to the Customs, is the third port of the British Empire. London is first, Liverpool second, and Belfast third. Out of the total Customs receipt—namely, £20,000,000—Belfast contributed last year no less than £1,630,000, or one-thirteenth part of the whole. Belfast is a very progressive port, because in 1856 the contribution was only £653,000, so that in 30 years the contribution has been trebled. In 1886 it was £120,000 more than in 1885. Belfast is not only a port of great value to the Government as a means of producing Customs, but it is also an extremely progressive port. In Glasgow the collection was only half what it was in Belfast, and in Hull the total contribution last year was smaller than the nett increase which had taken place in Belfast. I simply ask for fair play for Belfast, and I shall insist, so far as it is in my power, that Belfast shall be treated, in relation to its productiveness to the Revenue, as well as if it were on the right side of the Irish Channel, and not on the wrong, according to the view of the Treasury. Now, is there a classification of ports? Are there first, second, and third-class ports? If so, docs Belfast stand in its proper place in proportion to its contribution to

  977
  the Revenue, and if not, why not? I am led to believe that Belfast stands in the scale lower than it ought to, and that it does not receive in point of staff or general official facilities the same treatment it would receive if it were a Scotch or English port. I have taken up this question, and I assure the Government that, having done so, I shall not suffer it to drop until redress is given. I shall bring it forward on every occasion that presents itself, and I think the Government will find that it will be convenient for themselves to come to a decision promptly. There is one other matter I wish to mention to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is with regard to the granting of the City Charter to Belfast. A Question was lately put in the House upon the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) replied, and I quite concurred in the reply, that the Government did not intend to recommend any such grant in connection with Her Majesty's Jubilee. But the right hon. Gentleman indicated that the question should receive consideration. Now, he has had a fortnight in which to consider the question, and I will ask him for a reply upon the point—if he cannot give it me now perhaps he will be ready to give it me when the Report of the Vote on Account is taken. I do not know that there is much difference between a town and a city; but some people prefer the title of city, and if there is any advantage in a place being called a city, I think the people of Belfast are entitled to have their choice. There are eight cities in Ireland, and Belfast is next to Dublin in point of importance; according to Thom's information, it is the first town of manufacturing importance. I believe there is a strong desire that the title of city should be given to the place. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will not deny that the people of Belfast are numerous—they are 250,000. He will not deny that they are industrious, and that in manufacture and trade and commerce they have made remarkable progress. I believe he will not deny they are very loyal. The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who is the director of the consciences of the Government, and the noble Lord the Member for
  978
  South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who poses as the Government's most candid Friend, recently visited Belfast: and I think they may well be expected to do their best to secure to the people of Belfast the City Charter they desire. It seems absurd that Belfast should be shut out from any City Charter, while Armagh, with 10,000 of a population, is a city; and when Cashell, with a population of 4,000, enjoys the distinction also. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say that, in consideration of the importance of the town, the Government will recommend the Crown to grant to it the title of city. Like civility, a Charter of this kind costs nothing; and, therefore, I think that this Charter might be promptly and gracefully conceded to the town.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): With regard to the last question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton)—namely, the granting of a City Charter to Belfast —I will accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to give the answer of the Government upon the Report stage. Now let me deal, in the first place, with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). I find no fault whatever in his bringing forward the question of the undesirability of Votes on Account. There is no man in this House who has a greater objection, or more real and solid ground of objection, for a third Vote on Account than the Secretary to the Treasury. A third Vote on Account means that you must have throe discussions, or possible discussions, instead of one, of the same Vote, and therefore I go entirely with the hon. Member in his statement that it is extremely desirable to avoid third Votes on Account if it is possible to do so. Now, Sir, the hon. Member is under the impression that only two previous instances of third Votes on Account have been taken.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No, I did not say that; I said taken so late as the 15th of July.
  MR. JACKSON: So late—so early I suppose he means. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR; Early.] I find third Votes on Account were taken in the Estimates 1881–2, 1882–3, 1883–4, and 1886–7; and the only reason why a third Vote on Account was not taken in 1884–5 was

  979
  because the House was good enough to repose its confidence in the Government, and allow a supply representing two months on the second Vote on Account, which enabled the Government to go on until Supply was completed on the 7th August. The hon. Member for East Donegal stated that we have money enough to serve us until the end of the month. I regret to say that it is not so. I regret to have to point out, as the hon. Member knows quite well, that unless we get the whole of the Votes before all the money we have on hand is spent, we must take a Vote on Account. There is nobody in the House knows better than the hon. Member that if we have money in hand belonging to one Service we cannot transfer it to another—we cannot devote money obtained for one purpose to another purpose. I want the Committee clearly to understand that the first and main reason is because there is now a much closer financial scrutiny over the application of the money which is voted by Parliament than ever there was on former occasions We are asking now for what will serve us for a month. It has been customary on former occasions to ask for a third Vote on Account for five or six weeks. I may also point out the reason why a large sum of money is necessary is that we are coming to the end of the month, and there are considerable payments which have to be made at the early part of August, which necessitates that we should have a large sum at our disposal. Now, the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) said something about the present system of presenting the Estimates. There is no desire, certainly on my part, to present a Vote on Account; but it is absolutely impossible, under the present system, to avoid it. I do not propose to discuss the question whether the business which has detained the House has been of sufficient importance or not to warrant our asking for a Vote on Account. All I can say is that, as far as I am concerned, it is with extreme regret that I ask for this Vote, and it must be remembered that we are doing the best we can in regard to Supply. We took a Morning Sitting today, and we propose to take Supply at the Evening Sitting. On Monday we shall put down Naval Estimates, and on Tuesday and Wednesday proceed with the Civil Service Estimates. Even supposing that the progress which the
  980
  hon. Member for East Donegal hinted at were possible—namely, that the whole of the Votes might be completed in three sittings—even supposing that that were possible, but which I think is extremely doubtful—it would not get us over the difficulty in which we are placed on this occasion. Now, Sir, with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast, as to the manner in which different ports are classified, may I say that it is not only the amount of Revenue which is collected at a particular port which determines the number of the staff which is necessary for that port. The hon. Member knows very well that the Revenue which is collected at the Port of Belfast arises mainly from one particular article, and is collected in large sums. I think he will see that we cannot with fairness classify the different ports simply and solely in relation to the amount of Revenue which is collected at them. Now, I am not aware that there is the smallest desire on the part of the Customs Authorities—indeed, I know the contrary is the fact—to refuse to Belfast any and every facility which is necessary for the carrying on of its trade. The hon. Member says that some friends of his have applied for an additional bonded warehouse. I know the case well. It has been before me on several occasions. Prior to the application to which he refers there came an application from another firm doing a large business in Belfast, and which, in the first instance, was refused by the Customs Authorities in consequence, as they allege, of there being a sufficient amount of bonded accommodation in Belfast. At my urgent solicitation, and after making most searching inquiry into the case, I came to the conclusion that the additional facilities might reasonably be granted, and I over-ruled the Customs Authorities, and the additional store was given to the firm. The hon. Member will easily understand that if the position taken up by the Customs Authorities was sound in the first instance—namely, that there was already sufficient accommodation in Belfast, surely a little hesitation was required in granting the second application of the kind which was made. At all events, the question is under consideration, and the Customs Authorities have been instructed to give the most favourable consideration to the carrying on of the trade of Belfast. I may add, with re-

  981
  gard to the particular firm mentioned, that during an interview I had with them I pointed out that the growth of the trade in the past proves conclusively that no restrictions which had been put upon them have tended to retard their business. However, the hon. Member will, I think, be willing to accept the assurance I have given him—namely, that the question is under careful consideration, and that we shall afford all the facilities we can to the different ports. The hon. Gentleman has hinted that Irish ports do not receive the same favourable consideration as English and Scotch ports. Upon that point I can assure him that the question whether a port is an English, Irish, or Scotch port never enters into consideration. Each case is decided, as far as it can be, upon the circumstances of the case and the requirements of the trade.
  MR. SEXTON: I feel very much indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for his courteous and attentive reply. His speech, however, affords ample evidence that it is necessary that the departments should be carefully looked after by the Ministers who are responsible for them in this House. The hon. Gentleman has told the Committee that, in regard to the application from Belfast for additional warehouse accommodation, the Board of Customs refused the application until the personal influence of the hon. Gentleman was brought to bear. The exercise of his personal influence induced an opposite result. I have, however, not received information on one point which I raised—namely, whether there is a classification of ports adopted by the Board of Customs. Are there such things as first class, second class, and third class ports, and does the expenditure for staff and the official facilities follow upon the position of the port in the scale? If so, I think Belfast ought to be in the foremost place.
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot say now. I will furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information on Report.
  MR. BIGGAR: I cannot help thinking that the present bonded store system in Belfast is a most objectionable one. A large number of firms in Belfast have separate bonded stores communicating with their own premises. It seems to me that such a system affords great facilities for defrauding the Revenue. I think that in
  982
  a place like Belfast the Government should, if possible, own all the bonded stores, and that there should be no communication whatever with private premises. I know that one firm alone have been cheating the Revenue to the extent of £35,000 a-year. I think that the Customs would probably be right in refusing this now bonded store except for one reason, that the multiplication of bonded stores has been carried to a very large extent already. If people wish to extend their trade and compete successfully with older houses they cannot do so unless they get a chance of cheating the Revenue in the way the older firms have been doing. Under these circumstances, I suppose the Government were right; but I should like to impress upon them the necessity of making a thorough reform in the system of bonded stores. The present system is one which cannot be defended; and it is one which ought to be, if possible, reformed. In Dublin we had a case of very large fraud on the part of parties with bonded stores, who also were large dealers in the particular articles. These persons took whisky in bond for outsiders, they gave receipts for the whisky, then sold the whisky, and became bankrupt; and the parties who had lodged the whisky with them were the losers. I do not think people who own bonded stores ought to be dealers in the articles which are bonded. With regard to the question of Votes on Account, I must say, in my opinion, the voting of money on account is an exceedingly improvident way of doing business. When the Votes in Supply are finally brought in, there is not sufficient time to discuss them. The fault really lies with the Government, who ought to arrange their business in a workmanlike manner. The present system of voting money is most unsatisfactory, and it is quite within the power of the Government to alter it if they choose.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that numerous Votes on Account are certainly a most unsatisfactory way of transacting the financial business of the country; and I am persuaded that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would not propose them if it were possible to avoid them. But I wish to take this opportunity, as I see that there is a sum on the Vote for the convict prisons of the

  983
  country, for putting a question to my hon. Friend. I should like to know whether the Government are really proceeding with the Dover Harbour works? The convict prison at Dover was projected for the very purpose of accommodating the convicts who were to carry out the Dover Harbour works; and I should like to ask my hon. Friend if the provision made on this Vote for convict prisons implies that the convict prison at Dover is being erected?
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Baronet any very positive assurance on this question. The position of the Dover Harbour matter may be said to be this—£1,000 was put in the Estimates last year or the year before; and in view of the very earnest desire which the Government had to avoid not only useless expenditure, but every large expenditure, though it might not be useless, and in view of the fact that the House of Commons has really never fully considered the question, the Government decided that, certainly so far as this year was concerned, they would not ask the House for any Vote in respect of Dover Harbour. A certain number of convicts, however, have been removed, and are proceeding to complete the barracks or the prison in which they are to be lodged. The question as to how they shall be disposed of in the future is left over for consideration.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: It must be borne in mind that at least £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 sterling must be spent upon the Harbour of Dover, if it is to be made really useful. Unless you treble the size of the harbour, as it is now proposed, and provide for at least 35 feet of water, it is impossible to obtain a harbour of any value. I trust the Government will not take any half and half measures; but, if they construct a harbour at all, construct one in which any war vessel of the largest size can enter. To have a harbour of only 640 acres, as is now proposed, is most absurd, because you could not in such a space accommodate with safety four men-of-war. I think it is far more important that many of our harbours should be improved than that one large harbour should be constructed. The harbour will cost more than is supposed. The Peterhead Harbour was estimated to cost £250,000; but that sum was soon exceeded, being first raised to £250,000, and now put at £750,000,
  984
  and this harbour will probably cost £1,000,000 before it is completed.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) for bringing this question before the Committee. It is not only a great waste of time to debate these questions over and over again; but the presentation of Votes on Account is a departure from one of the most important functions of the House of Commons—namely, the controlling of Expenditure. I think the Government are assuming very heavy responsibility when they prevent the Representatives of the people having that control over Expenditure which is one of the most useful purposes they can exercise in the House of Commons. The present system, no doubt, loads to great extravagance. The House is losing its power of controlling Expenditure; and I hope some stop will be put to the system of taking Votes on Account. I should like to have said something in reference to the expenditure upon Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission; but I suppose the debate on that point may be said to have closed. I hope that we are now about to see the last of that Mission. It is not only a very expensive Mission, but very inane in its object. I desire to enter a strong protest against the growing practice of taking Votes on Account.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) if there are any means of finding out the nature and extent of the export and import trade of the Port of Dublin? Is there any record of the kind at the Dublin Custom House? A Foreign Consul some time ago had occasion to find out something of the kind, but could get no information. It would be interesting to know the amount of Irish manufactures exported, and the amount of foreign imports, whether raw material or manufactured goods. In the event of there being no such record, will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury have such prepared?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think that any separate records are kept of the exports between this country and Ireland. I am not quite sure the matter would be under the care of the Board of Trade; but I will make inquiry, and give the hon. Baronet what information I can in answer to his Question.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: There is a Vote here on account of the Metropolitan Police upon which I desire to raise a question of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) notice. I observe he left the House a few minutes since, but I presume he will be re-called. The matter to which I desire to invite attention is the proposed expenditure for presenting medals to 14,000 of the Metropolitan Police in respect to their services on Jubilee day. I am in no way opposed to some acknowledgment of services rendered on that day by the police, and I have always advocated a just and even a generous treatment of the rank and file of the Public Services, and although there did appear in the public Press some complaints of misconduct against the police on that day, still I think that those complaints, even if well founded, were quite exceptional, and I believe the conduct of the police on the 21st June was on the whole extremely good; in fact, I might say almost as admirable as the conduct of the people they were supposed to keep in order. Of course, I do not oppose an acknowledgment, and I ask the Committee to bear in mind that apart from the proposed gift of medals it is proposed to give the Metropolitan Police one day's extra pay and three extra days' leave, and this, I think, is a fair—I might say an ample—acknowledgment of the services rendered. At all events, it contrasts very favourably with the treatment by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) of the telegraphists under very similar circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman, repeatedly pressed by myself and others to make some acknowledgment to the telegraphists who, by the exigencies of the service, were compelled to be on duty on that day, has now definitely declined to make any such acknowledgment whatever. But to the grant of medals I altogether object. In the first place, because it is an unnecessary expense. I have had some difficulty in extracting from the Government a statement of the cost of these medals, but I was informed today the estimated cost was £83 per 1,000, so that the total cost would be about £1,162. Well, I do not know how it may be with consituents of other hon. Members; but certainly I may say,
  986
  for my own, that they are not in a position to take their share in this expenditure of £1,162, not only, I submit, for a wasteful, but for a ridiculous and even mischievous purpose. This proposal has emanated from Sir Charles Warren, and I desire to speak of Sir Charles Warren with all possible respect as a gallant soldier who deserves well of his county, but on this occasion he has forgotten that he now occupies a civil post, and has introduced his old military ideas into his new sphere of duty. However, I can understand the conduct of Sir Charles Warren in making the suggestion, but I cannot understand or excuse the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman whose whole distinguished career has been spent in civil life in sanctioning the suggestion. Why are medals to be given to the Metropolitan Police for their services on that day? I quite admit they had exceedingly hard, exceedingly onerous duties to perform, and that they underwent many hours fatigue, but there are scores of men in Bethnel Green who every day of their lives undergo as many hours fatigue as did the Police on Jubilee Day. My next objection to this proposal is that it would tend to bring into ridicule and contempt the whole system of conferring medals. Why are medals usually bestowed? Usually, so far as my information goes, after a victory over a foe. Who was the foe vanquished on Jubilee Day? Does Sir Charles Warren plume himself on the fact that the Metropolitan Police gained a victory over the common people? I recognize in this, among other suggestions, a tendency to which on a future occasion I will call attention to introduce into the administration of the Metropolitan Police military ideas against which I, for one, will firmly contend, for I believe the result must inevitably be to undermine that confidence and goodwill that for so many years have happily existed between the Metropolitan Police on the one hand and the public on the other. I move to reduce the amount of the Vote by the estimated cost of the proposed medals which I make out to be £1,162.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the item of £50,000 for the Metropolitan Police, be reduced by the sum of £1,162."— (Mr. Pickersgill.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. Pickers-gill) that there is nothing of a military spirit that deserves his criticism in the proposal to give a medal to the police. I think the whole House will be of opinion that the Metropolitan Police on this occasion rendered extremely valuable service. The work was excessively arduous, some of the men were on duty for 30 hours, and all of them for a long time The general feeling of the House was that there should be some gratuity or reward for these arduous services. The hon. Member has blamed the Chief Commissioner for originating the idea of a medal; but I may say the matter arose in conversation, and I rather think the mention of a medal or commemoration of some sort came first from myself, not from the Chief Commissioner. The latter undertook to ascertain the wishes of the Force when I desired to know whether they would prefer to have 1½ days' extra pay, or one day's pay and some object to serve as a memorial of what to the Metropolitan Police and many others was an interesting historical occasion. Sir Charles Warren took pains to ascertain the feeling of the men, and it is, I think, creditable to them that the majority of them said they would prefer to have a gratuity of one day's pay, not 1½ days' pay, and that the money that would have otherwise gone to make up the 1½ days' pay should be spent in providing a medal or some form of commemoration of a great national event. I was obliged to tell the hon. Member more than once that I could not state the exact cost of the medal. We consulted with the officers of the Mint and from them I obtained the estimate I gave to the hon. Gentleman to-day. But the form of the memorial has not yet been settled, the matter is still under consideration.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I understood from the right hon. Gentleman, a few days ago, that the matter did not remain to be considered.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Not in this sense, that it was quite understood the wish of the Force was to have a day's pay and an acknowledgment in the form of a medal; there is no intention of reconsidering that decision. The exact form and character of the memento, whether it should take the shape of a medal at all or a piece of commemorative plate,
  988
  has not definitely been decided upon; what is decided is that there shall be some object to keep as a memorial of Her Majesty's Jubilee year. Sir Charles Warren thought a medal would be the most appropriate form. The cost is not very large, though the total among a large number of men does naturally mount up. As I have pointed out, this money reward for extraordinary exertions seems fully within the enactment I referred to earlier in the day. If the choice had been left to me, I should have given the whole of the reward in the shape of money; but as the men themselves preferred that it should partly take the form of a commemorative object, and as we are always desirous to consult the wishes of those we wish to gratify in matters of this kind, the determination was come to of which I have spoken. There are minor details to settle. The Force wish that the medal should in some way have the sanction or assent of Her Majesty herself. I have not yet had an opportunity of learning the pleasure of Her Majesty. It would, no doubt, enhance the value of the gift if Her Majesty should graciously approve of the presentation on her behalf. I may mention that the acknowledgment in the form proposed is by no means an act of generosity on my part, for the one and a-half days' pay would probably cost more than the whole sum that will be expended in the manner proposed. The sum set aside in the Metropolitan Police Fund early in the year, in anticipation of such a purpose as this, will cover with an ample margin any cost incurred. I think it will be the general feeling of the House that it would be stingy not to allow more than one day's pay. This particular form of recognition is what the Police Force desire, and there is no military idea whatever implied.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: On this subject I would like to ask, are these medals considered tokens of honour, and will the police, with the sanction of Her Majesty, wear them on their uniforms as a mark of honourable distinction, in the same way that soldiers wear those they gain in the field, or will they simply be kept as tokens of Her Majesty's Jubilee?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No decision of any sort has been come to; but it is not, I think, in the contemplation of anybody

  989
  that the Police should wear them. I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that though many of the men possess war medals, as a matter of fact they never do wear them when on duty, and that for two reasons—first, that to do so would subject the wearer to adverse and ridiculous comment from the irreverent London boy; and, secondly, that in the event of any scuffle in the streets, the medal would be the first thing to be grasped at. There is no reason to suppose that, except, perhaps, on special occasions, the medals would be worn.
  MR. W. H. JAMES: I would appeal to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) not to divide the Committee on the question he has raised. There can be no doubt that, with the great number of persons claiming to wear medals and decorations, these have become somewhat common, and it is rather an honourable distinction to be without such.
  DR. TANNER: May I suggest that as a medal is to be struck it might, in addition to the Jubilee, commemorate another proceeding in which the police are concerned, and recall the features of the celebrated Miss Cass.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not met all my objections, but he has advanced one strong argument why we should accept the proposal, that is that the police themselves have expressed a desire to have a medal rather than another half-day's pay. Of course, I accept that statement, and as I have already said, my object is not to treat the police in any grudging spirit, for I am most anxious they should receive a suitable acknowledgment. Accepting the statement that the police have, by a majority, expressed a desire to have the medal, I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish to make an appeal to hon. Members to allow this Vote to be now taken. There is no single item in this Vote on Account that may not be the subject of discussion in Committee when the separate Votes are taken, and any delay that now takes place lessens the time the Committee will have for
  990
  that discussion. I trust the House will recognize the necessity that is forced upon the Government of taking this Vote to-day, and allow us now to come to a decision.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I am sorry I must make one exception to the appeal in favour of a matter of urgent importance. I see among the Votes included in this Vote on Account, is a Home Office Vote and another for Criminal Prosecutions, and to these I wish to call the attention of the Committee by a Motion for reduction.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: This is a Vote that will come on first in considering the separate Votes. The hon. Member will find it the most fitting opportunity when this Vote comes on, probably this afternoon.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Criminal Prosecutions come in Class 3, and according to our rate of progress with Supply we are not likely to reach Class 3 for some weeks, probably the middle of August. Owing to the fact that the Government have refused to give a day for the discussion and redress of the grievances of Welsh tithe payers, the state of feeling is, in Wales, very serious. This has been shown by disturbances in various parts of the country. In some of the disturbances the officers of the law have had the worst of it, in others, ordinary bystanders have suffered at the hands of the police. What did the Government do in the face of this state of affairs? They proceeded to appoint a Commission to make inquiry into the cause of the disturbance when the people were batoned by the police, and they set up prosecutions when the officers were alleged to have been maltreated by the crowd. I would call the attention of the Committee to this—in the case of the trials the Public Prosecutor or the right hon. Gentleman, on his own initiative, changed the place of trial from the Petty Sessional Division where the offence was alleged to have taken place to another Petty Sessional Division 15 or 20 miles distant. The excuse the Government make is that they could not find Court accommodation in the place where the events occurred. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiry I have considerable doubt whether he will find that that is the fact. I think he will find there is ample accommodation for the 31 prisoners,

  991
  counsel, and witnesses at Cerrig-y-Druidion. At the same time, while making this the ostensible reason, the right hon. Gentleman said it was not expedient that the prosecution itself should take place in the district where the disturbances occurred. Now, it seems to me that this is carrying the Irish method of administering justice into Wales, and further, if the right hon. Gentleman at his own initiative thus changes the place of trial he should accept the logical consequences, and see that the expenses of these men and their witnesses are paid if they are carried from one Court to another, 20 miles off. The next point to which I call attention is that, although the reported offence took place on the 27th May, no word of notice was given to the defendants until the 30th June and 1st July that the trial was to take place 20 miles off, and held on the following Wednesday, after a lapse of three days. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect that justice will be done to these men when they are treated in this way three or four days after they have had notice, before they have had time to consult their solicitors, and before the latter have had time to make up the cases? After this, requests were made for adjournment for a few days, for one reason, because the cases were not made up, and because the wife of one of the defendants died during the course of the preliminary proceedings. I called attention to this by Question, and asked was it in the interests of justice necessary to refuse an adjournment to allow a defendant to make the general arrangements necessary for the burial of his wife? The right hon. Gentleman answered that there was an adjournment in a couple of hours, while, as a matter of fact, this happened on the morning of Thursday, and there was no adjournment until the evening of Friday. I call the attention of the Committee to this fact, and I ask was it decent or fair, in view of the hurried notice and this distressing incident, to rush on the prosecution without a decent adjournment? And now I refer to the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman promised an inquiry into the circumstances and origin of one disturbance, and then, partly at the instance of a Welsh Tory Member, he enlarged the scope of the inquiry, so as to include not only the dis-
  992
  turbance at Mochdre, but the other disturbances in North Wales. Now, I should say that in the Commissioner to hold such an inquiry two qualifications are especially required, first, that he should be able to understand the language of the people; and, secondly, that the Commissioner or Commissioners should be a man or men who would not merely look at legal technicalities in connection with each disturbance, but who would take a fair and dispassionate view of the whole cause and origin of these disturbances. But the right hon. Gentleman selected the very worst man possible for the appointment. Mr. Bridge was sent some time ago to make inquiry into the Cardiff riots, and the Cardiff people, of all shades of politics, condemned the way in which he whitewashed the police and refused to listen to some 60 witnesses who were ready to come forward. His proceeding gave satisfaction to no one, and his Report showed that he was actuated by the idea that his duty was to defend the police and the authorities. Secondly, this Commissioner has no idea, I imagine, of the habits and language of the people, and does not understand what they say, In the third place, although this inquiry was promised a month ago, the arrangements are not yet made. The right hon. Gentleman promised to appoint a secretary who understands Welsh; but, as yet, we have no information upon that point. Neither have we heard that a shorthand writer is appointed to take notes of the evidence; in fact, the whole thing hangs fire. Now, if the Government wish to further inflame the state of public feeling in Wales, they can do it by backing up the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the authorities of Christchurch by taking the stock of farmers at dead of night; they can enstrange the sympathies of the Welsh people, and provoke further disturbance, by rushing the prosecutions, on the one hand, and delaying inquiry on the other. In view of the action of the Government, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the item of £5,000 for Criminal Prosecutions, &c, be reduced by the sum of £2,000," —(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  MR. MATTHEWS: I believe I can answer the hon. Gentleman. He finds fault with the conduct of the prosecution.

  993
  Now, while I have not a word to say as to the persons charged, I think the hon. Member will admit that it is quite fitting there should be a prosecution. The men, 31 in number, are charged with complicity in a riot. They do not all live in the same part of the country; their places of abode are far apart; and I am informed that no place of trial could be selected to which some of them would not have to travel—I will not say all of them, so far as the distance between Cerrig-y-Druidion and Ruthin—but, at any rate, a considerable distance.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Not one of them?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am giving the information I have received. I am informed that the Court House at Cerrig-y-Druidion is totally inadequate for the accommodation of not only the 31 defendants, but the magistrates, witnesses, counsel, and others who have to take more or less part in the proceedings. The hon. Member (Mr. T. E. Ellis) said it was very hard on the defendants that they should be put to this expense, and I very much sympathize with that part of the hon. Gentleman's demand, for it is rather hard on the defendants themselves that, if put to extra cost by having to go to Ruthin, that extra cost should not be met. I sympathize with the hon. Gentleman on that point; but the only allowance which can be made, and which will be made, is for their witnesses. By Statute, the magistrate who takes the depositions can give a certificate upon which the costs of any witnesses will be defrayed; but the law does not allow either the magistrates or the Treasury to defray the costs of the defendants themselves. Then he renewed the grievance which he presented the other day, and thought the answer which I then gave was unsatisfactory. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will grant me the indulgence of listening to what I have to say. An inquiry was granted for the Friday, and it would have been extremely unreasonable to have adjourned then and there without doing anything on the morning of that Friday, it being necessary to have the defendants present. Everybody had come at considerable expense to themselves and to the county, and so the proceedings were continued on that Friday so as not to waste a day, and in the afternoon the magistrates adjourned the case until the Tuesday following, on purpose to enable the poor
  994
  men to obtain advice upon the Monday, Surely that does not call for any severe comment. Then the hon. Member finds great fault with the inquiry which has been instituted by this House. He finds great fault with the selection of the Commissioner, Mr. Bridge; but I am bound to say it was having read his Report on the Cardiff riots which suggested Mr. Bridge to my mind; for, so far from whitewashing the police, he blames them with great discrimination, judgment, and moderation. I thought that Report was remarkably able, temperate, fair, and impartial; and it induced me to think, with the representations it contained, that Mr. Bridge was a man who would act justly, and who was completely outside all the passionate feelings which had been aroused on both sides.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Did the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I read a great part of it, and I read the whole of Mr. Bridge's Report, which showed him to be a man thoroughly competent to conduct the inquiry by training, experience, abilities, and the fairness of his mind. I think I could hardly have picked out a better selection to decide on local disputes. Then it is said I should have put somebody on the Commission who understood Welsh. I had great difficulty in finding a competent Welsh scholar who would do good service otherwise. I inquired in all directions, and I had great difficulty, but I ultimately fixed on a gentleman—Professor Rhys—the first Welsh scholar of the day, and Professor of Celtic in Oxford University, and he is not only an accomplished Welsh scholar, but a thorough Welshman in birth and sympathies. He is a Liberal in politics, I am told, though I do not care what his politics are—he is an admirable Welsh scholar, the first of the day, a perfect master of the language, and a man of thorough intellect and character. Being so perfectly associated by birth, language, training, and sympathies with the Welsh people, I felt sure he would prove a useful adjunct to the Commission, and a man clearly above all suspicion, for he has lived long enough out of the world of Welsh ideas not to be suspected of partizanship. He is a man who could not be suspected or accused of partizanship either on one side or on the other.

