Sitting of 16 April 1889

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 1) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
MOTIONS.

  COMMONS REGULATION PROVISIONAL ORDER [AMBERSWOOD].
  On Motion of Mr. Stuart Wortley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order for the regulation of certain lands forming part of Amberswood Common, situate in the Township of Ince-in-Makerfield, in the Parish of Wigan, in the County of Lancaster, in pursuance of a report from the Land Commissioners for England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart Wortley and Mr. Secretary Matthews.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 200.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 6).
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Calne and Chippenham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 201.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7).
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Aberavon and Kingston-upon-Hull, the Local Government Districts of Bingley and Cuckfield, and the Faversham Joint Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 202.]

  PRISON RULES INQUIRY.
  Copy ordered,
  "Of a Letter to Lord Aberdare relating to the inquiry into a certain portion of the Prison Rules."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.]
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 117.]

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS (1889) COST.
  Ordered, That there be laid before the House—
  "Return showing, with respect to each administrative County in England and Wales,—

  (1.) The total number of electoral Divisions;

  (2.) The names of the Electoral Divisions in which the Elections of County Councillors were c ontested, and with respect to each of those Divisions, the number of County Electors on the Register and the total number of Votes polled. The Elections to supply vacancies caused by the election of Councillors Aldermen to be separately shown;

  (3.) The total number of County Electors on the Register for the County;

  (4) The total cost of the elections chargeable on the County Rate.—(Mr. T. Ellis.)

  BOUNTIES.
  Ordered, That there be laid before the House—
  "Address for Return showing the various Countries giving Bounties, the various items upon which Bounties are paid in each country, and the amounts."— (Mr. Blundell Maple.)

QUESTIONS.

  ZULULAND—MR. FANNIN.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Fannin, one of the three members of the Special Court of Inquiry in Zululand, has had any legal training whatever; and whether he was employed as a Government surveyor in laying off the area of Zibebu's location in 1883?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): Mr. Fannin does not appear to have been a professional lawyer, but he has had six years' experience as a magistrate and administrator of native law. He was employed in 1883 as stated in the hon. Member's question.

  ZIBEBU.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the officials at Etshowe have refused to arrest Zibebu, who is now recovered from his accident; and whether the Government are aware that, while Ndabuko and Dinuzulu have throughout been kept in close imprisonment, Zibebu has been, and still is, left perfectly free to ride about the country, and consort with the officials at Etshowe as a favoured person, although charged with the murder of the Chief Msutshwana, in a raid which the Zulu Chiefs now on trial point to as the cause of their taking up arms against Zibebu?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Governor, on the 4th of February, reported that Zibebu was kept in arrest at Etshowe. The Secretary of State has no information confirmatory of the suggestions contained in the hon. Member's question.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS IN DONEGAL—THE BATTERING RAM.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cost of the battering ram recently obtained from Alexander Brown, of Derry, by the Donegal Constabulary; of the shields made at Patterson's in Derry; and of the pickaxes and other eviction apparatus obtained at Crockett's in that city?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): There would appear to be some inaccuracies in the question in regard to the firms from whom the articles were obtained. But I am informed that the total cost of the articles required was £48 18s. 2½d.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to know if any reply has been sent to the telegram sent yesterday to the Irish Office by certain Members of Parliament who had been visiting the scene of the evictions at Falcarragh; and, who asked to be permitted to inspect the battering ram, in order to see that full value was given for the money expended upon it?
  MR. MADDEN: That does not arise out of the question upon the paper; but I have no information upon the subject.
  Subsequently,
  MR. SEXTON: As I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his place I wish to put a question to him which the Solicitor General for Ireland was unable to answer. I wish to know whether any reply has been sent to the telegrams of certain Members of Parliament requesting permission to inspect the battering ram at Falcarragh?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I did receive a telegram, but I did not think that it required any answer. It was not in the terms suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to enable Members of Parliament to see this engine?
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to allow us to look at this battering ram during the holidays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there is any objection to allow hon. Members to see it, but I should not like to answer the question off-hand.

  MITIGATION OF SENTENCE.
  MR. HENRY PEASEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he had received a numerously signed petition, asking for a mitigation of the sentence passed upon James Wotton, of Skelton, in Cleveland, aged about 16 years, for

  601
  an assault upon a girl aged 13; and whether he is prepared to mitigate his term of imprisonment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I have received such a petition. I have examined the depositions in this case, and am unable to discover any grounds which would justify me in advising interference with the sentence, which is not, in my opinion, too severe.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was prepared to give a list of railway companies to which an extension of time has been given to put in their schedules of maximum rates, with the period in each case for which such extension has been allowed?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes, Sir; I will lay it on the Table.

  THE WELSH SUNDAY CLOSING COMMISSION.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would give an assurance that at least one member of the Royal Commission to inquire into the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, as well as the secretary to such Commission, should be persons conversant with the Welsh language?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not prepared to give any such definite assurance. Acquaintance with the Welsh language is no doubt desirable, but does not appear to me an essential accomplishment for the members of the Commission.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: If not necessary, is it not desirable?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Probably it may be desirable, and I have no doubt that it will he done.

  WRITERS IN THE LIVERPOOL CUSTOMS.
  MR. JOHN KELLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a petition had recently been received by the Treasury for the writers in the Liverpool Customs asking for the application in their case of the special
  602
  rate of 1s. per hour instead of 10d., the present rate; whether this concession was recommended by the Liverpool Custom House Authorities; whether the petition had been refused; whether, since it was presented, steps had been taken to withdraw the writers from the more important seats at Liverpool, and in one case a writer of 16 years' service had been superseded by a clerk with 10 years' less service; and whether the Treasury would re-consider the claims advanced in the cases of all the applicants of long and approved service?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. L. JACKSON,): The matter is under consideration, but I prefer not to enter into details.

  MERTHYR TYDVIL COUNTY COURT.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthy Tydvil)asked the First Commissioner of Works if he was aware of the great pecuniary loss suffered by suitors, and the inconvenience caused to Judge, Registrar, and legal profession, in consequence of the deficient public accommodation for the transaction of County Court business at Merthyr Tydvil; whether he had received a copy of resolutions, passed unanimously at a public meeting held at Merthyr on 20th March last, presided over by the High Constable, and at which the Registrar was present, condemning the inadequacy of the County Court accommodation in that town; whether he had received a memorial bearing on the same matter from the Merthyr Chamber of Trade; whether his attention had been called to the strong opinion expressed by Judge Williams on the subject while sitting in the place now used for the transaction of County Court business (as reported in the Merthyr Express newspaper); and, whether he could give an assurance that a suitable hall and offices would be provided for the Judge and Registrar to fulfil their respective duties, as has been provided in other towns of less importance?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): As to the four first paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, I am aware that complaints have been made of the deficient accommodation for the public in Merthyr Tydvil. I have received various communications on the subject, and the matter is now under

  603
  the consideration of the Government. I may, however, point out that for many years it has not been the policy of the Government to supply special buildings for County Courts, but that advantage is taken of such public buildings as exist in a town. This we are entitled to do under the County Court Acts of 1851 and 1888.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Merthyr Tydvil there is no public building suitable for the purpose?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have said that the matter is under consideration. If there is no public building in the town to a certain extent, it would be our duty to provide accommodation.

  THE LOSS OF THE SULTAN.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would lay upon the Table the notes of the evidence given at the recent court martial on Captain Rice, in connection with the loss of the Sultan; and whether the Lords of the Admiralty had telegraphed to the Duke of Edinburgh, requesting him to return from Malta to England overland, in order that a Court of Inquiry respecting the salvage operations after the Sultan was stranded might be opened as soon as possible?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I do not propose to depart from the usual procedure by laying the minutes of the recent Sultan court martial on the Table of the House. The statement referred to in the latter part of the question is quite unfounded.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I ask the noble Lord whether, if I move for the evidence given at the court martial, he will oppose the Motion?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Certainly.

  THE CONVICT ELIZABETH NUTT.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of five years' penal servitude passed upon Elizabeth Nutt as an accomplice after the fact in the crime of John Withey; and whether, having regard to the woman's age and other circumstances, especially that she apparently acted from no corrupt or interested motive in trying to screen
  604
  the criminal, he will take the case into his favourable consideration with a view to a material reduction of the sentence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to this case. The woman Nutt did her best to screen a cruel murder and prevent detection, and it is much too soon to take her sentence into consideration.

  IRELAND — RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a new rule had been made that Resident Magistrates were only to remain for five years at one station; whether this rule would be applied universally; and, if not, on what grounds exceptions would be made; how many magistrates had served for more than five years at one station, and had not been removed; and how many, under the same circumstances, had been removed?
  MR. MADDEN: There is no rule which implies that Resident Magistrates are to remain for any fixed period at one station. But the fact of a Resident Magistrate having been more than five years at one station renders his case liable for consideration for transfer.
  MR. CHANNING: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. MADDEN: I have already stated that there is no rule of the kind. I have not yet had time to obtain special information; but if, after my statement that there is no such rule the hon. Member asks for further information, I shall be glad to get it.

  SCARLATINA.
  MR. FOLEY (Galway, Connemara)asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the Inspector of National Schools in the district of Roundstone had reported to the Commissioners of National Education the severe outbreak of scarlatina from which the school children of that district were now suffering; and if any steps would be taken by the Local Government Board to authorise the Clifden Board of Guardians to import pure lime from the Arran Islands to be distributed amongst the poor for the purpose of disinfecting their dwellings?
  MR. MADDEN: The Commissioners of National Education report that they

  605
  understand that there have been some cases of scarlatina in some of the villages in the district of Roundstone. The Local Government Board have up to the present not received any notification in the matter; but will make inquiry. The Guardians of the Union, however, have, as the sanitary authority, full power in themselves to have houses disinfected, and to obtain lime for the purpose from any place which the necessities of the case may require.

  RATHMORE PETTY SESSIONS. ALLEGED EXCESSIVE SENTENCE.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he was aware that at Rathmore, County Kerry, Petty Sessions, on Thursday, 11th instant, before Mr. Leonard, J.P., who was agent to the Kenmare Estate, and Mr. M'Dermott, RM., two men, Daniel O'Keefe and John Moynihan, were charged "with forming part of a disorderly crowd and cheering the Plan of Campaign," and were sent to gaol for six months in default of giving bail; was there any evidence of disorder other than cheering as above mentioned; had his attention been called to the evidence of the two police witnesses, to the effect that the defendants called for "cheers for the Plan of Campaign and William O'Brien," and to the evidence of the witnesses for the defendants to the effect that these men were members of the Rathmore Football Club, calling themselves "Blackwater Campaigners," and that having won a football match there were cheers called for and given for the "Black wall Campaigners"; and, whether, taking the circumstances into account, he would cause inquiry to be made into the case, with a view to the remission or reduction of this sentence?
  MR. MADDEN: This question has been put down upon the Paper without sufficient notice. I must request, therefore, that it he postponed.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not possible to communicate by telegraph? This man has been sent to prison for six months for simply cheering on his return from a football match, and am I to understand—
  MR. MADDEN: With every assistance of the telegraph it is absolutely impossible to obtain information in detail in a matter of this kind within a
  606
  short time. It is a matter over which I have no control.
  MR. SEXTON: Then, in the course of the next fortnight, will nothing be done to reverse the extraordinary judgment in this case?
  MR. MADDEN: As no information has yet been received, I cannot answer the question.

  LORD ASHBOURNE'S ACT.
  MR. BLANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he was aware that after Mr. John Heaney, a tenant on the estate of Lord Lurgan, had signed an agreement for purchase under Lord Ashbourne's Act, Lord Lurgan proceeded against him for arrears of rent, and obtained a decree from Judge Kisbey at Lurgan; that Mr. Heaney appealed from this decision, and got the decree altered by reduction of the amount in the Superior Court, but that Lord Lurgan proceeded to evict the tenant under the original County Court decree which the learned Baron had set aside on appeal; and that Mr. John Heaney resisted the execution of the decree appealed against and set aside by Superior Court; whether the County Court Judge, Mr. Kisbey, whose decree was set aside, sentenced Mr. Heaney, and others found in his house, to a term of imprisonment, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for resisting the decree set aside; and if the Government would consider whether, under the circumstances, they would terminate the imprisonment of the tenant and others sentenced?
  MR. MADDEN: In this case, also the Notice of the question given has been insufficient. It has been absolutely impossible to obtain in a satisfactory manner the information necessary to enable me to answer the question.

