Sitting of 29 March 1889

Preamble
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:—
The House went;—and being resumed;—
Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to,—
1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1.) Act, 1889.

QUESTIONS.

  THE FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT.
  MR. BROADHURST)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the employment by a husband of his wife in a factory or workshop which is not classed as a domestic factory or workshop in "The Factory and Workshop Act, 1878," is employment as defined in Section 94 of that Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The hon. Gentleman asks me a question of law on which it would not be proper for me to give an opinion. If he knows of any case in which he considers that a wife is employed by her husband contrary to the provisions of the Statute, it is open to him to test the question by instituting a prosecution. I may inform him that the Inspector of Factories did some time since prosecute a man before the stipendiary at Manchester for employing his wife, but the case was dismissed on the ground of the relationship between the parties.

  ARREARS OF RENT.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN)asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether in cases in which landlords obtained Chairmen's decrees for only one half year's rent, a second half year's rent not being yet due, he would grant the aid of the forces of the Crown; whether he was aware that Mr. George A. Moore, of Moorehall, county Mayo, is now taking proceedings against tenants, one half-year's rent only being due; and if he will endeavour to discountenance such conduct on the part of landlords?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The hon. Member is misinformed. I understand that in no case is Mr. G. A. Moore taking proceedings against tenants for the recovery of one half-year's rent only.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I have in my pocket a process issued by Mr. Moore for half a year's rent.

  IRISH PRISON RULES.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD)asked the Solicitor General for Ire-
  1144
  land whether it was true that Mr. M'Hugh, ex-Mayor of Sligo, now undergoing a sentence of six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, in Derry Gaol, for an offence under the Press Clauses of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, was for five weeks deprived of his privilege, according to prison rules, of writing any letter, for no cause other than that he was confined to hospital; whether, when eventually allowed to write a letter to his wife, the Governor refused to forward it and confiscated it on his own authority; and, whether the rules permit an appeal to the Prisons Board by a prisoner against the decision of the Governor; and, if so, why was this right denied to Mr. M'Hugh?
  MR. MADDEN: A Report has not yet been received, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until Monday.

  LOANS TO IRISH LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he could state the number and amount of loans sanctioned to landlords and tenants in Ireland during six months ending 1888, under Land Improvement Acts; and, the number of inspectors employed in reporting on works undertaken in pursuance of the said loans, and the total amount of salaries paid to such inspectors?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Thr numbers and amounts of the loans unde the three heads referred to are:—Lan Law (Section 31), 209, £19,105; Land Law (Section 19), 3, £350; Land Improvement, 69, £19,900—total, 281, £39,350. The number of inspectors now employed is 17 ordinary inspectors at £300 a-year each, and one chief inspector at £500—total, £5,600. I should perhaps explain that, in addition to preliminary inspections and reports before the above loans were granted and to progress inspections of the works undertaken in consequence of these loans, the inspectors have also to inspect works in progress in respect of loans granted prior to the six months referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  THE POLICE IN DONEGAL.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR)asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he had seen the following statements printed in the Daily News of 26th March, and made by that paper's Special Commissioner in Donegal—
  "One cottage I went into where I found an old woman whose only son had fled….. She told me, through an interpreter, how the police had searched her place, and how one of them seized her by the shoulder and shook her when she refused to give him information. He threatened she should have handcuffs put upon her if she persisted in her refusal….. I saw a man whose case, I believe, has already been referred to. The police had pursued him, and as he continued to fly they had fired at him repeatedly. He fled to the water's edge, and was there taken. He stated that one of the men who arrested him pointed a revolver at him, and threatened to shoot him unless he told which way his companions had gone. He declared that he did not hear the call to surrender….. A poor woman had her cottage searched both before and after her confinement, the policeman, I was assured, getting up as she lay there to overhaul the top of her bedstead."
  Whether in view of the feeling in the district he would at once cause inquiries to be made into all the circumstances of the case; and whether he could state under what authority the police have acted in the manner described?
  MR. MADDEN: The statements in the Daily News to which this question calls attention appear to be for the most part without foundation. The allegation as to the case of the old woman is, so far as can be ascertained, unfounded. As regards the man, he was not only not fired at repeatedly, but, as already stated in this House, not at all, two shots only having been fired by the sergeant when the man was running away to evade arrest, and these shots were fired not at the man, but as signals. The revolver was not pointed at him when arrested, nor was he threatened to be shot. The local officer has failed to find any foundation for the allegation with regard to the overhauling of the top of a bedstead under the circumstances indicated. The police are reported as being uniformly considerate in carrying out the duty in question, and the searches for the suspected murderers have been conducted so as to entail as little inconvenience as is compatible with the bounden duty of the police.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it the fact that the police paid two visits to a house
  1146
  at night, one of them two or three days before the poor woman who occupied it was confined, and the other two or three days afterwards; that they walked over the bed in which she was lying, that they turned up the bed in which the children were lying, and that they held a gun over a girl 13 years of age while they questioned her? And may I ask further why these police visits cannot take place in the daytime?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no further information than that which I have already given.
  MR. SEXTON): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared by Monday next to give a categorical reply to the question?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes; if the right hon. Gentleman will put one down upon the paper. I have already answered the question which appears on the paper to-day.

  HACKNEY CARRIAGES.
  MR. BAIRDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have instructed their officials that "a carriage used for the conveyance of passengers at separate fares does not fall within the definition of a hackney carriage as set forth in Section 4 of 'The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888;'" whether "hackney carriage," according to that definition, means any carriage standing or plying for hire; and, whether, in order to remove all grounds for dispute as to this point, he will consent to include all hackney carriages in the definition?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am advised that a carriage used for the conveyance of passengers at separate fares is not a hackney carriage within the terms of the Inland Revenue Act of 1888. If that advice is correct, it is, of course, not possible to extend the term "hackney carriage" so as to cover such vehicles without legislation. It is not for me to take the initiative in any such proposal. After Monday next the proceeds of the carriage tax cease to go to the Exchequer, and become part of the revenue of the County Councils. The Government wish it to be clearly understood that with regard to this and all the other transferred licence duties, the

  1147
  County Councils now stand between the Government and the public. Any proposal for changes in these duties must first be addressed to the County Councils, and the Government cannot take action, in such matters, vitally affecting as they do the finance of the County Councils, unless it is approached through them.

  IRELAND—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. NOLAN)asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it was a fact that a number of applications to have a fair rent fixed were listed by tenants on the estate of Colonel Fortescue, in the parish and county of Louth in 1887, and remain unheard; and, whether a number of evictions were now threatened on this estate; and, if so, whether he can do anything to hasten the hearing of the cases, and to suspend evictions in the meantime?
  MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners report that the number of the applications to have fair rents fixed on the estate of Colonel Fortescue is 12. A Sub-Commission commenced its sittings in County Louth last September, and a new list of cases from that county will be issued in a week or two. It appears that two evictions are pending on the estate, but in one of these cases the tenants actually have a judicial rent which was fixed in 1882, and in the other the tenant holds under a reduced rent agreed upon between him and the landlord.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention had been called to the fact that at a recent special general meeting of delegates of the Royal Liver Friendly Society the following rule was passed:—
  "If any member should act in a manner which, in the opinion of the Committee of Management, is hurtful to the interests and well-being of the Society, the Committee of Management shall intimate in writing to the said member, warning him against such conduct; and if, after such notice, such member still persists in such conduct, the full Committee of Management shall, after calling him before them, or giving him an opportunity of attending before the Committee, have power to expel him from the Society, and thenceforth after such expulsion his interest or benefit in the Society shall cease."
  Whether this rule has been registered; if not, whether it has been sent to the
  1148
  Registrar for registration; and, whether it is now under consideration, or whether registration has been refused?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that a complete amendment of rules understood to contain the regulation referred to in the honourable Member's question was received at the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies this morning, but was returned for the correction of an informality.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD.
  *MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a strong recommendation from the Scottish Fishery Board was received at the Treasury in December last in favour of an immediate increase of the salaries and travelling subsistence allowances of the officers of the Board commensurate with the heavy additional work laid upon them in recent years, which they have been carrying on without the smallest remuneration; and, if so, what are the intentions of the Government in the matter?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): A communication to the effect indicated in the right hon. Member's question was received by the Secretary for Scotland from the Fishery Board on the 24th December last. The correspondence on the subject with the Fishery Board which was found necessary made it impossible to submit the proposals to the Treasury in time for the Estimates of 1889–90. The matter is being carefully considered by the Secretary for Scotland who will refer it to the Treasury as soon as he is in a position to do so.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—MR. LEAKE.
  MR. LANEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, is there no information in the Colonial Office of Chief Justice Onslow's having applied for and obtained leave of absence from the Colony of Western Australia; has the Colonial Office made any inquiry into the very grave imputations made (upon affidavits) by leading Colonists in Western Australia against the official conduct of Mr. Leake while adjudicating on the Bench, since those affidavits were lodged with the Secretary of State last year; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Secretary of State

  1149
  will intimate to Governor Broome that Mr. Leake should not be appointed to a judicial position in that Colony until those charges and allegations be proved to be unfounded?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Chief Justice Onslow is reported to have applied for leave of absence, but it is not known whether he has obtained it. As I stated yesterday, the allegations alluded to by the hon. Member have been referred to the Governor, who has not yet reported upon them. Without admitting that the imputations if substantiated are of such gravity as to disqualify Mr. Leake from holding a judicial appointment, it must be manifest that the Secretary of State cannot give such instructions as the hon. Member suggests until he has heard both sides.

  THE "FROG'S MARCH."
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would issue a Police Order prohibiting the use of what is known as the "frog's march" as a means of conveying a prisoner to the station? It would probably save time if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he had yet received the Medical Report in the case of Samuel Mahoney?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not prepared to prohibit altogether the use of what is called the "frog's march," which is had recourse to only when it is absolutely necessary, in order to enable the police to convey to the station exceptionally violent, drunken, or disorderly men. The Commissioner of Police would be glad to receive any practicable suggestion as to any safer way in which the police can perform their duties under such exceptional circumstances.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Would it not be possible to employ a stretcher in such cases?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It would be perfectly possible to employ a stretcher, but I doubt whether great violence might not have to be used to get the man down.
  SIR W. FOSTER: By the use of a stretcher, all the danger following on the "frog's march" would be avoided.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can only repeat the assurance that the Chief Commis-
  1150
  sioner would be glad to receive and consider any practical suggestions on the subject.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to give notice that on an early opportunity I will call further attention to the matter.

  THE POLICE AND EVICTIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at an advanced hour on Wednesday night, a force of police accompanied a body of emergency men to the scene of the recent evictions of the Clongorey tenants, and remained there while the agent and emergency men destroyed by fire the roofs of 12 of the tenants' houses, and levelled the walls with crowbars?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have not yet received any Report.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS.
  MR. CONWAYasked the Secretary of State of War if he could state when the result of the last Militia Competition Examination for Commissions in the Army was likely to be known, as already a fortnight has elapsed since the examination?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The result of the examinations will not be known before the 11th of April.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, to obtain due consideration of the question of the condition of the poor in large towns, in respect of which the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham stands first on Tuesday next, he will refrain from putttng down Government Business for a Morning Sitting of the House on that day?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am aware of the importance attached to this matter by hon. Gentlemen; and I am most anxious that it should proceed to a most ample discussion in this House. But I must remind the hon. Member that the House has virtually appropriated Tuesday mornings to Supply, until Supply is finished, unless urgent Government Business in-

  1151
  tervenes; and I should not be justified in asking the House to forgo that Order under all the circumstances of the case. But I am of opinion that a condensed debate is more satisfactory in such a matter than a discursive one that may extend over the whole evening, although I admit that the subject is one of great importance.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under these circumstances, he will not, as the Government have taken the Morning Sitting, do his best to secure the attendance of hon. Members at 9 o'clock?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly, I will endeavour to do that, and I hope to be in my place myself.
  MR. CHILDERS: Let me point out that the Order as to Morning Sittings only goes up to Easter.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I accept the correction. It may be necessary to make further arrangements after Easter.

  MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state the terms of the reference which he will propose for the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties; and how soon he proposes that it shall be constituted and commence its labours?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; I am not in a position to state the terms of reference now.
  MR. CONYBEARE: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to state them?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry that at present I am unable to say.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. DE LISLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can estimate the cost of removing the closed-up dormer windows, and replacing the appropriate beams in the east slope of the roof of Westminster Hall, in the same manner as has been recently done in the west slope of the said roof; the cost of filling the empty niches with statuary outside of the north and principal entrance of Westminster Hall in the same manner as has been recently done with the pinnacle at the south end of the said Hall at the back of the St.
  1152
  Stephen's entrance; the cost of filling the great north window of Westminster Hall with heraldic or pictured stained glass in the same manner as has been done with the great south window of the said Hall; the cost of filling the lateral windows of Westminster Hall with mixed coloured and white transparent glass in the same manner as the windows of the ancient cloisters adjoining the said Hall have been treated; the cost of painting and gilding the shields borne by the carved angels in the roof of Westminster Hall in the same manner as the shields in the House of Lords; and the cost of filling the three empty arched spaces of the Great Central Hall of the Palace of Westminster with mosaic pictures in the same style as the completed Mosaic of St. George, by Mr. Poynter, R.A., in the said Central Lobby?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The cost of removing the dormer windows on the eastern side of the roof of the hall and effecting the necessary repair of the timbers would be about £750. The cost of filling the niches referred to at the north end of the Hall would be several thousand pounds, varying according to design and execution. The statues should not be provided until a decision is arrived at as to the suggested additions to the towers. The cost of filling the great north window of the Hall with stained glass would probably be about £,1500, and of filling the central windows with mixed coloured and transparent glass, about £750—together, £2,250. The cost of repainting and gilding the shields in the roof would be about £125. The cost of the mosaic now in the Central Hall was £665. The remaining three would consequently cost about £2,000.
  MR. DE LISLE: Considering the enormous sum which has been spent upon these buildings, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that some provision will be made in next year's Estimates for completing the work in Westminster Hall?
  *MR. PLUNKET: No, Sir; I cannot, make a promise.

  ALLEGED ASSAULT.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate

  1153
  whether it was the case that in action, Matheson against Cormack, presently pending in the Sheriff Court of Caithness, at Wick, for damages for serious personal injuries sustained in connection with an alleged assault by the defender Cormack upon the pursuer Matheson, the Procurator Fiscal for the County of Caithness is acting as private agent for the defender Cormack; whether the alleged assault was, or still may be, the subject of investigation by the Procurator Fiscal; whether the Procurator Fiscal has obtained the usual precognitions for the Crown in such cases; and whether he will advise the Procurator Fiscal to abstain from acting in defence of a private party sued for damages in defence of an alleged criminal assault which has been, or may be, the subject of investigation or trial on behalf of the Crown, especially where, as in this case, the Procurator Fiscal is in the possession and knowledge of the precognitions taken on behalf of the Crown?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: On 17th December information was lodged by Matheson of an alleged assault by Cormack. The Procurator Fiscal precognosced the three persons named by Matheson and found that the complaint was groundless. More than two months after Mr. Leith was professionally employed in the action mentioned in the question. As Mr. Leith is not precluded by the terms of his appointment from engaging in private practice, his conduct does not appear to me to be open to observation.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Estimates.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is correctly reported to have stated that the bounties given by France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Holland, amount to nearly £9,000,000 a year, and that these bounties are mainly given for the purpose of enabling their sugar producers to supply the English market; does the Convention propose not only that this bounty shall be abolished, but that we shall also exclude from our market all sugar coming from countries which do not adhere to the rules prescribed by the Convention; and has any calcula-
  1154
  tion been made as to the effect the abolition of this subsidy, coupled with the exclusion of a largo number of large sugar-producing countries from our market, will have upon the price of sugar?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I stated at Greenock the amount of the bounties given by France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Holland. I did not say, as suggested by the hon. Member, that these bounties were mainly given for the purpose of enabling the sugar producers to supply the English market: I expressed the opinion that the effect of such bounties was most injurious, and might prove absolutely destructive to our Home and Colonial sugar industry. With regard to paragraph 2, I must refer the hon. Member to the Convention itself, which he will find in the Blue Book, C. 5577, recently presented to Parliament. As regards paragraph 3, any calculation attempted to be made on the basis suggested by the hon. Member would be entirely misleading, inasmuch as it must be founded upon two incorrect assumptions. First, that the bounties go to the consumer in this country; and, second, that a "large number of large sugar-producing countries" would be excluded from our market. Moreover, it is impossible now to estimate accurately the great increase of our Colonial production and Home trade which must result from the abolition of foreign bounties.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Arising out of that answer, I wish to know whether the Board of Trade was consulted on the question referred to in the concluding part of the question?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The whole question is one which relates entirely to the Foreign Office, with whom International Conventions rest.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish to know if the Foreign Office is the authority to which the House should look for information as to the effect of bounties on an article of consumption; and whether it is not the published opinion of the Board of Trade that the effect of such a Convention would materially raise the price of sugar?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): There was a Report published some years ago by the Board

  1155
  of Trade containing an opinion on this subject with which I do not agree. My opinion is that this Convention will not materially raise the price of sugar.
  MR. GLADSTONE:: I should like to ask, if the Convention is not to raise the price of sugar, why the Colonies are, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, to send us largely increased quantities of sugar in consequence of the Convention?
  SIR M. H. BEACH: It appears to me to be a matter for argument and debate.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether boys were taken to Reformatory Schools with handcuffs on; and, if so, whether he would order the practice to be discontinued?
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is no fixed rule on the subject. It is left to the discretion of the governor of the prison, who is responsible for the safe conduct of the boy. In crowded thoroughfares and at railway stations it is often found necessary to put on handcuffs in order to prevent escapes, which have not infrequently occurred. I do not think it would be expedient to issue an order prohibiting the practice altogether.

  REGISTRATION AGENTS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it was the fact that a Mr. Mowle, of Ashford, Kent, was recently appointed Receiver in Bankruptcy; whether at the time of such appointment he was the Conservative Registration Agent, and resigned that post on his appointment as Receiver; whether his partner, Mr. Brocher, had since been appointed the Conservative Registration Agent in his stead; and whether it was recognized to be consistent with his position that a Receiver's partner should carry on the work of a Party Registration Agent?
  *SIR M. H. BEACH: I believe the statements in the first three paragraphs of the question are correct, except that I am informed that Mr. Brocher is not Mr. Mowle's partner, but is employed in his office, and that his employment is only temporary, to complete work begun by Mr. Mowle. I do not think he should hold the appointment permanently, and
  1156
  I shall address a communication to Mr. Mowle to that effect.

  TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Postmaster General whether he had received a petition, signed by 690 Telegraphists of the Central Telegraph Office, praying for the abolition of the present unequal and inconvenient method of payment, and for the substitution there for of the former method of equal and fortnightly payments which prevailed for 18 years; and whether he is prepared to grant the prayer of the petitioners; and, if not, why not?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The petition to which the hon. Member refers was addressed, not to me, but to the Controller of the Central Telegraph Office. It bears the signatures of 697 persons out of 1,475. These officers are in receipt of yearly salaries, which, in accordance with the practice prevailing generally throughout the Department, are payable monthly, but, as a matter of convenience to the recipients in this case, an instalment of the salary is paid in the middle of every month. I am not able to authorize the re-introduction of a method, the continuance of which was forbidden by the Treasury on the ground that it resulted in payments in excess of the salaries to which the officers concerned were entitled.