  995
  I myself had no object or purpose in the matter other than to get a tribunal which would deal as fairly and impartially with this inquiry as any tribunal could.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I quite concur with the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that it is inconvenient to bring on discussions of this kind on such an occasion as this. But my hon. Friend (Mr. T. E. Ellis) had no choice in the matter. If he had not brought the subject on for discussion now, he could not have done it for the next fortnight or three weeks. I gladly recognize the spirit of the reply of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Matthews); but, on one point, he is entirely wrong in his facts. Now, where do nine-tenths of these defendants live? They could walk easily enough to the Court at Cerrig-y-Druidion; but they are 19 or 20 miles away from Ruthin, and for a considerable part of that distance there is no railway, and, as far as I know, no coach, no omnibus, no public conveyance whatever to enable them to get there. What is the result? These poor men, most of them quite unable to afford to hire a conveyance—these poor men were obliged to walk a distance of somewhere about 40 miles, because the case could not be tried in the Petty Sessional Division close to their home. I think that if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will inquire, he will find something behind what appears—something which he has not yet discovered, and which will give him the real reason why the case was removed from the one Petty Sessional Division to the other. If my information be correct, there are four Justices who reside in this district of Cerrig-y-Druidion, only two of whom would have been required to deal with the case. Why did they not deal with it then? Simply because one of them is, for some reason or other, disliked by the other three, and they will not sit with him. Therefore it was that these poor men had to walk 40 miles, because three of the magistrates would not sit with, the fourth. My information is very definite and very complete upon the point. The right hon. Gentleman has not said a single word about one little matter. The riots took place on the 27th of May, but no proceedings whatsoever were taken until the 27th of
  996
  June—a month afterwards. And now one word as to Mr. Bridge. I know nothing whatever of him except that he has inquired into the case of the Cardiff riots; but I do hear from all sides a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed at his decision. Still, I am bound to say that if I were in the Home Secretary's place I would not put a police magistrate to try policemen—it is not exactly the right thing to do. A man whom I suggested to the Home Secretary—I will not mention his name, but he is a man who is highly respected, as well as familiar with the Welsh language—would have been a more proper person to conduct the inquiry. As to Professor Rhys, I know very well that he is a most competent Welsh scholar, probably the best in the world; a better man for the post could not be found; and as regards him I thought the right hon. Gentleman's reply on Tuesday was satisfactory. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that the proceedings are to be commenced at once, because these matters lead to a great deal of irritation, and the sooner they are disposed of the better.
  MR. BIGGAR: I must say, Mr. Courtney, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) seemed to me to make out a bad case. What occurred was this—these unfortunate men were subjected first to a very heavy penalty; and I think that was quite unfair, and that the parties responsible for dragging men to or 20 miles from the place of the riots to the Petty Sessional District outside acted very unfairly for many reasons. Remember that the money penalty was only a small part of the penalty suffered. They probably had some legal friend in the district in which they lived—someone in whom they had confidence—and yet they are taken away a specially long distance, quite out of his reach. Although the right hon. Gentleman says the magistrate may certify for the costs of the witnesses for the defence, the defendants are taken away to magistrates who are partizans against the people, and who would probably refuse costs, and throw such difficulties in the way that the defendants' witnesses would probably never get paid at all. The proper thing for the Government to do, instead of putting the Public

  997
  Prosecutor in motion against them, would be to say that these people had suffered sufficiently already, and that nothing more should be done against them. As to Mr. Bridge, he may be all very well, but the fact is that he does not know Welsh, and he would have to hear the evidence of the witnesses through an interpreter, who would practically be against the prisoners; and the result would be that Mr. Bridge, however well disposed to do justice, would not get a fair statement of the facts, and would, therefore, not be able to come to an unbiassed and honest decision. I think the hon. Member (Mr. T. E. Ellis) did well to invite attention to this Vote; and I hope the Committee will mark their sense of the conduct of the prosecution by disallowing the Vote.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I confess I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on one point. Do I understand him to say that Professor Rhys is to be Secretary to the Commission, or one of the Commissioners?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I told the hon. Gentleman some days ago that Professor Rhys was to be Secretary to the Commission.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement that these men did not live in the Petty Sessional Division; and I think he led us to understand that it was almost more convenient for them to go to Buthin than for the case to be heard at Cerrig-y-Druidion.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; I did not say that. What I said was that the Court selected was as good for them as any Court that could be chosen. That is my information.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Then I must ask to be allowed to correct that information. Nine-tenths of the men, at least, live in the Petty Sessional Division of Cerrig-y-Druidion, and within two or three miles of the Court. No doubt, there are three or four of them who live at some distance away; but, instead of having to come some 17 or 18 miles to Cerrig-y-Druidion, they would have to go 24 or 25 miles to Ruthin. So that the information which the right hon. Gentleman has obtained—where from I know not —is distinctly incorrect and deceptive. However, I will not now divide upon the Vote; but upon a future pccasipn—on the Vote for the Home
  998
  Secretary and for Criminal Prosecutions and the salary of the Director of Criminal Prosecutions —I will again call attention to this question, and to the way in which these matters have been dealt with by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Director of Criminal Prosecutions.
  MR. BIGGAR: May I ask is it competent to summon a defendant from one Petty Sessional Division to another, and drag him from one Division to another? Unless there is some special law on the subject, you might as well drag him 200 miles as 20, and that would be a very easy way of persecuting a defendant, and making it impossible for him to get a fair inquiry.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The law is that the inquiry shall take place in the county in which the offence is committed. Petty Sessional Divisions are established for other purposes and objects, and have nothing to do with the taking of depositions in cases which are afterwards to be tried at the Assizes for the county.
  MR. BIGGAR: Then a man may be taken from one part of the United Kingdom to another?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I said within the same county.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to turn his attention to the very remarkable statement that has just been made; we have been told that the ease had to be removed owing to the action of three Justices of the Peace in refusing to sit with a fourth, and that in consequence of that refusal the necessity has arisen for all these men being transferred from one Petty Sessional Division to another. Surely that is very remarkable, and if it is the case some serious notice ought to be taken.
  MR. OSBOENE MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly. But I think the hon. Gentleman (Sir William Plowden) is hardly aware that I have already twice answered questions and twice made inquiry on the subject, and I have given to the Committee such information as I could obtain. I have been informed that the idea of there being any dissension among the magistrates is absolutely unfounded, and that the real reason why, on more than one

  999
  occasion, cases have been transferred from the one district to the other is that Cerrig-y-Druidion is a most inaccessible place, where the magistrates frequently find that there is no business for them to transact when they get there.
  COLONEL CORNWALLIS WEST: I am afraid there is some foundation for the statement that three of the Justices have certainly had some personal feeling against one of their colleagues; but I understand that upon this occasion the four Justices were not asked to sit, but the Public Prosecutor, of his own accord, moved the inquiry from Cerrig-y-Druidion to Ruthin, and his reason for so doing was not, I take it, because these four gentlemen differed, but because he considered that it was far preferable that the inquiry should take place at a certain distance from the spot where this very serious riot took place, for I must say that this riot was one of a most serious character, and of such a nature as to almost make it a desirable thing that those who were implicated should be transferred, if possible, to some other district where there was no feeling at all likely to arise. I am exceedingly sorry that it was necessary that these defendants should be taken so great a distance as they were; but I was in great hopes that their expenses might have been, at any rate, partially paid. But I understand that that cannot be done, and, under these circumstances, I hope and trust that a very liberal allowance will be made for the witnesses they have been obliged to bring for this inquiry. I can only say with regard to the appointment of Justices to this particular Petty Sessional Division, which has been two or three times before this House, personally I have done the very best I could to increase the number of those who would act there, and have fortunately got these four, who have, up to the present time, taken part in the business of the Petty Session there, to agree to that. When this unfortunate riot took place they were not asked to sit upon it, and I regret very much, under the circumstances, that they were not asked; but if it was thought by the authorities that it was better, in the interests of justice, that the inquiry should take place at a certain distance from the scene of the riot, I can only say that if the defendants have to pay a considerable
  1000
  sum I hope it will be very largely made up to them from other sources.
  Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: I must protest against the doctrine of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Cornwallis West) that, because the question to be tried is a serious one, therefore these defendants should be taken 20miles from their homes. I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) is willing to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, and I think it will be wise to allow the matter to drop now.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I think the doctrine which has been laid down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Cornwallis West), that because certain offences are supposed to have happened at one end of a county you may take the defendants over to the other end, quite regardless of the expense to them or of the fair administration of justice, is simply preposterous. Now, if the Government could only allow the Welsh Members some time to bring this question of the Welsh magistracy before the House, we could lot them have some very interesting facts. The one mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Osborne Morgan) is only one of scores of instances that could be mentioned. In a published letter one of these offending magistrates is contemptuously referred to as "a Liverpool tea merchant." The whole administration of the law is, by these circumstances, bound to come into contempt. What happened in this case? Whatever may be said of the personal quarrels of the magistrates, two of them, at all events, did understand the language of the people, whereas the magistrates to whom the defendants have been taken have no sympathy with them, and are, politically and religiously, their enemies, and not one of them understands one word of the language of the 31 defendants. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says that any magistrate in the county may take the depositions, how was it that those magistrates who do know the Welsh tongue were not invited to sit with their brother magistrates, in order to take these depositions? But, as a matter of fact, have the prosecution a right to take the defendants from one division to another? Suppose it happened,

  1001
  not in Denbighshire, but in Lancashire; or Yorkshire, the consequences might be very serious indeed, for the distances to be traversed might be very considerable. I would, therefore, draw the attention of the Committee to the rather dangerous doctrine conveyed, not merely by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but by the conduct of the Public Prosecutor, and to the approval or semi-approval which has been given to it.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I should like to have a thorough understanding on this matter. Is it the principle of Her Majesty's Government that they are to take prisoners a long distance beyond their own Petty Sessional Division from one end of a county to another? That may be all very well where the county is a very small one; but the same principle would apply to a large county—one 50 or 60 miles across. The men might not be able to go at their own expense, and what would happen then? They would not appear; warrants would be issued, and they would be taken handcuffed across the county to answer the summons. Upon what principle do Her Majesty's Government advise that these men should be taken from one Petty Sessional Division, where there were magistrates who sat able to speak their own language, to another 20 miles further, where the magistrates do not understand their language?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Baronet (Sir John Swinburne) is under a misapprehension in supposing that we have had anything to do with this. We had nothing in the world to do with it. It is not within the discretion of Her Majesty's Government—it is a matter of law. Any magistrate in the county can hear the case. Any Justice in the county has jurisdiction, and it is the ordinary course with which we cannot interfere, and with which we have nothing whatever to do.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish us to understand that he as not given any advice or suggestion as to the conduct of the case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Not only did we not advise, but we did not even know that the prosecution was going on. We knew nothing whatever about it. The prosecution is under Statute, and I was
  1002
  not consulted, and did not know of it. It was only when questioned on the subject in this House that I became aware of the facts.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. KENNY: Before the Vote is agreed to, I wish to call attention to another matter. I wish to call attention to the case of a gentleman who was in the service of the National Board of Education in Ireland for 25 years. During that period he answered the expectations of his official superiors, and was recommended for good service pay. Unfortunately for him, this gentleman—Mr. Fitzgerald—some time back—in December, 1878—was called upon, by direction of the Irish National Board of Education, to inspect a school in the County of Waterford, and in order to reach it he could go by either of two ways—he could either cross a ferry, or he could drive a considerable way round by car. He was suffering from illness on the morning when he set out, and he crossed by the ferry, and on his way met a clergyman connected with the school who took a part of the duties under his inspection. The clergyman, being in a hurry, had no interval, and went into Waterford. Mr. Fitzgerald passed on to the school, and performed as much of the inspection as he could. He also met a gentleman who was one of the patrons of the school, and that gentleman asked him to call and discuss the subject in the afternoon, and asked him to stay and dine, as that would be the most convenient time for him to discuss the matter with him. Mr. Fitzgerald, having performed as much of the duties as he could in the earlier part of the day, set out in the afternoon and dined with the gentleman and spent the evening with him, and he also spent the sum of 5s. 6d., the proper amount of the car-hire which he might have expended in the morning. He felt that that was a proper expenditure, and should be allowed; and in his journal for that day he entered that 5s. 6d., which I maintain, and I hope the Committee will agree with me in the contention, was a proper charge. It so happened that the clergyman was asked by the National Board of Education as to the inspection, and Mr. Fitzgerald's journal was called for to prove that he had made the in-

  1003
  spection. The clergyman said he did not think Air. Fitzgerald could have made it, and Mr. Fitzgerald was called upon for explanations. As I have said, he was in bad health, and suffering mental disturbance on account of family afflictions. He had forgotten the precise transaction and the precise things that occurred, and he gave an explanation which was admittedly incorrect; but, as he subsequently explained, that was because he had forgotten the facts. Two Inspectors were sent down to inquire into the case, and they reported adversely to him; and after 25 years' service, commended warmly by the National Board, he was dismissed on a charge of having misappropriated 5s. 6d. A more unfounded charge was never made against any man. I may say that this gentleman is no Nationalist, nor is he any personal friend of mine; but I felt so strongly on reading his case as set forth in the Parliamentary Papers last year—I felt it was so great a perversion of justice, and that so grave an injustice and injury had been inflicted on him, that I felt bound, as an honest man, to take up the case and do what I could. I had no personal interest in the case whatsoever, and I never had an interview with. Mr. Fitzgerald but once. He does not sympathize with me; and no Party politics arise in the case—it is case of purely abstract justice—and when the Committee hear the facts, I think they will conclude that a public servant has been made the victim of petty official spite, and has been treated in a manner disgraceful to the whole Department and to the Government of Ireland, and cast out upon the read friendless—for he is living upon the charity of his friends. This is the reward for long and faithful service to the National Board. One of the marked characteristics of the superior officials in Ireland is this—that they are utterly rapacious, and one method of satisfying their rapacity is that they economize on the inferior officials who do all the work, and ask for increased salaries themselves, on the ground that they are such vigilant and valuable economists. The Resident Commissioner, Sir Patrick Keenan, not many years ago, when he did not choose to live in the official residence provided for him, received £300 a-year to give it up and pay his rent elsewhere; but anybody acquainted with the place
  1004
  knows that he could have got the best residence in Dublin for half that sum. That illustrates the way in which these great officials who do none of the work—who are the drones of the industrial hive—get all the cakes and ale, and the poor men who do the work get nothing at all. It is well for these superior officials when they can get an opportunity, and can gratify personal spleen at the same time, by getting rid of officials who would otherwise come on the pension list and prevent the higher officials from getting increased salaries. It is well for these superior officials when they can get these men dismissed at the end of a long period of service on the least excuse, and thereby show a great saving in the Department. This Mr. Fitzgerald had the misfortune to incur the high indignation of the late Joint Secretary of the Board, who had received numerous rewards—the late Mr. Ewart—and also to incur the wrath of Sir Patrick Keenan; and when this charge is made against him, I pronounce it a trumped-up and malicious charge, so small in its proportions that if he deserved any measure of punishment at all, a reprimand of a severe character would have been what he deserved, and not dismissal. But they got him in a cleft stick, and gave him no chance whatever. He has spent these last seven years, not in having been reinstated, but in trying to get a fair and impartial inquiry into his case, for no man would refuse a verdict in his favour. But officialdom had not done with him when they got him out of his office, fur they put before the Commissioners the documents, though they suppressed in the Papers before this House certain documents that he sent in which should have appeared in the Report they were called upon to give. That was trifling, if not worse, with this House; and I hope the Committee will show their sense of the injustice done to this gentleman in some very marked manner, and that they will compel the Government now to do what they have so long declined to do—namely, grant this gentleman a re-inquiry into his case. One of the gentlemen who reported originally—Mr. Patterson, one of the Inspectors of the Board—when Mr. Fitzgerald brought the documents under his notice, wrote to say that had he had them before he would have given a totally different verdict; but his

  1005
  colleague on the inquiry took a different view. The junior Commissioner's Report was the one which the Board acted upon. On every appeal which Mr. Fitzgerald has made, he has been met by the cry—"We inquired into the case before, and have no reason to open it again." But who are they who give this answer? This answer is given by the officials of the Government in this House; but it is not their answer; it is the answer of the gentlemen who originally tried Mr. Fitzgerald and condemned him, and who do not want to have their verdict reviewed by another Court. We know very well the matter will be referred back to the Board, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) gives the reply, not from himself, but from the members of the Board whose conduct is impugned. So much does Sir Patrick Keenan feel about this, that he is in constant dread lest the question should be re-opened, because he knows that if it were to be re-opened his conduct would be open to the strongest animadversion by any honest man. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself (Colonel King-Harman) and the noble Lord the Member for West Down (Lord Arthur Hill) were members of a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), when he was Chief Secretary, and called on him to grant a re-inquiry. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) has changed his ideas since. He told us to-day that he was impressed by Mr. Fitzgerald producing as a voucher what was not a voucher. But Mr. Fitzgerald produced the allegation of the man who hired the car that he did properly expend the money, and I think it is scarcely an accurate description on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that that was not a voucher. It was not a voucher technically, perhaps, but it is evident that it ought to have led to fresh inquiry to see whether the allegation was true or not, and, if not, Mr. Fitzgerald would abide by the result, and nobody would say a word if, on fair inquiry, the charges were proved against him. But the evidence is all one way. I say that this gentleman was not guilty, and even if he was guilty he has been treated with great cruelty, and in a way
  1006
  which this Committee ought not to sanction. Let us contrast what has occurred here with another case. There is another Inspector of the National Board—I do not want to mention his name—who had a horse and car belonging to him, and when he wanted to travel for his inspections he used his own car and horse and charged for them. He oven did more than that. When a gentleman moves away from his own residence, he is entitled, when sleeping out, to his expenses for the night, if the distance is beyond a certain limit. One of this gentleman's practices was—and this was detected by an official who was sent down to watch him—to go to an hotel seven or eight miles off and charge for sleeping, though he would drive back to his own house that evening, and sleep at home. That case was inquired into, and what was the punishment? The Board, having considered his case, decided that what they would do with him was to remove him from that district and transfer him to another, and I believe they have altogether mulcted him in such a sum as they considered he had improperly charged. That was the proper course, if not too lenient a one—at all events, it did not err on the side of severity. But contrast that with the case against Mr. Fitzgerald. The charge against Mr. Fitzgerald was that he had misappropriated 5s. 6d. What are we to say as to the difference in the treatment of these two gentlemen, when one of them is simply transferred to another district, while the other is dismissed the Service and cast out upon the world? The fact is that this is not a political matter, but one of abstract justice; and I hope we shall receive from the Government an assurance that the case will be re-investigated.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement consisted in a charge against another official.
  DR. KENNY: I did not make any charge against another official, but by way of contrast mentioned the facts concerning another official.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The hon. Gentleman certainly mentioned another official who, it is alleged, has not sent in his accounts as correctly as he ought to have done. I am glad to say, as the hon.

  1007
  Gentleman says, this matter is one which can be approached altogether without Party spirit. I am aware that Mr. Fitzgerald, if he has any politics at all, is most likely to be a Conservative. The hon. Gentleman had the kindness to recognize the fact that in 1885 I was one of a deputation which approached the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man), when Chief Secretary for Ireland, upon this matter, with the object of obtaining a re-investigation of the case. I may say, however, that since that time I have inquired more closely into the matter, and I now think that the Commissioners were justified in dismissing Mr. Fitzgerald. It was my impression that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), after hearing the statements of the deputation, was very much inclined to deal favourably with Mr. Fitzgerald's case. The right hon. Gentleman promised to go info the case personally, and, from what we know of the right hon. Gentleman, we know that when he promises to investigate a matter personally, he does not mean to take merely official documents, but to probe the matter to the very bottom. Having made a thorough personal examination, the right hon. Gentleman considered the Commissioners were right in dismissing Mr. Fitzgerald. I am bound to take exception to that part of the hon. Gentleman's statement in which he imputed malicious motives to the Commissioners. I am persuaded, on reflection, that the hon. Gentleman will see that it is hardly likely that these gentlemen, who have so much to do, would band themselves together to ruin a man by preferring such a petty charge against him as the embezzlement of 5s. 6d. There is no doubt it is hard upon a man of 25 years' service to be dismissed; but the evidence we have warrants the dismissal. It is impossible, for instance, to overlook the fact that there had been previous cases of irregularities on the part of Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald appears to me to have had every fair opportunity of defending himself. All I can say is that I was originally strongly impressed in Mr. Fitzgerald's favour; but I have had occasion to change my opinion.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. and gallant Member has called in question the course pursued by my hon. Friend (Dr. Kenny) in citing a case
  1008
  other than the one is which we desire to take action. The motive of my hon. Friend is clear. He desired to lay before the Committee the fact that there ought to be equality of treatment between the different officials in Ireland. The case of Mr. Fitzgerald is one of embezzling or misappropriating the sum of 5s. 6d. Upon that charge he was dismissed from the Public Service. The other case alluded to is that of a gentleman precisely in the same condition. This gentleman, having a horse and car of his own, used it in the performance of his duties, and charged the Commissioners the cost of car-hire, and on certain occasions when he slept at home he charged the Commissioners for a bed at an hotel. This gentleman had pursued this course for years; but the Commissioners decided he was sufficiently punished by compelling him to refund the amount he had improperly received, and by transferring him to another district. The facts of that case are not questioned; therefore, if that official was sufficiently punished by being transferred from one district to another, how can it be maintained that another official was not unduly and cruelly punished by being altogether dismissed from the Public Service? I protest against the reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He showed his goodness of heart, and perhaps his better judgment, when he went on a deputation to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on behalf of this unfortunate gentleman; but, Sir, official life, while it may have expanded the brain of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, has certainly contracted his heart. Now, what are the facts of this case? This Mr. Fitzgerald had been for 25 years, during the whole prime and vigour of his life, occupying the position of Inspector of Public Education in Ireland. During that time he filled his position not merely without reproach, but with credit. There was no public record against him, and I certainly do think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have refrained from throwing out an imputation which is not sustained in the printed Papers before the House—that he might in charity and justice have refrained from speaking of difficulties in regard to this gentleman on previous occasions. There is nothing in the Papers to bear out the imputation which the right hon. and

  1009
  gallant Gentleman made, and I protest against its being thrown out. I will not speak of chivalry, but I think it was extremely unfair for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take advantage of his position to attack, without any grounds that I can discover, the character of this absent man, a man without occupation or income. The whole question was one of 5s. 6d. This gentleman was engaged in a tour of inspection, and appears to have charged 5s. 6d. for expenses, and the question arose whether it was a proper charge. The case was inquired into by two Inspectors of the Board. This unfortunate man was at the time in ill-health. He had suffered a family bereavement, and his grief had led to mental depression. The Inspectors held that he ought to have produced a voucher for the expenditure, in the absence of which they condemned him. Subsequently Mr. Fitzgerald produced what be claimed to be a voucher—and let me point out that one of the Inspectors held that the document, whatever it was, was of such a character as to entitle Mr. Fitzgerald to a second inquiry. Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that one of the Inspectors who conducted the examination was so much impressed with the genuineness of the document that he held that Mr. Fitzgerald ought to be granted a rehearing? Certainly, if the Inspector changed his mind on the subject, I find no record of it. Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put upon the Table of the House any documents to show that Mr. Patterson changed his mind on the point? Now, I have come to no conclusion in my own mind on this subject; but I say that a man holding the position of this gentleman ought to be granted a re-hearing of his case. I do not go so far as to suggest—and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right in repelling the idea—that the Commissioners have worked against this unfortunate man. I am not in a position to assert it, and I, therefore, keep silent on the subject. Now, the position of Irish Members in this House upon a question of this kind is very painful. All Parties are disposed to give us a certain share of control, at any rate, over local government in Ireland; all Parties are prepared, for instance, to give us control of education in Ireland. Certainly, if we had such control we
  1010
  should insist upon a re-hearing of this case. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seriously maintain that the unanimous opinion of the Irish Representatives in this House upon a question of this kind is to be disregarded and set aside? The National Board of Education is really a sort of Star Chamber. It is not under public control in any way; indeed, the Chief Secretary for Ireland is constantly telling us he has no control over it. He appears to be vested with the power of making some kind of humble suggestions to the Board; but he has no power over it, and he constantly disclaims any responsibility for its action. We are not aware of the evidence upon which it proceeds; we are not aware of the justification for its conclusions, and we, therefore, decline to accept any of its conclusions. I notice that the First Lord of the Treasury is present. I believe he is a statesman of good heart and of generous impulses, and I ask him, fairly and squarely, if he thinks that a man who has spent 25 years in the Public Service, and who is charged with embezzling 5s. 6d., should be condemned and driven into beggary, without having his case re-heard upon fresh evidence, and especially in face of the fact that one of the tribunal of two Judges who tried him is of opinion that the case ought to be re-opened? Unless we got some satisfactory assurances on this point, the Irish Members will take care that this shameful case shall occupy more than 5s. 6d. worth, or than £5,000 worth, of public time.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I entirely sympathize with the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are animated, I have no doubt, by genuine feelings of sympathy for this unfortunate man; but what are the facts? The circumstances attending Mr. Fitzgerald's dismissal have been examined over and over again by the National Board of Education, which is composed of men of position, entirely above any unworthy or corrupt motives. It is argued that the case should be re-opened in consequence of the opinion held by one of the two gentlemen who formed the tribunal which tried the case; but long subsequent to the expression of opinion by this Inspector the case was again investigated, and by, amongst other people, Lord Spencer and the

  1011
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). I ask the Committee how is any case ever to be regarded as settled if, after it has passed through a sifting so long and so minute—how is it ever to be settled if now, six years after the decision was arrived at, nay, more, eight years, the whole thing is to be re-discussed in the House of Commons, a place which, whatever els9 its merits may be, is not fitted for a Court of Justice, or a Court of Appeal?
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether, at any time since the inquiry at which Mr. Fitzgerald was condemned, there has ever been held an inquiry at which Mr. Fitzgerald was allowed to appear and defend himself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that there has; but I understand that Mr. Fitzgerald was allowed in writing to state all the new material he had at his disposal; he was allowed to show cause why the case should be re-opened. [Dr. KENNY: No; he was not.] Whether he was allowed or not he has done so. [Dr. KENNY: He stated his case, but there was no inquiry.] He sent a document in, and that I understand was carefully considered by the National Board of Education, and after their inquiry they reiterated their decision.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENN A: It was Mr. Mitchell Henry who moved for the Papers in this matter, and they were published. Subsequently, I was instrumental in obtaining the printing of the Papers. I have looked most carefully through the Papers presented to the House, and, in my opinion, the National Board of Education came to a wrong conclusion. I believe there never was a public servant of so good character whose prospects were so completely destroyed on so paltry a charge as Mr. Fitzgerald. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will not think too much time has been spent upon this matter. As to the time which has elapsed since the case was originally before the National Board of Education, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a great portion of that time has been spent in ineffectual attempts on the part of Mr. Fitzgerald to obtain a re-hearing of his case. I hope that this case will not be set aside merely from the lapse of time; but that my hon. Friends will keep their word in this
  1012
  matter, and bring Mr. Fitzgerald's case again and again before the House, until we are reasonably satisfied that a thorough investigation has been made, and that substantial cause is shown, if it can be shown, for the treatment Mr. Fitzgerald has received.
  DR. KENNY: I should like to occupy a few minutes more of the time of the Committee, on account of the very unfair imputation which the right hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman) has cast upon this unfortunate gentleman. I am most strongly assured that there is not a particle of foundation in any act of Mr. Fitzgerald's life for the smallest imputation of any impropriety of any kind or description over and above this matter of 5s. 6d. Both the right hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman) and the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) have stated that subsequent inquiries have been held. Yes; but the inquiries were held by the very gentlemen whose conduct is incriminated or called into question by these proceedings; and when they found that their action was impugned, they, by insinuations, endeavoured to create the impression, which is not sustainable by one particle of evidence, that there was something else behind the embezzlement or misappropriation of this 5s. 6d. One of Mr. Fitzgerald's greatest grievances is that he is not allowed to meet his accusers face to face. That is one of the reasons why he has spent the last eight years in endeavouring to obtain a re-hearing. Mr. Fitzgerald has asked, as any man whose honour or reputation is at stake would ask, that a proper and fair tribunal should be appointed to inquire into his case, in order that if the facts are in his favour he may be reinstated in public opinion. That is all he asks, and that is what we are pleading for. I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) that if we receive no satisfactory assurances upon this matter, it will be necessary for us to bring it forward on every occasion which offers itself. Perhaps it would be wise that I should move to reduce the sum by £500, in order that the Committee may mark its sense of the impropriety of Ministers of the Crown rising in their places, and, without the smallest evidence, making insinuations in respect of charges which are not in question. The Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. and

  1013
  gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet have tried to make out that there was a re inquiry. Our case is that there never was a re-hearing. Documents were submitted to the Resident Commissioner, who is practically the Board of National Education. The judgment originated with the Resident Commissioner. This judgment is impugned. The same man whose judgment is called in question sits in judgment again, and says—"My judgment was perfectly correct; and there ought not to be a re-hearing." I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Item of £50,000, for Public Education (Ireland), be reduced by the sum of £500."—(Dr. Kenny.)
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 83; Noes 245: Majority 162.—(Div. List, No. 301.) [6.35 P.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I claim to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 252, Noes 78: Majority 174.—(Div. List, No. 302.) [6.45. P.M.]
  Question put,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £1,185,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 64: Majority 178.—(Div. List, No. 303.) [6.55 P.M.]
  DR. TANNER (seated, with head covered): During the Division, Sir, I was in the "No" Lobby, and I was not told that I was required to go on—I was writing a letter—and the consequence is that my vote has not been registered. Now, what is to be done?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Sitting is now suspended.
  It being after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report the Resolution to the House at Nine of the clock.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again this day.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) £27,969, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
    Mr. BRADLAUGH: I do not want to detain the Committee; but there is one point which—though the Government will not be able to take action with regard to it this year—I should like to ask them to consider favourably in framing the Estimates for next Session. A good deal with which I do not agree has been said about the salaries of the higher officials of the House of Commons; but there are many lower officials, such as messengers, extra messengers, persons who see to the evidence of witnesses given before the Committees upstairs being corrected and sent out, and other minor attendants, as those in the cloak room, who seem to me to be miserably underpaid, and to be as much worthy of the attention of the Government as those whose case has been discussed. I direct the attention of the Government to the claims of these persons, in order that those claims may not be entirely lost sight of.
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to add a few words to what has been said by the hon. Member for Northampton with reference to the case of the extra messenger. I believe the staff of messengers consists of 18 officers, 12 of whom are placed in one division, and who have salaries rising by annual increments of £10 a-year to a maximum of £200. There are six others, who are not in this favourable position, although they wear the same uniform and really perform the same duties, and who are required to have the same capacity and to be in attendance during the same number of hours. I am at a loss to understand why a distinction is made between one class of these messengers and the other class. As I say, they all seem to have the same capacity, and it

    1015
    certainly would seem as though the distinction should be abolished, and that the whole 18 should be placed upon terms of equality. I wish to testify to the able and efficient manner in which all these officers discharge their duties. In order to raise the six messengers who are in a less favourable position to equal terms with the others, the Government would only be called upon to spend an additional £60 a-year; and I trust that, looking at the nature of the duties they have to perform, the Committee will favourably consider their case. We know these messengers have to be long hours in attendance. We know that, at however late an hour the Speaker may finally leave the Chair, they have to be in attendance on Select Committees the next day. I certainly think there is no class of public servants who deserve more consideration than these messengers.
    MR. CHANCE: There is one point which has escaped the attention of the Committee up to the present, and it is that up to within two or three years ago, whenever there was a specially long Sitting of the House, the messengers received an extra payment of 5s. or 10 s. That system appears now to have ceased—or, at any rate, it has been revived only once this Session, although we have had a number of late Sittings. I do not know why that system should be abolished. I understand that we have 12 messengers who start at a salary of £100 a-year each, and receive annual increments of £10 until the salary reaches £200 a-year; but that the other six do not receive these annual increments until they are advanced into the ranks of the first 12. I cannot see that the fact of a man dying in one class makes the slightest difference in the value of the services of the man who fills the vacancy from the smaller number, six, seeing that all the 18 men have to perform precisely the same duties. I should like to know upon what ground the distinction can be defended, and I should also like to know why this practice of paying the men 5s. or 10 s. as a recompense for their extra labour when the House sits very late has been abolished for the last two or three years? It seems to me a very reasonable thing to make these extra payments, and I certainly think we ought not to be so niggardly in our remuneration of those officers, particularly when
    1016
    we remember how freely we pay money for officials in the House of Lords.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Reply, reply!
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £34,045, 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 in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Upon this Vote I venture to put a question to the Government which, perhaps, it would have been better to have put generally on the Vote on Account to-day, because it concerns the Civil Service Estimates; but as the Treasury are in charge of all these Estimates, perhaps this is a fitting opportunity for me to obtain the information I desire. Last year the Government thought fit to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the different Departments of the Civil Service. Now, that Commission has been sitting and taking evidence for some months, and as yet there is nothing to show as a result of their labours. I believe that, as a matter of fact, they have finished the investigation they undertook with regard to the War Office, and that the evidence with regard to that Department is to be submitted to Parliament before long. But at the rate of progress which has been realized up to now, it does appear as though a very long time, probably several years, will be consumed before anything like a definitive Report is presented with regard to the Civil Service at large. Now, Sir, the amount involved in these Civil Service Estimates is exceedingly great, very many millions per annum; and the Government themselves have, in regard to several Departments, already manifested a determination not to await a Report or Reports of that Commission. They have, in regard to the Inland Revenue and other Departments, already undertaken departmental re-organization and curtailment; and, that being the case, I think I shall be justified in asking the Government—either the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer—what is the policy the Government have decided to follow in