  THE LEICESTER TEMPERANCE SOCIETY AND THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. PICTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention had been called to a memorial addressed by the Leicester Temperance and General Permanent Building Society, in January last, to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; whether he was aware that, while 95 per cent of the members of this society were in humble circumstances and not liable to income tax, the Board of Inland

  607
  Revenue insist either on charging the tax, in order to return it, or on making the society collect the tax from the five per cent of members who were liable; whether he had considered the amount of trouble, expense, and friction that must be caused in either case to a society promotive of thrift among the poor; and whether, in view of his statement in the analogous case of cooperative stores, that, "when the shareholders in any such stores are notoriously all, or almost all, persons of an income less than £150, it would not only not be a gain, but would be a positive loss to the Revenue to levy a tax nearly all of which has to be returned," he would cause the memorial of the Leicester Society to be re-considered, with a view to a more favourable answer than had yet been received?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me time to obtain information upon the matter, so as to enable me to answer the question.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  MR. HOYLEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if, where Foreign Governments give bounties on the export of sugar, the article has at some point in its passage from the fields to the port of shipment paid Excise Duty; and, if so, is the bounty a drawback on its leaving the country of origin, or does the bounty exceed in amount the sum which the owner is out of pocket; and, if so, what is the percentage of excess, and does it arise from new processes in sugar refining since the Excise Duties were originally fixed?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to the hon. Member I have to say that one form of bounty is the repayment of duty on the exportation of sugar in the nature of drawback. The other is the bonification of the actual duty paid, plus the amount which has not been paid by the exporter, but which is calculated on the difference between the actual and the legal yield of beet. The percentage of excess of the actual over the legal yield varies in different countries and in different circumstances, and may, in part, arise from new processes in sugar refining.

  THE ORDINANCE SURVEY.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the practice and rule of the Ordinance Survey Department was to survey districts with a town population of not less than 4,000 on the 1–500 scale; whether he was aware that the Mountain Ash Local Board district, now containing a town population of over 12,000, had only been surveyed on the 1–2,500 scale; and if he could state when the survey of that district upon the larger scale would be undertaken?
  MR. PLUNKET: The question only appeared on the paper this morning, and I have not had time to obtain information. If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the question after the holidays I shall be glad to answer it.

  IRELAND—THE COMMISSION ON PRISON RULES.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the terms of the reference to the Royal Commission on the subject of the Prison Rules?
  MR. SEXTONalso asked the Chief Secretary if he would name the fifth Member of the Prison Treatment Commission, and state precisely the terms of the instructions to the Commission, and indicate its procedure, as to time and place of sittings, and examination of witnesses?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he proposed to lay on the Table, and to circulate at once, a copy of a letter to Lord Aberdare, stating the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the subject of prison rules. Besides Lord Aberdare, he had asked Mr. William Wyatt, the well-known Essex magistrate, to join the Commission. He believed the names of Lord Aberdare and Mr. Wyatt were well calculated to command confidence in Ireland and Scotland, and also to give effect to the wish that the Corn mission should be, as far as possible-removed from the domain of controversial politics.
  MR. SEXTON: Is Mr. Wyatt a gentleman in whom the people of Ireland will have confidence? I certainly never heard of him before.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If we had chosen some well-known public man who had been actively engaged in controversy, the conditions under which the Commission was to be appointed would hardly have been fulfilled.

  THE EDUCATION CODE, 1889.
  MR. SCHWANNasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he would publish the instructions to the inspectors before asking the House to pass the New Code?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (SIR W. HART DYKE,): I can only repeat the reply which I gave a few days ago to the hon. Gentleman's colleague, that I have considered the subject with great care, and see no reason to depart from what has been the uniform practice of the Department on previous occasions, to submit the Code for the consideration of Parliament, and when it has passed to frame the instructions upon it.

  LAKE NYASSA.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information as to the truth of a Reuter's telegram from Lisbon, which asserted that, as the result of Lieutenant Cardosa's mission, nine Native chiefs on the banks of Lake Nyassa had placed themselves under Portuguese protection; and, if it be true, whether the Government had taken steps to protest against the extension of the Portuguese sphere of influence towards the centre of Africa over regions discovered and opened up by British enterprize?
  MR. BUCHANANalso asked whether it is a fact that Lieutenant Cardosa's expedition had returned to Quilimane from Lake Nyassa; whether it was a fact, as officially announced in Lisbon, that nine native chiefs on the shores of Lake Nyassa had placed themselves under Portuguese rule; and whether Her Majesty's Government would continue to decline to recognize any such assumption of territorial sovereignty by Portugal beyond the Ruo River or in the region of Lake Nyassa?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): We have no official information to the effect stated. I cannot add anything to the statements I have already made of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to British interests in the Nyassa region.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to give notice that on the earliest opportunity I will call attention to the subject.

  IRELAND—FATHER M'FADDEN.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether during the month of March two telegrams were addressed to Father M'Fadden while he was in the custody of the Government; whether one of these telegrams was from Father Collins, P.P., Rathmullan, and written in the Latin language, and the other from Father O'Donnell, C.C., Rathmullan, and written in the Irish language; and whether these telegrams were delivered to Father M'Fadden; and, if not, why they were retained by the officials?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not received the information that will enable me to answer the question. I may add that there are three or four questions which only appeared on the Paper to-day.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it possible to obtain the information before the close of the proceedings to-day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is possible. I have telegraphed to Dublin for information in all these cases; but I have not yet received it.

  EVICTED FARMS.
  DR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was aware that Patrick Donovan, of Castleventry, Rosscarberry, county Cork, was recently evicted from his farm; that since Donovan's eviction the farm had been in charge of an emergency man guarded by two policemen; that on the morning of Tuesday, the 2nd instant the emergency man in charge left Donovan's farm with his police guard; that the latter returned that evening without the emergency man, or any substitute for him, and took sole charge of farm till the night of Thursday, the 4th instant, when they were relieved by two other

  611
  policemen, who then remained in sole charge till the night of Friday, the 5th instant, when an emergency - man, guarded as before by two policemen, was again placed in charge of farm; whether it was the custom to allow policemen to take sole charge of evicted farms as in this case; and whether he would inquire into the matter; and, if he finds the facts are as above stated, he will give directions that policemen shall not in future be so employed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to this question must also remain over.

  SMALL-POX AT SHEFFIELD.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the great importance of the subject treated of, the Government would furnish a copy of Dr. Barry's Report on the outbreak of small-pox at Sheffield to the Medical Officers of Health throughout the country?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Board cannot undertake to supply all the Medical Officers of Healh throughout the country with copies of the Report referred to; but they are in communication with the Treasury with a view to a number of copies being placed at the Board's disposal for the purpose of distributing them among those persons who have rendered assistance in the inquiry, or to whom the Report will be of chief value.

  RIOTING IN BRITISH GUIANA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could give any further information as to the reported rioting in Georgetown, British Guiana; and whether there were at the time any Imperial troops stationed in the colony; and, if so, whether he can state why the troops were not called out when the police were unable to cope with the rioters?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Rioting occurred in Georgetown on the 19th and 20th of March; it seems to have arisen out of an assault by a Portuguese upon a negro boy, and an unfounded report that the boy had been killed. A mob of negroes attacked the Portuguese
  612
  and broke into and plundered their shops and stores. Special constables were sworn in, and a company of volunteers were called in to assist the police, but the riot was not quelled until the Governor authorized the magistrates to order the police to fire upon persons found breaking into or plundering houses or shops. No firing actually took place. One life was lost from a bayonet wound, and many of the police and special constables and of the rioters were injured. There are Imperial troops in the colony; but it was not found necessary to call them out. The police, with the aid of the special constables and volunteers, succeeded in coping with the rioters.

  IRELAND—RATHMORE PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. GILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was aware that Mr. Maurice Leonard, J.P., who, at Rathmore (county Kerry) Petty Sessions on Thursday last sentenced a man to six months' imprisonment for cheering Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., as Agent for the Kenmare Estate, gave evidence against Mr. O'Brien at Tralee the day before, and announced the refusal of the Trustees of the Kenmare Estate to accept the arbitration of the County Court Judge; and whether he would take steps to prevent magistrates from adjudicating on matters in which they have a direct personal interest, and which are connected with the estates under their control?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet received information.
  MR. SEXTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, without the necessity for an application to Ireland, whether this Gentleman is agent for the Kenmare Estate, or not, and whether he ought to have adjudicated in such a case?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not like to answer an abstract question in the absence of specific information from Ireland.

  TREATMENT OF MR. W. O'BRIEN M. P.
  MR. CRILLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would see that the Report and Evidence in the case of the inquiry into the treatment of Mr.

  613
  William O'Brien, M.P., in Clonmel Prison, was circulated without delay.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report and Evidence in the case of the inquiry into the prison treatment of Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., was laid upon the Table yesterday, and, I have no doubt, will be circulated forthwith by the Stationery Department, with whom the matter rests.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT IN WELSH.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board what was the reason for the long delay in the publication of the Welsh version of the Local Government Act?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Welsh translation of the Local Government Act is complete, and the whole of it is in type, and the proofs are with the translator for revision. I will press for the revision being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. The delay in the publication probably arises from the difficulty of printing the Welsh language.

  IRELAND—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can hold out any hope to the tenant farmers of County Louth that a Court to fix fair rents will be held in Dundalk at an early date?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information.

  PRISON LABOUR.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the general effect of the decision of the Irish Prisons Board upon the case referred to them at the instance of Mr. Sheehy with regard to prison labour?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The suggestion contained in the question on the Paper is of so vague a character that I do not know what answer to make. Will the right hon. Gentleman supplement the question by an explanation?
  MR. SEXTON: Two versions have appeared in the Press, one of which is that the Prisons Board have decided that a prisoner who pays for his diet is not liable to prison labour, and the other is that he is not liable to perform manual offices.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a provision in the prison regulations by which a prisoner on paying for his diet escapes certain work.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the exemption refer to all prison labour?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My belief is that it applies to all prison labour, excepting of course the cases of those who are sentenced to hard labour.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it optional with a prisoner or not?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand so.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will all prisoners who have not been sentenced to hard labour have the advantage of the rule?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing further to say than was conveyed in the answer I gave last week.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: But that has not reached the prisoners.
  MR. CLANCY: Have the prisoners who are in prison in Belfast Gaol for disgraceful frauds, and who are said to be walking about the prison in tall silk hats and long coats, the advantage of this rule?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about that.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not a standing regulation of the Prisons Board that all the rules shall be hung up in the cells?
  No answer.

  MR. CAREW, M.P.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he had observed the report published in the Belfast Morning News of the 12th instant, as to the state of health of Mr. Carew, M.P., in Belfast Gaol; and whether he had any communication to make to the House on the subject?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Surgeon of the Prison reports that there is nothing in Mr. Carew's condition of health to cause anxiety.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it intended that Mr. Carew shall serve out his full sentence?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose so.

  ROYAL GRANTS.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury when he will state the terms of the proposed reference to the Committee on Royal Grants?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I informed the hon. and learned Member on the 18th of March, that I did not think it possible or desirable to place on the Paper the terms of the reference to the Committee until I saw some chance of being able to proceed with it. I must add it is not a matter of urgency, as there is no immediate intention to apply to the House for a grant which would come within the definition given by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian; but as soon as I have any reasonable hope of being able to proceed with the Motion, which I understand the hon. and learned Member intends to oppose, I will not only put it on the Paper, but I will also give him full notice personally of the terms of such reference.

  SHIPS WITHOUT GUNS.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. TANNER), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is a fact that the Howe and Galatea at Portsmouth, the Australia and Narcissus at Chatham, and the Aurora at Devonport are lying by, being unprovided with guns?
  An hon. MEMBER: Before the noble Lord replies to the question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order for an hon. Member to put down questions on the Paper time after time, and not take the trouble to attend here for the purpose of putting them?
  *MR. SPEAKER: As a point of order the hon. Gentleman is entitled to put a question which stands in the name of another hon. Member, but it is only respectful to the House that the hon. Gentleman who gives notice of a question should attend here and put it, unless he is unavoidably prevented from doing so.
  MR. SEXTON: My hon. Friend is unavoidably absent.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: As the Return moved for by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone will shortly be issued, I will ask the hon. Member to wait for this Return, which will give fuller particulars as to the subject generally than I can compress into an answer to his question. The dates on which it is anticipated that the War Office will have completed the
  616
  necessary proofs of the guns for the ships named in the question are respectively 30th June, 31st August, 31st May, 20th June, 31st October of the present year.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (for Dr. TANNER)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any steps were being, or would be, taken to create and organize the necessary dockyard staff at Haulbowline; and whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to import or to employ local skilled artificers?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: As I have frequently stated before, the Admiralty do not intend to set up a large dockyard establishment at Haulbowline. Measures will be taken to provide a staff sufficient for any casual work that from time to time the wants of the service or the facilities of the locality may require to be undertaken there.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Has the money voted last year for the purchase of machinery at these docks been expended, and if so, what use is to be made of it?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot answer the question offhand, but I imagine that the principal part of the money has been expended.

