Sitting of 5 July 1888

MINUTES.
;—SELECT COMMITTEE—Friendly Societies, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 7, 8, 10, 12, 13
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Recorders, Magistrates, and Clerks of the Peace* [320]; Weights and Measures* [321]; Sea Fisheries Regulation* [322].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Report—Local Government (No. 13) (Borough of Wolverhampton Order)* [287].

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—JUDICIAL RENTS—RETURNS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, How many cases of applications for judicial rents were undisposed of in the Land Courts in Ireland on July 1, 1887, and July 1, 1888, respectively?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The Land Commissioners inform me that the number of applications to fix judicial rents undisposed of
  398
  in the Land Commission Court on July 1, 1887, was 11,739. The number on July 1, 1888, was 60,506. The number of similar cases undisposed of in the Civil Bill Courts on July 1, 1887 (as notified to the Land Commission), was 1673, and the number on July 1, 1888, was 3,570.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—ARREARS OF INSTALMENTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What amount of the £50,910 of interest and instalments under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," which fell due up to November 1, 1887, remained unpaid on July 1, 1888; and what amount of the £39,720, which fell due on May 1, 1888, remained unpaid on July 1, 1888?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that—(1) The sum of £921 remains unpaid out of the sum of £50,910 which accrued due in respect of interest and instalments under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, up to the 1st of November, 1887. (2) The sum of £6,836 remains unpaid out of the £39,720 which accrued due in respect of such interest and instalments on the 1st of May, 1888. The unpaid instalments are in progress of collection, and payments in discharge of them are being daily received by the Irish Land Commission.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—AGRICULTURAL AND DAIRY SCHOOLS.
  MR. TAPLINGasked the noble Lord the Member for Lewisham, Whether the Government intend to persevere in their scheme of dairy schools; whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the exceptional claims of the County of Leicester as a great grazing county in a very central position; and, whether the Government will consent to the principal dairy school being established in the County of Leicester?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The hon. Member probably refers to the recommendation of the Departmental Commission on Agricultural and Diary Schools, that a central school should be

  399
  established for Great Britain at the sole cost of the State. It has already been explained that the Government have not come to any decision on this point; but that they have decided to make a grant, during the present year, of £5,000 in aid of dairy or agricultural schools, or lectures established by local effort and found, on inspection, to be doing useful work. If any such school or system of lectures should be established in the County of Leicester during the current year an application for a portion of the grant in aid will be considered.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS COURT, BANTRY—CORNELIUS DUGGAN.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 16th instant, a man named Cornelius Duggan, aged 80 years, was arrested at 5 a.m. at Derripeholla near Bantry, County Cork, by a police sergeant named Sullivan, on a charge of rescuing his cattle from a Sheriff's bailiff; whether in view of the fact that Duggan had satisfied the bailiff's claim previous to the seizure he was within his legal right; whether Duggan was taken to Aughaville Police Barracks, a distance of four miles, without boots or trousers, although he repeatedly requested the sergeant to be allowed to clothe himself; whether, after being supplied by a policeman with a pair of boots, he was conveyed from Aughaville to Bantry, a distance of six miles, without trousers, was there detained in the custody of the police for three hours, and was then required to give bail for his appearance at the next Petty Sessions Court; whether, when the charge was preferred against him at the Petty Sessions, one of the presiding Justices strongly condemned the treatment of Duggan; and, if the above statements are true, what steps the Government will take to prevent a recurrence of such conduct on the part of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that the statements in the Question are, for the most part, incorrect and altogether misleading. Duggan is about 68 years of age, and was arrested about 7 a.m. on June 16. The sergeant cau-
  400
  tioned the man twice before he arrested him, and only arrested him because he positively refused to allow the bailiff to remove the cow which he had seized. The process appears to have been for ordinary debt; and it would seem that the man had paid some portion of it to the creditor, but not the full amount of the decree held by the bailiff. He was not within his legal right in obstructing the bailiff, his remedy being by civil action, if he considered the seizure excessive. He had on when arrested a pair of thick flannel trousers, such as the people wear in summer for working in. He was not wearing boots, which, however, is not unusual in country parts. He did not ask for his best clothes until he found that he would have to go to Bantry when some way on the road to the barracks. On arrival at the barracks the sergeant sent a messenger for these clothes, and the messenger having forgotten the man's boots a policeman very kindly supplied the deficiency. The man when brought before a magistrate at Bantry was in the usual way required to give bail for his appearance at Petty Sessions. When the case came on for hearing at Petty Sessions the presiding magistrate stated distinctly in Court that the police had acted rightly in the matter. The case was dismissed without prejudice, as the bailiff did not appear.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether the flannel garment was not a pair of drawers; and whether it was necessary, for the preservation of law and order in Ireland, that an old man 68 years of age should be arrested at 3 o'clock in the morning and taken across the country without his trousers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot draw a distinction between drawers and trousers; but I presume that if the garment was fit to work in it was fit to travel in.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—OUTBREAK OF ANTHRAX AT WISTOW, LEICESTER.
  MR. TAPLINGasked the noble Lord the Member for Lewisham, Whether his attention has been called to an outbreak of anthrax on the farm of Mr. J. Glover in the Parish of Wistow, Leicester; whether Mr. Glover was compelled, under

  401
  the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, to slaughter a valuable bullock without any compensation whatever; and, whether the Government can hold out any hopes of an extension of the Compensation Clauses of the Pleuro-Pneumonia Act to cases of anthrax?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: From the Report of the Inspector, it appears that a valuable bullock belonging to Mr. J. Glover was found dead at Wistow, and the carcase was buried at the expense of the Local Authority. None of the cattle have been slaughtered. Anthrax is quite distinct from pleuro-pneumonia, and cannot be dealt with in the same manner. Compensation is only provided when compulsory slaughter is necessary to prevent the spreading of disease. But in anthrax animals die so soon after being attacked that slaughter could very rarely be enforced; and, further, it is very desirable to avoid effusion of blood, which is always highly infective to other animals.

  THE THAMES AT HAMPTON—BOAT-HOUSE ON THE HAMPTON PARISH RECREATION GROUND.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have given a Mr. Constable permission to build a permanent boat-house, composed of concrete, brick, timber, &c. on the Hampton Parish Recreation Ground, which will materially obstruct the view of one of the most beautiful reaches on the Thames, and prevent the construction of the riverside terrace which the parish desire to construct; whether, it is a fact that the land (until the year 1881) had been used by the parishioners, from time immemorial, for purposes of recreation, pasturing sheep, &c.; and that, in 1881, the Local Government Board let such land at £1 per annum to the Rural Sanitary Authority, who enclosed it with an expensive iron fence at the cost of the parish, with a view to prevent further encroachments; whether the Crown claim it as "waste of the manor," or as "Crown land;" and whether they simply claim the portion between the high road and the Thames Conservancy boundary posts and stones; or whether they claim all the ground between the
  402
  road and the water's edge; on what grounds they claim the right to give Mr. Constable permission to build a permanent boat-house, and thus monopolize the greater portion of the "Deeps;" what inquiries, if any, were made, before permission was granted, as to the desirability of the site for the purpose, and as to the views of the ratepaying inhabitants on the subject; whether, if no such inquiries were made, he will now direct such inquiries on those points before any further progress is allowed with the building, which is being pushed on as fast as possible; and, on what terms and tenure does Mr. Constable hold his two large floating boat-houses, and his grant for the erection of the permanent annexe?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have given Mr. Constable permission to build a boat-house of timber on land belonging to the Crown at Hampton; but that it will not materially obstruct the view or prevent the construction of the riverside terrace. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The Crown claims as "waste of the manor" all the ground between the road and the water's edge. The boat-house is believed to meet a public want; and, therefore, no special inquiries were made before permission was granted, and it is now too late to make such inquiries. Mr. Constable holds his two existing boat-houses under a lease of 1880 upon a yearly tenancy, determinable at one month's notice, at a rent of £2 per annum, Mr. Constable to remove the floating-house on determination of the tenancy. In respect of the new addition, he is to pay an additional rent of £3 per annum. The buildings are to be approved by the Commissioner of Woods, and are not to rise above the existing buildings; and he is to remove the new building and level the land on one month's notice from the Commissioner of Woods.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Constable was erecting a brick building which took up the whole of the river-path, so that no walk could be made?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he was not aware of it; but he would make inquiries.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—COLLECTION OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether by Minute of July 1, 1851, when the collection of antiquities belonging to the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland was by that Body gratuitously handed over to the nation, the Treasury undertook to provide funds for the reception, accommodation, preservation, and maintenance of the Museum as a Public Building; whether it is a fact that the Board of Manufactures has recently called upon the Treasury, through the Secretary for Scotland, to provide funds for the painting, lighting, fitting up, &c., of the new building in Edinburgh to be occupied by the Museum; whether the Treasury has declined to do so; and, if so, on what grounds; and, whether considerable additional expense has been entailed by the suspension of the contracts for the completion of the work?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The arrangement of 1851 contemplated only one building for the collection of the Society of Antiquaries and other public collections in Edinburgh. This has been modified by the conditions on which the Treasury agreed, in 1884, to contribute towards the separate building which has been provided by private munificence, of which we have recently had so many and striking instances in Scotland, for the Antiquaries' Collection and the Portrait Gallery. One of these conditions was that the Treasury should pay for fitting up the Museum part of the building; and the Treasury has accordingly sanctioned an expenditure of £3,200 for this purpose, of which £1,500 is provided in this year's Estimates; but we have not considered that the cost of painting, of heating, lighting, and fire appliances, &c., came within the undertaking of the Treasury. The Society of Antiquaries allege that extra expense has been entailed by the suspension of the works; for such suspension, however, the Government is not responsible, as the Treasury decision was communicated to the Secretary for Scotland in February last.
  MR. BUCHANANasked, if the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay on the Table the Correspondence on the subject which had passed between the Secretary for Scotland and the Board of Manufactures?
  MR. JACKSONreplied that, as had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, he thought there was great objection to laying on the Table of this House Departmental Correspondence; because it would lead in future to letters being written rather with that view than for the promotion of the business in hand.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE—POSSIBILITY OF INVASION—TRANSPORT FOR 100,000 MEN.
  MR. ERNEST BECKETTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been given to the following statement by Lord Wolseley:—
  "I wish to repeat that an Army of 100,000 men, intended for the invasion of this country and the capture of London, could be transported across the Channel with the greatest possible case in a fleet the size of which was 150,000 or 170,000 gross tonnage;"
  whether, in view of this positive statement, he still adheres to his previous declaration, that a Navy of 480,000 tons gross burden would be required to transport an Army of 100,000 men across the Channel; and, whether he will disclose the names of the authorities he consulted before making that declaration, so that the public may be in a position to know exactly how much weight is to be attached to it?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I have nothing to add to my answer to a Question addressed to me on the 13th of June last, made in this House, as to the tonnage necessary to carry an Army of 100,000 men so equipped and horsed as to be able to disembark and move with the rapidity necessary to seize London by a surprise. This was the proposition I was considering. Before making that statement I consulted the Transport Department of the Admiralty, which for many years past has had the sole superintendence and arrangement of all marine transport both for the Navy and the Army.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE, KINGSTOWN—"SMYTH v. MADDEN AND CONSTABLE CURRY."
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Will he give a copy, or state the substance of the Report made by Superintendent Smith, of the F Division, Dublin Metropolitan Police, Kingstown, to the Commissioner of Police, in the action of "Smyth v. Madden and Constable Curry" for slander and false arrest, heard before the Hon. Recorder of Dublin, at the Quarter Sessions, Kingstown, on April April 15, 1887?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It has been the practice to regard Departmental Reports throughout the Public Service as confidential documents. I cannot, therefore, undertake to adopt the course suggested.

  POOR LAW—MILE END BOARD OF GUARDIANS—DR. LOANE, VACCINATION OFFICER.
  MR. M'LARENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the Resolution of the Mile End Board of Guardians, charging Mr. Loane, their vaccination officer, with being drunk while performing his duties, so that the lives and health of several children were risked, and asking the Local Government Board to institute an inquiry into his conduct; whether one child's arm was cut in 10 places by him, and other children were so badly cut that the register was smeared with their blood; whether this is the same Mr. Loane who, two years ago, was charged with drunkenness and neglect while medical officer for Mile End, so that he caused the death of a child named Piper, and whether he was then dismissed from that office; and, whether he will institute an inquiry into all the circumstances of the case?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the charges against Mr. Loane, as public vaccinator in the hamlet of Mile End, and to the Resolution which has been passed by the Guardians on the subject. The Guardians, as soon as they were made
  406
  aware of the charges in question suspended Mr. Loane from the performance of his duties, and Mr. Loane has since relinquished his office of public vaccinator. It has not been alleged, in the communications which the Board have received, that the arm of a child was cut in 10 places; but the Board have been informed that the register was smeared with blood. It is the case that Mr. Loane, about two years ago, was charged with drunkenness and neglect of his duty as a Poor Law medical officer, and an inquiry was instituted into those charges. As the result of the inquiry, the charge of intoxication was not established. It appeared, however, that there had been neglect as regards the attendance on a particular child; and, in consequence, Mr. Loane was required to resign his office of medical officer. It is not the practice of the Board to institute an inquiry into charges against a person who has ceased to be under their jurisdiction; but in deference to the wishes which the Guardians have expressed, and in consideration of the gravity of the charges alleged, I have determined to institute an inquiry into the case.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REMOVAL OF A PLACARD AT MITCHELSTOWN.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that a placard containing only an exact copy of a passage from a leading article of The Daily News, on the imprisonment, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, of the hon. Member for East Tipperary (Mr. Condon), and posted at Mitchelstown, has been defaced and torn down by the Constabulary, under the command of District Inspector Seymour; if so, why it has been torn down, and by virtue of what authority; and, if the placard has been defaced and torn down on any supposition of illegality, whether it is the intention of the Government to test the question of its legality by any proceedings against the proprietors and publishers of The Daily News?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that great efforts have been made in the district of Mitchelstown to prevent the payment of the county cess,

  407
  which includes compensation awarded to Constable Leahy, and which the people, as a body, are willing enough to pay, if not interfered with by the agitators. Copies of a placard headed The Leahy Blood Tax, were posted through the town, and were so posted, in the opinion of the District Inspector, with a view to incite the people not to pay the county cess, and were calculated to do so. He accordingly ordered their removal. I have no doubt that the officer acted legally and rightly in the matter. If anyone who thinks himself aggrieved takes a different view, he can institute legal proceedings.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that notwithstanding the statement of the Indian Government that the operation of the Contagious Diseases Act was suspended in Bombay, Madras, and Bassein, it is still in force in Bombay; whether it is a fact that on June 5 the examination of women in the usual way by the assistant doctor was being conducted in the usual examination room in Cursedji Suklaji Street, and the women were receiving their licences as before; whether he is aware that the room is next door but one to the Mission School under the American Mission of the Rev. A. Hume; and, whether he will telegraph to India and inquire why the Act is still in force, and will represent to the Government of Bombay the necessity of stopping the whole system?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST), in reply, said, a statement had been made to the Secretary of State by the hon. Member himself that the operation of the Contagious Diseases Act in Bombay had not yet been suspended. The Secretary of State had telegraphed to the Government of India on the subject; but an answer had not yet been received.

  IRELAND—QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST—CLOSING OF THE GROUNDS.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, although
  408
  the grounds of Queen's College, Belfast, were open for many years to visitors, of late barricades have been placed across the paths, gates closed, and sometimes looked in the daytime, and other impediments put in the way of any enjoyment of the grounds by residents of the neighbourhood; and, whether, as the College is sustained by the public funds, and as there is great want of open spaces in Belfast, steps will be taken to revert to the former practice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The President of the Queen's College, Belfast, reports that the grounds of the College are open at present as freely as they have ever been. The gates are always open during the day, and the front gate at night. There are no barricades on any of the walks, nor are any restrictions placed on the public. They are simply requested not to make paths across the grass.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)—CONTRACTS FOR PRISON LABOUR IN MAT MAKING.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the prices paid by contractors for prison labour for mat making?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am afraid I must decline to comply with this request. The Prison Authorities entertain strong objection to publishing such details. Moreover, the figures, if published, would be useless for purposes of comparison, as the payments are made on a different footing to those in the open market, special arrangements being made with respect to the cost of carriage, the labour being of an inferior kind, and the cost of wasted material having to be taken into account.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS—"WOOD v. COX."
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions granted his fiat for a criminal prosecution in respect of the same libel for

  409
  which a civil action ("Wood v. Cox") was eventually brought when the jury awarded the plaintiff one farthing damages; whether his attention has also been called to the censure passed by the Lord Chief Justice on the Director of Public Prosecutions for his action in granting his fiat in that case; and, whether it is the practice of that official to grant his fiat for a criminal prosecution whenever a primâ facie case of libel in the legal sense is established, or only when the libel—
  "Affects the public, and can be construed as calculated to disturb the peace of the community?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the observations made by the Lord Chief Justice on the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in granting his fiat in this case. The Director imforms me that it is his practice, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant his fiat for a criminal prosecution when he considers that the libel affects the public, and can be construed as calculated to disturb the peace of the community; and that in the case of "Wood v. Cox" those conditions were satisfied in his judgment, and he granted his fiat accordingly.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether an account, which professed to be given by Mr. George Lewis, of what took place was accurate?
  DR. TANNERdesired to know who was the Director of Public Prosecutions?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Sir Augustus Stephenson. In regard to the other Question put to me, I really have no information.

  ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—SEIZURE OF THE LEEWARD ISLANDS BY THE FRENCH.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received accounts of the forcible seizure, by an armed French force on March 15, of the Leeward Islands; whether the Convention of 1847 between England and France included an agreement to recognize the independence of these Islands, and an undertaking that neither Power should endeavour to obtain possession of them in
  410
  any way whatever; whether the Native Chiefs entered a solemn protest against the French action, and declared that, until they received news from England that the Convention of 1847 was abrogated, they should still consider it binding upon all parties; whether the Rev. Mr. Richards wrote to the English Consul, imploring him to use his influence to prevent collisions between the French and the Natives, and asking for information as to the abrogation of the Convention of 1847; whether the reply of the English Consul was to the effect that he had received no information from the Foreign Office as to whether the Convention was abrogated or not; whether the Convention is still in force; if not, when was it agreed to terminate it; and, when was notice of such termination sent to the British Consul?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The French took formal possession of the Islands to the leeward of Tahiti on March 15. The Declaration of 1847 for mutual abstention from the annexation of those Islands ceased to have effect on March 15, according to the retrospective Declaration signed on May 30, 1888, which has been laid before Parliament. The Native Chiefs were averse to the French annexation. The Rev. Mr. Richards appealed to the British Consul to obviate a collision; whereupon the British Consul informed the Chiefs that the Declaration of 1847 was "to all intents and purposes abrogated," and advised them against resistance. The Consul was informed on November 26, 1887, of the conclusion of the Convention of November 16; but on March 26 he had not, of course, become aware of the signature of the Declaration which actually put an end to the former arrangement.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—BALLYCOTTON PIER.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the contractor for Ballycotton (County Cork) Pier has been paid in full; and, if so, what amount; whether he has completed the removal of rubble, &c.; whether it is a fact that four feet of the old pier which jut into the harbour still remain; whether, instead of taking up the pavement, which has now sunk four

  411
  or five inches, five channels have been cut disfiguring the work; whether the County Cork Grand Jury, acting on the advice of the County Surveyor, Mr. Kirkby, refused to take over the work from the contractor; whether their refusal was because the work was not properly finished; and, whether a competent and independent engineer will be sent to inspect the harbour, for the purpose of reporting upon it and affording an opportunity of remedying the alleged serious defects in the construction of the pier?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Yes; the contractor has been paid in full of all demands, £19,271, of which £598 is for extra work not included in the original sanctioned design. The removal of rubble affecting the berths and bed of the old harbour has been carried out. The old pier has been removed, as provided in the original scheme; and, according to my information, it is not a fact that four feet of this remains above the bed of the harbour adjacent to it. Small partial depressions exist in the pavement, and five small grooves have been made to drain off the surface water; but the depressions are quite unimportant. On the harbour being transferred to the Grand Jury by Warrant dated January 31, 1888, the latter requested that some extra works should be carried out, which, on the approval of the Treasury, have been executed. There seems to be no ground for taking the course suggested in the last paragraph, the harbour being extremely good in both design and execution.

  CIVIL SERVICE—EXAMINATION FOR CLERKSHIPS IN THE LOWER DIVISION.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the next examination for men clerkships in the Lower Division of the Civil Service will take place; whether it is the case that no such examination has been held since August, 1887, notwithstanding the statement in the Commissioners' Prospectus that these examinations are held about three times a-year; what the cause of the delay in holding the examination is; and, whether it is intended to make any extension of the limits of age for candidates in view of the delay?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): No examination has been held since August, 1887, for men clerkships of the Lower Division. I cannot say when an examination will be held. The Government is anxious not to call additional men into the Civil Service, so long as the work can be performed by those already in the Service; and I hope the House will support the Government in this decision.

  ADMIRALTY—H.M.S. "MONARCH."
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether complaints have reached him that on Wednesday, June 27, the Commander of H.M.S. Monarch kept some six men at drill aloft on the royal yard for more than one hour in a heavy downpour of rain; whether the ship was at the time lying alongside the Dockyard; and, whether there was any special reason or necessity for the men being so used?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth informs me that the circumstance alluded to in the Question is greatly exaggerated, and that there is nothing in the matter calling for his interference.

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS—REGISTRATION—MR. SAMUEL M'DERMOTT.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to any report of a discussion at the meeting of the Derry Board of Guardians last Saturday relating to the appointment of Mr. Samuel M'Dermott to assist the Clerk of the Union in the preparation of the voters' list for the registration; and, whether this Samuel M'Dermott is the Samuel M'Dermott who was employed as agent by the Conservative candidate at the last Derry election, and whom, on the trial of the Petition which followed, the Judges declared to have been guilty of illegal practices; and, if so, whether he will take any steps to prevent the employment of Mr. M'Dermott in the work of registration?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): My attention has been directed to the subject

  413
  only through this Question, and I am at present unable to say whether the alleged discussion took place. I am, however, making inquiry in the matter.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked whether the Chief Secretary would, in any event, allow of the employment of a person who was by an Election Petition Court found guilty of illegal practices?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could not undertake to answer abstract Questions like that.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS—CONVERSION OF LEASEHOLDS.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the right hon. Member for Oxford University, Whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will give further facilities to their long leasehold tenants to acquire the fee-simple of the same, or will change the term of lease to 999 years on their estates in and near London, as is done by them in the North of England and elsewhere?
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: The question of the enfranchisement of leaseholds has received the attention of the Estates Committee, and will, doubtless, receive further consideration when the Select Committee of this House on Town Holdings shall have made their Report.

  THE CROWN ESTATES—CONVERSION OF LEASEHOLDS.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will, in future, give to tenants of Crown Estates further facilities for acquiring the freeholds of their leasehold interests, or extend the term of leases to 999 years, as is common in the North of England?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The only lands under the control of the Office of Works to which the Question applies are those at Battersea. In 1883 the First Commissioner of Works was advised by Sir Henry Hunt, who was then our consulting surveyor, that it was not desirable, in the interests of the Crown property at Battersea, that the ground rents or reversions should be sold, and that advice has hitherto been followed. I am not aware that any proposal has
  414
  been made by any of our tenants to extend the terms of their leases to 999 years. Of course, any such proposals, if made, would be considered on their merits.

  TRADE AND MANUFACTURES—OVERSIZING IN THE COTTON TRADE (LANCASHIRE).
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the injury to the health of factory operatives in Lancashire, caused by the practice of over-sizing in the cotton trade; whether his attention has also been called to the Report on the Effects of Heavy Sizing in Cotton Weaving Upon the Health of the Operatives employed made by Dr. Bridges and Mr. Edward Haydan Osborne in 1883, and to the remarks made in the last Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Borough of Blackburn on the same subject; and, what steps he proposes to take to remedy the evils complained of?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. In consequence of the Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Blackburn, the Inspector of the district was instructed to place himself in communication with that officer, with the view of ascertaining any particular instance of excessive steaming. The Corporation of Blackburn have now taken the question up, and are making inquiries, in which the Inspector will give every assistance in his power. In consequence of the Report of 1883, a Circular was issued in that year to all the cotton-weaving sheds in which the practice of steaming was adopted, urging the mitigation of the evils complained of by an improved system of ventilation. It must be borne in mind that the power of the Inspectors to enforce the adoption of ventilation is very limited.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL COMMUNICATION IN THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Postmaster General, Whether, seeing the recent arrangements between the Post Office and the Highland Rail-

  415
  way Company for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails have terminated on the 1st instant, he is now prepared to relax the restrictions hitherto placed upon postal communication in the North of Scotland by running a sorting van through to Wick, and vice versâ, by all mail trains?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL(Mr. RAIKES): I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member's Question. No restrictions that I am aware of have been placed on postal communication in the North of Scotland. I could not consent to run a sorting-van through to Wick by every mail train, the facilities hitherto afforded having provided very amply for the needs of the districts traversed by the Highland Railway.
  DR. CLARK: Has the right hon. Gentleman made a new contract with the Highland Railway Company?
  MR. RAIKES: The contract has just terminated, and is now under consideration.