    1017
    regard to the Civil Service at large, pending the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission? There are a number of very pressing questions which have been raised from time to time in connection with this matter. First of all, I would take the question of the distribution of work as between different public Departments. I would say nothing of the War Office or of the Admiralty; but, simply confining my observations to the Civil Service Department, I would point out that as between such Offices as the Home Office, the Local Government Board, the Privy Council Office, and the Board of Trade, there is an allocation and distribution of work which, in many respects, is hardly intelligible. Now, it is perfectly clear that a long time—years—must elapse before any Royal Commission or any body of investigators can arrive at any authoritative opinion as to the advisability of disturbing the system which at present obtains. To illustrate the matter by one small point: within the last year or year and a-half there has been a transfer from the Home Office to another of the Departments of the work connected with sea fisheries. That alone would afford an illustration of the way in which work done in one Department could be done just as well in another. This brings mo to the general conclusion, which I think is not a strained conclusion, that there is room for great economy and simplification of work, and reduction in the existing establishments, through the simple process of grouping together all the work of a similar character which is now distributed amongst different Departments; and inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended in his place some little time ago the decision of the Government to adopt such reforms as appear necessary and opportune in respect to the Inland Revenue Department, I do not think it is too much to ask the Government to entertain, even pending the Report of the Royal Commission, such questions as the simplification of the administrative work of each of the Departments of the State in the matters I have referred to. There is another question. The Treasury has discovered that the Estimates of the Inland Revenue Department submitted last year were unnecessarily large. The noble
    1018
    Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was challenged by myself with regard to certain vacancies. He admitted that pay was asked for a number of officers who did not exist, and the Estimates have been amended this year in accordance with the facts of the case. A number of different "rides," as they are called in the Inland Revenue Department, have been got rid of.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must say that I fail to see how the hon. Gentleman connects the subject he is now discussing with the Vote under consideration.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I shall be happy, Sir, to explain to you, or to endeavour to explain the connection. The Treasury is concerned with the control and check of the Civil Service Departments, and whenever any organization or re-organization is proposed by any Department, application is necessarily made to the Treasury in connection with it. Now, what I complain of is, that the Treasury does not exercise, and has never exercised, that check and that control in a proper and efficient manner. That is the reason why the Civil Service Estimates at large, and in almost every single instance, are inflated beyond the figure which represents the necessary increase, and I was challenging the general policy of the Treasury in its capacity of a central office concerned in the administration of the public Departments.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Treasury has no such control as that attributed to it. The Treasury can advise any Department; but, speaking from ray own experience, I know that the Treasury has no such power as that to which the hon. Member refers.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Of course, Sir, I do not ask you to throw the light of your own experience upon this matter, seeing that yours is the position of moderator and director of the debates in Committee. I would ask the right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not a fact —as admitted, at any rate, by his subordinates—that whenever organization or re-organization is proposed by any Department application must necessarily be made to the Treasury for the assent and consent to the changes which are pro-

    1019
    posed, and to the expenditure which these changes involve? Now, with regard to the Customs and Inland Revenue, I wish to submit to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it is evidently their best policy to take steps to reduce that expenditure, which, to a certain extent, they can control, in connection with this Department—for I maintain that they have the right of exercising control, their consent being necessary before changes can be made. The Office is immediately under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose salary comes under this Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is altogether an abuse of the privilege of discussion on this Vote. The question the hon. Member is now raising can be properly raised on the Inland Revenue Vote, and should not be raised on the Vote now before us.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Very well, Sir, I will at once submit to your ruling, however unexpectedly it comes upon me. At any rate, I shall be in Order, I trust, in asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision the Treasury has come to in regard to the position of the members of the lower division of the Civil Service, and what decision the Treasury has come to with regard to the position of the writers? These are matters which have been brought up in the form of questions before the First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer several times during the present Session. The position of these different classes of men is a matter of great public importance. It affects the whole question of the administration of the Civil Service. Now, Sir, these clerks are, to a great extent, at the disposal of the Treasury Authorities. The Treasury have admitted the grievance under which the writers have laboured, and a Treasury Minute was issued some time ago, holding out to the writers some apparent prospect of an amelioration of their position. Well, the position of the writers has not been ameliorated at all. The been which was offered was of an illusory and almost mocking character; but I understand that the Treasury have decided that the class of writers shall be extinguished as soon as possible. I shall be in Order, perhaps, in asking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to inform the Committee what steps the
    1020
    Treasury mean to take in the future with regard to the writers that at present exist—how many it is proposed to remove from the Service; how many it is proposed to admit to the ranks of the lower division; and finally, I would ask if the Treasury have decided to suspend all appointments to the upper division of the Civil Service, pending the Report of the Royal Commission; and whether, for reasons of economy and reasonable administration, the Treasury will consent to suspend all appointments to the upper division, or will consent to fill them only by men promoted from the lower division? I would ask whether there is any reason to suppose that the lower division men are not perfectly competent to perform all the duties of the staff, and whether they would not be able to fill the superior staff appointments? Well, I do not wish to trespass by one hair's-breadth beyond that which is the fair latitude which ought to be allowed in discussion of this kind; but I ask these questions because a very large number of men are interested, keenly interested, in the answers which are to be given to them, and because I am perfectly satisfied that a very large field of economy is open to the Treasury in these respects. The Treasury is supposed to supervise the whole Civil Service; but, as a matter of fact, that Department has been allowed for years past to re-organize itself. I maintain that, as in the case of an important and elaborate piece of machinery, you would appoint an engineer-in-chief, whose business it would be to control, and supervise, and manage every part of the machinery, so the Treasury ought to have an officer whose special duty it should be to go over and examine into and report upon every Department of the Public Service. No such officer exists, and it appears to me to be ridiculous to vote away such sums of money as are presented in these pages, when it is plain that this duty is glaringly neglected. You have a number of clerks with salaries ranging up to £900. You have some whose incomes go up to £600, and on page 88 you will find in another Department that the salaries are paid on a similar scale. All these are very good allowances to the men at the Treasury itself; but there is no earthly reason why the Treasury should not have upon its staff some competent person whose duty it should.

    1021
    be to overhaul all the other Departments of the State. I complain that you do not provide such an officer, and that the consequence is that the different establishments of other Departments are altogether incomplete. I say nothing about the pay of the Treasury Staff itself, which I think unnecessarily high and extravagant; but while we are prepared to vote some £59,000 or £60,000 for the Treasury, I think we ought to be able to provide out of that the salary of an officer to discharge the important duties I have indicated.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer a question I desire to put to him when replying to the hon. Member who has just sat down. I should like him to say whose duty it is at the Treasury to check the payments that are made, in order to see that they are not made without authority. Sir Reginald Welby stated in his evidence, with regard to a sum of £630 14 s. 2d., that there was a gap in the authority for that payment for 45 years. Being asked as to whose duty it was to call attention to that payment, as there was no authority for it, he answered that he did not know whose duty it was. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can say whose duty it is to check such payments, and to see that such payments are not made without authority?
    MR. SEXTON: There is one item which I think no one will be disposed to call in question, and that is the salary of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That Gentleman certainly earns his salary; but the voting of this sum would be more gratifying to me if I had not to accompany it with the reflection that other Government officials do not earn their salaries. I would put a question to him with regard to the position of the Civil Service writers in Dublin. I put a question to him on this subject some time ago; but he was probably too busy to answer me, and I received no reply. I know some officials who are recommended for promotion amongst these writers; but in no single case has the desired promotion followed the recommendation. I think we are on-titled to be informed why the Treasury, having issued a Minute providing for promotion, not a solitary promotion to a clerkship has been made in the whole division of writers. If the hon. Gen-
    1022
    tleman will be good enough to turn to the bottom of page 59, he will find there a large sum for fees to counsel for assisting Parliamentary counsel in the drafting of bills. Now, I find that there is a permanent Parliamentary counsel employed at a salary of £2,500, and that he has an assistant Parliamentary counsel who is paid a salary of not less than £1,200 a-year. I should have thought the gentlemen paid such salaries as those would have been able to do any drafting that the Government may require, yet we find that other counsel are to be paid large sums for the purpose of assisting those gentlemen to draw up Bills. At any rate there is an item for fees to counsel. Now, if there were a flux of legislation going on in the House of Commons, I could quite understand that the regular staff would require to be augmented; but it seems to me that the regular staff of Parliamentary counsel are doing little or nothing this year. The only Bill worth talking about which they have produced this year is the Coercion Bill, and that, I assume, was drafted by the Irish draftsman who gets a salary of £750 a-year. I presume he would draw up this Bill; at any rate, if he did not, the salary he receives appears to me to be thrown away. The journeys of this distinguished official between London and Dublin seem to be so numerous that an additional sum of £800 is charged to cover his expenses; and even this does not seem to be enough, because I find that he has an additional allowance of £700. He receives from the public purse, therefore, £2,250 a-year. Now, I should like to know when this official drew up the Irish Coercion Bill?.,
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is obviously premature to discuss that question under the present Vote.
    MR. SEXTON: I want to know if the Treasury counsel drew up the Irish Bill or not? If they did, they show very little work for the sum put down hero; but it is for the Government to show whether they did the work or not. As I pointed out, there has obviously been very little work done this Session; and I should like to know what Bills the official Secretary to the Treasury expects to have drawn between this time and March next, and whether he does not think that the officials who receive a regular salary for drafting Bills will be

    1023
    able to draft the Bills which he expects will be passed? It is puzzling to me why these large sums should be paid for extra counsel, when the Government already have a large staff at the Treasury. I think the official Secretary ought really to lay upon the Table some Return showing what payments were granted by the Treasury, what Bills are drafted, and showing exactly how this matter stands; as also the Bills the Government expect to introduce or to have drafted between this and next March.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): In regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), I may say that the Treasury Minute is being carried out as fast as it can be carried out. I am quite sure that if hon. Members know the amount of work which has to pass through the Treasury, they would have a little more sympathy than they sometimes express for that Department. The Treasury Minute stated statistically that a certain number of writers of admitted credit would, after due consideration, be promoted to the lower division. What the Treasury has done has been this. They first invited from the several Departments recommendations as to those writers who were engaged upon the work which entitled them first to consideration in promotion to the lower division; and they also desired these heads of Departments to make a statement of the merits of these individuals. As hon. Members know very well, there has been nothing proposed that this country has been more particular in regard to than that the members of the Civil Service should be admitted on examination on Civil Service certificates. Now, what does this Minute mean—this boon to the writers which, to a certain degree, has been ridiculed in this House, notwithstanding that it has imposed an additional charge on the State of more than £6,000 a-year? Why, it means that it is now laid down, as a principle, that a certain number of writers of admitted merit shall be promoted to the lower division. The Treasury have invited recommendations from the heads of Departments; they have received those recommendations; they have appointed an officer of the Treasury to investigate those recommendations and to report upon them, and the Treasury
    1024
    have declared it to be desirable that no promotions shall be made to the lower division until the whole of the cases are complete. That is the sole reason of the delay. [Mr. SEXTON: When was that?] I am afraid to pledge myself to particular dates; but if the hon. Member will accept my assurance, I can assure him of this—that I have personally taken the greatest interest in this question, because the important and difficult duty of piloting these negotiations through has devolved upon me. I have not only taken the greatest interest in this question, but I am pressing it forward to the best of my ability; and I hope, certainly, in the course of a week or two, to be in a position to make a final statement as to these writers. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, so far as the case of these writers is concerned, it has been fully considered, with a desire not only to do justice, but to give the people concerned every benefit of employment which can be offered. Then reference has been made to the higher division. There, again, you have the same question to consider. It has been held by the Treasury that it is a most valuable principle that they should maintain the examinations which have been laid down as necessary to pass into that division. But there is no bar against a lower division clerk passing into a higher division except the bar of the examination. Well, Sir, is it desirable to remove that bar? I do not think that the House of Commons will be disposed to say that promotion by mere seniority, or promotion without due qualification, from one division to another should be permitted. Then, with regard to Parliamentary draftsmen. It is true, as has been stated, that there are but two permanent counsel employed; but I would point out to the Committee that these men are not engaged simply and entirely upon the Bills which are introduced into this House, and certainly not entirely upon the Bills which are introduced into the House by Her Majesty's Government. They have to take into account the Bills which are introduced into the House of Lords by the Government; they have to take into account the Bills that are to be introduced into this House by the Government; and there is an enormous amount of work which devolves upon these Parliamentary counsel

    1025
    —or, if I might use another term, these Parliamentary draftsmen—in advising the Government not only according to the Bills which the Government themselves introduce into Parliament, but with respect to every Private Bill introduced into either House affecting the Treasury or the Government in any way. These gentlemen have to interest themselves in the framing and amending Bills which seem to be likely to proceed in either House; and certainly, speaking from some acquaintance with these gentlemen, I am prepared to say that I think the work which they perform is more than satisfactory. I can assure hon. Members that were it not for the assistance which these gentlemen have placed at our disposal from time to time, it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to keep in touch with the progress and introduction of Bills in this House. Therefore, I hope that, so far as the question of Parliamentary counsel or draftsmen is concerned, my statement may be accepted that they are full of work. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) asked whose duty it is at the Treasury to show that payments are properly made. He referred to an answer given by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—I suppose from evidence that official gave before the Select Committee in connection with which the hon. Member has taken an active part. Well, Sir, it is rather difficult to answer questions of that sort put in that general way, unless one knows precisely the particulars—
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I was referring to a sum of £16,215 charged on the Consolidated Fund. An item of £630 14 s. 2d. was directed to cease in a certain year; but which did not cease in that year. Although the money has since been paid, there is a gap in the responsibility for that payment.
    MR. JACKSON: I think the Committee will see that it is difficult to answer a question as to a gap of that sort without Notice—a gap which occurred between the years 1839 and 1842. I think Sir Reginald Welby admitted—and if it is necessary I must admit also —that between the years 1839 and 1842 some gap did occur in connection with this payment as has been stated by the hon. Member; but I think that the Treasury of to-day can hardly be held
    1026
    accountable for what occurred in the year 1839.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: They go on paying.
    MR. JACKSON: They went on paying, it is true; but who did?
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Why, you still. You go on paying it now.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, I admit I am not prepared to answer a question like this. I suppose it is rather a question of being able to prove the necessary authority having been given at that particular time.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I am afraid I have not explained myself with sufficient clearness. There is a specific Treasury Minute directing that a sum of £630 14 s. 2d., which is part of a sum of £16,215, should cease to be paid on the 5th of April, 1841; but, notwithstanding that Treasury Minute directing that this sum should cease to be paid, the payment is still continued, and has continued without authority from that day to this.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, as I have said, it is particularly difficult to give any explanation without having any knowledge of the matter. I will, however, promise the hon. Member that, so far as I can, I will inquire into the subject and inform my mind upon it. I hope I have now answered all the questions which were put to me. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Not as to the writers.] the hon. Member for East Donegal seems to think that the rule which was adopted in regard to the writers is an illusory one; but I trust that it will not prove illusory. The Treasury is desirous of promoting economy, and, in regard to the hon. Member's reference to the principle of the extinguishing of the class of writers, I would reply that I am not prepared to say that the writers would be extinguished. But I will tell the hon. Member what I believe to be the policy of the Treasury. The Treasury believe that the class of writers who have hitherto been employed can, in the future, be replaced by boy clerks. They believe that the work can in that way be done with equal efficiency, and, at the same time, with increased economy. There is, however, no desire to inflict any injustice upon anyone. There is no desire to force the writers out of the Service, or to exchange them in this way;

    1027
    but the Treasury believes it to be its duty to do what it can, when fresh appointments are concerned, to promote both efficiency and economy by substituting boy clerks as much as they can for men.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer as far as it goes; but I must point out that he omitted to answer one question, and that is as to the appointment to the upper classes of lower division clerks in the Civil Service. We are well aware that there is in many Departments a redundancy of upper division clerks. These men are not all wanted in the Departments in which they are so redundant, and many of them can be as easily replaced by lower division clerks as writers can be replaced by boy clerks. We go on, however, paying hundreds and hundreds of pounds a-year for what can be done by clerks receiving one-sixth of the pay. There are in one Department half-a-dozen men in one room, all doing the same work. One of these men happens to be a higher division clerk, and for that reason he is drawing more pay for the work he is doing than all the other men put together, although, as I say, they are all doing the same work. There are men in the Civil Service who are only receiving 10 d. an hour, and yet who are and who have been engaged for years in an extremely important work, whilst men working within a few yards of them are paid hundreds and hundreds of pounds a-year for doing what any boy at 6s. a-week could do equally well. I ask the hon. Member whether the Treasury will take cognizance of the redundancy of higher division clerks in certain Departments, and will take measures to transfer them to other Departments where men of that status are more required? I ask him whether he will see that the Treasury does that, instead of from time to time increasing appointments amongst the upper division clerks? I ask him whether, in making additions to the upper division, when those additions cannot be effected by transferring from one Department to another, he will take care to see that the claims of the lower division and the claims of the writers who have been employed upon confidential work will be properly considered? I ask him to do what he can to bring about the promotion of these men. When men who are
    1028
    only paid 10 d. an hour have been employed upon superior and responsible work I certainly think they have a claim for any better appointments that may be in the gift of the Government. I think the Government should not overlook their claims when there are vacancies to fill up for the filling of which these men have proved their suitability. I maintain that if the Government would adopt that policy all round they would save tens of thousands of pounds a-year. I believe it would be an easy thing to effect the saving of £250,000 a-year in the Civil Service Estimates, and I say this with a perfect knowledge of what I am speaking of. As a matter of fact, the Treasury goes on keeping up redundant officials in some Departments, largely overpaying a great number of men, and in other branches of the Service underpaying most deserving clerks.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Treasury are especially anxious, and so are Her Majesty's Government as a whole, to avoid creating any new appointments where they can possibly be avoided. I think if the new appointments in the upper division were enumerated, it would be seen that very few entries indeed have taken place during the past few years. We hope to be able to continue to reduce the number of new appointments. We are as sensible as any other Members of the House of the extreme necessity of reducing redundant establishments, and my personal attention has been directed to the subject in several cases. I am bound to say that the subject is greatly complicated by the very difficult question of pensions. In several cases where it has been possible to make large reductions of the numbers employed, I have myself been questioned in this House, because this course involved a certain amount of pensioning of those clerks who were dispensed with. But we see the possibility of reducing the number of clerks in many of the Government establishments, and that policy is one we are very anxious to follow up. So far as it can be done we should certainly be disposed and most willing to avail ourselves of existing labour in order to fill these posts as they become vacant. I must, however, point out to the hon. Member that promotions from lower to higher

    1029
    grades involve the complicated question of examinations. At the present moment the examinations for higher grades are open to men employed in lower grades of the service up to a certain age. I do not know to what extent the hon. Gentleman would wish to see examinations done away with. To do away with them all it seems to me would be a very serious step. While we should be anxious to utilize all existing labour and to promote all existing clerks, yet, practically, at the same time, it seems to me essential to keep up the standard of examination which we have deliberately adopted as part of our Civil Service system. I am perfectly in accord with the hon. Gentleman in his object—namely, the reduction, as far as possible, of redundant officials, and, at the same time, the promotion of capable men already in the service to higher positions.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the point I was anxious to urge. It is this—there is a considerable number of men who are redundant. In some directions appointments are being filled up by appointments from outside, and my contention is that those appointments ought to be filled up as far as possible by men already in the Civil Service. Then you have the pension list. I object to pensions altogether. I think the pension list is a mistake, and I do not see why men should be put on it when the Office in which they are serving happens to be reorganized. The principle I am anxious to see enforced, and which I have advocated for many years, is the principle of the transfer of men from one Department to another. If an officer is not wanted in the 46th regiment, let him be appointed to the 56th. I cannot see why a man whose services are not required at Pall Mall or at Whitehall should not be employed in the Customs, when there is a vacancy, and vice versâ. As a matter of fact, the subordinate offices in the Civil Service and in the Accounts Branch can be filled by any man of ordinary education. The system of reconstruction which at present obtains floods the pension list with a number of men in middle life who are fit for 20 years' work. With regard to the question of examining, I beg to say that that examination may be necessary to give some kind of status, some kind
    1030
    of superior character to those who have charge of large and important Departments of the State, but that it is not so necessary in the case of the great bulk of the Civil servants who have work of a simple and routine character to do. Most of the men who are in the highest positions at the present time are men who entered the Service 25 or 30 years ago, when the standard of examination was considerably lower than that which you exact from the lower division clerks of the present day. In reality, comparing examination with examination, the lower division clerks of the present day are, educationally speaking, of quite as high a status as the higher division clerks, who entered the Service some years ago, and who are now at the top of the tree, and are doing the best work and giving every satisfaction. I maintain that the real gauge of a man's fitness is his capacity to do the work. I say that if a man has been found to do efficient work for five or six years, it is simply nonsense to say that because he may fail at any examination to got as many marks as some other person in an examination held some time before, that, therefore, he must be kept at a maximum of £200 a-year, although doing the same work, and doing it quite as efficiently, as a man who is paid £400 or £600, but who has succeeded in getting a few more marks. To carry the principle or the fetish of the examination to that extent is to do a substantial injustice for the sake of a mere phrase or effect.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I would throw out a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which he would find it easy to get rid of the difficulties of the present situation, and it is that he should establish a system under which, in the future, persons entering the Civil Service should be informed that they should not look forward to pensions. Wages should be paid at the market price, as in connection with mercantile concerns. The whole difficulty at present arises from the question of the pension which Civil servants should be allowed when they retire. That might have been a problem difficult of solution in the last century; but now, when there are such ample means for persons to insure their lives, or buy annuities in the Post Office Savings Bank, no such difficulty arises.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Baronet that the question of pensions is altogether outside this matter.
    MR. ANDERSON: I desire to say a word or two about a matter which has already been mentioned and, in reference to which it seems to me that the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) is most unsatisfactory. I allude to the payment of Parliamentary counsel who draft Government Bills. The item is a very large one. There is one of these Parliamentary Counsel who receives £3,000, and he is assisted by another who receives £2,000. I must ask the Committee to think what that means for a moment. Those sums represent very large salaries. They involve the employment of two counsel, who, of course, are counsel of eminence; but we know pretty well what the year's drafting for the Government must be. Anyone who knows anything about drafting must be aware that the number of Bills these two gentlemen could draw up in the course of a year is something tremendous. Of course, they are not engaged for the whole year in drafting; but even if they are only engaged for a reasonable period, the number of Bills they could get out would, I say, be tremendous. When I come to look at the Bills that are produced by the Treasury and the Government, I entirely fail to see how these Government draftsmen can have occupied their time. I would remind the Committee of this that very often Bills which come before us are reproduced year after year, and involve no labour, and certainly ought to involve no extra Parliamentary grant. Take, for instance, the Bill regulating railway and canal traffic. That Bill has been introduced I do not know how often. I dare say that measure, in its inception and original drafting, occupied some time; probably it was one of those Bills which required extra assistance; but such Bills as this cannot be said to have necessitated this call for over £2,000 in excess of the amount paid for the Parliamentary draftsmen. When you have a Bill of that kind to bring forward within a very short space of time in order to save the credit of the Government, probably it is necessary to call in extra assistance and to pay for it somewhat recklessly. It is necessary at times, no
    1032
    doubt, to proceed regardless of expense. I know that sort of hurry and pressure exists; but the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill has been re-introduced this year into the House of Lords in almost the same shape as it was drawn in a previous year. I should very much like to know what the Bills are for which the charge contained in this Estimate is made. We have had no information from the Secretary to the Treasury upon the point. I hold that the payment of these large salaries to these two permanent draftsmen ought to be sufficient to meet the ordinary requirements of Government Bills. I presume that at the time these gentlemen were appointed it was contemplated that the sum would be sufficient, and I am certain that if they properly looked after their work it would be found sufficient, and there would be no necessity to call in extra assistance. Looking at the extraordinary lethargy the Government have shown in bringing forward Bills latterly, I should like to have some explanation of the extraordinary burst of energy which seems now to have come upon them to necessitate this large extra expenditure in the preparation of Bills. The whole matter certainly requires some explanation. I want to know, first, as to what the Government have done within the first few months of this year. The First Lord of the Treasury, when asked about the Bills which have been promised, says that he has every hope and belief that consistently with public business these Bills will be produced; but I have much doubt whether the measures will ever be prepared. You have the Local Government Bill, which is to be the great crowning evidence of the credit of the Government. Has that Bill been prepared?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Certainly.
    MR. ANDERSON: Has the Bill relating to the Secretary for Scotland been prepared?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.
    MR. ANDERSON: May I ask if the Scotch Bills are included in this Vote? I should like to hear what other Bills have been prepared. Perphaps we shall hear that. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks excessively good-humoured about it, but I want to know what Bills it is proposed to introduce in the future. Pro-

    1033
    bably in incurring this large expense the Government are laying plans for startling us with a large amount of legislation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think this a laughing matter. They would spend the money of the country regardless of the opinion of the public; but to my mind this is an important matter, and one which ought to be carefully examined. It seems to me that it is our duty to consider whether this expenditure is absolutely necessary. Knowing what I do of Parliamentary drafting, I am at a loss to account for this heavy expenditure, and unless a satisfactory explanation is given of this item, I shall move to reduce the Vote for the purpose of taking a Division upon it.
    MR. GOSCHEN: What the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down appears to be more certain about than anything else is his precise knowledge as to the Bills which the Government have had drawn up. He challenged us with regard to certain Bills, expressing great scepticism, although it was stated most distinctly that those measures had been prepared. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has had great experience of Parliamentary drafting—
    MR. ANDERSON: No; some experience.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Well, the hon. and learned Member has had some experience of Parliamentary drafting, and I dare say he knows that the fees for that drafting are very high; but he makes a great mistake if he does not give the Treasury credit for being just as keen as he is himself to keep down that expenditure. Indeed, I am not sure that if the hon. and learned Member were called in as arbitrator when these fees are to be paid, he would not be found on the side of the Legal Profession rather than on the side of the Treasury. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that in this matter, as well as in most matters, the Treasury are considered to be the greatest possible "screws," and are falling into disrepute almost with every class because they are thought to look too carefully, if not too shabbily, to every item of expense. If the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what Parliamentary drafting is, as he says he does, he will know that to prepare a Local Government Bill, for instance, on a large scale is a task of great importance and very
    1034
    considerable magnitude. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke only of Bills introduced into this House; but my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) reminded the Committee that the Parliamentary draftsmen employed by the Government have to examine a large number of measures. The hon. and learned Member seems to have forgotten the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, the Merchandize Marks Bill, the Local Loans Bill, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, the Tithe Rent Charge Bill, and the Employers' Liability Bill. I cannot enumerate all the Bills which have been introduced and dealt with by the draftsmen; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that in this list there must be a great many Bills which escaped his memory when he was speaking. I am bound to admit that there may be some Departments where the work is scarcely sufficient for all those who are employed in them; but the Parliamentary draftsmen have an extremely arduous task, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will be good enough to remember that with regard to the assistance provided, Parliamentary drafting is very heavy at particular times, when two men are not sufficient to deal with all the Bills that are going on. The two Bills about which the hon. and learned Member inquired are prepared and are ready to be brought in, and a great many others besides. A large number of Bills with which the House is acquainted have been prepared, and there are others in process of being drafted. There are a great many legislative proposals with which the Government are bound to be prepared; and though I regret that it is necessary to pay so highly for the services of legal gentlemen, it must be remembered that first-class legal gentlemen in every Department receive considerable remuneration. Taking the standing of those employed, their experience and their services, it is not considered that they receive greater or as great remuneration as men of equal rank in the Profession who are engaged in private practice. I hope that, after this explanation, the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there has been more work done than, from the hasty judgment he was able to form, he imagined. I trust he will not think it necessary to move the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. HALDANE: I must say I think the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) has done valuable service in calling attention to this question of Parliamentary drafting. I speak upon this subject not with, any great experience of Parliamentary drafting, but with much experience of having spent hours and days in endeavouring to find out what it is that the Parliamentary draftsmen mean. The Parliamentary draftsmen employed by the Government are, as most of us know, gentlemen of great eminence and ability; but to draw a Bill properly is a matter which can only be successfully accomplished by a man who is thoroughly familiar with the subject he is trying to deal with. Now the Parliamentary draftsmen who are employed by the Treasury receive high salaries. The Treasury do not invariably pay high fees to all classes of individuals they employ; but to many of their permanent officials they pay very extravagant fees. Well, these gentlemen so paid are called on, at a moment's notice, to draft Bills upon, subjects with regard to which they know absolutely nothing. For instance, there is a Bill dealing with real property and land transfer, which has been introduced into the House of Lords, and which is likely to be presented to this House before long. This is a Bill dealing with an extremely technical subject, and is a measure which should only be drawn up by persons who understand all the details of the subject. A conveyancer of eminence and of considerable practice should have been employed to deal with such a matter. The subject is not now handled for the first time, for Lord Cairns dealt with it in 1881 and 1882, his Bills being drawn up by conveyancers—by experts—who were especially qualified, and the result is that we have had on the Statute Book most useful pieces of legislation upon this subject. These experts were paid upon a very small and moderate scale—upon a scale much more modest than that upon which the permanent counsel are paid. They were paid to accomplish a work which they were especially qualified to accomplish, and they carried out their work in an entirely satisfactory manner. That I hold to be the proper method of dealing with the preparation of Bills, and the result of that method compares very
    1036
    favourably with the preparation of Bills by the permanent draftsmen. The permanent draftsmen are every now and then called upon to deal with subjects at a moment's notice; they draft their Bills mechanically, and no sooner do these measures pass than they are enveloped in a cloud of Amendments which have to be passed. Look at the Amendments introduced into the Land Transfer Bill; look at the Amendments introduced into the Crimes Bill; look at the work which has been entailed simply because draftsmen, notwithstanding that they are men of great ability, are called on hurriedly to deal with subjects of which they know nothing. I hold that it would be of great convenience to the country, and that it would conduce to great saving of both time and money, if the Treasury would act on the principle of employing experts to draft Bills on those subjects with which they are familiar. I should like to see that system introduced. I am glad my hon. and learned Friend has called attention to this subject, because I think the Government would do well to consider whether it is really advisable to continue the system of employing so large a staff of permanent draftsmen instead of a number of experts.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have no doubt that the Parliamentary draftsmen will have plenty to do while Her Majesty's present Advisers remain in Office, because there is no Bill of theirs that does not undergo innumerable changes before passing into law. I cannot understand, however, why the Government should spend this large sum on permanent draftsmen, and at the same time be compelled to employ outside assistance, paying counsel £1,000 or £1,200 for their services. I think the Government would do well to adopt the course recommended by my hon. and learned Friend below me (Mr. Haldane), that is, to pay a small salary to a permanent official, giving the remainder of the work to experts. As it is, we have a mixture of the two systems—a mixture which contains all the evils of one system and the other; £2,500, I must say, is an extremely good salary, even for a member of the Legal Profession. Why, Sir, we must remember that a Tory legal Member was only a few days ago willing to