  IRELAND—CHARGES AGAINST A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNYasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to charges against Mr. Samuel M'Keown, a Justice of the Peace for County Tyrone; if he is aware that Mr. M'Keown, on Saturday, 12th February, 1889, endeavoured to compel the Head Constable of Omagh to liberate one Anderson, who was in custody on a charge of being drunk while in charge of a horse and cart; that upon the refusal of the Head Constable to comply, Mr. M'Keown asked Mr. Devlin, J.P., to accompany him to the police barracks for the purpose of securing Anderson's liberation; and that Mr. Devlin, upon ascertaining the facts of the case, declined to interfere; if the District Inspector was subsequently appealed to, who also declined to release Anderson; if the police have been questioned as to the state Mr. M'Keown was in at the time of this

  617
  occurrence; if other complaints have been addressed from time to time to the Lord Chancellor against Mr. M'Keown; and if a full inquiry will be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that a complaint of the nature indicated in the first part of the question was made to the Lord Chancellor against Mr. M'Keown, J.P., and his Lordship at once called upon him for an explanation, and he has not acted at Petty Sessions pending the result of the correspondence. His Lordship also made inquiries into the circumstances of the case, and the matter is now under his consideration. No other complaint was made to the Lord Chancellor against Mr. M'Keown, except the one referred to on a former occasion by the hon. Member who puts this question.

  EDUCATION—SCHOOL INSTRUCTION IN THRIFT AND INSURANCE.
  MR. HUBBARDasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention had been drawn to the paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee on National Provident Insurance (August 1887), in which they record their opinion that instruction in sound principles of thrift and insurance should form part of the education now made compulsory by the Legislature; that an elementary text book in the principles of provident insurance (such as is recommended by Mr. Sutton in 1885 and Mr. H. S. Tremenheere in 1887) might be comprised in a few pages, introduced by the Education Department into the routine of elementary schools; and, by sapping the the evils of improvidence and imprudent investment, prove of infinite advantage to the whole mass of the population; and if the Education Department had taken, or would take, any steps for giving effect to these recommendations?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: My attention has been called to the paragraph in question, and the Department have long since anticipated one of the suggestions by recommending the establishment of school savings banks wherever possible. I am not aware of the existence of any text book on the subject that usefully fulfils the conditions of a school reading book, but if such a book were produced the Department would place no difficulty in the way of its adoption by school
  618
  managers in lieu of one of the ordinary reading books.

  IRELAND—THE CONSTABLE LEAHY TAX.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) I wish to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if he had been made aware of the recent proceedings at the Fermoy Petty Sessions on Monday, 8th instant, in connection with summonses issued for the amount of the Constable Leahy tax, in which a number of decrees were granted against respectable traders for amounts varying from 3s. 3d. upwards; why, and on what principle, was £1 costs given in each case, this being a house to house collection; whether the severance of the town of Fermoy, under the 206th section of "The Public Health Act, 1878," exempts it from the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury Collectors; and whether, in the collection of this cess, the salaries of the County Treasurer, Secretary, and other officials are included as being applotted on the township, seeing that these salaries are exempted by "The Fermoy Provisional Order, 1886;" and, if these salaries are not included, how is the assessment of nearly 4d. in the pound accounted for, the valuation of the township being £9,960? I wish to add that my hon. Friend is not absent from any wish to be disrespectful to the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I made that reservation in reply to the question put to me by an hon. Member, because it is quite possible for an hon. Member to be unavoidably absent.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I was only anxious to explain that my hon. Friend is absent out of no disrespect to the House whatever.
  MR. MADDEN: My attention has been called to the proceedings by the question, and I am informed that, though the decrees were granted on the 9th inst, the Magistrates suspended the issue of the warrants for a fortnight in order to enable Counsel's opinion to be taken—the defendant's solicitor having questioned the legality of the levy. I have, however, no information as to the amounts for which the decrees were granted. The costs are in the discretion of the Magistrates, and I cannot state the reasons which influenced their

  619
  decision. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to say the severance of the town of Fermoy referred to in the question does not exempt it from the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury collectors, in the event of the Town Commissioners not paying to the County Treasurer the amount mentioned in the certificate of the Secretary of the Grand Jury within one month from its delivery. The salaries referred to in the question are not included in the amount certified by the Secretary and applotted on the Township.

  DISTURBANCE IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary, in view of the fact that the Judge Advocate General had quashed a sentence passed by a court martial upon a constable charged with committing an assault in police barracks, county Tipperary, whether he would make an inquiry into the sentence passed upon civilians by civil Courts for offences arising out of the same incident; and whether he would, if the circumstances were the same, give instructions that the civil sentences should also be quashed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to make any inquiries that may be necessary; but I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Member's quesoffhand.

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could fix a day for the promised Debate in May on the Treasury Minute relating to perpetual pensions?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware that a large number of persons take very great interest in this question, and I am desirous of giving them full opportunity for expressing their opinions upon it, but it must depend on the progress of business. The hon. Member may rest assured that if there is any delay in the discussion of a question in which he takes great interest, the subject itself, from his own point of view, will not be prejudiced, as no action can be taken on the Minute.
  DR. CLARK (Caithness): May I point out that we allowed the Government to get the Order on the understanding—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is not a question.
  DR. CLARK: Then I will ask a question. Was it not the case that the Order, which is equal to an Act of Parliament, was obtained last Session on the promise that upon an early day there should be a full discussion on the question?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir. I think the hon. Gentleman has taken an absolutely incorrect view of the matter. The Order is not an Act of Parliament in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman speaks, and the Government have undertaken that it shall not be put in operation until the House has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Therefore, the engagement of the Government has been absolutely complied with.
  DR. CLARK: In the case of a Treasury Minute having laid for 40 days on the Table of this House, has it not the same effect as an Order in Council?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: In this case, no.

  THE SCOTCH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  DR. CAMERON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed to proceed with the Scotch Local Government Bill on the 2nd May?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid it will not be in the power of the Government to do so on that day, and I think such a step would probably not be desired by the Scotch Members themselves. The Bill will be proceeded with at the earliest possible date after the 2nd May.

MOTIONS.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Francis Powell, Bill to amend the Law relating to Elementary Education, and to exempt Elementary Schools in the receipt of Parliamentary Grants from the payment of Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Francis Powell, Mr. de Lisle, Mr. Harry Davenport, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Howorth, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Byron Reed, and Mr. John Talbot.
  Bill presented, and read first time.—[Bill 203.

  COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Channing, Bill to enable Women to be elected and to act as County

  621
  Councillors, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Baron Dimsdale, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Firth, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Walter M'Laren, and Mr. Bernard Coleridge.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 204.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Resolutions [April 15] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS.

  TEA.
  (1.) "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland that is to say): on—
  Tea — the pound. Sixpence:"

  INCOME TAX.
  2. "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the year which commenced on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say):—
  For every Twenty Shillings of tho annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A), (C), (D), or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Six Pence;
  And for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act,—
  In England, the Duty of Three Pence;
  In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of Two' Pence Farthing;
  Subject to the provisions contained in section one hundred and sixty-three of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, for the exemption of persons whose income is less than One Hundred and Fifty Pounds, and in section eight of The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1876,' for the relief of persons whose income is less than Four Hundred Pounds."

  BEER DUTY.
  (3.) "That the Duty of Excise imposed by Section eleven of 'The Inland Revenue Act, 1880,' and the Duty of Customs imposed by Section three of The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881,' in respect of Beer by relation to Worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-seven degrees, shall be charged, collected, levied, and paid in respect of Beer by relation to Worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, and that the said Acts shall be read and construed as if the gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees were therein substituted for the gravity of one thousand and fifty-seven
  622
  degrees wherever such last-mentioned gravity is therein referred to.
  "And that the charge of Duty in respect of Beer shall extend to Berlin White Beer and other preparations, whether fermented or not fermented, of a character similar to Mum, Spruce, or Black Beer."

AMENDMENT OF LAW OF CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE.
(4.) "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue."
Resolutions agreed to
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £38,244, 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, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Courtney, the first item here relates to the Department of the Lord Chancellor. Personally, I think the Lord Chancellor receives a great deal too much money. He receives £6,000 per annum as a Judge—I believe he has nothing to do—and he receives £4,000 a year for presiding over the House of Lords, in which capacity he does very little, and where what he really does do is pernicious. We keep a vast number of officials attached to the House of Lords, whose duty it appears to be to maintain a species of state in connection with the Lord Chancellor. There are the Black Rod, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, the Serjeant at Arms, all of whom have higher salaries than officers of the same rank in the House of Commons. The Serjeant at Arms attends on the Lord Chancellor. He is a kind of private Serjeant at Arms, for his duties are entirely connected with the Lord Chancellor. I think we ought to move the reduction of the Vote by the whole of his salary—["Hear, hear!"]—but I have put

    623
    down a notice to move to reduce it by £500 only. As, however, my Friends consider I am too moderate, I will move to reduce the Vote by £1,500. It really is preposterous that £1,500—a very large salary in comparison with the salaries paid to some eminent men in the public service—should be paid to this gentleman, who appears to me to do very inferior work—I might almost call it menial work—about the person of the Lord Chancellor.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries of £5,545, be reduced by £1,500, the Salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms in attendance on the Lord Chancellor."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. PICTON: I anticipated we should be told, and we may yet be told, that in connection with a high office like that of Lord Chancellor, it is necessary to maintain a certain amount of becoming state. I admit there must be some sort of outward sign of dignity about the Lord Chancellor, but I have seen ceremonials, with gorgeous flunkies arrayed in vestments which astonished all beholders and impressed the multitude with the dignity of the officials they surrounded, and I do not think they cost anything like £1,500 a year. It is all very well to argue in favour of becoming state, but there ought not to be any wastefulness. There have come down to us from by-gone times many offices which were thought necessary then, but which are quite unsuited to the present age. We protest against their continuance. If we could receive a promise that there is an intention to do away with this piece of extravagance there would be something for us to go upon. Do not let hon. Gentlemen reproach us with being indifferent to becoming dignity and state, and all that kind of kind. We quite admit the necessity of it, but we do protest that this Sergeant-at-Arms at a salary of £1,500 a year is simply a relic of a by-gone age that has, so far as I can understand, no application whatever to the present day. If his presence is only to maintain the dignity and state of the Lord Chancellor, we maintain that his salary is, at least, seven times too high. I heartily support the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    MR. H. GARDNER: This is not the first time this
    624
    subject has been referred to. I am sorry not to see the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) here, because last year he took part in the debate upon this Vote. The noble Lord pointed out that the expenses of the services of the two Houses of Parliament were far too high —they amounted to £120,000 a year—and the First Lord of the Treasury promised to take into consideration the desirability of appointing a Joint Committee of the two Houses to consider the subject. I want to know from the First Lord what has become of that promise. Was it merely made for the purpose of stopping debate and hurrying through the Estimates, or was the measure seriously contemplated?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Srand,): The hon. Gentleman asks me whether there was any serious intention in the promise to look into the matter. There was a serious intention to deal with the question, and at the end of last Session I entered into communication with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the view of arriving at an understanding, whereby a Joint Committee might be satisfactorily appointed. The Recess intervened, and it is in no way due to any action on the part of the Government that the Joint Committee has not been appointed. A Committee of the House of Lords has, however, gone carefully into the salaries and expenditure of that House,. and has drawn up a scheme by which considerable prospective reduction will be effected in the charges of that House. I confidently expect that as vacancies occur from time to time in the offices, they will be filled up with a due regard to economy. But if there is still a desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite for a Joint Committee, there will be no indisposition on the part of the House of Lords to arrive at a settlement of the question,. so far as they are concerned.
    MR. BIGGAR: In theory a general promise that reform will take place at some future date, is more or less satisfactory, but what occurs in practice is that whenever a vacancy occurs, there is some official who claims by prescription or otherwise, to have a right to the office, and by what some people outside would call a job, or by