  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the fact that there was once a fund, called the Superannuation Fund, to which all Civil Servants were compelled to subscribe, and that this fund was eventually absorbed by the Treasury on the understanding that pensions would in future be granted to Civil Servants out of the Consolidated Fund; what the fund amounted to when absorbed by the Treasury; and what has become of it?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: In answer to the 5th consecutive question put by the hon. Member, I have to say—["Oh!" and"Withdraw."] I cannot withdraw the fact that it is the fifth consecutive question, and that it is one of a group of eight questions which appear in the name of the hon. Member. In reply I have to inform him that a small fund of

  1157
  this character existed between 1821 and 1824, when it was abolished and the contributors were repaid. The hon. Member, however, doubtless refers to the deductions from salaries instituted in 1829 under Treasury Minute, confirmed and extended by Section 27 of the Superannuation Act of 1834, and abolished in 1857. The sums so deducted were applied in reduction of the Superannuation Vote up to 1848–49 inclusive, and from 1849 to 1857 they were annually paid into the Exchequer. Thus, there never existed anything which could be called a "Superannuation Fund," or the amount of which could be stated; but the whole amount deducted was applied, directly or indirectly, in reduction of the charge upon the taxes for pensions payable between 1829 and 1857.
  MR. CONYBEARE: As I have not been able to hear the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that when I have had an opportunity of studying it in the Times I may put to him a sixth question, and, if necessary, a seventh or eighth.

  TITHE DISTRAINTS IN CARDIGANSHIRE.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was in a position to state the sources from which the Chief Constable of Cardiganshire derived the information that the peasants of Penbryn had determined to resist and ill-use the bailiffs employed to levy tithe distraints thereon the 19th of March; and whether in the Reports made to the Home Office, any account is given of the use of batons by the police upon women and children before there were any signs of riot?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Chief Constable informs me that he received the information in question from many sources, among others from the Superintendent of Police of the district, and from a local constable. He informs me that no complaint was made to him at any time that any woman or child had been struck by the police, and he saw nothing of the kind occur.
  MR. DILLWYN: Was any attempt made to get the information from sources independent of the police?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No.
  An hon. MEMBER: When was the information asked for?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot give the date.

  METROPOLITAN OMNIBUS SERVICES
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was in the power of the Chief Commissioner of Police to regulate the omnibus services; and, if so, whether he would give instructions for the discontinuance of the running of omnibuses along South and North Audley Streets, the former of the two streets being already inadequate for the present traffic, and the alternative route by Park Lane being but a little longer distance?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioner of Police has been advised on a former occasion that it is not in his power to regulate omnibus services in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend (whom I beg to refer to the concluding proviso in Section 11 of the 30 and 31 Vic., c. 134) even in streets within the special limits of that Act. The streets named in the question are not within the special limits.

  IRELAND—THE POLICE AND THE PARNELLITE INDEMNITY FUND.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on Sunday, the 9th of December last, at Tibohine, Frenchpark, county Roscommon, two constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, named Burns and M'Loughlin, interfered with a public collection in aid of the fund for the defence of the Irish Members which was in progress outside the gate of the Catholic church, collared and jostled those engaged in the collection, called on them to desist, threatened them with prosecution, took down the names of collectors and subscribers, and seized by force the subscription lists, and refused to give them back; whether Constable M'Loughlin, on asking what the collection was for, and being told that it was for the Parnell Indemnity Fund, said, "I cannot allow you to collect; you know it is illegal in a proclaimed district;" and Constable Burns added "you know you cannot collect money in a proclaimed district no matter for what purpose;" whether, eventually, upon the constables

  1159
  threatening to disperse the people, and one of them drawing his baton, the collection was given up, and the promoters of it requested the people to disperse, in order to avoid a disturbance; whether the lists headed "Parnell Indemnity Fund," and seized by the constables, have since been returned; whether, on a subsequent date, the constable who had seized and taken away the lists, on being asked to return them, said he did not know where they were, but that the sergeant might know, and the sergeant, being applied to, referred to the district inspector (Feely), and reported that the lists were in the hands of the Government; whether the lists will now be returned; what notice will be taken of the course pursued by the constables; and whether the police will be instructed that they are not entitled by law, in any part of Ireland, to interfere with collections for the fund in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that the constables mentioned were on duty on the occasion in question, and observed a large crowd on the road, and persons paying money to the man who had been secretary to the branch of the National League, which had been suppressed in that district as an unlawful association. They inquired of him the object, and were referred to the papers. Constable M'Loughlin then took two pages of a copybook containing some memoranda informing the apparent promoters that if the meeting did not prove to be illegal the papers would be safe. It is not the case that the constables collared or jostled anybody, or called upon the people to desist, or that either of them drew his baton or threatened anyone with prosecution, nor did either declare a collection in the district to be illegal, nor threaten to disperse the people, nor did any other person advise the people to disperse, while, as a matter of fact, the collection was only interrupted by the people entering the chapel for Mass, and was resumed and completed on their coming out. It is the case that one of the collectors was subsequently referred to the District Inspector for the two copybook pages; but up to the present no application has been made to him for them. Should such an application be made, it will be at once replied to. The police are re-
  1160
  ported to have acted bonâ fide in the discharge of their duty, and in no case would they interfere with collections for the fund unless they had reason to believe that the law was at the same time being violated.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish clearly to understand whether the lists, which were illegally impounded, have been returned; and if the police, who have acted under a misapprehension, will be instructed that collections for this indemnity fund are not illegal in any part of Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The collections are perfectly legal, and the Government have no desire to interfere with them.

  IRELAND—THE ARREST OF FATHER FARRELLY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the warrant for the arrest of the Rev. Laurence Farrelly, of Arklow, was placed in the hands of the police; whether Father Farrelly wrote to County Inspector Cruise, on the 21st of last month, stating that he would be at hand whenever wanted; was any reply sent by the County Inspector, or any one on his behalf; why Father Farrelly might not have been arrested any day since the issue of the warrant at his house, or in the streets of the town of Arklow; why the police, omitting for so many weeks to execute the warrant, adopted at length the mode of advancing in force upon Father Farrelly's house before daybreak, broke down the wall of the house, burst open doors, and did considerable damage to the reverend gentleman's property; whether it is held that the police had legal authority to break down the wall of the house in order to effect an entrance; and, if so, can such authority be defined; and whether the Irish Government will instruct the police not to break down houses, or burst doors open at night, for the purpose of effecting arrests under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, when such arrests can be effected in the ordinary course by day?
  MR. WILLIAM CORBETalso asked whether it was the fact that the reverend gentleman had been performing his duties openly day by day since the warrant was issued several weeks ago; and what was the object of

  1161
  postponing the execution of the warrant for such a length of time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information obtained from the locality as to the arrest of Father Farrelly is still incomplete, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman all that I have in my possession. The warrant for the arrest of Father Farrelly was placed in the hands of the police on the 20th or 21st ult. Fathers Farrelly and Clarke wrote a joint letter on the 21st of last month, professing their readiness to be arrested. In the case of Father Clarke, as is well known, no such readiness was, as a matter of fact, shown. The police had ground for thinking that resistance would be also made by Father Farrelly to arrest, and his house appears to have been barricaded on the occasion when the police went to arrest him. I understand that the police had legal authority under such circumstances to use force to effect an entrance into the house to take a prisoner into custody, but, of course, the Irish Government are extremely anxious that all arrests of whatever nature and for whatever offence should be effected with the least inconvenience to all parties concerned and with the least danger of disturbing the public peace. I am not able to answer the third paragraph, but with regard to the fourth and fifth paragraphs my information is imperfect, though I understand that the police believed that Father Farelly was unwell and that the execution of the warrant was delayed on that account.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it the fact that this gentleman wrote to the County Inspector on the 21st of February, stating that he was ready to receive the warrant, and why was it that the warrant was allowed to remain in the hands of the police for five weeks before it was executed; is it not the fact that Father Farrelly has been continually in the town, and might have been arrested on any day; and, as he went voluntarily to the police, will the unnecessary damage which has been committed to the reverend gentleman's property be made good?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that Father Farrelly wrote a joint letter with Father Clarke to the police, intimating his readiness to be arrested. Information was received by the police that the house had been barricaded.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously wish the House to
  1162
  believe that, although Father Farrelly was not in the house, he barricaded it, in order to prevent himself from being arrested?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the right hon. Gentleman all the information I have.

  CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL RATES.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been paid to the local authorities in England under his new scheme for assisting local rates by contributions from the Imperial Exchequer; how much to the local authorities in Scotland; and how much to the local authorities in Ireland?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The sums which have been paid, or will be paid tomorrow, are:—In England, in respect of disturnpiked and main roads, £538,000; to boards of guardians, £543,000—total, £1,081,000. In Scotland, special grant to Highlands and Islands £29,950; to road authorities £70,000; pauper lunatics and boarded-out children, £25,850—total, £125,800. A further sum of about £28,000 for costs of management will be paid to the Poor Law authorities in respect of the year now concluding, as soon as the exact amount of the probate duty can be ascertained. In Ireland £5,000 has been paid to the Royal Dublin Society. The boards of guardians and the road authorities will receive over £60,000 each as soon as the exact amount of the duty can be ascertained.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: The principal evidence was that of a police constable, and I wish to know whether there was anything to show, in accordance with the Statute, that Mr. Conlan was a person of ill-fame. I wish also to understand whether, while heretofore, the proprietors and editors of newspapers in Ireland have been proceeded against for publishing the proceedings of suppressed branches of the Irish National League, they are now to be proceeded against for publishing the proceedings of branches that have not been suppressed?
  MR. MADDEN: I have distinctly stated that this person was not prosecuted for publishing the report of a meeting. The evidence was that he had published incitements to violate the law of the land.

  DOCKYARD MEN.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was the fact that since 1885 the "Established" men in the Devonport dockyard have been reduced by one-seventh; whether a similar or proportional reduction had been effected in the other dockyards of the United Kingdom; what was the total number of dockyard discharges of "Established" and "non-Established" men in each of those dockyards in each of the years 1886, 1887, and 1888; and whether it was the fact that during the same period the salaries of the officers in those dockyards have been increased by some £50,000 per annum? He also wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to his letter of the 21st instant to the honourable the senior Member for Devonport (Sir. J. Puleston) in reference to the present dockyard discharges, in which he said—
  "This and other work was given to the dockyard, and a large number of extra men were temporarily taken on for that purpose. Every one so taken on signed, before being employed, the form of which I enclose a copy. The work is now approaching completion, and the men engaged oh it are not required, and therefore, in accordance with the terms of their engagement, their employment lapses. The total number so affected is about 450."
  Whether it is the fact that in addition to the above-mentioned 450 men, some 150 to 200 other men were noticed to be discharged on Saturday last; whether those notices have been withdrawn, and on what grounds; and, if not, whether they are to be carried into effect, and at what date; whether he can state the exact number of those so discharged, or noticed to be discharged, who were employed under the written agreement mentioned in his letter; and how he explains the fact that a considerable number of men have been discharged, who, having been continuously employed in the yards and factory for periods ranging from 3 to 14 years, could not possibly have come under the terms of the signed agreement as to service referred to in his letter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The numbers of established men at Devonport and the other dockyards have diminished since 1885 through natural causes—namely, from
  1164
  age entitling them to pensions, or from death—by about one-eighth. As to salaries, instead of an increase of £50,000, as suggested in the question, I believe there has been an actual decrease between 1885 and 1888.

  SCOTCH LEGISLATION.
  MR. FIRTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he expects to be able to introduce the Scotch Local Government Bill before Easter?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have stated twice already that I hope it will be in our power to introduce the Scotch Local Government Bill before Easter.

  THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITY BILL.
  MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: May I make an appeal to the Lord Advocate in reference to the Scotch University Bill? It has been postponed from last night until Monday next. As Monday is to be devoted to important Government business, and as other Government nights for a good time to come will be occupied in the same way, I would ask him to put off this Bill—seeing that there must necessarily be considerable debate on the Motion for the Second Reading—until such time as it may be expected to be brought on. I must protest against the vicious practice of keeping important Bills dangling on the paper when there is no chance of their being proceeded with.
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I put it down for Monday merely to keep it on the paper. Due notice will be given when it will be taken.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS' BANK.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate per cent per annum for the cost of management, including cost of buildings, rent, salaries, postages, &c., of the Post Office Savings Bank; and whether, in consequence of the reduction of interest on Consols, the rate of interest allowed to depositors in Post Office Savings' Banks will be reduced from the 5th of April next; and, if so, to what extent?
  MR. GOSCHEN: From the last Return of the Postmaster General's Annual Report, it will be seen that the rate per cent for cost of management of

  1165
  the Post Office Savings' Bank is 10s. 8¼d. The annual cost of the interest is about £2 7s., so that £100 deposited in the Post Office Savings' Bank costs, everything included, about £2 18s. At present there is no loss, but rather a small gain to the State from this business; but the time will come when it will probably be necessary, in order to avoid loss, to make a slight reduction in the rate of interest. I do not, however, intend to propose such a reduction this year.

  IRELAND—DETENTION OF LETTERS.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary why a telegram directed to him at the House of Commons from Derry Gaol had been sent to Dublin Castle and detained there instead of being forwarded direct? The letter itself contained a paragraph in which Father M'Fadden corrected a statement by the Chief Secretary as to the number of times he (Father M'Fadden) had been remanded, the number having been nine in all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had received no information on the subject.
  MR. MAC NEILL: But this is a matter in which the Castle authorities have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of the question.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I have given private notice.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The notice is insufficient, and the hon. Member should put the question on the Paper.

  ANSWERS IN THE HOUSE.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked the Speaker whether, as the answer of the Solicitor General for Ireland to a question was entirely inaudible to himself and other hon. Members sitting near him, he was at liberty to ask him to repeat the answer?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That would be a very unusual course to take. There was great deal of conversation in the House at the time. It rests with hon. Gentlemen whether answers are to be audible or not.
  MR. BRUNNER: Would it not be reasonable that a Minister, instead of reading his reply at the moment when every Member in the
  1166
  House is turning his Paper over, should delay for a moment? ["Oh!"]

  FATHER CLARKE.
  MR. GILL: I beg to ask whether it is not a fact that Father Clarke, after having written a joint letter with Father Farrelly intimating his readiness to be arrested, had publicly celebrated Mass?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already given a detailed answer in regard to the circumstances of Father Clarke's arrest.
  MR. GILL: The assertion that he had been avoiding arrest is a reflection upon his conduct and the honour of a clergyman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must again refer the hon. Member to my answer to a previous question.
  MR. GILL: The answer of the Chief Secretary was to the effect that Father Clarke, having intimated his readiness to be arrested, had practically avoided arrest, and consequently the police had been compelled to execute the warrant for his arrest.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will refer to my answer, he will see my reasons for it.

  DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  MAJOR RASCH: asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether there was any ground for the statement in the newspapers that the Government intended to postpone the introduction of the Bill for constituting district councils in order to facilitate the passing of a Bill to establish a Ministry of Agriculture?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not in the slightest degree responsible for such a statement; and I have not the slightest idea how it could have found its way into the papers unless it was necessary to find matter without regard to its authenticity.

  THE LATE MR. JOHN BRIGHT.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise, with the permission of the House, to say a few words upon an event which, I believe, is an occasion of sorrow to every Member of this House, and to every subject of the Queen within the United Kingdom—I refer to the death of the right hon. Member for

  1167
  Birmingham. I had not the honour of a personal intimacy with the right hon. Gentleman. It has been my lot, and that of those who are associated with me, to be engaged in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman during the greater part, if not the whole, of his political career. Therefore, Sir, it may not be altogether unfitting that I should venture to say a few words, however inadequately, as to the loss which I believe the country has sustained by his death. His life has been prolonged beyond the ordinary life of man. He has sat in this House almost uninterruptedly for a period of 45 years. Many of us have had the opportunity of observing the manner in which he has discharged his duty as a Member of Parliament, as a Member of the Government, and still more as a citizen of the United Kingdom and of the British Empire. There is no one, I believe, who would have less desired that a word of adulation or of excessive praise should be used in reference to any action of his life, or to his character. He was a man of such perfect simplicity, such transparent honesty of character, that mere personal praise or adulation would have been most repugnant to him; and, therefore, I shall not venture to indulge in terms of exaggerated praise of the man who is gone. But to many of those who, like myself, have had the great privilege of listening to him in this House I think I may say that it has been impossible, even when we differed from him, and even when his eloquence fell upon us with excessive severity when attacking strongly that which we held to be dear, or the principles which we esteemed to be necessary—even then we could not but feel admiration for the strength and consistency of his character, for the force with which he gave expression to his views, and for the intense conviction he inspired as to his perfect honesty, for the earnestness with which he expressed himself, and for the desire which he conveyed to every man's mind that he could convince them of the truth of the arguments which he urged or of the facts which he stated. He was remorseless—almost cruel—in the severity of his attack; but no one who listened to him could doubt his sincerity. His honesty of purpose, his zeal, his energy, his character inspired admiration and
  1168
  carried the force of conviction frequently with his words to the mass of the people. Few men within the last 45 years have exercised an equal charm or a greater influence in this House. Few men have had deservedly greater influence in the country than the late Mr. Bright. None, I believe, have been more thoroughly in earnest in the propagation of the sentiments to which he attached himself. No one who listened to him could doubt his sincerity; no one could doubt that he really failed to understand how it was that those who differed from him could not accept the views which he put forward. His failure—if it was a failure—was the intensity of his faith in the principles which he advocated. I would venture to say that the honesty and the simplicity of his character were illustrated by the sacrifices which he made not once, not twice, only, in separations between himself and his political associates which occurred from time to time throughout his career. No one can doubt that he was warmly attached to the Party and to the Leader of the Party with which he had identified himself. But he could not sacrifice his convictions to any of those personal considerations which often have great weight with men who hold prominent positions in public life. If, however, for a time he parted from his associates and friends in deference to his own strong sense of duty, there was no trace of anger or of personal animosity in the differences which occurred. There was prominent in all his career that high sense of duty which animated him up to the very last period of his life—a sense of duty to his Sovereign and to his country which rose above all those personal considerations, and all those Party passions, and Party affections which have now passed from him for ever, and which, although he was strong in the expression, of his views and feelings, he regretted, I believe, as much as any man could regret but regarded as an inevitable necessity of the public life with which he had long been associated. Mr. Bright has left behind him a memory that will live in the hearts of men long, long after this Parliament shall have passed away. He devoted himself to the service of his country according to the light which was given him with an intensity of conviction and a reality which few public men have ever exhibited. He goes down to his grave

  1169
  followed by the affectionate sorrow of those who differed from him, of those who agreed with him, and of the country which saw in him the example of a man who, from the earliest period of his life, followed out his convictions and devoted himself to the service of his country and of his Queen with absolute and complete loyalty. We hope that he may be followed by men who will emulate the purity and simplicity of his life, and now that he has passed from us there is no whisper of difference, no whisper of anything but sorrow, and we shall follow him with remorse to the grave as a good man who has done his work and who has left an example which many of us would do well to imitate.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I trust I may receive the permission of the House to add a few words to what has been said so well and with such deep sincerity by the right hon. Gentleman on an occasion of peculiar interest. And I cannot help saying, at the outset of the few remarks which I may be led to make, that I think Mr. Bright has been, in a very remarkable degree, happy in the season of his removal from among us. Felix opportunitate mortis! He has lived to witness the triumph of almost every great cause—perhaps I might say of every great cause—to which he had especially devoted his heart and mind. He has lived to establish a special claim to the admiration of those from whom he differed through a long political life by his marked concurrence with them on the prominent and dominant question of the hour. And while he has in that way additionally opened the minds and the hearts of those from whom he had differed to an appreciation of his merits, I believe, and I think I may venture to say, he lost nothing by the want of concord on a particular subject which we so much lamented—he lost nothing, in any portion of the party with which he had been so long associated, of the admiration and the gratitude to which they felt him to be so well entitled. I do not remember that on any occasion, from the lips of any single individual since Mr. Bright came to be separated from the great bulk of the Liberal Party on the Irish Question, there has proceeded any word—I do not say of question as to his motives, for that would have been
  1170
  ridiculous in the highest degree—but a single word of disparagement as to the course he pursued. For my own part I may, perhaps, make this acknowledgment—that I have not through my whole political life fully embraced what I take to be the character of Mr. Bright and the value of his character to the country. I mention this because it was at a peculiar epoch—the epoch of the Crimean War—that I came more fully to understand than I had done before the position which was held by him and by his eminent, and I must go a step further and say his illustrious, friend Mr. Cobden in the country. These men had lived upon the confidence, the approval, and the applause of the people. The work of their lives had been to propel the tide of public sentiment. Suddenly there came a great occasion on which they differed from the vast majority of their fellow-countrymen. I myself was one of those who did not agree with them in the particular view which they took of the Crimean conflict, but I felt profoundly what must have been the moral elevation of the men who, having been nurtured through their lives in the atmosphere of popular approval and enthusiasm, could at a moment's notice consent to part with the whole of that favour which they had hitherto enjoyed and which their opponents thought to be the very breath of their nostrils. They accepted, undoubtedly, the unpopularity of opposing that war, which, although many may have since changed their opinion with regard to it, commanded, if not the unanimous, yet the enormously prevailing approval and concurrence of the country. At that time it was—although we had known much of Mr. Bright before—that we learnt something more. We had known the great mental gifts which distinguished him; we had known his courage and his consistency; we had known his splendid eloquence, which then was or afterwards came to be acknowledged as the loftiest that has sounded within these walls for several generations. But we had not till then known how high the moral tone of those popular leaders had been elevated, what splendid examples they set to the whole of their contemporaries and to coming generations, and with what readiness they could part with popular sympathy and