    1037
    resign his seat and his Parliamentary; career for a salary of £1,200 a-year; but here we have Parliamentary counsel enjoying very large incomes who have the honour to be assisted by gentlemen drawing £1,200 a-year. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come into Office I have not heard him say a word in favour of reducing public expenditure by one penny. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman forgot his economy as well as his Liberalism when he took Office.
    MR. ANDERSON: With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to my remarks, I would remind him that I did not deny that the Government had prepared the Bills which they claimed to have prepared. The salaries of the permanent draftsmen are large, and I think I was right in protesting against extra assistance being brought in because these permanent officials did not do their work. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of certain Bills as though counsel prepared them, but what are the Ministers doing? I should have thought that the chief work of a Minister was to prepare Bills, and that the work of Parliamentary counsel was merely to put these Bills into legal language. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but I certainly think that this is a matter to which attention should be called, and that I have done no more than is necessary is calling attention to the subject.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: All lawyers, without exception, at this moment get for their work about four times more than it is worth, and Parliamentary draftsmen are no exception to that rule. I do not wish to press this matter any further. I have risen for the purpose of proposing an Amendment, and of moving the reduction of this Vote. There is an Amendment in my name to reduce the Vote by a sum of £6,000, being a reduction of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury by £3,000, and a reduction of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a similar amount. I feel that I am dealing with very eminent Gentlemen—Gentlemen so eminent, indeed, that it would be almost uncourteous on my part to put them together in one Amendment. Each ought to have his
    1038
    own Amendment; and I will, therefore, conclude the few remarks I have to offer on the subject by moving the reduction of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury by the sum of £3,000.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Where is he?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Now, it is really a most important thing, seeing that we are getting more democratic every day, that these political salaries should be revised. They are a relic of an aristocratic age. A good many years ago, everybody knows that the nobility of this country were fighting and quarrelling in order to get Ministerial posts, and those of them who were successful thought that because they were Ministers, they ought to live in exceptional splendour, and save a considerable amount for their children. In modern times, this idea of the right of a Minister, not only to have a large amount to spend, but to accumulate a large amount for his children, is dying out; and I have often seen in abridged histories that we are called upon to thank Providence that our Ministers are so modest in their demands, because Pitt owed £40,000 when he died, although he had enjoyed £10,000 a-year for over 20 years. There is no country in the world where Ministers are so highly paid as in this country. In Germany, for instance, a Minister has about £1,800 per annum. Prince Bismarck, when Minister for Foreign Affairs in Germany, received £2,000 per annum. In the United States the Minister receives £1,200; in France, 60,000 francs, or £2,060, and this is very much less than the salaries enjoyed by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also many other Secretaries of State. It may be said that in many foreign capitals living is much cheaper than in London. That argument might have held good some years ago, but I doubt whether it could be used with propriety in the present day. Living is certainly dearer in Washington; it is dearer in Paris; and I should say it is just as expensive, or even more expensive, in Berlin. In fact, I do not believe that there is much difference between the necessary expenditure of a person in this country and in any of the great Capitals of Europe. The most remarkable thing which we find in connection with this matter is that in this country there is a distinction drawn between the Ministers

    1039
    themselves. We have some who get £5,000 a-year, and some who get £2,000 a-year with just as good merit. Everybody knows that there is no distinction in the men, and that it is a matter of haphazard who gets the £2,000 and who gets the £5,000. If we can get the article for £2,000, I cannot see why, in the name of common sense, we should pay £5,000 for it. I would also point out that this difference between the salaries of different Ministers creates a certain amount of jealousy amongst themselves. When a new Ministry is formed—I hardly know what takes place in those lofty regions—but I should imagine that when a new Ministry is formed, there are Gentlemen who are exceedingly anxious to get these places, with the £5,000 a-year salary attached to them. A Gentleman may have been for some years President of the Local Government Board, or President of the Board of Trade, and he may have a familiar acquaintance with questions of commerce and of local government; but, in spite of his exceptional knowledge and experience of either of those subjects, he may say—"I do not care for the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade—I should like to have £5,000 a-year;" and he may be pitched into the Colonial Office, or some such place, of the duties in connection with which he knows nothing. I think the Committee will remember a case of that kind occurring not very long ago—a case of a gentleman being sent to the Colonial Office in that way, not because he knows anything about the Colonies, but because he says—"My means are such that I really must have a place of £5,000 a-year in order to make the two ends meet." Now, I think the salaries of all Ministers, with the exception, perhaps, of those of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, should be the same; and I, therefore, move the reduction of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury by the sum of £3,000 per annum. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen think that this salary is all the Ministers get. Not a bit of it. When a Minister has been, I think it is five years in Office, he can come forward and say that his means do not allow him to live in a style becoming his position, and he then claims and receives £2,000 or £1,500 per annum for the rest of his life. [Cries of"Name,
    1040
    name!"] Well, I do not propose to mention names; but I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am not in this matter bringing any special Party charge. It will be remembered that I moved the same reduction in the salary of a Gentleman for whom I have the highest political respect—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I can assure hon. Gentlemen that even if a Liberal Ministry were in, I should bring forward my Amendment, with, if possible, an additional amount of pleasure, for one always likes to make things comfortable for one's friends. Let us see what is the additional expense to which a person is put owing to the fact of his being in an official position. A Gentleman is appointed a Minister. He has a house to cover him beforehand, and a certain income, and lives in a certain way; well, why should he be called upon to live in a different style after his appointment? The time has gone by when we judged a man by the size of the house in which he lives, the carriages he keeps, or the number of footmen he employs. Neither do we judge people by the number of dinners they give, or the number of persons they invite per annum. It may be said that Ministers have dinners to give, and I do not want to make this a personal matter; but I would ask hon. Gentlemen to go over this matter in their own minds, and ask themselves how many more guests will a man ask to dinner in the course of a year because he is a Minister than he would ask if he were not. Say, he would ask 500 more, and say that they would cost him £2 a-head, which is a very handsome figure, he would then only spend £1,000; and I doubt very much, if you take the average number of persons invited to dinner by Ministers beyond those who would be invited under ordinary circumstances whether they would amount to anything like 500, or that the cost would be anything like so high as £2 per head. Then there are the entertainments—those crushes of the rag-tag-and-bobtail, which are called official entertainments. The idea of these entertainments is a purely Party notion. You have a certain number of the aristocracy at those gatherings, and you invite persons to them whom you wish to impress, and whom you think amenable to reason. I con-

    1041
    sider that those parties are no more nor less than a species of bribery. I believe that in voting this money on the plea that Ministers have to give parties, you are merely assisting Ministers to bribe their followers to vote for them. I will state what occurred to myself in this matter. The Committee will remember that I voted with the Government in the interests of my hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Bradlaugh), and that before my hon. Friend took his seat we had a great many Divisions. Well, on one occasion I was standing in the Lobby when a Gentleman, a well known Radical, came up to me and said—"I am sorry to say that my conscience will not allow me to vote in favour of Mr. Brad-laugh." "Well," I said, "the Division is to be in five minutes, and I have no time to discuss you and your conscience— what do you want? We want votes very badly now, and I do not know why you should not be a knight as well as other people." I said, "Do you want a knightship?" He replied, "You are entirely mistaken in the person you are speaking to." Upon that I rejoined, "Do you go to parties? Were you at So-and-so's Ministerial party the other day?" "No," said he, "I myself and my family have been very much surprised that we have been left out." I answered at once, "Why did you not tell me? Of course, you ought to have gone, you shall go in future, you shall go to all the parties." About five minutes afterwards I took him with me, family, conscience, bag and baggage, into the Lobby to vote for my hon. Colleague. These people, you know, are anxious to see their names in the Morning Post as attending these Ministerial entertainments. They like to ask each other—"Do you know Lord So-and-so?" and to be able to reply—"Oh, no; I do not know him very well; but I have met him in society in such-and-such a place." I must say I object entirely to voting money in. order to enable Ministers to give those most corrupting parties. We may be told that Ministers are men so exceedingly eminent, that they are such superior persons, that we cannot pay them too much. Well, I admit that in the Cabinet there are generally one or two men who may be termed eminent. But who is the ordinary Minister after all? He is a very common third-rate sort of person,
    1042
    who may fill a place in the City, but could hardly be called a statesman. He is, perhaps, a good administrator—he does not get into mischief in this House, and performs his duty, which may be somewhat subordinate, requiring no vast amount of intelligence, to the satisfaction of the House. Most unquestionably, however, for £2,000 a-year we have had good Ministers, and that is why I think that £2,000 is sufficient. I believe high salaries themselves are demoralizing. I believe their tendency is to induce all sorts of gentlemen to do all sorts of things to get into the Government, and to do all sorts of things to remain there when once in. I think we ought to take away this temptation from these gentlemen. Now, there are special reasons why the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury should be reduced—and I speak with the greatest respect for the present occupant of that post. [Cries of "Divide!"] I dare say hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this sort of thing. They like to talk about economy in general, but when it is brought home to them they cry out "Divide!" with the desire of seeing the clôure applied to the Estimates. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it will not conduce to work being done quickly to raise these silly, foolish, and idle cries. I say that I speak with great respect of the First Lord of the Treasury; but as I have said, the Committee must take into consideration whether there are any special reasons why the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury should be reduced to £2,000 per annum. The First Lord of the Treasury is Leader of the House, and has nothing to do except as Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), I think it was, this Session or last Session, speaking of Lord Salisbury accumulating two Offices, said that the First Lord of the Treasury could do all his work as First Lord of the Treasury in three days; consequently, we have the fact that the present Leader of the House, though it is said he is an able administrator, as a matter of fact that has nothing to administer, and yet receives £5,000 per annum for it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, does he not? The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will presently have an opportunity of explaining what his Chief does. All I can say is, that I take the

    1043
    testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I see the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) in his place. He is a great advocate of economy, and I should like to know if he is prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was in the wrong when he said that all the administrative duties of the First Lord of the Treasury would not occupy more than three days per annum. It might be argued that the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Treasury receives his salary of £5,000 per annum as Leader of the House. Well, this has been the case before— generally the First Lord of the Treasury is Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister has an immense amount of work to do. But we have had a case before when the Leader of the House has not been Prime Minister—I refer to the case of Lord John Russell. Lord John Russell performed the duties of Leader of the House for seven months without any salary at all, and then he felt that he ought not to create an Office—for that is practically what it is—of the First Lord of the Treasury at £5,000 per annum, and he became President of the Council, at a salary of £2,000 a-year. I therefore point to that precedent to show the Committee that I am not putting before it anything new when I assert that the First Lord of the Treasury, acting as Leader of the House, ought not to receive £5,000 per annum. But there are other reasons why the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury should not receive £5,000 per annum. I have heard his Departmental speeches, which have been characterized by great ability, at the same time the right hon. Gentleman does not follow the example of former Leaders of this House. It seems to me that he is only got one speech, for he is perpetually telling us this that and the other cannot be done owing to the state of Public Business, or else he gets up and in cabalistic words says—"I beg to move that the Question be now put." That does not require any great intellectual power, and I am sorry that a man of his ability and intellect should be doomed to fulfil such functions; but, at the same time, they are functions he does fulfil, and we should look at it in that light and pay him accord-
    1044
    ingly. I say that such a mode of leading the House might be performed equally well by a postman who receives His a-week with a possible rise to 25 s. I am not saying the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury could not do better; but I am speaking of what he does in this House, and I say, if Lord Russell was satisfied to lead the House for seven months for nothing, and then considered himself adequately remunerated by taking an Office at £2,000 per annum instead of £5,000 per annum, surely for the perfunctory way in which the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord leads the House I am not going too far when I suggest that his salary should be reduced by £3,000 per annum. There is one thing which I must call upon the House to consider. We, or a great many of us are in an economical vein; we are frequently complaining of the high salaries elsewhere; we complained of the salary received by the Usher of the Black Rod, as out of all proportion to the salaries received for the performance of similar duties in other countries; but how can the House of Commons legitimately complain when it pays Members of its own body who happen to be Ministers far higher salaries than are paid for similar services in other countries. In my opinion we must begin at the head if we are to reduce matters to a democratic level—[A laugh]—the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sandys) laughs. I can assure him that if ever he becomes First Lord of the Treasury I shall move even a greater reduction in his salary. This is an illustration of how difficult it is for people outside to understand we are sincere with regard to economy. I proposed to reduce the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury—it is not an excessive reduction—and how is that met? By jeers and laughter from Conservatives, that is the way it is met. When they are making vague theoretical speeches to their constituents they are very great about economy; but bring it home to them or their Leaders, and where is their economy then? I am only sorry the Front Opposition Bench is so empty, as I have no doubt right hon. Gentlemen would be delighted to vote with me on this subject if they were here; but, in their absence, I have no doubt I shall have a large number of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who will vote

    1045
    with me, and for the sake of decency I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will join with me in bringing home to the people of England the fact that we do not shrink from making reductions when they regard Members of this House, but are prepared to begin, not at the bottom, but at the top, and to commence a period of economy.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That Item A of the Salaries, &c, in regard to the Salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, be reduced by the sum of £3,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 60; Noes 156: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 304.) [10.35 P.M.]
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. SEXTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) will be good enough to allow me to ask him a question. I see he is provided with two Private Secretaries; the Chancellor of the Exchequer is provided with one. I do not wish to call attention to the number of Secretaries, but to remind the right hon. Gentleman that some time ago he was asked about a letter written in his name to a branch habitation of the Primrose League by one of his Private Secretaries. That letter was an impudent and insolent production, and also an unscrupulous letter, and was utterly false. I do not know which Private Secretary was responsible for it, but the young gentleman, whoever he was, took upon himself to make the right hon. Gentleman responsible for accusations against Members of this House, and against the National League and other organizations in Ireland with which they are connected. I scarcely blame the young gentleman, because, before he wrote the letter, men of some political eminence gave political currency to the accusations contained in the letter. But since the speeches of these Gentlemen have been made, the Government have been faced on the floor of this House upon them, and when challenged to give an inquiry, they ran away from the inquiry. That having happened, the question is now in a different position. The Private Secretary responsible for the letter expressed sentiments that the National League in Ireland were directly responsible for crime and outrage. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] The Secretary was guilty of a falsehood, and anyone who
    1046
    endorses it is guilty of the same. I want to know whether these Private Secretaries are to be allowed, in the discharge of their functions, for which they are paid a salary by the people—there is one here, I see, with a salary of £300 per annum—to spread broadcast accusations of this kind against the representatives of the National League? When challenged with respect to the letter in question, the right hon. Gentleman told us he knew nothing about it; he said he was not responsible for it. [Sir ROBERT FOWLER: No.] I think the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has quite enough to be responsible for on his own account; his own character is quite enough for him without undertaking the defence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who, I think, may be left to defend himself. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion complained he was not aware of the contents of the letter; and, therefore, if he was not aware of the contents, he was not morally responsible for them, and he promised to make inquiries. I now respectfully ask him what inquiry he made, and what explanation the young gentleman gave of the extraordinary accusations he made in that letter, and what defence he is prepared to give? I hope he will tell the House which young gentleman wrote the letter. In order to open the discussion, I will move to take off £300. I shall never allow men in virtue of their office, men who occupy high offices, to give currency to falsehoods that are levelled against Members of this House. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] If I notice any hon. Gentleman opposite endorsing those falsehoods, we shall have a repetition of the scenes that are not pleasant.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is wholly unnecessary to put the Motion which the hon. Member has made. I think I informed the House, when the matter was brought before the House by a Question, that the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred was written by one of my Private Secretaries, and that I undertook the full responsibility of it. No insult whatever was intended, and I regret that anyone should write anything that is deemed offensive when acting on my behalf. This gentleman was one of the

    1047
    unpaid Private Secretaries attached to the Office to assist me in the discharge of the important duties for which I am responsible, and, therefore, is in no way concerned in this Vote. I would only say that, in the discharge of my duties, I desire to avoid as much, as possible touching the susceptibilities of, or offending, any hon. Gentleman. I at all times seek to avoid this; and if by any accident an. expression is contained in a letter written, by my direction, or for which I am responsible, I should be exceedingly sorry that it should offend. But in this particular case, no person who is paid by the Vote of this House has written any such letter, or, I believe, offended in the slightest degree against hon. Gentlemen.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Is the young gentleman who wrote the letter still attached to the Staff of the First Lord of the Treasury?
    [No reply.]
    MR. MOLLOY: I wish to ask a question of the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to a letter of some considerable importance which was written last year in reference to the Woods and Forests. The gentleman who is concerned is Crown Receiver to the Woods and Forests; but I need not mention his name. This gentleman receives the rents from the Crown farms. He receives a salary something like double that received by the Prime Minister himself, and when we come to the Vote for the Woods and Forests I shall move that it be reduced. But the point I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to is this. These Crown moneys arising from the Crown farms were paid into his private account for many years, though he received a large sum of money for properly attending to the matter. The Auditor General, in his Report, drew attention to what he considered this most improper conduct, by which the attention of the Treasury was drawn to the matter. Considerable correspondence took place, and the reply of this gentleman to the observations made by the Auditor General was as follows:—
    "My banking account as Receiver is kept with the banking account of my firm. I have not and never had any separate account, and cannot, therefore, produce the bank-book in question."
    1048
    Therefore, though the Auditor General drew attention to the action of this gentleman, and called upon him to produce his bank-book, in order that the audit made by the Auditor General should be properly made, he declined to produce the bank-book, and has declined to make any alteration in the system in which he kept his accounts. This took place last year after a very long discussion lasting over three hours.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the question is connected with this Vote.
    MR. MOLLOY: I am coming to the point; but it was necessary to make this explanation in order to make it intelligible to the House. The point of my objection is that the Treasury permitted Crown moneys to be used in this way, and, up to last year, had not taken any step in the matter. In reply to the complaint I made last year, the Treasury admitted the very improper way in which the matter had been previously conducted, and promised to examine into the matter. I, therefore, want to ascertain whether this improper system of keeping accounts, which, was allowed to go on last year—whether since last year the Treasury have made such arrangements that these moneys under the control of the Treasury and audited by the Auditor General shall be properly accounted for in the future?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Any Vote connected with the Treasury could be subject to this line of discussion; and I must rule that as this is a matter connected with the Woods and Forests, it must be raised when that Vote is before the House.
    MR. MOLLOY: The correspondence took place with the Treasury, and it is in reference to the correspondence that I ask the question.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Gentleman is quite right; I did promise to look into the matter, and I have done so.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I have now to move the reduction of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the sum of £3,000, and that would reduce his salary to £2,000 per annum, which I say is sufficient and not an excessive amount for any Minister. I feel it my duty to make his Motion, because, otherwise, the right hon.

    1049
    Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would think my last Motion was a personal attack upon himself. I believe I am right in saying that next to the First Lord of the Treasury the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the easiest post. [Sir ROBERT FOWLER: Oh, oh!] Yes; I have it on good authority. Though the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says "Oh, oh !" he has not yet been Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have it from the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is the easiest of the Offices in the Government, excepting that of the First Lord of the Treasury. All he has to do is to look over a quantity of accounts, form in his own mind a scheme of Budget, and bring it into the House. That occupies him some six days, and, under these circumstances, I see no reason why he should have this excessive salary. I have already stated the general principles on which I am going—that we ought to reduce all these salaries that are voted to Gentlemen who occupy prominent positions if we are really in earnest in regard to economy. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on that Bench. He is certainly one of the ablest speakers in the House, and I should like to know if he would have the kindness to explain why any Minister in this country should receive more than any Minister in any other country for doing precisely the same service—in France, Germany, Austria, and the United States; why our Minister of Finance should be paid more than the Minister of Finance in any of these countries; and why the right hon. Gentleman, who does less work than either the President of the Board of Trade or the President of the Local Government Board, who comes down here for a couple of hours, as do these two other Gentlemen, and who does not speak more frequently than either of these Gentlemen, should receive £5,000 per annum, while they only receive £2,000 per annum? Does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider he is worth two of his Colleagues? He does, I suppose. He defends his salary. I shall be curious to know on what ground, [Cries of "Divide!"] I can assure the hon. Gentleman who cries "Divide!" that he is making a great mistake if he thinks to shorten debate by that silly, assinine cry. I do not assume
    1050
    for myself a very high position, but it is an insult to the understanding of a jackass to answer by such tomfoolery. [Laughter, and cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must beg the hon. Gentleman to restrain himself.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I will make an effort, and I hope a successful one, to restrain my emotions, and now beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £3,000 in regard to the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That Item A of the Salaries, &c. in regard to the Salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be reduced by the sum of £3,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 174: Majority 118.—(Div. List, No. 305.) [11.5 P.M.]
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £55,947, 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 Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), first, a question with regard to Inspectors of Factories, and, secondly, the inspection of mines. Some time ago there was a Coroner's inquest held in London upon the body of a man whose death was caused by lead poisoning; and from the evidence it appeared that though the factory was one in which blue lead was converted into white lead, and the employés were under Home Office regulations, and should have been provided with overalls or clothes fitted to preserve their usual garments from impregnation by lead-dust, the most dangerous form in which lead could be brought into proximity with the human system, yet in this factory, where white paint was made, where white lead was used in the minute form, and where the danger of poisoning was great, the regulations did not prescribe any such protection for the workers, neither as to their clothes, or with regard to washing or the time for necessary ablution before meals were taken. Much white lead-dust was distributed through the atmosphere,

    1051
    and it was almost impassible for the men to escape the danger of poisoning; consequently, not only had there beep, many deaths, but a great deal of suffering from blood poisoning and pains in the joints and bones arising from this cause. Representations were made as to the necessity of alterations in the rules, and Her Majesty's Inspector promised to have this brought specially before the notice of the Home Office. I desire to ask whether this has been done? Have any regulations been drawn up in respect to the use of white lead in factories, and are they yet in force? The next point upon which I desire information is this. Some months ago inquiry was made of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether the Mon-tine Colliery, in the Leinster coal fields, had been left uninspected by the Government Inspector for 17 months? He admitted this was so, but he said the inspection of these mines was as regularly carried out as the inspection in any other district of the United Kingdom. If that is so, it is an admitted fact that many mines in Great Britain and Ireland are not visited by Her Majesty's Inspector for periods of a year and five months. Last autumn the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admitted, in reply to a Question from these Benches, that in his own opinion the staff of Inspectors of Mines was altogether inadequate, considering the importance and burden of the duties to be discharged, and, personally, he was in favour of increasing the staff of Inspectors; but there was the difficulty from the quarter of the Treasury in the objection to the higher charge necessitated by an increase in the staff. Now, I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to go through the whole of the financial year with a staff of Inspectors of Mines no stronger than is provided for in these Estimates, which, according to his own admission, is altogether inadequate for the discharge of the duties incumbent on these officials?
    Mr. SEXTON: This Vote contains an item for the salaries and expenses of 56 Inspectors of Factories and Workshops, and I wish to ask how many of these are to be found in Ireland and how many in Belfast? Some time ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) as to whe-
    1052
    ther a vacancy had arisen in the office of Inspector in Ireland, and he replied there was no such vacancy. There appears, however, to be a strong local idea that such a vacancy has arisen. Perhaps he will clear up this matter on this occasion, and tell how many Inspectors are appointed for duty in Belfast. I have had numerous letters from resident artizans expressing a strong sense of the unsatisfactory nature of the inspection carried on in the Belfast industries, and also a general desire that competent working men should fill the position of Inspectors. It would be interesting to know, of those who out of the 56 are in Ireland, how many are even practically acquainted with the details of the work they are called upon to inspect. There is a large and growing feeling that from the working men Inspectors should be drawn. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me the information for which I have asked?
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: I have to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) on a subject to which I have directed attention once or twice, and to which I intend to direct attention as often as possible while I have a seat in this House. I take it that these Inspectors of Mines and Factories are appointed to take care of the welfare of the working people; and I think the Committee will agree that an Inspector cannot properly discharge his duty if he does not understand the language of the people. Now, it has been the tradition of the Home Office hitherto—I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary more than his Predecessor, or distinguish between Liberal and Conservative Governments—to ignore the question of language in the appointment of Inspectors for collieries, quarries, mines, and factories. These are appointed on the assumption that the Welsh language is dying out. Now, whether the language will die out or not, or whether it is well that it should, is another subject; but the point to be realized by the Home Office is this—that Welsh does not only now hold the field as the language of the people, but, except perhaps in some of the agricultural districts, the use of it is increasing. In the colliery districts and in the industrial centres of North Wales it is more spoken than ever. Now, I wish to ask

    1053
    the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give a pledge that, so far us in him lies, he will make knowledge of Welsh a qualification for appointments to the Inspectorships of mines, quarries, and, if possible, of factories, in Wales and Monmouth? I can tell him that he is quite mistaken if he supposes this is unnecessary because the Welsh language is dying out. He and many of his successors will be gathered to their fathers before Welsh ceases to be the language of the Welsh people. Will he give a pledge that, so far as he possibly can, he will appoint to these posts men who understand the language of the workers?
    Ms. KIMBER: I would refer for an instant to the last item in the Vote—the salary and expenses of the Inspector under the Habitual Drunkards' Act. I do so not for the purpose of criticising the amount, which is moderate, but to ask whether the Report of the Inspector has been rendered this year, and what progress has been made in the interesting experiment commenced under this Act? I believe I am right in saying that it was a tentative and experimental measure, and that for the first two or three years after its passing no progress was made. Since then, however, I believe something has been done; and it would be interesting to know the result of this piece of novel legislation, whether experience has developed any improvement in the direction desired, or suggests any alteration in the Act.
    DR. R. MACDONALD: I have some knowledge of the working of the system of factory inspection; and I know, as a matter of fact, that in the district where I reside, with 300 factories under his charge, it is impossible for the Inspector to make more than two or three visits in the year, for he has a circuit of 20 miles. The consequence is that the Act is not carried out, so far as inspection is concerned. To my certain knowledge not more than 10 per cent of the boys employed in factories are certified to be of the proper age. The Inspector has so much reportorial work to do at home that he has not sufficient time to visit the factory so frequently as he should. I think it would be an easy matter for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, if he means the Act to be carried out, to appoint working men
    1054
    Assistant Inspectors, for so far as the employment of children is concerned the Act at present is a sham. When the Inspector visits a factory and finds a boy at work, and may doubt if he is of proper age, and asks how long he has been employed, the boy is taught to say he has only been there a fortnight. By the law employers are allowed to employ young boys for a fortnight in the country and a week in London, and so the Act is evaded on every side. This matter has been brought before the House several times, and under Governments of both Parties; but they do not see their way to the appointment of Under Inspectors. Then, I say, they might as well allow the Act to lapse, for, worked as it is at the present time, it is of no use whatever.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will take care to have definite instructions given in reference to breaches of the Truck Act. We should not have had the great difficulty of dealing with this by present legislation, if Inspectors had previously done their duty; If they had not taken upon themselves a dispensing power, allowing wealthy offenders to escape punishment.
    MR. M'LAREN: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) will remember that last autumn this question of the appointment of Inspectors was raised. At that time the right hon. Gentleman gave a full and friendly answer to those who asked him to appoint working men to such posts. He said he had taken steps to appoint one working man Inspector, and whether he succeeded in that or not, he certainly stated that he was friendly to the appointment of working men, that is, so far as he could subject to the examination they would have to pass, and subject to the powers he possessed to make such appointments. I can assure him there is a very strong feeling indeed among working men of all trades in favour of such appointments, and all who are acquainted with the mining districts will be of opinion that it is necessary to have working men Inspectors if the work is to be adequately supervized. I do earnestly hope that the Home Office, whenever vacancies occur, and where it seems at all desirable and possible to have working men Inspectors, will select from among foremen and

    1055
    leading workmen of experience, men of first rate character, ability, and good education—and there will be no difficulty in finding such—in preference to gentlemen who only begin to understand the work after they are appointed. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary signalized the passing of the new Mines Regulations Bill by the appointment of working men Inspectors he would do a most popular thing.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I was surprised to hear the somewhat severe criticisms on inspection from the hon. Member for Ross (Dr. R. Macdonald). Speaking from an intimate knowledge of factory work in the West of England, I can say that the inspection is thorough and real, and I doubt if you could find a single child under age employed in the numerous cloth factories there. The work of inspection is carried out minutely. I have no doubt the hon. Member spoke of districts with which he is well acquainted and where the inspection is not so good; and I should like him to inform the Committee more specifically what part of the country it is where the Factory Acts are, as he states, such a sham. Before I sit down I wish to endorse what has been said by previous speakers, that there is a strong and natural desire that, as far as possible, Factory and Mine Inspectors should be chosen from the ranks of the workers and from those who understand the requirements of the workers—
    DR. R. MACDONALD: Let me explain that I did not, for a moment, say that Inspectors did not do their work; what I meant to say was, that it is a physical impossibility for them to do their work well, they having so much ground to cover, so many factories under their view. From what I know of Factory Inspectors, I must say they are most hard-working men. I do not find fault with the individuals; but with the system by which more work devolves upon the men than it is physically possible for them to carry out. The district I especially referred to was the East End of London.
    MR. THORBURN: So far as my experience goes, I can say that a most effective inspection of factories is carried out by the present staff; and, so far as Scotland is con-
    1056
    cerned, I feel sure that a better and a more effective staff of officials does not exist in any part of the United Kingdom.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I quite agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken as to the inspection of the factories. The Chief Inspector of his district has also the charge of the whole of the South-East of Scotland. He has under his charge Edinburgh, with all its workshops—there are not many factories there—and he has the whole district of Galashiels, with its large factories. As far as my information goes, I can quite believe with my hon. Friend that the inspection of factories is complete; but there have been very grave complaints from year to year with regard to the workshops that the staff is not adequate for the inspection—that in a great city like Edinburgh, where there are not many manufactories, but a great many workshops, there are continual infractions of the Factory Acts. I believe, with my hon. Friend, that the Chief Inspector does his very best; but the staff is not adequate to the work, and there are believed to be continual infractions the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will only consider what it is to have one man having the charge of the whole of the South of Scotland—the Lothians, Berwickshire, the Galashiels district, as well as a large city like Edinburgh, together with Leith, with their innumerable workshops—he will see it is hardly within the power of one man to maintain complete supervision over the whole of that work.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): More than one speaker has referred to the Inpectors of mines, particularly the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. R. Macdonald); the hon. Member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorburn) and the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who has just spoken, have referred to the Inspectors of factories and workshops, all giving advice of the same kind. With regard to the Inspectors of mines, some remarks of mine in an earlier period of the Session were quoted, in which I am supposed to express the same view as that now expressed by the hon. Member