    625
    what, perhaps, the First Lord of the Treasury would call the necessity of the case, the office is filled up at the full salary. Under the circumstances the Committee ought to mark its sense of the retention of these sinecure offices. I suppose that what the Lord Chancellor requires is simply a crier with a livery upon him, but surely it is not necessary to pay such an official a salary of £1,500 a year.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I hope I may be allowed to supplement what my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) has said in answer to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Biggar). If the hon. Member can point to a single instance in which a sinecure has been filled up, he will have made good his case. But he has not referred to a single case where, during the last two years, any office that can be properly described as a sinecure has been filled up by the present Government. It has been attempted by the present Government to abolish all sinecures, and they have been successful in abolishing a great many. The hon. Member also says these are the usual answers made by the Government, but that as soon as a place becomes vacant pressure is brought to bear, and the old system is reverted to. But what are the facts? My right hon. Friend told the House last year that a Committee was considering the whole question of the expenditure in connection with these offices. That Committee went into the question most carefully. We had to consider, on the one hand, what arrangements to make to prevent injustice being done to individuals, even though it might promote what might appear to be economy to the State. On the other hand, we had to consider the very distinct declaration made by the House last year. I think the Committee ought to be satisfied if the Government are able to show that as vacancies occur, no new appointments are made without the most careful and full consideration of the requirements of the case, and without Members of the Government being able to stand up in this House and defend the appointments made by them. Since last year no vacancy has occurred, and, therefore, there has been no opportunity for the carrying out of the promise of the Government. In justice to the
    626
    Clerk of Parliaments, I may say that since his appointment he has not filled up one of the vacant clerkships, there being two at present unfilled. I can assure the Committee that the whole of this matter has been most carefully considered, and I believe the Committee may rely upon it that as vacancies do occur very considerable economies will be effected.
    *MR. G. O. MORGAN: I am perfectly ready to give to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Treasury credit for sincerity, and it is simply because I believe the adoption of the Amendment of my hon. Friend would strengthen the hands of the Government in this matter, and encourage them to persevere in the creditable course in which they are pursuing, that I recommend him to go to a Division.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We really have had no explanation as to what this Sergeant-at-Arms does. So far as I can gather, the Secretary to the Treasury admits that the office is an absolute sinecure. [Mr. JACKSON signified dissent.] He does not. Then will he tell us what this gentleman does? There is some mysterious function connected with the Lord Chancellor which the Secretary to the Treasury does not understand. I have not that confidence, either in the House of Lords or in the Lord Chancellor, which appears to be entertained by the Secretary to the Treasury and the First Lord; and, therefore, I should like to know something about this mysterious Committee. Are there Minutes of the Committee? Has its Report been embodied in any Blue Book? We, who are the persons who have to the vote these sums of money, are told that there are to be alterations at some future time; but we are not told what the alterations are. I differ entirely from the view taken by the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to this sinecure. The hon. Gentleman holds the opinion that when a gentleman is given a sinecure he becomes, as it were, owner of a freehold. I hold that as the Vote is submitted to the House of Commons every year, the holder has only a yearly tenure of the office, and that so soon as we consider that the office is a sinecure, we ought to proceed at once to refuse the money for it. It is admitted on both sides of the

    627
    House that this Sergeant-at-Arms does absolutely nothing [Sir. R. FOWLER: No.] The right hon. Baronet will, no doubt, explain what this gentleman does. The Secretary to the Treasury seems to think this gentleman does uncommonly little, but the right hon. Baronet thinks he performs services which are only adequately rewarded by the sum of £1,500 per annum. None of us receive £1,500 a year for doing nothing, and it appears that because this Sergeant-at-Arms has been so fortunate as to receive this money for years, we are not to do away with his office until he is good enough to die.
    *SIR R. FOWLER: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that some of the officers of the other House are overpaid. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: This one.] This gentleman is one of Her Majesty's Sergeant-at-Arms and attends upon the House of Lords. If that House does not sit much, I apprehend it is because we do not send them work to do. The Sergeant-at-Arms is a most estimable gentleman, and I do not think he is at all overpaid. ["What does he do?"] With very few exceptions, I do not believe there is anyone in the service of Her Majesty who is not underpaid. I have said before, I only know two men who serve Her Majesty who are at all adequately paid—of course I refer to the Law Officers of the Crown.
    DR. CLARK: We thought the right hon. Baronet would give us the information we have been seeking for the last half hour; but the right hon. Gentleman evidently confuses this Sergeant-at-Arms with the Usher of the Black Rod, who in the House of Lords performs the functions which our Sergeant - at - Arms performs in this House. The Gentleman in respect of whom the reduction is moved is merely a flunkey in attendance on the Lord Chancellor, and, therefore, we wish to know why he should be paid the enormous salary of £1,500 a year. Surely the day has arrived on which to get rid of these sinecure offices, the retention of which is simply a genteel way of picking the nation's pocket.
    MR. M. KENNY: It is only fair we should be told what it is exactly that this gentleman does. Who is he, and when was he appointed? It is perfectly ridiculous that the Lord
    628
    Chancellor, in addition to receiving £10,000 a year, should also have the right to appoint a Sergeant-at-Arms with £1,500 a year. We are entitled to ask what the functions of these officials are, how they are appointed, by whom, whether each Lord Chancellor has the right to appoint his own Sergeant-at-Arms, and whether this office is really a sinecure.
    MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: It certainly would have been more likely to satisfy the Committee had the Secretary to the Treasury told us a little more specifically what are the duties of this official. But even the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Fowler) seemed to admit that this estimable gentleman has really no duties. I have been endeavouring to realize what he can possibly have to do. He sits, as I understand, as an appendage to the Lord Chancellor when the noble and learned Lord sits judicially in the House of Lords. We know how seldom he does sit in the House of Lords; and, assuming that there is something to do when that august Court sits, it only occupies him a few days in the course of the year. Comparatively speaking, we may say he has nothing to do. It might settle the matter once for all if the Secretary to the Treasury could have told us that as a result of the deliberations of the Committee of the Lords a determination had been arrived at to abolish this as a sinecure office as soon as it becomes vacant.
    MR. JACKSON: I do not think it is possible for me to say anything that will satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman, by the tone of his remarks, seems to question whether the Committee ever sat at all.
    MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I never for a moment suggested anything of the kind. I only asked a simple question, whether the office had been represented as a sinecure, and whether, when it became vacant, it would not be filled up? I do not think I put my question in an unfair way.
    MR. JACKSON: I apologize to the hon. Member if I misunderstood him, and I will not pursue that any further. I have already supplemented what my right hon. Friend said as to the question of this expenditure having been considered by the House of Lords. Probably, it may be in the recollection of

    629
    hon. Members that there is a Standing Committee of the House of Lords charged with the responsibility of looking after all questions of this kind. Hon. Members have asked me—I do not find fault with them for it—to say more as to the recommendations of the Committee; and what I wish to say is this—the Committee had before them a scheme which had been prepared as what I may term a model scheme, if I may use that term, upon which, as vacancies occurred, the staff should be remodelled. I am not in a position to say—I do not think it is reasonable I should he asked to say—the particular form which the recommendations of the Committee should take, or that the particular action that should be taken on the recommendations of the Committee should be the abolition of the office of Sergeant-at-Arms; for it must be observed that there are two alternatives in re-organizing a staff, the amalgamation of duties, or the abolition of an office altogether. I am not prepared to say that if the office of Sergeant-at-Arms should become vacant to-morrow it would be abolished; for I am not sure if that is the particular form of the recommendation. I hope the Committee will believe me when I say that the scheme which has been considered by the Committee is a scheme which holds out prospective economies, and that effect will be given to these economical recommendations as vacancies arise; and if effect has not been given to any of them during the past year it is simply because no vacancies have arisen. I must not be taken as accepting the statement that the Sergeant-at-Arms has no duties to perform. He has the duty of attending the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, and also when his Lordship goes to the Court of Chancery or elsewhere, and in many other ways he has duties to perform. Not very laborious duties, I dare say—possibly there are many that would suggest that the duties of the office I have the honour to hold are not laborious. It is well to bear in mind that the whole of these salaries used to be paid out of fees paid to the House of Lords, but in the wisdom of Parliament it was decided that it would be well if those fees were paid into the Exchequer, and when this was decided the House of Commons took
    630
    over the responsibility of paying the salaries of these offices. I venture to say it does appear to me a little unreasonable, if I may use the expression without offence, that Parliament should in the first place decide that all House of Lords' fees should be handed over to the Exchequer on a distinct understanding that the salaries previously charged to these fees should be voted in the Estimates, and then that this question should be raised. However I feel that I am at a disadvantage because of the promise made last year. Although there has been no departure from that promise, I am not in a position to say it has been given effect to; but the only reason why it has not resulted in distinct and specific action is because no vacancy has occurred. But the Committee may rely that as vacancies do arise every single one of these appointments will be considered, and as far as possible effect will be given to the desire to reduce expenditure.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Do I understand that the model scheme referred to as having been laid before the Committee of the House of Lords was prepared by the Treasury, or was it prepared by the House of Lords? I presume that this model scheme provided for a re-organization of Departments, and for considerable changes to be made hereafter. If so, does it contemplate any changes in the three considerable offices of the House of Lords—the Black Rod, the Deputy Black Rod, and the Sergeant-at-Arms? As compared with the House of Commons, the House of Lords is over-burdened with highly salaried officials. For my part, I certainly should not vote for the Amendment, if I had an assurance that these are to be reduced as soon as the present occupants cease to hold office. I think we ought to have an assurance that one of these offices will be abolished. It is to be remembered, too, that one of these officers occupies one of the best houses in this building. I have always felt that, looking at the duties of this officer and at the demands made upon the space in these buildings, this officer should not have a large house at his disposal. I venture to hope that whenever a vacancy occurs this model scheme provides for the reduction of one of these very highly

    631
    paid offices. If that assurance is given I shall not vote for the Amendment, which otherwise I shall support.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): It is, of course, impossible to give an assurance when we are dealing with the officers of the other House, but the spirit in which the matter is treated by the Government is one of anxious desire—in which we believe we are supported by the House of Lords—to make considerable economies in the direction suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. We have every confidence that effect will be given to our desire, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that assurance. I think the matter may he now considered as thoroughly thrashed out. ("No, no.") If we devote more time to this item, I am afraid the Committee will, at some time or other, find that there is not sufficient leisure to discuss other matters in the future of a larger importance and in which greater interest is taken. I would suggest it is not advisable to discuss this at greater length, and that sufficient time has been devoted to it.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I hope the Committee will not be influenced by the veiled threat we have just heard—
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee that I intended no veiled threat. It is time only that I referred to. It must be seen that the actual time at our disposal, apart from the interest of other business, will not suffice for the discussion of the Estimates if it is distributed over the items in this proportion. I do not wish to add anything to heat the discussion. I simply point out the question of time, and make what I think is a reasonable proposition.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I accept at once the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, and am sorry if I said anything to hurt his feelings. As to the use of time, I do not think it could be better expended than in discussing the expenditure of the nation. I think we have spent the time very well so far, and we have gained our point, because nobody on the other side has been able to say what the gentleman who holds this office does. When anybody on this side says this is a sinecure
    632
    office, the Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head, but when he got up he could say nothing against the statement. Another reason why we should not take a vote yet is that we have not yet heard the opinion of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings). It is very interesting to come down to the House when the hon. Gentleman makes an able and vigorous speech in favour of retrenchment. I consider him a master, a teacher on these matters. How is he going to vote? It would be a guide to some of us to know.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: One thing might have abbreviated this debate, and that is, if the Secretary to the Treasury had stated clearly to the Committee, as he has not done, what kind of reductions, in what direction, of what specific character, have been sketched out in this model scheme. The Committee would then have known something definite on which we might rely, but the hon. Gentleman simply tells us of some scheme, to make some unnamed reduction in the event of some unspecified vacancy occuring in some office; but surely that is not very conclusive as to the item under discussion. Nothing has been said to show that it is intended to make any reduction in these offices. It would have been easy for the hon. Gentleman to have said that nothing had been determined, that it was in too vague and indefinite a state to put before the Committee. If the scheme is too vague and indefinite to put before the Committee, then it is too vague and indefinite to influence the Committee. I would respectfully suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that if he really wishes a debate on an item of this kind to be confined within a limited compass, instead of giving us nice words, prettily spoken, but meaning nothing in the end, he should tell us exactly what is the kind of reduction contemplated.
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: One reason why we ought not just yet to divide on this Vote is to be found in the concluding words of the Secretary to the Treasury. He indicated as a reason why we should not reduce or abolish these offices that when the fees were handed over to the Exchequer payment of these salaries was thrown upon the Estimates. This would imply that we are bound to find the money for any