  PAYMENTS AND ALLOWANCES OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.
  MR. SUMMERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Royal Grant of £12,000 per annum, the salary of £6,632 per annum as Commander-in-Chief, and the allowance of £109 per annum as Ranger of Richmond Park, comprise the whole of the payments and allowances made to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge; and, whether he can inform the House of the reason why, in the case of the present holder, the salary of Commander-in-Chief is £6,632, instead of the sum of £4,500, which, according to a statement that appears in the Army Estimates, is the maximum salary of the office?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): So far as I am aware, the sums stated in the hon. Member's Question are the whole of the payments and allowances made to His Royal Highness. The Preamble to the Royal Warrant fixing the salary of future Commanders-in-Chief at £4,500 a-year preserved to present holders the emoluments they enjoyed under former Warrants. His Royal Highness, when that Warrant came into force, was in
  416
  receipt of £6,632 a-year, made up as follows:—Pay and forage allowances as Commander-in-Chief, £4,432; pay as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, £2,200—total, £6,632. So this is the amount which he continues to receive from Army Votes.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS—TRADE DISPUTES—POLICE REPORTERS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (Londonderry City) (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the practice to send a police reporter to meetings connected with purely trade disputes in England?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This is not the practice in the Metropolitan Police District; I am not aware whether the practice exists elsewhere. There would be no hesitation in sending a police reporter to any meeting where there was reason to anticipate a breach of the law.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is a fact that the practice is creeping in of sending police reporters to meetings in the Metropolis?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware that the practice is creeping in, or that it exists. Police reporters were sent last autumn to certain meetings in order to get authentic reports of the proceedings.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Has the practice been discontinued since then?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The meetings have been discontinued; and it has, consequently, not been found necessary to send reporters.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROBATE DUTY GRANT—WALES.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that, under the method proposed in the Local Government Bill of apportioning the Probate Duty grant, Wales, owing to the manner in which poor relief is there administered, will receive little more than half the grant to which ac-

  417
  cording to her population she is entitled; and, whether he will consider the equity of allocating to Wales an amount proportionate to her population?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): It is the fact that the share of the Probate Duty grant which Wales will receive under the Local Government Bill will not be so large if the grant is divided according to the indoor pauperism, as it would be if the grant were divided according to the population. But I have already shown, in the discussions on the Bill, how unfairly the distribution of the grant according to population would work in certain cases, especially in the Metropolis, where the relief to the ratepayers (excluding the Horse and Wheel Tax) would be reduced to ½d. in the £1 if this mode of distribution were adopted; whereas the average relief to the whole of England and Wales is 3½d. in the £1. The Government have always maintained that the financial proposals in the Bill must be regarded as a whole. Regarded in this way, the relief to Wales (leaving out of account the Wheel and Horse Tax) will be upwards of £89,000. If Wales were to receive exactly the same proportion as England it would obtain £93,000, or about £4,000 more than it will receive under the Bill. But if the Probate Duty grant were divided according to the population, as suggested by the hon. Member, Wales would receive £43,000 more than it will under the Bill—that is, instead of getting £4,000 less than the average relief it would obtain £39,000 more.

  IRISH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSIONERS—RAILWAY BRIDGE AT WATERFORD AND NEW ROSS.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Second Report by the Royal Commissioners on Irish Public Works, page 42, wherein they state that there is a case in which a loan may be properly made by the State on the lowest permissible terms—namely, in case No. 42—
  "A bridge connecting the railway at Waterford with a connecting line at New Ross, powers for both of which already exist, which proposal would connect Wexford and Rosslare with the whole of the South of Ireland;"
  and, when such loan may be made, and
  418
  the recommendation of the Royal Commission carried out.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was not aware of the conditions under which particular loans were made. He suggested that the hon. Member should put the Question to the Treasury, with whom rested all responsibility in the matter.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS—INSPECTION OF HOLDINGS.
  MR. CONWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the practice on fair rent applications to the Land Commission, of having the holding inspected by the Sub-Commissioners prior to fixing the rent, is never departed from except for some valid reason arising out of the facts of the particular case; and, what reason existed for departing from this practice in the case of "Sarah Maguire v. Owen Wynn," recently heard by the Sub-Commissioners at Manorhamilton, County Leitrim, Mr. E. O. M'Devitt in the Chair?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that it is the fact that the usual practice is to inspect the holdings after the hearing in Court and before the rent is fixed. The 20th Rule confers a discretion on the Assistant Commissioners as to whether they should inspect the holding or not; but they ought, as a general rule, to inspect it unless they see sufficient reason to the contrary. The Assistant Commissioners are the judges as to whether there are valid reasons or not. In the particular case of "Sarah Maguire v. Wynne," Mr. Rice, one of the lay Assistant Commissioners, informs the Land Commissioners that the case was fully heard on both sides; that the landlord claimed to have the rent increased; that the weight of evidence was against the tenant; that Griffith's valuation was 33 per cent above the rent; that one of the tenant's sons admitted in evidence that three acres of the land produced 10 tons of hay each year; and that they were satisfied as to the fair rent, and did not, in their discretion, deem it necessary to inspect the holding. The Land Commissioners have no reason to

  419
  believe that the discretion was not properly exercised in this particular case.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSION—SITTING IN DUBLIN COUNTY.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When a Land Sub-Commission Court will sit again in the County of Dublin?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that they cannot, under existing circumstances, state with certainty when a Sub-Commission will sit for the hearing of cases in the County of Dublin. It is not improbable that a sitting may be fixed for the month of September, or part of the month.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since these cases were listed the tenants have already paid one gale of the old rent and have been called upon to pay another gale; and the probability is that before the cases are heard they will be asked to pay a third?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the old rent is in excess of the judicial rent, the landlord will have to refund the difference.
  MR. CLANCY: But by that time the tenants may be in the workhouse.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DISMISSAL OF CONSTABLE GAHAN.
  MR. GILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the specific charge on which Constable Gahan, stationed at Coockstown, County Tyrone, was dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he must refer the hon. Member to his reply to a somewhat similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Reynolds) on Tuesday last, and to which he had nothing to add.
  MR. GILLsaid, he wished to know what the specific charge against this constable was?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could give no further information on the subject.
  MR. GILLasked, was it not the fact that this constable had seven years' service, and that there had never been a charge preferred against him? He (Mr. Gill) wish to know whether it was possible for the Royal Irish Constabulary to dismiss a man of good character and unblemished record without making any specific charge against him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member had laid down a general proposition, whereas each case rested upon its merits.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL—THE EXPERIMENTAL TUNNEL.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the experimental tunnel under the British Channel extends for a long distance beyond low water mark under that part of the bed of the sea which is claimed by the Government; whether this part of the tunnel was bored by the Submarine Company or the promoters of the enterprize without the knowledge and in spite of the orders of the Board of Trade, and in defiance of an order made by Mr. Justice Kay in 1882; and, whether, having regard to the statement of the then President of the Board of Trade on March 30, 1882, and after the decisive vote of the House of Commons on the 27th ultimo on the Channel Tunnel Bill, following upon similar votes in 1885 and 1887, the Government will use the powers at their disposal to permanently disable so much of the experimental tunnel as has been already made?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Six hundred yards of the experimental tunnel were bored, as it appears from a Parliamentary Paper presented in 1882, against the orders of the Board of Trade, and 36 yards of that distance were bored in defiance of the order of Mr. Justice Kay. I do not see at present the necessity to take the course suggested by the hon. Member in the last paragraph of his Question; but I have directed one of the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade to Report to me on the present condition of those works.
  Message to attend the Lords' Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned;—
  MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

  EDUCATION COMMITTEE (SCOTLAND) —SECONDARY EDUCATION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIRasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government have yet considered the recommendations of the Third Report of the Committee on Education in Scotland; and whether they will be able to propose legislation dealing with secondary education in Scotland this Session; and, should they find that the pressure of other Public Business is so great as to render it impossible to deal with the whole of this question, will they introduce a short measure carrying out the 16th recommendation of the Report (which could be effected by a Bill of only one clause)—namely,
  "That the Education Department should have power (as it had under 'The Education Act, 1872') to sanction fees above the average of 9d. per week, and if it be held that the power was taken away by the Act of 1876, it should be restored by legislation, but should be used, as hitherto, with reserve?"
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Third Report of the Committee referred to is now under consideration, but the Government cannot undertake to propose legislation dealing with secondary education this Session; nor, in the face of considerable difference of opinion, do they feel able to introduce a measure of the kind indicated in the last paragraph of the Question.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BICYCLES AND TRICYCLES.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is a fact that the public are not allowed to ride bicycles or tricycles in the Royal Parks of the Metropolis, even on the roads where all other vehicles are permitted; whether cycling is freely allowed in Battersea Park, where no inconvenience results from it; whether there is any reason for the restriction in the case of the Royal Parks; And, whether he will consider the advisability of removing the prohibition referred to?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): After
  422
  consultation with His Royal Highness the Ranger, I have decided to lay before Parliament an alteration in the existing Rules, which will allow bicycles and tricycles on those roads in Hyde Park and St. James's Park upon which public vehicles are admitted. They are now allowed in Regent's Park, Richmond Park, and Greenwich Park, as well as in Battersea Park.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—ABBREVIATED TITLES.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster General, Whether titles, which it is often inconvenient to omit in telegraphing, consisting of two letters, such as P.P., C.C., M.D., M.P., &c., may not in future be counted as one word, in the same way as the letters indicating the Postal Districts of London are counted at present?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I regret that I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. The effect would be to reduce the receipts from telegraph business; and, as a loss is already incurred on that business, I do not consider that I should be justified in taking any steps which would tend to increase the loss.

  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION—REMOVAL TO RICHMOND PARK—MAP OF WIMBLEDON COMMON AND RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can state what the proposition of the National Rifle Association as regards Richmond Park definitely is, so as to enable the inhabitants of the neighbourhood to judge how it will affect the Park and its surroundings, and to answer the proposition?
  MR. AINSLIEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will lay on the Table a copy of the 6th Ordnance Map of Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park, showing the position of the existing rifle butts and ranges on the former, and the proposed position of butts and ranges on the latter, and showing in each case the extent of the danger zone before and behind the butts; and, in the case of Richmond Park, the position of

  423
  the trees proposed to be cut down, and of those liable to damage from the rifle shooting?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The Council of the National Rifle Association have not yet formulated in detail their proposals as to Richmond Park; but they have undertaken to give me within a short time, together with other information, a plan showing on a sheet, of the Ordnance Survey Map, the position and alignment of the firing stations, ranges, and butts, and the extent of the ground that would have to be enclosed. So soon as I receive that plan I shall consider whether it would be desirable to lay a copy of it on the Table.
  MR. KIMBERinquired, how long after the plans had been laid on the Table and information received by the right hon. Gentleman he would give the parties interested a right to be heard?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not know to whom the hon. Gentleman referred when he spoke of the parties interested; but he (Mr. Plunket) would consider the proposals of the National Rifle Association, and he would then decide whether other parties need be heard or not.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake not to come to any definite decision; and, before any expenditure that was requested was put on the Estimates, would he give the House an opportunity of coming to a decision on the point?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he would take care that opportunity for the expression of public opinion would be given before any alterations were made in the Park.

  THE TRUCK ACT, 1887—DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES AT BELFAST—COLLECTION OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Inspector of Factories for the district of Belfast was warranted in advising the employers of labour in that town and neighbourhood that they would be infringing the provisions of "The Truck Act, 1887," by deducting from the wages of those in their employment certain contributions
  424
  voluntarily given towards the maintenance of the Belfast Royal Hospital, amounting in the aggregate to £1,700 per annum, and which Institution was almost exclusively for the benefit of the working classes of that town and the surrounding district; if the written assent of each contributor in aid of such a Charitable Institution as this is essential when the gift is voluntary, is subscribed in small sums, and the entire sum represents many thousand contributors; and, if such written assent is deemed necessary, would the giving of it on one occasion be considered a sufficient recognition of the requirements of the said Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This is a question as to the legal interpretation of the Truck Act, as to which I must decline to express an opinion. I do not understand that the Inspector advised the employers that they would be infringing the Act. He merely referred them to the sections of the Act which deal with deductions.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether any provision of the Truck Act renders it illegal for employers to collect the voluntary contributions of their employés in aid of a public hospital without the written consent of such employés?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. Member, there is not, in my opinion, any provision of the Truck Act which renders it illegal for employers to collect the voluntary contributions of their employés in aid of a public hospital. Of course, I assume that such contribution is not made any part of the conditions of employment.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the answer just given by the Attorney General, if he would direct the Factory Inspector in Belfast to instruct the employers that they might collect voluntary contributions in aid of the hospitals as heretofore?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would like to know more about the Question before he answered it. However, he would bear the matter in mind.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman on Monday next.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE MAGISTRACY—THEIR DUTY IN STATING CASES.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the language reported to have been used by the Lord Chief Baron in the Dublin Exchequer Division on Monday last—
  "The magistrates were in the habit of entirely mistaking their duties in the matter of stating cases. They should state the grounds of their decision, and not apply their functions to any particular objection. The whole of the proceedings were to come up for examination. And, above all, they should prepare the case themselves quickly, and without communication with any one."
  And by Baron Dowse—
  "Unless the magistrates are made over again they will never do that, just because they could not do it. If you can get one of them that can do it himself he ought to be sent to the British Museum;"
  whether Baron Dowse further remarked—
  "I cannot understand why it has been so often said that this Act created no new offence. Why, this is a new offence;"
  and, whether, in view of these judicial utterances, he proposes to take steps for securing better means of testing the legality of sentences in the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The observations attributed to the learned Judges by the report in the case referred to were directed against a long-existing practice as to the mode of carrying out the preparation and settlement of cases stated for the Superior Court under the Act of Parliament. The Lord Chief Baron added—
  "I have said what I have said deliberately, in order that no observations of mine could be tortured into a reflection on the magistrates."
  There is no reason to infer from anything that occurred in the case referred to that the existing means of testing the legality of sentences are in any degree inadequate.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether the answer which he has just given would apply equally to the remarks of Baron Dowse, where
  426
  he is reported to have said that as to asking one of the Justices through the country to state a case to one of the Superior Courts, you might as well ask him to write a Greek ode?
  [No reply.]
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the second part of my Question.
  MR. MADDEN: I have no doubt that it is correctly reported.
  MR. ANDERSON: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, does the Government agree with the observations of the learned Judge?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is an irregular Question, to ask the Government whether they agree with the observations of the learned Judge.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the fact that the quotation is admitted to be a correct one, the Government still adhere to the opinion repeatedly expressed by them that the Act does not constitute any new offence?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—THE VISITING JUSTICES, LIMERICK PRISON.
  MR. O'KEEFEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Is it a fact that Alderman Riordan, the duly appointed locum tenens for the Mayor of Limerick, has been refused admission as a Visiting Justices to the Limerick Prison; and, whether, having regard to the provisions of 16 & 17 Vict., c. 194, s. 69, relating to the locum tenens of the Mayors, he will permit the Mayor's legally appointed deputy in future to visit the said gaol?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I am informed by the Prisons Board that Alderman Riordan's claim for admission as a Visiting Justice was not put forward on the ground suggested by the Question. I have called the attention of the Board to the section referred to by the hon. and learned Member, which, it is right to add, is a provision contained in a Local Act relating to Limerick alone.

  RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)—MILITARY DISTURBANCES AT DOWNPATRICK.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the organised attack made by 300 men of the 5th Battalion Royal South Down Rifles on a Catholic Juvenile Band, at Downpatrick, on its return from an excursion to Newcastle, On Friday evening last; whether he is aware that the Constabulary did not appear until the Militia were actually driving the bandsmen back towards the Railway Station. How many of the Militiamen engaged in this attack were arrested by the police on this occasion; whether any Report has been received from Colonel Waring, who is in charge of the regiment, as to the conduct of his men on the evening in question; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the origin of the attack, and into all the circumstances in connection with it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): One hundred and fifty Militiamen, not 300, did attack a band at Downpatrick. The band does not appear to have been a juvenile one; but to have consisted of a very rowdy set of grown up persons. The police protected the bandsmen as well as they could; but were unable to identify any of the Militiamen, who were strangers to them. The attack did not last for more than a minute. None of the bandsmen were severely injured, and the newspaper accounts appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Questions relating to the conduct of the Militiamen should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)inquired, whether the police were ordered not to arrest the Militiamen in cases of the kind referred to; and whether it was not a fact that these attacks have not been of unusual occurrence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the police had not received orders of the nature suggested in the Question of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps in future to prevent a repetition of these attacks?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I am always anxious to prevent occurrences of the kind referred to.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE MAGHERAFELT TENANTS AT BELFAST.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering the hardship and expense involved in bringing the Magherafelt tenants to the sitting of the Land Commission at Belfast, and 216 tenants and their witnesses from Carrickmacross to Dundalk, he will advise the Land Commission in future to hold sittings, if required, at Quarter Sessions towns—such as Magherafelt and Carrickmacross—for hearing appeals from the adjoining districts, in order that tenants may be in a position to attend with a sufficient number of witnesses to give proper evidence on appeal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he would be glad to bring this matter before the Land Commissioners on their return from the country, where they were hearing appeals.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, was the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the Magherafelt tenants more than half had been obliged to withdraw their cases, and that they could not pay the further expense necessary to continue their applications; and, whether such an arrangement would not leave the tenants utterly at the mercy of the landlords?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had no information on the point; but he would remind the hon. Member that, though he had made suggestions to the Land Commissioners, he had no control over the Land Commission.

  THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN—SALARIES OF THE ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR GENERALS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What was the average amount paid to the Attorney General and to the Solicitor General for contentious business over and above their official salaries in the years 1886 and 1887; and, in how many instances during the year 1887 was the opinions of the Attorney or Solicitor General obtained in the case of non-contentious business?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): This Question only appeared on the Paper this morning; but I can inform the hon. Member that the Appropriation Accounts show that the payments to the Attorney General, in addition to his salary, were in 1885–6, £3,227, and in 1886–7, £5,109; to the Solicitor General, £2,061 and £2,853. Time has not allowed me to obtain any information on the second part of the Question.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I wish to ask, whether the Attorney General for Ireland received last year from official sources upwards of £10,000, besides free private works, without sitting in this House; and, whether the Government will consider the propriety of taking any salary proposed for an Under Secretary out of the enormous and exorbitant salaries of the Irish Law Officers?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Gentleman will see that a Question of such importance deserves to be put on the Paper.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the amount spent in 1887–8 on the Attorney General's salary?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; I have said that the Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and I have not had time to get the information except from the Public Accounts. If the hon. Member desires further information, he must put the Question down.

  VACCINATION ACTS—PROSECUTIONS AGAINST MR. M. H. NEAB, KENFIELD, SUSSEX.
  MR. PICTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. M. H. Neab, of High Street, Kenfield, Sussex, who has been 16 times summoned for refusal on conscientious grounds to have his children vaccinated; whether the total fines inflicted, with costs, have amounted to £16 14 s.; whether Mr. Neab has declared that no power on earth will ever force him to surrender what he feels to be the course of duty to his family; and, whether the Local Government Board has any means of urging or enforcing the advice given in the letter to the Evesham Guardians?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention has been called to the case of Mr. Neab by a communication from him. It appears that in respect of his three children he has been summoned 16 times, and fined eight times. The fines and costs have not amounted to £16 14 s., but to £12 1s., the additional £4 13 s. referred to in the question being the amount of the fines and costs which Mr. Neab estimates will be imposed upon him when he is again proceeded against in respect of his three children. It is the case that in his letter to the Board he stated, in effect, that his opinion on the question was conscientious, and that no power on earth would ever force him to surrender it. The Board have communicated to the Guardians the letter, which was addressed to the Guardians of Evesham Union, stating generally the Board's views as to the repeated prosecutions. It rests with the Guardians, however, and not with the Board, to determine as to the course which the Guardians should adopt with respect to these repeated prosecutions; and the Board cannot interfere in the exercise by the Guardians of their powers in individual cases.
  MR. PICTONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it desirable to introduce some legislation to prevent prosecution degenerating into persecution?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board have already expressed their view in the Evesham letter. The enforcement of the Act is committed to an elective tribunal, and they must use their discretion in the cases that come before them.

  CHURCH COLLECTIONS (SCOTLAND).
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that by the Common Law in Scotland the collections made at the doors of parish churches are the property of the poor, and that collections cannot be made at the doors of parish churches for any other object than the support of the poor; whether, by the Poor Law Act of 1845, Kirk Sessions were bound to report annually to the Board of Supervision as to the application of the moneys arising from church collections; whether the Reports of the Board of Supervision show that since the year 1846 £964,925 has been collected by

  431
  Kirk Sessions, that only £378,440 has been expended on relief of the poor, £573,888 expended on other purposes, and £12,597 left unaccounted for; whether the last Return shows that during the year 1886–7 £38,746 was received by Kirk Sessions, and only £8,484 expended on relief of the poor; and, whether, if these sums have been illegally misappropriated by Kirk Sessions for other purposes than the relief of the poor, he will, as Public Prosecutor, take steps to see that the law is carried out?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): In reply to the first Question, I have to say that it is not the law that collections cannot be made at the doors of parish churches for any other object than the support of the poor. I refer the hon. Member to Section 54 of the Act of 1845, and to page 42 of Mr. Guthrie Smith's Digest of the Law of Scotland, relating to the poor and public health, published in 1878. The Kirk Sessions are bound to report, and have regularly reported, to the Board of Supervision in terms of the Act of 1845. The figures in the third and fourth paragraphs of the Question are correctly stated. The Board of Supervision give every publicity to the Annual Returns by publishing them in the Annual Report of the Board. If there is any misappropriation of the funds of any parish, the heritors or any other person interested, and legally entitled to do so, can take such steps in the Civil Courts as may be necessary to prevent such misappropriation. It is not a matter with which the Public Prosecutor can interfere, unless a case of fraud or embezzlement is made out.

  POST OFFICE—CHARGES FOR POSTCARDS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that at an ordinary stationer's shop a dozen stout post cards can be purchased for 7d., whilst, if obtained at a Post Office, the same articles cost as much as 8d.; whether he can explain this anomaly; and, whether, in the view of the Post Office Authorities, it is necessary, and, if so, in what interest, that such an anomaly should further be continued; and, if not, whether he will insist upon early mea-
  432
  sures being adopted to do away with the present overcharge at the Post Office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): A somewhat similar Question was asked by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Mr. Rankin) about a year ago. I then explained that the cards referred to were not those issued by the Post Office; but private postcards, stamped under certain conditions at Somerset House. Until the expiration of the present contract the Post Office is not in a position to reduce the price, of the official postcards. I have been for some time fully sensible of the anomaly to which the hon. Member refers; and my best attention has been given to the subject, in view of seizing the earliest opportunity for terminating it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the contract will run out?
  MR. RAIKES: In 1889.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, 'Whether he can give to the House any authentic and detailed information respecting the encounter alleged to have recently taken place between the British troops and Natives in Zululand; and, whether he can state the number and composition of the British Forces at present serving in Zululand, or under orders to proceed to that country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: In reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first Question I will read the telegram received on the 3rd instant from the Governor of Natal—
  "Tshingana having collected insurgent bands at Hlopekulu, near White Umvalosi River, has been raiding and plundering loyal natives. It became necessary to dislodge him before advance to Ceza, 2nd July. Police with native and Basuto levies with support of troops advanced to Hlopekulu, found Usutus in strong position, from which they at once opened fire. Usutus dispersed with heavy loss after six hours' fighting. About 1,000 cattle captured. Casualties on our side—killed, Lieutenant Briscoe, 1st Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers; Trent, leader of native levy; and three police and Basutos; wounded, eight Basutos; losses among native levies not yet

  433
  ascertained. Tshingana supposed to have escaped."
  As far as is at present known the number and composition of the British Forces now in Zululand are as follows:—Regulars—300 Cavalry, 120 Mounted Infantry, 440 Infantry, two light guns, and two Gatling guns. Zulu Carbineers, 25 mounted and 135 foot. Basutos, mounted, 200 to 250. Native levies, number not stated. The reinforcements which have landed from the Cape are 677 Royal Scots and 21 Artillerymen.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: In which of the three Divisions into which Zululand was divided in 1877 have these encounters taken place?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Well, I am not sure; I believe it is in the North-East; but if the right hon. and learned Member will put it down on the Paper I will inquire.
  DR. CLARKasked, whether the Tshingana mentioned was the brother of Cetewayo?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I should not like to commit myself to statements about Zulu genealogies without Notice.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the serious hostilities which have broken out in Zululand and the great likelihood of British troops being engaged in a very serious war, the Government will give a day in order that this matter may be discussed?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I do not know whether I ought to answer this Question without Notice; but I can say at once that it is quite impossible for the Government to give a day for the consideration of this Question. An opportunity of discussing it will be afforded in the course of the next 24 hours on the Report of the Colonial Office Vote. But I ought to say that the Government have no reason whatever to apprehend that there will be a serious war, such as the hon. Member seems to suggest. On the contrary, the Government hope that this affair, which we deplore, will be settled very speedily indeed.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—BELFAST—SALARIES.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  434
  tenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill, during the present Session, to provide for the increase of the salaries of the Town Inspector and District Inspectors of Belfast; whether the Government had made a proposal to the Municipal Authorities of Belfast, as stated at the meeting of the Corporation on the 2nd instant, to bear half the cost of such increases; and, as the feeling of almost the entire ratepaying class of that town is opposed to such increases, would the Government undertake to postpone any action in relation to the matter till a town meeting had been called in a suitable place to consider the question; and, would the Government afford facilities for the passing into law of a measure to substitute for the present most inefficient force one similar in its constitution and control to the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, or the police forces existing in other great English and Scotch towns, if not during the present Session, at least as early as possible in the Session of next year?
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter, of the 23rd of May last, from the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the Town Clerk of Belfast, indicating his intention to suggest that "power should be obtained from Parliament this Session, if possible," to make a charge upon the municipal rates of Belfast in respect of certain proposed increases of salary to the Town Inspector and District Inspectors of Constabulary stationed there; whether it is the intention of the Government to propse such legislation; and, whether the ratepayers of Belfast have been afforded an opportunity of expressing opinion on the subject?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is the case that the Inspector General of Constabulary has been in correspondence with the Town Council of Belfast concerning a proposed increase of the numbers of the Constabulary Force in the town, and an increase of the pay of the Town Inspector and the District Inspectors under him, and that the Inspector General proposed that a part of the extra charge should be defrayed out of local rates. The Town Council received the proposal favourably; but as legisla-

  435
  tion would be necessary for carrying it into effect, I cannot, in the present state of Business in the House, see any prospect of the matter being proceeded with this Session. The ratepayers of Belfast are, no doubt, fully aware of the discussions in the Town Council, and will have ample opportunity to express their views.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(SCOTLAND)—ATTENDANCE AT THE INSPECTOR'S EXAMINATION.
  MR. HUGH ELLIOTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstance that it is an occasional practice for parents who have children at public elementary schools in Scotland to forbid their attendance at school on the day of examinution by Her Majesty's Inspector for the purpose of injuring the teacher by lowering the Government grant; and, whether such action on the part of the parents is legal; and, if so, whether he can suggest any remedy for the abuse?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Instances of the action to which the hon. Member refers have occasionally been reported to the Scotch Education Department; but as the Education Acts do not prescribe attendance at school on every day when the school is open, except for children in whose case an attendance order has been issued, the action does not appear to be illegal; and the only remedy which can be suggested must come from the condemnation which such action should meet with from the community which suffers from the loss of grant. The grant is payable to the managers of the school, and the loss can only fall upon the teacher when the school is farmed to him—a system which their Lordships have uniformly condemned.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—IMPORTATION OF SUGAR—SUGAR BOUNTIES—THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can give the House an assurance that the Government will not give its assent to any proposal which would have the effect of restricting or prohibiting the
  436
  importation of cheap sugar into this country? also, What is the object for which the International Conference on Sugar Bounties has been summoned; who took the initiative in summoning it; and what are the advantages to this country that are expected to result from its deliberations?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the two Questions of the hon. Member, the House has been already informed that it will be placed in full possession of the proceedings of the Conference on Sugar Bounties before any legislation on the subject is proposed by Her Majesty's Government. It is evident that measures to restrict or prohibit the importation of sugar could only be founded on legislation. The objects of the Conference are fully stated in the Papers laid before Parliament, especially those entitled Commercial 2 and 3, of 1888.
  MR. SUMMERS: My Question had reference to the action of the Government in giving their assent to any proposals.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the assent of the Government is not binding on this House.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS—RETURN OF REVENUES.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Parliamentary Paper, relating to the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, will show, by counties in England and Wales, the gross amounts that became due and payable to the Commissioners during each of the years 1881 to 1887, in respect of Mining Rents, Royalties, Way-leaves, &c., under the following heads—namely, Coal; Ironstone; Fireclay; Limestone; Freestone; Lead Ore, and other products of Lead Mines; Tin Ores and Tin Streams; China Clays; Way-leave and Watercourse Rents; Instroke, Outstroke, and Shaft Rents; and, whether, if this is not the case, he will furnish such a Return?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Church Revenues Return, in course of preparation, will show the revenue derived by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from mineral property by counties in

  437
  England and Wales for the year 1886; but will not give the separate sources of income as set out in the Question of the hon. Member. The preparation of the Return above referred to will tax the clerical resources of the Ecclesiastical Commission to the utmost for months to come; and it will not, therefore, be practicable to grant the further Return asked for.