    1057
    for East Donegal. I do not think the hon. Member quoted me quite accurately. If my memory serves me accurately, what I said was this—
    "If you inspect frequently or even occasionally, going into every factory and every workshop in the country, it is impossible for the existing staff of Inspectors to do it. If you expect the Inspectors to supervise the minute processes of manufacture and the conduct of these establishments, you would require not two or three times as many, but 10 times as many."
    But I would ask hon. Gentlemen if we would gain much if we carried inspection to that point? It seems to me it is hopeless to think that inspection can ever be carried to the point of taking the place of the owner's eyes. What you ought to do, and what I agree, perhaps, is not sufficiently done under the present system, is to let the Inspector come, like an angel unawares, and come especially at moments when he is not expected, in order to detect shortcomings. I am afraid we cannot look for an expenditure which would be necessarily involved in enlarging the system of inspection, and which would be beyond the result attained. We cannot look for more than the present system of inspection. We cannot attempt to supersede supervision by the owner himself by constant supervision on the part of the Inspectors. So far as I am able to judge of them—of course, Inspectors, like other men, are not perfect— they do their duty fairly well. A little more of the unexpected, a little more of the surprise about their visits, I have often thought would be very desirable. There is great difficulty in catching those who infringe the law in workshops. All sorts of precautions are taken by those who infringe the law to make everything smooth at the time they expect the Inspector, and I am sorry to say that on the part of the workmen there is an inclination to assist in the infringement of the Act, instead of giving the Inspectors hints upon which they could act. I hope, with a little effort on the part of all those concerned, that even the existing number of Inspectors may bring about a more wholesome terror of the Inspector's visits. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has asked me about the Inspectors of Factories and Workshops in Ireland. In Ireland, until quite lately, there have been three Inspectors. I
    1058
    regret very much that the number is so small, and, if I may say so, it arises from the fact that there are so few establishments in Ireland which require inspection under the Act. Belfast, Dublin, and Cork are the only places where Inspectors are wanted, and so slight is the work and so insufficient to occupy their whole time that one of these Inspectors has been recently withdrawn, and the Factory Inspector at Manchester now takes his place. Thus the answer I gave the other evening that there was no vacancy in Ireland was perfectly correct—Manchester filled the vacancy which occurred. Then the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) asks for the appointment of Welsh-speaking Inspectors of Mines. Well, I have endeavoured to do so. I have only had to deal with one vacancy in Wales, and I delayed the appointment, and cast about in all directions in order to find a man, speaking Welsh, who was also competent. I cannot remember his name at the moment; but the only appointment I think I made in Wales since I held Office was of a man who could speak Welsh, and I had that in view when making the appointment. I do not hope the Welsh language will die out; but I hope it will not be long before English, as a means of communication between Inspector and workmen, should be so general that the accomplishment of being able to speak Welsh will be less necessary than it is at present. I am asked to appoint working men as Inspectors. Again I am speaking from memory; but I think all the appointments of Factory Inspectors I have made have been of workmen. In my own view, it is more desirable to have working men to be Inspectors of Factories than Inspectors of Mines. I have hesitation in appointing a man to be an Inspector of Mines who has not scientific knowledge, because that is a very important thing in an Inspector of Mines, who has to supervise the engineering operations of mines, and give advice regarding large concerns, as to how they could best be managed with safety. However skilful, and however well qualified a workman may be in all the practical parts of mining, and in the supervision of the comfort of the men, you rarely meet a workman who has scientific attainments at his command. But as regards factories, a man

    1059
    who has gone through a course of labour in a factory is best qualified for factory inspection. With regard to the other fact which the hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty pointed out—namely, that the age of boys was not properly certified, I must remind him that that is not the duty of the Inspector at all. It is the duty of the certifying surgeon.
    DR. E. MACDONALD: What I meant to say was that these boys were used by the owners of factories and not certified, and if the Inspector came there and found boys not certified, of course he could cause action to be taken. If the Inspector does not go there the boys go on working, and they are not certified by a medical man to the Inspector to save expense.
    MR. ISAACS: I desire to add my testimony to that of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. R. Macdonald). I believe it arises from the fact that it is physically impossible for the Inspectors to do the work which they are expected to do. Great injury is going on in consequence of the evasion of the Act in this way in London.
    MR. MASON: I wish to endorse what has fallen from the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. E. Macdonald), and I also agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucester (Mr. Winterbotham). I believe the factories in Scotland are as well inspected as they are in England; but the workshops are not. There is a distinction to be drawn between workshops and factories. I do not think the workshops are sufficiently inspected, and I may say the same with regard to mines. I do not consider the mines in Scotland are by any means sufficiently inspected, and that arises to a considerable extent from the inadequate number of Inspectors. You require a much largo staff of Inspectors than you have now. Whatever the expense may be it is far better to have the thing done thoroughly. Inspectors' visits are like angel's visits, "few and far between." They can only be in one place at one time, and unless the staff is sufficient the work cannot be properly done. With regard to the question of scientific attainments on the part of the Inspectors, I think it is important that they should have scientific knowledge; but if you have
    1060
    regard to that alone, and appoint a man without practical knowledge, it is far worse than appointing a good practical man who knows his work without science. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will keep that matter in view, and let us have a more thoroughly adequate staff. Then I am convinced many of such accidents as have arisen, resulting in loss of life, and which have arisen from the defects which have been pointed out, will be in a great measure prevented.
    MR. M'LAREN: With regard to the inspection of the workshops, especially in London, where women are employed, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary expressed himself very favourably towards the appointment of female Inspectors. I would like to ask him if he has been able to do anything in that direction during the last year, or, if not, whether he sees his way to an alteration of the law by which there can be a number of female Inspectors appointed, or whether he will appoint them under the present law to workshops?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have made inquiries at the Home Office, and I find it is against my power to appoint female Inspectors. It is also pointed out to me that if you have female Inspectors, there will be a difficulty with regard to their covering large districts, and in many places the irregular character of the work would be ill-suited to female Inspectors. I will by no means lose sight of the subject.
    MR. M'LAREN: Could it not be done in London?
    MR. MATTHEWS: You might make a district in London.
    MR. SEXTON: I asked the right hon. Gentleman three questions, and he has answered only one. I asked, in the first place, what proportion of these Inspectors were composed of working men? The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his intention of appointing working men, and I wish to see how far he has exercised it. He told me, very much to my surprise, that the three Irish Inspectorships had been brought down to two, and we find that one of the three has been appended to Manchester. We know that Ireland is a dependency of the British Crown; but to find it a dependency of Manchester is something new. What part of Ireland does the

    1061
    Manchester Inspector deal with? Where are the two Irish Inspectors stationed? Is there one stationed at Belfast, and is he a working man? From communications made, I believe the factories and workshops in Belfast, of which there are hundreds, embracing a great variety of industries, and employing a great number of people, would take up the whole time of two Inspectors; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that there is great dissatisfaction in Belfast in regard to factory inspection. The visits of the Inspector are few and far between; but, perhaps, they might have some effect if they were skilfully timed.
    MR. MATTHEWS: There is one Inspector resident at Belfast; there is one Inspector resident at Dublin; and there was one resident at Cork, but it was found he had not enough to do, and, therefore, the Cork district has now been annexed to Manchester. The hon. Member for West Belfast asks how many of the total number of Inspectors are working men. I cannot answer that question at present A number of them -were appointed before my time at the Home Office. I have only appointed, I think, three or four, since I have been in Office, and they have all been working men. I think that answers all the questions now that have been addressed to me.
    MR. KIMBER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to his question. At present there are six Retreats in existence. This Act has been in existence since 1879, and has been continued from year to year. The last Report of the Inspector was made just 12 months ago, and it unluckily happens that the Report for the last year is only just expected. These establishments are licensed for 86 patients, but they actually have in them only 39 inmates. So far as one can judge, the working of the Act to the limited extent to which it has been adopted is satisfactory, and the Inspector speaks of it as such. It is true amendments in the law are demanded—first and foremost, that the law should be made permanent, and that is a matter which is now occupying the attention of the Government, It is not
    1062
    fair to expect the licensees to embark in an expenditure under an Act of Parliament continued from year to year. Another point of amendment desired is that the signature of two Justices should not be necessary for the admission of a person to a Retreat. That question is at present surrounded with some difficulty, and is engaging the attention of the Government. With regard to deputy-licensees, I dare say that some concession might be possible. There might be deputy licensees, subject to the same qualifications and appointment, with the consent of the public authority, which licensees themselves have to show. I think this will answer all the questions raised by the hon. Member. On the question of Factory Inspectorships, I may be allowed to remark that the accidents in respect of which fees have been paid show of late years a tendency to decrease. I think that is a fact which may be taken into consideration as bearing upon the energy shown by the existing staff of Inspectors.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has had to answer so many questions that I am not surprised that some of mine have escaped hianotice—namely, with regard to white lead and paint factories, and the regulations now in force for inspecting them, fn regard to the latter point, I beg to say that I by no means misrepresented the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave last autumn as to the number of Inspectors, for I have been looking over it within the last 48 hours. I remember it very well—I am sorry I have not it byme—and the expression he made use of was that in his own opinion the staff of Inspectors was inadequate for the onerous duties they had to perform, and he went on to say that, so far as he was personally concerned, he would be glad to see the number increased, but the difficulty was with the Treasury, on account of the increased expenditure. That is precisely what I complain of. If the people interested were Bishops or the daughters of well-to-do people, then there would be a great fuss made about anything which imperilled either their safety or their comfort; but the persons concerned here are the children of the poor, and therefore very little attention is paid to the claims put forth on their behalf. What

    1063
    is involved in the question of efficient inspection? Efficient inspection of places where hundreds and thousands of men are employed in dangerous avocations ought to go on all the year round, and with regard to the angel's visits, they are always timed after an accident has happened. The Coal Mines Inspectors of Scotland always knew where they had to go next, by inquiring where was the last explosion, or where was the last accident. Whoever heard of an Inspector going to one of these mines without an accident? They have not the time to do it. They have two Inspectors in Scotland, and I do not know how many hundreds of mines they have within their jurisdiction. It is physically impossible that they could inspect, even if they did nothing else. It is absolutely necessary, in order that the duties of inspection should be properly carried out, that the number of Inspectors should be materially increased. When you come to consider the lavish way in which this House is invited to vote hundreds of thousands of pounds for services which are of incomparably less importance than this, it does appear to me to be a very strange and unseemly proceeding that an official in the position of the Home Secretary should plead the opposition of the Treasury to a further expenditure of £20,000 or a few tens of thousands for the purpose of appointing men whose inspection might result in the saving of a very large number of lives annually. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to pluck up a little courage. He is, after all, a Secretary of State. He may have a very humble opinion of himself, but he has the responsibilities of his Office upon him, and it is incumbent upon him to make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to afford him the means for the adequate discharge of the duties he has to look after. These Inspectors are not equal to their work, according to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself. It is his duty to take steps to strengthen their hands and to increase their number; and whatever may be the charge which it is necessary to ask this House to vote, I am perfectly certain the House would readily vote it for the sake of thus adding to the efficiency of our Public Service.
    MR. MOLLOY: I would like to say a word in support of my hon. Friend's statement that Inspectors go to places after accidents happen. Two or three weeks ago I was down in one of the largest manufacturing districts of this country, and I took the opportunity of inspecting some of the workshops, and I cross-questioned some of the workmen employed in them. I wont to one particular shop—one example will do as well as many—where there was a very elaborate system of machinery, and whore accidents were of constant occurrence. I asked how it was that accidents took place so often, and I was told by the men that the real cause was in the hurry to get the work done. They were so pressed and the machinery was so complicated that there was almost certain to be an accident. I asked how it was that the Inspector did not see to this, and—I hope this will be a lesson for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—the answer was that this Inspector never comes except after an accident has happened. This was the evidence given to me by a most intelligent workman—I do not know whether he was a foreman or not—in charge of these men. I asked if the Inspector's attention was drawn to the dangerous part of the machinery. The workman said—"No; before the Inspector comes that portion of the machinery is removed." I asked why did none of the workmen complain. He said—"If a workman complained, he would not have much work in this place afterwards." This was evidence which I could not doubt. The man had no suspicion of the reason why I put these questions to him. He told me that before the Inspector's visit takes place this dangerous part of the machinery is taken away and hidden, and as soon as the Inspector has gone and the matter is closed that dangerous part of the machinery is put up again. As I said, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary by that example—very seriously given to me—and which I have not the slightest reason to doubt, to look more carefully into this question of inspection, and do as my hon. Friend suggests. If it is necessary to spend more money, let it be spent, and appoint more Inspectors, not for political purposes as has been done in the past so often—appoint men who are able to de-

    1065
    tect this deception practised on the part of employers. The men dare not complain, because, if they did, they would not get employment in that particular shop and probably in any other shop where their conduct had been reported.
    An hon. MEMBER: Where is it?
    MR. MOLLOY: I do not think it is fair to say where these things occurred.
    An hon. MEMBER: But cannot the hon. Member give some particulars?
    MR. MOLLOY: I have already explained that I do not think it is necessary to give names in this House, and I do not think it is fair. If hon. Members will take my word for it, the district is one in which there is a large system of planing wood by machinery in operation. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious about the district, I have no objection to give it; but, as I have said, I do not think it is fair to ask for these particulars in full House.
    MR. TOMLINSON: It may be quite true that there are portions of the country where more inspection is required; but however many Inspectors you may have, they will never be able to do their work efficiently unless they receive the co-operation of those for whose benefit they are appointed. I know that in some manufacturing districts there are means made use of for giving the Inspector a hint when something is going wrong; and I cannot help thinking that in this matter referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Molloy) it might have been possible to bring so serious a breach of the law under the notice of the Inspector.
    DR. E. MACDONALD: The hon. Member (Mr. Molloy) is under a misapprehension as to portions of machinery being put out of the way, and all that sort of thing, because I can tell him what is the procedure in these cases. When an accident occurs the medical man, who looks after the district, goes and sees the machinery, examines the man and the nature of his wounds, takes the man's evidence, and satisfies himself that the machinery is as it was when the man was wounded. Then he sends in his Report to the Inspector of Factories, so that if the machinery was changed in any way the Inspector could not fail to be aware of it. That is the system, and so far as I know there is nowhere any departure from it. I must say that, in my experi-
    1066
    ence, accidents are not always reported. I have sometimes found them out by the newspapers after the inquest was held, and I have gone to the works and said —"Did not you have such and such an accident the other day?" The reply has been—"Yes, there was; but we forgot to let you know about it." I have sometimes heard of accidents months afterwards, and they were never reported by the people at the works, and that, perhaps, will explain why in the Reports of the Inspectors the number of accidents are not so frequent as they were. The suggestion I have to make is that at those factories and workshops which are under the inpection of Inspectors of Factories there should be a book kept in which the Inspector should enter his name and the date of his inspection. It would then be a very simple matter to ascertain how many times a factory was inspected; and the Home Office would also know exactly what their Inspectors had done all the year through. I do not think that would be in any way derogatory to the Inspector, and would be a very reasonable and useful improvement of the existing state of things.
    MR. NORRIS: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would say in which manner these officials are appointed, and whether there is any principle upon which they are promoted. The chief complaint of hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to be that Inspectors are not appointed who thoroughly understand the works they have to inspect; but that gentlemen are selected who have never had any experience of their work before. We want to know for what reason these men are appointed, and before we pass from this subject I am anxious to know what steps are taken to see that they are capable of doing the work they are appointed to do. In the case of the Welshmen, I am very desirous that their Inspectors, should be men who understand the language of the people.
    MR. MOLLOY: I am sorry the statement I have just made should not have the full force it deserves. Of course, when I speak of hiding away machinery I do not mean that a considerable piece of a machine was taken away and put in a back cupboard. I will tell the Committee how it is done. In the case I

    1067
    was speaking of, there is a guard to protect the man's hand when the machinery is in rapid motion. That guard is not used under ordinary circumstances, but after an accident when the report is made and the Inspector comes, this guard is put up. I hope the Home Secretary will believe that the statement I have made is really a correct and a very important one.
    MR. R. G. C. MOWBRAY: I just wish to add my testimony to the fact that the provisions of the Factory Acts are evaded in many cases. In certain parts of Lancashire there is a considerable demand for a sensible increase in the number of Factory Inspectors; and I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to doing something in this direction.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): The statement of the hon. Member for the Birr Division of Queen's County (Mr. Molloy) appears to show that if the Inspector had made ten times the number of visits he now makes, and the workmen had shown the same reluctance to give him information, the conspiracy to defeat the Inspector would have been just as successful. What I hope is, that there will be a stronger desire to give information, because if this assistance is withheld, you will never do any good even if you multiplied your Inspectors ever so much. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Limehouse Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Norris), I have to say that under the Factory Acts I have absolute power of appointing these Inspectors; and that after I have appointed them, then they go before the Civil Service Commissioners to pass a test examination, which qualifies them for receiving the appointment. If they cannot comply with that condition, they are not appointed. As for the appointments which have fallen vacant since I have been at the Home Office, I have had so many applicants—gentlemen of equal merit—that I have had the greatest possible difficulty in deciding. I have therefore selected five or six-which appeared to me to be the best, and have sent them up for competitive examination. This is the system I shall follow in the future when I have any appointments to make. I am sorry to
    1068
    say that the task of selection is one of extraordinary difficulty.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I have to draw attention to what appears to be a mere question of account, but is really a matter which has cropped up so often in this House, that it ought to be noticed. Exactly parallel cases have occurred in the Army and Navy Estimates, and we have found, in the Committee upstairs, cases in which sums have been smuggled in under one Vote when they really belonged to another Vote; so that the cost of particular items has been kept down by smuggling the amounts into another Vote. I want to point out that this occurs here in Item No. 4. There are certain people well known in this country as Queen's Messengers, and everyone in this Committee would naturally look for them in the Foreign Office Vote. Well, so they are; there is a sum of £15,000 for them in that Vote. But there is this smuggling process going on here, for in addition to this £15,000 in the Foreign Office Vote, we have another £1,100 amongst the Home Office items. The Committee will see at the bottom of this page that there are five Messengers receiving £150 a-year each, which makes £750, and, in addition, there is £350 for travelling expenses for the Queen's Messengers, making a total of £1,100. I say that this is an attempt to hoodwink the Committee, and I would invite the Home Secretary to explain exactly how these Queen's Messengers are used, and how they are put down in the Home Office Vote. I can understand that their travelling expenses to Dover might possibly come in here; but still I say that they ought properly to be put in the Foreign Office Vote. That is the way all through those Estimates, and that is the way all these Estimates are run up. It is like a tailor who does not like to charge you £4 10 s. or £4 15 s. for a coat, and so he charges you £3 10 s. for the coat, and 15 s. for the lining of the sleeves, 10 s. for the braiding of the pockets, and so on, and thus makes the price of the coat run up to £4 15 s. or £5, whilst if he charged this sum straight off many people would decline to pay it. This process has been carried on to an extraordinary extent in the Army and Navy Estimates, and I consider that to lighten the Foreign Office Vote by putting such sums in the Home Office Vote

    1069
    is a great abuse of the forms of the House. When I drew the attention of an hon. Member near me to it he would not believe it, and he had to go through both the Votes to convince himself. And so it is with a good many hon. Members. We all know that the Queen's Messengers are employed to go abroad; but I believe there is a good deal of humbug about it, and that the £15,000 which appears in the Foreign Office Vote could very well be cut down to £3,000 or £4,000 a-year. When you have these charges in connection with the Home Office, however, I say it is an anachronism. The telegraph ought, in my opinion, to supersede the Queen's Messengers to a very great extent, and this is a matter which the Committee might very well look into. I bog to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,100; but, of course, if the Home Secretary gives a proper explanation, I shall be happy to withdraw my Motion. At the present moment, however, I think the best way is to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,100.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. and gallant Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. The Queen's Messengers are frequently employed to carry documents and despatches to Scotland and other places. [Colonel NOLAN: Name the people who carry them.] I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member the names of the Queen's Messengers. There are five Messengers constantly employed in carrying despatches to Her Majesty at Windsor, Osborne, or Balmoral from Ministers; but I cannot give the names. There were originally six; but in 1871 their number was reduced to 5, and it was then arranged that they should receive £150 a-year to cover everything. When you consider how many things—reprieves of prisoners and innumerable documents to which Her Majesty's signature is required—that you have such things almost daily, it will be apparent that the money is required. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there is no intention to conceal any expenditure.
    COLONEL NOLAN: In that case, perhaps, it would be as well to move the reduction of the salary of the Postmaster General when the proper time comes; but I do not intend to do that, because
    1070
    I think the Postmaster General is a necessary and hard-working official. I cannot understand Queen's Messengers being required when the Post Office can do the work as well. That is, in my belief, the whole fault of these Estimates. I am not afraid of new charges being put upon the Estimates; but what I am afraid of is keeping on the old charges, even if they are 200 or 300 years old. These Queen's Messengers ought to be superseded by Her Majesty's post. They are not more trustworthy than the post, and the post would do the work for £5 a-year which you are now paying £1,100 a-year for. The Home Secretary says these officials are sent to Windsor with the despatches. If the bag were put into the Post Office, it would be conveyed in just the same manner, quite as safely, and perhaps more expeditiously than by the Queen's Messenger. You keep up these expenses partly for the patronage they give, and partly because it is an old custom. I can understand that there may be some reason for employing these men abroad; for there may be some difficulty in sending despatches through foreign post offices; but there is no necessity for it at home. Can the Home Secretary point out the use of these Messengers? If these letters can be committed to the post there is £1,100 a-year saved. You commit writs, even the Writs of this House, to the post, and why cannot you commit the documents intended for Her Majesty? The Home Secretary has totally failed to justify this item of expenditure. I think he is bound to point out why we are to pay £750 for salaries and £350 for travelling expenses for these men. When I moved the reduction of the Vote before, Mr. Courtney, you probably did not notice it; but I now formally move the reduction by £1,100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,847, be granted for the said Services."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I want to make a double appeal—to the Committee on the one hand, and to the First Lord of the Treasury on the other. It is that the Committee should decide on the Amendment and on the Vote now, so that we may proceed with a matter an which there is almost a dis-

    1071
    inct engagement that we should proceed, and as to which Members have waited here night after night in vain.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. TANNER: If an engagement has been entered into to report Progress, I have no wish to disturb it, nor do I object to large salaries being paid to the people who deserve them. But it should be known that there are Members of this House who, with regard to the salary now demanded for the Home Secretary, do not merely grudge it, but know that it is ill-deserved. In the face of events which have recently been under the consideration of the British public, I say that this salary should not be paid without the conduct of the Home Secretary being taken into the most thorough consideration by Members of this House; and if the Vote is allowed to pass now, at any rate, the matter will be raised on Report.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Jackson,)— put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  TRUCK BILL.— [BILL 299.]
  (Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Warmington, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Esslemont.)
  TRUCK BILL.— [BILL 299.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
    MR. KELLY: I desire to detain the House but a very short time in moving a new clause prohibiting the payment of any part of wages in intoxicating liquor. The real point I have to put before the House is, why should farmers be the only persons in England allowed to pay their labourers in anything but money? Why should not a farmer's labourer have a fair day's wage in money for his work? I suppose it is generally known that a custom has grown up in many parts of the country to pay labourers in harvest time partly in money and partly in in-
    1072
    toxicating liquor. In some counties it is the practice to pay a man, say, £1 4s. a-week and allow him a certain quantity of common, beer a-day, and in other counties cider is allowed. I speak more particularly of beer. However temperate a man is inclined to be, he has to choose between accepting a wage much less than he is entitled to, or taking part of it in intoxicating liquor, and I maintain that this is an alternative to which no man ought to be subjected; it is a practice monstrously unjust. Take the case of a man who is a teetotaller. You place him in this position—that because he is a temperate man and cannot consume the drink, he receives 5s. less payment than if he was drunken and disreputable. That, I think, is the strongest possible argument in favour of this clause. And now I wish to remove a total misconception that seems to exist as to the feeling of farmers themselves on this point. It is a slander on farmers to say that they wish to continue the system. Some six months ago a meeting of farmers was held in a county where the practice of giving the men cider largely prevails, I mean Somerset. A hundred farmers present, representing the farming of 25,000 acres, passed a resolution—
    "That, in the opinion of this Conference, it is desirable, in the interests of masters and men, that the practice of supplying beer and cider to men in the harvest field should be discontinued, and that all work should be paid for entirely in money."
    The Conference was held at Yeovil, on the 11th February. Further proof of what I say that it is a slander to say that farmers are in favour of the system, will be found in the journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, vol. 20, p. 515. There will be found the report of three well-known agriculturists, appointed judges of the best cultivated farm of the year, and these practical men, after giving careful consideration to the subject, recommend that farmers should give up a custom which, in their opinion, was more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and in the interest of all concerned should make their payments entirely in money. I am happy to say the custom is by no means general throughout the United Kingdom. It is almost unknown in the West and North of Scotland, and it is far from being general in Ireland. Even in Norfolk,

    1073
    and other counties where the custom obtains, it is far from being universal, and the payment of a lump sum in lieu of drink is often substituted. I may further support my case with the opinion of one who was long a Member of this House, and whose opinion in relation to agricultural subjects is entitled to great respect, Mr. Clare Sewell Read. He said—
    "The reason why I did not give my labourers beer at harvest time was because I did not wish it to be said that I encouraged men and taught boys to drink. I give them money in lieu of beer or cider."
    I know that objection to the clause will be raised. I know that the hon. and learned Attorney General will say that I have raised the question in the very worst form; but I say I have raised it in the most direct and only form I could—I put it in a definite way. This House has given a decision on the subject; but it was then put in a negative form only, and I say it should be put in a positive form, and I trust the House will decide in the way I suggest. The Attorney General will, I know, raise a number of other objections—
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The hon. Member is referring to a private conversation.
    MR. KELLY: I am sorry that I mentioned this, and I will say no more about it except this. If it should be said that the Bill as it now stands would prevent that which I seek to prevent by my clause, I can only say that it is difficult to find it out, and I can see no harm in putting in so many words as will make plain to farmers the penalties they incur if they supply men with drink. I do not address the House as an advocate of temperance, but I do ask the House to consider the full effect of forcing drink upon the labouring classes, inducing men, and even mere boys, to contract habits of intemperance.
    New Clause (to be inserted after Clause 3)—
    (Wages not to be in intoxicating liquor.)
    "No servant in husbandry shall be paid any part of his wages in intoxicating liquor, and any employer or agent of the employer of such servant paying or agreeing so to pay any part of such wages shall be liable to the penalties imposed by Section 9 of the principal Act, as if he had been guilty of such an offence as in that section mentioned,"—(Mr. Kelly,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: If it should become a practice to refer to preliminary and private conversations, it will be impossible to discuss any matter before it becomes the subject of debate. I regret that the hon. Member should have thought it right to advert to what took place in private conversation. It is impossible to accept the clause he has proposed. The decision of the House has been already inserted in the Bill, and the section will make it clear, and to pick out one particular industry in this way will add nothing to its force. By Clause 2 of the Truck Act of 1831, any contract by which wages are to be partly paid in liquor is made illegal. But this did not extend to servants in husbandry; and by a clause in the present Bill this clause of the principal Act is made applicable to all workmen as defined by the Employers' and Workmen Acts, and that brings within the Truck Act servants in husbandry, the consequence being that the combined effect of the Truck Act and this Bill when passed will be that no contract can be made by which a servant shall be partly paid in liquor under penalties set forth. Instead of dealing with all trades, the hon. Member would pick out one trade for special legislation. He does not deal with the question of contract, or the penalties for entering into one, but simply lays down an absolute proposition that if a man has had beer supplied him, the master shall not take payment for that beer from his wages. The House, by decision in Committee, has proceeded on the basis that there should be no contract by which wages should be paid in liquor, and it would serve no useful purpose, and prove mischievous to tack on this clause. I hope the House will reject it without prolonged discussion.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I also trust the House will reject the clause. It does not touch the evil the hon. Member has pointed out. Where the farmer gives anything in addition to wages, it does not touch that at all. As the Bill stands, it will, as the Attorney General says, apply to all industries, and prevent beer being given as part wages, and this clause

    1075
    would only bring confusion into the operation of the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. A. E. PEASE: The clause which I shall ask the House to insert, after Clause 6, has reference to the appointment of a medical man to mines. The practice at present, in mining districts, is for the owners to contribute towards the payment of a medical officer, and the workmen contribute another part which is deducted from their wages, and in return they are entitled to the services of this medical officer. The clause which I ask the House to insert proposes to give the initiative in the appointment of the medical man to the owners of the mine, but provides also that in case the men shall not be satisfied with the appointment so made, they shall have power to appoint another man such as they desire. I see there is an Amendment standing next to mine on the Paper that seeks to give the initiative to the workmen, instead of the employer or mine owner. An objection to this, in the first place, is, that the mine owner must have a medical officer in attendance on the miner3 employed, and if he has not the initiative in the appointment, it would in many instances be difficult to make an arrangement while the workmen are debating or disputing as to who should be appointed. Another objection to giving the men the initiative is, that at present there are, in many cases, hospitals in connection with the mines supported by firms in combination, and a medical officer from the hospital is attached to the mine, and if the workmen were to appoint the doctor, it would tend to bring into the mining district an unnecessary number of medical practitioners, instead of one well-qualified man from the hospital. The present system works very well, I believe the Amendment I propose will maintain that system, but will also bring in ample protection for the miners. I trust the House will accept the clause I now move.
    Clause (to be inserted after Clause 6)—
    (Appointment of medical man.)
    "The medical man appointed to attend on the workmen of any mine shall be appointed by the owners of such mine, but, in case of any dissatisfaction as to the medical man so appointed a second medical man shall be appointed by the majority of the workmen who take part in such appointment, and the moneys deducted
    1076
    from the wages of any workman for medical attendance shall he paid to either of the two medical men as the said workmen may select," —(Mr. Alfred Pease,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I hope the House will not be induced to enter into a discussion of these medical clauses. The more we hear on the subject and the more I learn from communications made to me, the more impossible it appears that we can make any alteration without a very great deal of discussion not germane to a Truck Bill. This Amendment of the hon. Member is an instance. He proposes after a man has been appointed by the owner, that, in case of any dissatisfaction, a second man shall be appointed by those dissatisfied. But, first of all, what is to be understood by dissatisfaction? How is it to be expressed and by how many men? We have not attempted to deal with this question from any particular point of view; we have adopted the system as it exists, and if we attempt to alter it now I fear that in this particular we shall make the Bill unworkable. In the interest of the Bill which has now reached a stage when we may hope it will be finally disposed of, I would appeal to hon. Members who have put down clauses dealing with medical assistance not to attempt to codify the regulations that should be left to be dealt with, if necessary, independently.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I would join in an appeal to the hon. Member not to insist on his Amendment. Great pains were taken to ascertain the views of the men, and more and more our inquiries were pressed they disclosed great differences of opinion. After all, the matter forms no part or parcel of a Truck Bill, and need not be dealt with here.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I trust the House will not give heed to the preposterous proposal of the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Northampton, that we should relinquish any attempt to deal with this important matter as if it were foreign to a Truck Bill. Let me recall the intention of the Bill; it is to amend