    633
    office the charge for which was so transferred—that we must continue the office simply because it was then in existence. Now that is an argument we must protest against. When the arrangement was made, of course it was necessary to take over the payment of the then existing offices, but having taken over this control, surely it is not maintained that we are bound to continue the offices for all time, that we may not review these offices and dispense with those shown to be unnecessary. Neither can I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench on this side (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) that we are bound to continue an appointment until a vacancy occurs. It is contrary to the ideas of our modern times that an appointment should be continued after it is found to be unnecessary. If the office is a sinecure, if there is nothing for this gentleman to do, deal with the office at once, find this official something to do elsewhere if you can, but do not say that for another 20 years —I have no idea how old the gentleman is—we are to go on paying £1,500 a year, simply because the appointment was made in years gone by. This is the curse of all reorganizations of Services under the State—that you cannot move a man having once given him an appointment. We have to make a new departure from this principle, and I hope this is the commencement of it.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNER: There is one point to clear up in reference to this inquiry by the Committee. We now learn from the Secretary to the Treasury for the first time that this is not a special Committee, as we were led to believe, but the ordinary Standing Committee of the House of Lords. I should like to know definitely if that is the fact, because I think the Committee will agree that the First Lord led us to believe just now that, as the result of what passed on a previous occasion, the House of Lords appointed a Special Committee to consider this subject. The Secretary to the Treasury has, it would seem, "let the cat out of the bag, "and it is only the ordinary Standing Committee to which this has been referred.
    MR. M. KENNY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also answer the question whether each Lord Chancellor ap-
    634
    points his own Sergeant, or whether he is a permanent official.
    MR. JACKSON: He is a permanent officer of the House of Lords, and does not change with successive Lord Chancellors. The present Sergeant at Arms was, I think, appointed 20 years ago.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: So he has drawn £30,000 !
    MR. JACKSONThe hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. Gardner) has asked me a question from which it appears he has rather confused the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury. My right hon. Friend has explained to-day what action he took on the suggestion made for a Joint Committee. It is not a statement made to-day for the first time, because it was made when the Vote was under discussion last year. The hon. Member speaks now of a Special Committee, but what was said last year was that this had been specially referred to the Committee—not that it had been referred to a Special Committee, but specially referred to a Committee charged with looking after these matters. My right hon. Friend explained why the proposals for a Joint Committee were not entertained, and the Government are not responsible for that scheme not having been carried out. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) asked me whether I could not have shortened the discussion by stating specifically if this particular office was referred to in the scheme sketched out. I have already stated, the scheme which was submitted to the Committee was a scheme which contemplated a reduction of expenditure—a considerable reduction of expenditure —and that effect will be given to it as vacancies occur. The hon. Member complains that that is very vague, and I have no reason to complain of his criticism. But let me point out—and I think it is an additional reason why I may ask the Committee to excuse me if I do not state specifically what reforms are contemplated—that there has been, as hon. Members know, a recent change in the occupancy of the Chairmanship of Committees in the other House, and it is the noble Lord who fills the office of Chairman of Committees who presides over this Committee referred to as dealing with this question. I had an interview with the new Chairman of Committees the other day, and I went into

    635
    this question with him and sought to obtain from him some distinct information as to whether this particular scheme I have mentioned was likely to be adopted by the Committee.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Was the scheme submitted by the Treasury, or by whom?
    MR. JACKSON: The scheme was submitted to the Committee—
    MR. BRADLAUGH: By whom?
    MR. JACKSON: It was prepared by those who are responsible. ["Who?"] I do not think I should be called upon to say whence the scheme emanated. It will, I think, be sufficient for the House of Commons if the proposals are satisfactory. But I was giving the reason why I would rather not just now give specific information as to this scheme. The Chairman of Committees said, "I am most anxious to carry out this, but I have been only three or four days in office, and I was not a member of the Committee previously, when this scheme was before them, and before I pledge myself I must make myself acquainted with the proposals, I should prefer to have time to look into the question. It may be that I cannot agree to every detail, and may suggest alterations on some points." This I could not but admit was only reasonable. But I have not the slightest doubt of the intention of the House of Lords to give effect to alterations in the direction of economy; and I can say with confidence, that but for the change that has taken place in the office of Chairman of Committees, I should have been in a position to give details now.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I understood the Secretary to the Treasury to say a few minutes ago that some scheme, with which he was satisfied, would have taken effect but for the fact that no vacancies had occurred. But now I understand that the scheme has not been accepted, and possibly it may never be accepted, and that he thinks he ought not to communicate the authorship of the scheme. I do not blame him for that. But even now he does not say if the scheme has any application to this particular item. Really this is not the way to expedite debate.
    MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: I think we may see the value of persistent inquiry. We were led to understand that a Committee had been
    636
    appointed ad hoc to look into this matter, including the whole official staff, and that a careful and elaborate scheme had been drawn up with a view to the reduction of the staff as vacancies occur, and that we might rely on this being carried out. What do we find after all? That somebody unknown has drawn up a scheme which has been submitted to the Standing Committee, who have not made up their minds whether they can accept it or not. Now I think it is only reasonable that, if it is to have any influence with us at all, we should have this scheme submitted to us for our judgment.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNER: The hon. Gentleman says I misunderstood the answer I received. What I asked was,. whether the Committee to which reference has been made was the ordinary Standing Committee or a Special Committee, and the hon. Gentleman referred to the debate of last year. Now, in that debate the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) suggested a Joint Committee of both Houses, and the First Lord said he would favourably consider that. When asked, the right hon. Gentleman referred to this as an undertaking to have a Special Committee inquiry, and he did so again this afternoon. Will the Secretary to the Treasury say yes or no? Is it a Special Committee or the ordinary Standing Committee of the House of Lords?
    *SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: Surely this is a very simple matter. The Duke of Buckingham last year was chairman of a committee which had under consideration a plan for the future reduction of the superabundance of officers of the House of Lords. The noble Duke died, and Lord Morley was appointed in his place, and the noble Lord, before pledging himself to carry out the scheme, wishes to have time to examine it. Any reasonable man would do the same, and the House of Commons would do right to accept this from a man who has done good-service in the past under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and I am sure will do good service in the position he now occupies.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: This discussion has been somewhat protracted, and I desire to take a decision and bring it to an end. I do

    637
    not think the Government have put the case fairly. This Committee, it appears, has been sitting, but has done nothing about this question; and, after all, it appears the promise given depends upon the approval of Lord Morley. I may take this opportunity of saying that I think we spend a great deal too much time in hammering away at points that cannot be remedied, but I think, for the sake of the time of the Committee, the Government might come to some conclusion whereby we may rest assured that we shall have no further trouble. If they authoritatively state that when these appointments come to an end the House will have no more of them, but that future appointments will be made under the pleasure of the House, so that people appointed may be properly paid, and that the House will be at liberty to discontinue appointments when they are thought unnecessary, such a declaration from the Government would save further waste of time.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Secretary to the Treasury seemed to be somewhat indignant when I cheered the reference to the Committee promised last year. That investigation was promised last year, but we are now just as far from a conclusion as we were then. Hon. Members will remember what took place last year. I think it was I who raised the question of these salaries, and I had the good fortune to have the influential support of the noble Lord the member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). Up to that time we had got no satisfaction from the Government, but when such a strong and formidable ally declared in our favour the Government changed front, and the First Lord said the matter should be referred to a Committee.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has misunderstood what the First Lord said. What my right hon. Friend said was that he would consider it, and he has explained what action he took on the promise then made.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman promised to consider it, and as the result we are told it was referred to the Standing Committee of the House of Lords. Any way, the matter was referred by somebody to the Standing Committee of the House of Lords. Well, but what has been done? When and
    638
    how often has the Standing Committee considered the subject? What are its recommendations? Are any salaries to be reduced or discontinued? We are absolutely as much in the dark as we were months ago. Why attempt to shuffle the Estimates through the House of Commons on a vague and misleading promise? I think I have a perfect right to cheer or jeer at such a promise. What is the other line of argument? I was astonished to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) who, except on one class of subjects, is usually a lucid-minded man, say that because we are promised an inquiry by Lord Morley, who has been a useful public servant, and who, he anticipates, will be so in the future, we ought to be satisfied. But surely the question of Lord Morley is utterly irrelevant to the issue. Our contention is that the investigation promised twelve months ago has not taken place.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member will allow me to say that is not so. That statement is absolutely contrary to the real facts of the case. What was stated by the First Lord in this Committee last year was that this question was at that time under consideration. My noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) made a suggestion that a Joint Committee should be appointed, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House undertook to consider that suggestion. He has explained what action he did take upon that undertaking, but the hon. Member will see that the question was then under consideration by the Committee of the House of Lords. I have stated to the Committee what has happened since.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Really, I fail to see how that explanation improves the hon. Gentleman's position; it betters our position, but it does not improve his. He says the investigation was not because of, but was antecedent to, our demand of last year; and is it therefore not more shameful that we should have no conclusion arrived at? The hon. Baronet above the Gangway (Sir J. Goldsmid) says Lord Morley has done good public service—a point I neither deny nor affirm, for I know nothing about it—and therefore we may rely on him in the future; but what has that to do with the case?

    639
    We had a right to expect a decision on the subject before being asked to vote this salary again. Now, I have a proposal to make. I do not suppose we shall get any satisfaction from the House of Lords Committee, and it is we, the House of Commons, who have to satisfy the taxpayers. It is the House of Commons, which passes these Estimates, which ought to investigate the matter. Will the Secretary to the Treasury agree to nominate after Easter a Committee of the House of Commons to investigate the question of salaries paid to officials of the House of Lords, and that this Committee shall take evidence as to expenditure and duties? The Secretary to the Treasury smiles, but I see nothing in the proposition to occasion amusement, though it might be afforded in the result. Is the House of Commons to be denied investigation of this part of the expenditure of the country? I do not say whether the result may or may not show that the Serjeant-at-Arms is badly paid at £1,500 a-year—he may be an extremely overworked official—nor am I prepared to anticipate the evidence whether or not Black Rod, who alternates between a somewhat comic appearance on the floor of this House, and a courteous acceptance of our prayer to admit ladies or gentlemen to the Gallery of the House f Lords, is grossly overworked and scandalously underpaid. I will not anticipate the results that may be attained; but, at least, we shall have the satisfaction of a thorough examination. What is the alternative course? We do not know whether the hon. Gentleman may be on that Bench next year. So far as he is personally concerned, I hope he may be, for I do not know anyone who could fulfil the duties of his office with greater skill, ability, and courtesy. But the fact is, it requires more than all his tact, and more than all his large amount of courtesy to get through the House of Commons such a scandalous Vote as this. But if he should be in his place next year—and I should be glad if it should be so, if his Party are in power—what will happen? I will venture to utter a prophecy. We shall find this House of Lords Committee still profoundly absorbed in the study of the expenditure —that it is perplexed, divided, and overwhelmed with all the facts, figures,
    640
    and the diverse heterogeneous and miscellaneous considerations that encircle the question, and that it will require years of examination to determine it. But meantime we are called upon to vote for this highly paid, and, as it now appears, sinecure office. This is why we cannot accept the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury as satisfactory.
    MR. NOLAN: I cannot agree that time has been wasted over the discussion of this item. It is a case of a class which, being satisfactorily settled, may clear away discussion which else may be necessary on other items. Several things have been brought out in the discussion. I am sure we heard with great interest, if not with satisfaction, that this gentleman, as Serjeant-at-arms, has received £30,000 of the taxpayers' money. But we have failed to elicit from one side or the other what are the services rendered for this enormous sum of money. The brief explanation of the functions of the office we had from the Secretary to the Treasury was that the Serjeant-at-arms attended the Lord Chancellor. Putting the most liberal interpretation on this duty, I think it will be agreed that it could be efficiently discharged by a policeman, who would consider himself fairly well paid at £100 a-year. This cannot be considered a small matter. In the course of the debate last night, an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bartley) with painstaking elaboration showed how a poor family with an income of £39 a year paid in: taxation £2 17s. 5d. per annum. Now, it is out of money thus received that the salary of £10,000 to the Lord Chancellor, and £1,500 for the gentleman who attends upon him, are paid. We have this state of facts in the teeth of the statement I heard not long since in this House, that it has ever been the practice for gentlemen of wealth, position, and education to devote their time, energy, and great talents to the service of their country. This was the statement that met a proposal from the Representative of a working class constituency on this side, that Members of this House should receive some allowance for the time they devote to public duties here. On that occasion, hon. Members pointed to the terrible state of affairs in the United States, where Members of Congress receive some such allowance, but here