  1171
  support for the sake of the right and of their conscientious convictions. I will not now refer to the great gifts of Mr. Bright except as to one minor particular; but I cannot help allowing myself the gratification of recording that Mr. Bright was, and that he knew himself to be, and he delighted to he, one of the chief guardians among us of the purity of the English tongue. He knew how the character of the nation is associated with its language; and as he was in everything an Englishman profoundly attached to the country in which he was horn, so the tongue of his people was to him almost an object of worship; and in the long course of his speeches it would be difficult, indeed hardly possible, to find a single case in which that noble language, the language of Shakespeare and of Milton, did not receive an illustration from his Parliamentary eloquence. There is another circumstance in the career of Mr. Bright that is better known to me, perhaps, than to any other person, and which I must give myself the pleasure of mentioning. Everyone is aware that for him office had no attraction, but perhaps hardly any of those who hear me can be aware of the extraordinary efforts which were required to induce Mr. Bright under any circumstances to become a servant of the Crown. It was in the crisis of 1868 with regard to the Irish question, and when especially the fate of the Irish Church hung in the balance, that it was my duty to propose to Mr. Bright that he should become a Cabinet Minister. I do not know, Sir, that I ever undertook so difficult a task; but this I do know, that from 11 o'clock at night until one o'clock in the morning we steadily debated that subject, and it was only at the last moment that it was possible for him to set aside the repugnance he had felt to doing anything which might, in the eyes of any one, even of the more ignorant of his fellow-countrymen, appear to detract in the slightest degree from that lofty independence of character which he had heretofore maintained, and which, I will venture to say, never to the end of his career was for a moment lowered. It was the happy lot of Mr. Bright to unite so many intellectual gifts that, if we had had need to dwell upon them alone, we should have presented a dazzling picture to the world; but it was
  1172
  also his happy lot to teach us moral lessons, and by the simplicity, by the consistency, and by the unfailing courage and constancy of his life to present to us a combination of qualities so moral in their nature as to carry us at once into a higher atmosphere. The sympathies of Mr. Bright were not only strong, but active; they were not sympathies which can answer to the calls made upon them for the moment, but they were the sympathies of a man who sought far and near for objects on which to bestow the inestimable advantage of his eloquence and of his courage. In Ireland in the days when the support of the Irish race was rare, in. India when the support of the native race was rarer still, in America at the time when Mr. Bright probably foresaw the ultimate issue of the great struggle of 1861, and when he stood as the representative of an exceedingly small portion of the educated community of this country—although undoubtedly they represented a very large part of the national sentiment—in all these cases Mr. Bright went far outside the necessities of his calling, and not only subjects which demanded his attention as a Member of this House, but whatever touched him as a man, whatever touched him as a subject, and whatever touched him as a member of the great Anglo-Saxon race—all these questions, unasked, obtained not only his sincere advocacy, but his enthusiastic aid. All the causes which are associated with the names to which I have referred, as well as many others, obtained from his powerful advocacy an assistance and a distinct advance in the estimation of the world, and made a distinct progress on their road towards triumphant success. It has thus come about that we feel that Mr. Bright is entitled to a higher eulogy than any that could be due to intellect or than any that could be due to success. Of mere success he was indeed a conspicuous example; in intellect he might lay claim to a most distinguished place; but the character of the man lay deeper than his intellect, deeper than his eloquence, deeper than anything that, could be described as seen upon the surface, and the supreme eulogy which is due is, I apprehend, that he lifted political life to a higher elevation and to a loftier standard, and that he has thereby be-

  1173
  queathed to his country the character or a statesman which can be made the subject not only of admiration and of gratitude, but even of what I do not exaggerate in calling—as it has been well called already by one of his admiring eulogists—reverential contemplation. The right hon. Gentleman said that he trusted there would be no note of dissonance, in the sense which the country entertained for the claims, the merits, and the distinctions of Mr. Bright, and I may safely say that on that score all apprehension may be dismissed. In the encomiums that have sprung up from every quarter there is no note of dissonance, there is no discordant minority, however small, the sense of his countrymen is the sense of their unanimity. It goes forth throughout the length and breadth of the land, and I do not know that any statesman of my time has ever had the happiness to receive on his removal from this passing world honours and approval at once so enthusiastic, so universal, and so unbroken. And yet, Sir, none could better have dispensed with the tributes of the moment, because the triumphs of his life are triumphs recorded in the advance of his country and in the condition of his countrymen. His name remains indelibly written in the annals of this Empire—aye, indelibly written, too, upon the hearts of the great and ever-spreading race to which he belonged—that race in whose wide expansion he rejoiced, and whose power and pre-eminence he believed to be full of promise and full of glory for the best interests of mankind.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the House will allow me, in the name of some of those hon. Members with whom in recent times it has happened that Mr. Bright has been very closely associated in opinion, to express our thanks to the Leader of the House, and to the Leader of the Opposition, for the touching and noble words in which they have given expression to the universal regret which is felt throughout the country for the loss it has just sustained. If I may be allowed to add, however inadequately and imperfectly, a very few words to those which have been already uttered, it would be to endeavour to give my own estimate of those qualities possessed by the late Mr.
  1174
  Bright which have combined to win for his character—since it has been fully understood by the country—the admiration, the respect, and I may say the veneration of his countrymen. I do not think that that result has been due in any degree, as has already been said by my right hon. Friend near me, to the successful advocacy of the great principles in which he took so large a share, nor even to the splendid eloquence which he brought to bear in their support. The cause of the estimation in which the late Mr. Bright was held is to be found rather in those qualities to which reference has already been made—namely, the transparent simplicity of his character, and the high standard of political conduct which he set before his fellows. Mr. Bright did not profess to be—perhaps he was not—a statesman versed in all the arts of government—a statesman capable of conducting all the complicated affairs of a great nation; but upon certain subjects Mr. Bright had thought deeply and felt strongly, and had formed convictions which, to his mind, carried all the weight of absolute and indisputable truth. It was this absolute conviction which gave to the eloquence of Mr. Bright extraordinary and unrivalled power and force. As to the standard of political conduct which Mr. Bright raised for himself, I will not say that we have not known others as personally pure, as patriotic, as independent as himself; but I think we have known few men who have brought to the forming of their political conduct a standard equal to that which he set before himself. In forming his political opinions, in shaping his political conduct, he consistently and resolutely determined, as perhaps few men have ever been equally able to determine, that the standard which should guide his political conduct should be precisely the same rule as that which the strictest principles of morality imposed upon the private life and character of the man. These are the things which have combined to make Mr. Bright, if not one of the foremost statesmen, one of the noblest figures we have ever known in Parliament. These are the qualities which have combined to win for him the admiration of all who have had the pleasure of his personal friendship. These are the qualities which, in my judgment, will make his memory a

  1175
  precious possession of the nation, and which will make it an example to be steadily kept in view and followed by all who may hereafter inspire to lead public opinion in this country, and to combine the possession of political influence and power with the strictest adherence to the rules of right and duty.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork, an absence quite unavoidable, and which he regrets as much as I do, I desire to ask leave to address a few words to the House. Any words of mine must come like an anti-climax after the noble eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. But my colleagues and I feel that if on this occasion no voice were to be raised from the benches on which we sit, our silence might possibly be misconstrued or at least be misunderstood. It is at least possible that if we remained silent it might be thought that because of late years we had not Mr. Bright's sympathy and support for our national cause, we were unwilling to associate ourselves in the tribute all other Parties are paying to his career and to his memory. Mr. Speaker, the Irish Party is not so wanting in generosity, and the memory of the Irish people is not so short. We regret—we deeply regret—that we had not of late years the unspeakable advantage of Mr. Bright's sympathy and support, but we are not thinking much of that just now—we are not desirous of thinking of it. In our ordinary experience of life we often find that impressions made long ago remain abiding and imperishable, while the events which occurred the day before yesterday are already forgotten. So we feel, so we wish to feel, for the great public and private career of Mr. Bright. Our memory goes back to the time when he championed our Irish cause with an eloquence and a sincerity never surpassed in the struggle for any great purpose whatever. We cannot but remember that he was our champion and our advocate at a time when we had nothing like the amount of sympathy and support in this House and out of it which, thanks alike to friends and enemies, we possess to-day. We remember, too, we must remember, that
  1176
  some of the most superb, the most magnificent illustrations of his immortal eloquence were given to champion the cause of the suffering Irish peasant, and to awaken in this country a sympathy with the Irish cause. Bearing in mind all these things, and others I will not go through, we feel we cannot remain silent on an occasion like the present. For myself personally, I may say I speak with the memory of long years of close association with Mr. Bright. I worked with him and under him in many thrilling struggles and in many great political movements. Remembering, then, what he did for Ireland in days gone by, and with the full conviction, alluded to by the First Lord of the Treasury, that every one of Mr. Bright's views was conscientious and sincere, we desire to associate ourselves with the tribute paid in this House to his memory, and we claim the right of Ireland to lay her immortelle, her mourning wreath, on this great Englishman's grave.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the House will allow me to say a very few words upon this subject. I shall not venture to add anything to what has already been spoken, so eloquently and so feelingly, by the Leaders of Parties in this House as to Mr. Bright's claims to our admiration as a great popular Leader, a great Tribune of the people. It is only of the Friend and of the Colleague that I would wish to say a few words. I have been personally acquainted with Mr. Bright for more than 30 years, almost from the day when he was elected for the first time as the Member for Birmingham. Since then he has occupied a position as a Parliamentary Representative which I think is unique in our history. He was returned in his absence while he was still prostrated by illness induced by overwork, and he was returned, as he always has been subsequently, without any pledge of any kind and without any expense to himself. The only condition which was suggested to him was that, in order to mark the fact that the constituency considered that it was receiving and not conferring an obligation, he should himself be always exempt from any claim to contribute in any way to our local institutions or to our political organizations; and that understanding has been ob-

  1177
  served in all its fulness down to the present time. I venture to think that relations so begun and so maintained for a period of a generation are honourable alike to the constituency and to its great Representative. I well remember the first speech which Mr. Bright addressed to his constituents in the autumn of 1857 in the Town Hall, Birmingham. He spoke in terms of great pathos of the illness from which he had just recovered, when, as he said, from a condition of apparent strength he had been brought down to a condition exceeding the weakness of a little child. He spoke of the innumerable kindnesses he had received from all classes and conditions of his fellow-countrymen, and he went on to express the consolation it had been to him in his time of suffering to receive this proof of the confidence and affection of the electors and population of the great central city of the kingdom. He said:—
  "I shall not attempt, by the employment of any elaborate phrases, to express to you what I felt at the time when you conferred upon me the signal honour of returning me as one of your representatives to the House of Commons. I am not sufficiently master of the English language to discover words which shall express what I then felt, and what I feel now towards you for what you did then, and for the reception which you have given me to-night. I never imagined for a moment that you were prepared to endorse all my opinions, or to sanction every political act with which I have been connected; but I accepted your resolution in choosing me as meaning this—that you had watched my political career; that you believed it had been an honest one; that you were satisfied I had not swerved knowingly to the right hand or to the left; that the attractions of power had not turned me aside; that I had not changed my course from any view of courting a fleeting popularity; and, further, that you are of this opinion—an opinion which I religiously hold—that the man whose political career is on a line with his conscientious convictions can never be unfaithful to his constituents or to his country."
  Mr. Speaker, the motives which Mr. Bright assigned as actuating his constituents in choosing him have continued from that day to determine their feelings towards him; and now that he has passed away, now that in a beautiful figure, which he himself was the first to use, he has gone "to join the great majority," those who differed from him are united to those who agreed with him in mourning his loss, in honouring his memory, and in respecting his courage, his con-
  1178
  sistency, and his honesty. The characteristics which distinguished his public actions were equally conspicuous in his private life. Mr. Bright was a most loyal colleague, most considerate, most unselfish. He was, as many Members of this House can testify, the most delightful company, always simple, always straightforward, always unmindful of himself. He was very strenuous in asserting the principles and convictions which he held to be true and just, but with all his strength no one ever knew him to do an unfair or an ungenerous thing. I remember his once saying to me—it may seem perhaps almost trivial to recall it, but it was characteristic of the man—that whenever he entered a strange house, if there were a dog or a cat in it it always came to him directly and made friends with him. I think that those domestic animals are good judges of character, and I know—I am certain—that theirs was the only popularity that Mr. Bright ever courted. I have no right to detain the House further; I only spoke because Mr. Bright was in a special sense the Member for Birmingham, and because he has always enjoyed the affection and the reverence of every man and every woman in that great community.

  JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) [SALARY, &c.]
  Committee to consider of authorizing the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a salary to the Accountant of Court, who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend and extend the aw relating to Judicial Factors and others in Scotland, and to unite the office of the Accountant of the Court of Sessions and the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland, and of salaries to the clerks who may be appointed by him, also the payment of compensation to the holder of the office of Accountant of the Court of Session for abolition of his office, and of remuneration to such persons as may be employed to audit accounts under the provisions of the said Act (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday 1st April.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE PAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. FENWICK: It is my duty, Sir, to-night, to call the attention of the House to the subject of the payment of Members, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it well deserves the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether and under what conditions it would he expedient to revert to the ancient custom of paying Members for their services in Parliament."
  Now, Sir, on a previous occasion the House was good enough to grant me a very liberal measure of its attention and indulgence when I referred to this subject; and to-night, considering the circumstances by which we are surrounded, I shall again have to ask its indulgence, although I hope I may not unduly trespass on the limits of its time by the remarks which I have to make. I wish, in the first place, to make one or two observations with reference to the debate and division which followed on the occasion to which I have referred. To my mind both that debate and the division were of a highly satisfactory character, and were such as to encourage me to persevere with the object I have in view. On that occasion many of the Leaders on this side of the House, following the lead of Lord Althorp, Lord Russell, and others in 1830, spoke and voted in favour of the principle embodied in the Resolution which I moved. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow pointed out in a most forcible and able manner the anomalous condition in which the House now stands in regard to this question, by consenting to pay certain Members for political services and refusing to extend that principle to others; and, on the other hand, the Minister who replied on behalf of the Government declared that his opposition was not to the principle of the Resolution. He said, "He was not sure that the day might not come when it would be expedient to pay Members"; but he thought that day had not come. Here we have the Liberal Leaders speaking and voting for the Motion, and the Minister who re-
  1180
  plied on behalf of the Government, using the remarkable words I have quoted. Hon. Members will remember that my Motion was lost by a majority of 57 in a House of more than 330 Members. Perhaps the House will be interested in knowing from a Return since issued that there are 101 Members of the House who are in receipt of public money. Twenty-two receive sums under £20; 16, from £20 to £100; 19, from £100 to £500; 44, from £500 to £1,000; and, according to a Return moved for by Lord Monkswell, in the Lords, 27 Members receive sums under £20; 21 receive from £20 to £100; 23, from £100 to £500; and 80, from £500 to £5,000. In all, 252 Members of both Houses receive, in the aggregate, £814,081, and 58 of those who defeated my Motion receive, in the aggregate, £84,368, or an average of £1,454 each. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Flintshire if his Motion embraces in its terms any of those Members who receive public money, and, while doing so, voted against my Resolution; are they among the Members who "neither need nor desire payment for their services in Parliament?" My hon. Friend has the best intentions, no doubt, in putting down this Amendment to my Resolution; but I think it is a distinct case of going back on the traditions of the Liberal Party; for, as I have already pointed out, the Leaders of the Liberal Party of 60 years ago were in full sympathy with the practice to which I am now desirous of calling attention. I am asking the Government to consider whether or not it would be desirable, and under what conditions, to revert to the practice of paying Members. Under the present system it is impossible to have absolute liberty of choice between rich and poor candidates, and unless you are prepared to provide means which will afford the constituencies the most complete and perfect liberty in the choice of candidates, then I say your representative Government becomes a mere sham and delusion. The present arrangement tends entirely to the representation in this House of wealth and of the professions as well as the naval and military services. The representatives of the Services are in many cases paid out of the public funds for their services in Parliament, for it is well known that these Gentle-

  1181
  men who have seats in this House are, while the House is sitting, exempt from the performance of their duties with respect to the Army and Navy. Why, then, should the industrial interest be the only interest saddled with a burden in order to obtain representation in this House? I think that is an unfair, unjust, and unreasonable tax to impose on the working classes of this country. It is perfectly true that they have obtained a certain proportion of Representation in this House, but they have only been able to do so by imposing on themselves taxes which are not imposed on the richer constituencies in the country. I have no hesitation in saying that our existing arrangements are most unreasonable, and that Members of this House are called upon to make sacrifices and incur burdens which the representatives of no other country are required to make. If the Democracy—the government of the people—is to be otherwise than a delusion and a snare, it is absolutely necessary that the Government should take some steps to bring about such a condition of things as will give to the constituencies full liberty of choice in the selection of candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) has placed an Amendment on the Paper, which I presume will, in his mind, obviate the difficulty we have now to contend with. How does he propose to meet the difficulty? By making the payment of Members a charge upon the localities. But I would point out to the House that service in this House is a service given to the general public in a public capacity; and I fail to see why the localities should be called upon to burden themselves with payment for services that are discharged in the interests of the general community. It is perfectly true that the Amendment does not state whether the levy is to be made on the whole locality or upon those only who elect the Representatives. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to enlighten the House when he moves his Amendment. With regard to the practice which obtains in other countries, as I went into that matter at some length on a former occasion I will only make this general statement now, with the exception of Italy, there is no other Representative Assembly in the world in which Members are not paid for their public services, as well as being allowed
  1182
  their travelling expenses. I referred to the fact that, in the United States of America, Members of Congress are paid an allowance equal to about £1,000, and it was suggested by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) that I advocated a similar allowance for Members of this House. That was a perfectly gratuitous assumption on the part of the hon. Member. I never thought of suggesting any such sum, and my own view would rather be in favour of an allowance similar to that paid to the members of the Chamber of Deputies in France, which is about £375. I venture to say that for the amount of service rendered in this House that that is not an exorbitant sum. It is said that the payment of Members will reduce the representation in this House to a profession, and that our Parliamentary institutions will be considerably degraded thereby. That is an argument which has been used against every reform. It was used in the agitation for Parliamentary reform in 1832, in 1868, and again in 1884. It was said that if you extended the Franchise, the Representatives sent to this House would prove a discredit to the dignity of the House; but on each of those occasions the prediction proved untrue, and I venture to say that it wilt prove equally untrue in the present ease. A writer in the Saturday Review says that "the payment of Members will fundamentally change the character of the House of Commons, and that the respect now paid to a Parliamentary position will to a great extent be withdrawn." The same argument has been urged against every reform, and in my opinion it is an argument based on profound mistrust of the judgment of the people. It suggests that the constituencies cannot be trusted to send Representatives to this House who will discharge their duties in a respectable and dignified manner. What does the argument mean? It means that the constituents are not to be trusted to discriminate between a trading adventurer and an able and capable man, who will look after their interests in this House. Will any hon. Member say that his constituents are not to be trusted in making a selection? Surely, if they are, why may not the rest be trusted? In putting the question in the form in which I have placed it upon the Paper, I have not been desirous of needlessly inconveniencing the Govern-