  PARLIAMENT—DIVISION OF THE SESSION OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of Treasury, Whether, during the ensuing Recess, the Government will consider the advisability of dividing the Session of Parliament into two parts, the first part to adjourn in June, and the second part to commence in October and close before Christmas?
  MR. LABOUCHEREwished, before the right hon. Gentleman answered, to ask him, with reference to the Notice of Motion on that subject given by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), whether he would be ready to give facilities for the discussion of that Motion, if it could be brought to his mind and knowledge that there was a general wish on both sides of the House that there should be such discussion? Probably, the discussion would only last half-an-hour or so.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am always desirous of considering any wish of the House, especially when it is of the exceedingly moderate character indicated by the hon. Member; but I am afraid that he is not able to give an absolute assurance that the time occupied by the discussion referred to would be limited to half-an-hour. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, I have to say that I am aware that the suggestion of the hon. Member is one in which many Members of the House take great interest, and I cannot say, therefore, that it will not be considered by the Government during the Recess; but the first duty of the Government is to consider the demands of the Public Service and the interests of the country. If, with due regard to those paramount claims, it would be possible so to arrange the Sittings of Parliament with reference to
  438
  the convenience of Members as to permit of a summer holiday, it would afford me, individually, unfeigned satisfaction.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (QUARTERLY RETURN TO 30TH JUNE, 1888).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, who had the following Motion upon the Paper:—
  "Copy of Quarterly Return directed by section 1, subsection (10) of 'The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887,' to be published in The Dublin Gazette for the quarter ended the 30th day of June last"—
  asked, whether he might move his Motion as an unopposed Return?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the Return asked for was already given in an official and authentic form.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that it was a form that was not accessible to the general body of the Members of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would consider the question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, could he move his Motion as an unopposed Return?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if the hon. Member would communicate privately with him he would see what could be done.

  PARLIAMENT—ROYAL ASSENT TO BILLS—INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS BY THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with regard to what had occurred a short time previously in the House. It was whether, considering the interruption to the Business of the House by the entrance of Black Rod at Question time, he would endeavour to arrange with the Leader of the House of Lords that the Speaker should be requested to attend in the Upper House at a time more convenient to the House of Commons?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): That is a Question of which I ought to have Notice.

  NATIONAL DEBT (NOTICE OF CONVERSION).
  MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  439
  When he proposed to take his Motion, National Debt (Notice of Conversion), which stood second on the Paper? because he understood that Motion No. 1—regarding the notification scheme of the Scottish Education Department—would be taken to night, and would occupy some time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, he would not take it after 12 to-night, although it was a Motion which did not come within the 12 o'clock Rule.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he would be exceedingly reluctant to break off Supply for the purpose of bringing on this Motion. If the Motion in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. A. Elliot), with reference to the More Mortification, were not proceeded with after the Orders of the Day were disposed of, the Motion in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be proceeded with.

  BANN, BARROW, AND SHANNON DRAINAGE BILLS.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the text of the Drainage Bills would be in the hands of hon. Members?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Drainage Bills will be in the hands of hon. Members in a day or two, and the delay has occurred because I have made a modification in the Bills. Owing to the criticism passed during the debate of the other night I have transferred the selection of members representing the upland from the Grand Jury to the Board of Guardians.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £69,017, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
    440
    necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
    DR. TANNERsaid, he had not caught what this Vote was for; it seemed to be a very large sum, and, therefore, he should like to know the purpose for which it was to be voted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is to complete the sum necessary for salaries and expenses connected with the Board of Trade.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he had no wish to divide the Committee upon the Vote; but there were one or two matters upon which he should like to have an explanation from the President of the Board of Trade. In the first place, he wished to call attention to the neglect of the Department in enforcing the carrying of lime juice upon all British vessels leaving the ports of this country. Was it true that prosecutions could not be maintained against the masters of British vessels when such vessels were voyaging between two ports, each of which were outside the United Kingdom, though they might have committed an offence against the Act which required them to carry lime juice or other antiscorbutic when the crew were on salt provisions? If that was so, he thought the Board of Trade ought to introduce legislation to extend its powers. He believed that in the case of the ship Killeena, the Board had underrated their powers. Another question to which he desired to call the attention of the Department was the preparation of labour statistics. He complained that down to the present time there had been no attempt to obtain the periodical Returns which were promised when Parliament sanctioned the creation of the Department. The Office was created in 1886, but nothing had as yet been done to furnish the periodical statistics which would alone be useful both to employer and employed. Now there had, however, been a Return published, which was of considerable interest—namely, the Return of wages paid during the past half-century. But the value of this was rather for comparison with the past. The Returns which had been given as to the rate of wages in Belgium was exceedingly valuable, and

    441
    so also was the Return in reference to Trades Unions; but this last, from its incompleteness, it was useless in its present form for practical purposes. He was afraid, unless more of the men who were employed co-operated with the Department in making these statistics, that the Returns themselves would be of very little value. He trusted that the Board would make some effort to comply with the wishes of Parliament, and he hoped Trades Unions would more actively assist. He was told that out of the 312 trade societies applied to by the Board of Trade, only 58 had sent in any raplies at all, and the bulk of those 58 were useless. He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing for the country if they failed to get those Returns. With Labour Representatives sitting in that House it ought to be understood that the men who appealed to Parliament for assistance ought to co-operate with Parliament in making that assistance useful. In the various States of America both the employers and the employed were compelled to give those Returns, and they had proved to be of great value. The employers held back from making the Returns nothing like to the same extent as the employés. Although only a small number of Returns had been received, a large portion of them came from the employers, and very few from the men. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would be able to assure the Committee that something more would be done there. Trade disputes were aggravated by the misrepresentations which were made and the misapprehensions which existed as to the rate of wages and the cost of living, owing to the absence of those Returns. The late President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) had given him an assurance that this Department of the Board would be made effective, and it was to be regretted that the country should have had to pay for the cost of creating the Department with such small practical result.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he also had to ask for some satisfactory assurance as to the supply of lime juice and other antiscorbutics to British ships trading at foreign ports. He trusted that measures would be taken to prevent the masters of vessels from escaping liability.
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he had watched
    442
    with considerable interest the working of the Labour Bureau, which might render valuable service by following the chief labour disputes which occurred in the course of the year, and reporting upon them. In order to do that, it would be necessary to supply the Department with the local newspapers in which the progress of those disputes was recorded. In the course of a year or two, a careful Report might be prepared of the chief labour disputes which took place from year to year; but unless the Department had information from the local Press it would be impossible to follow the disputes. It was obvious that the Department could not take any Party side in the matter. But it was a matter of regret to find that no record was kept even of the letters which passed between the masters and the men. He thought that a permanent record would be of great value in future years to those who studied these economical and industrial questions.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH)said, that he was anxious to see lime juice carried on all voyages, and the requirement could be enforced in the case of voyages commenced from the ports of this country; but he was afraid there would be practical difficulties in extending the requirement to British ships sailing between foreign ports, where it might be alleged that the necessary supply of lime juice was not obtainable. If he found, on further inquiry, that the requirement could be extended so as to meet all cases, he would endeavour to effect that object; but at present he did not think that it could be done. As regarded the statistics of the Labour Bureau, he thanked the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) for calling the attention of the Committee to the matter. He was anxious that the Bureau should be a reality. He admitted that the publications which had hitherto proceeded from it had not been so full as they might have been, and that it might have been made more useful to Parliament and to working men; but one difficulty was the question of cost. It was his intention to look carefully into the matter and probably to make proposals for extending the work of the Bureau which he hoped would be favourably entertained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was sure the hon.

    443
    Member for Northampton did not mean to cast any reflection on the head of the Bureau. [Mr. BRADLAUGH]: Not at all.] He believed that the Labour Correspondent (Mr. Burnett) had done all that could be done with the staff at his disposal, and he should like to mention what had been done by Mr. Burnett since he was appointed Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in October, 1886. He was a Member of a Committee on Government Manufacturing Establishments, which occupied 70 days. He was also a Member of the Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office. In the beginning of 1887, he made a special Report on immigration at the East End, which was issued as a Parliamentary Paper. In 1887, he also made a special report on Trades Unions, and another on the sweating system and the collection of wages statistics. In 1888, he had been engaged upon a second special Report on Trade Unions, which was nearly ready. He had also made a special Report on the cost of living, which was in the printer's hands; and a special Report on strikes and lock-outs in the previous year was in preparation. He made a monthly Report to the Board of Trade on the state of the labour market, of which a summary was published at frequent intervals in The Board of Trade Journal. And a special Report on wages and hours of labour of labourers in Kent and Sussex was published in The Board of Trade Journal in November, 1887. All that was possible should be done to secure that the Office was supplied with the fullest information; but he was afraid the searching of local newspapers was more than could be expected.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had answered the question; but he had a suspicion that the staff supposed to be devoted to the work of the Bureau was employed for purposes that did not appear in the results of its labours. In many of the States of the United States a less costly Bureau produced more voluminous annual Returns, and certainly more ought to be done in this country, and with better results, considering the amount charged for the work in the Estimates. If more money was required, pressure ought to be put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A single torpedo, for instance,
    444
    might be given up, and a portion of the money spent for this Department. He was afraid that the amount voted for the collection of labour statistics was not sufficient for the work. He did not attribute the smallest blame to Mr. Burnett, who was a loyal servant to the public, nor had he any wish to blame the President of the Board of Trade or his Predecessor. He was afraid that the permanent staff used the men who ought to be employed in collecting these statistics for other work.
    MR. CHANNINGasked, whether anything had been done with regard to signalling at sea, since the United States Congress passed an Act empowering the Government to enter into an International Congress on the subject? A large class of persons in this country were very much interested in obtaining information upon the matter. There was a wish on the part of captains to have a code of signals for use in fogs, as well as when vessels were in sight. He wished to know whether the Departmental Committee which the Board of Trade appointed some time ago, and which consisted of men of experience in these matters, would be empowered to join with any similar Body appointed by the Government of the United States, who, with this country, were principally concerned in the question? He should be glad to learn what steps were intended to be taken in that direction? He also wished to know what had been done with a view of securing safety upon the railways? Some time ago the President of the Board of Trade undertook to introduce a clause into the Railway Rates Bill, now before the Grand Committee, requiring the Railway Companies to furnish statistics in regard to overtime. He also desired to learn whether the Board of Trade would take power to require Railway Companies to furnish particulars as to coupling appliances and to casualties occurring in their use, so that useful conclusions might be drawn from the comparison of different systems? Among other things, the Railway Companies should be directed to furnish the Board of Trade with particulars as to the tyres used by the different Companies, and the different forms of brake. On some railways the coupling-pole had been adopted, while on others it had not. He thought it was of the greatest importance that the Board of Trade should

    445
    take steps to compel the railways to adopt the best means for securing safety.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the resignation of Mr. Rothery, the Wreck Commissioner. The services of Mr. Rothery had been of great value for many years in eliciting the causes of casualties at sea, for his inquiries had been conducted with eminent skill and diligence. Mr. Rothery had now retired, and he wished to know if the Government proposed to appoint a successor to that valuable public servant, and whether they intended to continue the office of Wreck Commissioner? Some cases had recently occurred in which it was desirable that inquiries should be made without delay.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the matter was, no doubt, of considerable importance, and was now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. No decision had yet been arrived at on the subject, but it would not be long delayed. There were some reasons, he thought, in favour of making a fresh arrangement with regard to the work done by the Wreck Commissioner. In regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing), he quite agreed that they ought to obtain full information as to the use of coupling appliances before they attempted to legislate upon the subject. The Board of Trade already possessed certain information upon the question, and he would consider the matter in connection with the clause which would be inserted in the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Wreck Commissioner was appointed under an Act of Parliament, and, if the Government made any new arrangement, it would be necessary to bring in a Bill in that House. He therefore ventured to hope that, under the circumstances, the Government would speedily come to a decision. The subject had been carefully considered by the Commission on Lights at Sea, and that Commission was in the main in favour of maintaining the office of Wreck Commissioner. While he thought that some alteration might be made in the duties attached to the office, he could not come to the conclusion that a suc-
    446
    cessor ought not to be appointed. Perhaps some alteration might be made in the nature of the duties. Some portion of the work might be taken away, and some of the powers now enjoyed by the Wreck Commissioner, especially in reference to the certificates of masters, might be reduced. The office might be constituted an office of Inquiry rather than one to which final powers were attached. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal at present with the Law of Insurance, but he hoped that during the Recess he would consider the subject of the loss of life at sea with the view of legislating upon it in the next Session.
    MR. J. E. ELLIStrusted that the pressure would be continued upon the Railway Companies to prevent long hours and overtime on the part of their servants, so as to relieve them of the physical strain they were frequently compelled to endure. As a rule he would not encourage interference on the part of the Central Government, and probably they would be entering upon a dangerous task if they were to prescribe the particular appliances that were to be used by Railway Companies. But the return recently laid before the House respecting working hours would be admitted to be most unsatisfactory, and demanded the vigilant attention of the Board of Trade.
    MR. ROWNTREEsaid, he hoped that the Government would supply further information with regard to the Sea Fisheries of the country. He did not blame the President of the Board of Trade or the officials employed in the Department; but he believed that annual statistics and memoranda were supplied to the Board, and he wished to know whether they could not be published for the advantage of the public? He had been told that Reports of the Inspectors and statistics with regard to the quantity of fish brought into the country were not obtainable this year. He thought that such statistics ought to be obtained, and it would be a great advantage to include them in the annual Report of the Inspectors. At present, two distinct documents were issued at two different times, which had no relation to each other, and, although they had no relation to each other, he thought it would be better to give them together. He was glad to say that the annual Report this

    447
    year gave more useful information than the Report of last year. The Inspector of Fisheries, however, stated in the concluding paragraph of the annual Report that the Harbour Department had not been able to obtain all the information it desired. When they compared the Reports on Sea Fisheries in England with those of Scotland, Ireland, and the United States, they would agree that there was room for much further improvement, and that it was urgently called for by the great and important fishing industry of this country.
    MR. WIGGINsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. E. Ellis) that no one was more anxious to limit the working hours of railway servants than the Railway Directors. There were, however, times in which it was impossible to avoid keeping men at work beyond the stated hour. Trains had frequently to be run into sidings and were required to remain there for 12 or 14 hours at a time without being moved. Those occurrences it was impossible to avoid, and therefore from time to time there was a considerable increase beyond the regular working hours. He could assure the hon. Member that that was a constant subject of anxiety to the Railway Directors, and that they were most desirable of bringing the working hours of their servants within reasonable limits.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, there could be no doubt that the Railway Directors were desirous of limiting the hours of their servants. He thought, however, that it was the duty of the Committee to demand information on the subject. The Return they had had a few weeks ago of the hours beyond 12 at which railway servants were employed was an exceedingly useful one, and it was desirable to give a practical Return of that kind. He thought, for instance, there ought to be one every quarter, in order to show how many railway servants had been working for more than 12 hours a-day out of the 24. Such a Return would throw full light upon the matter, and public opinion might then be expressed on the subject. He asked the President of the Board of Trade to furnish a Return giving particulars as to overtime worked by railway servants.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that it was certainly his intention in future to require an Overtime Return to be made periodically. He did not doubt for a moment that the Railway Companies were anxious to reduce overtime as far as possible, but he could not help thinking that there was more overtime than was necessary. The production of the periodical Return might tend to reduce it.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, there appeared to be on this Estimate a stereotyped sum of £15,000 for the legal expenses of Merchant Shipping Department. He should like to know whether something could not be done by careful examination to reduce those charges?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would make inquiry into the matter.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to a subject he had mentioned last year on going into Committee of Supply. He brought the matter forward now, because the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his desire to make the Labour Bureau a reality instead of a sham. He thought it would be for the benefit of those unfortunate persons who were compelled to occupy the steerage of an emigrant ship, if the officers of the Board of Trade would see that more complete medical provision and more adequate hospital accommodation was supplied on board such vessels. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the great difficulty which the Board had had to contend with on account of the antagonism of the shipping interest. The rules laid down had been conceived in a benevolent spirit, and, if acted upon, would be highly beneficial to the emigrants. He certainly thought that because they happened to be poor their health and comfort should not be neglected. He was satisfied, now that he had mentioned the matter to the right hon. Gentleman, that he would do everything in his power to see that there should be no further cause of complaint. He had brought the matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor at the Board of Trade last year, and he then received an assurance that the Board would do their best to see that the rules and regulations were carried out, not only in the letter, but in

    449
    the spirit. The matter was one which had been made the subject of comment by The British Medical Journal, who strongly condemned the want of system that now prevailed. The arrangements on board ocean-going steamers were at the present moment scandalous. He had taken the opportunity of endeavouring to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman some of the various points that were connected with the matter in a series of Questions; but he was sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be fully alive to the gravity of the situation. He had also, in previous years, called the attention of the Board of Trade to this subject; but no efficient action had been taken. The right hon. Gentleman asked him to make a definite statement, and give names. He would give the statement, but not the names. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, according to the rules and regulations of the Board of Trade, the hospital accommodation was intended to be kept entirely apart; but sometimes the scanty space was taken away to provide berths for the officers and others. There were carried on board these large vessels upwards of 1,200 people, besides, perhaps, 100 seamen; and from that the importance of his contention would be seen. The consequence of the machinery breaking down would, of course, be serious in a certain sense; but the breaking out of an epidemic on board with these imperfect medical resources would be not only a national disaster, but constitute a stain on the national character. An event of the kind was by no means impossible, and it was to prevent such a calamity that he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman seriously to take up this matter. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that on board these ships there were practically no hospitals. There was the evidence of medical men to prove the truth of that statement; but he would not give their names, because, if he did so, they would be sent adrift and Boycotted. The right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, see the difficulty of affording him such statistics as he had asked for the other evening. As compared with the size of the ships, the hospitals were very small. Even on such large vessels as the Servia, Umbria, and Etruria, which carried sometimes 2,000 people, there were only six berths set apart for hos-
    450
    pital accommodation. Several medical officers had told him that it was absolutely impossible to prevent cases of men, women, and children coming on board suffering from illness which might, in course of time, develop into an epidemic. It was impossible for men who had to inspect 1,000 emigrants to go into every case, as the right hon. Gentleman knew as well as he did. In point of fact, the mode of inspection at Queenstown was very similar to the process which hon. Members went through at passing the turnstile in the Lobby—the Inspectors merely looked at the passengers and passed them on. He had known instances in which the hospitals were occupied by stokers, engineers, and officers of the ship, and even of cases more scandalous, where the steerage passengers had been left without the hospital accommodation provided by the Board of Trade, in order that the space might be let to first-class passengers, to enable the owners to screw a little more profit out of the voyage. What guarantee was there, when a ship had passed the Emigration Office and cleared out of Queenstown for New York and the officers had left the ship, that the hospitals would not be utilized for other purposes by the captain of the ship? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the captain had supreme power on board, and that if he ordered the hospital to be used for other purpose than was intended he would be obeyed. What would be the result of the doctor reporting that at New York? The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the emigration officers in New York looked into these matters; but when pressed for Reports from the responsible officers in New York, he was unable to give any but the vague statement that the officers looked after the health of the passengers. He (Dr. Tanner) dared not give the right hon. Gentleman the names of the persons who had given him information, because they would lose their situations; but he would leave him to deal with this very serious public scandal. Again, the hospitals were always located in a part of the ship which was of the least utility to the owners, for the purpose of turning an honest penny. In the major part of the American liners, the hospitals were in such a place that, supposing a patient was seized with epilepsy or apoplexy, it would be impossible to convey him to

    451
    the hospital, because he would have to go along the open deck exposed to all the vicissitudes of the weather. Last week a case had occurred where a man, who was being passed along an exposed portion of the deck, was caught by a sea and his leg broken. If the man had died, he maintained that the Board of Trade would be directly responsible, because it would have been owing to the negligence of the rules and regulations which they laid down.
    MR. AIRDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, there might be some answer made to the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Tanner), and he would, therefore, not put the Motion; but he would impress on the hon. Gentleman the desirability of not repeating his observations.
    DR. TANNERsaid, this was a matter of great importance to the people of the country. It appeared by the Return which had been placed in the hands of all hon. Members that there had been a great increase of emigration in the years 1886 and 1887, and he said it was only a matter of common decency that Her Majesty's Government should see that emigrants were landed safely on foreign shores. The right hon. Gentleman had stated last year that a special surgeon's cabin was fitted up on board the ships as a surgery—he was quoting from Hansard—but he would merely tell the right hon. Gentleman that that was not the case. In 96 per cent of those vessels there was no such thing as a special surgeon's cabin, and the medicines had either to be kept in the hospital or in the cabin of the medical man. With regard to sanitation, he pointed out that in the week before last 300 people were battened down in consequence of the weather on board one ship, and the consequence of the absence of accommodation was such that he would only relate them to the right hon. Gentleman personally. Then, again, those ships often brought back cattle, and, owing to the circumstance that they had to return to America at once to make money for the owners, the part of the vessel in which the cattle were carried was frequently re-converted into steerage accommodation without being properly cleansed. He should not dwell any longer upon these matters; but, in
    452
    the interest of common humanity, he would not be doing his duty to those who were going to try to earn a livelihood in a foreign land if he did not bring these matters forward and claim for those on whose behalf he spoke the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to the prevention of what was nothing less than an outrage and scandal.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had replied, to the best of his ability, to several questions which the hon. Gentleman had addressed to him in the past few weeks, and he had done so after careful inquiry of the Shipping Companies and the Inspectors of the Board of Trade. He had not been able to find any confirmation of the statements of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman complained that the regulations of the Board of Trade in reference to hospital accommodation on board the ships were not carried out. Now, he thought the hon. Gentleman, to some extent, confused the ships engaged in the ordinary passenger traffic with others engaged in the emigrant traffic. The regulations of the Board of Trade applied only to the latter. The Inspectors of the Board of Trade had to take care that the rules laid down in reference to these matters were carried out, and certainly he would do his best to secure that they did their duty in that respect. He believed that they did their duty; but if the hon. Gentleman would give him any special facts to the contrary he would promise him complete inquiry. He had no doubt that it was necessary, from time to time, to see that the local Inspectors properly carried out their work, and he would take care that this was done. It might be that after the ship left port, having passed the Board of Trade Inspectors, the hospital accommodation was used for other purposes. That was contrary to the rules of the Board of Trade; and he pointed out that it was only by the sanction of the medical officer that the accommodation could be devoted to other purposes than that for which it was intended. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, alleged that the medical officers absolutely neglected their duties.
    DR. TANNERsaid, on the contrary, he maintained that they did their duty as well as they could. If they attempted to report the breaches of the Board of Trade Regulations which occurred on

    453
    board ship, they would be dismissed from their employment.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had promised the hon. Member that if any offence could be brought before him which would warrant the prosecution of any Company or individual their prosecution should take place. More than that he could not say. If, however, the hon. Member made general charges without giving particular information, how was it possible for him to act? He trusted the Committee would now be allowed to proceed with other Business.
    DR. TANNERsaid, it was impossible for these poor people to complain.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, they might complain to the British Consul when they arrived.
    DR. TANNERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would know that these poor emigrants were not accustomed to large cities. When they arrived in New York they were hustled about like sheep, and had no opportunity of making complaint. In the case of cabin passengers, he could understand that complaints might be made and attended to. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to do exactly as was done in the case of emigrants to Australia from this country—that was to say, to pay the medical officers a small stipend, and make them responsible for the health of the emigrants under their charge. There would then be none of those breaches of regulations, which were now so common in the case of emigrants to America.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, a few years ago the then President of the Board of Trade had allowed the salvage on coal to be increased from one-third to two-thirds. The sailors and fishermen were extremely grateful for the concession, which gratitude might, in their case, also be regarded as a lively sense of increased salvage to be given; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not increase the rate of salvage on anchors, many of which were lying about the Estuary of the Thames? Under the present system, sailors got nothing out of a salvage.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given a good earnest of his intention to deal with cases of neglect of the Board of Trade Regulations; but he (Mr. J. O'Connor) must emphasize the fact that
    454
    it was impossible for emigrants to bring particular cases of hardship before the Department. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table a general statement of the custom of the Shipping Companies as bearing of the question of accommodation? His hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) had pointed out that no medical man on board the vessels would have the courage to make a statement against his employers, because he knew that the result would be his own dismissal; and, therefore, it seemed to him almost impossible that the hardships which undoubtedly existed, and which he had himself seen, could be brought under the notice of the Board of Trade in the precise manner which the right hon. Gentleman asked for. That being so, he would ask him whether, if a primâ facie case were placed before him, he would make inquiries into it, with a view to the protection, in the sense referred to, of the emigrants?
    DR. TANNERasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give a Return of the amount of accommodation for steerage passengers in the liners, and also of the steamers which carried cattle as well as passengers?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, if any such case as that suggested by the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) were laid before him, it should be thoroughly investigated. It would be impossible to institute any inquiries into such charges unless the names of the ships were given, although he would be sorry to require anything that would injure any officers. He had not had any Notice of the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Major Rasch), and perhaps he would communicate with him further on the matter.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he protested against the idea that Gentlemen on either side of the House were to be held responsible for investigations into general matters, with regard to which no one would give either name or date.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he wished to point out that there were some amounts which were not specified in the Estimates—namely, law charges in connection with the Patent Act of 1883, Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, Harbour Transfer Act 1862, and others. These were small points, no doubt; but