    641
    we have a gentleman who, without underrating his position, I may describe as a subordinate official, receiving a salary equal to that of the Vice President of the United States. I do not think more can be added to give force to the ridiculous position taken up in defence of an appointment like this. The Secretary to the Treasury has spoken in rather a wounded tone on this matter. Now, I would endorse the well-merited compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid him last night, and I am sure there is not a Member of the House but will agree that the hon. Gentleman discharges his duty in the most conscientious and courteous manner, and I should he sorry to say anything that might be considered offensive to him; but we are here as Representatives of the taxpayers, and are anxious to reduce the burdens upon them. In that sense we are acting now, and we would strengthen the Treasury in any desire for economy in the direction of these salaries.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 117.—(Division List, No. 76.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: If the Standing Committee of the House of Lords desire to know to what point to direct their attention, and where we consider salaries are excessive, I would offer for their consideration the item under the head of salary and allowances to the Lord Chancellor of £4,000, in connection with his duties as Speaker of the House of Lords. I think this sum is somewhat excessive as compared with the duties discharged by the Speaker in this House, or by yourself, Mr. Courtney, as Chairman of Committees. I think it must be admitted that, if allowances in the latter cases were accepted as the basis for applying the principle of payment by results, the payment to the Speaker of the House of Lords would sink to a very low point indeed in comparison. It seems to be considered that a high salary is necessary to preserve the dignity of officials and ensure the efficient discharge of the duties of the office; and in the case of Members of the legal profession, it would appear that they require twice as much as anybody else. I might institute a comparison with the position of a Justice of the Supreme Court in the United States, an official
    642
    who has to discharge duties as august and onerous as those of the Lord Chancellor, and for whom a salary of £2,000 is considered adequate. It will be seen, therefore, that experience does not show that inflated salaries are necessary to the dignity of position; and I move that the item of £4,000, the salary of the Lord Chancellor, be reduced by £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries of £5,545, be reduced by £2,000, part of the Salary of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords."— (Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
    DR. TANNER: I really think that some little explanation or answer is due from the Government.
    MR. JACKSON: It was out of no want of courtesy that I did not rise. I took this as only part of the scheme by which hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to draw attention to the items in the Vote. I am sure that I can say nothing that will alter the view of hon. Members on this matter or beyond what has been urged on former occasions, and I thought it better to come to a decision at once.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNER: As I have notice of Amendment in respect to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, it might spare the Committee inconvenience if I dealt with that now—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think that will be best secured by coming to decision upon this first.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes l32.—(Div. List, No. 77.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I wish now to call attention to another matter. The salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords amounts to no less a sum than £2,500, and, in moving a reduction of the Vote by £500, I may say I do so in no spirit of hostility to the noble Lord (Earl of Morley) who now fills the office, or to the noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos) who lately filled it. The present Chairman of Committee in the House of Lords will, no doubt, fulfil his functions with the same ability as he displayed in other Departments of

    643
    the State, and, as to the efficiency of the late Duke of Buckingham, I have never heard any question. But I would ask the House to compare the duties performed by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords for a salary of £2,500 a year with the very onerous duties of the Chairman of Ways and Means, whose salary is of the same amount. If the standard of pay adopted in this House is fair and reasonable, I think the Committee will agree that the country must get a very poor return for the money it votes for the Chairmanship of the House of Lords. The Committee cannot deny one of two propositions: Either the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means is too small, or the salary of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is far too large. As to the first proposition I will not express an opinion, except to say that I should not be in order if I tried to move an augmentation of the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means. With regard to the second proposition, I have no doubt about it myself, and I am sure there is no Member of the House who does not agree with me on that subject. There is a vast difference between the demands on the time of the Chairman of this House and that of the Chairman of the House of Lords. The Estimates are never brought before the House of Lords, and that constitutes in itself a wide and significant distinction between the duties of the two officials. The House of Lords meets day by day, merely to adjourn to some livelier and busier scenes, while this House is content to spend hours and hours in debating propositions which some Members may think important, and others trivial. The Committee will find, on referring to Hansard, that you, Mr. Chairman, were last year compelled to open your mouth some 547 times whilst presiding over this Committee, whereas the late Duke of Buckingham was only required to address the House of Lords on six separate occasions. There is, as a matter of fact, no possible comparison between the two Houses. The Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords has, no doubt, to fulfil very responsible duties, but the office which you, Sir, fill with so much discretion, and with such general approval from all parts of the House, is without doubt
    644
    the most exacting, the most onerous, and the most exhausting of all the offices of this House, not even excepting that of Mr. Speaker. That being so, to vote this amount to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords would be irrational, absurd, and almost an insult to the position which you, Sir, occupy.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Item B, of £5,000, be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Chairman of Committee of the House of Lords."—(Mr.Herbert Gardner.)
    *SIR W. BARTTELOT: Some years ago, as many here will remember, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) proposed to reduce the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords to £1,500, as the salary of the Chairman of Committees here was £1,500. It was, however, urged that it would be an unwise and ungenerous thing to attempt to deal with the salary of the distinguished man who occupied that position, and an ungracious act towards the other House. It was, however, suggested from the Treasury Bench that the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons might well receive the same salary as the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords. This was at once agreed to, and the Chairman of Committees, then my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) found his salary at once increased by £1,000 a year, and from that time the two salaries have been the same. I think it would be unjust and unfair to the present holder of that office to reduce his salary. I venture, therefore, to hope the Committee will by a large majority decline to endorse so ungracious an act towards the other House of Parliament.
    *SIR J. GOLDSMID: I would point out that the Chairman of the House of Lords has more responsible work to do than any other paid officer of the House of Lords, as he has charge of all the Private Business of the House of Lords. We all know with what ability, zeal, and energy Lord Redesdale discharged his duties, and I say that the responsibility which falls upon the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is so considerable, and the amount of work he has to do is so large that a

    645
    salary of £2,500 is not too high. I do not think a comparison can in every respect be fairly made between the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means and that of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. I believe that the Private Business is not quite so responsible in the House of Commons as in the House of Lords, because more Private Bills, I think, originate in the House of Lords than in this House. Though there is more general work done in the House of Commons, our Chairman of Committees has hon. Gentlemen on whom he can call for assistance if he thinks proper. We all know, Mr. Courtney, how capable you are in the discharge of your duties, and what a glutton you are for work, and the consequence is that you very rarely call on those Gentlemen to assist you. You, however, have the opportunity of doing so whenever the work becomes too pressing. Under the circumstances of the case, I do not think it would be suitable for the present to reduce the salary of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether the hon. Baronet (Sir J Goldsmid) is right in stating that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is precluded from getting any assistance in his work?
    MR. JACKSON: I did not understand him to say that.
    *SIR J. GOLDSMID: What I said was, that the duties of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords were not as onerous as those of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons; but I said that in the House of Commons the Chairman of Committees had four gentlemen on whom he could call to assist him in discharging his duties.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If the hon. Baronet does not say that the Chairman of the House of Lords has no power of obtaining assistance, what becomes of his argument? The Chairman of the House of Lords can call upon forty or fifty Peers, if he likes, to take his
    646
    place. The hon. Baronet shows a want of lucidity that I am surprised to find in him. I have seen you, Sir, and other Chairmen of Committees, seven, eight, or ten hours in your place without calling for any assisance, and I have no reason to doubt that your successors will be as energetic in carrying out their duties as you are, though we cannot perhaps hope that they will be as able as you. If the Chairman of the House of Lords is less hard-worked than you, Sir, he ought to be paid less, and if he is more hard-worked he ought to be paid more. We say he is less hard-worked, and therefore ought to be paid less. I admit that the Chairman of the House of Lords has a greal deal to do in connection with Private Business. Whether the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Goldsmid) is right in saying that he has more to do in that respect than you, Mr. Courtney, I do not know, but he certainly has nothing like the same amount of work to do in presiding over Committee of the House of Lords as you, Sir, have in presiding over this Committee. You have to to be in your place all the time the House is in Committee, which means that you have to be in your place the greater part of the Session. The House of Lords is not an over-worked assembly. It reminds one of an April shower. It is here now and the next moment it is gone. You hear a mysterious mumble and a few whispers, and the House of Lords has done for the evening. I venture to say that the Chairman of the House of Lords does not sit as Chairman for one hour a week, and yet the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Goldsmid) compares his labours with those of the Chairman of Committees in this House. The hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir W. Barttelot) argued this question from another point of view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman represents in their most orthodox form "good old Tory doctrines," and he does so in the matter of these salaries. But I think he was rather unfortunate as to the ground upon which he based his defence. He said it would be an act of discourtesy, an ungracious thing, to reduce the salary, but as guardians of the public purse we have nothing to do with courtesy or grace. I think that

    647
    this case has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. H Gardner) in a most unanswerable manner. The only fault I have to find with him is that the amount of reduction he proposes is disproportionate, when you consider the light duties of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the salary paid and the heavy duties of the Chairman in this House.
    The Committee divided, Ayes, 62; Noes, 138; (Division List No. 78.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The next item, Sub-head "C," is one which always causes a considerable amount of discussion in this House, the reason being because the system of payment of the Clerks of the other House is so manifestly unfair. The last Motion made was to reduce the salary of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords below that of the Chairman of Committees in this House, but that was not the view of the majority. The argument against the reduction was that it would be unfair to give the Chairman in one House less than the Chairman in the other. Well, it is on that argument that I claim the vote of hon. Gentlemen in favour of the reduction which I now propose in regard to the salaries of the clerks of the House of Lords, who surely ought not to be paid more than the clerks of the House of Commons, seeing that the latter work a great many more hours. Yet the clerks of the House of Lords are higher paid than those of the House of Commons. The Clerk of Parliaments receives £2,500 per annum, with an allowance for a house, or £500 more than is paid to the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons. It was thought that the late Chief Clerk of this House, Sir Erskine May, one of the most distinguished men who has ever acted as Clerk to this House, would have been promoted after long service to the office of the Clerk of Parliaments, with its higher salary and position, but it was not so. A gentleman was fished out for the higher post, who was the relative of one Lord Chancellor at least, if not of two, and who had been some-
    648
    thing connected with lunatic asylums. [Laughter.] I am not exaggerating. That gentleman was pitchforked into the office of the Clerk of Parliaments, for which he had had no sort of training, and the doctrine that the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons may expect to be promoted to that post, after long and faithful service, as a sort of otium cum dignitate quasi-pension, has been exploded. We have a Clerk in the House of Lords, therefore, who receives £500 a year more than our Head Clerk. Then the Clerk-Assistant of the House of Lords receives £1,800 per annum for filling a position equivalent to that for which the corresponding officer of the House of Commons receives £1,500. And all these gentlemen have houses besides. Then we find that the Senior Clerk in the House of Lords receives £1,000, whereas the maximum salary of the Senior Clerk in the House of Commons is £800 per annum. I want to know why these distinctions are made. The reduction of £1,000 which I intend to move is, roughly speaking, the amount of the excess in the payment to clerks in the Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments as against the payment to the clerks in this House. I heard the Secretary to the Treasury say a while ago that there was a species of bargain entered into as to these salaries. I have heard that before, and I have heard the same from the hon. Gentleman's predecessors. What he pointed to was that at one time all the salaries were paid out of fees which came from suitors in the House of Lords. This practice was done away with, however. The fees are now paid into the Treasury, and the Treasury pays the salaries. It was understood that if the fees were paid into the Treasury the salaries should be paid out of the Votes of the House, but there was no undertaking that the payment of the existing salaries should go on for ever and aye. [Mr. JACKSON: Hear, hear !] The Secretary to the Treasury accepts that statement. At the time of which I spoke the fees were paid into a fee fund, and the interest on that served as pensions to the clerks and other officials in the House of Lords. We have nothing to do with that, I admit, but we have to do with the salaries of officials which we are