    1077
    the Truck Act of 1831. The structure of the Act of 1831 is exceedingly simple; it provides, first, that wages shall be paid in coin of the Realm, and then, to that rule, it makes two or three specific exceptions—that is to say, that part of the wages may be withheld for two or three specified purposes, and one of these specified purposes is medical attendance. The complaint of the workmen is that the sums so deducted are not properly controlled by them, and not properly applied. Now, I ask the House how is it possible that any point can be more strictly germane to the subject before us than these deductions for medical attendance; how is it possible that any Bill that could be devised would more properly deal with the subject than a Truck Bill? It is lamentable that there should be this anxiety to press on for the sake of passing a skeleton Bill that will contain next to nothing for the benefit of the workmen of the conntry. Why, after sitting up night after night, should we shelve a substantial grievance that workmen complain of? The Government have received ample acknowledgment from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) for their courtesy in regard to this Bill; for my part I trust they may drop a little of the vacillation and indifference with which they have met every useful and practical suggestion, now that we have reached this point, upon which with very little discussion we might agree. The Inspector, who some months ago reported on this subject, said that the men did not object to the amount of the deductions for the purpose, which was usually 3d. a-week; but they did object to the deductions being made over to the employers without the men having any influence whatever in the appointment of the medical man, who was solely the nominee of the employer. They contend they should have a voice in the disposal of the fund provided by themselves, and where is the difficulty in carrying out their desire? Why should it not be done if the Government are serious in proposing by this Bill to improve the condition of the workmen? Before I say more, Sir, I wish to obtain your ruling on a point of Order. The hon. Member for York (Mr. A. E. Pease) proposes this clause, and it is immediately followed by the Notice of a
    1078
    clause I wish to propose myself. he proposes that the medical man shall, in the first instance, be appointed by the owners; I that the appointment shall be by the men, or by the men in conjunction with the owners. Am I right in supposing that if the clause of the hon. Member for York should be negatived, that will not exclude the moving of mine?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the clause now before the House is negatived, that will not prevent the hon. Member from moving that of which he has given Notice.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I have nothing to add to what I have said already, and move the new clause in reference to deductions for medical attendance.
    Clause (to be inserted after Clause 7)—
    (Appointment of medical man.)
    "Where any deduction is made for medical attendance or medicine from the wages of workmen in the employment of any employer, such workmen may from time to time by a majority of their number appoint a person, being a legally qualified medical practitioner, to be their medical attendant and to supply them with medicine, and such deductions shall be paid to the person so appointed.
    "Provided that it shall be lawful for such workmen, by a majority of their number, to make an agreement with the employer that, in consideration of his contributing a certain amount or proportion of the remuneration of the medical attendant, he shall have a voice and share in his appointment to such extent as may be agreed on,"—(Mr. Donald Crawford,)—
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    DR. CLARK: This is rather an important matter to a large number of miners, and I hope the Government will allow it to be a matter germane to the Bill. Workmen complain very much of being compelled to have a sum deducted from their wages and of having no voice at all in the expenditure. The medical man might neglect his duty and send an unqualified assistant; but the men would have to go on paying in the same way, not having in return the attendance of a duly qualified medical practitioner, but the attendance of a young student who, by experiments on the bodies of the miners, gained information for practice

    1079
    upon other people. As the miners pay for a medical man they ought to have the right of determining who should attend them, and of dismissing that attendant if he did not do his work properly. I think the proposal in the clause is a wise one. Where the entire sum is paid by the men the men should have the right of appointment; but where the master pays part of the charge, then the master should have a proportionate voice in determining the appointment. The clause is reasonable, and would do no harm to any medical practitioner, while it would remedy a great grievance of the men who, paying for duly qualified medical assistance, do not get it—but the attendance of a person in whom they have no confidence.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Again I ask the House not to enter into the discussion of these medical clauses; the same objections apply to both. It is not quite correct to say that there is general complaint of the medical attendance; on the contrary, complaints are few and far between, and most of them are such as the men by their own organization can redress.
    MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE: I join in saying that this is a matter in which serious difficulties do arise between employers and men in collieries. Also, I must say that it does not appear to me to be just, if these medical men are to be paid out of deductions made from the wages of the men, that the men should not have a voice in appointing the medical man who is to attend them. There seems to me only two alternatives in the matter; either you must make it illegal to have these deductions at all, and leave the miners to shift for themselves in regard to medical attendance like other persons—
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the hon. Member allow me to explain? Under the principal Act, no deductions can be made, except on agreement signed by the men.
    MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE: No doubt that is true; but, at the same time, I think the hon. Member will acknowledge that where a system of deductions has once been introduced, it is exceedingly hard for the men to get rid of it, and especially for a minority among the men to give effect to their dissatisfaction with the existing arrangement. Therefore I shall continue what
    1080
    I was saying, there are only two alternatives, either to prohibit deductions altogether, and leave the men to shift for themselves, in regard to their medical attendance, a change that might answer very well in populous places, where there are numerous doctors in the neighbourhood; but possibly would not be so satisfactory in sparsely populated districts; or else the difficulty can only be met in one other way—that is, by giving the men a recognized voice in the selection of their medical attendant. This last is the principle upon which the clause is framed, and I shall cordially support it if it is carried to a Division.
    MR. MASON: I do not agree at all with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). I think this clause comes very well into the discussion of a Truck Bill, and I also disagree with his statement that complaints are few and far between, for they are very numerous in Lanarkshire. As proof, I may refer to a case that recently occurred. Some three months ago the workmen at a colliery being dissatisfied with their medical attendant, held a meeting and decided by majority that another medical man ought to be substituted. The manager resisted this decision, and invited a ballot which the men accepted, with the result that there was a majority of five to one in favour of the change. But the reply of the manager was, that any man who refused to pay for the old medical officer could leave his employment. This was reported to the Homo Office, and the reply was that the Secretary of State had caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances and found there was "no ground for his interference." This was conclusive. But we wish to give him ground for interference in connection with an important question. I think the clause is most appropriate to the Bill, and I hope it will be inserted.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I do not agree with the strictures upon the method in which medical work is done by members of my own profession. I think the tendency to allow work to be done by unqualified assistants is rapidly dying out, and I know that many assistants, far from being ignorant experimentalists, are often very skilful surgeons. They do their work thoroughly, and have no necessity to make experiments upon the

    1081
    bodies of the miners whom they attend. At the same time, I think the clause contains a principle the House ought to recognize. I do not see why a miner who contributes to the payment of his doctor should not have an equal voice in his choice or dismissal, as any Member of this House has in regard to his medical attendant. I think there is a little too much tendency on the part of mine owners to regard the doctor as part and parcel of their establishment and belonging to the mine. This tendency ought to be resisted, therefore I prefer this clause to that of the hon. Member for York (Mr. A. E. Pease). We want the medical man to have the confidence of the workmen, for then the work will be done better, and will give more satisfaction. On this account I think this clause is likely to be useful; it will conduce to better work by virtue of establishing more cordial relations between the medical man and the workmen.
    MR. HALDANE: I think nothing of the argument that these agreements can only be made in writing according to the principal Act; the question is, is the Amendment of any value? The hon. Member for North East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) has proposed Amendments not only in connection with this Bill, but in the new Mines Regulation Bill, and I must say that it has struck me, I am sure it has not been done intentionally—that he has not been treated with the courtesy and attention he deserves. My hon. Friend represents a great Scotch mining constituency, and I speak within my own experience when I say he probably knows more about these matters, and has given more time and attention to them than any other Member of this House, and I do not exclude the Labour Representatives. Yet he was never invited to the conferences of which we have heard so much upon this Bill and the Mines Bill—
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Member will pardon me; but I think there must be some mistake. I have met the hon. Gentleman in consultation with the Attorney General myself.
    MR. HALDANE: He has not received that attention from the Government he is fairly entitled to upon this and the other Bill.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Allow me to say that, far from there being any
    1082
    want of attention to the experience of the hon. Member for Lanark, he has himself attended the conferences.
    MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member has repeatedly proposed Amendments on this and other Bills, and. I repeat, has not received the attention he is entitled to from his position by being invited to these conferences. I shall certainly support the clause, for it seems to me a right and proper one, and also because it is supported by Members whom I consider the best authorities on the question.
    MR. CAINE: I represent a good many miners, and I employ a good many more in the mining districts of West Cumberland and North Lancashire, and, so far as I know, there is no grievance whatever arising out of the appointment of medical men. I do not believe there is any need to legislate on this subject, which had much better be left to be settled, as it now is, between the employers and the men. If any change is made, and you wish to insert it in the Bill, it would be much better to make the change in the direction of the custom we have in West Cumberland and North Lancashire, where we allow each man to choose his own medical adviser, we collect the money, and pay to each qualified medical adviser the amount he claims for attendance. But it would be wiser, I think, to leave matters as they are, and not attempt to introduce a clause on the subject.
    MR. A. E. PEASE: I regret that the Government will not take this opportunity of regulating the appointment of the medical adviser and protecting the workmen from grievances that do arise in regard to these deductions from their wages. At the same time, I have great objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Donald Crawford), because it would throw into confusion the whole of the present system, and strike a serious blow at the system of miners' hospitals that exists in the North. I wish my hon. Friend had put his Amendment in a different form; in the form in which it now stands, I must, if he goes to a Division, oppose it.
    MR. CHANCE: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness tells us he employs a good many more miners than he represents, a statement with which we have no desire to disagree. We have been told by the hon. Member

    1083
    for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that an agreement in writing must be entered into by the workmen before deductions for the payment for medical attendance can be permitted. But I do not think anything of that. I think the whole principle of the Truck Act has been—that contracts that have the result of compelling workmen to accept payment otherwise than by money should be prevented. No doubt, exceptions have been made; but the question is, is it proper there should be such? It is difficult to defend them on principle. No doubt, it is desirable that, to a certain extent, a man should have the advantage of medical attendance by this means; but it seems to me an extraordinary system that enables the master to dictate to a man the precise medical man he shall employ. I do not see how you can defend the system, or, if you allow it at all, why it should not be extended to dictation as to where a man should buy his boots, his clothes, or food. Now, workmen do not require to be told where they can best invest their money, and I do not see why there should be this grandmotherly system by which a man accepts what the master thinks fit for him. I can conceive that, from the master's point of view, it might be desirable he should retain this patronage; but that is not the principle of a Truck Act. This Bill extends the principle to Ireland; and, therefore, I have a right to speak upon it. I confess I do not know in Ireland any case where employers do dictate in this matter, and I have no desire to see such a system introduced under the name of an Act intended to prevent these improper contracts. It is a distinct falsification of the whole principle of the Act, and I trust the House will pass this necessary and proper Amendment.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I do not think there would be any difficulty in carrying into effect, under the proposed Amendment, if accepted, the system referred to by the hon. Member for Barrow. I think the clause ought to be accepted. I know that in Lanark there is a strong feeling that the workmen ought, at least, to have a share in the decision who is to be their medical attendant, and any objection that could possibly arise, is removed by the Proviso that in cases where employers
    1084
    supplement the fund, they shall have a proportionate influence in the decision.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD—[Cries of "Spoken!"]: Will the House indulge me with a word or two of explanation? The hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) has made a personal reference to me in kindly terms. I wish to explain that on this Bill I have had conferences with the Attorney General in his room, and have no complaint to make. I presume my hon. Friend referred to the fact that neither I nor any other Members representing mining constituencies were invited to attend those miniature Parliaments summoned by the Home Secretary in reference to the Mines Regulation Bill. As the opinion of these miniature Parliaments has been referred to by the Leader of the House as if it carried great weight, it is perhaps unfortunate that a Member like myself, probably representing the largest mining constituency, should not be admitted. But that will not, I am sure, detract from the influence of arguments here which will be considered on their own merits. This Amendment is, I believe, one that employers throughout the country will not object to. I am sorry the hon. Member for the Town District of Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) is not here; he would have explained how necessary such a clause is in South Wales. I hope the House will accept the clause.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 115: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 306.)
    [1.5 A.M.]
    MR. CALDWELL: I rise to move a clause for the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating drink. Under a former Amendment it was proposed that no employer should have the power to sell drink, food, or clothing, but that was opposed on the ground that it introduced unnecessary interference with the action of an employer who, being proprietor of a store, might undertake the sale of goods to the workmen. It was felt that the sale of food and clothing was not likely to lead to abuse. But there is a distinction in the case of intoxicating drink, a distinction that the Bill recognizes in the clause dealing with servants in husbandry. The object of the clause I propose is to protect the workmen against the influence of the.

    1085
    master which might be exercised to effect sale of drink, upon which we know profits are larger than on anything else. It is open to the workmen to obtain his spirituous liquors whenever he thinks fit, but this provides that the employer shall not contract for the sale to him. It might be said that this is an interference with freedom of contract; but then the whole essence and principle of the Bill is that interference to some extent is necessary, and I hope the clause will commend itself as quite in accordance with the principle of the Bill.
    Clause (to be inserted after Clause 8)—
    (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating drink.)
    "No intoxicating drink shall be sold by any employer or agent of any employer to a workman in the employment of such employer. Every sale made in contravention of this section shall be illegal and void, whilst every employer who by himself or his agent acts in contravention of this section shall be liable to the penalties imposed by Section nine of the principal Act, as if he had been guilty of such an offence as in that section mentioned,"—(Mr. Caldwell,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I must ask the House to reject this clause, and for the reason that it is no part of a Truck Act at all. The object of the Truck Act is to insure that the wages agreed upon to be paid shall be paid in money, and not to regulate other transactions between employer and employed.
    MR. RANKIN: I hope the House will not consent to read this clause a second time. It would be attended with great injustice towards the farmers of Herefordshire, and an interference with those private arrangements by which employers undertake to supply their workmen with cider, by which the latter are supplied with, a wholesome drink and are not tempted to go to the public-house. This clause would affect not farmers only, but others, as a publican holding a few acres of land could not soil a glass of beer to his workmen, and I would point out it would prevent a brewer selling a moderate quantity of beer to a man in his employ; it would prevent a grocer selling a bottle of wine to one of his men. In a great many other instances
    1086
    it would be an unconscionable interference with the rights of trade, and on behalf of my Hereford constituents I protest against it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: The clause I now propose is to provide that the workmen shall have some control over the deductions that are made from their wages. At present, the employer has the power to make deductions for certain purposes, but the workmen complain that they do not know what becomes of the deductions so made; whether the whole of the fund is employed or not. After the Truck Commission reported in 1872, a Bill was introduced by Mr. Secretary Bruce, now Lord Aberdare, dealing with the subject, and this question of audit formed a leading clause in that Bill. I may say I have altered this clause considerably from the shape it had when the Bill was in Committee, when it was opposed by hon. Members who, I am sure, were most anxious to do everything that was just and fair towards the workmen. It was then pointed out that the clause might cover deductions for defective workmanship, as to which it would be impossible to go back for an audit. My clause is now directed strictly towards deductions made for medical attendance, education, and other matters proper to a Truck Bill. I think the Attorney General stated in Committee that he would be prepared to accept a clause of this kind, and I trust it is not necessary for me to say more.
    Clause (to be inserted after Clause 8)—
    (Audit of deduction.)
    "Where deductions are made from the wages of any workman for the education of children or in respect of medicine, medical attendance, or tools, once at least in every year the employer or employer's agent who makes such deductions shall make out a correct account of the receipts and expenditure in respect of such deductions, and submit the same to be audited by two auditors appointed by the said workmen, and shall produce to the auditors all such books, vouchers, and documents, and afford them all such facilities as are required for such audit."—(Mr. Donald Crawford,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. TOMLINSON: The House will, I hope, see that this is quite impracticable. When the deductions

    1087
    are made from the wages, then is the time for the workman to ascertain the correctness of the deductions. One of the subjects for which this elaborate audit is to be provided is the deductions for education of children, and that clearly is a service no employer would undertake, except he were actuated by a desire to benefit his workmen, and it would be an outrageous thing to put the employer to the cost of keeping elaborate books of account for the satisfaction of auditors. What would be the consequence? Suppose the auditors, who may be any persons the workmen choose to appoint, come to the conclusion that all the deductions are not accounted for, the employer will be surcharged with the amount, and the door is opened for interminable disputes. I really cannot imagine that any employer would undertake to make these deductions on such terms, and the cause of education would be greatly injured.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I understand the objection is, that the workman should make his objection at the time the deductions are made from his wages, if he has got anything to say. But at that time a workman would not be in a position to enter into a question of accompting with his master. As giving the men an opportunity of seeing how the fund is disposed of, the clause seems to me, on its merits, a reasonable proposal.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): When the Audit Clause was proposed in Committee, it assumed a very different shape, and I then said I would endeavour to see if I could get a form of words to meet the objections raised to the clause as it then stood. It is represented to me—I do not say that my own opinion is worth anything—that the effect would be the keeping open the accounts for the period of a year, and that it is not necessary to do this. The matter ought to be arranged, as between master and workmen, to have a proper inquiry, in the ordinary course, without a statutory provision. It seems unncessary that there should be legislation for the purpose of an audit, and that is why I have not put down words for such a clause.
    MR. CREMER: May I ask you, Sir, if this clause should be defeated, what will be
    1088
    my position in reference to an Amendment that stands in my name at the foot of the page? It contains the same principle embodied in the clause now under consideration; but it covers more ground, and is more comprehensive. What will be my position, if this clause is rejected?
    MR. SPEAKER: The whole principle is involved in the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark; and if that falls, then the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman will fall with it.
    MR. CREMER: I do not know if the Attorney General is aware that, in many instances, workmen have had reason to mistrust the mode in which these funds have been distributed. The clause I have put upon the Paper is intended to compel employers who now withhold accounts, to which clearly workmen have a right, to submit to an annual audit. I hope, if the Attorney General and the Government object to the principle contained in the clause now under consideration, and in the still more comprehensive clause of which I have given Notice, they will take care that some clause is drafted and inserted in the Bill, which shall give to workmen some protection against dishonest employers. I use the word advisedly. The majority are animated by the best of motives towards their workmen; but there are others of whom that cannot be said, and the course pursued tends to encourage those who deduct amounts from wages, small or large, and never, under any circumstances, render an account to the workmen of the amount received, and how it is disposed of. It is shameful that this practice should be allowed to continue. I hope, in the interest of the working classes—a large number of whom are compelled to suffer under this disadvantage—that the Attorney General, if he will not accept either of these clauses, will insert some provision to prevent these fraudulent practices on the part of unprincipled employers.
    MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE: I must ask leave to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that if his objection to this clause is merely that it would keep accounts open for a whole year, I think he has omitted to notice the words "once at least in every year." Therefore, arrangements could be made for the

    1089
    employer to make up the accounts as often as he desired. I cannot also help remarking upon the extraordinary speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). Let the House consider what these deductions are. A certain sum is taken from the wages of each man; a fund is thereby created to be applied to certain purposes. The hon. and learned Member for Preston says it is outrageous that the workman should ask for an account showing how the money has been spent. Seeing that the fund is created out of money taken from their wages, it seems to me eminently reasonable that a clear account should be given them showing how it is used. I believe that in almost every case the fund is properly applied; but the very fact that no clear account is given to the men gives rise to doubts in their minds which are very disagreeable, and tend to embitter relations between employers and employed. For these reasons, I think this clause is decidedly needed and perfectly just.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: While I am not quite free from hesitation in reference to the matter, I think, on the balance, I will venture to ask the House to accept this clause. The employers take the money in the shape of deductions, and I fancy there can he no reasonable objection to giving an account of its application.
    MR. CAINE: I see no objection to this clause. The objects for which the deductions are made are extremely simple.
    COLONEL BLUNDELL: The question is, whether it is necessary? Sometimes there are stoppages from the workmen's wages at the end of their time of payment which do not create any fund at all. If a fund is created and remains in the hand of the employer, it would be a proper thing, no doubt, that it should be examined by a chartered accountant once a year.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the hon. and gallant Member permit me to point out that payments to a permanent relief fund would be stated under that head?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    MR. CREMER: The clause does not cover the
    1090
    entire ground. The one which I drafted—and I trust the House will not think me egotistical in saying so—goes a great deal further. I propose to introduce, after the word "tools," the words "or any other purposes." As it reads at present, the clause does not provide for auditing the deductions from wages for a provident fund.
    Amendment proposed, in line 3 of the Clause, after the word "tools," to insert the words "or any other purpose."—(Mr. Cremer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I cannot ask the House to agree to that; it raises the whole question of deductions for fines and other contentious matters.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. CREMER: Very well; in lieu of the words I moved to insert, I will substitute "or provident fund," to follow after the word "tools."
    Amendment proposed, after the word "tools," to insert the words "or provident fund."—(Mr. Cremer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TOMLINSON: I hope that the House will not agree to those words.
    MR. CREMER: Why?
    MR. TOMLINSON: Because if an employer seeks to give facilities to his workmen to invest their money in a provident society by undertaking the task of collecting it and paying it over, it is rather hard to call on him to be compelled to keep an account in a separate book and take the trouble of having it audited.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: It is impossible to accept these words. There are some provident funds—of which we have had evidence—in which, in consideration of the sum paid, the employer accepts the responsibility of paying sums in case of accident or death. There are others in which the whole fund is controlled by a joint committee, of which the employer may not even be a member. I trust that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    MR. CHANCE: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has omitted the word "or," in a pre-

    1091
    vious line, and, therefore, it is necessary something should be inserted.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is quite immaterial whether the word "or" stands in or not.
    MR. O. V. MORGAN: I am satisfied, from my experience, that most employers would be only too glad to give information in these matters. It is certainly desirable that in all these things the greatest confidence possible should exist between masters and men. I, therefore, hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on his proposal.
    MR. BURT: The difficulty that I have in supporting the Amendment is that in many cases the money is kept at the request and for the convenience of the working classes; and, therefore, it seems rather stern to request the employer to do this, and to put him under the obligation of issuing a balance sheet. Balance sheets are issued by the men themselves. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make his Amendment apply only to cases where the working men do not issue balance sheets. If he does that I will support him.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 107: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 307.)
    [1.40 A.M.]
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    MR. CREMER: I have to propose another clause; but I suppose it is in vain, as I can hardly hope to induce the House to accept it. I doubt very much if any clause is likely to meet with acceptance under the peculiar conditions in which we seem to be placed; but I submit that this is a most important clause. It provides that where deductions are made from the wages of any working man for contributions towards any provident or other fund, any such workman who has contributed to such fund for any period not less than three calendar months shall be entitled at the expiration of the hiring to a fair compensation from the funds to which he has contributed. I pointed out on a former occasion that it not unfrequently happens that a workman subscribes for six, 12, or 18 months, or two, three, or four years to a fund out of which he receives not one farthing, and then, either from slackness of trade or some
    1092
    other cause, he is discharged, and rendered no longer entitled to any benefit from the fund. The principle embodied in this clause is, I believe, recognized by some honourable employers here and there, and I think the London and North-Western Railway Company grant their employés some compensation when they are discharged under the circumstances referred to in this clause. I think the equity and justice of this clause will recommend it to all honourably-minded Members of this House. Without any further observation—for I have not the slightest desire to delay the progress of this Bill—I beg to move the clause which stands in my name.
    Clause—
    (Workman to have the right of compensation from funds to which he has contributed.)
    "Whenever deductions are made from the wages of any workman for contribution towards any provident or any other fund, any such workman who has contributed to such fund for any period not less than three calendar months shall be entitled at the expiration of the hiring to a fair compensation from the funds to which he has contributed, the amount of compensation to be determined by the employer or his agent and the workman claiming compensation.
    "In any case where the employer or his agent and the workman claiming compensation under this Clause are unable to agree upon the amount to be paid for compensation, the disputants may select one or more persons to act as arbitrators; and the decision of the persona so selected shall be final and binding upon the disputants,"—(Mr. Cremer,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: It is quite impossible for the House to accept this clause, and it would not have been moved by anyone having any knowledge of working men's clubs. The bulk of the funds in many associations pass into the hands of persons who are neither the employers nor employed, and to propose to get them back from the employers who have no control even of the moneys is to make a proposition which is an absurdity.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes, 111: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 308.)
    [1.55 A.M.]
    DR. CLARK: I will be very brief in moving the next Amend-

    1093
    ment. A very serious evil in the North of Scotland—in the granite pavement and slate quarries—is the habit of paying the men only once in every three months, and having a month after that to make up the books, so that a man must be four months in the employment before he gets his first wages. The managers of the quarries are not paid any wages. They are paid by being allowed to keep stores, to which the men are compelled to go and buy on credit. This clause does not touch any cases where the men are employed by contract; but where they are employed by the week they will get their money at the end of the second week. The House has already decided in favour of a clause exactly similar in the case of Ireland, only providing that the payments shall be weekly. This makes the payments fortnightly, or less than that if they like to make it so by contract. I beg to move the following Clause:—
    (Workmen in Scotch quarries to be paid fortnightly.)
    "Where a workman is employed in the slate, pavement, or granite quarries of Scotland for wages calculated by time, the period of the payment of such wages shall be fortnightly, or at such less intervals of time as may be provided by the contract."
    Clause (Workmen in Scotch quarries to be paid fortnightly,)—(Dr. Clark,)— brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not know whether the House will be inclined to follow in relation to Scotland what they have done in regard to Ireland. Certainly, the habit of deferring payment of wages constitutes a great evil in Scotland. I have here an instance in which payment of wages has been deferred for 32 weeks. If the House is disposed to accept the clause I shall not oppose it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added.
    Amendments made.
    MR. C. W. GRAY, in moving an Amendment in Clause 4, page 2, line 10, to leave out "not being intoxicating," said: Some hon. Members may be present to-night who were not here on the occasion on which the three words I ask you now to take away from his clause were added to it. They
    1094
    were carried by a very narrow majority, there being 112 for their inclusion in the Bill, and 101 against. I would point out to the House that these words forming part of the clause will upset—I think I may say in a very vexatious manner—long-standing customs between farmers and their men. We have heard to-night, from, I think, the hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Kelly), that farmers are in the habit of giving their men 25 s. a-week, and then taking away 5s. for beer; and should such a remark have made any impression on hon. Members I wish to state that I have no experience —I am sorry to say—of agricultural labourers getting 25 s. a-week, or anything like it. My experience among farmers and labourers is large, and I certainly have had no experience of cases in which farmers have tried by any means we can imagine to take away any portion of a labourer's wages, after once he has contracted with him to give him a certain amount. I have always understood that the intention of the Truck Act was to prevent employers of labour from cheating their men, as it were, out of the wages which they had contracted to give them; but this clause, as now drawn, would prevent the labourers in the Eastern Counties from getting an occasional pint of beer for extra work. And I can assure hon. Members that up to the present they have not succeeded in making these men think that an occasional extra pint of beer, when the work has been very hard or the day hot, does them any harm. I have no objection whatever to hon. Members who advocate temperance principles going down to the Eastern Counties to make as many converts as possible; but I do object to their making use of a Bill of this sort as a peg on which to hang those principles. No one dislikes intemperance among farm labourers more than I do, but I assure hon. Members that the words I ask to have omitted from the clause have nothing whatever to do with the Truck Act; and as I understand matters in the Eastern Counties, if they are not omitted the result would be, not that the men would have less beer, but that they would be driven to the public-house for it, and have to carry it about in the hot sun with them all day long, instead of getting it fresh and cool from the farmers' cellars. I maintain, Sir, it is

    1095
    much better for the men to have their beer fresh and cool. What would hon. Members think if they had to carry their beer about with them during their shooting on a hot autumnal day? "Would they like that? [Cries of "Divide !"] I shall be only too happy to let the Division take place. I have no wish to unduly detain the House; but I do most earnestly resent what I consider is a gross libel on the farmers of England—namely, the assertion that they try to force beer or any other intoxicating drink whatever upon their employés. I am sure no one can produce any evidence that such a thing has been done.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I should not have intervened in this debate, except that I mean to give a vote to-night which I think is contradictory to my vote on the last occasion. When this clause was moved by the hon. Member who represents one of the Divisions of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. D. Acland). I stated that I did not think the House then had sufficient information to enable hon. Members to give a decision upon it. I, therefore, voted against the insertion of the words. Since then I have received from all parts of the country a very large mass of information which satisfies me that the words will not have the effect attributed to them. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. C. W. Gray) what this clause does. Originally, under the Truck Act, all contracts except those paid in money were illegal. It was then pointed out to us that in regard to services in husbandry it was customary to provide the men with cottages and other things. This, too, raised the question of intoxicating liquors. As the clause now stands you can contract to give the labourers wages and food, and a cottage if you please, but not intoxicating liquors. The only thing prohibited is a contract whereby as part of the remuneration for service intoxicating liquors are to be given. The clause does not prevent a workman going to his master and making arrangements for fresh and cool beer to be sent out to him; it only prevents the master forcing on the labourer a contract whereby, as part of remuneration for his services, he is to receive intoxicating liquors. We want to do this. Supposing a farmer says—"I will give you 14 s. a-week and
    1096
    a quart of beer a-day;" and the labourer replies—"I do not want the beer," we want the man to be able to say he will have more than 14 s. a-week, and not allow the master to say—"If you do not take the beer you shall only have 14s. a-week." We do not want to prevent the workman obtaining from his master intoxicating liquor; that would be a separate contract. It seems to me that the mischief alleged by my hon. Friend behind me does not exist.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I am sorry to have to intervene in this debate, because I must differ from the hon. and. learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who, in my humble judgment, has given very insufficient reasons for his change of opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he wishes to prevent the employer of labour saying to a man—"I will give you so much as wages, say, 14 s. a-week, and so much drink; but if you will not have the drink, I will not give you any more money." He wishes the labourer to be able to say—"No; I will have 15 s. a-week without the drink." He thinks that this clause will enable the labourer to get that 15 s. from the farmer. Will he allow me to point out that it will not prevent the farmer saying —"Well. I will have in your place some person who will take 14 s. a-week with the drink." The supply of labour depends on the demand for it; and whether a labourer can make a good bargain with a farmer or not depends, not upon this drink question, but whether there are more or fewer labourers asking for employment in the district. This Bill does not touch that at all. I object to the introduction, of these three words on the very grounds alleged by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh), who has told us to-day, in regard to every Amendment which he has asked the House to reject, that he does so because they form no part necessarily of a Truck Bill. Is this then a case, I ask him, of truck, or is it not? Sir, I submit that it is not a case of truck—it is simply a case of temperance. Section 4 excepts from the operation of the Truck Act persons engaged in husbandry; and if farmers, instead of producing—as in the district in which I farm—cider, produced, say, barley-water, there would be no question such as is raised by these three words, It is

    1097
    simply because cider is supposed to be intoxicating that these words have been inserted in this clause. It should not be forgotten that I speak for a considerable interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has told us he has changed his opinions, because he has received a number of letters expressing certain views on the subject in agreement with those which he now holds. But he did not show us those letters; he did not tell us who his correspondents were. But, Sir, I am able to give the House some information on this subject recently obtained from the best sources. I spoke only last Tuesday at a meeting composed of farmers and labourers, and I mentioned to them what had been done by the House in reference to this matter, and a general opinion was expressed that it was against the interest of the farming community. I do not know whether the Amendment will be supported by hon. Members on this side of the House to-day. When they go down to the country they sometimes pose as the friends of the farmers, and say that the agricultural interest is the cause of the Conservative Party. Now, the real desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to this clause is not to prevent any evil arising from truck, but to smuggle into the Bill something that may assist in promoting another cause, which has nothing whatever to do with track, and with the merits of which we are not now concerned. I am sorry at this time of the morning to detain the House; but the persons on whose behalf I speak, though they are not Bishops, or Bishops' daughters, happen to be agricultural labourers who, for hundreds of years, have been accustomed to this system—[Laughter]—they and their predecessors, and find it suits them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot, I think, know the full extent of the interests involved. I wonder if the hon. Member for Launceston (Mr. C. T. D. Acland) could tell us the quantity of orcharding that exists in his county, and in the five principal cider counties? It is really much more extensive than people suppose. From the Agricultural Returns for last year the total area under orcharding in those counties appears to be 112,000 acres. The fruit in these orchards is chiefly cider fruit. Then most of the farmers have mills, large cellars—[An
    1098
    hon. MEMBER: And buyers.] Yes, they have buyers as well; and it is to prevent them from having buyers in future for the produce of their orchards that these three words I wish struck out have been inserted. All this represents a large amount of capital invested, and a large amount of trade carried on; and the result of inserting these three words, which I now ask the House to omit, will be to interfere with this trade without any previous intimation whatever to the persons engaged in it. I will venture to give the House the opinion, not of anonymous letter writers, but of a person who, I think, is a competent judge of the matter—my own farm bailiff—a thoroughly practical man, who belongs to a class that ought to secure attention from hon. Gentlemen opposite, for he has risen to his present responsible position from that of plough-boy—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is dealing very irrelevantly with the Amendment.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I only proposed, Sir, to give the opinion, with which I will conclude, of a competent person familiar with the cider districts of Herefordshire, and I hope that may be considered germane to the subject. I informed him in outline of what had been done in this Bill; and his answer was—"They send a most anyone to Parliament, don't they, Sir, now?" I then stated to him the action of the House as affecting the cider trade, on which I give his opinion in his own homely language—"It's the biggest foolishness as ever was. One would think they was folks as never know'd the nature of life." In this opinion I concur.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 47: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 309.)
    [2.35 A.M.]
    MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE: I propose to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice as far as the word "made." If the House desires it, I will state the object.
    Amendment proposed,
    In Clause 7, page 2, line 37, to leave out from "wages" to end of Clause, and insert—"For education, any workman sending his child to any State inspected school shall be entitled to have the school fees of his child paid therefrom, at the same rate and to the same extent as the

    1099
    other workmen from whose wages such deduction is made."—(Mr. R. Preston Bruce.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I cannot help thinking there is a little ambiguity in the Amendment as now proposed, though I am sure it is not intended. If the Amendment is accepted, there will be no security, so far as I see, that a workman is entitled to send Ms child to any school of his own selection.
    THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The words "selected by the parent" are in the clause already.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I thought it was proposed to leave that part out.
    Question put, and negatived; words left out.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think it will be necessary to add the words "selected by the parent or guardian" in the proposed Amendment, after the words "State-inspected schools."
    Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by adding, after the word "school," in the second line, the words "selected by the parent or guardian."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: Then it is just as well I called the attention of the House to this.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted.
    Question, "That the Amendment, as amended, be added to the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) being out of Order, the second of the two following Amendments will, I think, best carry out the wishes of those who desire the Amendment.
    On the Motion of Mr. AINSILE (Lancashire, N., Lonsdale) the following Amendment made:—Clause 8, page 3, at end, add—"Except by agreement
    1100
    not forming part of the condition of hiring."
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL the following Amendment made:— In Clause 11, page 3, line 30, after the word "employer," to add the words "or agent, as the case may be."
    Schedule.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 3, at beginning of line, insert—
    12Geo. 1, c. 34.
    "An Act to prevent unlawful combinations of workmen employed in the woollen manufactures, and for better payment of their wages."
    Section three, and so much of section eight as applies to section three.
    22 Geo. 2, c. 27.
    "An Act, the title of which begins with' An Act for the more effectual preventing of frauds, 'and ends with the words 'and for the better payment of their wages.'"
    So much of section twelve as applies to any enactment repealed by this Act.
    30 Geo. 2, c. 12.
    "An Act, the title of which begins with the words 'An Act to amend an Act,' and ends with the words 'payment of the workmen's wages in any other manner than in money.'"
    Sections two and three.
    57 Geo. 3, c. 115.
    "An Act, the title of which begins with the words 'An Act to extend the provisions of an Act,' and ends with the words 'articles of cutlery.'"
    The whole Act.
    57 Geo. 3, c. 122.
    "An Act, the title of which begins with the words 'An Act to extend the provisions,' and ends with the words 'extending the provisions of the said Acts to Scotland and Ireland.'"
    The whole Act.
    Page 6, line 4, after "jury," insert "inclusive;" and in page 6, line 12, after "agreement," insert "inclusive."
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I hope the House will now allow the third reading to be taken.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road the third time."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
    MR. CREMER: I object to that, and propose to defer the third reading to Monday.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: If the hon. Member opposes it I will not press the

    1101
    Motion; but I am sorry he carries his opposition to that extent.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  MOTIONS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire and report as to the Boundaries of certain areas of Local Government in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Long.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 324.]