    455
    they were important in regard to Estimates which were supposed to convey to hon. Members the absolute amount of money spent on the various Departments, and which were not always so accurate as the public were led to believe; and before the Vote was passed he would ask the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: All the charges are on the Paper.
    MR. AIRDagain rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 266; Noes 84: Majority 182.—(Div. List, No. 194.)
    Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £69,017, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 301; Noes 62: Majority 239.—(Div. List, No. 195.)
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 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 1889, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, &c., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1883.'"
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, although the sum now taken was very small, it was no reason why the Committee should not exercise any control over the Bankruptcy Fees. Accordingly, he thought the Committee was entitled to the fullest information with reference to the subheads under which were included Contingencies, Stationery, and Law Charges.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that this Vote really covered a much larger sum than appeared on the Paper. The largest sum shown in the Estimates was £110,000. Well, that did not represent anything like the amount of money which was actually received in connection with the Bankruptcy Vote. The amount in the Estimates gave a balance which represented a fictitious statement of accounts. The total expenditure, as shown on page 1 of the Estimates, was £110,000 odd, and that was met by fees received under
    456
    the Bankruptcy Act, 1883; but, as a matter of fact, the Bankruptcy Fees Account did not represent, or anything like represent, the amounts of money actually paid in fees by suitors and parties under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Under that Act a very considerable amount of Bankruptcy business, in fact, the great body of Bankruptcy business was handed over to the County Courts. Now, in the County Courts there was no distinction between the fees paid for ordinary business in connection, for instance, with actions to recover the value of goods sold and delivered and Bankruptcy business; and neither the County Courts nor the Board of Trade, nor, so far as he knew, the Treasury appeared to be in full possession of information as to the amount of fees paid in the County Courts for Bankruptcy business. Under these circumstances, it was clear that the sum of £110,000 shown on the Estimates was insufficient to show what amount those engaged in Bankruptcy business had to disburse in Bankruptcy fees. The first question he would ask was whether the Treasury had obtained the information requested by the Public Accounts' Committee, and asked for in a Question put in the House, as to the amount of money which had been received in connection with Bankruptcy in the County Courts? Then he would further ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) what was the total amount recovered from bankrupts' estates which went to the Fees Fund Account under the 77th section of the Bankruptcy Act, as represented by the sum received by the Exchequer from the County Courts? Then, he would also ask, what amount these fees had had to supply to meet the cost of new works—works which in connection with other branches of legal business should really have been paid for by the Exchequer—because he held—and he challenged denial of this at the hands of the Government—that so large an amount of money was taken from bankrupts' estates, in the shape of fees and otherwise, that the bankrupts' creditors were practically defrauded of a large portion of the money which ought to be given to them as distributed assets? He hoped he had made his point clear. He desired to ascertain the amount of stamps and fees in connection with the Bankruptcy business in the County Courts;

    457
    also the amount of money spent out of the sum realized for assets in Bankruptcy on public purposes; and, coming to the details of the Vote, he wished to say that it bore upon it an item which was entirely new. Sub-head E had for postages a sum of £2,872 which had never been charged, at any rate as a separate item, in this Vote before. Under most of the other Sub-heads there was an increase; but under Sub-head B, giving some details as to how money was spent, they were told that there were four Assistant Official Receivers at a salary of £500 a-year each. Now, as a matter of fact, there were not four Official Receivers. There were only three, and the Government knew that very well, because there were only three Official Receivers last year and the year before, and they were actually drawing now, and not for the first time, £500 for an official who did not exist. He remembered some years ago pointing out a precisely similar thing in connection with the Official Referees of the Supreme Court, and it took them three-quarters of an hour to induce the Government to abandon a charge of £1,500 for an officer who did not then exist, and who had not existed for several years. Well, here was a precisely similar case. He thought he had better not raise any more points, for fear of confusing the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; but he hoped, at any rate, that the hon. Member would address himself to the three points he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had ventured to submit to him.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the main point the hon. Gentleman had called attention to had reference to the receipts on the Bankruptcy Account, and he (Mr. Jackson) had, he thought, answered a question in that House on the subject once or twice before. The hon. Member had correctly stated that a question on this point was raised before the Public Accounts Committee. Well, he (Mr. Jackson) had made an inquiry as to whether a separate account could be stated, and he was informed that the details could not be given because the amounts were taken in stamps, which were purchased by solicitors from time to time, and there were no separate records kept of amounts. Nor was he sure that they could possibly keep such
    458
    an account of the amount of fees taken in Bankruptcy work. He supposed the item accounted for just that amount of business which was done in stamps to affix to Bankruptcy documents and paid for in the ordinary way. He had been anxious to obtain the information asked for, and had applied for it in the proper quarter, and what he had stated was the answer he received. Then the hon. Gentleman asked what sum of money was spent out of Bankruptcy fees on works for the Public Service? He was afraid he could not quite answer that question, because he did not exactly appreciate what the point of it was. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the Government had undertaken to build some offices, and the site had to be purchased, the buildings erected, and this, no doubt, would be done out of the funds which stood to the credit of the account. As to the three Receivers, he did not know whether his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade could answer more definitely, though he believed it was a matter more for him than for the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) knew perfectly well that if money was voted in the Estimates for services which were not performed the money would not be paid for those services.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that was precisely the answer he got from the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, some years ago, when he questioned him in regard to money charged for an Official Referee who did not exist. But this was not the way in which public money ought to be voted in the House. It was rather singular that such laxity should prevail in the system of keeping accounts, looking at the very detailed statement they had put before them, showing every single official employed down to the poor man who had only 30 s. a-week, which details were supplied to them in order that they might see the way in which the money was actually spent. But the question of the existence or non-existence of this Official Receiver was not a question which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury himself or the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade could be expected to be well informed. Information, however, could easily be ascertained from any official directory. It could be seen by anyone making

    459
    inquiries that there were only three Assistant Official Receivers, and yet four were charged for, as was the case last year also. As the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said, the money would have to be repaid if not spent in paying the salary of the fourth Official Receiver, but the account was defective to that extent; and his point was that there ought not to be such laxity in these matters. It was extremely dangerous to allow laxity to take place in statements of account. The figures before the House showed this to be the case. There was an increase of no less than 10 per cent on the total Vote this year. The total amount was £110,000, of which £10,000 was an increment last year, and this small sum of £9 taken now represented something like £300,000 a-year taken from insolvents' estates which had to be dealt with by the Official Receivers—£300, 000 taken not from wealthy people, but from creditors who had already suffered heavily by reason of the failure of their debtors, and every one of whom ought to be protected from overcharge in being saddled with this expenditure. In these Estimates the Government constantly took sums for services which ought not to be charged to the creditors. He should like to know how much money was to be spent upon new works out of this Vote? He did not know but that they might assume that £150,000 or £200,000 would be a moderate amount to take for the new buildings. But £200,000 was really two years' balance of the Bankruptcy Fee Fund, and the whole of that was to be taken out of the pockets of creditors who had already been unduly and remorselessly fleeced by the present system of Bankruptcy fees. He submitted that it was reasonable that the fees taken in Bankruptcy should be decreased, so that bankrupts' estates might go more than they did at present to the creditors to whom they belonged. As to this Vote, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to another point in it, and that was that they had in connection with this Bankruptcy business a system which did not obtain anywhere else. They had, as would be seen on page 122, an Official Receiver with a large clerical staff. Now, this "clerical staff" was not managed as the clerical staff of the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office, or the War Office.
    460
    The War Minister did not come down to that House and ask for £20,000 a-year for his clerical staff, but he set down in black and white the details of the Department, showing the amount of assistance he needed for the salary paid to each individual, so that the Committee knew what it was they were voting. But, in the case to which he was drawing attention, they did not know what they were voting for. They were told that this Official Receiver required a sum of £8,000 a-year for clerical assistance, but no details were given. Well, he protested against such a method of submitting Estimates to the Committee. How was this £8,000 dealt with? How was it expended? How was it shown to be necessary? He did not see that the antecedents of the Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy was sufficient to justify a large sum like this being handed over to him for these services any more than the political antecedents of, say, the First Lord of the Admiralty, or the right hon. Gentleman the War Minister, would justify him, even in his own eyes, in coming to the House, and saying—"I want clerical assistance at the rate of, say, £30,000 a-year." If that were so, and these officials would not be allowed to act in that way, neither should the Chief Receiver be allowed so to act? The same evil obtained in connection with the Solicitor. He also gave no details. He did not tell them whether he had one, two, or 10 clerks, but merely said he wanted £1,240 a-year. This year this official wanted more money than he asked for last year, but the Treasury submitted no Estimate to the Committee giving any information of a trust-worthy and practical kind. And why was this? Simply because it was not Treasury money which was being expended. If this was Treasury money they would have details given to them, just as they had in connection with the War Office and the Admiralty Estimates. As the money was to be taken out of the pockets of the unfortunate creditors of insolvents, the Treasury was satisfied with a very perfunctory discharge of their duty on the part of those intrusted with the disbursement of this money. The Treasury was perfectly satisfied if the Fee Fund came up to a tolerable amount. But this system was not fair; indeed, it did not appear

    461
    to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to be honest.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, there was a question arising on this Vote on page 121, which certainly was not clear to his mind, and he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote would be able to examine into it. On page 121 it was stated that the whole amount of fees and investments was £168,700, the interest on the investments being as much as £25,000. He inferred from that that the fees in the first place were largely in excess of the amount of money actually disbursed on the maintenance of the Department, and that they must have been so for some years past, or else he could not understand how so large a sum as £25,000 accrued as interest on money invested. What was evident from the item, at least, as he read it, was, that while these fees and interest on money invested amounted to £168,700, the amount actually required—actually spent—in 1888–9 was only £110,400, leaving, therefore, a sum of between £50,000 and £60,000 as a balance—a sum with regard to which he should like to have some further information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) would be able to explain whether he (Mr. Conybeare) was correct in the assumption, and would give them some information about this large surplus. He should also like to know why the item immediately above that to which he had referred—namely, £9,146—was entered in a different Vote—that was to say, why this item was given when provision was also made in another Estimate for similar expenditure in connection with the Civil Service? It seemed to him very inconvenient that they should have to refer to two sets of Estimates in a matter of this kind, and he failed to see why the two charges should not come in one Estimate. He thought it would also be interesting if they could have some information given to them as to the comparative percentage of expenditure under the new Bankruptcy system as compared with the percentage under the old system—that was to say, he should like to have some information as to whether the cost of administering the new Act was greater or less than the administration of the old Bankruptcy Law used to be. He did not know
    462
    whether the hon. Gentleman had any information which would throw light upon this subject. He entirely agreed with the observations which had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and he thought that unless a satisfactory explanation was given to the Committee on the points the hon. Member had raised it would be their duty to challenge a Division upon the Vote.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he must ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to give an answer to the questions he had put to him. He would ask the hon. Gentleman further with regard to the rent of rooms for meetings. He presumed the nine cases mentioned on page 123 were places where meetings could be held. Every one of these places had got public buildings attached to it, and he certainly thought that creditors under the Bankruptcy Act were entitled to have the advantage of the occupation of any public room either at Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, and so on. He asked for information on these subheads as to how this money was spent. The answer the hon. Member had given as to the fees paid into the County Courts was one of those answers submitted to the hon. Member by officials, for which he was not personally responsible; but he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) could assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer was a very delusive one. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) thought there should be some means of classifying these receipts in the form of Bankruptcy fees. He had no doubt that the gentlemen who took the fees could classify them if they chose. If there were any difficulty in the matter, why not insist upon the use of special Bankruptcy stamps? He was surprised to see fees amounting to so much as £200,000, but he had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was correct in the statement that he had made.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think that he had intentionally neglected to answer his question. He certainly would undertake to make inquiries as to the practicability of giving the details asked for, because he himself thought it desirable they should be given, as far as they could be, in the interests of the

    463
    Public Service. The hon. Member for East Donegal had spoken about the fees, and appeared to be under the impression that what was charged was much in excess of the expenses, and that, therefore, the Government were taking out of the pockets of those who made bad debts a larger sum than was necessary. Well, according to the information he (Mr. Jackson) had received, that view was hardly borne out by the facts. He noticed that, taking the total receipts in fees and stamps from the years 1883–4 to 1886–7, the amount was £649,936.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What does this represent?
    MR. JACKSON: The total amounts of receipts. He was taking a particular period to illustrate the point in question.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Whence are these receipts gathered; what receipts are they?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, the receipts were gathered from the amounts paid in fees in the Bankruptcy Court, and the amount paid in stamps so far as the Bankruptcy Department was concerned. The total receipts were £649,936, and the total expenditure £625,496, leaving a balance of £24,440.
    MR. MUNDELLA: That is a balance of £6,000 a-year?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes; up to that time. He might say that the Treasury had always held it to be the intention of the Bankruptcy Act that the total expenditure should be covered by the fees charged, and certainly the experience they had had up to the present would hardly justify them in saying that the fees should be reduced—they were hardly sufficient to warrant them in coming to a decision as to whether or not the fees should be decreased. The statement obtained up to the 31st March, 1887, showed the total amount of receipts to be £201,000, whereas the expenditure was £181,000, showing a profit for the year of £20,000. The hon. Member had referred to the charges which appeared on the face of the Estimates as charges which were borne under other Votes; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite would confirm him when he said that this arrangement was effected at the expressed wish of the House, and that
    464
    that information was given with the view of stating as clearly as possible the cost of the Service. The reason the account was rendered in this form was that it was considered much better to concentrate under one Department all charges, so that they might be under one head. A reference was given to the particular items.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) a simple question which he did not think the right hon. Baronet would find it difficult to answer. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would be able to tell the Committee what would be the future position of those clerks in the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade in the Chief Official Receiver's Office—who were engaged for the first time when the re-organization took place—immediately after the new Bankruptcy Act passed into law? As the right hon. Baronet knew very well these clerks were not on the establishment of the Civil Service, but were paid out of a lump sum which appeared on the Estimates as an allowance for additional clerical assistance. These particular men felt that they were really suffering under a very great grievance. They say they were tempted into the Service by delusive hopes, which were held out to them of promotion and advancement—hopes held out almost amounting to false pretences. Many of these people asserted, and he believed what they said was not disputed, that they had occupied, previous to joining, positions of large emolument under private firms. At present they did not know from day to day where they might in the future be placed. They were ignorant as to whether from this year they would be retained in office at all, and, very naturally, they objected to this precarious position into which, they said, they had been forced in direct contradiction to the statements made to them when they accepted their positions in this particular Office. They were told that they would probably get early promotion, as there was every desire to make this branch as efficient as it could be. Doubtless the right hon. Baronet had come to some decision as to retention of these men, and as to what their position would be in the future—whether they would be

    465
    on the Establishment or not. He (Mr. Lawson) should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet had come to any decision?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he would refer first to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) as to the relative costs of proceedings under the present Bankruptcy Act, and under the old Bankruptcy system. He thought that if the hon. Member would refer to the Return; which was presented to the House on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), he would see a careful comparison drawn up showing the number of cases and the percentage of costs to the gross assets, which spoke very favourably for the present system of bankruptcy. He would refer the hon. Member to that Return for details, and the hon. Member, he thought, would find that what he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said was borne out by it. As to the point the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had raised, he looked upon the subject from another point of view to that of the hon. Gentleman. He could quite understand the anxiety of these clerks for the settlement of their case; but the Committee must remember that that settlement, if it involved their being placed on the same footing as other servants, would entail the giving of the right to pension, and he did not want to do that until he was quite satisfied that the number to which that right was given did not exceed that which it would be necessary permanently to maintain. These gentlemen had only been engaged at first temporarily, and he thought they all fully understood their position. He did not think there was any ground for the suggestion of a grievance which the hon. Gentleman had made. He admitted that sooner or later the matter must be permanently settled. When the period for which this temporary arrangement had been made had expired, no time would be lost in going into the matter and settling it.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he was afraid these clerks had been distinctly tempted into the Service by the inducement put before them that they would be placed upon the Establishment; and they declared that the offer was made to them
    466
    by the responsible head. They alleged—and he thought with great reason—that it was utterly impossible for them to resume the duties in which they were engaged in connection with private firms before they entered the service of the Bankruptcy Department.
    SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) had told them that he would give them next year details with regard to this Vote. He was surprised the hon. Member had not been able to give them the details now. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give them next year a satisfactory answer to the points raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in regard to the additional clerical assistance charged for by the Official Receiver and by the Solicitor. There was a large increment this year over the Estimate last year, and he trusted that when these details were taken in hand all those responsible for them then would go thoroughly into the whole matter, and satisfy themselves as to the details of the receipts and expenditure. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of obtaining an account of the money received by way of fees; but surely it must be easy to obtain such an account. Though the fees were in the shape of stamps, these stamps would be affixed to documents which were on record, and reference could be made to them in order to ascertain the amount paid.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that he had great doubts as to the possibility of obtaining any accurate statement as to the amount of the receipts from stamps under the present system. He had made some inquiries on a kindred subject as affecting the High Court of Judicature, and he had ascertained that it was quite impossible, looking at the manner in which stamps were dealt with now, to ascertain as between one Court and another—say, between the Court of Queen's Bench and the Chancery Division—what were the receipts in each particular case; and he fancied the same thing applied in the case of County Courts. He believed it would be quite impossible to discriminate in the County Courts how much was received for stamps in connection with bankruptcy and how much in connection with other business. It

    467
    seemed to him that the only way really to arrive at a just knowledge as to what was the produce of this part of legal business was by having a distinct stamp for the different classes of work.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it was only fair to state that the working of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 had left a small profit of something like £6,000 a-year. As to the charges being excessively high, if there was any ground for the allegation—if it was the fact that the Government were making a large profit out of the working of the Bankruptcy Act—then he thought that the charges ought to be reduced in the interest of the traders of the country; but that the charges were not excessively high was proved by the smallness of the margin of profit, and he did not think, looking at the smallness of this margin, that it would be possible to reduce the charges. But there was another satisfactory evidence as to the reasonableness of the charges. In the Return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and circulated on May 1 last year, it was shown most conclusively that the cost of working the new system of Bankruptcy reduced the charges to the traders of something like 50 per cent. as compared with the former cost of Bankruptcy proceedings. Then there was another very great advantage. There had been an enormous reduction in the amount of time occupied in the performance of Bankruptcy duties, which had been of incalculable benefit to creditors. He knew something of the working of the Bankruptcy Act, and he could safely say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had never, in his (Mr. Mundella's) opinion, done a better piece of service to the country than in the passing of the new Act. The Act worked admirably, and he believed that it had had a restraining influence upon over-trading, and that influence would be increased by what was done last year in the extension of the Act by bringing composition deeds under registration. He certainly thought that bankruptcy ought to pay its own way, and that they ought not to conduct the business of the trade of the country at the expense of the country. He believed that, on the whole, the Bankruptcy Act was economically administered and
    468
    with great ability by those at the head of the Department. The accounts might be set out more in detail; but he would undertake to say that, so far from there being a lavish expenditure, the Treasury were very careful in keeping down the expenditure, and were as close-fisted in this as in other matters as they possibly could be. He did not think anybody had ever found the Treasury a very easy master in these matters, or that anybody who had dealings with the Treasury could be lavish in expenditure without being immediately checked and brought to account for it. As to the Receivers, it had been found very difficult to fix some of their duties, and the Treasury had been unwilling to recognize the whole staff as permanently upon the Establishment, as it did not wish to extend the pensions. There was something to be said on behalf of the members of the staff; but the right hon. Baronet was justified in saying that the whole circumstances of the case required to be carefully considered before he could make any definite arrangement as to rendering the staff permanent.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that, notwithstanding what they were told from both Front Benches, he still was under the impression that there had been considerable laxity in the matter of these fees, and that the House had not been furnished with that information which it had a right to expect. He hoped that the points which had been raised would be thoroughly investigated. He understood that the clerical assistance was a matter of contract allowances. Well, he should like to know who fixed the £8,000 which was given to the Official Receiver for clerical assistance? Whose duty was it to take care that the Official Receiver did not make money out of this arrangement? Who was responsible for making sure that the sum paid was a right one, and that it was properly expended? Then, take the case of the Treasury. Last year the Treasury Solicitor's allowance for clerks was £1,100. It seemed that this was not a fixed sum, for this year the amount asked for in the Estimate was £1,240. He should like to know who fixed that increase to the Treasury Solicitor for clerical assistance?
    MR. JACKSON: This official is not the Solicitor to the Treasury.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Yes; it was the Solicitor to the Official Receiver, What he wanted to know was, who checked these allowances? He saw in the Accounts that the salaried Official Receivers had allowances for clerks and messengers. One appointed for Chester had a salary of £700, but he received £1,150 more under the head of allowances for clerks and messengers. Then, again, it was an extraordinary thing that the account of allowances for stationery should be divided; and he thought that this account should appear either in connection with the Bankruptcy Department or the Stationery Department, and not in connection with both. They had an item under both Departments, and there seemed in this matter to have been an increase of £1,550 in the present year. He should like to know if an account was rendered to the Treasury of that expenditure, or whether it was a contract allowance? If it was a contract allowance, who fixed it?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that, as to the question just put to him, he could only assure the hon. Gentleman that these charges were very carefully looked into by the Board of Trade and by the Treasury—these charges with regard to the allowance made to the Official Receivers for clerical assistance, in order to see, first, that the sum was not too much, and, secondly, that it was properly distributed. If a permanent establishment were settled, it would appear in a shape that would be much more satisfactory to those who took an interest in the Vote. He would explain, in reference to the latter questions of the hon. Member, that the increase under Sub-heads E, F, and G, for stationery, was really no increase at all. What had happened was this—the account for postage and contingencies and stationery used formerly to be charged to bankrupts' estates, and deducted from the estates before they were divided among the creditors. Now the amount was placed on the Vote, and fees were charged which more than recouped the Vote for the expenditure. This was a more correct system of account.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the right hon. Baronet had answered some of the questions which had been put, but had not yet answered the last question of
    470
    the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the extra receipts. He did not, for a moment, dispute the benefits which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had pointed out, had resulted from the new Act. He did not ask any questions in order to impugn the working of the new Act, but in order that they might get a little more light upon these items which they had been criticizing. He did not ask these questions in any hostile spirit, but in order to obtain information; and he would be obliged if the right hon. Baronet would explain what had been brought to his attention lately—namely, what was the meaning of the extra receipts, from which it appeared that the fees produced £137,000 and interest on investments £25,000, or a total of £168,700? These sums appeared as receipts. One would have thought that a portion of that would have been applied to the maintenance of the Department; but, instead of that, this charge amounted to £1,100,400. Therefore, it appeared to his lay mind that there was a profit of £58,000. Under Sub-head H., for Law Charges, there was an amount of £2,000. He wanted to know what these Law Charges were, because, under Sub-head B., the solicitor got £1,200, and there was another item for clerks to the solicitor of £1,240?
    MR. ISAACSasked the right hon. Baronet whether this £25,000 interest was on money invested—money which, being capitalized, would represent £833,000? Had any portion of that sum been received from fees paid by suitors, or did it represent amounts received from bankrupts' estates? If it had come from the latter, it was excessive.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there had been a small profit in the working of the system, as had been explained by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury; but the Committee must remember that there were several charges of considerable amount—for instance, remuneration to County Registrars, £29,000—which were charged against the fees received, besides the items included in the Vote. If hon. Members of the Committee would refer to the last Report of the Board of Trade which had been laid before the Houses of Parlia-

    471
    ment, they would find a full account of receipts and expenditure on account of Bankruptcy proceedings up to March 31st, 1887. A similar account would be presented for the year ending the 31st March this year. Without looking at this, it would be almost impossible for hon. Members to appreciate the items for fees. As to the £2,000 for Law Charges, it was impossible to give more than a rough estimate what these charges would amount to. The charge was for legal services in connection with Bankruptcy cases, and, of course, the amount of the item depended upon the amount of such work done. The amount in the account might not be reached, or it might be exceeded in the course of the year.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was to be regretted that, whenever a suggestion was made from those (the Opposition) Benches, however well founded, or whenever a question was addressed to a Minister from those Benches, whatever might be its nature, the official Representatives of the Government for the time being appeared to think it absolutely necessary to throw themselves into a defensive attitude and assume an air of antagonism to the question. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought it would be much more sensible, and much more to the advantage of the public, if Ministers would make some real attempt to judge the merits of the suggestions made, instead of assuming that the person who made the inquiry intended to do something to damage the Government. He protested that, in making the observations he had made, he had no idea of attacking either the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not infer that.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No; but Ministers, in discharge of their official duties, acted as though it was necessary to oppose everything suggested on that (the Opposition) side of the House. His (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) proposal was dictated from the very document which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade said was absolutely necessary to the understanding of the Vote. He should not have thought of rising in his place to make observations about this Estimate
    472
    if he had not previously seen and studied the Report to which the right hon. Baronet referred. What did the Report tell him? Why, that out of £4,500,000 odd received as creditors' property in connection with bankruptcy in the Superior Courts—not in the County Courts—there had been distributed amongst creditors only £3,781,000. There was a balance of £739,000. What had been done with that money? It was not held by the Bankruptcy Department, but was handed over to the Treasury. Besides that sum there was another sum of £209,000 recovered from the trustees under the old Bankruptcy Act of 1869, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) referred a little time ago. The conduct of those trustees, under the old Act, had been extremely bad—perfectly indefensible. They had frittered away the money of the bankrupts in a most shameful manner; but what was the use of talking about that? Any reference to the conduct of the old trustees, and to the working of the old Act, was simply taking away the mind of the Committee from that which it ought to consider at this time. There was a sum of £1,049,000 in the hands of the Treasury for investment, and the Treasury obtained from that, or should obtain from it if properly invested, £40,000 a year. That was the first item in the statement of accounts referred to by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade. What was the next item? £69,000 for fees received in cash, and the next item was the amount received by the Inland Revenue for Bankruptcy stamps—£73,000. And that was not all, but there were dividends and other moneys invested under Section 6 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, which brought in £21,000 a-year. Therefore they had on the debtor side of the account incomes represented to the extent of £210,000. Then there were the outgoing items, and, amongst other things, an item in connection with the Registrar's Account of the County Court. This was £183,000 a-year, in spite of the inclusion of £29,000 which had been referred to. That showed that in the course of one year, not taking into account a single farthing of the fees put into the County Courts, they had £20,000 a-year more than they need