    649
    called upon to vote. I have never yet heard a satisfactory reason why the clerks of the House of Lords, who do very much less than our clerks here, should be paid higher salaries. I do not say that our clerks do not deserve more than they are getting, and I should be ready to put the salaries of the two sets of clerks together, and to give our clerks more and those of the House of Lords less; but I do protest against the clerks of the House of Lords being paid more than our clerks for doing less work than our clerks. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Item C, of £22,367, Salaries, &c., Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments, be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has made a comparison between the clerks in the House of Lords and the clerks in this House, and I do not think we can very successfully discuss that at any great length. The hon. Member says the clerks of the House of Lords receive more than the clerks of the House of Commons.
    Mr. LABOUCHERE: The clerks as a whole.
    MR. JACKSON: I do not think I could entirely agree with the hon. Member there. I think he is rather mixing up the titles of these Gentlemen. It is not easy to compare the salaries of the clerks in the two Houses of Parliament; because it does not follow that those bearing the same titles occupy analogous positions. I quite agree that there is no reason why the salaries should necessarily be perpetual; but the proper time to consider a revision of salaries is when vacancies occur. I should not agree with the hon. Member if he contended that we are on our own Motion to go and reduce the salaries of officers who have been duly appointed and have given up other appointments in order to accept these posts, but I agree with him that when vacancies occur these appoint-
    650
    ments should be reviewed, and the salaries proportioned to the work which has to be done. The Clerk of Parliaments has other duties to perform beyond those connected with the House of Lords as a legislative body. He is Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal, and a certain part of his work begins in November, when Members of this House are taking holiday. Since the gentleman who now holds the office has been appointed he has effected economies to the extent of £2,000 a year. Though the Head Clerk of the House of Lords receives £300 a year more than the Head Clerk of the House of Commons, yet this sum is hardly the equivalent in cash of the furnished house with which the latter is provided.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We have protested from the very first against the appointment of this Clerk of the Parliaments—we have opposed the salary every year since he was appointed. If Sir Erskine May after his long service in this House had been promoted to this superior position when a vacancy occurred, we should not have complained, but our complaint was that the present holder of the office was taken on, knowing nothing of the business of the Clerk of the House of Commons or the Clerk of the House of Lords. He may have learnt it since, but that is not our affair. The hon. Member says this gentleman has saved us £2,000 a year; that is to say he has cut down other people's salaries to the extent of £2,000 a year. But I should like to know if his economies take the view of cutting down his own salary. It is all very well to talk about saving £2,000 a year by cutting down other people's salaries —we have to interfere because he cannot take an independent view of his own salary. We want that to be reduced until the clerks in both Houses can be regarded as in an identical position. The hon. Gentleman opposite said we could not fairly compare one clerk with another clerk. Well, take the Clerk Assistant. In the House of Lords the clerk occupying that position receives £1,800 a year, whilst in this House he gets £1,500 a year and a house.
    MR. JACKSON: They are not exactly the same.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not see the distinction. There are three clerks in the House of Lords, and there are three clerks here. One is an assistant clerk in the House of Lords, and one is an assistant clerk in this House. The hon. Gentleman says they are not the same, but the only distinction I see is that their salaries are not the same; and that is precisely the distinction which I wish to do away with. I am sure the hon. Gentleman must see that this system is unfair. It exists because it has existed. But it ought to be altered. I do not see why our clerks should not be paid the same as those in the House of Lords. I am only raising the question on the point that the clerks in one House ought not to be paid more—I think they ought to be paid less—than the clerks who occupy identically the same position in the other House; and in paying them equally it should be distinctly understood that there is a sort of system by which the Head Clerk of this House will succeed to the appointment of Clerk of Parliaments, when it becomes vacant—by which he would have a call upon the office, if I may so term it. By such a system the Head Clerk of this House would know that, at a given time, if he did not get a rise in his salary, he would succeed to an office where he would have less heavy duties to perform in his advanced years. I am perfectly certain that if you take hour for hour, it will be found that the Clerk of Parliaments does not work the same number of hours as our Chief Clerk does. I am only asking for common and reasonable fairness in this matter.
    DR. TANNER: We have been told that the Clerk of Parliaments is Registrar to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and I should much like to know whether he is paid anything extra for the duties of the office. We know, in the case of other officers of the House of Lords that they are paid extra for supplemental offices. Another point I would wish to drive home is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northamp-
    652
    ton with respect to the position of the Clerk of Parliaments. If the post is of such very high honour it is certainly of paramount public importance that there should be a process of promotion of the Officers of this House to the corresponding posts in the House of Lords, where the clerks have not so much trouble and have not these very long hours. Now, I would point out that the post of the Clerk of Parliaments is judicial. For my own part, I speak of a gentleman who is not in the costume of a barrister, but who wears a peculiar sort of wig. I have seen him standing in the doorway of this House. I asked who he was. "Oh, that is the Clerk of Parliaments—the Senior Clerk of the House of Lords." I asked why he wore a wig which was different from the wigs of our clerks, and I was told that his office was such a very high one that he actually occupied the position of a Judge. That in itself is a very high reward, but in addition he gets this enormous salary, with a position which affords him the opportunity of associating with noblemen in the other House occasionally, and for very short periods. I think he ought to be satisfied, and that the country should be saved the expense. I would ask the hon. Gentleman for an answer to the first point which I endeavoured to bring under his notice, whether the Clerk of Parliaments receives additional pay as Registrar to the supreme Court of Appeal?
    MR. JACKSON: The Clerk of Parliaments receives no additional pay for that appointment.
    DR. TANNER: Does his salary cover everything?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes, 137.—(Div. List, No. 79.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE:: I regret that the House should have to occupy so much of its time with these questions relating to the House

    653
    of Lords, considering that all I ask for is equal justice between the two Houses, and that sinecures should cease to exist; but I am obliged to trouble the House with an Amendment on Sub- head E, with regard to the salaries of Black Rod and the Yoeman Usher of the Black Rod. Now, while Black Rod receives £2,000 a year and a house, the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons only receives £1,200; the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod receives £1,000, and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons £800. No one can deny that the Serjeant-at-Arms and Deputy Serjeant do more work than the Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, for the simple reason that neither of these latter officers have anything to do except in the short sittings of the other House. I will venture to say that this House sits ten times as long as the House of Lords. The fact is that the offices in the other House are the appanages of the great. I do not complain of those to whom they are given, but they are generally given to gentlemen who are in the category of courtiers or the friends of courtiers, and they are almost sinecures, the gentlemen holding them going to the House of Lords for an hour or so in the evening for a few months in the year. I say they are excessive salaries, and that it is ridiculous to pay the Black Rod as much as you pay the President of the Local Government Board, who is one of the ablest of Her Majesty's Ministers, and performs really good work. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be paid more than he gets, because £2,000 a year is a very good salary; but there is undoubtedly a wide disparity between the services rendered in the two cases. We shall probably be told by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Committee he has spoken of is looking into the matter; but I should like to know, has there ever been any objection made in the Committee to these salaries in the House of Lords? Under all the circumstances, I beg to move that the sum be reduced by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Item E, of £6,075, Salaries of Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. BIGGAR: Much time has been spent on this Vote, and I would suggest that time would be saved if the Secretary to the Treasury were to agree to the recommendation of the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and appoint a Committee to sit permanently for the purpose of revising the Estimates. A large portion of the Votes for the House of Lords is utterly indefensible, and I certainly think that this question of the salaries of the officials ought to be considered. Although I do not think the House of Commons should do anything to strangle the efficiency of the House of Lords or curtail its dignity, at the same time, I think these matters ought to be treated with a little more candour, and I should like some one to tell this House, having regard to the length of time occupied by the sittings of the other House, how much an hour the Black Rod gets for his services. We might also be informed as to the period of life at which these appointments are conferred, and whether, when they are made, the gentlemen receiving them are at an age when they could fill any other position. I may say I have no personal objection to these gentlemen. On the only occasions I have come in contact with them they have been polite; but I think the salaries they receive are large compared with those of gentlemen holding similar positions in this House.
    MR. A. O'CONNORThe time of adjournment of this House may be fraught with important issues to the unfortunate people of Donegal. I have just had placed in my hands a telegram, which deals with a matter of so much importance that, in order that we may have an opportunity of considering the matter to which it relates, I will move that the Chairmain report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
    MR. SEXTON: I hope the Government will assent to the Motion. I have seen the telegram my

    655
    hon. Friend refers to, and I believe the condition of the people of Donegal to be very serious and to depend largely on the interposition of this House. The telegram reveals a state of things showing that many of the people of Donegal are in a state of starvation.
    MR. JACKSON: I cannot consent to the Motion at this moment. This Vote has been under discussion for four hours, and ought now to be allowed to pass. If we are allowed to take this and the next two Votes, we might then report Progress.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: If we allow this Vote, which can be again discussed next year, to pass, I hope the Government will allow Progress to be reported. In that case, I think we could agree to the Votes named by the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Donegal is so serious that I hope the Government will allow it to be discussed.
    MR. JACKSON: The Votes we ask for after this are not contentious.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Then I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, "That Item E, of £6,075, Salaries of Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, be reduced by £1,000," by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £44,420, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday, 29th April.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday, 29th April.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move that this House do now adjourn.
    *MR. SPEAKER: There are one or two more Orders.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I respectfully ask that I may move the Adjournment of the House, the questions having been disposed of and the Orders of the day entered upon.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Before the Orders of the day are disposed of it is very unusual to move the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. A O'CONNOR: I do not wish to provoke a decision from the Chair on the spur of the moment. I will not persist in my Motion, and I will not say that I submit to your ruling, because I hope you will not give any ruling on the point.
    *MR. SPEAKER: There was a precedent a year or two ago.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: There are many precedents the other way.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  WALTHAM ABBEY (GUNPOWDER FACTORY) BILL.—(No. 175.)
  The Select Committee on the Waltham Abbey (Gunpowder Factory) Bill was nominated—Mr. Alfred Gathorne-Hardy Hardy, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Woodall, and Mr. Brodrick.

  WOODS AND FORESTS AND LAND REVENUES OF THE CROWN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Department of the Woods and Forests and Land Revenues of the Crown."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  DR. CAMERON,: This is a matter which concerns a great number of Scotch Members, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that a promise was made in respect of certain Scotch fishing rights, and I would suggest that the Motion should be withdrawn for the present.
  MR. JACKSON: The question to which the hon. Member alludes is included in the terms of the reference, and the names of the latter will be given afterwards.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think we are hardly being treated fairly by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in having this Motion put upon the Paper on the last day before the House rises.
  MR. JACKSON: Very well; I will postpone it. With the permission of the

  657
  House I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. (No. 97.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. M'LAREN: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone this Bill also?
    *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): There is no reason for postponing this Bill. It has been on the Paper for a considerable time, and the hon. Member, who has had Amendments on the Paper, was not here to move them.
    *Mr. M'LAREN: I was called out of the House for a few minutes last night, and in that time the Bill was dealt with. Of course I do not blame the Government. But I do think it is rather hard after my hon. Friend (Mr. A. O'Connor) has given way, on the understanding that only non-contentious busines should betaken, that this Bill should be pressed. It puts me in a very awkward position. I am unwilling to delay the discussion of the very important question of the condition of Donegal, but I am equally unwilling to let this Bill go through without a single word of protest or explanation [An hon. MEMBER: Move the Adjournment of the debate.] I am unwilling to take a step of that sort, if I could get any sign from the right hon. Gentleman that he is willing to take the Bill on the Monday after the holidays, which really would be the fair course to take. This Bill went through the Second Reading without a single word of explanation, and the only Member who spoke upon it was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork. If there is no other course I will move the adjournment of the debate.
    *SIR R. E. WEBSTER: The hon. Member is really misinformed. I made a statement on moving the Second
    658
    Reading, and I answered the questions raised. I sincerely trust the hon. Member will allow the formal question to be put to the House.
    DR. CAMERON: The Attorney General, on the occasion when the Bill was brought into Committee, stated that it had been represented to him that those Gentlemen who had Amendments on the Paper would be able to move them on the Report stage. The Bill got through without Amendment, and consequently these was no Report stage. Now, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is not under a moral obligation to consent to the Adjournment, so that the Bill may be discussed on its merits. Certainly there is a clause here which, it strikes me, would prevent information of any sort being given to a Member of Parliament, and which would prevent jobs being exposed in this House. I should certainly give that clause every possible opposition in the present stage. And, Sir, hon. Members below the Gangway feel as strongly as I do, and they would certainly give it every opposition in their power. When the hon. and learned Gentleman remembers that it was thought by hon. Members they would have an opportunity of renewing their Amendments on the Report stage, and that in that way all opposition was swept away, I think he will allow that, under these circumstances, the Government would not be fulfilling an honourable understanding if this Motion for the Third Reading were pressed.
    *SIR R. WEBSTER: Of course, if it is understood that anything I said last night caused opposition to be withdrawn, I should not oppose the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate. I therefore consent to the matter standing over to the second Monday after Easter.
    Debate adjourned till Monday, 29th April.

    TOWN COUNCILLORS' (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 177.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Debate arising;
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 7th May.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Jackson.)