  1183
  ment. I ask them to consider under what conditions, if any, the practice of paying Members for their services in Parliament may be reverted to, and the fact must not be forgotten that there are 101 Members of this House who are in receipt of public money for public services, and 151 Members of the other House; therefore, I maintain that it is only in the interests of justice to extend the practice to the whole of the Representatives in this House. I know I may be told that there is no country in the world in which there is such wealth as in this, and that men are prepared to make great sacrifices in order to obtain a position in this House. At the same time, I venture to think that the services of a Representative are not given simply for the honour of a position in this House, but to enhance the value of the particular vocation in which these hon. Gentlemen are employed. We know what éclat it gives to men who are connected with the professions in the country to write after their names the magic letters "M.P." Therefore, although we have hon. Members ostensibly making sacrifices for a position in this House, those sacrifices are really made with a view to their own ultimate benefit. Therefore, believing that some such measure as this is necessary to afford the constituencies full and complete choice in the selection of their Representatives, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I desire, in seconding the Resolution, to do so in as few a words as possible, because I am satisfied that nothing I can say would materially add to the force of the very cogent argument which my hon. Friend has just addressed to the House. I confess that I do not attach quite so much importance as my hon. Friend appears, from the terms of his Motion, to do to the usages of antiquity. I think that the social and economic conditions of the time when a Member of this House used to receive a wage of 2s. or 4s a day for his services were so widely different from our own, that no very useful argument can be drawn either from the adoption or the subsequent abandonment of that practice. Nor do I think that the practice of other countries, although material and important, is at all decisive of the question. It is unquestionably a
  1184
  fact, on which those who oppose this Motion will have to attempt to give some opinion, that there is not, with an insignificant exception, a country in the world, except Italy, where representative government exists, in which, sooner or later, directly or indirectly, the State has not been obliged to remunerate the Members of the Legislature. But I agree with those who say that this proposal must be justified in the circumstances of our own time and our own country, and, what is more, in the interest, not of this class or that, but of the nation as a whole. I have come to the conclusion—I confess, not without a good deal of deliberation—that the proposal can be justified upon that ground. Its simple, but sufficient, justification, in my judgment, is this: that its adoption is necessary in order to complete and give effect to the reconstruction upon a democratic basis of our representative system. The proposal is, to my mind, the practical complement and corollary of the franchise legislation of the last 20 years. What is the principle which underlies that legislation? It is that it is to the interest of the community—not of one class more than another—that every man, subject to certain conditions, many of which, if not all, may disappear before we are many years older, that every man should have a voice in and a responsibility for the making and the administration of the law. If that is your principle, how are you going to carry it out in practice? What is the good of giving to the great majority of the people the right to choose their representatives if, at the same time, you artificially restrict and limit the area of their choice? What, in other words, is the good of a democratic suffrage when it is as easy for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for a working man to get into this House? No one will deny that something like two-thirds or three fourths of the electorate of this country belong to the working class, and yet, as representing the working class in this House, we have, in point of numbers, but an insignificant fraction. I am not a fanatical believer in class representation. Natural forces have been and are at work in favour of men of wealth, leisure, and education. Those natural forces you can do nothing by legislation to cheek

  1185
  or counteract. But your present system, with the disparity it has brought about in the composition of the electorate and the elected, adds to the natural forces an artificial weight which they ought not to possess, and which ought to be taken away by legislation. In the first place, the enormous and excessive cost of elections which is thrown upon the candidate is a public charge that ought to be borne by the community. But, over and above that, I am convinced that so long as a man who earns his livelihood by labour cannot get a seat in Parliament), except by some special provision which throws a great and most unjust burden upon his class or constituency, the people will not have perfect freedom of choice, and cannot, therefore, give full effect to the principle of democratic legislation. Let me allude to one or two of the objections which are made to this proposal. It is said first of all that it will be expensive. I do not think that the House will seriously consider that there is much in that objection. My hon. Friend does not ask the House to commit itself to any specific figure, but has suggested a reasonable compromise between a too high and a too low view of the matter—namely, £1 a day, or £360 to £370 a-year. The total charge involved would be about £250,000 a-year. That sum might very easily be obtained without imposing any additional taxation. A small charge like this could be met by re-arranging official salaries upon a more moderate and reasonable scale, by reducing the ornamental sinecures, and by curtailing the grossly unreasonable pensions and superannuation system. In various ways economy might be effected which would easily meet the requirements of the case. With regard to the objection raised in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), who says, with apparent plausibility, why thrust the payment upon Members who do not desire it, and why not make it a matter for the consideration of the constituency itself; my answer is that if our argument is well-founded, it is a matter not of local but of national concern. Then again, the Amendment does not go to the root of the matter; and to pay Members in the way suggested by my hon. Friend would be to establish a most invidious distinction in this
  1186
  House. I cannot see any difference in principle between paying a Minister of the Crown a salary for the performance of administrative and executive work and paying a Member of the House a salary for the discharge of the equally important, though often much more thankless, duty of exposing the blunders of the Minister and correcting his mistakes. I never heard of Ministers, although they notoriously belong to the wealthy classes of the country, declining to receive their official salaries. I come now, lastly, to what is, after all, the most serious and the only fundamental objection to this proposal—namely, that it would demoralize us by introducing into public life a mercenary element, and by creating a class of professional politicians. I have been reading the book which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has published with regard to American institutions, and I find that the existence of a class of professional politicians is, after all, not such a very bad thing for the community. But, whether good or bad, no one who has read that book and studied the mass of information to be found in it can doubt that the very least potent of the causes which have tended to the creation of that class has been the salaries paid to Members of Congress and Members of the State Legislatures. Is it not time that in this matter as well as in others we should clear our minds of cant? To listen to some language, it might be supposed that no one enters the House of Commons but from a single-minded desire to serve his country, and that my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution is going for the first time, in this scene of Arcadian purity and simplicity, to open the door to a horde of self-seekers and place-hunters. Anyone who is really acquainted with the facts knows that that is not a fair description of the conditions of public life. Look at the Treasury Bench, or, for that matter, to the front Opposition Bench. We see on the two front benches conveniently concentrated what I may call the flower of English statesmanship. I am sorry to raise a blush upon the cheeks of right hon. Gentlemen; but, the truth is, we are so much more in the habit of listening to them than they are of listening to us, that we rarely have the opportunity of letting them know the

  1187
  strength and genuineness of our affectionate admiration. They are the men who, in the struggle for existence, have outpaced or trampled down all their competitors. Well, Sir, looking at these men, whose patriotism no one will call in question, will any one of them get up and say that office—I do Dot of course mean the emoluments alone, but the power, the patronage, the visible authority of which office is the symbol—will any one of them say that the chance of getting these things, the hope of keeping them, the fear of losing them, do not form a powerful motive in the political life of this country? I do not for a moment say that only of the Front Benches. It applies also to those who have never sat upon the Front Benches, but who hope some day to sit there, and to those who, having sat upon those Benches, and been exiled by the caprice of fortune, hope, some day, to get back again. Then there are the men who come here in the hope of business or professional advancement, and even the men who are moved by the vulgarest form of vulgar ambition—the desire to get into what is called society. With all these forces at work, in active operation—mixed as I agree they are, and as I know they always will be, with honest zeal for the public service, with which few of them are altogether inconsistent—can anyone seriously maintain that the adoption of this trivial proposition, for so it is, this proposition to allow a Member some £300 or £400 a-year, would substantially add to the mercenary elements by which our public life is invaded? One other remark on the subject of professional politicians. There is another sense of the term professional politician, and I do believe that the adoption of this proposal would add, and add beneficially, to the class—professional politicians, I mean, in the better sense of the word—the men who make politics the serious business of life as distinguished from the amateur or dilettante. Under our existing system there are numbers of such men excluded from the service of the State. Take the common case of a young man who has been, perhaps, through the training of a public school and university, and the bent of whose mind and abilities is in the direction of politics. He has equipped himself at all points for the work of public
  1188
  life, but he does not possess that modicum of fortune necessary, under our system, to become a candidate for a seat in this House. Under the old system of a hundred years ago, with all its abuses provision was made for a case like this. You had pocket boroughs, sinecures, and various forms of patronage, the acceptance of which was not thought dishonourable, according to the ideas of that day, by which a man's entrance into Parliamentary life was promoted. All this has been swept away, and rightly so, but then you have put nothing in its place. What is a man to do under such circumstances? He goes into business, or he becomes a journalist, or he enters a profession; he may even, by stress of necessity, be driven to go to the Bar. And what is the result? After his best powers, perhaps the best years of his life, have been occupied and absorbed in other pursuits, he is able at last to gratify his desire, to indulge his natural bent late in life, certainly with his powers jaded and impaired—he comes and offers to the service of the State the fag-end of his time, the dregs of his abilities. I do not wish to over-colour or overstate the matter, nor do I look forward to a time when this House will not be mainly composed of men of leisure. But this I do say: that our present system is fatally defective on two sides; on the one hand, it does not adequately and faithfully reflect the different interests and opinions of different classes of the community; and, on the other hand, it does exclude from the service of the State men whose fortune is not equal to their abilities, and by so doing it cripples the resources, the effective resources of the country, and impoverishes our public life. On these grounds I heartily support the proposition of my hon. Friend.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it well deserves the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether, and under what conditions, it would be expedient to revert to ancient custom of paying Members for the services in Parliament,"—(Mr. Fenwick,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. G. CURZON: Although I have listened with much admiration to the speech of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, I cannot say that his arguments have in any degree removed my objections to this proposal. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) recommends his Motion on the ground that it is a reversion to an ancient custom. No doubt there is a specious air of Conservatism about this, but I hope that no hon. Member will be so incautious as to swallow so transparent a bait. I noticed that, in his speech, the hon. Member skated very lightly over this question of ancient custom, while the hon. and learned Member who last spoke professed contempt for ancient custom altogether. As a matter of fact, ancient custom, so far from being a precedent for this proposal, is in direct opposition to it. That it was an ancient custom for Members to be paid is perfectly true. But by whom? Out of what fund? They were not, and they never have been, paid from the Imperial Exchequer. They were paid by their constituents, and so little enamoured were the constituencies with this old system that they took refuge behind every possible plea in order to escape the payment of their Members, and even consented to the worst of all horrors—total disfranchisement—rather than put their hands in their pockets to pay for their Members of Parliament. I have instances here with which I need not trouble the House, though, if an appeal is made to ancient custom, the further we go back the better, I suppose, will the illustration be. In the days of Edward II. a Member for Wiltshire, who appears to have been a very simple-minded kind of person, received 1s. 4d. a day, until it came to his knowledge that he was by law entitled to 4s., whereupon he brought an action against the Sheriff for the balance. A little later on we find that the Cambridge townsmen had a still more innocent individual as their Representative, for they compounded with him for 1s. a day for his services in Parliament. If ancient custom is appealed to, Members of Parliament may have grown more wise, but I do not suppose that constituencies have grown more foolish; and I can hardly imagine that hon. Members opposite would like, by revert-
  1190
  ing to ancient custom, to revive a system that often led to distraint, and that might lead, if distraint was not successful, to eviction. In fact, ancient custom, so far as it can be quoted at all, may be quoted in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), who proposes the partial resumption, under limited circumstances, of a system that was once universal, but afterwards fell into desuetude. But it certainly cannot be quoted by the hon. Member for Wansbeck, whose proposal, so far from being a return to antiquity, is a Radical innovation without warrant in previous history. Just a word or two on the question of expense. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Asquith), I was interested to observe, alluded to the financial question as not a serious one. Let us see whether it is or not. We have been told that American Senators and Congressmen are paid at the rate of £1,000 a-year, with an extra mileage for railway expenses. The hon. Member for Wansbeck also said that in Prance Senators and Deputies are paid a sum equal to about £375. I believe it is really £360. Well, I do not, for my part, see any reason why, if we are to be paid a salary, we should be rated at a lower figure than the American Congressman; but apparently the hon. Member entertains a more modest estimate of his own Parliamentary worth, or at least of the pecuniary recognition of it which the country is likely to entertain, and he is prepared to take £375. Well, there are 670 Members here; and I suppose that until representation in certain quarters of the House is reduced to more just proportions, 670 will remain the figure. The hon. Member who spoke last, working out the sum, told us that 670 times 375 gives a grand total of £250,000. Now, he said this was a trifling addition to the public expenditure. It may seem a very small thing in his eyes, but I think an expenditure of £250,000 a-year would be thought a very serious item in the country; that it would be regarded as the most serious of the questions raised by this proposal. I ask the House to note the quarter of the House from which this Motion proceeds. It comes from hon. Members whose

  1191
  financial consciences are so sensitive that they cannot stand the strain of putting our Naval Forces, by which alone we subsist as a first-rate Power, in a state of practical efficiency. It comes from that quarter of the House. It proceeds from hon. Members who come down here day after day, and night after night, and move reductions of paltry sums of £50 and £100 from the salaries of hon. and right hon. Gentleman on that Bench. We now find that though they are fond enough of nibbling at the salaries of others, they have very voracious stomachs indeed when it comes to asking salaries for themselves. What I feel disposed to say to hon. Members is this—"Why do you not have the courage of your opinions? If you think you ought to be paid by the country for representing it here, why do you not go down to your constituents and ask them to put their hands in their pockets and find the money for payment?" That would be a perfectly honest, and straightforward thing to do; and, what is more, it is the line that at no distant time was adopted by the Radical Party when they advocated the payment of Members. I have here a book called the "Radical Programme," which only a few years ago was regarded as indicating the high water mark of extreme Radicalism. The words therein in reference to the payment of Members are—
  "Whatever sum should be paid to the representatives of the people, it should be a charge not on the Imperial Exchequer, but on the constituencies."
  Well, it appears that the Radical high water mark has receded since then. Why do not hon. Members deal frankly with their constituents, instead of coming to the House and attempting to shuffle off responsibility by throwing a charge upon the Consolidated Fund? I venture to submit to the House that there are two questions which ought to be answered before we can vote for this Motion, and to neither of which has any answer been given. Can it be shown that the House of Commons, under a system of non-payment of Members, suffers by the exclusion of men or the non-representation of classes who otherwise might be returned or represented? The hon. and learned Member for Fife says poor men are excluded, and I think the hon. Member for Wansbeck said working class repre-
  1192
  sentatives are excluded. Well, as regards poor men, I doubt very much whether a sum of £375 a-year, as proposed, would be the means of bringing poor men into the House, and for this reason—that it would be hardly worth while for a man, for a moderate recompense of that kind, to throw up his profession in order to run the risk of election to this House, and, even if he were returned, to run the further risk of losing his seat a little while afterwards, and being thrown upon the world with no profession at all. I may appeal to the experience in Victoria. A salary of £300 is paid there to Members of the Legislative Chamber; but it has not been found that this payment brings in poor men or working class representatives. In speaking of the latter, I hope I shall not be misunderstood. I do not mean to say one word in depreciation of labour representatives in the House; on the contrary, I think that for fairness of tone, for courtesy of manner, for contribution to Debate and to legislation, they deserve the thanks of the House of Commons. But, I think, the advantages of working-class representation can be very easily exaggerated. I think, to quote the hon. and learned Member for Fife, there is a great deal of cant talked on this subject. A few years ago we were told how desirable it was that Mr. Joseph Arch should be elected as the peculiar and special representative of the class of agricultural labourers. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite, with great liberality, paid his expenses, and he became a Member. During the six months that he was here I do not remember that he cut a very distinguished figure. I do not remember that he did, and I speak from personal recollection, for though I was not a Member of the House, I happened, from that Gallery, to hear every speech that he made. Certainly, whatever figure he cut, the first time he went back to his constituency for re-election they returned him no more, and all that good Liberal money was thrown away. I do not see that it is an argument at all, because working-class representatives behave well or creditably in this House, that, therefore, you should add considerably to their number. We have among us many Members belonging to the Services—Admirals, Colonels, and others, whose demeanour is irreproachable,

  1193
  and who seldom speak except on their own subjects; but no one would say that that is a reason why we should have more of them. I do not suppose the hon. Member for Northampton would say that because we have barristers among us who are sometimes able to throw off the trammels of Party subserviency and to vote according to their convictions, that, therefore, we should have more barristers. The hon. Member who brought forward this argument, said, alluding to the system under which we exist, that with a constituency of 6,000,000, three-fifths belong to the working classes Well, if that be so, then there is scarcely a Member here of whom it may not be said that he has an honest claim to be considered a working-class Representative. I observe no reluctance in any part of the House to deal with working-class measures. I remember the Coal Mines Regulation Bill and the Employers' Liability Bill, and I remember, too, of this last mentioned Bill, that it was owing to the action of the labour representatives that it was not passed into law. When hon. Members talk of interests being represented in the House, when they allude to the landed interest, the commercial interest, the banking interest, the legal interest, and to that which is the particular object of their disgust, the liquor interest, I feel disposed to answer that the labour interest, in point of numbers, importance, and influence, is more strongly represented than any other interest in this House, and that there need be no fear that with the democratic character of modern constituencies the claims of labour will be for a moment neglected. The second question which should be answered is this—If you pass this resolution, and have payment of our Members, are we likely to have a better House of Commons than we have now? I remember the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. T. Healy) in one of his discursive midnight sallies once described the House of Commons as one of the most ignorant bodies in the world. I took that cum grano Hibernico, as I do everything that comes from those Benches, but for my own part I would far rather have unpaid ignorance than paid ignorance. I accept the challenge of hon. Members and refer with perfect readiness to the experience of foreign countries. It sometimes seems to me
  1194
  an unfortunate thing that a good many Members have not had the good luck to enjoy the opportunity of travelling abroad, or at least they talk as if they had not, or, if they have, as though they had their eyes shut. There is a favourite tendency in the minds of a good many to argue that any system in foreign countries must be better than that in our own, and that because payment of representatives is the practice in other countries, therefore, it must be superior to our own system. Now, I challenge the contradiction of any hon. Member when I make the statement that the status of a deputy in no single European country that you can name can be compared with the status of a Member of Parliament here. I will go further and include the United States of America. The hon. Member who spoke last seemed to me a little indiscreet in allude ing to the work, the monumental and classical work of his colleague o then Front Bench (Mr. Bryce), for that hon. Member in his book points out clearly enough that the payment of Members of Congress in the United States was not introduced originally to enable wording men to come into Congress, but on the theory that where there was public work done it ought to be paid for, and then he goes on to say—
  "The reasons in favour of payment are stronger than in England or France, because the distance from Washington is so great, and attendance is so continuous, that a man cannot attend to his profession or business while sitting in Congress."
  Further he adds—
  "That when the Constitution was framed the number of persons with sufficient private means to put them above the need of a lucrative calling hardly existed, and is comparatively small now."
  Finally he sums up—
  "The existence of the system in America furnishes no argument for its introduction into a small country with a large leisured and wealthy class."
  These remarks coming from the hon. Gentleman who speaks with unrivalled opportunities of forming a judgment dispose of any attempt to establish an analogy between the position of the two countries. I said that the status of a Continental Deputy is not so high as that of a Member of Parliament, and what I say of the Continent I would repeat with still greater certainty of America. It is a truism that in America the