    473
    have. They had the profits from the invested assets, and then they went and taxed the creditors' property, the fees which they charged amounting to £20,000 a-year. They had also to add to that all the money they received in the County Courts, and what was the result of the inclusion? Why, that all their Bankruptcy fees were 33 per cent at least higher than they need be for the purpose of discharging the whole of the Bankruptcy business of the country. This was the case so far as Bankruptcy assets were concerned, without charging a single farthing of the expense to the Exchequer. And, further than this, he maintained that it was not fair to the general creditor, whose assets they were dealing with, that they should continue this high rate of fees, which was simply eating up their Bankruptcy Fee Account until it had reached more than £1,000,000 of permanent investments. He did not think the right hon. Baronet had met the case at all, and he sincerely hoped that in reconsidering the position—which reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman said was to take place during the Recess—he would have regard to the accumulation of money which was not in the hands of the Board of Trade, but paid over to the Treasury for investment, and which was more than sufficient to meet all the reasonable charges which bankrupts' estates ought to be put to.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would say for himself, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, that, so far from receiving the suggestions and the questions of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman supposed, they thought his comments were worthy of serious attention. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was not at all satisfied with the mode in which the Accounts were at present presented to the House; and he would, before next year, have them fully considered with the view of their being presented in what he hoped would be a better and simpler way. With regard to the point of detail the hon. Gentleman alluded to—namely, inclusion in the Estimate of a charge for six Official Receivers, whereas only five had been appointed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The charge is for four, and only three were appointed.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that two extra Official Receivers had been appointed this year, which made five on the Establishment, whilst six were charged for. He thought it a mistake to take a Vote for a larger number of Receivers than were employed; and if, on inquiry, he found it was not intended to fill up the vacancy the Vote should be amended next year.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that he did not wonder at his hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal complaining of a charge being made for an Official Receiver who, as a matter of fact, was not appointed. He thought the best thing which could be done to assist the Secretary to the Treasury in this matter would be to move the reduction of the Vote by the £500 which was charged for the man who did not exist. Last year hon. Members had complained of this very item, and the same excuse was then made as was now tendered, and they had taken it for granted then that this year, at least, the Treasury officials would not come to the House and ask for this £500. Seemingly, however, they had come again, and he thought that if they went back before last year they would find that in previous years the same amount had been charged. As the Government were charging for a man who had no existence, he thought it was the duty of the Committee to move a reduction to the extent of £500.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move to reduce the Vote?
    MR. MOLLOY: I do, Sir.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item B, £19,608, for Chief Official Receiver's Department, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that it was necessary to check this practice of asking for money for officials who did not exist, because if money were granted under these circumstances for an official who had no existence, they would soon find that a person would be obtained to fill the vacancy. He cordially supported his hon. Friend in this Motion.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. Two Official Receivers had been appointed this year, so that it was possible that all who were charged for in the Estimate might be needed. There was a tendency to substitute the payment of these Receivers by salary rather

    475
    than by fee; and that system, if properly developed, would, he thought, be found to lead to a very desirable result. If the money now voted was not considered necessary it would not be spent.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the same answer was given to hon. Members year after year. They were always told that if the money voted was not required it would be returned; but they knew that in many cases money voted in that House was not devoted to the purpose for which it was voted, but to some other purpose. However, as a matter of compliment to the right hon. Baronet, he would withdraw his Motion. He did, however, think it a monstrous thing that charges of this kind should be inserted in the Estimates.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, ample reason had been shown why the Vote should not be passed at all. He understood the right hon. Baronet to admit that these accounts were in a most unsatisfactory condition. ["No, no!"] Yes; he understood the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade to admit that five months ago.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No. What I said was, that it might be possible to have these Accounts presented in a simpler and a better form.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that was tantamount to saying that the Votes at present were presented in a very unsatisfactory form. ["No, no!"] At any rate, he (Mr. Anderson) thought they were in a very unsatisfactory form. The right hon. Baronet had referred to an item of £2,000 for Law Charges. Well, some hon. Members, he thought, had understood that when there was an Official Law Department the charges for legal business would appear under that Department. They did not expect to see a charge such as this under the Bankruptcy Department. The item was the same as one they had had last year; and if the expenditure was the same why was not the amount smaller?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman evidently did not understand that this £2,000 was a sum taken for legal assistance under the Bankruptcy Act, which assistance depended upon the amount of Bank-
    476
    ruptcy business performed. No exact estimate could be given at the commencement of the year, and it was absolutely impossible to give any details of the sub-head, as it was never known what charges would come in course of payment in connection with Bankruptcy estates. It was impossible to say what the amount would be. As a matter of fact, the Treasury was desirous of having this amount reduced from £2,000 to £1,500. The Treasury had made a representation to the Board of Trade on the matter, and the answer they had received from the Board of Trade was that the expenditure of the preceding year, so far as the Board of Trade could judge, would be slightly increased in the coming year. On that understanding it had been found impossible to keep the charge at the £1,500 fixed last year.
    MR. ANDERSONasked where they found the details?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, they would be found in the Appropriation Accounts.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, they could not trace the money which had been appropriated during the past year, and there ought to be some indication in the Accounts to show where the money had gone. There was, however, no trace of it. Surely the Government ought to be able to tell the Committee how it was spent last year. Hon. Members looked into the Accounts for information, but obtained none, and he thought it highly unsatisfactory that they should be called upon to vote, in this wholesale manner, considerable sums for Law Charges.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he was sorry he had not made his meaning clear. The hon. Member was aware that this was not an Estimate for last year; but for the current year, and if he would turn to the Appropriation Accounts of last year he would find all the details he asked for duly set forth. He need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman that the Appropriation Accounts were accounts which were vouched for and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. With respect to the item for Law Charges he had already endeavoured to point out that this was an estimated sum to cover the different Law Charges of the year. Of course, it was quite impossible to give any details as to what those charges would be until they arose.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £24,701, 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 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales, including the Endowed Schools Department."
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that, in the first place, he desired to ask Her Majesty's Government what was the salary of the First or Chief Commissioner? On page 125, they found an item of £2,000, the salary of the Chief Commissioner. Then, again, on page 126, they found that the Chief Commissioner of the Endowed Schools Department was paid a salary of £1,200 a-year. On the same page there was an item of £1,200 for the Commissioner of the City of London Parochial Charitable Department. What he wanted to know from the Secretary to the Treasury was, whether the Chief Commissioner was the same person in all three of these instances, or whether the Chief Commissioner only received a salary of £2,000, and was paid no part of the £1,200 for the Endowed Schools Department, and no part of the £1,200 for the City of London Parochial Charitable Department?
    MR. JACKSON: They are entirely separate.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: They are separate Commissioners?
    MR. JACKSON: Entirely.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that he now wished to take the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Committee to the condition of the charities in the parish of Colwich, in the county of Stafford. Some 66 years ago or more—in 1822—there were 10 charities. Originally there were 12; but at the time he mentioned two of them had been lost. The Charity Commission administered these charities, or had been under the impression for many years that they administered them; but by 1887 two more of the charities had been lost. These charities had ceased in rather a curious manner to exist. If the Committee would only go into the matter, they would find that a whole village was swept away.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Unless the hon. Baronet is going to connect these charities with the Charity Commission he cannot refer to them.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that there was an inquiry last year into these charities. He thought they were connected with the Charity Commission, because the accounts had sometimes been sent up to the Commissioners. He confessed that he could not see with what object that had been done. For four years no accounts had been sent up, and when accounts were sent up they were found to be incorrect, though not by the Charity Commissioners. When the parishioners took notice of these things last year they found that the accounts were all wrong, and that many sums of money had been misappropriated by the vicar and the churchwarden. The accounts which were sent up to the Commission for a series of years were inaccurate. They were not even added up correctly. The parishioners contended that a sum of £600 had been misappropriated. They also contended that the vicar of the parish had misappropriated on one occasion £10, and on another occasion £16, and that in one case he had overpaid a sum of 10 s. In fact, the whole of these accounts were rendered in such a loose manner that they were quite incomprehensible. What he charged the Commissioners with was neglect of duty. The accounts gave a totally false impression, and the Commissioners took no steps to check them. It was a curious fact that in the parish of Colwich, 229 years ago—in the year 1659—a Nonconformist minister, who had been ejected from his living, gave a considerable charity for the poor of the parish. But this charity, which he believed brought in annually about £80, had been administered by the vicar, not for the benefit of the deserving poor of the parish, but for the benefit of the poor, or rather of people who belonged to the Church of England, who were regular attendants of the Church of England, who belonged to a club administered by the vicar, and whose children went to the Church of England Sunday School. The whole of these matters had been thoroughly investigated by the parishioners, and the parishioners succeeded in getting one of the Charity Commission Inspectors to come down in June, 1887. The whole question had been thoroughly threshed out, and the parishioners had been waiting ever since for a scheme. The

    479
    parishioners promulgated a scheme, according to which the majority of the trustees or managers should be elected by the ratepayers. That was in accordance with a Motion which he (Sir John Swinburne) was instrumental in passing in the House of Commons two years ago. The Charity Commissioners, however, did not send down a scheme, and the parishioners had written to him on several occasions concerning the matter. He received, only two days ago, a copy of a scheme which the Charity Commissioners had framed.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that the scheme promulgated by the Charity Commissioners set the wishes of the parishioners, and the expressed opinion of the House of Commons entirely on one side. It was proposed in the scheme that there should be nine trustees—that the ex officio trustees should be two in number, the co-opted trustees three, and the representative trustees four. It would thus be seen that the ex officio and co-opted trustees would be in a majority upon the Board. Furthermore, the representative trustees were to be elected in vestry assembled. The parishioners were very desirous that the representative trustees should be elected by ballot, and that the ballot should be kept open until such an hour that the working classes, who were really most interested in the matter, could vote without losing half-a-day's work. To give the Committee an idea of how badly the plan of unelected trustees worked, he would cite the case of the Lowe Charity at Lichfield. In 1886 he put as much pressure as he could on the Charity Commissioners to get a majority of the trustees of that charity elected by the ratepayers. The Commissioners resisted the proposal, notwithstanding that a numerously signed Petition asking them to have the trustees elected by the ratepayers was presented to them. He held in his hand the accounts of Lowe's Charity for last year. A very curious fact was that the accounts were audited by one of the trustees themselves. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney General would agree with him that trustees and managers of public trusts ought to manage the trusts in the same
    480
    way as they would if the property were their own. The trustees of Lowe's Charity spent last year £438, and the cost of management was £51 19 s., or about 12 per cent. The steward was a gentleman belonging to an eminent firm of solicitors in the City of Lichfield, and he received a salary of £30 per annum. He, however, did not manage the estate, but hired other people to do the work. There was a law bill of £29, and, strange to say, the bill was charged by the firm of solicitors, of whom one was the steward receiving £30 for managing the estate. There were charges for a variety of professional men, and actually a man was paid for serving out coal. This was in consequence, he maintained, of the charity being administered, not by elected trustees, but by trustees appointed by the Charity Commissioners, and appointed in pursuance of the hateful system of co-option by the Town Council. He was not going to say that in many large cities, such as Liverpool, Birmingham, and Newcastle, where there were large Town Councils, they might not have in those Bodies a number of people quite suitable for trustees or managers of charities; but, as a rule, they might rest assured, in regard to many Town Councils, that the system of co-option was a very injudicious one. What the parishioners all over England wanted in regard to their charities was that they should have the power of electing the majority of the managers of the charities by ballot, and that the election should be held at an hour when working men could attend. Among other strange items in the accounts of Lowe's Charity there was an item of 10 s. 6d. for a cheque book. That was a remarkable item; because it proved the accounts were paid by cheque on a bank. There was a balance to the credit of the charity at the commencement of the year of £376, and at the end of the year of £388. But there was nothing put to the credit of the charity for interest. He presumed the money rested at a bank; but where it rested or who got the interest upon the permanent credit balance of nearly £400 was not clear at all. He maintained that the interest upon the deposits, however small, ought to go to the charity. With regard to most of the charities, the Commissioners appointed people as managers who took little or no trouble at all in the matter.

    481
    Let him illustrate this point. In 1822, two charities at Colwich were lost, and in 1887 two more had disappeared. The owners of the land upon whom the charities were charged distinctly declined to give any information or to pay the charity. Only a few days ago, he was in Lichfield in connection with an inquiry as to what were termed the municipal charities. There were a number of charities in the City of Lichfield which were called the Munster Charities. They were lumped together and managed by the Town Council. A few days before the Commissioner came down, the trustees appointed by the Town Council did not know that a scheme had been promulgated with respect to the management of these charities some 45 years ago; in 1843 a scheme for the management of these charities had been framed by the Court of Chancery, and then it came out, also, that they had totally lost one of the charities. They had never looked after it, and the land upon which the charity was charged had been sold, and the purchaser declined to pay the rentcharge. The matter simply came to this—that the present owner of the land said to the trustees, "If you can prove to me your title, I will pay; if not, I won't." Year after year, charities were being lost in almost every parish in England. There was one way in which he knew charities were frequently absorbed. The land might lie in the middle of a parish, and the squire—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already pointed out to the hon. Baronet that he cannot enter into an examination of special charities. He must connect his observations with the Charity Commissioners.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that in that case his illustrations must be very much reduced. What he particularly wanted to impress upon the Committee was that the system of appointing managers and trustees led to the maladministration of charities, which resulted in many cases in charities being absolutely lost. He maintained that, in future, the trustees of charities ought to be elected by the ratepayers. Ten years ago he got an Endowed Schools Scheme passed, by which a majority of the trustees were elected. That system had worked exceedingly well. The scheme which had been promulgated by the
    482
    Charity Commissioners with respect to the charities of Colwich, provided that, in future, the co-opted trustees should be persons residing or carrying on business in or near the parish. What the ratepayers wanted, however, was that the men who were their trustees should be actually parishioners. He earnestly hoped the Committee would take these matters to heart, because they were creating considerable heart-burning in every parish in England. The ratepayers in the parish were indignant that they had no power to administer their own charities which they saw were being abused in every possible way. In the case of Colwich it was found that each child who attended Sunday School was paid ½d. per Sunday out of charity money. The vicar, therefore, was really buying the religious belief of these children. The people of Colwich asked that the trustees of their charities should be representative; at all events, they asked for a scheme in accordance with the Motion which the House of Commons passed two years ago. He did not wish to say anything against the vicar of Colwich. He never saw that gentleman, and he had no doubt he administered the charities according to his own lights, and in the interests of his own religion. But the charities were intended for every poor and deserving person in the parish. Charities, as he had said, were constantly being lost. In the parish of Gateshead, in the North of England, 12 charities, bringing in £60 a-year, had been lost. He was, however, afraid that after the ruling of the Chairman, he could not trespass upon the time of the Committee by giving them any further illustrations. He therefore concluded by moving that the salary of the Chief Commissioner be reduced by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item A, £25,346, for Salaries and Wages, be reduced by £1,000."—(Sir John Swinburne.)
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he thought it would be as well to reply at once to the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Swinburne). The hon. Baronet had brought forward two cases, the case of the Colwich Charities and that of Lowe's Charity. He was sorry that the hon. Baronet had given

    483
    no Notice at all of the fact that he was going to bring this matter under the notice of the Committee.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that his Motion had been on the Notice Paper for 15 days.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, the Commissioners had 31,000 charities to deal with, and from the Notice of the hon. Baronet it was impossible to say which of the 31,000 he intended to deal with. Now, the Colwich scheme had only just been completed, and there was full opportunity for the hon. Baronet, if be disapproved of any of the provisions of the scheme, to bring the matter before the House. [Sir JOHN SWINBURNE: It is a charity scheme.] If that was so, the hon. Baronet would not have that opportunity. With regard to Lowe's Charity, he believed that the scheme was framed six years ago.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him. The scheme was framed two years ago, in direct opposition to the Motion of the House of Commons.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that what the hon. Baronet had now said only showed the great inconvenience caused by him not giving any Notice whatever as to the particular charities to which he intended to call attention. The hon. Baronet had made a great point of the fact that he carried a Resolution of the House of Commons declaring that on all charitable trusts a majority of representative governors should be placed. He (Mr. J. W. Lowther) believed it was a fact that at a very early hour in the morning, in a thin House, such a Resolution was carried. But he must remind the hon. Baronet that very shortly afterwards, he believed in the following year, the Endowed Schools Committee sat, and that, after sitting for two years, they reported to the effect that they failed to satisfy themselves that the Resolution of the hon. Baronet could be practically carried into effect. The Committee went on to report that it was very desirable to give to the people a large share in the direct management of charities. He was happy to be able to tell the hon. Baronet that since that time it had been the universal custom to insert in schemes of the kind a provision that a large share in the management of charities should be given to direct represen-
    484
    tatives of the people. That was even so in the case of the Colwich scheme to which the hon. Baronet had referred. In that scheme two only of the trustees were ex officio, four were representative, and three were co-opted. He thought that four out of nine might be taken as a very fair, a very substantial, and, to use the words of the Committee, "a large share" in the management of that charity. The hon. Baronet had also referred to the accounts of charities. He (Mr. J. W. Lowther) had already said that the Commissioners had 31,000 charities to deal with. All those charities sent their accounts to the Office; but the Commissioners had no power to audit any of the accounts. The Charity Commissioners had applied to the House for powers of audit; but such powers had, for a variety of reasons, been refused. Therefore, it was not in the least surprising that one should find, as the hon. Baronet did, that in one instance 10 s. had been improperly paid, or paid to the wrong person. The accounts of the charities were sent to the Office, and from time to time it became very material in framing schemes to examine the accounts which were sent, but, as he had stated, the Commissioners had no power to audit the accounts. The hon. Baronet had also said that a great many charities were lost. That was perfectly true. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir Walter Foster) had before the House now a Bill entitled "The Charities Restitution Bill," the object of which was to enable charities which were lost to be recovered. He ventured to point out to the hon. Baronet (Sir John Swinburne) that if the House of Commons chose to diminish the powers of the Charity Commissioners, a great many more charities would be lost in future than had been lost hitherto. In a great many instances, charities had been recovered through the intervention of the Charity Commissioners. With regard to the ex officio trustees in the Colwich case, he was not aware that any objection had been taken; but the universal practice of the Commissioners was that if objections were taken when the names of the persons about to be appointed were published, those objections were fully considered by the Commissioners before the appointments took place.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that the whole point of his argument was that the Charity Commissioners were proceeding upon the principle of appointing only a minority of representative trustees. What he claimed was that they should appoint a majority of representative trustees. He did not think that any better proof of the utter uselessness of the Charity Commissioners could be given than what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Lowther) had just now stated—namely, that the Commissioners were totally unable to check any of the accounts sent to them. If accounts were not sent up, the Commissioners took no notice of the fact, and even when accounts were sent up they did not take the trouble to see that they were correctly added up.
    MR. COURTNEY KENNYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to one case in a particular locality; but, in doing so, he should endeavour to conform strictly to the ruling the Chairman had given. The charity to which he referred was the most important charity that had been created since the establishment of the Commission. He meant the College founded by the late Mr. Holloway for the higher education of women, at Egham, near Windsor. The charity was important, because the gift of Mr. Holloway amounted to upwards of £750,000 sterling. The wealth of the College would grow in a few years to be much greater. They all knew, from the example of the foundation of Owens College—which in its first 30 years received new endowments that multiplied the original gift fivefold—how rapidly the wealth of an institution grew when a founder devoted an endowment to any purpose which was in harmony with the current popular feeling at the time. Mr. Holloway was remarkable, not only for the munificence with which he founded this College, but for the rare foresight of the provisions he laid down for its direction. It was not only that he connected this great gift with the most remarkable educational movement of our time—the movement for the higher education of women—but that he directed that this education should be conducted on the lines which were most in harmony with the thought of the present day. He directed, for example, that the subjects of instruction should be in harmony with modern ideas, that no undue weight
    486
    should be given to classical learning. He desired that the teaching should be administered by those who were themselves young and thus familiar with modern education. He directed that no professor, teacher, or principal of the College should ever be appointed at an age above that of 40. A most remarkable feature of the endowment was the character with which Mr. Holloway invested the College in relation to the religious difficulty. He declared that the College should be emphatically an undenominational and unsectarian one; not merely in the sense in which the ancient Universities might possibly be called unsectarian, Universities which had an established faith, but with a Conscience Clause. In the deed of foundation, Mr. Holloway provided, first of all, that no religious test should be imposed upon any student, professor, or teacher, or officer of the College. He provided, secondly, that in the College no permanent chaplain should ever be appointed and no arrangement be made which would identify the College in any way with any particular sect or denomination of Christians. And yet, having taken that course, Mr. Holloway did not simplify matters by following such an example as that of the University of London, and solving the religious problem by avoiding religion; but he decided to stamp upon the College a remarkably distinct religious character; declaring it to be his earnest desire that the religious teaching of the school, though free from any sectarian influence, should be such as to impress forcibly the minds of the students. He (Mr. Courtney Kenny) begged to call the attention of the Committee to the difficulty of that course, as shown by the educational discussions of the last 40 years; and he believed it would be shown in the educational discussions which would occupy a great part, if not of this Session, at any rate, of the next. They had found it a matter of the utmost difficulty to render even primary education a matter thoroughly unsectarian. There were many hon. Members opposite who insisted that the impossibility of undenominational teaching was so great that education, even in primary schools, must be strictly denominational. There were, again, hon. Members on his own side of the House who asserted the difficulty to be so great that they thought it necessary that education, even in primary

    487
    schools, should be absolutely secular. Now, let them see how much greater that difficulty became when it had to be faced in a school such as they were I now dealing with; a place not for the I education of children, but for those who were approaching mature years; a place not for the education of day scholars, but where the students were resident, and where the whole care of their life was entrusted to the hands of the Governing Body. A problem so great as that made it necessary that Mr. Holloway should meet the difficulty by establishing a Governing Body of a peculiarly skilful character. It was necessary to make provision that the Governors should be men who could steer the College successfully between the rocks and shoals it had to face; and also that they should be men whose position and known impartiality would command the confidence of the different churches from which the students were drawn. Now, Mr. Holloway showed foresight by the means he took to provide how the Governing Body of this College should be established. For he did it by relying on that representative principle of which so much had been said in the discussion which had taken place already on this Vote. Mr. Holloway determined that the mainspring of the government of his College should be derived from five great Public Bodies, Bodies of an absolutely unsectarian character, Bodies of a municipal or of a national character. To the Education Department, to the absolutely national and unsectarian University—the University of London, and to the Town Councils of Reading and Windsor and the Aldermen of the City of London, Mr. Holloway entrusted the power of nominating five of the Governing Body of the College. The five Governors thus to be appointed were to have the power to co-opt into their number four more. And the remaining three Governors, who made up the 12, were in future generations to be co-opted also by the general Governing Body. But, in the first instance, Mr. Holloway reserved to himself the appointment of these three; and the three were not only to be Governors but Trustees, in whom the College and its site were to be vested. Mr. Holloway, in the deed of foundation, provided—
    "That the management and government of the College shall be vested in 12 Governors, including three Trustees for the time being of the
    488
    College estate; all of the Trustees shall, in the first instance, be appointed by the founder."
    Throughout the rest of the deed, distinction between the three Governors who were Trustees, and the other nine Governors who were not, was most carefully drawn; the terms 'Governor' and 'Trustee' being in no clause used as synonymous. What happened? Mr. Holloway, after establishing this foundation and after appointing the three Trustees, died. The other nine Governors who were to manage this unsectarian College were still unappointed. After Mr. Holloway's death, the three Trustees who were already in existence—two of them, he believed, were nephews of Mr. Holloway's wife—applied to the Charity Commissioners to take up the task of completing the number of the Governing Body. The Charity Commissioners, acting at the instance of these three gentlemen, did so; and he submitted to the Committee that the action of the Charity Commissioners in doing that was wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, and void. He made that submission on the simple ground that Mr. Holloway reserved to himself no power but that of appointing the three Governors who were to be also Trustees; that he reserved to himself no right to appoint any of the other Governors, but he himself provided the machinery by which five Public Bodies were to call into existence five of the Governors, and then the eight were to co-opt the remainder. He did not know in what manner the Charity Commissioners might attempt to justify their departure from the language of the foundation deed. The powers of the Commissioners were no greater than those exercised by the Chancery Division. He saw the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) in his place, and he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was not a recognized principle that the Chancery Division would not exercise the power of appointing Governors to any charity when there already existed persons possessing the right of appointment, and competent to exercise that right, and not having refused to exercise it? Perhaps they would be told that night, on behalf of the Charity Commissioners, that though the language of the deed of foundation was clear, they sought to vary that language by evidence which they might possess of the Founder's intention. But if they

    489
    set up that defence, he maintained that their action was none the less illegal; for, under the 5th section of the Charitable Trusts Act, they were forbidden to exercise their power of appointing Trustees in any case involving contentious matter, or any special question of law or fact which might be one more fit to be adjudicated on by a Court of Law. He believed there was no lawyer in the House who would rise in his place and say that the attempt to vary the language of a deed by reference to evidence derived from other sources was other than a problem of law so difficult that it could not be entrusted to one of the Departments of the State, but was a matter to be adjudicated upon by a Judicial Court. But leaving these legal questions, which he knew could not be adequately discussed by the Committee in the absence of Papers, he submitted to the Committee that even if the Charity Commissioners had authority to appoint the nine Governors, the appointments which they did make were impolitic, inexpedient, and unjust. He said that for two reasons. First of all, in making the appointments, they ignored that principle of representation which Mr. Holloway had set in the forefront of his deed. The Charity Commissioners did not, in their Order, pretend to be departing from Mr. Holloway's intentions. The Order said—
    "It is desirable that the full body of Governors shall be constituted as nearly as may be in accordance with the intentions of the founder as declared in the deed of foundation."
    That intention was that the five Public Bodies—the Education Department, the University of London, the Aldermen of London, and the Town Councils of Windsor and Reading—should be the mainspring of the whole foundation. It was most important that that intention should be carried out on the occasion of appointing the first set of Governors, the men who would start the College, who would appoint its staff, and who would impress upon it its original character and mode of working. But the Charity Commissioners departed from the intentions of the Founder. They did not communicate with the five Bodies. They ignored the five great Bodies to whom the nation had a right to look as a guarantee for the due preservation of that undenominational character which the Founder wished to stamp on the College. They left the
    490
    whole choice to Mr. Holloway's three Trustees; and appointed nine gentlemen nominated by them. It was true that in the Order of Appointment, the Charity Commissioners did preserve the legal fiction of attending to the Founder's intention, by calling five of these nominees "representative" Governors, and allotting them to the five Bodies. But what a satire the Charity Commissioners passed upon the principle of representation when they told off Prince Christian as the representative of the Education Department, his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury as the representative of the eminently unecclesiastical University of London, and Lord Granville as the representative of the Aldermen of the City of London. He admitted that Mr. Holloway's Trustees, in making the selection they did, made a selection which was eminently calculated to confer great social advantages upon themselves, inasmuch as they were now brought in contact with a Royal Prince, an Archbishop, an Earl, a Baron, a Privy Councillor, and a Dean. He did not pretend to lodge a single complaint of unfitness against any one of the nine distinguished individuals whom the Charity Commissioners selected; but his contention was purely and simply this—that the selection of the whole, taken as a whole, was bad—as bad setting aside the representative principle, and bad as imperilling also the undenominational character of the College, and with respect to that which was of equal importance, the confidence of the nation in the preservation of that undenominational character. It was admitted in the House some four months ago, when the matter was raised by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb), that the Governing Body of this uniquely unsectarian Foundation consisted of members of the Established Church. He did not lay great stress on that; but he did lay stress on this—that of the 12 Governors three were actually officials of that Church—his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dean of Windsor, and the Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester—men committed by their office to exercise their influence in the interest of the Church of England. He was not certain what defence would be urged that night on behalf of the Commission; but he had obtained a little inkling of it from the answer the hon.