    IRELAND—CONDITION OF DONEGAL.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: In the short time which remains to us, I wish to call attention to the fact that every vestige of constitutional and legal administration in the county of which I am one of the Representatives has now been cast aside by the Executive. They have introduced into use for what they call police purposes, but really for landlord purposes, a battering ram; they have given over to the police functions which are not properly police functions, and besides that, they have caused the police to assume an attitude towards the people which is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional. The inhabitants of portions of Donegal are not at liberty to pursue in ordinary and personal security their daily avocations without permits from the police, and there is established, especially in West Donegal, a kind of "white-terror." People are threatened with indiscriminate and momentary arrest, and no man knows from hour to hour how far his personal safety will be respected. A step further has been taken, and we are assured, on the authority of three Members of this House who are now in Donegal, that the police have started burning the houses of the people. It is difficult to see what more the police can do in the way of disregarding every constitutional duty and every limitation of their official functions. I do not wish to dwell at any length on the matter, and I shall best consult the convenience of the House by reading the following telegram:—
    660
    "Reinforcements of police from all parts of county are being brought into Falcarragh Armed sentries posted at all evicted houses to arrest or keep out tenants. Non-evicted houses dangerously overcrowded through evictions. Wholesale evictions threatened and hourly ex-expected. People simply destitute. Furniture and bedding destroyed by emergency men. One house not destroyed re-entered by tenant, deliberately set on fire last night by police."
    Mr. Speaker, I think that before the, House adjourns we have a right not only to ask the Government to cause prompt and searching investigation into the present conduct of the police in Donegal, but to ask also for an assurance that, whatever the conduct of the police may have been in the past, they shall be directed not to overstep the, plain lines of their duty, and to respect not only the property but the liberty of the subject in Donegal.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member in the opening sentence of his speech has gone back to matters which, however important and interesting, are not of immediate urgency, having occurred some weeks ago, and which need not therefore have been raised on this debate. I refer to permits which were issued by the police on the occasion of the arrest of the persons charged with the murder of Inspector Martin, and I am not aware that for many weeks past anything of the kind has been done. I suppose it has been merely introduced as a topical matter, and is not one calling for any observation from me. I therefore pass from that portion of the constitutional liberties which the hon. Member says are being broken down and will go to the others. The hon. Member's charges were, that the police had used a ram; that the police were stationed near the houses from which tenants had been evicted; that arrests were contemplated; that the people were destitute; that emergency men had been destroying bedding; and that some of the police had destroyed one house by fire. On the last accusation I have no information at all, but I confess I am wholly sceptical as to the accuracy of the information supplied to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not believe, and shall not believe this.

    661
    charge, until I get much more detailed information. I would, however, point out that the house in any event is not the house of a tenant, but the house of a landlord. I repeat that I do not believe that the police have done anything of the kind alleged against them, and shall continue to disbelieve it in the absence of much better and more detailed information than appears to be in the possession of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I pass then to the other accusations. The hon. Member says that bedding and furniture are destroyed by the emergency men. But, Sir, if a house is defended elaborately and in such manner that it cannot be entered unless the roof or the side is broken down, it may be sometimes absolutely impossible to avoid some injury to the contents of that house. But who is responsible?
    DR. TANNER: You.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is it the people who make a forcible entry, or those who fortify the house so that no other mode of entry is possible? The people themselves and those who have prompted the people are alone to blame. Every care ought to be, and I believe is, exercised by those entrusted with carrying out the law. I would, however, point out that this accusation is made not against the police, but against the special bailiffs, for whose conduct I am in no respect responsible. Then the hon. Member says the police are watching evicted houses. I do not know whether it is true, but I do not think it unnatural if it is true. The people, as I have heard within the last few hours, have been retaking forcible possession of the houses from which they have been evicted. That is a grossly illegal act, which the police are bound to stop, and if, as the hon. Gentleman says, there are police in the neighbourhood of the evicted houses, considering that illegal possession is being taken by the tenants, I do not think that any complaint ought to be made of it. Then I come to the question of the ram. I am not aware that the ram has been used in these evictions; I rather think it has not.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member did not say it had.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An hon. Member says it was never alleged it had been used, but the hon. Member for East Donegal complained that it was used for unconstitutional and illegal purposes.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I said was that the Government furnished the police with a ram, nominally for police, but really for landlord purpose s My complaint is that the police are allowed to go beyond the scope of their functions, and to do that which the Constitution does not contemplate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the use of the ram be improper, it has not been used on this occasion. I had thought we were discussing a concrete question arising out of the evictions in Donegal, to call attention to which the adjournment of the House had been moved; but I am quite willing to discuss the abstract question of whether or not, under any circumstances, a ram can be legitimately used by the police. I say emphatically it may be so used; and I say more—that if the police have in their possession or can use any method by which injury to themselves and to the people and violation of the law may be diminished, abridged, or prevented, they are absolutely bound to use those means. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in his interpretation of the law. I do not believe that the police have done anything, further than perform the usual duties of protecting the bailiffs, but I do not believe that the functions of the police are necessarily limited to those duties. If the hon. Gentleman will read the charge of Chief Baron Palles on the occasion of the Woodford evictions, he will find that, in the opinion of the Chief Baron, there may be circumstances under which the police would be justified and even obliged to go beyond the special functions of protecting the bailiffs, though neither in the case of the evictions in Donegal nor any other place, as far as I am aware, have

    663
    they done so under any Administration. So much for the law. Then the hon. Gentleman says that the people are destitute. He has discussed that question upon two separate occasions in the course of last week, and in the speeches he then made he admitted that probably at that time, and probably at any time in the last 50 or 100 years, there had been some distress in those congested and overcrowded parts of Ireland. I do not believe that there is anything in the nature of a general famine. I do not believe that the distress is widespread, or that it prevails especially among the persons evicted, and I believe that the attempt which has been made to rouse the sympathies of the public has been made for political purposes, and for political purposes alone. If you had searched other Unions in Ireland where no evictions have taken place, you would find equal or greater distress, as to which it has never occurred to right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite to move the adjournment of the House, or to excite the sympathy of the English philanthropists. I have already given the House the result of certain figures which have been supplied to me, and I have also told the House that I am going to make further investigations. Until those investigation are completed I do not pretend to give a complete or final judgment to the House on this matter; but I will tell the House a fact which has been communicated to me to-day by telegram. Although I have not had an opportunity of examining it in all its bearings, I state it to the House as being probably significant, and, at all events, of interest. The amount given in Poor Law relief in the particular Union where these evictions have taken place is less, and much less, than in other Unions in the same county of Donegal.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Because Mr. Olphert is Chairman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No Board of Guardians, no Chairman of a Board of Guardians, has either the right or the power to allow starvation in the Union over which they have jurisdiction.
    Mr. A. O'CONNOR: How little you know of Donegal!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I give that fact to the House not because I have
    664
    had either opportunity or time to investigate it in all its bearings, but because I think it is an important and a significant fact in regard to the condition of these people. When hon. Gentlemen attack the conduct of the police they must be perfectly well aware that the whole object and aim of their policy is to render the task of the police as difficult as it can be. Hon. Members talk of Donegal and the evictions of the peasants and the distress, but they are looking not to Donegal, but to English platforms and the English people. It is manifest in every word they utter that their desire is to turn to political account these unhappy incidents. That is why they object to the ram. It is not because of any additional hardship which the ram inflicts. They object to the ram because they know that the use of that instrument will shorten the scenes at evictions, and will diminish the sufferings which evictions are calculated to inflict, and in those two ways defeat the game which hon. Gentlemen desire to play. As I have said, I do not believe that the distress is of such a kind that the ordinary Poor Law is incapable of coping with it. If that belief is modified by any further reports which I may receive, I will take any action which may be necessary in the matter. But until the necessity for action is demonstrated, I repeat you cannot be guilty of a more mistaken kindness to the people of Donegal than by unnecessarily relaxing the regulations which limit the use of the Poor Law, or by giving public and private funds unnecessarily and recklessly to subventions for this purpose. If subvention should be necessary, at all events, let care be taken that it is not given under circumstances which would in the long run do more harm than good. I hope—I fear I hope in vain—that if that task be put upon the Government we shall receive the assistance of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and that they will not urge the House, with the weight of power which belongs to them, to induce the Government to carry out measures which have perhaps done more harm of a permanent kind in creating the congested districts than even temporary benefit to the population which they affected.
    *MR. J. STUART: There are three main accusations contained in the telegram read by the hon. Member; first, that the bedding and furniture have been destroyed by emergency men. The right hon. Gentleman has answered that by saying it was probably destroyed during the defence of the houses; but if he had ever been present at an eviction, he would have known that it is destroyed by being thrown into the roadway and trampled upon by emergency men. The next was that police sentries had been posted in the neighbourhood of evicted houses to prevent the people from re-entering them. An hon. Member has suggested that this is a matter for the Civil Courts, and that the police had no right to take this step; but, Sir, that is not so, for it is made a crime by the Coercion Act of 1887 for a man to re-enter a house from which he has been evicted. It is one of the new crimes created by that Act, and which at the time we protested against. Lastly, Sir, there is a definite accusation here in this telegram that one house which had been re-entered by the tenant was deliberately set on fire last night by the police. The right hon. Gentleman, I take it, did not endeavour to apologise for such action on the part of the police, if it be true; but he doubted whether it had taken place. I hope that one result of the debate may be that the right hon. Gentleman will hasten to ascertain whether such an event has taken place, and, if it has, will prohibit such conduct in the future. We have here a definite statement that it has taken place, on the authority of three Members of this House, and I cannot, therefore, but think that there is some truth at the bottom of it. You have sent to gaol the priest of Falcarragh, and now you are taking the roofs from over the heads of these poor people. I cannot think that the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman are satisfactory, and I trust that we shall yet receive some assurance that the police will be warned against setting fire to houses.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who is a master in the art of evasion,
    666
    has not informed the House how the battering ram, with all its unrecognized virtues, can be used by the police as an engine of self-defence, and I charge the right hon. Gentleman with having purchased this ram, not as vindicator of the public law, but as a piece of machinery to assist private persons in collecting debts, and in exacting vengeance when the money is not forthcoming. The right hon. Gentleman rather blamed my hon. Friend for referring again to the system of police permits; but let me say that this unfortunate county is subject to an elaborate system of tyranny by the police, and the fact that people are forbidden to pass along the highway is an indication of the callous and cruel system pursued by the police. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to account for the breaking of the furniture by saying that it is broken in the defence of the houses. Sir, the police are not assailed at evictions, and this furniture is broken, not in the defence of the houses, but by the emergency men, who, when they succeed in forcing an entrance, will break it by striking it and throwing it out into the roads. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name one Union where so much distress prevails as in this Union of Falcarragh. Let me point out that the landlord who has evicted these tenants is also the Chairman of the Poor Law Union, and owing to the poverty of the district he nominates the Guardians, and practically the whole question of out-door relief is in his hands. Now, I ask is it not the duty of the Government to save these poor people from starvation? They are being turned out of the houses which they have built with their own hands; the workhouse is so many miles away that many are unable to go there; is not the Government bound to provide them with food and shelter or with vehicles to convey them to the workhouse? Has it come to this, that the British army is to be employed to prevent men, women and children from committing a civil offence by crawling back for shelter to the homes from which they have been so cruelly evicted? I ask for a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that he

    667
    will inquire into the allegations made in this telegram from Members of this House, and I think we are entitled to have from him an assurance that the police, who are paid from Imperial funds, shall not be used to serve the private interests of the landlords. I want the Government to provide shelter for these poor people, so that they shall not die from exposure on the roadside. We know that in the houses of the evicted no food has been found; we know that their potatoes failed last Christmas, and that they have since been existing on Indian meal; but the Representative of the Government cares nothing for all this; he lounges on his Bench and yawns and laughs. Under his elegant Criminal Code he has made it an offence to re-enter houses in which evictions have taken place; but surely it is not such a heinous crime to crawl into a dismantled building for shelter. It appears to me that if the Government desire to promote confidence in the law, they will put a stop to this action on the part of the police. I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself the very worst enemy the Government have, and that his conduct in regard to the evictions in Donegal is calculated to make the people hate the Government and detest the law.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: challenge the Government to show any authority by which the police can prevent a man re-entering the house from which he has been evicted. If you allow that they can do that, you give them the right to break down houses with a battering ram, and to set fire to buildings, and I submit that in firing houses, as they have done recently, the police have committed an offence against the law. The right hon. Gentleman, by his smiles and yawns, encourages the police thus to act, and whereas only one house was fired last night, we shall, as a consequence, have 30 or 90 fired to-night.
    Mr. WADDYLet us see where we are. Slowly, yet purposely and deliberately, the people are being murdered in this part of Ireland. Whatever may be the desire of the Government, that is the effect and
    668
    result of their action; and yet when complaint is made by hon. Members that that is so, we are met with the inevitable suggestion that this is the game being played by hon. Members on this side. I think we are justified in saying that the game played by the Government is by deliberate brutality to stamp out all opposition to their policy. I say we should be justified—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. SEXTON: There are still ten minutes. Cannot the debate be continued?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The last ten minutes are reserved for unopposed business. We are placed in very peculiar circumstances by the fact that the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment stands adjourned under the Rules of the. House at ten minutes to Seven.
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CONTRACT (HALIFAX AND BERMUDA).
    Copy ordered—
    Of Contract dated the 12th day of April 1889, for the construction of a Submarine Telegraph Line from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to the Island of Bermuda, together with Copy of the Minute of the Treasury with regard thereto.—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    EXCISEABLE ARTICLES (DIAGRAMS).
    Copy ordered—
    Of Diagrams showing the Consumption from 1856 to 1888 of Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, and Chicory, of Alcoholic Beverages, and of Tobacco, compared with the increase of Population."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 121.]
    It being Seven of the clock, in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of the 12th April, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put until Monday 29th April.