  1195
  best men abstain wholly, I will not say from political life, but certainly from Parliamentary life. Do not misunderstand me. I do not say that that is due soley to the fact of payment being made to Members. It is due to a variety of causes, it is due to the system of official corruption, it is due to the place hunting system, and to many other circumstances, but incidentally, among other causes, it is due to the payment of Members. Whether you may be disposed to regard the class of professional politicians with contempt or not, when you attach payment to Membership you place it on a like footing with the other professions and you make it an object that may be sought by the poor and deserving and by working-class representatives, but that will equally be the object of the idle, the necessitous, and the unscrupulous. This has happened in other countries, and it must happen here in England. Without any hesitation whatever I say in total opposition to what has been argued by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, that the great reason why in this country Membership of the House is looked upon with such respect is that the country knows that for the most part the men who come into this House have nothing whatever to gain financially, but that on the other hand, in many cases, their entrance is a loss to themselves. ["No, no."] I speak of the bulk of Members who have nothing whatever to gain and very often a good deal to lose; and whatever be the attractions of social prestige, the desire for personal distinction or the promptings of public ambition, so artistically depicted by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, however important these influences may be in drawing men to this House, certainly the majority of them do not come here as a means of pecuniary emolument, but as a matter of public duty and personal sacrifice. I hope that the House will not be in a hurry to throw away advantages which it has already in its possession, and which, like many others, may be partly the result of accident, though I believe here, as in many other cases, that a seeming accident may be found on analysis to involve the survival of the fittest.
  *SIR EDWARD GREY: I have listened most carefully to the speech of the hon.
  1196
  Member who has just resumed his seat, but I do not find that he has used other than the old argument against this proposal. First, on the point of economy; slender as his argument was, I think he fell into a slight inconsistency. The Motion, he said, presented a suspicious appearance coming from the quarter of the House it did, and that Members there who were always trying to reduce the salaries of other people, now brought in a Motion to introduce payment of salaries to satisfy their own voracious stomachs. But, before he finished, he told my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, he had fixed the salaries far too low, and that in his estimation an objection to the motion was, that the salary suggested would not be sufficient for the remuneration of the great services he considers—I do not say he included himself—but I mean services rendered to the country by attendance in this House. So that it seems to me while he accused the hon. Member for Wansbeck of making an extravagant demand, he himself objected to the Motion on the ground that the proposal was not sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. The economical objection is a very slender argument. It was brought forward by the great Party of economy on the other side, that is, by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) who looks after the pounds, and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) who looks after the pence. The answer to the argument used by that party of economy is that this £200,000 would probably be saved by the increased attention to business on the part of paid Members. It is quite true that a good deal of attention is now paid to the Estimates, but it is attention paid by a small and devoted band of Members, whose persistency is in inverse proportion to the amount of attention they receive. I believe, if a larger number of Members of the House took continuing interest in the discussion's upon the Estimates, Ministers would feel there was a great body of public opinion behind Members, and that with far less expenditure of time, and greater economical results would be attained. Another argument has been used, that the payment of a salary would lower the character and position of a Member of Parliament, but this, I suppose, is not

  1197
  meant to apply to the present House, but to future Houses, for I conclude that every Member of the present House is equal to the test of standing the strain of a salary of £300. Neither do I think there is anything degrading in the fact of receiving a salary. If it is not a degrading thing in itself, then is there anything in the conditions of the work of a Member of Parliament that makes it undesirable he should receive a salary? If there is I have never heard these conditions properly defined. I have heard some vague talk about the necessity of the House being filled with men of leisure, means, and independence, and I admit that is to a certain extent desirable, but I do not admit what I think the argument is meant to imply, that because a man has leisure and because a man has means therefore he has also independence. Independence is not a monopoly of men of wealth and leisure, it exists among many classes other than those who have lands and property. It does seem to me sometimes in our excessive anxiety to make sure Members are men of leisure, we not only get the men who are by nature and habit leisurely outside the House but who introduce the nature and habit of leisure into business inside the House. The class of Members I think we want are men who by nature and habit could not be idle. If you have such a man then he must sacrifice something else to his attendance here, and I maintain that it is not unreasonable that some compensation should be given for the sacrifice of the time he would devote to work elsewhere. In fact, you cannot get this class of men admitted as freely into the House as the men of leisure and means are admitted until you introduce some compensation of this kind. I ask hon. Members who oppose this Motion to observe that this salary is not proposed by way of adequate remuneration, it is rather by way of indemnity for the trouble and expense to which a Member of the House is put by having to live in London and attend to his Parliamentary duties. It is quite true we shall have one difficulty if Members of the House are paid; accusations will be more frequently brought against candidates and Members of seeking to gain and hold the position from interested motives;
  1198
  and, I suppose, as long as politics exist, there will be natures which will delight to impute low and dishonourable motives to their fellows. But I am convinced that hon. Members who mean to oppose this Motion, conscious of their own integrity, will put an argument of that kind entirely on one side. Members of Parliament very soon learn to be above noticing imputations of motives, though they suffer from them, and we may abandon this objection; for it simply means that every Member of Parliament would feel it more incumbent upon him than he does now to be above suspicion altogether. In reference to professional politicians, I think the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Curzon) only looked at one side of the question as it presented itself to him—he considered who the men would be whom this change would admit into the House. But there is another question to be asked. Who are the men who, by your present condition of things, you are keeping out of the House? There is a class of men who monopolize—I hope and I think not, in fact but in name only—the title of labour representatives, of whom the hon. Member for Southport spoke with all respect. Why have we not more of these? The hon. Member for Southport brought forward a very curious reason why we have not more in the House, and that was the fact that one Member who was returned as a labour representative, and upon whom he passed some reflections that were uncalled for, had ceased to be a Member of the House, not being elected a second time. Now, I ask, may not the very fact that this Gentleman, who obtained admission to the House once was unable to obtain it a second time, may this not be a very fair argument why some change in the conditions should be introduced that would make access to the House more easy than it is now for men of his class? There is—I will not say another class—but other members of the same class, of whom we hear a great deal out of doors, but never meet a representative in this House—I mean the Conservative working men. Why should not the door of the House be thrown open to them? If it is open at the present time, then what is the obstacle that prevents them from appearing here? I, for one, am perfectly willing to do my best to have the obstacle

  1199
  removed. Then in regard to the character of Members. I would ask the House to consider how many constituencies there are at the present time in which men of known and tried character, and held in high estimation by their friends and neighbours, would naturally be selected as candidates, but who cannot come forward simply because they cannot afford the expense of coming to town and throwing up their local duties? How many constituencies who, in all respects but this, have a candidate ready to hand, have to accept a Member sent down from elsewhere—a man, perhaps, perfectly fitted to be a Member, but not intimately known to the constituents, as a man would be who lived among them. It is quite true we might have a certain rush of candidates, and that might confuse Party organization; but I think the burden of that inconvenience would fall more heavily upon the Liberal than on the Tory Party. The Tory Party have always been the Party of obstruction. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not use the word in its Parliamentary sense. I use it as opposed to construction. I will say that both Parties are Parties of progress, but that our progress has been more rapid and continuous than that of the Party opposite; and this leads me to the conclusion that I think it would be found that, in the increase of candidates, an undue proportion would be found standing on our side. When you are advancing fast it is much harder to keep your line even and unbroken than if you are waiting to receive a charge. But, after all, Party organization must take care of itself, and adapt itself to any change. I do not think it has any bearing on the merits of the question. What is the advantage to be gained? It is one that has been impressed upon me more strongly than ever by reading recent speeches of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He has lately inculcated most emphatically this doctrine—that outside the House of Commons people are only to seek redress for their grievances by efforts inside the House of Commons. It is to the House of Commons, said the right hon. Gentleman, the people outside must look for redress of all grievances; must place entire dependence on the House, and absolute confidence in the decision of the House. I agree that
  1200
  is a doctrine of great weight and importance; but if it is to carry the weight and importance it ought to carry with the country, then the choice of candidates by constituents for seats in the House must be as far as possible absolutely free. If they feel fettered in their choice they will refuse to pay that absolute, implicit, and unquestioning deference to the will of the House that the right hon. Gentleman wishes they should give. The hon. Member for Southport devoted part of his speech to the support of the Amendment given notice of by the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), declaring that if Members were to be paid the constituencies ought to pay them. I disagree entirely with that, and I think the hon. Member for Fife is right; it would introduce an invidious distinction, and would do more—far more than anyone has said this Motion would do—to destroy the independence of Members. If a Member were liable to have his salary granted or withheld or reduced according as he pleased his constituents, he would become the slave of the constituency; but I maintain that by granting the payment from the Consolidated Fund you make a man, not the slave of a particular constituency, but you make a Member of Parliament what he ought to be—the servant of the country at large. I think the constituencies may be trusted in the matter. My hon. Friend is asking the House to do a hard thing, and I have no doubt many Members see in their mind's eye half-a-dozen possible candidates ready to spring into existence in his own constituency, if only the means are supplied, and to whom he is asked to throw the door open. Well, I do not think a Member need fear if he stands on his own merits. No one who has attended large meetings throughout the country can possibly doubt that while constituencies often make mistakes as regards opinions and political views, and even as to the abilities or genius of a particular candidate they are seldom mistaken as to that man's moral character. Everyone who has attended large public meetings must have seen the man of earnestness and integrity get a hold and grip on the character of the audience not attained by the speeches of men who seem to be shallow in their earnestness or hollow in their convictions. If

  1201
  that is so, the logical outcome of our constitution is that a large choice of candidates should be open to constituents. That is a demand entitled to be made on the merits of the case. I for one have that confidence in the constituencies that I would not be afraid to trust them with a very extensive choice of candidates, believing that they would exercise that choice and that responsibility in the future, as in the past, with careful discrimination of the characters of the men who come before them.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Out of respect for the hon. Member who has brought forward his annual Motion, it is due that I should say a few words. The hon. Member who has just sat down concluded his speech with some observations that were somewhat at variance with what fell from his Friends who had preceded him. The constituencies, he said, could be trusted, from their fine moral sense of character, to discover if a candidate were actuated by motives above all personal considerations and superior to vulgar, selfish aims, and that they had exercised that faculty in the past. But according to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, apparently constituencies have not the skill to discover those persons who are looking simply to prestige and power, or whose sole object in coming to the House is to achieve personal distinction. Another set of men of whom, according to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, the House is largely composed, are those who are open to the degrading imputation of seeking to gratify the most vulgar form of vulgar ambition. All these then must have escaped the fine sense of the constituencies of which the hon. baronet spoke, and I would therefore recommend him to consider his absurd proposition, that the adventurer who may be tempted by the proffered salary is certain to be instantly detected by those whose suffrage he solicits. The hon. Member, in introducing his Motion, again gave a long list of those who, being Members of the House, receive payment from the State in some form, and he included all Ministers of the Crown, all who receive official salaries, and also Naval and
  1202
  Military officers on half pay; and he assumes that these last receive this half pay for services in Parliament, inasmuch as they are discharging no other duty. This is an altogether preposterous proposition. Such public money as these officers receive is due to them for past professional services totally unconnected with their presence in this House, which does not set them free from liability to active service. The position of a Naval or Military officer in this House does not exempt him from service in his profession if the claims of duty require it from him. There are a certain number for whom the time of active duty has ceased, and the public money they receive is due to them for past services. It is a most extravagant exaggeration of facts to include these officers—any of them—as receiving half-pay for services in the House. Then the hon. Member said that industry and labour alone were saddled with taxation to get representation in the House. But what does a lawyer receive by way of remuneration for representing a constituency in Parliament? What does the commercial man receive? Where is the country gentleman that receives payment to induce him to come here and devote his time and attention to public affairs? It is quite clear that the principle the hon. Gentleman lays down has no general application at all. Another argument lies at the root of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, that unless you give salaries to poor men, poor men are practically incapacitated from entering Parliament at all, and so you limit the free choice of constituencies, preventing them from electing Members they would desire to elect. He says you add artificially to the natural influence of wealth. Well, I do not know whether his argument would not carry him much further. If it is the duty of the House to level the distinction between wealth and poverty, does the hon. and learned Member mean to contend that the payment of £375 will produce any thing like a position of equality as regards candidature? Would this tempt a poor man to leave his profession, would this fill up the distinction of level between the rich man and one who is not blessed with equal fortune? The argument as to freedom of choice should be met by the constituency themselves giving their Mem-

  1203
  ber that which the hon. Member for Berwick calls an indemnity. Considerable skill and discretion have been shown by hon. Members who have conducted the debate from the other side in avoiding a difficult position that would arise. Of course there is a certain plausibility in saying that to enable a poor man to go to Parliament in discharge of a public duty you must give him such indemnity as will dispense him from the necessity of earning his livelihood by labour; but is that payment to be compulsory to those who do not want any such indemnity? I gather that the system is to be compulsory—that those who do not want it are to be forced to accept it, for the obvious reason that else you would establish an invidious distinction between paid and unpaid Members. But with what semblance of justice can you compel 570 Members of the House to receive a remuneration they do not want, in order to spare the feelings of the other hundred Members, who otherwise would dislike to take the remuneration they do want. I believe I am putting the figure rather high. I believe that if men had the option of being paid a remuneration under any possible set of circumstances likely to arise at any time, not nearly so many would come forward and claim the salary For various reasons the great majority of the House would decline, and so you would have this great principle introduced in order to gratify the choice of some few constituencies who sent Members to Parliament who did not want the salary. Then there is another material difficulty which Mover and Seconder have overlooked somewhat, and that is the provision of the money. I apprehend it is proposed to throw the charge on the Consolidated Fund, and, perhaps, hon. Members may consider this a trifling expenditure—this quarter of a million to carry out a Radical reform. This charge is to be thrown on the whole of the country, in order that some few Members may discharge the duties of their position with convenience to themselves. I do not think that this is altogether fair to the general body of taxpayers. I do not propose to enter into the various public and general considerations that arise in connection with the proposal; but let me just mention that the general rule and principle followed in this country has been
  1204
  hitherto that the greater part of our public work—I may say certainly a most important part—has been unpaid work.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: That of Ministers?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that Ministers who receive a salary for their official work were for a long time excluded from this House, and it was only the consideration of the absolute necessity of having them here that led to their being permitted to have seats in the House. But I was saying a large amount of public work and most valuable work in the country is unpaid, and all the better done for being unpaid. I do not mean to say a line of distinction is easily drawn; I do not mean to say that administrative work can be discharged by unpaid services as effectively as can work such as that of Select Committees, for instance; but there is a vast deal of public work, useful work, performed at present without payment, for which, if you admit the principle of payment to Members of Parliament, you should, to apply the principle consistently, pay. We have just created a large number of County Councillors. Borough Councillors, of course, have existed for a long time—there are magistrates, sheriffs, jurors, and many others who discharge most important functions absolutely without remuneration. Can anyone say it is necessary to change the whole system by which this work has hitherto been done from a sense of public duty, and with, perhaps, a feeling of pride derived from the consciousness of doing good public service? Can anyone say the work would be better done if paid for? How far, too, should the principle of payment be extended? If you point to the example of foreign countries, where services of this kind without payment are absolutely unknown, I reply that it is pre-eminently a characteristic that distinguishes this country to its credit that there is a stronger display of public spirit. I deny that the poor man elected by a constituency as the best man they can find for their representative need be prevented by his poverty from sitting in the House. I do not want to enter into particulars; but instances will occur to many hon. Members where men who certainly might be described as poor have in different ways which I need not

  1205
  particularize found the means of discharging their duty as Members. I believe the means can always be found if a man is the free choice of a constituency. It would be invidious to select particular instances. Originally it was the custom of wealthy patrons to assist young men to enter the House, and I do not believe the modern democracy will be less generous than the patrons of old days. There will be no difficulty, where a man is selected as worthy of the confidence of a constituency, in providing him with the means of taking his seat. The argument that you will avert those evil consequences dreaded by hon. Members opposite, by converting unpaid into paid services, seems to me overstated, and not founded on experience. I do not say that, from the fact of being paid, a man necessarily receives less respect and social consideration, but, at any rate, the fact of there being no payment saves a Member from the suspicion of one more inducement added to those so eloquently enumerated by the hon. and learned Member for Fife. I do not say payment degrades a man—payment for good work never degrades—but I do say that the position of Members would be more open to suspicion, more open to the reproach that they were not earning their salary. This would be thrown in their teeth by the constituencies, and they would be called to account and reminded that they were expected to speak, not because they had something to say, but because they were paid to speak.
  *MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The right hon. Gentleman finds some inconsistency between the speeches of hon. Members on this side, but I do not think that any of us who advocate the payment of Members would affirm a proposition that constituents never make mistakes, and, indeed, under a system of payment of Members, it is not unlikely that selections may be as extraordinary in the future, in some cases, as they have been in the past. But one reason why selections have been unfortunate is that on our side, at all events, the limit of the field within which candidates can be selected is an extremely restricted one. By payment of Members you would have a much wider field of recruitment than at present. Hon. Gentlemen
  1206
  should, I think, take note of the fact that the wealth of the country is not so much found on our side as on theirs; and, therefore, I think they will admit that on this matter alone we are placed at some disadvantage in the matter of the selection of Members. Our candidates, in many respects, are hopelessly handicapped. The right hon. Member opposite mentioned the circumstance that some of the labour representatives in this House are returned under conditions which will be perpetuated; that is to say, their expenses being subscribed by their constituents. Well, I think he must see that Members who are now returned to the House with their expenses paid come here with their hands far more tied than they would under any system of payment by the country. They are far more pledged to the constituencies. It must be extremely difficult for an hon. Member who is returned to this House under such circumstances to give that free and independent vote which is so much desired in the best interests of the House, and without which your representative is very likely to become your delegate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to unpaid work as compared with paid work, and no doubt there is a great deal in the contention that so long as we can find proper men to do the work without pay, we do not require to pay for the work being done. But it does not follow that the paid men will not do the work better. In Scotland the Magistracy is paid, and no argument could induce the Scotch people to go back to the system of unpaid Magistrates, although the system is found to work well in England. I do not, like some hon. Members, attach much value to the historical precedents which have been brought forward; neither do I attach value to the precedents of foreign countries, although, as they are living compared with the others that are dead, they are entitled to more consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Curzon) referred to the system of representation in the United States of America. For my own part, I am not so sure that Congress occupies so low a position as compared with our legislative system as is often assumed; and as to the cost to Congress men, if one enters into detail at all it is easy to prove that the cost of living in America is certainly double

  1207
  what it is in England, and on that ground alone there is reason for paying the representatives more than we would have to pay here. There is one matter in regard to the American Congress which should commend itself to public opinion in this country, and that is that the American House of Representatives is less than half as numerous as the present House of Commons. With the present unwieldy House of Commons no doubt the cost of paying Members will be very great, but I should hope that the passing such a Motion as this would act as a lever to induce the House to reduce the number of representatives and so establish a more effective Chamber. We, on this side, when we propose the large additional expenditure which would be involved in the payment of Members are taunted with our opposition to increased expenditure on the naval defences of the country; but in reply to that taunt I would point out that the Admiralty themselves are doubtful as to the expediency of this increase, as is shown in the contradictory statements of the First Lord from time to time. This proposed salary of £365 a-year is not meant to attract men within these walls, but if such a salary were paid to Members of Parliament, it would have the effect of enabling poorer men to come within the walls of this House if they wish to do so and constituencies wish to send them. So long as the working classes have not a free selection of candidates, there cannot be a real representation of the people. Under a system of payment I believe that we shall have a better House of Commons, and that we shall get more men who come here to work. I think that as constituencies have shown in the past that whenever good men come forward they have a good chance to get in, so they may be trusted to select good representatives under a system of payment. I do not think they are likely to accept any charlatan who comes before them without asking his former character. Of course there must always be some risk in dealing with new recruits, and with an unwieldy Chamber such as this, and my eyes are by no means shut to such a disadvantage; but I think it has been pointed out with sufficient clearness that this country having embarked on a system of de-
  1208
  mocracy we should endeavour to make it effectual, and I trust hon. Gentlemen opposite will join in making it so, instead of endeavouring to shirk the inevitable.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I desire to say that my constituents do not wish Members to be paid. I believe that if any constituency wishes to be represented by any person who is unable to pay his own expenses they can easily make a collection and pay them for him. The hon. Member opposite would lead the House to suppose that a great number of the Members of the two Services in the House are on full pay. But, as a matter of fact, out of all the Service Members in the House there are only some two or three who are on full pay and eligible for employment. The others are on the retired list, and some, like myself, receive remuneration from the State for past services, and not on account of connection with the House. I shall on all occasions vote against the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down into any discussion with respect to naval and military pensions, and I have never felt that the practice prevailing over Europe, excepting in Italy and in the United States, is a strong argument in this matter. I believe that our own position is so peculiar historically, economically, and geographically, and differs so much from that of the United States or a country like France which has broken with its past, or a country like Germany, that we cannot found, any strong argument on their action in this matter. But I am convinced that the subject is one in which the mass of our constituents, Conservative and Liberal, are taking an increasing and ever-deepening interest. It is absurd to pretend that by the mere extension of the franchise we are anxious to have in this House complete representation of all classes and sections of our society, if at the same time you narrow the latitude of choice by making it practically impossible for more than an extremely limited number of the working classes to find their way into the House. The Home Secretary, in language which surprised me very much, said—"Oh, there would be no difficulty at all in the case of a workman who could not provide