    491
    Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) gave when the matter was raised in February by the hon. Member (Mr. Cobb). It would, no doubt, be said that some—he did not know which—of the nine gentlemen were gentlemen who were held in high esteem by the Founder, and whom he would not have been sorry to see fill the position of Governors. If that statement was made once again, he hoped it would be made with the clearness and precision which so important a defence demanded. He hoped that they would hear whether there existed a scrap of written evidence to justify that statement, and to override the clear inference of the emphatic language of the deed of foundation. He hoped they would hear more than that—that they would hear that the feelings of Mr. Holloway towards these gentlemen were not fluctuating, but lasting. He hoped also they would hear precisely which of the nine Governors were included in this defence. What he particularly wished to put to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Lowther) was, were the three ecclesiastical or quasi-ecclesiastical Governors amongst those whom Mr. Holloway was said to have selected? If they were not, then what could justify the Charity Commissioners in putting these ecclesiastical officials upon this unsectarian Board of Governors? If they were amongst those who were selected by Mr. Holloway, then he maintained it was doubly important for the Charity Commissioners to counter-balance their influence, and establish public confidence in the impartiality of the Body by setting against the three officials of one Church other officials equally prominent, drawn from some of the other Churches of the land. There was another ground of defence. It was said by the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Lowther), in his answer last February, that the Charity Commissioners, in making these appointments, knew nothing of the religious views of the persons they appointed. He was very glad to have had that answer; because he believed there were hon. Members around him who would find their constituents receive with very great satisfaction, and perhaps with very great surprise, the statement that the Charity Commissioners always ignored sectarian feelings in the appointment of Governors. But when he heard that state-
    492
    ment, he was reminded of the Committee on Educational Endowments, in 1886, to which the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Lowther) had already alluded, the Committee upon which he (Mr. Courtney Kenny) had a seat, and which reviewed the action of the Charity Commissioners. That Committee had the advantage of having very valuable evidence given to them by the Commissioners themselves, and, amongst others, by no less distinguished a litterateur than Sir George Young. That gentleman was asked about the establishment of the Governing Bodies of denominational schools, and he said, in his answer to Question 750, that it was certainly the custom of the Charity Commissioners to provide that the majority of such Bodies should belong to the denomination interested. If this provision could be so carefully made in denominational schools, why not in undenominational ones? Now there was another defence which had been set up. It had been said that notice of the proposal to appoint these nine gentlemen was given in the daily papers, and that no objection had been raised to them. But no one reading the advertisement columns of The Times would know anything about the conditions which the founder had laid down, as to undenominationalism and as to representation, and therefore no one was likely to object to the distinguished persons whose names were advertised. He should have had much greater satisfaction in bringing forward the subject that evening, and the Committee would have been better able to follow his argument, if the Returns which he had asked for, of a copy of the deed of foundation, had been furnished to the House; but objection had been made to that proposal on the ground of the expense. That expense would not be one day's income of the College. On the question of expense he could not help remembering that the whole basis on which the Charity Commissioners carried out their work lay in the Returns which Lord Brougham's Commission obtained 50 years ago with regard to the whole of the charities of the country, and which were got at the expense of three months' income of the charities concerned. There was another point to which he desired to draw attention—namely, that the same disregard of the Founder's written intentions, the same haste in interfering with this most

    493
    important of all modern foundations, had been manifested a second time by the Commissioners, in dealing with another part of the foundation deed. For, although Mr. Holloway had desired that the lady principal, the resident professors, and the teachers of the College should, at the time when they were appointed, be under 40 years of age and in full youthful vigour, the Governors, within four months of their own appointment, applied to the Charity Commissioners to relax the rules in favour of a lady who, he frankly admitted, was admirably fitted to discharge the duties that would be imposed upon her. But the Charity Commissioners had abrogated the rule altogether, not merely for the single case of this lady, but for all appointments, for all time. He submitted to the Committee that the true province of all great endowments was to try new experiments, and that the Founder was entitled to have some opportunity given for a trial of the experiment he had in view, even if it were novel and unpromising. And Mr. Holloway's rule of a limit of age was neither unpromising nor even novel—yet the Commissioners had set it aside before it had had a single trial. He had felt it his duty to bring these matters under the notice of the Committee, and to enter his protest against this impolitic and indefensible interference with the intentions of an enlightened and munificent Founder, almost before he was yet cold in his grave.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he thought he ought at once to reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. On the whole the hon. and learned Member had stated the facts of the foundation correctly, but he would pardon him if he said he had fallen into an error in saying that Mr. Holloway appointed three trustees.
    MR. COURTNEY KENNYsaid, he held in his hand the foundation deed which showed the accuracy of his statement.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he was perfectly correct Messrs. Martin and Driver, the two trustees to whom the property of the College was bequeathed, had shortly after the death of the founder proceeded to elect the third trustee. These two gentlemen were not only relations of the founder but were his trusted advisers
    494
    during his life and his executors on his death. Mr. Holloway having died without making the first appointment which he contemplated making to the governorship of the College, those two gentlemen came to the Charity Commissioners and said, "We ask you to make this a workable scheme and to put yourselves in the position of the founder, and to appoint the remaining Governors. "They came to the Charity Commissioners with a list of names, several of whom they stated had been specifically selected for the office of Governor by the founder Mr. Holloway himself. In these circumstances the Charity Commissioners had not felt it to be their duty to go about inquiring into the religious views of the gentlemen whose names had been submitted to them by the executors of the Founder of the College. It was perfectly true that they did not make any such inquiries into their religious views. Three of these gentlemen whose names appeared upon the list were obviously members of the Church of England, but the Charity Comsioners thought that this was not a very large proportion for the Church of England to have upon a Body of 12 Governors. In the first instance, he might say there were among the other names on the list those of the late Mr. Samuel Morley and Lord Charles Bruce, who had been for many years Members of that House, and also Members of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). When one of those Gentlemen died and the other declined to act, their places were taken by the Dean of Winsdor, who was an eminently suitable person to appoint because he resided in the immediate neighbourhood of the College, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). He thought that no one would say that the interests of the great Nonconformist Body would not be amply looked after by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member had challenged him to state precisely the ground on which the Charity Commissioners alleged that these gentleman were selected by the founder. He had in his hand a copy of a letter written by Mr. Greenwell—the solicitor to Mr. Holloway's executors—which stated that the names on the list in question had been selected principally having regard to the founder's wishes. A great deal of

    495
    the discussion on the Charity Commission was conducted by personal interview, and he could only say that what was stated in that letter was supplemented at the interviews which took place at the office of the Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member said that sufficient notice was not given of the names; but the fact was that they had been published frequently in The Times, Daily News, and Standard, on several days in June, 1886. The hon. and learned Member said that no one would notice an advertisement of that sort. But he would point out, on the contrary, that a great number of objections were taken by people who said that it was desirable on a peculiar trust of this sort that women should be appointed as Governors. That was a very reasonable objection; but the answer was, "The Founder in his deed has specially forbidden that any women should be appointed Governors." Therefore, it was hardly fair to say that the advertisements were in some corner or loose sheets of The Times or other papers where they did not attract notice. The hon. and learned Member then said that the Commissioners acted illegally in appointing these Governors; but that was a matter, of law and the Commissioners thought that they had acted legally. He would point out that if the hon. and learned Member thought that the Commissioners were acting illegally at the time, there was under the Charitable Trusts Acts ample machinery to enable him to appeal at once to the Court of Chancery and upset the scheme, and there had been no appeal to that summary procedure. This, in fact, was the first objection that had been made, with the exception of a question asked of him some months ago. In conclusion, he pointed out that the hon. and learned Member himself made no objection to the manner in which Nonconformist students were treated in the College. He did not believe any such objection could be made, or, at any rate, if made could be sustained. The hon. and learned Member had complained of the fact that a lady over 40 years of ago had been appointed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield, who was a Governor of this Charity, was better able than he to answer on that question; but he understood that numerous meetings were held by the Governors and that
    496
    numerous applications for the appointment were received; that these were carefully considered and that the Commissioners came to the conclusion that none of the applicants were properly qualified to fill this very important position. The Governors, therefore, applied to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme, and at their instance the Commissioners altered the foundation deed in this respect. Again, the Charity Commissioners had gone out of their way to give publicity to the fact that this foundation scheme was being altered. Not only did they advertize the fact that they were about to make this scheme, but they gave notice that they were about to appoint this particular lady as principal. Therefore, they had doubly given full notice of everything they had done, and no objection had been taken by the hon. and learned Member or any of his Friends on that occasion. He ventured to think that he had now made a complete answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman. They contended that they could not inquire into the religious views of persons who were about to be appointed, and had they done so they had no means of enforcing their inquiries. Supposing they had written to any gentleman and asked what were his religious views, he might have declined to tell them, and they would have been in the same position as before. The Committee would, therefore, see that such inquiries were impracticable, especially in this case, because they were gentlemen whom they believed had been specially selected by the Founder himself, and all of whom had been recommended to them by his trusted advisers and his executors.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he thought that no graver charge had for a long time been made against gentlemen occupying an official position than had been made that evening by the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of York (Mr. Courtney Kenny) against the action of the Charity Commissioners in the case of Mr. Holloway's College. But that was not the only ground on which they were raising objection to the Vote at the present time, and he was anxious to go back to the question raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Lichfield Division of Staffordshire (Sir John Swinburne). The hon. Baronet, two years ago, had got the House to adopt the Resolution

    497
    which he had read as representing the pinion of the House, that in all cases where any scheme for a charity was to be adopted the Charity Commissioners ought to provide for the majority of the trustees or managers being elected by the ratepayers in the locality in which the charity existed. Now, the charge was that the Charity Commissioners had never taken the slightest notice of that Resolution so far as he was aware, but that in every case ex officio and co-optative members were in the majority. No sooner had the Resolution been passed by that House than a scheme was propounded by the Charity Commissioners. It was a scheme for Michael Lowe's Charity in the City of Lichfield, and it provided that the trustees of the Charity should be 12 in number, of whom five should be representative. Within three months another scheme was received for Colwich in Staffordshire, where a similar provision was made—namely, that the Body should consist of nine persons, four only being representative. The hon. Baronet had complained that the Charity Commissioners had paid no attention whatever to the principle expressed by that House in the Resolution to which he had referred. Of course, he was aware that they were not bound to obey an opinion expressed in the Resolution, because the House of Commons was not a judicial Court; but still they had good reason, he thought, to complain when they were asked to pay for the Charity Commissioners by a Vote of the House of Commons, that they paid no attention whatever to the opinion somewhat lately expressed by the Representatives of the people, out of whose pockets that pay came. He thought that complaint deserved a little more attention than it had received from the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther). That hon. Member said that sufficient notice had not been given of the charges which the hon. Baronet was about to bring; he had referred to the 31,000 Charities which the Commissioners had to superintend, and said that the hon. Baronet had succeeded in getting this Resolution passed in a thin House in the early morning. But the hon. Baronet had also complained that the accounts were not audited, and the hon. Member replied that no power was given to the Charity Commissioners to audit the accounts. Now, if the majority of the
    498
    Governors were elected in the neighbourhood, those in the neighbourhood, would take care to see that the accounts were kept properly. The only safeguard for the preservation of public charities was to awaken public opinion, and it had often been successfully contended in that House of late years that the right method of securing any institution for the public was to give the people a large control over it. That was what they wished to do, and they complained that the Charity Commissioners paid no attention to their representations. He should, therefore, vote with the hon. Baronet for the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000. But he admitted that the case brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division was somewhat more grave than that which had been noticed by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member for Penrith had not, in his opinion, made a more successful defence in regard to that matter than in the other case. He said there were certain trustees appointed by the Founder, and that those trustees told the Commissioners that several of the gentlemen who were afterwards appointed Governors were favoured by the Founder; he said there was also a letter of the solicitor to the executors to the effect that the Founder would have approved these appointments. But these were only impressions on the mind of the individuals who made the statement, and they might very well be mistaken. There was a letter in the hands of a former Member of that House written by the Founder to one of the trustees of the Institution, in which he proposed that the whole of the Governors should be appointed by the London University and the rest of the Corporations mentioned by his hon. Friend. It was very easy to ascertain whether that letter existed or not, and he contended that it was much better evidence than the opinion of the solicitor or the other trustees. But they had further evidence on the subject; in the 7th clause of the Deed of Foundation there was a provision that no arrangement should be made which should identify the College in any way with any particular sect or denomination of Christians. Those words were exceedingly strong, and yet surely to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dean of Windsor, and the Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, all of them prominent

    499
    members of the Church of England, was to identify the College in a very clear and substantial way with the Established Denomination in this country. He thought that no one could read over the various sections of the Deed of Foundation without realizing how near it lay to the heart of the Founder that he at least might succeed in founding an Institution which should be entirely independent of all sectarian limitations whatever; and he (Mr. Picton) could not but think it a very unworthy action that the representatives of a great ecclesiastical corporation should take advantage of the fact that the Founder had died before naming those who were to be appointed Governors of the Institution, and by all sorts of quibbles—for he could give them no other name—should seek to justify a mode of action which, in equity, ought to be regarded as a distinct violation of the plainly indicated purpose of the Founder. Take the case of the disregard of the Founder's wishes as to the appointment of a lady principal and other teachers; he evidently regarded it as most important that the lady principal should not be over 40 years of age when she was appointed. That involved a principle open to dispute; doubtless there were many ladies over 40 years of age who were exceedingly energetic, and in every way fitted for a position of this kind. They had heard a good deal about the sacredness of the wishes of pious Founders, and if a pious Founder 500 years ago had left money for a College for the Church of England, there was no chance of his wishes being set aside in these days; but here was a pious Founder who was only lately deceased, whose living words were remembered, and whose whole character lived in the remembrance of his friends. No one disputed that he held certain opinions, and that he desired to establish an unsectarian Institution, which should be ruled and taught by those in the prime of life, and yet he was scarcely cold in his grave before, at the instance of those who wished to appoint a lady principal distinguished for her devotion to the principles of the Church of England, the Commissioners said—"We will ignore the will of the Founder, and you can do just as you like so long as what you do makes for the advantage of the Established Church." Suppose it had been proposed to override the intention of the Founder in the interest of a
    500
    Nonconformist or Roman Catholic Institution, did anyone imagine that this would have been allowed? Everyone saw that it was the object of the Church of England to get hold of this splendid Institution, so that by encroachments, such as had been already accomplished, it might be made a sectarian Institution. He earnestly protested against anything of the kind being done. Of course, inquiries were not made about the religious belief of the Governors, because it was notorious what their belief was. Why was it that no one thought of nominating Mr. Spurgeon, or the Rev. Dr. Allen, or Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, the President of the Methodist College, or any other well known Nonconformist? He said that the course pursued showed a desire to ignore and pass over the wishes of the Founder that this should be an unsectarian scheme, and he hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division in order that they might see who in that House was in favour of stealing the money of pious Founders for the purpose of endowing the very richest and most luxurious Church in the world.
    MR. F. S. POWELLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    THE CHAIRMANwith held his assent, and declined to put the Question.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, as he was the only Governor of the Charity in question in the House, he thought he might be allowed to offer some remarks on the subject before the Committee. It could hardly be accepted by hon. Members, if, as the last Governor of the Charity appointed, he did not say something in reply to the statement made by his hon. Friend. He was not conscious of having done anything in the nature of stealing an endowment for the Church, and it might be thought that his position would be a guarantee against his being actuated by any such motive. During the five years he had been at the Council Office he was repeatedly asked to become one of the Trustees of the College, but he felt that while he was in the Ministry he could not fulfil the duties of trusteeship, and therefore he declined to be nominated; but he had repeatedly requested Mr. Fitch to visit the College, and give whatever advice and assistance he could to the trustees. After he had left the Council Office, he heard no more of the matter until the death of his lamented friend,

    501
    MR. Samuel Morley, when he was asked if he would take Mr. Morley's place as one of the Governors of the Body. He was not asked what his religious opinions were, nor did he ask what were the religious opinions of others, although, of course, no inquiry was needed with regard to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Dean of Windsor, who was a distinguished ornament to the Church and a man of great liberality of mind, besides living on the spot, or the Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester. One of those who came to him repeatedly was a Member of that House for many years, and had always voted for the Disestablishment of the Church; he had no idea that that Member was a Churchman then, and did not know whether he was one now. He referred to Mr. Chadwick, formerly a Member for Macclesfield, who was always a supporter of religious equality and who enjoyed the confidence of Mr. Holloway in this very matter. As to the other trustees, he had supposed some were not Churchmen, but if all were Churchmen he felt certain it was purely a matter of accident, and that they had not been selected to secure predominance for the Church of England. He, for one, would be glad to see Nonconformity well represented by Dr. Allon or anyone of educational experience. But he could assure the Committee and the hon. Member who had raised this question, that he honestly believed there had been no selection whatever of men except for their education, knowledge, experience, and capacity. His hon. Friend he thought had fallen into an error with reference to the appointment to fill vacant Governorships. When vacancies took place they would be filled up by the President of the Council, the Court of Aldermen, the University of London, the Town Councils of Reading and Windsor, so that there was no doubt that the intention of the Founder would be carried out by these high representative Bodies. The hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of York (Mr. Courtney Kenny) said the Commissioners had violated the intentions of the Founder by appointing a lady principal of over 40 years of age; and that that intention had been set aside in order to secure the appointment of a lady of High Church principles. He (Mr. Mundella) had to say that the Governors advertised for a principal of
    502
    under 40 years of age; that advertisement appeared for more than a month; many applications were received, and when they were considered it was found that while the Governors could get professors and teachers to fill up the subordinate positions among persons under 40 years of age, they were unable to find one entirely qualified for the high and important post of lady principal within that limit. They were, therefore, obliged to go to the Charity Commissioners and ask them to set them free. The Charity Commissioners allowed the Governors to take off the limitation, and in reply to other advertisements 70 applications were received; from these, 10 selections were made, and the whole body of the Governors saw the selected candidates before they selected a lady who was facile princeps, and the age of that lady who was by far the best among the candidates was 41½ years. Then his hon. Friend said that the College ought to be undenominational, and that it was specially laid down that there should be no religious test. There had been no religious test; the Governors put no question to any teachers who came to them, but they said to the teachers, "Whatever may be your religious views there shall be no proselytizing in this College." To that rule they had adhered, and he assured the Committee that so long as he had been Governor of the College there had been no violation in this respect of the will of the Founder. His hon. Friend had suggested that the provisions of the scheme in this matter had been set aside for all time. But, as a fact, they had simply left themselves free to choose the very ablest principal; and what they were anxious to do was strictly to carry out the Founder's will in that respect. He (the Founder) had laid it down that the College was to be conducted as a Christian house, that no permanent chaplain was to be appointed, that services should be regularly conducted, and that the principals should open the proceedings with a service every day. Now, that was strictly done, and he would like just to tell the House what had been the result, so far as they had gone, and how they had conducted the College under what was suggested to be a very sectarian management. Two-thirds of the students were members of the Church of England, but there were also among the students, Methodists, Quakers, Con-

    503
    gregationalists, Baptists, and Unitarians and the principal said—
    "My unvarying practice in the case of the Nonconformist students is to ascertain the exact wishes of the parents with regard to Sunday service, and to see that those wishes are carried out."
    Consequently, the College paid for seats in the Congregational and other chapels for the use of the students. The principal continued—
    "The only definite teaching is a lecture on Holy Scriptures given by me once a week, and the subject lately has been the 'Prophetical books of the Old Testament in connection with the history of the New.' I invariably ascertain whether the students' parents object to them attending such a lecture. At the request of the students I have also held a Bible class for them on Sunday afternoons."
    That was from a letter which the Lady Principal addressed to him (Mr. Mundella) on the preceding Monday, and she further stated that they had at least nine Nonconformist students in regular attendance at their own chapels, and the letter continued—
    "Recently one came to me and expressed on behalf of her fellow Nonconformist students how much they all regretted the unfair statements which were being made, and how entirely they repudiated the idea that they were at any disadvantage in the College or had any grievance. She asked my leave to write a letter to the newspapers to that effect, and told me she had the permission of her father—himself a Nonconformist minister—to do so if I would let her. I thought it wiser not to give her leave."
    As to the teachers, they had three—English, French, and Scotch—in the College, and, so far as he was concerned, he could not say whether they were Church of England or Nonconformist. He suspected that, at any rate, one was a Presbyterian; he could not say what the French teacher was, for he had made no inquiry. He was sure that this College, although it was conducted as the Founder wished, as an orderly, Christian household, was not conducted in any respect as a sectarian College. There was nothing sectarian about the Institution, and he protested in his place in that House that so long as he had the honour of being connected with it, there should be nothing sectarian in its management.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he thought that nearly the whole of the speech just delivered had been a case of special pleading, dealing altogether with questions quite outside the mark. No charge had been brought
    504
    upon that side of the House that, so far as matters had gone in the Institution, there had been anything sectarian developed. But the whole question was, that in an Institution which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Courtney Kenny) rightly regarded as almost unique—probably there were other Institutions in the North of England where the same scrupulosity was observed to keep clear from everything sectarian—the Board of Governors was composed solely of members of the Church of England. The House, then, could not be surprised that those who stood up for religious equality and non-interference in matters of religious opinion, should show themselves very sensitive, and, more than that, determined on every necessary occasion, where infractions of the principle had been indulged, to bring them to the notice of Parliament and of the country. Some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House seemed to imagine that half-an-hour's discussion on the matter was sufficient, and suggested that the closure should be put in operation; but he might say, without any arrogance, that on any occasion, without anything like a tithe of the interest which was manifested in this matter, on any occasion where one-sidedness and unfairness were complained of, there would be a sufficient number of Members ready to stand forward, at any amount of personal inconvenience and obloquy, to ensure a proper consideration of the matter. Now, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) this question. If it had been an Institution of the unsectarian character which he claimed that College to be, with all possible safeguards around it, and if the trustees had by any accident whatever been, say, of the Wesleyan persuasion, would not the Church of England have been up in arms from its highest dignitary down to its most humble member, in order to redress such a scandalous disregard of the fairness of the case? He was not speaking without long experience in that matter. He had sat on two Endowed School Commissions, and had heard evidence unblushingly given as to the way in which in Church of England institutions care was taken to exclude, in the most rigid form, any Nonconformist Governor. Why, then, in such a case as this, should they not insist upon redress? The Institution was