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill to amend "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877," so far as relates to certain Judges, and to the office of the Accountant General, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 325.]

    MARRIAGES CONFIRMATION (ANTWERP) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. James Stuart, Bill to confirm certain Marriages solemnized at Antwerp, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Picton.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 326]

    BANKRUPTCY (DISCHARGE AND CLOSURE) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, Bill to amend the Law relating to the discharge of Bankrupts and the closure of Bankruptcy proceedings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, and Baron Henry De Worms.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 327.]

    PUBLIC PARKS AND WORKS (METROPOLIS) (PENSIONS).
    Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a portion of any pension that may be awarded to any officer transferred from the services of the Commissioners of Works to the Metropolitan Board of Works under any Act of the present Session for the transfer to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the maintenance of certain Public Parks and Works in the Metropolis (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment * (176).
Select Committee—Report— Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) [No. 174].
Committee—Report —Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) (164).
Report—Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis)* (43–175).

NEW PEER.
Sir James Macnaghten M'GarelHogg, Bart., G.C.B., having been created Baron Magheramorne, of Magheramorne, in the county of Antrim— Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
TEINDS (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  Moved for—
  "Returns of the rental of each county and each parish in Scotland and of the value of the teinds

  897
  appertaining thereto, and the value of such portion of them as is now appropriated to the payment of stipend and communion elements, and the value of such of them as are unexhausted by such, payments, and which still remain available for the future augmentation of ministers' stipends (in part continuation of Return 235, 1881)."—(The Earl of Minto.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, he thought the Returns asked for would be most useful and instructive, as it was a question in regard to which the public should be better informed. He would ask the noble Earl, however, not to press for a Return of the rental of each county and each parish in Scotland, as he thought it would be almost impossible to give them. It would be simple to give the value in each county where the valuation was printed; but that was not the case in all counties in Scotland, and there was no compulsory powers to compel their being given by the localities. In cases where the valuation roll was printed, the Return would be easily compiled, but given in this imperfect way, it would be very unsettling. With that exception, he should be most happy to give the Returns asked for.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  "Returns of the rental of each parish in Scotland, and of the value of the teinds appertaining thereto, and the value of such portion of them as is now appropriated to the payment of stipend and communion elements, and the value of such of them as are unexhausted by such payments, and which still remain available for the future augumentation of ministers' stipends (in part continuation of Return 235, 1881)."
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  Moved for—
  "Returns for each county in Scotland of the name of any parish in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister had been filled up by the electorate established under the provisions of the Church Patronage Act (37 & 38 Victoria, chap. 82, 1874), specifying—(1.) The population, male and female, of each such parish according to the last census at the time of election; (2.) The number of persons, male and female, who were qualified to vote in each case, distinguishing communicants and adherents; (3.) The cases in which the elections were contested, the number of candidates in each such case, and the number of persons, male and female, who recorded their votes in each case; (4.) The parishes in which compensation for loss of patronage has been awarded to or surrendered by former patrons in connection with each election under the Church Patronage Act, and the amount of the compensation awarded to or sur-
  898
  rendered by the patrons in each case (in part continuation of Returns No. 5, 1879, and No. 236, 1881)."— (The Earl of Minto.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, there could be no possible objection to granting the Returns the noble Earl asked for, as they were in continuation of Returns moved for by him in 1877. The noble Earl seemed to object to the Church Patronage Act of 1874; but on that point he was not at one with the general feeling of the people of Scotland, who were entirely satisfied with that Act. He should be happy to give the Returns asked for with the exception of No. 3, that relating to the number of candidates and the votes given for each, the information with regard to which it was impossible to obtain, as the elections took place under the ballot.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that the Return relating to compensation for loss of patronage could not possibly be given in the form asked. A very numerous body of patrons had surrendered their rights to compensation; as the amount of compensation for patronage which had been surrendered had never been assessed under the terms of the Act, and did not require to be, it could not be stated. He would suggest to substitute for Paragraph 4 of the Returns, the following: —
  " The names of parishes in each county in Scotland in which patrons have retained their right to compensation under the Act, and the amount of compensation awarded in each case, distinguishing the cases in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister has been filled up by the electorate established under the Act."
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he would accept the Amendments.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  "Returns for each county in Scotland of the name of any parish in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister has been filled up by the electorate established under the provisions of the Church Patronage Act [37 & 38 Victoria, chap. 82, 1874), specifying—

  "1. The population, male and female, of each such parish, according to the last census, at the time of election;

  "2. The number of persons, male and female, who were qualified to vote in each case, distinguishing communicants and adherents;

  "3. The names of parishes in each county in Scotland in which patrons have retained their right to compensation under the Act, and the amount of the compensation awarded in each case, distinguishing the cases in which a vacancy for the appointment of a minister has been filled

  899
  up by the electorate established under the Act;

  "(In part continuation of Returns No. 5., 1887, and No. 236., 1881)."
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

PARLIAMENT (HOUSE OF LORDS)— TITLES OF PEERS—ENTRIES IN THE JOURNALS OR MINUTES.—RESOLUTION.
Moved to resolve—
"That when the name of any Lord who has a higher title or dignity than that by which he sits in Parliament shall be entered in the Journals or Minutes of Proceedings of the House, the higher title or dignity shall be added in brackets after the title by which such Lord sits in Parliament; and in the event of the Motion being agreed to, to move that the Motion be declared a Standing Order of the House, and be numbered XXXIIA." —[The Earl of Minto.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that, as he understood it, the Motion asked that the name of any Lord who had a higher title should be given along with his higher title, and the lower title by which he sat. The result would be that there would be three columns, one containing the name, then one containing the higher title, and the last the lower title.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood his noble Friend to desire that the same rule should be adopted with regard to the Minutes of the House as prevailed with respect to Divisions, that the higher title by which a peer was known should be stated as well as the title by which he sat in Parliament.
THE EARL OF MINTOmade some observations, which, owing to the acoustic properties of the House, were not heard in the Gallery.
Motion (by leave of thee House) withdrawn.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 164.)
(The Lord Ashbourne.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 164.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Ashbourne.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid: I read this morning that the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) had expressed his regret that I was not present last night when he wished to make some observa-
  900
  tions on the present measure. I really think that I am not very much to blame in the matter. I followed in the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) and rigorously confined myself to what that noble and learned Lord had deemed were points of importance. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) replied to some of the observations which I made. In the long and eloquent speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) I did not catch any reply to the observations which I made. The noble Duke discoursed upon Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Morley, upon all our late Colleagues, on Home Rule, on the Bill of 1881, and also upon that unfortunate Bill which is no longer before the House, and which does not appear to have fallen upon a bed of roses in the House of Commons. After that speech the noble and learned Earl spoke from a particular point of view very natural for him to take, but having no connection with my own remarks. I happened then to see that the clock was pointing to near 8, an hour which generally suggests to Members of both Houses of Parliament the idea of refreshment. After having listened to speeches for some four hours it struck me that dinner would not be unacceptable. I left the House for the purpose of dining, and, hurrying back, I broke my nose against the closed door of your Lordships' House. Before I left the House I had not observed that the noble and learned Earl had shown any signs of an intention to speak, and, knowing the attention that is usually paid to everything he says, I did not think that he would have selected the dinner hour for making his speech.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: In view of the fact that the other day the Front Opposition Bench asked for more time to consider this Bill, which had boon before them for many weeks, your Lordships must have been surprised by the evident intention of the noble Lords who sat upon that Bench to close the debate as quickly as possible. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) may have been justified in leaving the House for the purpose of getting his dinner; but it is strange that he could not find one noble Lord representing the Home Rule section of the Liberal Party in this House who would sacrifice his dinner in order to continue this discussion. The

  901
  noble Earl has endeavoured to depreciate the importance of the eloquent speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll); but it appears to me that he altogether omitted to refer to the real point made by the noble Duke, and which, in my opinion, the noble Earl is bound to answer. The noble Duke asked my noble Friends to say what was their alternative policy to this Bill. What is the policy which they recommend as an alternative to the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain law and order in Ireland? I cannot help thinking that it was something more than the advent of the usual dinner hour that accounts for the absence of my noble Friends from the House and for their remarkable exit. I cannot help thinking that there was somebody behind them to consult with, and who had to prompt them before they could give any reply to that question of the noble Duke. I will endeavour to lay before the House the exact state of the question as it stands. In 1885, when the Government of which the noble Earl was a Member was in Office, when there was no exceptional crime in Ireland, and when the condition of Ireland was much more satisfactory than it is now, they determined to introduce a Crimes Bill of a similar character to that which has recently passed through this House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: That is not true.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble Earl has used the expression "that is not true." I will sit down and give him an opportunity of explaining.
  EARL GEANVILLE: Certainly, as far as my knowledge goes, the statement which the noble Earl has made is inaccurate.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My statement is that at the time when Mr. Gladstone's Government determined to bring in a Bill similar in many respects to the present one the condition of Ireland was much more favourable than it is now. Does the noble Earl dispute that statement? I call as a witness the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer), who bore testimony to that effect. Mr. Gladstone himself in the other House stated that in consequence of the non-renewal of the Crimes Act of 1882 Boycotting had increased fourfold. Was there in 1885 a
  902
  Plan of Campaign? In 1885 the number of agrarian crimes in Ireland had been reduced from 4,000 to some 800 in consequence of the Act of 1882. We are perfectly justified in asking for the reasons which brought about the sudden change of opinion in the minds of noble Lords with regard to the Irish Question. The noble Earl said that one ground for that sudden change of opinion was the large number of Home Rule Members that had been returned by the Irish constituencies. But everybody knew beforehand that that would be the inevitable result of the extension of the franchise in that country. We all know what was the policy of Mr. Gladstone's Government at the beginning of 1886. What was the condition of Ireland at the beginning of 1886? As regards law and order, the circumstances of Ireland were becoming more and more serious day by day. As regards combinations against the payment of rent, Mr. Gladstone had before him evidence of those combinations in January, 1886. As regards the power of the National League, my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant was of opinion that it was increasing day by day. With respect to ejectments, they were flying about in considerable numbers in the first quarter of 1886. With respect to the disturbance of the minds of the occupiers of land which my noble Friends admitted was at the root of the whole Irish question, the leaseholders were dissatisfied at not being included in the Land Act, and a fall of prices had taken place in 1885 which made it hard for the tenants to pay the judicial rents. This was the state of Ireland in January, 1886. Part of these unfortunate circumstances were the direct consequence of Mr. Gladstone's legislation. The condition of the Land Question in Ireland was the direct consequence of his legislation; and, moreover, any disturbance in the country and the consequent crime created by unfair ejectments must be attributed, more than any other man, to Mr. Gladstone, who for five years had never attempted to apply a remedy. The policy of Mr. Gladstone's Government under these circumstances was deliberately to abstain from attempting either to maintain law and order or to apply a remedy to the grievances with respect to the land which were disorganizing the whole social condition of Ireland. They

  903
  thought it right instead of taking the practical course of dealing with evils as they existed to propose a measure to alter the whole constitution of the United Kingdom, and to make a new Government for Ireland. That policy failed in the House of Commons; it failed in the country. I hold that Mr. Gladstone's late Government is mainly responsible for the aggravation of the difficulties in Ireland which has been produced by neglecting to apply real practical remedies to the great evils which exist in that country. But although I, in common with many other Liberals in this House and the country, consider that Mr. Gladstone's policy last year was altogether wrong, it must be confessed that that policy was intelligible—that the two great measures which then held the field, the Bill for the Government of Ireland and the Land Bill, constituted a complete policy in all its points, upon which some argument could be raised and some real question discussed. But I have to ask your Lordships to consider what is the policy of my noble Friends now? Is it the policy which was defeated at the Elections of 1886 or is it some different policy? My noble Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, although they are somewhat inclined to be reticent in this House, have certainly not been reticent elsewhere. My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has spoken several times within the last few months, the late Foreign Secretary has spoken twice, and almost all my noble Friends have expressed their opinions in the country upon the position of affairs, and upon the policy which they advocate upon the Irish Question. I am bound to say, having studied them with all the care I could, the pursual has left upon my mind the vaguest possible impression. My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant in Cambridge defended both the Bills introduced by Mr. Gladstone in 1886. A month afterwards in London he had to admit that both those Bills were dead. The noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Rosebery) at Glasgow the day after said—"Our policy is exactly the same as when you (the electors) sent us about our business." [Lord ROSEBERY: Hear, hear!] My noble Friend cheers. I shall show in a moment how my noble Friend has modified his opinion since the month of April. A month after
  904
  came the remarkable speech of Mr. Gladstone at Swansea, and since then a great change has come over the speeches of my noble Friends. The question is what Mr. Gladstone meant. My noble Friend near me (Earl Granville) made a speech, and there is no one more adroit in making speeches, but when he came to this policy all he could say was that Mr. Gladstone made an eloquent speech, and that his explanations were such as to satisfy all reasonable men. But my noble Friend altogether abstained from saying what a single one of those explanations meant. The noble Lord the late Foreign Secretary cheered me just now. He also made a speech since Mr. Gladstone's speech—I think it was at the City Liberal Club—and what did he say? He said—
  "I do not know what is the real remedy for the wrongs of Ireland. I do not know the right way of governing Ireland."
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That was a wholly inaccurate report of the remarks which I made.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: If he has been inaccurately reported I will leave my noble Friend to explain what his views are at a future time. It all comes to this, that whether a man be a Home Ruler, a Liberal Unionist, or a Conservative, the great problem he has to solve is to interpret Mr. Gladstone's policy about the Irish Question. I think this House requires from my noble Friends now, and the country requires from the Home Rule section of the Liberal Party, some definite, distinct, and plain answers to certain definite, distinct, and plain questions. The first of these questions is, under this new Home Rule policy, are the present Representatives of Ireland to remain in the House of Commons at Westminster, or are they not? Mr. Gladstone's views upon that point may be interpreted in every sort of way. They are interpreted by Mr. Morley at Manchester in one way, and in another way last night by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in this House, and for the life of me all I can find with regard to Mr. Gladstone's proposal is that he puts forth some temporary proposition with regard to the Irish Members remaining at Westminster, but whether they are to remain at Westminster until some future time when they may be removed, or whether they are to be excluded, and at some future time to be admitted, I defy any-

  905
  one to gather from his words. If I am wrong in this interpretation of Mr. Gladstone's view I hope that either now or at some future time it will be clearly explained in this House, so that we may know who is right and who is wrong. The next question I have to ask my noble Friends to give a distinct answer to is this. Is Ulster to be treated separately from the rest of Ireland or is it not? Mr. Morley at Manchester said it was quite clear that Mr. Gladstone would do anything for Ulster, but there was alsolutely no explanation of that enigmatical declaration of Mr. Gladstone, except that he had promised to hear the voice of Ulster. The third question I have to ask—
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to Order. My noble Friend is not speaking in the least to the question before the House. He, an ex-Minister, is asking us for our policy on different subjects when the question with respect to the Bill moved by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) is before the House.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I submit that my argument is entirely germane to this question. My noble Friend, in his speech, has abandoned any attempt to dispute the facts put forward by the Government, and says that he objects to this Bill because he has an alternative policy. I have a right to ask what the alternative policy is. I assert that the Leader of the Home Rule Party in the other House, on the third reading of the Crimes Bill, distinctly said that the question was one of policy—that it was a question between the Government policy and the alternative policy of the Opposition. I hold, therefore, that my remarks are within the proper and legitimate scope of this discussion. You must recollect this—and it is a very important point, and one which will, I think, justify me in what I have said, and will, I hope, prevent my noble Friend from endeavouring to interrupt me again—you must recollect that it is a rare thing in the history of this country for an Opposition to think it right to refuse those measures to the Government which the Government think necessary to maintain law and order. If a course so unprecedented is rare in this House, it is still more rare for noble Lords to go about the country agitating against the Government on that very point of the maintenance of law and order; and I
  906
  think if that agitation is carried on as it has been from the first, by putting forward to the country an alternative policy, it is unworthy of my noble Friends to attempt to evade answering plain questions here. They are asked to give plain answers to plain questions here, in this House, for it is utterly impossible for anyone to decipher the enigmatical words of the Leader in Wales and elsewhere. I have asked two questions—whether the Irish Members are to be retained at Westminster, and what is to be done respecting Ulster? The third question is what is to be the condition under the new policy as respects the maintenence of law and order in Ireland? Is that to be committed to the new Irish Parliament or not? And the fourth question which I have to ask is what is the new policy with respect to measures relating to land in Ireland? Is the power over the land to be committed or not to the new Irish Parliament? If it is, where are the safeguards which my noble Friend the late Viceroy so honourably and firmly demanded with regard to the measure of 1886, when he said it was a mean and treacherous thing to abandon the Irish landlords to the mercy of the Members of Mr. Parnell's Party? These are questions to which I hope we shall have plain answers, notwithstanding the evident disinclination of my noble Friends to give them. I should like to know further whether we are right in interpreting the Swansea speeches to mean that the plan of Home Rule is to be extended to Wales and Scotland as well as Ireland? I should like to know whether the late reception of the American Embassy at Dollis Hill is to be taken to mean that consideration is to be given to the views of American sympathizers—
  THE EARL OF CORK: I really must rise to Order. I have had the honour of sitting in this House for over 30 years, and I have no hesitation in saying that I have never heard a discussion conducted as the noble Earl is conducting this. Our Rules are not so stringent as those in "another place," but I appeal to noble Lords whether this discussion would be allowed in any other Assembly. We are discussing to-night the question of the Crimes Bill, and not the question of Home Rule or the speeches made by Ministers or ex-Ministers out of doors.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am really very sorry, but I have already explained my position, and I shall venture to continue a few minutes longer. This alternative policy of the Opposition is reduced to a certain amount of vague, abstract propositions, and my noble Friends are just beginning to see what a difficult matter they have in hand in taking up the question of Home Rule. They are just beginning to be in the position of Mr. Butt and others when they began this Home Rule agitation in the House of Commons. I will tell my noble Friends what was the answer to Mr. Butt's policy, which was much the same as Mr. Gladstone's policy now is, consisting, as it did, in abstract propositions. Mr. Butt said very much what some of my noble Friends have said. Speaking on the 20th of March, 1874, Mr. Butt said—
  "Did not the facts he had mentioned justify him in asking the House to recede from its policy of coercion and mistrust? The conclusion had been reluctantly forced upon him that conceding to Ireland a Parliament to manage its own affairs was the only way to establish a perfect Constitutional Government in that country."—(3 Hansard, [218] 116.)
  That was Mr. Butt's view, and it has been expressed on many a platform of late. What was the answer given to Mr. Butt? It was an answer which I think, must be given to any such abstract proposition. This is the answer—
  "We shall first inquire if your plan is intelligible before we inquire whether it is expedient. … It is a dangerous and tricky system for Parliament to adopt—to encounter national dissatisfaction, if it really exists—with the assurance which may mean anything or nothing, 'which may perhaps conciliate the feelings of the people of Ireland for the moment, and attract a passing breath of popularity, but which, when the day of trial comes, may be found entirely to fail them."—(Ibid, 131.)
  Those words were used by Mr. Gladstone in answer to abstract propositions such as are in the minds of my noble Friends on this question. I say that we have a right to discuss the alternative policy as it has been presented to the country now, and especially as the noble Earl, in his opposition to this Bill, putting aside his legal argument on the clauses for dealing with dangerous associations, which will be dealt with by my noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) on the Third Reading. The Government relied entirely on the alter
  908
  native policy. The policy of the Government I consider to be plain, intelligible, and practical policy. They are determined to remedy those grievances that exist in Ireland, and that exist there to a great extent in consequence of the policy of the late Government; and, moreover, the Government are attempting to maintain law and order by a measure which I think none of your Lordships will dispute is in many respects precisely similar to a measure introduced by my noble Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, and which on some points is a great improvement upon their measure. At any rate, I hope we shall have a plain and intelligent answer to the few questions I have ventured to put to my noble Friends before the debate closes.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think that our position in this House is a singularly unfortunate one. I suppose that all your Lordships will concur in that remark from different points of view. When I saw the general restlessness and irritation with, which the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) has spoken, I trembled to think that the destinies of India and of our Fleet had ever been entrusted to him. What is our position with regard to this debate? Everybody who heard the noble Earl (Earl Granville) the Leader of the Opposition last night must admit that his speech was a very moderate and inoffensive one. He was followed by the noble Earl, one of the many Viceroys of Ireland, and again I may say that the speech of that noble Earl was more in the nature of a personal explanation, which was not at all premature. No one who recollects the declarations on the part of the Government that came from the lips of the noble Earl in 1885 will deny that the explanation of the noble Earl did not come a moment too soon. Following him we had an admirable didactic homily, which embraced every subject in politics known to your Lordships' House except the one question which was before us, delivered by the noble Duke (Duke of Argyll), who again imitated our example in retiring from the further discussion of the subject which was before the House. Then followed the speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Denbigh), when I confess I left myself, because I did not understand that the debate was likely

  909
  to be continued after the noble Earl's speech. And I regret extremely that I did leave the House, because I think all will allow that the noble Earl made a speech which was singularly thoughtful and eloquent, and, what I cannot say for all other speeches, a singularly pertinent contribution to the debate. Having listened to this somewhat exhaustive debate, we left the House, and it turned out after we had gone that our noble and candid Friends above the Gangway, who had come down with great masses of manuscript which remained undischarged, were extremely angry with us because we did not make a House to listen to the diatribes of which the two specimens we had heard contained nothing whatever concerning the measure before us. In the other House of Parliament we are accused of unduly prolonging debates. We consider that the Bill had sufficiently been discussed in the other House, and when it came to this House we resolved for more reasons than one to confine ourselves to a simple protest delivered by our Leader against the measure as it stands. What is the result? We fall from the Scylla of obstruction into the Charybdis of not staying to listen to the speeches of noble Lords. While we are charged with delaying the measure in the House of Commons by debate, we cannot with equal justice be censured for allowing the Bill to get through a stage in this House. Either one imputation must be withdrawn or the other cannot be sustained. I wish to say a word as to the reasons which influenced me in thinking that the course we pursued in making one single protest against the Bill was, on the whole, better than prolonging the debate. First, the arguments regarding this measure were exhausted in the Lower House. Next, we are well aware that we occupy a very humble position as a minority, numerically speaking, in this House. We are not a minority at all numerically in the sense in which there are majorities and minorities elsewhere; we are rather rari nantes in gurgite vasto. I suppose this House has some 550 Members. If the noble Marquess continues in power, he will permit me to say I think that the House is more likely to increase than to decrease. But do you think we could have brought more than 50 Peers to vote with us on this question? In these
  910
  circumstances it was quite clear that it was not wise to carry the debate to a Division. But a varied and discursive debate ranging over the topics selected by the noble Duke and the noble Earl and not ending in a Division would to my mind have been a barren and unprofitable performance. To go a step further, I do not think it would have added to the credit of this House. As to our own credit, we are able to look after that ourselves, in spite of the insinuations of the noble Earl who has just sat down; and I may claim to speak solemnly and emphatically on behalf of the credit of the House, because the Motion I made the year before last shows that I am not less attached to it than anyone else. Although at the last Election we were defeated, and handsomely defeated, we were followed by 1,344,444 voters in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and although we were defeated by some 76,000 votes, still, considering the largeness of the number arrayed on the other side, the defeat cannot be considered to have been a very decisive one. I think it would have had a most lamentable effect, as showing the relations that this House occupies towards the great masses of the people, if we had had a Division which showed that on this great question of conciliation or coercion in Ireland the House was not only not nearly equally divided, but that there was a majority of 10 to 1 in favour of coercion. Believing, as we did, that for the credit of this House it was better not to have a Division, your Lordships will not blame us if we thought it was better not to prolong discussion; and I confess I think our resolution has been amply justified by the nature of the speeches we have listened to. When I listened to the speech of the noble Earl I thought I was living in some delightful dreamland; that instead of sitting upon a Bench on which there happen to be some five noble Lords at this moment, and that instead of sitting in this position of dignified isolation, we were sitting on the Benches opposite, surrounded by a crowded and enthusiastic majority, only anxious to carry into effect the policy we were about to enunciate. I was under that delusion until I was rudely awakened from it by looking around and listening to the animated inquiries of the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) as to what our policy was

  911
  to be, as to what our Irish Parliament was to be, and whether we were going to except Ulster. The noble Earl might as well have asked the state of our bankers' accounts, or any other matter which remotely and individually concerns ourselves. I have yet to learn that it is any part of the function of an Opposition in a small minority in the House to suggest an alternative policy to every measure that may be brought before this House. This is a doctrine that is as new as it is alarming; but if that doctrine is to be carried into effect, I venture to say that it applies with much greater force to the noble Earl and the noble Duke themselves, because they represent a much larger section of the House than we do. They are what are called by their own complimentary expression Unionist Peers; they are far more numerous than those who are called the Home Rule section of the Party. Therefore, if any Question is to be addressed to any section of this House on a question of policy it is not to the section which sits on this Bench that it ought to be put; it ought to be put to the noble Earl and the noble Duke. I cannot speak with the agitation and the fine frenzy of the noble Earl. I can speak in moderate and hushed accents with regard to the reply I propose to make to these four Questions put by the noble Earl, which he hopes will be answered before the debate closes. I can assure him, with all submission, humility, and kindness, that I propose to make no reply at all. I have yet to learn that it is the function of an Opposition, when a measure is brought before this House dealing with the repression of crime in Ireland, to explain every speech that has been made, either by themselves or by their Leader, in the House of Commons and in every part of the country. I have yet to learn that it is the function of the Opposition, which has not been more than 11 months out of Office, and whose policy when in Office, as the noble Earl said, was perfectly well known to him, to go on repeating it at every intelligible and unintelligible opportunity. At any rate, it will not be our function on this occasion. I will say in general terms what is the general nature of our policy. It will not take long I have said it often before. There is one part of the speech of the noble Earl which was not in the
  912
  nature of an inquiry, and in which he showed a want of information so melancholy and so extraordinary that I must call attention to it. The noble Earl pointed to us as something so unpatriotic, so indescribable, that he did not venture to use the epithet upon his lips, because we oppose the proposals of the Government which they think necessary for securing law and order in Ireland. He said that no Government, when proposing measures for the preservation of life and property, had ever been seriously opposed for many years.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Since 1846.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: the noble Earl named no such date, and I decline to accept the correction. When we were in Opposition I admit that we fought the six Acts of Lord Sidmouth with all the resolution in our power; we fought them, although we did not profess to have any alternative policy. In 1846, when the noble Earl was born, though I was not, there was an unholy alliance; I call it unholy, although the fathers of our Party entered into it, and the fathers of the Party opposite joined in it, and denied the late Sir Robert Peel the measures that he thought necessary for the security of life and property in Ireland. Well, I say there are precedents which the noble Earl might have had in his mind before accusing the Colleagues with whom he acted less than two years ago of conduct unbefitting public men in this House. The noble Earl has made a quotation from a speech recently delivered, in which I was made to say that I had no idea what was the proper remedy to apply to the Irish difficulty. We have recently had some experience in this House which shows that it is not always possible to report with accuracy. Obviously I did not say anything so flagrantly absurd as that I had no idea what was the proper remedy for the Irish difficulty. But to make quite sure, I went to an hon. Member of the House of Commons who was present at the banquet in question, and who does not belong to our section of the Party, and that hon. Gentleman entirely corroborates the inaccuracy of the report. What I did say was this—"Supposing, for the sake of argument, that I had not a proper remedy for Ireland; supposing, for the sake of argument, that our remedy