  1209
  for himself while in this House in providing means to secure his seat and to maintain him while occupying that seat." If that has been the experience of the right hon. Gentleman it is very different from my own personal observation. I believe there has been the greatest difficulty experienced in raising funds to pay the election expenses of what are called the labour representatives, and more difficulty still in obtaining funds to maintain them whilst in this House. I do not wish to refer to personal cases, but it is well known to all Members of this House that there are two labour representatives who, a year ago, were placed in circumstances to which great objection might fairly be taken by them, or their friends, in consequence of the reluctance on the part of their constituents to continue the fund on which they had been led to rely. This is a matter of fact. I think the Home Secretary is mistaken as to the fact. The right hon. Gentleman says that this will mean an increase of taxation to the extent of about £300,000, and he says, fairly enough, that that would not in itself be a great recommendation of this proposal to the constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that, while we advocate this proposal, we are not prepared to pursue a policy which, in other respects, will recoup the Exchequer for this outlay. But that is an expenditure which has been attacked, not very systematically as yet, but which is certain to be energetically attacked more and more, and which will be perfectly adequate to meet the demands proposed to be laid on the Exchequer. Then it is said that five-sixths of the Members of the House will refuse to receive the salaries. Well, I have never heard of the richest Peer in the Realm ever refusing to take his £5,000 a-year, or of any other Minister refusing to take his salary to the last farthing, and I think they are quite right. The sums paid to them by Parliament are in the nature of an indemnity for the sacrifice of time and professional advancement which a seat in Parliament details. On that ground I cannot give my assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Flintshire. It would be most invidious, and defeat the very object we have in view, to cast the charge upon the localities. For my part, I am going with greater
  1210
  confidence than before to vote for this proposal. The great political writer Mill, from whom I learnt and was glad to learn earlier ideas in politics, was strongly against this proposal. He said it would lead to the admission of a great number of sycophants and flatterers of the mob. Well, for some time I thought so too, but experience has shown that there is no force in it. I think with the hon. Baronet who spoke from this side of the House that we have now had considerable experience of elections taking place with a low franchise, and I appeal to any Member of this House whether in all these instances character has not had more to do with the election than a mere concurrence in the opinions of the constituency? The more free we make the choice, the wider we make it, the more likely is the constituency to choose a man who will not be a sycophant or a flatterer, and in whose independence we can have confidence. There are, no doubt, other reasons which make me vote for this proposal. It is perfectly clear that we are going to have in this House in the next few years most serious discussions pointing in the Socialist direction. If we want to meet the attacks, some passionate attacks against class legislation, depend upon it it is our interest to leave no stone unturned to make the choice of the electors as wide as possible, and make the access to this House as open as possible to every member of the community, however poor he may be. On these "grounds I shall support the proposal.
  *MR. S. SMITH: As I understand I am precluded by the Rules of the House from moving the Amendment in my name, I should like to offer some general observations on the question before the House. At the outset, I would say that it is not without anxiety that I put myself in opposition to Members for whom I have so much respect. No Members have won a more honourable place than the "labour Members," and it is, therefore, with some hesitation that I speak against the proposal before the House. But I think this is a question which should not be decided merely on abstract considerations. This debate

  1211
  has, to some extent, been conducted upon abstract and logical considerations. But what weighs with me, and what I think will weigh with the House in the long run, is the larger and broader point of view—namely, what is best for the welfare of the country. The present proposal is one which would have very far-reaching effects. England, above all countries, has been distinguished for many years for the public spirit of its citizens. There is no other country in the world where there is anything like the amount of gratuitous, unpaid labour that there is here. Not only have we unpaid work in Parliament, but in the innumerable Boards scattered all over the country; our voluntary system has become a habit and tradition of the country; and I think this public spirit is the very salt of our social and political life. It keeps the administration of our affairs free from corruption; it maintains a high level and standard of duty such as I think you will find in no other country in the world. I do not think you can change the constitution of Parliament without affecting our public life at its very roots. To introduce the system of paid Members of Parliament will be to supplant the voluntary with the professional politician. And I cannot but remember what I have seen in other countries—the United States in particular—and I believe the introduction of paid Members would sooner or later lower the character of this House. You may depend upon it, Mr. Speaker, that if we have payment of Members of Parliament we shall soon have payment of Members in Town Councils and County Councils, School Boards and Boards of Guardians, the Magistracy, and all those public bodies with which the country is covered. This is, so to speak, the thin end of the wedge. We are discussing now, not merely the payment of a few hundreds of Members of Parliament, but we are discussing the ultimate payment of 10,000, or 20,000, or 30,000 persons holding public offices throughout the country and doing their work both honestly and
  1212
  gratuitously. What have been the consequences in other countries of the adoption of this course? We could not expect this country to escape from the degradation of politics which has taken place in France. And we all know what exists in the United States of America. It is urged that the adoption of payment of Members will bring a large number of working men's representatives into Parliament. I do not believe it. Where the system does exist we do not find that working men are elected. So far as I am aware, not a single working man sits at Washington at the present moment—at least, I have never heard of any; nor have I ever heard of any in France. ["Oh!"] It may be that there are, but I have never heard of any. I must confess, however, that I do not know so much of France as I do of the United States of America, where I spent some time as a young man, and where I never heard of a single case. My own opinion is that we have a larger number of working men in this Legislature than has any other Legislature. [Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS: No.] My hon. Friend says "No," but I shall be glad if he can prove that is not the case. I say the payment of Members of Parliament would tend to bring in not a larger number of working men, but a large number of place-hunters, men whom I must call self-seeking demagogues, who abound in those countries where payment of Members exists. Will the House permit me to give an account of my impressions formed when, as a young man, I visited the United States. At that time the state of politics was simply deplorable, and I ask the attention of the House to what I witnessed both before after the Civil War. I do not believe and that in any country or in any age corruption attained to such enormous dimensions as it then did in New York, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and, indeed, in most of the large cities of America. In most of the State Legislatures and the National Legislature, the state of politics and of public life was also very bad. In New York, municipal affairs were entirely under the control of what was called the Tammany ring. A parcel of scoundrels, a set of thieves, got entire possession of the municipal government, and in the course of a very few years these men stole out of the

  1213
  City Treasury the sum of £4,000,000 sterling. These men were all attracted to politics as a money-making profession. In ten years the public debt of New York was raised from 20,000,000 to 100,000,000 dollars; and the taxation which early in the century was ½ per cent on the value of property, rose to more than 2½ per cent per annum on the capital value of the property. That is to say, that supposing house property on the average yielded 5 per cent, the taxation represented 50 per cent. of the income. I believe, as a matter of fact, the owners of mortgages in New York did pay 50 per cent. This enormous amount was necessary to make up the defalcations and laches of those scoundrels who embezzled the finances of the City. There was more or less the same state of things in every large city in the country, and it existed to a great extent at Washington itself. I have often been asked why the citizens did not make an effort to overcome this state of things, and to get affairs into their own hands. Good citizens did make very strenuous efforts, and after striving laboriously for years and years with scant success, they did at length succeed in turning out the Tammany ring; but I believe that since then many of the abuses have again sprung up. When I was in New York, there were corrupt Judges in the pay of these men, who were dismissed years afterwards, and who had acquired large fortunes out of their disgraceful practices. Now, Sir, allusion has been made to-night to the admirable work of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce's "American Commonwealth.") I have had great pleasure in reading through the greater part of that work: and I believe it will be the standard book on America for many years to come. I would like hon. Members to listen to a little extract which I am about to read. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, this is the deliberate conclusion come to by my hon. Friend after repeated visits to the United States during some twenty years, and with the most perfect knowledge of the American system of politics which I venture to think has been acquired by any Englishman:—
  "Politics has now become a gainful profession, like advocacy, stock broking, the dry goods trade, or the getting up of companies. People
  1214
  go into it to lire by it, primarily for the sake of the salaries attached to the places they count on getting. Secondarily, in view of the opportunities it affords of making incidental and sometimes illegitimate gains. Every person in a high Administrative Post, whether Federal, State, or Municipal, and, above all, every member of Congress, has opportunities of rendering services to wealthy individuals and companies for which they are willing to pay secretly in money or in money's worth. The better officials and legislators—they are the great majority, except in large cities—resist the temptation. The worst succumb to it and the prospect of these illicit profits renders a political career distinctly more attractive to an unscrupulous man."
  That is the state of things at the present moment in America. Some say that an improvement has taken place. I believe that improvement is very slow indeed, Now, what I assert is, tha like causes produce like effects, and what you see in America to-day you would probably see in England 50 years hence if you introduced a similar system of paid representatives. I have observed that whatever custom, fashion or abuse finds a place in America sooner or later becomes acclimatized here, and after a certain number of years affects us as it affected the people there. Now, as we are aware that in America the system of paid professional politicians has led to these abominable abuses, I say that, in the course of time, when full opportunity has been given to work out the system in this country, we shall see similar effects here. Parliament is now free from corruption; but, with paid Members, we should, 20, or 30, or 50 years hence, when the present Leaders of Party had been taken away, see a very different state of things. In Washington's time the American Republic began on virgin soil, and it had statesmen of the highest character at the head of affairs. It took 50 years of the professional politician system to entirely change all that. I say that after we have had a generation of paid Members, under the same conditions as in America, there is too much reason to believe the same fruits will be produced in this country. Just conceive what it will be to put into the bands of a body of professional politicians, largely living by politics, the control of £120,000,000 of local and Imperial taxation! Con-

  1215
  sider what would be the consequences of entrusting to Committees drawn from this class Private Bill legislation involving enormous sums. Take as an illustration the Manchester Ship Canal. There was an enterprize dealing with £8,000,000 of money; it was promoted as determinedly on the one side as it was opposed on the other, and each side spent some £100,000 or more in Parliamentary expenses. The decision was left to a small Committee of five Members; and we have never had a suggestion or a whisper as to the honesty or uprightness of those members. But go to the United States, and you will find in respect of such undertakings that each side provides a large amount for "blackmailing," and if it wishes to carry a Bill, it will have to disburse heavily from this Secret Service fund. This Secret Service fund is disbursed to a large extent among members of the Committees. It is a notorious fact that it is almost impossible for any great Corporation in America to carry through its work without putting aside a large amount of money for "lobbying," and for secret and unavowed purposes. There is a class called "lobbyists" in America, whose profession it is to get through Bills. They receive large sums of money of which they give no public account, for it is perfectly well understood that they could not be publicly vouched for. I see from the accounts of one railway quoted in this book (Mr. Bryce's) that it had put aside no less than 4,800,000 dols. for this Secret Service Fund, or nearly a million sterling, in the last few years. Will the House permit me to read a short extract from my hon. Friend's book on this system of lobbying? It is well that we should know something about this system, which may some day migrate to this country; and from what I saw during the time I resided in America, I can vouch for the truth of every word of what I am about to read:—
  "The doors of Congress are besieged by a whole army of commercial or railroad men and their agents, to whom, since they have come to form a sort of profession, the name of 'Lobbyists' is given. Many Congress men are personally interested, and 'lobby' for themselves among their colleagues from the vantage ground of their official positions. That the capital and the hotels at Washington are a nest of such intrigues and machinations while
  1216
  Congress is sitting, is admitted on all hands; but how many of the members are tainted no one can tell."
  How long, I ask, could you keep such a system out of England if you once admitted the professional class of politicians? I hold that it is true patriotism to face these facts, and take due cognizance of them, rather than rush into a change of which many are unable to estimate the ultimate consequences, and not improbably the majority of those who now promote it will, in the end, deeply regret their share in its introduction. Under our present political system, although there is far too much of party bitterness, there are few countries in the world in which politicians are so free from the charge of corruption, or where such a thing as the acceptance of a bribe by a Member of the Legislature, is so absolutely unknown. This was not always the case; but happily it has now become so, and I say that this immunity from political venality is to us a priceless possession. There is, however, an increasing tendency to widen the area of politics and to suck into their vortex one interest after another. Among other evidences of this I have been sorry to observe the tendency that has been exhibited of late to identify the heads of the Civil Service Departments with party politics. This is what, more than aught else, has been the ruin of the American system. In that country, whenever the Government changes lands upwards of 100,000 officers employed in the Service of the State are turned out to make room for the adherents of the victorious party. I believe that not quite so extensive a clearance has accompanied the latest change of Government; but still, the system is it now exists is a detestable one and utterly destructive of anything like good or honest government. The men who obtain office under such a system know that they must feather their nests in a short time—about four rears at most—and the consequence is that they too often contrive, in one way or another, to carry on the feathering process with more or less success—some of them going into office poor,

  1217
  and coming out rich men. If the working of the political machinery of this country were placed in the hands of professional politicians like these, do you not think the time will come when they will use the power with which they may be invested in the same manner as is the case in America? The temptation would be found irresistible. It would be too much for our poor human nature; for, after all, we are made of the same clay as the Americans. Both are of the Anglo-Saxon race, and it would be assuming a great deal too much to say that the evils which now occur in America could not occur here. I hold that if we are placed in the same position we will witness similar results. The fact is that the American "machine," as it is called, is worked from top to bottom by a class of men who try to make as much out of it as they can. My hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has given us a description of this "American machine," the working of which is an illustration of what comes from handing over the political power of the country to unscrupulous politicians who intend to make money out of it. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I say to those hon. Members who cry "Oh!" that anyone who knows anything about the working of the political machinery of America will testify to the fact that, to a large extent, the political business of that country is put into the hands of men who would not be trusted in this. Here is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen says about the American machine:—
  "Observing the forms of consulting the voters, it substantially ignores them, and forces on them persons whom they do not know, and would dislike if they knew them. It substitutes for the party voters generally a small number of professionals and their creatures, extracts pre-arranged, nominations, from packed meetings, and calls this consulting the pleasure of the sovereign people…. It is less trouble to put up with impure officials, costly city government, a jobbing State legislature, an inferior sort of Congressman, than to sacrifice one's own business in the effort to set things right. Thus the machine works on and grinds out places, power, and the opportunities for illicit gain to those who manage it."
  These "machines" are worked by a person called the "Boss," who discharges the function of pulling the wires. Now, with us the wire-puller is, as a
  1218
  rule, free from corrupt motives—although a strong partizan; but in most of the States in America, the man who controls the party machine, who pulls the strings and gives the bias to the side to which he belongs, is this so-called "Boss," of whom Mr. Bryce says:—
  "It must not be supposed that the members of Rings, or the great Boss himself, are wicked men. They are the offspring of a system. Their morality is that of their surroundings. They see a door open to wealth and power and they walk in. The obligations of patriotism or duty to the public are not disregarded by them, for these obligations have never been present to their minds."
  I need not read more; but I would repeat, that if you make politics a gainful profession you will soon find that you have commenced the descent of a steep gradient and will be unable to stop until you have landed yourselves in the quagmire of the American system, the motto of which is "The spoils belong to the victors." I have been quoting from the ablest book on America that has been published in our time—a book which is regarded as a masterpiece in America. Besides this, I wish to remind the House that I have many relatives and friends in America, and that in what I am saying I speak of that which I personally know. I hope the House will not suppose that I am attacking the great American nation. I am one of those who esteem and honour the Americans, and I have said nothing which most of my American friends would not say themselves or have not already said to me times out of number. I feel assured that if you had some of them in this House to night they would say exactly what I have said, and would add that they groan under their existing political system and wish to Heaven they could alter it; but that it is coiled around them in such a way that it is impossible to unwind the coils. We in this country would be crushed under so demoralising a system; but America has such enormous resources that the people do not feel anything like the pressure we would have to endure. They have nothing like the mass of poverty nor the congested populations we have

  1219
  in this country, and we cannot afford to make such experiments as the Americans are able to indulge in. In spite of the political corruption prevalent in their midst, the Americans are a most energetic, active, and prosperous people, they have resources which we do not possess; we cannot afford to play the pranks or run the risks they have no hesitation in encountering, and the Americans are, consequently, able to flourish under a state of things that would be ruinous to an old crowded country like ours. There is much more excuse for the system of paying Members in America than here; they have not the leisured class we have, neither have they the same amount of public spirit as animates the class from which, in this country, our legislators are derived. You do not see first-rate men in America applying themselves to politics as we do here, and I, for one, doubt very much whether it would be possible to govern America without a system of payment running from top to bottom. Here, however, there is no necessity for such a state of things. There is no difficulty in any English constituency in finding men ready to become candidates for Parliamentary honours, to serve any office they might be entrusted with, or even to devote their whole lives to their legislative duties gratuitously. Nevertheless, I can fully sympathise with the motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick); and if I could see some via media whereby it would be possible, in a limited number of cases, to provide payment for a certain proportion of poor men who might be elected as Members of this House, I should be willing to accept such a proposal. But I do not think we would find 50 Members of this House who really desire to be paid; and, putting aside the representatives of the working-class, I very much doubt whether there are more than 20 or 30 British Members who have this desire. I put it to the House, therefore, is it desirable that we should thrust on the enormous majority of unwilling Members a payment which is only demanded in the interests of a very small number? As I fear I have already occupied too much of the time of the House, I will now conclude. I would merely add that the view I have put forward is that entertained by the great Tribune of the
  1220
  people whose eulogium we have this evening heard pronounced from both sides of the House. The late Mr. John Bright was opposed to the payment of Members of Parliament. I hope that the House will not abandon the system of gratuitous and voluntary service, but that it will keep up the standard of English public life, and hand down to posterity the priceless boon of an incorruptible Parliament.
  MAJOR RASCH: I think that a constituency have a perfect right if they consider a man is indispensable to them, to pay him for being here. But my own constituency does not take the view that its representative should be paid. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) seemed to think that there are sailors and soldiers in the House who have an unlimited draw upon the public purse. I have served in the Army myself, but that has nothing to do with my presence in the House, and the same may be said of nine out of ten of the admirals and officers who have seats in it. The payment of members in Victoria is not likely to add strength to the hon. Member's argument, and as for the United States, I believe that the system is becoming decidedly unpopular. If we are to pay Members of Parliament I do not see why we should not also pay town councillors, county councillors, and even magistrates. Members will be in an extremely unfortunate condition if on going back to their constituents they tell them that, although they have not been able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a penny off the Income Tax, or have not succeeded in reducing the Estimates, they have secured for themselves £365 or £500 a year a piece. It seems to me that the real solution of the question is not payment of Members while in the House, but the facilitating of the entrance of Members to the House by reducing as far as possible the enormous initial expenses, and providing State system of registration of electors.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House was counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Nine o'clock, till Monday next.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.—
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CONSOLIDATED BILL. (No. 1.)
Received the Royal Assent.
THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE, in rising to ask the Government what progress had been made with regard to the selection of a site for the National Portrait Gallery, said: My Lords, I have so often asked this question before that I am almost ashamed to put it now. I cannot say that I have ever received any satisfactory answer from Her Majesty's Government. The matter is one that cropped up some weeks ago, when my noble Friend (Lord Lamington) brought forward the question of public buildings in the Metropolis, and on that occasion my noble Friend (Lord Henniker) certainly did not give a very re-assuring answer. What I have always contended for is this—that the National Portrait Gallery has a preferential claim over all other departments of Science and Art, because three years ago a promise was made that two years would not elapse before an arrangement was made for removing the pictures from Bethnal Green, which is not a suitable place for them, and where they are hardly appreciated. I know it is said that just at this moment there is
  1118
  considerable pressure upon the Government in consequence of the demands in respect to the National Defences; but if that policy is to be pursued in any continuity—which I certainly trust it will be—it may be years before anything is done, before we get a site, or before any steps are taken to build a new National Portrait Gallery. Last year a deputation composed of Peers and Members of Parliament presented a Memorial to the First Lord of the Treasury which was very numerously signed. The First Lord received the deputation with his usual courtesy, but since then nothing has come of it. During the Autumn Session of last year a question was asked in the House of Commons as to what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to that matter. Mr. Plunket on that occasion stated that he was in communication with Mr. Scharf on the question. That satisfied the hon. Member who put the question; but, on inquiry of Mr. Scharf, I find that the only suggestion Mr. Plunket made was that Madame Tussaud's Waxworks were to be placed at the disposal of the Trustees of the Gallery. Now, it is quite a novel idea to turn a waxwork exhibition into a National Gallery; but I think the great objection to it was that the building was insufficient, and was quite as much out of the way as Bethnal Green. When the last Government were in office, Mr. Mitford prepared elaborate plans for a new gallery in Delahay Street. That had great merits, and we were in hopes that something was going to be done; but now, it appears, a company has got hold of this land, so that the site is gone. Then there were other plans. There is the site at Millbank; the prison there is going to be pulled down, and there is a very