    505
    admittedly of a non-sectarian character. Why should all the Governors belong to the Church of England? Surely six of the seats would not be too many to divide among the large and important denominations which existed in this country; why, the proportion would be very small indeed. He was sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland. (Mr. J. W. Lowther) did not in his speech attempt to grapple with the case. It was very easy to say that the Charity Commissioners had not gone beyond their legal powers, and he might have had good reason for avoiding the other points raised; but there was one matter as to which he was not sufficiently candid with the House. He said that some of the gentlemen who had been appointed had been nominated by Mr. Holloway himself. But did that apply to all the Governors? If not, then did it not devolve upon the Commission to take care that the whole Governing Body did not belong to one religious denomination in this country?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I said that all the Governors were selected, and that their names were given to the Commission by Mr. Holloway's executors, and the Commission was told that several of them had been selected by Mr. Holloway himself.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that that only applied to some, and it was of the greatest importance to know who were those gentlemen. Was the Archbishop of Canterbury specially selected by Mr. Holloway?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: We have no records.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: Were the Dean of Windsor or the Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester specially selected? He considered it was incumbent on the Charity Commission to see that gentlemen of other denominations, and of equal standing with the Primate, were chosen, for it was repugnant that those belonging to one religious denomination should absolutely disregard the right of every other denomination. It was nonsense to say that these men were eminently qualified. He did not dispute the fitness of any one of them. But that was begging the question, and attempting to throw dust into their eyes. It was, however, a useless operation. He knew too well, from ex-
    506
    perience gained on committees, to be satisfied by that. He knew what the Commissioners could and would do. They did not hesitate to inquire into the religious professions of anybody where a Church of England Institution was in question, and it was only in cases in the opposite direction that they became blind. He could only say that what had been done in the case of the appointments connected with this College was a great misfortune, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield would have satisfied that side of the House far more completely if he had not attempted to go into the way in which the Institution was managed in the blush of its youth, and if he had expressed manfully, and with more aptitude than he did, that he thought it a misfortune, in the interests of the Institution—and as far as the rights of a great body of Her Majesty's subjects were concerned—that an Institution of that character should be so weighted. The right hon. Gentleman had asked if it were intended to be suggested that he should resign. Well, if the question had been put to him (Mr. Illingworth), he would have replied that the right hon. Gentleman would have done himself infinite honour if he had said to the Governors—"We cannot work this Institution with the government constituted as it is, and if none others will resign I will set an example and do so. "There was an eminent Nonconformist, of whom that House and the country was very proud—his friend, the late Mr. Samuel Morley. He was a Governor; but he died. Why was care not taken to fill his place with another Nonconformist, so as to give some confidence to the people that the Institution should be secured against the inevitable bias which surrounded it at the present moment? He was speaking that which he strongly felt; he wanted no sectarian advantage for any denomination; but those who had raised that question would not be satisfied unless they secured, on the part of the Charity Commissioners, greater care in these matters in the future. He ventured to hope that the result of this discussion would be that when they presented their claims to equal rights for all denominations, those claims would not be ignored. They had had an example in past years in that House of the tendency of one Party to monopolize everything, and it

    507
    had only been by long and persistent struggles that they had got their feet within the threshold. He hoped that those on his side of the House would in future discredit and disown everything that partook of the nature of a job.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not desire to prolong the discussion, nor to follow the hon. Member (Mr. Illingworth) in the acrimonious speech which he had addressed to the House.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he disclaimed altogether anything like an acrimonious spirit. He admired the eloquence of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) in addressing himself to every difficult subject before the House upon which he felt strongly; but he did not accuse him of an acrimonious spirit on such occasions. He (Mr. Illingworth) wished to disclaim anything but the profoundest gratitude for the services the right hon. Gentleman was rendering the Institution in question. Notwithstanding anything the right hon. Gentleman might feel in the matter, he (Mr. Illingworth) trusted he would devote himself to the difficult work in connection with the College in the future as earnestly as he had done in the past.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he accepted at once his hon. Friend's disclaimer; but the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the proper course for him (Mr. Mundella) to take would have been to resign, and that statement would appear to make him (Mr. Mundella) as objectionable on the Governing Body of the College as others whom the hon. Member had condemned. The hon. Gentleman had stated that after the death of Mr. Samuel Morley some other eminent Nonconformist should have been asked to take his place. Well, it would be as well that the Committeee should be aware of the fact that, after Mr. Samuel Morley died, the Authorities went to his son and asked him to take his late father's place. He believed they went to him (Mr. Mundella) in a mistake, and if he had done wrong in accepting the appointment, of course he must submit to his hon. Friend's condemnation. The Committee might rely upon it that he (Mr. Mundella) was not a person who would be likely to endeavour to advance the interests of one section of the community unfairly, and they should remember that he had been the man who pressed upon Lord Spencer the desira-
    508
    bility of appointing a Nonconformist on the Charity Commission, which, as a matter of fact, the noble Earl had done. That was one instance upon which he (Mr. Mundella) could claim to have shown a desire to do justice to Nonconformists, and he could give another 100 instances if necessary. He was a Governor of the College in question with a view of carrying out, in the fullest manner, the spirit and the intentions of the Founder; and he must express his regret that there were not some eminent Nonconformists on the Governing Body. He should be very glad to see them there, and he hoped that when the next vacancy occurred the University of London would appoint somebody to fill it who would satisfy the wishes of his hon. Friend. But, whether they did so or not, he was sure, from what he knew of the majority of his colleagues, that nobody was more anxious than they were to see the work of the College carried out in a fair and unsectarian spirit, and in such a spirit he was sure it would be carried out as long as he and his present colleagues formed the Governing Body.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Committee to terminate this discussion. He thought he might reasonably do so, seeing that now more than two hours had been devoted to it. He must say that, so far as he had any experience of the Charity Commission, all the Commissioners desired to do their duty without regard to sectarianism. He was sure if there had been any mistake made in this matter, it had been without any desire to forward the interests of the Church of England, but simply for the purpose of carrying out what was believed to be the intentions of the Founder, and that it had been done in absolute good faith. Whether that was so or not, he ventured to ask the Committee to consider whether they had not sufficiently discussed the question however important—[Cries of "No, no!"]—having due regard to other Business which the House had to transact as well as to the functions they had to discharge in connection with the voting of public money? Was it possible for them to do their duty in regard to the Estimates now before the Committee if they were to devote hours for the consideration of a question which could be raised in a Court of Law, if the

    509
    legality of the matter was questioned, and which might be raised in other ways and at other times? He ventured to think that the Committee would do well not to defeat the Vote before it, but to do all they could to promote the Business they were called upon to transact. He did not in the slightest degree under-value the importance of the questions which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman. For himself, he deeply regretted the feeling which had been imported into the discussion, because he did not think it tended to the advantage of education or the interests of the House. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen had made use of references and expressions which, on calmer reflection and fuller knowledge of the subject, they would probably regret. But he would not enter into that matter. The question they had now before them was practically whether the Charity Commissioners deserved to be censured for their exercise of the discretion which was vested in them, or whether they had acted with good faith and without abuse? He honestly thought that they deserved no such censure, and he hoped the Committee would now come to a decision on the question.
    MR. BYRON REEDsaid, he thought he might now claim to move that the Question be now put.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the point immediately under discussion touched a very small portion of the Vote, and it would be altogether premature, therefore, and no economy of time to put the clôture upon the whole Vote.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was confusing matters—that was to say, the original Vote and the specific Amendment which had been moved, when he considered that the Question should be put. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had taken no part in the discussion hitherto, nor did he intend to do so. But there were other questions with regard to the Vote. He himself had been waiting ever since 8 o'clock in the evening with the intention of raising a very important question, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Reed), whose experience in connection with Committee of Supply was limited, that any attempt to move the clôture in Supply, except after full discussion, would be resisted to the uttermost. He could assure the hon.
    510
    Member that, so far from saving the time of the House, anybody who had the slightest experience of the House knew that proceedings in Supply would be protracted if a policy of this kind were adopted.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that with respect to the religious part of his view, the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. T. W. Lowther) had told them that the Charity Commissioners never inquired into the religious views of the trustees. In fact, he led them to believe that they waived the religious views of the trustees, and merely appointed those men whom they believed to be the best to exercise authority. Well, with the permission of the House, he (Sir John Swinburne) desired to point out that, in one of the last schemes the Commissioners had formulated, having to appoint ex officio trustees, they had nominated two incumbents of benefices—clergymen of the Church of England. Therefore, the administration of the Charity in question was to be settled according to the views of two prominent clergymen of the Church of England. ["Hear, hear!"] The Solicitor General cheered that statement, and he (Sir John Swinburne) was glad to hear it. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman was an excellent Churchman, but what was the real state of things? Why, that although some £200 a-year had been spent, nearly two-thirds were intended by the Founder to be spent upon deserving poor, and not one pound out of the £200 was left for persons of the Church of England.
    MR. EDWARD CROSSLEYsaid, he would not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but he wished to add his emphatic protest to the way in which the Charity Commissioners had dealt with this important scheme. The wishes of the Founder had been clearly stated, but those wishes had been distinctly ignored by the Charity Commissioners. The Commissioners had taken the ipse dixit of certain nephews of the testator instead of being guided by the deed of endowment. Mr. Samuel Morley, no doubt, represented the Nonconformist Body when he lived, and they were told that on his death his son was asked to accept the vacancy caused by his death. Well, it was a question whether Mr. Samuel Morley's

    511
    son would have acted as a Nonconformist, because, as a matter of fact, he (Mr. Crossley) knew him to be a Churchman? But there were other eminent Dissenters in this country besides Mr. Samuel Morley who might have been appointed on that Gentleman's death, and yet the vacancy occasioned by Mr. Morley's death was filled not by the right hon. Gentleman who had lately spoken (Mr. Mundella), but by a Dean of the Church of England. Speaking as a Nonconformist, he (Mr. Crossley) ventured to say that that Body would not rest satisfied until they found on the Governing Body of this Institution at least two staunch, intelligent, and able Nonconformists. Now, they were told that there was a Nonconformist Charity Commissioner. Well, he should like to know what this gentleman was doing in reference to this endowment. He should think he must have been asleep; and for the Charity Commissioners to say that they made no inquiry into the religious opinions of the Governors they chose was to him a most absurd statement, and one which required a great amount of credulity on the part of those who accepted it. He contended that when they had before them such a deed of endowment as that relating to the College in question, and such a foundation as this, it was their solemn duty, on behalf of the public, to scan the characters and views of the gentlemen they appointed as Governors in order to see that they were gentlemen who would maintain the Institution in its unsectarian character. It was their public duty to comply with the intentions of the Founder, and if they had not done so it was a dereliction of duty, and it was the duty of the Committee, as representing the public of the country, to call them to order on the present occasion.
    MR. CREMERsaid, he could not allow the Vote to pass without expressing a very emphatic protest against the action of the Charity Commissioners towards the working classes in the United Kingdom. The Charity Commissioners had two modes of treatment, one they meted out to the wealthy classes and the other to the poorer classes of the country. He hoped he would not be accused of endeavouring to set class against class—that was a stereotyped phrase their enemies
    512
    frequently used—if he endeavoured to show that the action of the Charity Commissioners was calculated to produce a result of that description. With the permission of the Committee, he would take two typical cases in which the Charity Commissioners had interfered, and he thought that reference to these cases would be quite sufficient to enable him to prove his contention—namely, that the Charity Commission had two modes of treatment, one for the rich and the other for the poor. The first case he desired to refer to was that of St. Katharine's Hospital, and the other was that of the Free School at Scarning, in the County of Norfolk. St. Katharine's Hospital was a wealthy endowment, founded by Queen Matilda in 1148, and it made provision for one master; three brethren, who should be chaplains; three sisters; and the education of six poor children. In 1826, the St. Katharine's Dock Company bought the site for £127,000. A building was erected in Regent's Park, at a cost of, he believed, something like £40,000. A considerable sum was spent upon the building, and he understood that something like £1,000 a-year had since been expended upon it in the shape of repairs, proving how badly it must have been originally constructed. The position of the endowment in 1886, when the Charity Commissioners undertook to institute an inquiry, was that the income amounted to £7,097 4s. 10½d. He hoped the Committee would notice how very particular the Commissioner was as to the halfpence. The Commissioner, Mr. Skirrow, reported, also, that he anticipated for the endowment a future income of £14,832 15 s. 10½d. He (Mr. Cremer) proposed to show how the money was spent, and in doing so he would quote from the Report presented by the Commissioner to the Charity Commissioners. Time would not permit him to quote at length from that Report, but he simply referred in passing to the fact that the master, at the period to which he referred, received something like £1,200 a-year for performing very slight services indeed; the services, in fact, which he performed were of the smallest possible kind. In addition to that a house in Regent's Park was provided for the master; but he did not choose to reside there, he preferred to reside in the more aristocratic neighbourhood of St. James's,

    513
    so he let the house in the Regent's Park for £500 a-year. The Charity Commissioners calculated that the house was worth £700 a-year. Altogether, the emoluments of the office amounted, according to Mr. Skirrow, to about £2,000 a-year. It was said that the master had gone two or three times a week to look at the brothers and sisters in the Hospital, but latterly he had not gone so often as that. He (Mr. Cremer) believed that the Master attended Chapter about three times a-year, and, so far as one could judge from reading Mr. Skirrow's Report, that was the only duty the Master discharged, for which he received nearly £2,000 a-year. Then there were three brothers, each of whom was granted £300 a-year and a house to live in. They did not live in the houses, but preferred to let them, and he thought that the amount they pocketed annually from the endowment amounted to about £550. There were also three sisters, who were provided with an annual income of £200, and two of them, in their turn, let the houses which had been provided for them, so that their income amounted to about £350 a-year each. There were a few scholars, he thought they numbered about 51, who were educated, and who received when they left the school a premium enabling their parents to apprentice them. There were bedesmen and bedeswomen, but it was impossible to ascertain what the duties they performed were. At the period to which he referred the Charity Commissioners instituted an inquiry, as the way in which the money of the endowment was appropriated was fast becoming a public scandal; and the facts he had stated to the Committee were elicited in the course of that inquiry. Mr. Skirrow recommended that some action should be taken, but from 1886 down to the present moment no action whatever had been taken by the Charity Commissioners. He was entitled to ask the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Lowther), who represented the Charity Commissioners in the House, why it was that the recommendations which Mr. Skirrow made to the Commissioners so long ago as 1886 had not yet been given effect to, and that this shameful waste of an endowment was allowed to continue for another moment? Now, he came to the other case he mentioned at the outset. The Committee would understand
    514
    the kind of treatment which was meted out by the Charity Commissioners to the wealthy class who profited by the existence of the endowment to which he had referred. They would now see the difference of treatment when he detailed the circumstances of the Free School which originally existed in the village of Scarping in Norfolk. That endowment was left by a gentleman in 1609. Previous to 1886 the people of the village had enjoyed the privilege of free education, a privilege which they, according to the testimony of the vicar, the Rev. William Jephson, who gave very valuable evidence before the Endowed Schools Committee, highly appreciated. But in 1886 the Charity Commissioners, for some reason or other which had never yet been ascertained, which neither the vicar nor the labourers in the village were ever made acquainted with, thought proper to swoop down upon the village. They had only a handful of agricultural labourers to deal with; they swooped down upon the poor, wretched labourers, who had hitherto enjoyed the benefit of free education, because they wished to utilize the endowment for the purpose of some higher education. There had been no dissatisfaction expressed by anybody as to the character of the education that was given in the school; there were no big salaries paid; there was no Master with his £2,000 a-year. There was no necessity, so far as he could discover, for any interference by anybody; but for some reason or other the Charity Commissioners thought this good prey, and they swooped down on this poor unfortunate village of Scarping. They swallowed up the endowment; in fact, in the language of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), they stole the endowment from the villagers and appropriated it to the benefit of a class who could very well afford to pay for their own education. A labourer who presented himself for examination before the Committee upstairs said—he (Mr. Cremer) hoped the Committee would pay attention to the fact, because, although this might be a light and trivial matter for gentlemen with thousands a-year, it was a serious matter to labourers with 8s., or 10 s., or 12 s. a-week—the witness said that the average earnings of the labourers in that village were only 8s. per week. The Commissioners, of course, argued that the school fees

    515
    would not amount to much, but it came out in evidence that it was not 1d. a-week that labourers had to pay, but that in many cases the school fees amounted to 5d. or 6d. a-week, because a labourer having four or five or six children at school had to pay four or five or six pennies a-week. He had no desire to prolong the debate, and he had simply risen to register an emphatic protest against the action of the Charity Commissioners in regard to endowments benefiting the poorer class of their countrymen, and to point out that they dealt with such endowments in a very different way and fashion from that in which they dealt with endowments affecting the wealthier classes. He begged Members of the Committee to consider seriously what they were doing. They had heard a great deal about confiscation; but did they think that the lessons which nearly every scheme of the Charity Commissioners formulated was not being understood, and was not being driven into the minds of the agricultural labourers and the mass of their countrymen? Talk about Socialism and Communism; they might denounce Socialism, and Communism, and confiscation, as long as they pleased; but, if they continued to set such examples to the mass of the people, and to teach them that confiscation was a very good thing when applied to the property of the poor, but a very wicked thing when applied to the property of the rich, depend upon it, the example they were setting by formulating these schemes, and forcing them on the mass of the people year by year, would not be lost upon the people. By-and-bye, when the time came—and it might come sooner than some hon. Members anticipated—when the masses asked themselves whether they ought to respect the rights of property, as they were continually being told they ought by their teachers and spiritual pastors and masters, they would say to themselves—"Well, if our spiritual pastors and masters and teachers act towards us in this manner, if they take away from us the endowments that have been left for the benefit of the poorer classes of the country, if they filch them from us and apply them for the benefit of a class which can very well afford to pay for its own education, is not the time come when we should teach our spiritual pastors and masters a lesson by giving
    516
    them a little dose of the physic they have so long administered to us."
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he must again raise a respectful protest against the manner in which hon. Gentlemen brought forward cases out of the enormous number of cases—31,000—the Commissioners had to deal with, without giving them or the Committee any Notice whatever. Now, with regard to the latter case which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cremer) had spoken of, the case of the Scarping Free School, it was, as the hon. Gentleman knew, fully discussed by the Endowed Schools Committee which sat upstairs. That Committee made their Report in 1887. He was sure the hon. Member would not contradict him when he said that the endowment in that case was for the maintenance of a free school to be kept for ever in a house at Scarping. The hon. Member knew that a great deal of discussion took place as to what was meant by a free school. It was urged very strongly that a "free school" meant a school open to anybody; not open to the poor alone, but open to everybody.
    MR. CREMER: That was the view taken by the Chairman, but it was not the view adopted by the Committee generally.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, the Committee reported that—
    "Apart from the question whether the term 'free school,' used in Latin or in English, in the old Foundations, meant free from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, free in the sense of being open to all, or free from payment by scholars, it appears to your Committee that the Commissioners"—
    that was the Endowed Schools branch of the Charity Commission—
    "have held in view the object of making such Foundations available to the working classes."
    He maintained that the Charity Commissioners were put on their trial by the Committee. All the cases were fully gone into at that time, and that was the conclusion to which the Committee came. With regard to the Scarping case itself, the Committee said—
    "In the case of Scarning, there was an example of a school which, probably at its foundation, was for higher subjects, but which for a long period, had become a free elementary school."
    That was all be had to say upon the

    517
    matter. The case was fully gone into by the Committee, the Committee decided that the Commissioners had acted properly, and there was no condemnation of the Charity Commissioners in the Report of the Committee. With regard to St. Katharine's Hospital, he had only one word to say. It was an endowment of a very peculiar character, having been created by Queen Matilda in 1148, and subsequently added to by every Queen of England. It was especially a Royal endowment. Rules had from time to time been made for it by Lord Chancellors at the instance of Her Majesty herself; and he believed that now a Committee had been appointed, he fancied by Her Majesty herself, to inquire how far, if at all, the buildings of St. Katharine's Hospital, which were situated in Regent's Park, could be utilized as a home for nurses, to which the large sums which were given last year to Her Majesty as a Jubilee present might very properly be applied.
    MR. GURDONsaid, that as one of the trustees of the Scarping School the Committee would, no doubt, allow him to say one word. The trustees did not approve of the scheme the Charity Commissioners originally placed before them; they felt they had been hardly used. But it was right he should say that the Charity Commissioners had this year met them in a most handsome manner. The Commissioners had agreed to start a fresh school, and he had every reason to suppose that the result of the fresh scheme would be satisfactory to the people of the parish.
    MR. JAMES STUARTasked if the scheme for Christ's Hospital would be shortly laid on the Table? This time last year, and this time two years ago, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer) raised the question of the Christ's Hospital Scheme, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) then said the scheme would be laid upon the Table shortly. As yet they had seen nothing of it. The parish of Shoreditch was affected considerably in respect to Webb's Charity, and it would be incumbent upon him and his hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston to oppose the scheme, because of its treatment of Webb's Charity. Perhaps the hon.
    518
    Gentleman might tell them when they might expect to see the scheme?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, the question was simply one of procedure; the scheme had been approved by the Lord President and himself, and would not be laid on the Table unless a Petition were presented in opposition to it. A reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on a point of law would also have the same effect.
    MR. JAMES STUARTasked if there would be any other opportunity of discussing the scheme except on Petition?
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEreplied, that it would not come before the House in any other way except as he had described.
    MR. JAMES STUARTdesired to take this opportunity of protesting against the treatment meted out to Webb's Charity by the scheme. He would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the facts, and in doing so would not occupy much time.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Act provides an appropriate method of dealing with the question. It is competent by Petition to bring the matter before the House, and then the House can express an opinion upon it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 195: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that there was certain to be a debate of some length on the Charity Commission Vote, and in it the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Wolverhampton and Bradford desired to take a part. A question raised some years ago would have to be raised again, and the debate would take some time. He wished the Government to say at once whether it was possible or practicable to go on with that debate at midnight? Personally, he was anxious to reach at once the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was a most important matter, and it was desirable it should be carried through as soon as possible. He believed it would

    519
    be useless to go on with the present debate, and unless some good ground were shown against it, he should move to report Progress.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was anxious to fall in with the views of the right hon. Gentleman. But, surely, he was aware that under the Rules of the House, if they entered on the debate on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be stopped at midnight?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Oh, no.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he believed that to be the case, and he did not, therefore, propose to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion till after midnight. He appealed to the Chairman if his rendering of the Rule were not correct?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think not.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, this, of course, altered the case. But there were four unopposed Votes; he would withdraw the one under debate and take the others, thus forwarding Business.
    MR. CONYBEAREwished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there would be a good deal of opposition on the Civil Service Vote. He himself had two or three points to raise.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (3.) £34,720, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that with regard to the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office, he desired to know what provision had been made to enable that officer to institute a proper and efficient examination of the stores of the Military, Naval, Post Office, and Telegraph Departments? An examination of the stores of those Departments would require almost technical knowledge; it certainly would necessitate a considerable increase of the staff, and he wished to know if this had been provided for? As they knew there was a wonderful absence of anything like an independent check or audit in respect to those stores; it was clear the Auditor's staff would have to be considerably augmented, and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury if in that Vote any pro-
    520
    vision had been made for such an increase of the staff? If not, was it at all likely that a Supplementary Estimate would be presented in connection with it; and what did the Treasury suppose would be the ultimate charge for each Service?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the hon. Member had raised a very important question. No doubt he was aware that some time ago the Treasury authorized an examination of the stores of the Admiralty, and the Comptroller and Auditor General made a most exhaustive examination. He had presented a Report to the Public Accounts Committee, and it was now under consideration upstairs. The question was a very large and important one, and it involved more than the mere matter of cost; it involved, indeed, a question of principle as to whether the duty of making the independent audit should be discharged—if it were discharged at all—by the Comptroller and Auditor General, in place of, or in addition to, the examination of stores made by the Departments themselves. They had taken the Admiralty as a test case, and they desired to have the Report of the Public Accounts Committee before deciding whether it was desirable to extend the system to the other Departments. The hon. Member had mentioned the Military Stores. Well, one portion of that question had already been under examination by the accountants who were appointed last year, and who made a very exhaustive inquiry into the matter of keeping the accounts at Woolwich and at the Manufacturing Departments generally. When the Government had their Report and full information before them, they would consider in what form the examination should be continued. The hon. Member asked whether any provision had been made in the Vote for an increase of staff? He must answer that no provision had been made, because, until a decision had been come to on the main question of principle, provision could not properly be made. There was an additional reason for not making any provision in that Vote, for, even if an addition to the staff were required, it might be found possible to supply it by transfers from the Services generally. He hoped the hon.