  913
  was not a correct one." And then I went on to use the words quoted by the noble Earl. I cannot be held responsible for every report of what I am made to say. The noble Earl entered into a protest as regards our action as being ready to re-enact certain portions of the Coercion Bill which was in force in 1885. The noble Earl said that so far from doing it we proceeded in 1886 to produce those iniquitous measures which are only too well known to your Lordships. The noble Earl forgets that there were two very distinct epochs between our disappearance as a Government in 1885 and our re-appearance as a Government in 1886. There was, in the first place, the General Election, which brought back to the House of Commons an enormous preponderance of Irish Members elected by a free popular franchise for the first time, and pledged to what, in our opinion, were moderate proposals in regard to Home Rule. It has been said in the course of this discussion that we were well aware what the result of those Elections would be, and that therefore we ought to have discounted it. I only speak for myself, and I freely admit that I did anticipate the result of those Elections as regards the number of Members to be returned; but I did not anticipate what I consider the moderation of the demands which were made by the Irish Party. Did the noble Earl anticipate that the Irish Party would come back some 86 or 90 strong, prepared to demand a measure of Home Rule? Did he, or did he not? If he did not, he very inaccurately measured the extent of the Bill introduced by the Government in which he was a Cabinet Minister to extend the franchise in Ireland. If he did anticipate that, what is the irresistible conclusion we must draw but that the noble Earl with that foreknowledge deliberately extended to Ireland a great national franchise with a full and steady determination to refuse the main proposition which would be brought back by the Members elected under that franchise. I did not so understand the Franchise Bill. I have not understood that it is the function of Members of either House of Parliament to bring in a measure to enfranchise people with a fixed intention to refuse the only demand of those people when they come back to Parliament. Why did the noble Earl reserve all his
  914
  anger for those who sat on his own side of the House? The noble Earl reminds me of the couplet—though I am not sure of the words—
  "But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
  Save, save, oh save me from the candid friend !"
  When the Conservative Government was formed in 1885, the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), one of the late Viceroys, had devolved upon him the task of sustaining the policy of that Government in Ireland. The Government was one formed by the Party of authority, the Party of law and order, who had come in to put down the license that had grown up under the previous Administration. They could not have known the information with regard to Ireland which the late Government possessed. Yet, almost without hesitation, they got up and deliberately said that, in their opinion, the time for coercion had passed away in Ireland. Last night the noble Earl gave the new and the true reasons why they did not propose to renew the Coercion Act—reasons for which they might read the memorable statement of the 6th July in vain. The Government then was substantially the same as now, though the noble Earl, by some unaccountable oversight, was omitted from it. What did the noble Earl say about coercion? Speaking then, no doubt for the Government, of which he was a Member, he said special legislation of this sort was inexpedient, and was still more inexpedient when it had to be renewed at short intervals. But the noble Earl went on to make a remark which told against his own argument. he quoted Cavour's saying that it was easy to govern in a state of siege; and said that, while it might be easy to govern in a state of siege for a time, the attempt to govern under it permanently was, he believed, impossible. Yet this was the policy of the Government. They were now bringing in a permanent measure of coercion for the Irish people. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) further said if this legislation was to be permanent, it ought to be universally and generally applied. I looked in vain through the present Bill for any provision making its application universal. I venture to say that if the conduct of the late Government in doing away with a coercive policy requires explanation, the

  915
  policy of the present Government is one which no less requires something in the character of apology. When the policy of repression was deliberately, and in so eloquent, grave, and impressive a manner abandoned for ever, because we could not take up these things and drop them—
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My remarks hardly bear out the interpretation the noble Earl puts upon them. I never stated, as far as I can remember, that coercion was to be for ever abandoned. I distinctly said that we were making a great experiment, that I looked to trust engendering trust on the part of the English Government in their relations with the Irish people, and I sincerely hoped that the experiment which we were trying would prove successful.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Earl said it was only to be an essay in experimental legislation. When I made the remark that coercion was to be abandoned for ever, that was my interpretation of the noble Earl's language. But let me tell noble Lords that experimental legislation in matters of this kind is an exceedingly dangerous thing, and that noble Lords, however great their ability may be, have no right to come into a Government without any special knowledge of the subject and to drop those measures which a previous Government has considered necessary for the public welfare. We know perfectly well, however, that this was an experiment which had been resolved on long before. There is a speech made by Lord Randolph Churchill, in which he intimates that the Loaders of his Party had held a meeting, and had come to the conclusion that it was then expedient not to renew the Coercion Act if they were returned to power.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): What I stated was that they would not renew the Coercion Act unless information in the official possession of the Government should render a different decision necessary.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I quite accept the interpretation of the noble Marquess. Immediately after that a very close alliance was entered into between the Party under the guidance of Mr. Parnell and the Party of the noble Mar
  916
  quess— it was so close that it extended to duty on beer—and that alliance led to the downfall of the Liberal Administration. Now, my Lords, I have to return again to a point I have referred to before. This dropping of exceptional legislation for Ireland made it practically impossible for any Liberal Government to renew that legislation except under very exceptional circumstances. The Coercion Act of 1882 was one of exceptional severity, and I would point out that any comparison between that Act and this Bill of 1877 must be fallacious, because you have no such ground to form an Act upon as we had in 1882. No Government could have existed in the circumstances of 1882 that did not produce a strong Coercion Act. Your Lordships will recollect the circumstances of that year. The whole of the Executive Government, with the exception of my noble Friend near me (Earl Spencer), were struck down by the hand of the assassin in open daylight. Was it possible, I ask, at that time, when the principle of coercion had never been relinquished by either Party, to resist the introduction of a Coercion Bill? We are asked what our policy was after the relinquishment of coercion by noble Lords opposite. Our policy was then perfectly well-known; and the noble Earl who spoke before me has shown by his speech that he knew quite as much of our policy as we did ourselves. we are asked what is our policy now. Our policy is contained in the word "conciliation" as opposed to "coercion." We wish to make the law respected in Ireland; you will not make it respected. You have tried for centuries to make coercive legislation proceeding from London effective in Ireland, but you have always totally failed. Do not let noble Lords opposite suppose that the Plan of Campaign is countenanced—so far as I know—by every noble Lord who agrees with the Front Opposition Bench, or that we share in any of the extreme views that have been patronized by some extreme personages, any more than we think the responsibility which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was good enough to put upon them last night for Mr. O'Brien's visit to Canada. There is nothing too bad, I suppose, fur our dear Friends to say of us. I do not believe that the visit of Mr. O'Brien to

  917
  Canada, undertaken, I have no doubt, in a conscientious spirit on his own part, was even approved of by the Chief of his own Party. It was certainly not approved of by the Chiefs of our Party— they had no more to do with it than the noble Duke or the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon)—and I say it is ungenerous and unfair that these charges should be brought in this House by any noble Lord or Duke, however friendly they may be to us, when they must know that they have absolutely nothing by which to substantiate them. We have heard enough of these charges. The noble Marquess the other day said a Party which we could not mistake to be our own is allied with every force that is opposed to social order in Ireland. We do not mind when charges of that kind are made by irresponsible politicians, so much as when they are brought by persons holding high Office. We ask, who is going to substantiate them? What proof have they got? If they could not bring any proof of the most weighty and close character, they are absolutely without justification in making these charges. I repeat, my Lords, that our policy would be to make the law respected, because we should make the law congenial to the Irish people. [Laughter.] I am not surprised that noble Lords opposite laugh, for no one can be better aware than they are that their policy is wholly uncongenial to the Irish people. Now, my Lords, the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll) compared the Act of 1881 to a sow's ear. At the very moment that he was making that happy comparison, Mr. Parnell—who, whatever his demerits may be, has, at least, the attribute of representing the views of the Irish people—was speaking in the other House, and he was able to give a little illustration of the difference of the policy of the sow's ear and the policy of the Bill of the noble Marquess opposite. Mr. Parnell stated that it was the Land Act of 1881, and not the Coercion Acts of 1880 and 1882, which broke the power of the Land League; and that but for that Act the Irish Party would have been able, even from their prisons, to have pushed that movement to the extreme. My Lords, never were more impressive words heard on this question than those used by Mr. Parnell when speaking of the Act of 1881, and I com-
  918
  mend them to the attention of noble Lords. They contained the gist of our policy in this matter—namely, to remedy Irish grievances, to conciliate the Irish people, to attempt a policy which has often succeeded, and to forbear for ever from a policy which has invariably failed.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that he had not intended to take part in that debate but for some of the remarks which had fallen from the noble Earl who had just addressed the House (the Earl of Rosebery), and who had endeavoured to escape from the real issues before their Lordships. What was the fact? The measure before the House had been denounced in no measured language throughout the country by the Colleagues of the noble Earl. Within the past week it had been described by Mr. Gladstone as a "wanton, insidious, miserable, and dishonouring Bill." Recently also, at a meeting of the National Reform Union at which Mr. John Morley was present, this Bill was described as "a criminal violation of the civil rights of the Irish people," whilst the same Resolution, in language which must have been intended to be sarcastic, condemned the "violent interference with the freedom of Parliamentary debate," by which the Government and its Supporters had endeavoured to prevent the "legitimate discussion of the details of the measure." And yet, in the face of all this language, the Leaders of the Opposition had allowed the Bill to be read a second time without a Division, and the noble Earl could only allege the miserable excuse that they would not have been able to bring 50 Supporters into the Lobby. He (Lord Brabourne) should have imagined that any men who felt so strongly against a measure would have longed to record their votes as a protest, instead of running away. Such was not the method by which the Liberal Party had been built up, or by which any great principles had been maintained. It was evident that noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench were either not prepared to endorse the language of their Leader, or were afraid to show the weakness of their cause by challenging a Division. The noble Earl who had just sat down had repeated in the House what he said in the country with regard to the alternative policies of conciliation and coer-

  919
  cion; and he (Lord Brabourne) thought it was time to protest, loudly and earnestly, against the misdescription which the noble Earl had given both in the House and in the country of the policy of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). The noble Earl and his Friends wished to conciliate Moonlighters; while the Conservative Party were determined to coerce Moonlighters, and to conciliate honest people in Ireland. The noble Earl had declared that the policy of the Government was uncongenial, whilst that of Mr. Gladstone was congenial to the people of Ireland. What did these vague phrases really mean? What law was it which was uncongenial to the people of Ireland? Was it the law which prevented Moonlighters from pursuing their midnight outrages? Was it the law which ought to protect poor girls from having their hair cut off and tar poured upon their heads? Was it the law which enabled honest people in Ireland to buy and sell and pursue their ordinary avocations without molestation? There was one thing they could not lose sight of—and it could not be denied even by noble Lords opposite—namely, that there had existed for years past in Ireland a power which had defied the Queen's authority, and the majority of their Lordships' House, and he was glad to say a majority of the House of Commons, were determined to obey the will of the British people and to vindicate the Queen's authority. The noble Earl talked about statistics; but everyone knew that the great majority of cases of crime were not stated in police records, and did not even appear in the newspapers, although there was not a noble Lord who had friends or relations in Ireland who did not know the terrible state in which the country was. The terrible state of that country was notorious to everyone. Reference had been made to the Act of 1881 and to Mr. Parnell's statement, that we did not know what that Act had saved us from. It was an Act which violated every principle of political economy and militated against all the old doctrines of the Liberal Party, and it taught the agitators in Ireland to know that there were British statesmen who would yield to agitation that which their calm judgment would condemn. As for Bills to amend the Criminal Law, it was not necessary to compare this Act with that
  920
  of 1882, because what they had to look to was the present state of Ireland. Noble Lords opposite declared their policy with regard to Ireland to be that of conciliation against coercion; but, instead of dealing in vague and ambiguous phrases, it was necessary to grapple with realities, and with the hard facts and actual exigencies of the case. He did not believe that there had ever been a case in which such great historical inaccuracies had been put forward as in regard to this Irish Question. There were several elections pending at that moment, and he (Lord Brabourne) trusted that the electors would understand that this was no question between conciliation and coercion, but one between the upholders of law and order and their opponents. On that side of the House there was no ill-will to Ireland, very much the contrary; but there was a steady determination that the real issue should be placed before the country, that the Queen's authority should be maintained in all parts of her Dominions, and that they should have one united Parliament for one united people.
  LORD DENMAN: The noble Earl who spoke last but one (the Earl of Rosebery) left out the first word of his quotation—
  "Apparent, rari nantes In gurgite vasto."
  His friends were not apparent, and his noble Friend and relative (Viscount Oxenbridge) ought to have spoken, and then he would have kept a House till some Peers returned from dinner, and there might have been a long debate, but it was better as it is. The noble Earl has alluded to 1846, when the Protection for Life and Property (Ireland) Bill was thrown out, after passing the House of Lords—where his (Lord Denman's) lamented father tried to modify it—by what the noble Earl called an "unholy alliance." The first Lord Denman disapproved of this step. Lord John Russell and Mr. Cobden and the Conservatives combined to turn out Sir Robert Peel on the Whig's own measure; but, in fact, the Conservatives were not in fault. Indeed, a contest as to Fair Trade has been carried on ever since, and a writer for the Cobden Club has styled it the Demon Fair Trade: but how can that which is fair be devilish? I dislike the provision as to examinations before magistrates, and

  921
  wish to see pure evidence, not like that admitted against the dynamiters, who, in the words of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell), while exculpating themselves, criminated their fellow prisoners. I hope the Bill may soon be repealed, as repeal is an easy matter, And in 1713, about the Malt Tax, leave was nearly given to bring in a Bill in their Lordships' House to repeal the Union with Scotland. In 1849 I received a letter from Mr. Frederick Hobart, father of the present Earl of Buckinghamshire, from Curraghmore, stating that from the sudden fall in the price of grain the farmers "were almost broke." I am glad that the Opposition has given a cosket—(quod quietus cas)—to this Bill, instead of a bene disesssit, and applauding it, as it is made needful by the precedents of former years. I am sure it was brought in in a spirit of kindness, and will attend whenever it in again brought forward, and I hope that instead of Ireland being a land of ire, it will be a land of joy.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Extension of summary jurisdiction).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that the clause and one other were, in his view, the most important in the Bill. They differed in many respects from the provisions of the Act of 1882. He yielded to no man in his desire to see law and order maintained in Ireland, or in his horror of intimidation and threats; but if it were essential that there should be legislation upon the subject, the nature of that legislation ought to be carefully scrutinized before it was entered upon. While there might be evils which it might be desirable to remove, they must be careful that in attempting to deal with one evil they did not give rise to others of a worse character, and he did not believe they could give away any of their safeguards without risk. Under the clause they rendered persons charged with crime in Ireland liable to a form of treatment such as persons in this country were not subjected to. Now, he contended that they should do their best to subject Ireland to nothing to which we did not subject the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. Why, the
  922
  noble and learned Lord had said that no one but the guilty need fear this Bill; but it must be remembered that that was not to be a mere temporary measure enacted to meet a temporary purpose; but was a Bill which it was intended should form part of the permanent Criminal Law of Ireland. One of the objects of the Bill was to deprive persons charged under it of the right of trial by jury. He should like to know what would be said by the people of this country if such an attempt were to be made to deprive them permanently of their right to trial by jury. It would be impossible to effect such a change in the law as that, because the people of this country would not endure it. Was it a beneficial amendment of the Criminal Law of Ireland to enact that criminal cases should be tried summarily before a bench of magistrates, instead of before a jury? He was aware that it might be urged that we could amend our law relating to summary jurisdiction; but when once this Act was passed there would be great indisposition to revert to the matter again. He confessed that he viewed with apprehension the establishment in Ireland of a permanent system of summary jurisdiction. What was the nature of the tribunal to which they were about to leave for determination some of the most difficult and most delicate questions of law? Nothing could be worse than the judicial tribunal which was created, and which would be controlled by the Executive. It was quite true that the Lord Lieutenant was bound to be satisfied of the legal knowledge of the Resident Magistrates, who were to carry out its provisions; but these magistrates were generally half-pay officers and persons who, if they had any at all, had only a very small proportion of legal training. It was difficult enough for the noble and learned Lords in that House to say what was a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of persuading certain people not to do certain acts; but what would be the case when half-pay officers had to decide such points? He had hoard this doctrine laid down by a high authority that if one man combined with another not to deal with a person, and if he did that to injure that person it would be unlawful; but if he did it to better himself it would not be unlawful. These were nice and fine distinctions to be left to such a tribunal as the Bill

  923
  proposed to create; and if they were so left, injustice was likely to be done. He thought that when introducing a permanent measure they should have taken steps to amend the law of summary jurisdiction generally, and even though the Government might have come to the conclusion that trial by jury had failed in Ireland, still they had chosen a substitute therefore which was not the best. The clause, in fact, was very objectionable. His noble and learned Friend alluded to something said by Mr. Gladstone about Boycotting. He (Lord Herschell) did not think Mr. Gladstone ever said a single word inconsistent with the language alluded to. Exclusive dealing was quite different from Boycotting, and it was only weakening the force of the objections to threats, intimidation, and compulsion when they confounded such things with inducements to exclusive dealing. There was, no doubt, in Ireland a vast amount of Boycotting, which did not depend on combination at all, and the noble Marquess himself (the Marquess of Salisbury) had stated how impossible it was to deal with it. For his own part, he thought Boycotting extremely mean and cruel, and he objected to such action wherever it was used. But he found that there was a great deal of Boycotting in this country in connection with electioneering, and he was horrified to find that some to whom he had spoken on the subject did not take the same view as himself. Considering the class antagonism in Ireland, the untrained character of the Resident Magistrates, and the intricate, difficult, and delicate questions submitted to them for the first time, he considered that there was a very serious risk of injustice being done. He should like to see the broadest and deepest distinction drawn between direct intimidation and threats of compulsion and mere inducement, which, ordinarily speaking, was a perfectly legitimate weapon. As to Boycotting, he loved it no better in England than in Ireland; and he had been astonished to find that when, in the presence of cultivated and highly intelligent people, the practice of leaving tradesmen in electioneering times was condemned, the very reverse sentiment prevailed. But common sentiment was enough, and that was a matter which they could not deal with by law. But under the Bill,
  924
  if a person found his business not prospering, and so many people not coming into his shop as before, you would have such charges brought. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) last night mentioned certain cases of hardship. But those cases were punishable by the present law, and the noble Duke never stated how this Bill would deal with them; but he pointed to the Front Opposition Bench, and said—"That is the kind of liberty noble Lords support." For his own part, he (Lord Herschell) had uttered his protest against lawlessness before, and he would not do it again. If any person said that he wished to see lawlessness and disorder prevail, he would leave that person to his own opinion, and he would rely upon the opinions of those who were not so ready to think evil. If the Government determined that trial by jury was no longer possible, and that they must substitute something else, let them do so. But what he objected to was that the decision in such matters as had been referred to was left to Resident Magistrates, and he maintained that they had chosen a tribunal which was not the best substitute, and that they had given that tribunal a task which was unnecessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, that the proper way to look at this clause was in view of the state of facts to be dealt with. They had proposed a tribunal, one member of which should have legal knowledge such as would satisfy the Lord Lieutenant. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) did not question the state of facts, and did not attempt to deny that the present jury system was inadequate to deal with the state of affairs in Ireland; and it was not denied that the wise and proper way to proceed was by summary jurisdiction, and though his noble and learned Friend objected to that, he had not suggested a substitute. The section to which the noble and learned Lord took exception only referred to persons who took part in criminal conspiracies already punishable by law.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, the Government could form their Court of paid lawyers not dependent on the will of the Executive.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had sneeringly used the expression "half-pay officers;"

  925
  but their Lordships must be aware that officers now had to leave the Army in the prime of life, with their minds in full vigour, and that, in addition, they had received a training in military law in the Army which would enable them to render valuable assistance in discharging the duties of Resident Magistrates. They should also remember that, as he said before, there was a provision in the Bill enacting that one of these magistrates must always have some legal training. He would point out that the governing words of the section were that it "must be criminal conspiracy now punishable by law," and if it was not so punishable, it would not come within the section. They had to deal with a peculiar state of fact's 'and all the insidious forms of Boycotting, and it would be idle to present a clause which, in the opinion of the Executive, would be inadequate. The clause had been submitted after careful consideration by the Executive, and it had been fully criticized; and nothing which the noble and learned Lord had said at all shook his (Lord Ashbourne's) opinion that when the clause was placed under fair conditions, and in capable hands, it would be of substantial assistance in working out what the Government desired—the restoration of law and order, and the putting down of the intimidation which so widely prevailed.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that there was really no appeal from the decision of the tribunal such as he had described, unless the punishment exceeded a month's imprisonment. A month's imprisonment was not a light matter; and surely the Government ought, in all these cases under the Bill, to give the fullest opportunity for appeal. No provision had been inserted in the Bill to redeem the pledge which the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave on the point; because it was said that, under the existing law, a case could be stated, and that if a magistrate refused to state a case, the Court of Queen's Bench could be moved to compel him to do so. No lawyer would say that that was the same as giving a man the right of appeal. It was, in the highest degree, a most objectionable proceeding. According to his experience, when tribunals were most undoubtedly in the wrong, they were most confident that they were in the right. It was in such a state of things that a Resident Magistrate would
  926
  refuse to state a case. What, then, was a man's remedy when he was sentenced to a month? They were supposing that he had plenty of money. He would go to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel the magistrate to state a case. How was that to operate, he should like to know, with the kind of people who would be prosecuted under this Bill? When the man had got the mandamus, he could not be certain that the view which the magistrate would take would be the right one. It was as likely as not to be extremely incorrect, and when the case was obtained there were great difficulties in the way. All that he asked for was that there should be some right of appeal, on questions of law, from the Resident Magistrates to a superior Judge. He hoped that it might not be too late for the Government even now to conform to his view of the matter, and so avoid even the semblance of a breach of faith. If the Government adopted his suggestion, no discussion, he was confident, would take place on the point in the other House, as it would be accepted as a redemption of the pledge which the Government themselves had given.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the matter had been very fully discussed in the other House. What the noble and learned Lord asked for was that a change should be made in the summary jurisdiction of Ireland, and that a peculiar and special form of appeal unknown at present to the law in Ireland should be established. According to the Irish Summary Jurisdiction Law, the appeal was as it was given in the Bill, and as it was given in the Bill of 1882. He did not think that the noble and learned Lord's proposal was reasonable, or that it would commend itself to the judgment of their Lordships. He thought that the right of appeal, as provided in the Bill, was in all respects adequate for dealing with points of law, and there was no reason why a change should be made.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he must still point out that the Bill would deprive a man of a jury, and subject him to summary jurisdiction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he failed to see that it was necessary to give a new system of appeal in order to save a prisoner from the proper termination of the law.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that it was the Judge of the Superior Court who decided all questions of law; and what he asked was that a prisoner should have an appeal to a Judge of a Superior Court against magistrates who might not be lawyers at all.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that this was one of the most essential clauses in the Bill. He contended that if an appeal were given under the clause in every case, however small, the Bill would be comparatively useless, and would not effect the object of the Government, which, he understood, was to repress intimidation by a summary remedy.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that it was inaccurate to speak of the permanent operation of that part of the Bill which was the subject of the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Herschell's) criticism, because it would only be in operation in proclaimed districts as long as they were proclaimed. As to appeals from the summary jurisdiction, he was satisfied that the idea of anything having been promised, which was not done, arose out of a mere misunderstanding. He would ask why, if it was now unjust to refuse appeals in cases of less than a month's imprisonment, it was not so under the Act of 1882? He further contended that if the arguments of his noble and learned Friend for an appeal in every case were sound, the whole Law of Summary Jurisdiction was unjust. He could not conceive why the accused under this Bill should have greater rights of appeal than were given in other cases. As to the argument, that the tribunal itself should be re-constituted, before giving it the powers now given, it was manifest that there could be no more reason for such a course now than there was in 1882. If the tribunal was competent to deal with other offences against the law, it was competent to deal with these also. The word "induce," in the context in which it stood in this clause, would not make any combination for a purpose which was now lawful criminal or punishable, and the addition of that word was proper to prevent evasion; for there might be a conspiracy to induce by the use of unlawful means, which, although different from persuasion operating only on other men's judgment and free will, would not amount to compulsion. Such acts were distinguished from violence and intimi-
  928
  dation by the Conspiracy Act of 1875, and the former Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1878.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 5, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Special proclamation putting into force the enactments of this Act relating to dangerous associations).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he should like to make a few remarks with reference to the clause, which was of the greatest moment. It enabled the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any association which he might deem to be dangerous, and it was impossible to exaggerate the importance and gravity of the question, for power was to be given to that official to decide what associations were interfering with the administration of the law, or disturbing' the maintenance of law and order. There had never been a political association formed for any great object which was not, in the opinion of the Government of the day, calculated to disturb the maintenance of law and order. He considered that a most serious matter, and it was impossible to exaggerate its importance, because the question of whether or not an association was one that would disturb law and order depended upon the opinion of one person. He did not know whether noble and learned Lords opposite thought that the Orange Association disturbed law and order; but, if it did, then it would be a dangerous association, and if equal justice were meted out to all associations in Ireland, he had no hesitation in saying that, in. that case, that society would be held to be an association which disturbed law and order. If the Irish people had any natural capacity at all, it was for carrying on secret societies, and there could be nothing more unwise than to suppress associations which kept within Constitutional action, and if the attempt were made to suppress such associations, the result would, be that, instead of suppressing them, they would only drive them under the surface. It was said that protection was afforded against the improper use of the section, inasmuch as either House of Parliament could put an end to the Proclamation within 14 days of its issue. Suppose the National League were proclaimed, and Parliament did not interfere, and permitted the special

  929
  Proclamation to stand. From that moment, any association formed for any of the purposes of the National League might be suppressed. He viewed with the utmost alarm the exercise of a power such as that, which had never teen given before, and which, he was afraid, would be used for the purpose of putting a stop to legitimate and Constitutional agitation.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was not the least afraid of the power under this clause being used by any Administration for the purpose of putting down, or checking, or interfering with legitimate Constitutional agitation. He was strongly of opinion that, by the operation and working of the 2nd section of the Bill, crime in Ireland would be powerfully grappled with, and that the rest of the Bill would, therefore, have to be used all the less. Nevertheless, it was necessary to take this power. It was not given to be used idly and in an arbitrary manner by the Lord Lieutenant, who would act by and with the advice of the Privy Council, and would be compelled, as the Government of which he was a Member would be compelled, to submit his Proclamation to the judgment of Parliament. He did not think that any Amendment could be suggested that would make this clause any more satisfactory, or any more adequate. He was satisfied it would be wisely and cautiously administered, with full publicity, and under the check of Parliamentary control, and that no-association would be declared to be dangerous unless it was dangerous to permit it to continue its career.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, of course, the Government would say that these powers would be discharged with a due sense of responsibility; but the argument might be used to guard any Government, however absolute it might be, and the Executive Government in this country had never been entrusted with powers beyond the absolute necessities of the case. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) said that no Amendment could be suggested that would improve the clause. But he (the Earl of Kimberley) would suggest that the Proviso inserted in the Act of 1882 should be inserted in this Bill. It was to the effect that nothing in the Act should render unlawful any political or social associa-
  930
  tion for such objects and acting by such means as, by the Act or otherwise, were not unlawful. What they required was, not only that the Executive Government should do its duty, but that it should have the confidence of the people over whom it ruled. He was not now arguing the necessity for the powers conferred by this clause, but upon the Government's own showing, and believing that they were entirely sincere in stating that the Act would never be used for improper purposes; yet he thought it necessary that words should be inserted in the Bill which would render it impossible that a misuse of the powers could take place.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he greatly doubted whether in the Act of 1882 the clause to which his noble Friend had referred was anything more than mere surplusage. It was not extended, by that Act, to any of the special powers then given to the Lord Lieutenant, of which the power to prohibit meetings which he might think dangerous was one. The introduction of words such as those suggested would simply paralyze and destroy the power of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim dangerous associations, for it would throw upon those who administered the law the task of determining whether there was any force in the Proclamation. In his opinion, there was sound and good reason for giving power to proclaim dangerous associations. The Act made persons taking part in a criminal conspiracy amenable to summary jurisdiction; and it was, therefore, of importance that people should be warned, as far as public authority could warn them, against taking part in known unlawful associations. That was an object which must recommend itself to everyone, provided it was not counterbalanced by objections of a more serious kind. He did not think there could be any difficulty in the interpretation of the Act, which, beyond all question, described objects which were criminal and unlawful; partly in the very words of the definition of unlawful associations in the Act of 1882, and partly in others, as to interfering "with the administration of the law," and "disturbing the maintenance of law and order." If these words had to be interpreted by a Court of Law, it was most certain that they could not be extended to anything not

  931
  now illegal. The Lord Lieutenant, therefore, must be satisfied that the prohibited association was for a criminal object; and the 7th clause, which enabled him to extend the prohibition to a substituted association, notwithstanding a change of name, required him to be satisfied that the substituted association also was "dangerous,"—that is, criminal—within the definition of the 6th clause. Nor had he the least doubt that if the powers of the Act were exercised for a purpose not coming within the purview of the measure, they would be quite as certain to be effectually overhauled in Parliament as if left to the interference of any Court.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that immense importance seemed to be attached by Members of the Government to Parliamentary control; but, practically speaking, the phrase had no meaning whatever. The power given to each House of Parliament to address the Crown as a protest against arbitrary acts of the Government was illusory and worthless, because it would entirely depend on whether or not the Government retained the confidence of the House of Commons. It was not likely that such an Address would be carried in this House; and if the Government were in a majority in the other House they would prevent its being carried. But were the Government in a minority, it was clear they could be turned out of Office for their acts, and their policy changed, whether Parliamentary control was reserved by the Act or not. He did Dot think, therefore, that there was any safeguard in power being reserved to Parliament to address the Crown with regard to the actions of the Government under the Act.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Report be no wreceived."—(The Lord Ashbourne.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that he could not help expressing the satisfaction he felt that Her Majesty's Government had introduced a Bill so very much milder than the severe and arbitrary measure that Mr. Gladstone's Government had found it necessary to propose to Parliament for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. In the present measure there was no Conscience Clause; no clause providing for the sus-
  932
  pension of the Habeas Corpus Act rendering 1,000 or any other number of persons liable to be imprisoned for indefinite periods, without trial; and no Curfew Clause, rendering persons liable to arrest for being out after dark.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Act thirtieth and thirty-first Victoria, chapter eighty—Was presented by The Marquess of LOTHIAN; read 1a. (No. 176.)
House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.