  1119
  large extent of ground behind in Victoria Street. Any of these sites might be negotiated for, at any rate; but nothing is being done. Then, I must draw my noble Friend's attention to the fact that we are constantly having donations and bequests coming in, and we do not know where to put them. We are practically in a small lodging house at 20, Great George Street, where you can hardly get full-lengths up the staircase. The consequence is we have been obliged, as a last resort, to ask the Trustees of the National Gallery to receive those pictures that are too large in their cellars. We have been obliged to send to the lower part of the National Gallery that most interesting picture presented by the Emperor of Austria of the House of Commons, with Pitt addressing the House, and also another most interesting picture, of the Conference of 1604. These are two extremely valuable pictures, and they must remain there out of sight until the Government do something. I wish to correct an answer which my noble Friend gave the other night to a question of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandhurst). The question was as to the number of visitors to the Exhibition at Bethnal Green, and my noble Friend said it was five times as large as before the pictures went there. The real state of things is that for two years the number has rather diminished. In 1880 there were 450,000 visitors; in 1886 there were 480,000; in 1887 it dropped to 409,000; in 1888 it rose to 910,000, but this was the Jubilee year, and the large crowds were no doubt principally attracted by the exhibition of Her Majesty's Jubilee presents. But there is another much more serious thing with regard to the Bethnal Green Museum, and that is the deterioration of the pictures there. The pictures are all cracking. I have a Report from Mr. Scharf, who inspected the Gallery together with two experts, and that Report is—
  "Those portraits on the side walls have suffered most. The walls are very thin, and the changes of climate during night-time seem to have taken a greater effect on them. The other portraits show less marks of deterioration."
  I am sorry to say there are upwards of 40 portraits, many of them extremely good ones, that are so attacked. Under these circum-
  1120
  stances I must say I think it is hard upon the Trustees who are responsible for the proper keeping of the pictures that this state of things should be allowed to continue. I want to know from my noble Friend whether any move has been made—whether any correspondence has taken place between the Office of Works and the Treasury upon the subject; because if we are to go on year after year receiving the same answer, and nothing being done, the pictures will all go to rack and ruin.
  LORD LAMINGTON: Before my noble Friend replies to this question, I wish to refer to the answer which my noble Friend gave me the other evening. I did not catch the observation at the time, but the noble Lord is reported to have said that a great many more people visited the Bethnal Green Museum since the pictures have been there than visited the old gallery at the West End. Now, I want to point out that there is another exhibition at Bethnal Green, and if account be taken of the ordinary visitors, I do not believe it will be found that the number of the visitors to the pictures simply has increased. Very recently I visited Bethnal Green for the purpose of seeing for myself what is taking place. A great number of people were there, but they were not the class of people who care for historic pictures, and the collection is entirely lost in its present position. Now, a great number of these pictures have been presented to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery by families, in order that they might be placed in a favourable position, and so prove an advantage to the nation. Many of these families feel considerably aggrieved that the pictures should be left at Bethnal Green, and, if nothing is to be done to house the pictures properly, I think it would only be just that they should be returned to their donors. What has been stated to-day by my noble Friend as to the deterioration of the pictures is a matter of very great importance, because we must remember that portraits cannot be replaced.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I would like to ask my noble Friend (Lord Henniker) whether the Government have considered or will consider the possibility of obtaining Her Majesty's gracious permission to utilize the large Banqueting House, Whitehall, for this purpose? That beautiful build-

  1121
  ing was designed by Inigo Jones for James I. in the beginning of the 17th century. It as all that was ever carried out of the magnificent Palace which he designed for that Monarch to replace the old Palace which shortly before had been burnt down. It has sustained two subsequent fires; and it remains there the finest specimen of Italian architecture in this country, and one of the most beautiful of the building which adorns the Metropolis. It was built and originally used, as it was intended, as a Banqueting Hall; but since the reign of George I. it has been used as a chapel, but it has never been consecrated. It is about as as un-ecclesiastical looking a building as it is possible to imagine. It faces north and south instead of east and west. It is hung with curtains in a theatrical manner. Its ceiling is covered with a beautiful mosaic by Rubens of the apotheosis of James I., who was hardly an ecclesiastical personage, and certainly not one whose apotheosis one would expect to see on the roof of a chapel. Under these circumstances it appears to me no more consecrated to Divine worship than is one of your Lordships dining rooms where family prayers take place from time to time.
  LORD SANDHURST: In the one or two remarks which I shall mate, I hope the noble Viscount will understand that I am in no way hostile to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, nor that I grudge the removal of the Gallery back to South Kensington, but I hope it will be possible to replace it in Bethnal Green by a collection of miscellaneous pictures, which would probably interest the people of that quarter more than a collection of national portraits. There is another point which I would ask the noble Lord to take into consideration, and that is, whether it would not be possible, and advisable, to establish, instead of these large picture collections, two or three small ones in two or three of the more densely populated districts of London. The South Kensington Museum, the National Gallery, and the British Museum are at a very great distance from the East End, Islington, Shoreditch, Hackney, and, to the south of the river, Bermondsey is extremely badly off with respect to Art Collections, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the matter into their consideration.
  *LORD HENNIKER: I am sorry to say that I can really add very little to what I have stated more than once in this House on this subject. The whole question of finding a permanent home for this valuable collection is one which depends upon the Treasury recommending the expenditure and Parliament finding the money. If they sanction it and find the money, there will be no difficulty whatever in finding a site, or in regard to proper plans. It appears to the First Commissioner of Works, as I think it will appear to your Lordships, that there is no use in providing plans and proposing a site if the money is not forthcoming to provide the site and carry out the plans. In fact, it is useless to put a scheme before the Treasury which is not one which is immediately and imperatively required. I quote the words "immediately" and "imperatively" from a Circular from the Treasury; and this is a rule strictly laid down by the Department. Certainly this is one of the works which ought to be undertaken as soon as possible; but there are others which ought to take precedence of a National Portrait Gallery. One of the important works which come into this category is the erection of new Admiralty buildings. As I said the other day, it is only proposed to ask for a very small Vote to begin to carry out the plan already adopted with regard to the Admiralty. The calls for national defence are very great upon the Government and Parliament at the present moment, and it is very difficult to ask for a grant for public works. If the pictures were suffering in Bethnal Green, as the noble Lord said, of course the question of providing a permanent home for them becomes one of greater urgency; but neither myself nor the Office of Works had any information on that point until my noble Friend (Lord Hardinge) was kind enough to mention the matter to me privately the other day; and no complaint had been made at the Office of Works on the subject. I must remind your Lordships of this: that the Office of Works has nothing to do with the care of the pictures; it is only their duty to provide a building to contain them. This applies to what my noble Friend (Lord Sandhurst) said as to loans of pictures in different parts of London. It is the Trustees who are responsible for the pictures, and I

  1123
  suppose it would be their duty in a case of this kind to make a representation to the Government that the pictures were not properly housed, and no doubt such a representation will be made. Apart from this consideration, it does not appear that any serious evil arises from these pictures being at the Bethnal Green Museum. As has appeared lately from the public Press, the place where the pictures are appears to please the public. The way in which the pictures are hung give the student a far better opportunity of seeing them than he ever had at South Kensington. I cannot think for a moment that any real student would object to take a journey down to Bethnal Green to see the pictures as they are hung at present. There are numbers of visitors who never had an opportunity of seeing the collection before, and might never have done so if the pictures were not where they are. I should like here to give some explanation as to what I said the other day, particularly as my noble Friend who brought this question forward has found fault with what I said. I was misreported. I had not the figures with me at the time, and I spoke from recollection; but I told your Lordships that I believed that the number of visitors in the first year that the pictures were removed to Bethnal Green was three or four times (not four or five times, as my noble Friend said just now) as many as the number who visited the collection the last year it remained at South Kensington. I made one mistake. I said I thought I based my recollection on a Return on 1887; I ought to have said 1886. The pictures were removed to Bethnal Green in September, 1885. What I based my calculation upon was this. I based my calculation with regard to South Kensington on the ten years from 1876 to 1885, in which year the pictures were moved from South Kensington to Bethnal Green. During that ten years the largest attendance was in 1883, when 146,187 visited the Gallery at South Kensington. During 1884, the last complete year the pictures were at South Kensington, 127,716 visited the Gallery; in the first complete year at Bethnal Green, that was in 1886, the number was 446,722. My calculation was, therefore, not
  1124
  far wrong. That was the only information I had to go upon, but I afterwards asked for a Return, and since I came into the House to-day, a few minutes ago, I have received a letter from Mr. Scharf, who says—
  "There is no means of distinguishing at the Bethnal Green Museum with what particular object visitors enter the Museum. One set of turnstiles lead to every department. Vagrant children of a tender age count the same as grown-up, cultivated persons. A large number of the former preponderate. Since the addition of the portraits to the Bethnal Green collection the total yearly number of visitors has diminished. In 1884 and 1885, before the portraits, the number of visitors was 447,330 and 450,439; in 1886, with the portraits, the number was 446,722; in 1887, with the portraits, 409,929; and in 1888, with the Jubilee presents on view, 910,511."
  I think I was justified in making the statement I did. On this statement, there can clearly be no means of judging who visits the pictures, unless it be the Return of those who pass through the turnstiles; and, again, I have no information as to the difference of numbers being increased from any special reason except in 1888, when the Jubilee presents to Her Majesty were on view. The noble Lord has said something about pledges as to the building of a National Portrait Gallery. I myself know of no promises having been made since I have been connected with the Department over which my right hon. Friend Mr. Plunket presides. At all events, I never made any promise in your Lordships' House, either on my own behalf or on behalf of Mr. Plunket. He is, I know, extremely anxious to find a permanent home for these pictures as soon as possible, and he is quite ready to proceed the moment the Treasury and Parliament grant the money for a site and settle the plans for the erection of a building. I quite appreciate what my noble Friend says as to the inconvenience of pictures being put away in cellars at the National Gallery, and I have no doubt that the First Commissioner does the same. With regard to the correspondence, any correspondence that I have is quite at the service of the noble Viscount; but it really throws no light upon the matter because it simply relates to the leave given by the Treasury at the instance of the Works Department for the loan of the pictures to the Bethnal Green Museum, with some letters from the

  1125
  noble Viscount and the Science and Art Department on the same subject. That is all the correspondence we have since 1886. I do not think it would be worth while to print it; it is very short, and does not touch the points to which the noble Viscount has alluded. As to the question raised by my noble Friend (Lord Milltown) whether Whitehall Chapel could be used as a gallery for these pictures. I will call the attention of the First Commissioner to his proposal, but it is the first I have heard of it, and I hardly think that I can encourage him in thinking that it will be successful.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: There can be no doubt that any one who really wishes to see the pictures can see them at Bethnal Green with great effect. At the same time, I believe very strongly that the time has come when the pictures which have there found a temporary home should be brought back. If, as the noble Viscount avers, the pictures are being injured at Bethnal Green, that seems to be an answer to the suggestion as to taking other pictures there, until, at all events, the place is put in such a state that the works can be exhibited without sustaining injury. With regard to the loan of pictures generally, there are certain principles on which the Science and Art Department grants loans of art subjects to localities, and they are always ready to consider favourably any plan which seems to offer advantages for the instruction and elevation of the people, due regard being had to the safety of the collection.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON NAVAL AND MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government could give any information as to the time when the Commission appointed last year to consider the administration of the Naval and Military Departments would report; also whether it was part of the duty of the Commission to report whether the great delays in the manufacture and production of guns were due to defects in our administrative system, said: Your Lordships will doubtless remember the general object of this Commission, and the circumstances under which it was appointed last year. The Commission is a very important one. Lord Hartington is the
  1126
  Chairman; the First Lord of the Treasury and Lord Randolph Churchill are among its Members. It was a question debated much at the time of the appointment of the Commission whether some means should not be provided for fixing authoritatively the standard of military and naval strength. I think myself that no one will really be satisfied until this is somehow arrived at. If such a standard could be fixed, a great deal of present controversy would be saved, and we should no longer, as now, be working very often in the dark. But that was not the decision which was then arrived at, and Her Majesty's Government recommended the appointment of a Commission, which was "to consider the administration of the Military and Naval Departments"—in fact, to consider the relations between those Departments, and between them and the Treasury. My Lords, this is not by any means the first Commission on this subject that has been appointed. Some of your Lordships may have read, and if you have you will have read with very great interest and admiration, the Report of the Commission that was appointed about two years ago, of which the learned Judge, Sir Fitzjames Stephen, was Chairman, on the system under which the patterns of warlike stores are made and passed into Her Majesty's Service. That Report, to which I must refer, was not only one which is characterized by great ability, but it contains statements of the most serious nature. To that Commission was referred the question of corruption in certain cases. The Commissioners acquitted those who were charged with corruption, but they certainly pronounced an extremely heavy censure upon the Departments of Administration upon the ground of inefficiency. They went so far indeed as to imply, if not to say in so many words, that it is almost in present circumstances a chaotic system. They dwelt very much on the importance of decentralization, and I think everyone who has turned his attention to the subject will be prepared to admit that in that they were eminently right. But, if I understand rightly, the present position of affairs in the War Office, recent changes have been rather in the opposite direction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in a speech made

  1127
  a short time since, expressed his intention of decentralizing in certain cases. My right hon. Friend has my hearty good wishes in that object, though I could desire that the decentralizing process were carried a good deal further than is apparently contemplated. I would ask your Lordships to consider for one moment what the position of the Secretary of State for War really is. He has to discharge a number of functions and duties which, physically and mentally, are absolutely beyond the scope of any living man. There are no less than five different capacities which he holds. First of all, he is a Cabinet Minister, which involves the careful consideration of the most important questions; secondly, he has to deal with questions in Parliament of a military character; thirdly, the whole of the Stores and the Ordnance pass under his review, and for them he is responsible; fourthly, the enormous question of fortifications comes under his charge; and lastly, he is responsible for the Estimates in their preparation and passage through Parliament. He is, moreover, in nine cases out of ten, a civilian, who has to learn his business when he goes to the War Office; he is constantly changing, and, therefore, cannot possibly secure anything like a continuity of military policy. Between 1881 and 1887 there have been no less than six Secretaries of State, or an average of one a year. What is the result of all this? It is the entire absence of responsibility on the part of individuals, running from top to bottom of our system. There are cutlasses which will not cut, swords that break, bayonets that bend, cartridges that jam, saddlery that is defective, and stores which are absolutely vicious and bad; and there are guns designed and ordered sometimes years and years before they ever come to their completion, or when they do, they are practically worthless. What the country complains of is that the responsibility cannot be fixed on any one person, or even on one part of the system, the consequence being that no individual is ever punished. I read with great interest the other day the statement of the Secretary of State for War. As to the coaling stations, my right hon. Friend frankly admitted that what I and others have been complaining of for so long was correct,
  1128
  and that at this moment, after eight or nine years of waiting, virtually none of those stations are in an adequately defensible condition. My right hon. Friend also promised the larger guns, and in this I hope the Secretary for War was not too optimistic in his calculations. Those large guns are almost the first and most pressing need. They have been promised for a very long time, but at this moment none of the large 9·2 in. type are mounted, at home or abroad. I do not blame any individual; but on the whole I think this position of affairs is scandalous. For years and years those guns have been promised, and year after year large sums of money have been spent, and yet at the end of all this time we are still without that which is considered to be essential. The only way of escape from the difficulty is to hand over the contracts to private firms. We are in terrible arrear. This country cannot be placed in these matters beside France, Germany, Italy, the United States, or even with some of our own Colonies, where the best of guns exist, which have been obtained from private manufacturres. I believe from what I have heard that at this moment the United States has a certain number of the 9·2 inch guns which we have never been able to procure. How far, then, is our administrative system and organization responsible for those great defects? A good many years ago, but not out of the recollection of many of your Lordships, the Ordnance Department was separated from the duties of the Secretary for War and of the Secretary for the Colonies as he then was, the two offices being conjoined in one Minister, who embraced the double functions of War Minister and Colonial Minister. The Master General was at the head of the Department. He was an officer of the highest rank and status; he was, so to speak, a permanent officer, and in many instances he sat in the Cabinet of the day, as in the case, among others, of Lord Hardinge and the Duke of Wellington. I have heard from many persons in former years of the great advantage derived to the Cabinet from the presence of the Duke of Wellington on all military questions. I think that was a wise plan, so far as it went; but at the time of the Crimean War, when our military arrangements were re-organ-

  1129
  ized in great haste, and in circumstances of much confusion, the Ordnance Department was made a separate department. About 1869 the Surveyor-General's Department was created, the object being to have at the head of the Department to which was transferred the business of the Ordnance, not only an officer, but also, if possible, a Member of the House of Commons. But very soon the professional element dropped out, and a civilian was appointed. Since then, I believe that the great majority of Surveyors General have been civilians. And not only are they engaged in political life and continually changing, but they are under the influence of their so-called subordinates in the War Office. Here, again, is another instance of the want of responsibility on which I lay so much stress. Eight or nine years ago the Ordnance Committee was established. It was a body, partly composed of civilians and partly of officers; but inasmuch as it changes periodically, it is impossible to fix responsibility upon it. The chain of responsibility extends from the Secretary of State, through the Commander-in-Chief, the Director of the Ordnance Committee, the subordinate officers who have to deal with the branches of the business, down to the manufacturer. It is absolutely impossible when a gun bursts to fix the responsibility on one of the different persons or departments which I have enumerated. This means a very serious state of affairs, and yet it exists in nearly every branch of the Service. I will trouble your Lordships with but a single quotation, and that is very apt. In the Egyptian Campaign it was stated in the evidence before the Commission that—
  "Out of 110 shrapnell shell, 55 were found defective, some having no bursting charges, and others having the bursting charges wet. Out of a total of 398 shrapnell shells, 156 were found correct—that is, about 39 per cent; 125, portion of bursting charge gone—about 31 per cent; 61 empty—about 16 per cent; 30 damp—about 8 per cent; and 26 jammed—about 7 per cent."
  The statement of Lord Wolseley upon that is as follows:—"
  April 13, 1885.
  "My Lord,—It is difficult for me to adequately describe the feelings with which I have read the inclosed papers describing the condition of the ammunition supplied from Woolwich
  1130
  to the only battery of Royal Artillery which accompanied the column recently operating from Korti across the Bayuda Desert. In all our small wars the British soldier has to contend against enemies vastly superior in number, and it is only by superior discipline and the efficiency of our arms of precision that we can secure victory. I have already addressed your Lordship on the subject of the carelessness shown by those responsible at home for the quality of the ammunition supplied to the troops in the field, in issuing star shells of a different calibre from that of the guns of the battery serving here. I trust the new proof contained in the inclosed papers of the culpable negligence of some branch of department at home will lead to an inquiry into its working by a board of selected officers of the line, unconnected in every way with the Woolwich manufacturing or store department, or with the administration under which they work. I write strongly because I feel strongly when I think of how the lives of gallant soldiers may have been sacrificed in the present campaign, and may be again so sacrificed in the future, through the inexcusable carelessness of individuals in the Woolwich Arsenal, and through the unsoundness of a system under which such ammunition as that described in these inclosures could possibly have been issued for service in the field.
  "I have, &c.,
  "WOLSELEY, General."
  It is needless to comment upon that. Indeed, I should only weaken such a letter by doing so. Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Report summed up the opinion of the Commissioners as to the present defects in this particular weapon. They said that our system had no definite object, and no efficient head, and, lastly, no definite practical method of dealing with all those technical and scientific stores and implements which had to be dealt with. It is impossible to conceive a stronger or a more sweeping statement than that, and yet, as a matter of fact, I have never heard it contradicted or controverted in any way. If the state of things be as described, of course we are convicted of very great waste and inefficiency. Efficiency and economy generally go hand in hand, but our system is against both. No doubt, under our Parliamentary system we cannot have the vigour, the rapidity of action, and the mobility of foreign Governments. But, on the other hand, there are also great difficulties arising out of our management of that system, and the organization which we have created. For this we are responsible, and on these questions I hope the Commission of which I am inquiring will be able to make full and