    521
    Member would rest satisfied with that answer, would see that the question was a very important one, and that it was receiving the careful consideration of the Government.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not intend to enter into the question whether it was expedient that Stores Accounts should be audited by an officer of the Department from which they proceeded, or by the Comptroller and Auditor General; but he desired to point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General were fixed by Statute and not by the Treasury. No duties could be assigned to him except under the Statute; and he desired to impress upon the Government that if they arrived at the conclusion on this question that it would be desirable that the Comptroller and Auditor General should audit Store Accounts, he should be directed to do so in the terms of the present or a future Statute, and not under a mere Departmental arrangement.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, they had been informed that the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General were fixed by Statute. But there was a serious divergence of opinion as to the authority of the Comptroller and Auditor General in dealing with the Accounts of the War and Admiralty Departments. The matter was very important, and it would be well if the Secretary of State for War would inform them distinctly whether the views entertained by the Comptroller and Auditor General were correct, or whether those entertained by the right hon. Gentleman himself would be generally adopted by the Government. There was a great question of principle involved, and he would like to hear from his right hon. Friend how the matter stood at the present moment?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, the controversy between the Auditor General and the War Office with regard to the powers of the former under Statute were all fully stated in the Blue Book. How did it stand, he was asked? The correspondence, he would reply, was under the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee; that Committee would have to report, and until that Report had been received it would be premature for him to say a word upon it. But as
    522
    soon as the Government received the Report they would come to a decision as quickly as possible as to the course they should pursue.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, it was a very difficult question, and he should not be prepared to express an opinion at present as to whether it was desirable to extend the functions and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General over the War Office or Admiralty. All they were entitled to ask that night was that the matter should receive the careful attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. It was to their interest that the Accounts should be efficiently audited. He would not pursue the subject any further, but he wanted to call the attention of the Committee to one item in that Vote. Owing to the discussion which took place in the House last year, the Secretary to the Treasury had very properly carried out, on the face of all the Votes, the entire cost to the Service. Well, although the gross total of this Vote was £56,000, £18,700 fell under other Votes; and the Non-Effective Service of this, so to speak, small Office cost no less than £16,813, or rather more than one-third of the cost of the Effective Service. This was a subject to which he intended to recur again, and he believed that one of the most serious questions before them was the enormous growth of their Non-Effective Service. In this case, in an Office established only a few years ago, the Non-Effective Votes exceeded one-third of the Effective Vote. No matter more deserved the speedy consideration of Parliament.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had given him an answer with regard to the Naval and Military Stores, but had said nothing about the Post Office or Telegraph Departments. Were they to understand that there was no issue between the Postmaster General and the Comptroller and Auditor General with regard to the audit of the stores?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, there was no difference of opinion on that question between the Postmaster General and the Comptroller and Auditor General. As he had endeavoured to explain, the Government were first trying to settle the principle, whether it was desirable to entrust to, or impose on, the Comptroller

    523
    and Auditor General the duty of auditing the stores. Returns were actually furnished to the Treasury by the Post Office and Telegraph Departments showing the condition of the stores; and it might be that if the principle of the Comptroller and Auditor General examining the stores for the War Office and Admiralty were adopted, it would be extended to the Telegraph and Post Offices. But, as yet, no decision had been arrived at.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is the Treasury on the side of the Comptroller and Auditor General's views, or adverse to them?
    MR. JACKSON: I do not know quite how to answer that question. The Treasury is, of course, desirous to see the best plan applied to the Accounts of every Department. I think the hon. Member will know, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, it will be a great advantage to the House, and I think the Treasury also, to have this question settled.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Committee some explanation of the item of £3,831?
    MR. JACKSON: That question is properly raised, not on this, but on the Non-Effective Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £5,257, to complete the sum for the Friendly Societies Registry.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
    [Lords].—[BILL 228.]
    (Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Second Reading be deferred till Thursday next."
    DR. TANNERasked, on behalf of many Members who took an interest in the Bill, that the Government would announce when they proposed to absolutely take the second reading.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, in the present state of Business it
    524
    was absolutely impossible to say. The Bill was now postponed pro formâ.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, in reference to this nightly postponement of Orders, was there not a ridiculous amount of waste involved in this setting down of Orders for days when they could not by any possibility be taken? Day after day many Bills were postponed, and day after day were circulated with the Parliamentary Papers all the Amendments of which Notice had been given to Bills, although it was perfectly well known that there was no intention of giving consideration to them. By this circulation day after day and week after week among 670 Members, tons of printed matter were absolutely wasted. Was there the slightest use in going to all this expenditure? Was it necessary to reprint all the Amendments again and again when a Bill was formally postponed? Might not much of it be avoided by setting down Bills for such times as there appeared some reasonable prospect of their being taken?
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, it was not often he found himself able to agree with the hon. Member; but he certainly did join with him in a protest against the useless waste involved in the repeated distribution of Amendments never likely to be reached.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

    WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY BILL.— [BILL 273.]
    (Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)said, he appealed to the House to allow this stage of the Bill to be taken, and he would then move that it be referred to a Select Committee, where everything in relation to both the public and the War Department would be fairly considered.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he objected.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT (NOTICE OF REDEMPTION).—RESOLUTION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in rising to move—
  "That the Consolidated Three Pounds per Centum Annuities and the Reduced Three Pounds per Centum Aunuities shall be redeemable at any time after the expiration of one year from the date at which a Copy of this Resolution, having been inserted in the 'London Gazette,' is affixed on the Royal Exchange in London, by payments of not less than five hundred thousand pounds at any one time, in manner directed by any Act to be passed,"
  said, this Resolution was necessary to enable the Government to redeem the balance of Consols and Reduced Three per Cents, which had not yet been converted. He had already given the House, in general figures, the amount outstanding. The amount of Consols was about £40,000,000, and of Reduced Three per Cents about £6,000,000. Following the Schedule in the Act of 1870, called the National Debt Act, he had prepared the Resolution so as to allow of the redemption of this balance of Stock after July 5, 1889. Section 5 of that Act referred to perpetual annuities described in the 1st Schedule, and provided that such Stock should be redeemable within the period, and in the manner set forth in the Schedule after one year's notice printed in The London Gazette, and affixed to the Royal Exchange, London.
  DR. TANNERrose to Order. Would he be in Order in objecting to this Resolution being proceeded with after 12 o'clock?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the objection would not apply, inasmuch as the proceeding was taken in pursuance of a Statute, and was exempted from the 12 o'clock Rule.
  MR. GOSCHEN, proceeding, said, the Stock was redeemable at any time after one year's notice inserted in The London Gazette, and affixed to the Royal Exchange in London in such manner and within such period as Parliament by Act might direct, provided that not less than £500,000 was paid off at one time. The Resolution of the House being certified by the Speaker and advertised as he had mentioned, the requirements of the Act of 1870 would be fulfilled. If the House assented to the Resolution he should ask the Speaker to signify the
  526
  fact in writing, and then, in a year from to-morrow, these Stocks would be redeemable by Parliament in the manner directed by any Act subsequently passed, and in payments of not less than £500,000 at one time. He need not assure the House that he had consulted with the Law Advisers of the Crown as to the legal aspects of the question, and it was by their advice and assistance he had placed the Resolution on the Paper. It would be understood that the Act—the Acts he might say, for the Act of 1870 was but a repetition or consolidation of previous Acts on the subject—left the discretion to Parliament of fixing the manner in which the several annuities, or either of them, or any part there of should be paid off, only laying down the condition that the payments must be of £500,000 or upwards; and, notice having been given, it would then be for Parliament to decide in what manner they should be paid off. Next Session he would have the duty of proposing to the House a Bill laying down in formal and distinct terms the manner in which this Resolution should be carried out. He had no doubt that the resources that would then be at the disposal of the Government would enable them to carry out this redemption of Consols and Reduced Threes in a manner not costly to the State or inconvenient to the holders of the Stock.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Consolidated Three Pounds per Centum Annuities and the Reduced Three Pounds per Centum Annuities shall be redeemable at any time after the expiration of one year from the date at which a Copy of this Resolution, having been inserted in the 'London Gazette,' is affixed on the Royal Exchange in London, by payments of not less than five hundred thousand pounds at any one time, in manner directed by any Act to be passed,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the House would agree with him in congratulating his right hon. Friend on this last step, in the successful conversion of the Three per Cents which he carried out in the early part of the Session. He gave his right hon. Friend all the support he could, because he thought his plan a very excellent one and he was glad it had succeeded. He had only one suggestion to make now, and he was quite sure his right hon. Friend would be willing to consider it, whether or not he approved of it. It

  527
  was this—Under the arrangements he had explained to the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave this Notice now, and next year he would introduce a Bill to give effect to the Resolution. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with £40,000,000 of Stock; and though there was every hope that the state of things in this country and in Europe would be satisfactory next year, of course the delay of 12 months in carrying out an operation of this kind made this somewhat a matter of speculation, and it was possible—he hoped it would not be so—but it was possible, that it would a year hence be more difficult to carry out the operation than his right hon. Friend anticipated. The suggestion, therefore, he ventured to make was that as money was now nominally to be had at 2½ per cent. and was really very much cheaper, not being worth more than 1½ per cent—whether it would not be well to pass an Act this Session, taking power to anticipate payments with the consent of holders of Stock, so that instead of the whole amount of the £40,000,000 odd being paid off a year hence, with the consent of the holders, some of it—he hoped it might be a large portion—might be paid off now when money was so cheap, and it would be extremely easy to raise the necessary amount in Funded or Unfunded Stock? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could agree to that; if he made a cash offer to the remaining holders of 3 per cent Stock in which allowance would be made for that right to 3 per cent till next April, he might induce a considerable number to take advantage of his offer at once, and he would find it easier to carry out his operation now than he might find himself able to do a year hence, and, at any rate, then he would have a less amount to deal with. He therefore suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should pass an Act this Session, and he could not conceive that there would be any opposition to it, for it would be an Act everybody would be anxious to pass to free the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as much as possible next year by redeeming as much of the Stock as holders were willing should be redeemed at present prices. That was the only suggestion he had to make in reference to the present proposal. He could hardly ask his right hon. Friend to give a definite answer at once; but perhaps he
  528
  would take the point into consideration, and a few days hence say if he would carry out the suggestion. There could be no harm in adopting it, and his right hon. Friend might save himself from having to deal with so large a sum as £40,000,000 next year.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Resolution, said this Stock would be redeemable at any time after the end of the year's notice; but he did not clearly say that it actually would be redeemed. He supposed it might be assumed that when notice was given holders of Stock might understand that they would be paid off at the expiration of that time or shortly after? It would not be fair that a notice should be given that might be used against them, but upon the execution of which they could not absolutely rely. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) said truly that the rate of the interest in the City was below 2½ per cent; but, at the same time, it should be remembered that this was merely for short loans and not for long transactions. Still he thought there was much force in the suggestion made, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take it into consideration. He recommended it on another ground, because there was some doubt as to what was meant by the expression "by payments of not less than £500,000 at any one time." Although it might certainly be the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill next year, yet if they did it at once it would be only fair to holders of Stock who might reasonably desire to know the Government proposal as soon as possible, and how they proposed to exercise their option of paying off these amounts. The meaning of the Resolution was not in itself quite clear.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the effect of the Resolution if passed, and if the right hon. Gentleman carried out his intention, would practically be that the Debt of the country would only bear 2¾ per cent. He wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a point which he raised with the full approval of his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and to ask what the Government proposed to do in reference to the Debt due to the Bank of England which now bore

  529
  interest at 3 per cent. It did not seem to be a defensible position that the Bank of England should continue to receive 3 per cent upon £11,000,000, while all the rest of the public fundholders had their interest reduced to 2¾ per cent. The subject was raised the other night in the form of a query addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in his reply the right hon. Gentleman said there were corresponding advantages derived from the Bank of England. But this was a moot question, and there was much to be said on the other side as to the costs paid to the Bank of England for the management of the Debt. When, on the last renewal of the Bank Charter, the question was raised as to the interest to be paid to the Bank, Sir Robert Peel was of opinion that 3 per cent was too high a rate to pay, and that there were no corresponding advantages to the country to justify the payment. Ultimately, in adjusting the terms of the Bank Charter Sir Robert Peel withdrew his insistance on the point, and kept it in reserve. Now, after 45 years, and when the rest of the fundholders were compelled to accept 2¾ per cent. he did not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended that the Bank of England should continue to occupy that specially favoured position. Therefore, it was that, at the request of his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, he put the question.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had a very few observations to make. He called attention to the conditions under which Consols were redeemable at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced his great scheme. He was not quite sure from the language used just now, and from the wording of the Resolution, that he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend in his view of the case. The Schedule of the Act of 1870, the right hon. Gentleman said, did not make the conditions of redemption; it simply reproduced them, beginning by saying that these funds should continue to be redeemable as follows. The case he would put to the right hon. Gentleman was this. Supposing 12 months' notice given of the intention to redeem, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose that at the end of that 12 months' notice Consols would be redeemable at any time thenceforward, or did he conceive
  530
  that he was forced to redeem them on the expiration of the 12 months' notice? He confessed he had not had the opportunity of looking up the earlier Act since he saw the Notice of the Resolution; but he was strongly of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the option at the end of 12 months of redeeming at any time thenceforward; in fact, that it did not convert the Stock into Consols redeemable at any time, but at the end of 12 months, as to the funds of which he gave notice, he must redeem. In fact, the Schedule of the Act of 1870 declared that Consols and Reduced should continue to be redeemable on the conditions laid down by 12 months' notice, and in amounts of not less than £500,000. At the end of 12 months, as he read the Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must redeem the Stock in reference to which notice had been given. So the difficulty had always been that Chancellors of the Exchequer feared to run the risk of what might happen at the end of the 12 months' notice, when they would be compelled to redeem, however bad the terms might be. The right hon. Gentleman had, by his scheme, reduced the amount very considerably; but was it his opinion that the remaining Stock was redeemable at any time after the 12 months, or was it his view that it must be redeemed when the 12 months expired? His own opinion was that the latter was required by the state of the law.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would reply to the various points raised. In the first place, as regarded the Bank of England Debt, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would remember that he not only said there were counterbalancing advantages derived from the present arrangement with the Bank, but that he thought that the arrangement with regard to the payment of 3 per cent on the £11,000,000 ought to be revised.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERexplained he only referred to an answer to a Question put to the right hon. Gentleman which he read in the newspaper.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had stated in the discussion of the Conversion proposal that he acknowledged it would be perfectly right to reduce the rate of interest on the £11,000,000 Debt due to the Bank. But the position was this. When he spoke of corresponding advan-

  531
  tages, he referred to the bargain that the profit beyond a certain sum made by the Bank upon its issue should be returned to the State. So that if the payment of 3 per cent interest were reduced, the profit made by the Bank would be so much less. While, on the one hand, the interest would be reduced, on the other hand the revenue of the Bank would be diminished. The terms of the bargain made between the State and the Bank would be so altered that the whole arrangement would have to be revised. He thought it was necessary there should be a revision of the relations between the Treasury and the Bank, and one element in that revision would be the reduction of the rate of interest. On the other hand, it would have to be taken into consideration bow far the profit on the issue would affect the general arrangement. However, in the autumn he proposed to go into the whole question. The arrangements with the Bank were practically in suspense, and had been, as right hon. Gentlemen knew, for a year or more, no conclusion being come to in 1885–6. It would be the duty of the Treasury to look carefully at the whole arrangement; but practically the point was not so important as it appeared for the reasons he had stated. Then he was glad that the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) and the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) had challenged him to explain his meaning whether he contemplated the payment of the whole of the £40,000,000 immediately after the expiration of the notice or not. He would ask his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to say a word or two on the question, for he was more competent to deal with the legal aspect of it; but perhaps he might, mean while, throw some light on the matter by reference to what was done in 1824. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day acted on similar powers—parallel powers—to those that would be asked for under this Resolution. Mr. Robinson was Chancellor, and he gave similar notice, but that notice did not contemplate the payment of the whole of the amount of Consols as to which notice was given at one time. The payment was to be made according to the terms prescribed by Parliament, and the condition enacted was that a third, or £33 6s. 8d., of every £100 should
  532
  be paid at the end of the term of notice, and the remaining two-thirds were liable to payment at such a time or times or in such proportion as might be fixed by the Treasury, provided that six months' notice was given, and not less than half of the remaining two-thirds paid off at one time. It was not held on that occasion that the whole of the £75,000,000 must be paid off at one time; power was reserved to spread the payment over such time, and to make it in such proportions as might be fixed by subsequent Act of Parliament.
  MR. COURTNEYremarked that the conditions were different.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the conditions were not absolutely identical. But this matter had been investigated by the Law Officers and other gentlemen specially familiar with the subject, and they considered that the precedent of 1824 would be a safe one to follow. But he referred to it rather to illustrate his meaning than to rest his case upon it. The words of the Act of 1870 provided for the payment after notice of the whole sum or any part thereof not less than £500,000 in the manner directed by any Act to be passed. Clearly, therefore, there was reserved to Parliament the freedom of paying off in one sum or not, for that was implied in the words "in manner directed by any Act to be passed." The phrase would have no meaning, and the obligation of paying off not less than £500,000 would not be imposed, if it were necessary to pay off the whole at a given time. In reply to the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), he did not propose to bind the State to what he should consider the dangerous liability of having to pay off the whole of the £40,000,000 on any given day, though he had no doubt that, with the large resources at the disposal of the State and of the banks who would, no doubt, be willing to cooperate, the operation would be perfectly feasible. But it would be a risky undertaking to which he could not pledge himself 12 months in advance. Therefore, he reserved to himself the freedom which he contended was implied in the language of the Act regulating the redeemability of these Stocks—if he might use the word. It was safer not to commit themselves to any definite proposition at the present time, but to leave themselves free to settle the manner by a subsequent Act. He

  533
  quite admitted the force of the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) that it might be desirable to take power to pay off this year as much of the Stock as might be voluntarily offered; but he was bound to say the House had treated him with such confidence and kindness in reference to the Conversion Scheme that he scarcely liked to trespass upon the House with another Bill of the same kind within a very short time. He would, however, consider the point which had been raised. But the cheap Money Market referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was not of such advantage as he could wish. The Treasury might borrow at 1 per cent or 1½ per cent. but only on short loans, and it might be that they would find themselves a year hence in the position of having to redeem those loans on disadvantageous terms.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not in the least suggest that the money should be borrowed for a few weeks or months only; he only pointed out the remarkable state of the Money Market, and that it might be taken advantage of.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that one of the advantages was that Two-and-Three-quarter per Cents stood at 99⅝; but he had been considering in vain how he could avail himself of this cheapness in order to meet the difficulty. On the other hand, too, as his right hon. Friend would see, this very cheapness might make it undesirable for holders of Consols to come in and be paid off, because they might fear that they would be unable to employ their money except at very cheap rates during the interval. Two-and-Three-quarter per Cents stood now very nearly at par, and if it were possible, without any further sacrifice, by any means to induce a large number of Consol-holders to be paid off, it would be a great advantage to the State; but he was not able as yet to say that he would offer better terms—and, as the holders stood out before, it was to be presumed they wanted better terms—he was not prepared to say that he would offer better terms to those who stood out than to those who accepted the previous offer. It was a difficult point; but he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and still more for the extremely kind way in which he had spoken of the Conversion proposed.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said of the cheapness of money, though he seemed to think the state of the Money Market was phenomenal it had really been in the same state for years past at this period, and barring the outbreak of war or any foreign complication, it would probably be on the same footing this time 12 months.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he would not intervene, except that he deemed it right to add a few words in support of the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He quite agreed with the Chairman of Ways and Means that an argument might be raised in regard to the matter; but if the hon. Gentleman had had the opportunity of studying the previous Act, and of seeing how the Schedule came to be inserted, he believed he would come to the same opinion with himself, and which was shared by the Solicitor General and others of the Profession with whom he had considered the point. That view was that it was contemplated in the Act that all holders of Stock should be put upon an equality, and that it was not intended to pick out, in the first instance, holders of £1,000,000 or £500,000 of Stock and say—"We will pay you off by some arbitrary method and leave others as they are." What was intended was that, differing from other Stock, Consolidated Three per Cents could not be paid off except on a year's notice; but when that notice was given, then the stockholders became in the same position as other stockholders, redeemable without any notice at all. The first thing to be done was to take away the bar of one year, and that was intended by the Resolution. Then, if this was the intention of those who drafted the Schedule, the next thing was to provide for the payment; and if it had been intended that in the notice the amount to be paid off should be specified exactly, there would be no reason whatever for the words "or any part thereof," or for the words "in manner directed by any Act to be passed "—it would simply have been necessary to say the amount stated in the notice. His opinion was that it was not contemplated that when the notice was given the whole amount should be paid off at once; but the notice

  535
  was required to make the Stock redeemable at all. Nor could it be maintained that stockholders could say, "You must pay us all off at once or not all," else there would be no object in the reference to the manner in which Parliament might direct and to the limit of £500,000. Bearing in mind the principle that underlay the scheme of payment that the bar of a year's notice should be first removed, the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sustained by his reading of the Act.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had no right to speak again, but he only desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood the meaning of the Act to be that any time in the present year, by giving 12 months' notice, all Consols could be put in a position to be redeemed?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, yes; he thought that was its meaning. It seemed to him that it would have been possible to place the whole of the £400,000,000 Consols and Reduced in that position; but to have done so originally and to have left stockholders in a state of uncertainty, and with the practical possibility of not being able to deal with the matter at all at the end of the 12 months' notice, would have thrown the funds of the country into an inextricable state of confusion. But now, with the great bulk of the Stock put on a permanent footing, and when the amount to be redeemed was reduced to such comparatively small proportions, and when there was a bonâ fide intention of paying it off rapidly in a manner that would cause no inconvenience, as a matter of practical policy the conditions were wholly altered.
  Question put, and agreed to.

MOTIONS.

  RECORDERS, MAGISTRATES, AND CLERICS OF THE PEACE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to make better provision as to the appointment of deputies for Recorders, Stipendiary Magistrates, and Clerks of the Peace, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Matthews and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 320.]

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill for amending the Law relating to Weights and
  536
  Measures, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Baron Henry De Worms.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 321.]

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill for the regulation of the Sea Fisheries of England, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Baron Henry De Worms.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 322.]

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into and report upon the operation of section thirty of 'The Friendly Societies Act, 1875,' as amended by subsequent Acts, and into the organisation or general condition of Societies and Companies to which the said section applies, and to suggest what Amendment of the Law (if any) is required to ensure the better management of such Societies and Companies, and the more complete protection of the interests of their members."
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Fielden, Mr. Norton, Mr. Wootton Isaacson, Mr. Samuel Hoare, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. Howorth, Lord Francis Hervey, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Brown, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Dr. Clark, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Conway, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Jackson.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) (1877) Amendment*(199).
Second Reading—Victoria University (163).
Committee—Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment (No. 2) (138).
Committee—Report—High Courts in India (184).
Report—Liability of Trustees (111–201).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) [51 & 52 Vict. c. 16]; Copyright (Musical Compositions) [51 & 52 Vict. c. 17]; North Sea Fisheries [51 & 52 Vict. c. 18].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Local Government (No. 7) (on re-comm.)* (150–200).
Third Reading—Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 7)* (164); Tramways (No. 2)* (166); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* (179), and passed.
Royal Assent—Local Government (Highways) [51 & 52 Vict. c. lxxii]; Local Government (Port) [51 & 52 Vict. c. lxxiii]; Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets) [51 & 52 Vict. c. lxxxviii]; Local Government (Ireland) (Coleraine, &c.) [51 & 52 Vict c. lxxxix].

IRELAND—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, a rumour has reached me, the authenticity of which I do not know, that we have recovered that freedom of debate on Irish questions which was so seriously questioned the other night by certain noble and learned Lords on account of pending legal proceedings. I do not know whether that rumour is true or
  394
  not; but in the meantime I wish to give Notice that on an early date, to be fixed later, I shall move the following Resolution:—
  "That in the opinion of this House Her Majesty's Government deserves the support of Parliament in securing to the subjects of the Queen in Ireland the full enjoyment of personal freedom in all their lawful transactions, and in protecting them from the coercion of unlawful combinations."

LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.
(The Lord Herschell.)
LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.

  (NO. 111.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL, Amendment made in the title after ("duties") by inserting ("powers").
  Clause 1 (Short title and definition).
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL, Amendment made in page 1, line 6, by leaving out ("except clause 13 thereof"); in line 11, at the end of subsection 3, by adding ("and also an official trustee of charitable funds").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Receipt of money by solicitor as agent).
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL, Amendment made in page 1, line 22, by leaving out ("handing over") and inserting ("producing").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Statute of Limitations may be pleaded by trustees).
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL, Amendment made in page 3, by leaving out Clause 7, and inserting—
  7. (1.)—"In any action or other proceeding against a trustee or any person claiming through him in which the claim is not founded upon any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was party or privy, or is not to recover trust property, or the proceeds thereof, retained or received by the trustee and converted to his use, the following provisions shall apply:—

  (a.) All rights and privileges conferred by any statute of limitations shall be enjoyed in the like manner and to the like extent as they would have been enjoyed in such action or other proceeding if he had not been a trustee:

  (b.) If the action or other proceeding is brought to recover money or other property, and is one to which the preceding provision does not apply, he shall be entitled to the benefit of and be at liberty to plead the lapse of time as a bar to such action or other proceeding in the like manner and to the like extent as if the

  395
  claim had been against him in an action of debt for money had and received, but so nevertheless that the statute shall not be deemed to begin to run against a beneficiary unless and until his interest shall be an interest in possession:

  (2.) This section shall apply only to proceedings commenced after the passing of this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Powers of investment).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that two different objections had been taken to this clause. On the one hand, it was said that it would entail an application to the Court in every case, and on the other, by those interested in Colonial Stocks, that those Stocks might be injuriously affected by the decision of the Judge. There were some Colonial Stocks which were a good security, and others which could not be regarded as such. The difficulty was to find the dividing line. He thought that might be done by providing that the Stock to be invested in should be Stock of the first class in which a trustee might properly invest. Such a provision would act beneficially by reminding Colonial Governments that if their finances were not properly watched over their Stocks might cease to be of the first class. He thought it would be satisfactory to the Colonial Agents, and that the Colonies would feel that it might be in their power by careful finance to make their Stocks of the first class. He begged, therefore, to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, subsection 1, leave out from ("In") in line 39 to ("1875") in line 40 inclusive, and insert ("In nominal or inscribed stock issued by the corporation of any municipal borough, or by any county authority under any Act of Parliament or provisional order authorising the same.")—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)said, that he had been in conversation more than once with the Agents General and other leading men of the Colonies who had taken a great interest in this subject. They all felt, whether their Stocks were likely to be invested in or not, considerable distrust in the proposal that a Court should be allowed to pick out certain Stocks for investment. After full deliberation, he entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord that there ought to be an automatic arrangement by which no Colony should be
  396
  favoured, but the Stocks deserving of trust might be taken up by trustees; and the arrangement proposed appeared to him to secure that the Stocks in which investments might be made would be first-class Stocks.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he would have been glad if the clause had been left in its original form, as he thought the sanction of the Court would have been sufficient to meet almost every case that might arise. He wished to express his thanks to the noble and learned Lord, and the Members of the Committee who worked with him, for the introduction of the Bill. The Bill gave a large amount of relief to trustees, and the only criticism he could possibly pass upon it was that it did not go quite far enough. He was so far Radical in his opinions on this point that he would like to see the appointment of an Official Trustee. However, so far as the Bill went, he was thankful for it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Amendment of National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888).
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL, Clause struck out.
  Clause 12 (Re-enactment of power contained in 23 & 24 Vict. C. 145).
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL. Clause struck out, and the following Clause inserted:—
  (Trustees of renewable leaseholds may renew.)
  "It shall be lawful for any trustees of any leaseholds for lives or years which are renewable from time to time, either under any covenant or contract or by custom or usual practice, if they shall in their discretion think fit, and it shall be the duty of such trustees, if thereunto required by any person having any beneficial interest, present or future or contingent, in such leaseholds, to use their best endeavours to obtain from time to time a renewed lease of the same hereditaments on the accustomed and reasonable terms, and for that purpose it shall be lawful for any such trustees from time to time to make or concur in making such surrender of the lease for the time being subsisting, and to do all such other acts as shall be requisite in that behalf; but this section is not to apply to any case where by the terms of the settlement or will the person in possession for his life or other limited interest is entitled to enjoy the same without any obligation to renew the lease or to contribute to the expense of renewing the same."
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 201.)

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY BILL.—(No. 163.)
(The Lord Herschell.)
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY BILL.—(No. 163.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to enable the University to hold lands in Mortmain, provided they disposed of them within a certain time. The 2nd section would place the Victoria University in the same position as the Universities of Cambridge and London with respect to examinations.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.