  1131
  adequate recommendations. The Commissioners are so constituted that they ought to do so, but, on the other hand, we must always look in the main and in the end to Her Majesty's Government. They have, of course, the spending of this large sum of £18,000,000 a year. They have the real power and the real responsibility. I do not doubt their desire to do what is right, and I have not made these observations with the desire of casting blame on any individual. It is because I am impressed with the serious position of circumstances that I desire to call attention to some at least of the most important factors in this case, and to point out how great, in my opinion, is the evil, how great is the waste, how great is the danger, and how great is the need of someone finding a remedy with the least possible delay.
  *THE EARL OF MORLEY: Before the noble Lord answers the question, I would ask the House to give me their patience for a few moments. My noble Friend has traversed the whole field of military administration, and though I agree with a great deal that has fallen from the noble Lord, I think that many of the faults in the system are not referable specially to War Office administration, but are really inherent in our Parliamentary government and administration. The noble Lord referred at length to the Report of the Commission over which Sir James Stephen presided. Able as the Report was in many particulars, I venture to differ entirely from the conclusions at which it arrived for the reform of our system of military administration. The re-introduction of the Ordnance Committee would, in my opinion, increase the confusion. I think it is essential to have a Secretary of State who should be responsible to Parliament for the Army Estimates and for all that depends upon them. I do not for a moment say that the War Office itself, or the manufacturing departments are perfect in organization, but many of the errors and misfortunes, referred to by the noble Lord cannot entirely be put down to faults of the system in the War Office itself. I think the noble Lord was rather misled as to the character of the Ordnance Committee and his statements were calculated to mislead the House as to its func-
  1132
  tions. I always understood that that Committee, composed of the ablest Ordnance officers who could be found, and of eminent mechanical engineers, was a purely consultative committee which only made such experiments as it was requested to make by the Secretary of State or his Ordnance advisers. So far it is, no doubt, responsible for the Reports which it sends in to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord also spoke of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance. Certainly, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord when I consider what the office originally was, and what it eventually came to be. When it was instituted by Lord Northbrook in 1869 it was intended to be a technical and professional office to be held by a distinguished Ordnance officer. In my judgment, it is a great pity that that principle was departed from, and that it came to be a Parliamentary office. I believe that if we had had an officer of technical experience as adviser to the Secretary of State a great deal of evil would have been avoided, and much good would have been done. As to the latter part of the question, relating to the manufacture and production of guns, the noble Lord has hardly referred to it at all. I am not going to say for a moment that the delays have not been greater than they ought to have been; but here again the House and the country should draw a distinction between delays which are the result of bad administration and those which are the result of the conditions of manufacture. For the last few years we have been passing through an absolutely experimental stage in the manufacture of big guns, as regards their construction, as regards the material from which they are made, and as regards the powder which is to be used in them. As soon as one pattern is supposed to be perfect in all particulars, the inventive genius of some individual would suggest some improvement. There is no stability or permanence in the patterns, and to that is owing a great deal of the delay of which the noble Lord so justly complains. I agree with the noble Lord's remarks about obtaining guns by contract; but the noble Lord should remember the great difficulty that existed some years ago in finding private firms that could manufacture guns of great

  1133
  calibre. There was not more than one—if there was one—firm in the country which could produce satisfactorily the huge ingots of steel which were necessary for the construction of the big guns then made. This has been to a great extent corrected now, and no doubt the noble Lord opposite (Lord Harris) will tell the House what has been done in this direction. I hope the system of putting guns out to contract will be largely increased. Before I sit down I should like to know, though it is perhaps hardly fair to ask the noble Lord without notice, how far the recommendations of the Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, have been carried into effect? I refer to the Committee which inquired into the Manufacturing Departments of the Army, which sat at the same time as Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission. One great object of that Committee was to centre responsibility somewhere. One suggestion was that there should be one head of the Manufacturing Departments of the Army; another and most important suggestion was, that there should be an absolute divorce of inspection from manufacture. We attached great importance to the latter suggestion, and I should like to learn whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendation.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, the questions put to me by the noble Earl may be answered shortly. The noble Marquess who presided over the Commission referred to by the noble Earl hopes to be able to report about Easter. The second point referred to in the question was not, in the opinion of the noble Marquess, referred to the Commission, though they might probably deal with it incidentally. I quite feel that an answer as brief as that would not be respectful to your Lordships, and would not satisfy the noble Earl, but I was not quite prepared for the noble Earl's going back to the Report of the Commission two years ago, the report and recommendations of which had been fully dealt with. Before, however, dealing with that part of the noble Earl's speech, I would like to refer briefly to the death of Mr. Guy Dawnay, who, by the great experience gained in his hunting expeditions in South Africa, proved a most valuable officer in our South African campaigns. He was
  1134
  selected by the noble Marquess as Surveyor General of the Ordnance in 1885, and I am sure that all who came into contact with him will agree that it would be impossible to find a man more assiduous in his public duties, or more amiable as a friend. For two years or more Mr. Dawnay had been working with great success upon the completion of the new rifle, and if that rifle should fulfil the expectations formed of it, the result will be largely due to Mr. Dawnay. The noble Earl based his speech in great measure on the Report of the Commission now two years old. That Commission was appointed to consider the system of passing stores into the Service. It went somewhat further, and expressed an opinion that it would be desirable tore-establish such an official as the Master General of Ordnance. The noble Earl opposite has pointed out that it was the intention of Lord Northbrook that the office of Surveyor General of Ordnance should be held by a distinguished military man, but that Parliament was too strong for the noble Lord, and insisted upon having a political official. I quite agree that many of the difficulties in the administration of a great spending department like the War Office arise from our political system. The noble Earl expressed himself strongly in favour of decentralization, and did the fullest justice to Mr. Stanhope's efforts in that direction. I cannot, however, agree with all the noble Earl's illustrations of how such a system could be carried out. At the same time I hope that the system of decentralization initiated by Mr. Stanhope will be carried further, especially with regard to the supply of stores. What is wanted of the War Office, after all, is to make war well, and it would be an immense advantage if there were at particular places stations at which every variety of stores were collected, rather than having them all centralized at Woolwich. The noble Earl referred to the complaint made in the Report of Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission with respect to the star shells. My noble Friend opposite has dealt with that question, and shown that it arose from the mistake of an Ordnance Store officer at Alexandria or Cairo, and had nothing to do with the Ordnance Department at Woolwich. Then, again, there was the story of the

  1135
  shrapnell shells and the powder shrinking down below the cap. That was a grave mistake, undoubtedly, and one I do not wish to defend; but it must be remembered that those stores, before they got out to Egypt, passed through several transhipments, and underwent a great amount of jolting, which would account for the slipping of the powder below the cap. It was satisfactorily proved, on examination, that the shells had not been sent out from England without the bursting charge. Moreover, it is part of the drill of an Artillery officer, before he discharges his weapon, to see that the bursting charge is all right. Then the noble Lord has referred to the question of heavy guns. That is a most difficult technical question for a layman to take up; but there are one or two points which ought to be made known, because the public are under some little mistake as to the actual facts. This country adopted breech-loading ordnance long after France and Germany. The noble Earl believed he was justified in saying that we were far behind France in this matter. My belief is exactly the contrary. Though we were two or three years behind France in the adoption of the new type of breech-loading guns, I believe we are now, as regards the new type of steel breech-loading guns, considerably ahead of that country. The noble Earl has quoted occasionally from the Report of Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission. I, too, would like to quote a passage from the Report of the same Commission, because it bears directly on the question of heavy ordnance. In paragraph 446 the Report says—
  "We would direct particular attention in connection with this subject—[that is, the subject of the Collingwood gun]—to the evidence given by Sir Frederick Bram well. He considers that there was some local defect in the material of which the gun was composed, and observes that the steel is of such a nature that fracture in it occasionally takes place which can be referred to no visible cause. This, if correct, is a great misfortune. It shows that large guns must, at present, be regarded as being to a greater or less extent experimental and speculative; but it is a misfortune from which all nations must suffer in common. We have reason to think that failures of a very serious character have occurred in both French and German guns, of which very little is allowed to be known."
  The noble Lord will quite understand that I am not attempting
  1136
  for a moment to defend the delays that take place in completing the supply of guns; it is most deplorable that such a state of things should exist in a great manufacturing country like this; but the public should recognize that we took up the breechloading system later than either France or Germany; that in ten years we have entirely changed from the simple form of muzzle-loader to the complex form of breechloader, from the old iron gun, first of all, to a steel tube with iron hoops, and, finally, to a steel tube with steel hoops, an immense change, especially with a treacherous material such as steel; and that, notwithstanding accidents which have occurred to guns of the new type, there have been none which have resulted in loss of life. Extraordinary advances have also been made in the descriptions of powder to be used. The gun is designed to take a certain charge, and experiments have to be conducted as to the exact charge and the kind of powder which is best adapted for the gun. It is the fact that during the last 10 years we have been in an experimental state. The Secretary of State in another place spoke the other night with hope as to the turn out of guns, but he was not prepared to pledge himself on the subject. After our experience in the past few years, no one would be justified in saying that he was absolutely certain that guns would be always waiting for ships instead of ships having to wait for guns. But quite recently there has been an important Report which leads one to hope that a point has been reached in the manufacturing of guns which will enable them to be produced more rapidly in future. As regards lining, that matter originated practically in 1886. An 8 in. gun fired 366 rounds, and the bore was then found to be so eroded by the action of the powder that the projectile no longer rotated. The gun was sent to Elswick and lined, and the experiment proved quite satisfactory; it proved that guns could be practically renewed and made efficient at a very small cost. That was the origin of the system of lining. It has been tried not only with the 8 in., but also with the 6 in. gun, and is equally successful. There seems to be some impression in the country that there are no new types of breechloading guns in the Services, but

  1137
  that is quite a mistake. In 1882 we had some 350 new type breechloading guns, almost entirely in the sea service; in 1886 we had about doubled the number, and we have now of all types either in the sea-going squadrons or in harbours, or in store, about 1,450 new type breechloading guns, and about 600 of these are 6 in. and upwards. With regard to the question of fixing responsibility upon an individual, I think the noble Earl will himself admit that there is some little difficulty in doing so where the design may be made by one person and the material by another. I should be inclined to think that, to some extent, there is responsibility for a design upon the Ordnance Committee, but it does not follow that, because a gun fails, the design is necessarily responsible, because it must be proved that there was absolutely no flaw whatever in the material before it can be proved that the design was at fault. Therefore I think the difficulties of fixing responsibility are not so light as the noble Earl seemed to think. With reference to the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Morley), I may say that the actual recommendations of that Committee as regards the Ordnance factories have been carried out, and the factories—Woolwich, Park-head, Enfield, Waltham—have all been placed under one head. The head of the Ordnance factory, indeed, is very much in the position of a private manufacturer, and is made actually responsible for the stores he issues. The department of the Director of Artillery now examines all stores issued to the Army, and if it chooses to reject them the person who supplies them is brought to book. In order to carry out this system it has been necessary to increase the strength of the Inspecting Department, but I believe the additional expenditure thus involved has been well laid out. Finally, as regards the storage of stores, the Secretary of State, as he has recently explained, has taken steps to put up store buildings in various parts of the country, in order that the stores requisite for particular bodies of troops may be decentralized and easily got at, and that we may not have the difficulty of dealing with an enormous mass of stores centralized in the central depôt at Woolwich. Although the Report of Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission, and that of my
  1138
  noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) were but two years old, a very great deal has been done to improve the system of administration in the Army. It would, in my opinion, be most unwise to interfere with the gradual progress of the improvements that are being effected, because the War Office has no doubt that they are beneficial, and that the system adopted must result in the supply to the Army of good material, and of an arm which will worthily stand the test in the hour of trial.
  *THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The noble Lord has made a very good defence of that which it is his duty to defend; and if I do not quite agree with him in all his remarks, it is not for want of appreciation of the ability he has shown. I desire merely to point out that whilst the explanation he gave as to the star shells may be correct, the other charge which I quoted from the Report is not dealt with at all. The defects in the shrapnel shells were not due to any manipulation at Cairo and Alexandria, but to mistakes made before the stores left Woolwich. My noble Friend quoted against me a paragraph from this Report, from she evidence of Sir Frederick Bram well, so the effect that
  "In the present condition of steel, fractures continually take place, and can be referred to no visible cause."
  My hon. Friend should have read also he next paragraph, in which the Commissioners sum up their opinion, as apart from that of Sir Frederick Bram well, in he sentence—
  "Such results from the manufacture of guns can hardly be considered satisfactory."
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: The noble Lord has referred to the recent changes in the system of administration of the Army, which, we trust, will lead to no inconsiderable results. I am not sure, however, that down to the present he results of the examination of arms lave been as satisfactory as we could wish. In reference to the Egyptian Campaign, the country must remember that in time of war, when a good deal of rough work is going on, it is quite natural that accidents should happen. It is, therefore, not quite reasonable to say, because a weapon is broken, that therefore it was due to bad manufacture. It is utterly unreasonable, because

  1139
  of these unavoidable accidents, to blame the Department, although, at the same time, it is only right that faults of this kind should be carefully looked into, and I believe that the steps now being taken will add very much to the security which will be felt in the equipment of our forces. I feel with the noble Earl the great disadvantage of having so many guns unfinished, but the fact is that the extraordinary march of intelligence under which we are now living produces every day some new invention, some new experiment, both in regard to the steel of which the weapon is made and with regard to the powder that is used. Noble Lords have no idea of the delicacy of these heavy guns. The enormous charge alone makes it essential that the greatest care should be taken, because the strongest feeling would arise if any accident occurred whereby life was lost. That circumstance naturally makes the manufacturers doubly careful about the arms which are to be placed in position and in the hands of the troops. We must look for delay, therefore, in preparing those heavy weapons. I feel very much, however, that we want them, and the sooner we get them the better I think it will be. The Secretary of State for War and I are anxious that they should be prepared as rapidly as possible, and the Secretary of State has done everything to hasten their manufacture. The difficulties, however, are found to be very great. But I do not believe that the delay is the fault of the Departments, or of the system under which we at present administer those Departments.
  LORD HARRIS: I think the noble Earl will be glad to learn that there are guns of larger size than those he referred to actually already in position. I admit that there is delay in regard to the 9-in. guns, but there are, as a matter of fact, 29 12-in. guns mounted, and a considerable number of those are in the land service.

  TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 10.)

    SECOND READING.
    LORD HOBHOUSE: My Lords' since this matter was first before your Lordships a year ago there has been no alteration in the substance or the merits of the case, and therefore I do not pro-
    1140
    pose to take up your time with any long argument in support of the position that the present system of individual trusteeships is fraught with evil both to trustees and beneficiaries, and that it is most desirable that there should be some change in the law. The suggested remedy has been tested for a long time over a wide field of experience. It has been applied in the United States, Canada, South Africa, and in the Australasian Colonies—in countries where the English system, the French system, and the Dutch system of trusts prevail; and it has been found equally successful in all, from which I infer that it is suited to the wants of active and commercial communities. The suggestion is that solid companies should be formed for the purpose of discharging the duties which are now discharged by individuals. I am not asking for any alteration in the law of joint stock companies, nor am I asking for any alteration in the law of trusts. On the contrary, I propose that corporate trustees should be under the same duties and obligations as individual trustees are now, But, by our law, a trustee cannot receive any profit on account of his trust unless the founder of the trust has so declared in express terms; and either by law or by inveterate practice—I hardly know which—corporations cannot be appointed to various fiduciary positions. What, therefore, is wanted is an alteration of those two rules of law, because, unless they are altered, it is clear that a very long time must elapse before new trusts are created, and even then the field of operation must be imperfect, on account of the offices to which corporations cannot be appointed. The Bill is framed with these objects. One group of clauses provides for such an alteration of the law as will enable companies to carry on business to a substantial extent—that is to say, receiving payment for the offices which they fulfil. There is another group of clauses addressed to the security of the public, in order to guard against there being bubble companies. It is provided that the subscribed capital shall be a large amount—£100,000 is mentioned in the Bill—half of which should be deposited in Court, in order to be security for the customers. The companies are to ren-

    1141
    der regular accounts to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, and any person who desires to satisfy himself of their condition may do so by applying to the Board of Trade to appoint an Inspector to overhaul the books, and the Board of Trade may, if it see fit, require an increase in the deposit. It is provided that the companies shall be under the same liabilities as those under which individual trustees now are, and that the officers shall be liable, by way of contempt and so forth, for breaches of duty by the companies themselves. The Bill has been carefully prepared, after the study of a great number of Acts in the United States and the Colonies for the creation of such companies. It is new, and runs a good deal into details. It is one of those measures wherein skilled heads may be able to detect many faults and suggest many improvements. With this object, I would suggest that, at a later stage, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think there is anything that can properly be urged against the principle of the Bill as I understand it; but I think it is very desirable that the principle of the Bill should be understood. In respect to one commercial company—from South Africa I believe—there was an effort to do that which I do not believe any of your Lordships or any English lawyer would recognize as a proper thing to do—namely, to permit them to treat the trust fund as a thing out of which they could make profit. I can understand the propriety of paying trustees—whether a company or individuals—but I would not consent to give any company the power to make a profit out of the trust funds. By the 18th section of this Bill my noble Friend preserves all the liabilities that a trustee would be under when a company becomes a trustee. I would suggest that, in addition to this, the directors should be themselves under personal liability in respect of the company. I do not find that exact security in the Bill, and I am convinced that it is one that is required. These are matters which require careful examination by skilled
    1142
    lawyers, and therefore I hope that after being read a second time the Bill will be referred to a small Select Committee.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I entirely agree with the objects of this Bill, and heartily support the Motion for its Second Reading. I think the better plan would be to refer the Bill to one of the new Standing Committees. The Standing Committees have power under the Standing Orders to refer any particular measure to a small Sub-Committee. I should be sorry to see any unnecessary multiplications of Select Committees to do work which I hope is going to be efficiently done by the Standing Committees.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS LEGISLATION.
  LORD NORTON: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government if it may be hoped that the promised Bill for consolidating and amending the Acts on Reformatory and Industrial Schools will be introduced in this House soon, before our time is more engaged?
  EARL BROWNLOW: I had hoped to lay the Reformatory Bill on the Table of the House before this, but some technical difficulties prevented my doing so. However, I shall have it ready to lay before the House on Monday. The Industrial Schools Bill I hope to be able to lay on the Table in a very few days afterwards. Although they are presented at different times, I think it will be convenient to have both Bills before us for consideration at the same time.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.