Sitting of 1 April 1890

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  PARCEL POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will endeavour to rearrange the scale of charges for Parcel Post so that the maximum charge shall be one penny per pound after the first pound, with a minimum charge of 3d. for each parcel; and for what period has the present Parcel Post arrangement with the Railway Companies been concluded?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I should, of course, be very glad to arrange for any modification of the Parcel Post likely to be beneficial to the public and not injurious to the revenue. The tendency, however, of the hon. Member's proposal would be to increase the number of small parcels carried at scarcely remunerative rates, which, perhaps, he has not fully considered. The present Parcel Post arrangement with the Railway Companies has been concluded for 21 years from the 1st August, 1883.

  POST CARDS FOR SOUTH AFRICAN CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a strong desire exists among those having business or other correspondence with the Cape of Good Hope, Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State, to be supplied with post-cards for those countries; whether these countries named are the only civilised ones with which there is no communication by post-card; and whether he has taken any steps to supply this want of the public?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have long recognised the convenience that would be afforded to the public by extending the post card system to the Capo of Good Hope, and
  390
  have been engaged in negotiations with the Cape Post Office with the object of establishing this mode of communication. An arrangement on the subject has now been made, and as soon as a date has been fixed for commencing the system, I shall have the pleasure of announcing it to the public, in the usual manner. I shall endeavour to make similar arrangements as regards Natal and the other South African States.

  MILITARY PENSIONS.
  MR. SAMUEL HOARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether James Marshall, late 23rd Regiment, was discharged from Netley Hospital on 22nd August, 1865, suffering from the effects of asthenia, on a pension of 7d. per diem; whether, owing to an error on the part of the medical officer in entering his illness as asthma instead of asthenia, James Marshall received no pension from 22nd August, 1867, until 29th June, 1886, when his pension was restored, with two years' back pay in addition; whether the said James Marshall is not entitled to 17 years' pension; and whether the circumstances of the case will be re-considered?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): James Marshall was discharged on August 22, 1865, on account of asthenia on a pension of 7d. a day for 18 months, which expired on June 11, 1867, when his case was considered, and the renewal of his pension refused. Nothing was heard of his case for 16 years; but in 1883 he again applied for a renewal of his temporary pension, which was refused. In 1886 he made a further appeal, and on re-consideration it was discovered that the medical officers had assumed that his discharge was on account of asthma. He was re-examined for asthenia, and was granted a pension for life, but without arrears. Several appeals have been received asking for arrears of pension for the 19 years from 1867 to 1886, and the utmost allowed under the Regulations, namely, two years', has been granted. During a portion of this time Marshall was in a lunatic asylum, so that had he been in receipt of a pension it would have been paid to the authorities for his support,

  391
  and would not have benefited his family. Although, therefore, I cannot give him any further arrears of pension, I will consider whether we might not be justified in somewhat increasing his pension for the remainder of his life.

  IRELAND—RAILWAY BETWEEN GALWAY AND CLIFDEN.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware of the circumstances under which the Grand Jury of Galway, at the Spring Assizes just held, made a presentment in favour of a railway between Galway and Clifden on either a broad or narrow guage system upon a Report from the Commissioners of the Board of Works, Ireland, the Government to advance in the one case £244,600, and in the other case £219,000, the country guaranteeing only £1,000 in aid of such railway; whether he is aware of the Minute recorded by the Grand Jury of Galway, expressing its regret that the negotiations entered into between five of the members of the Grand Jury as a Committee and the Chairman and Directors of the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland fell through; whether he is aware that the Grand Jury, in consequence of the advice of Mr. Barton, C.E., stated that they felt bound to pass a perfectly open presentment, but that they also wished to express their earnest desire that the pro-motors and the Government might come to some arrangement which would secure the maintenance and working of the railway by the Midland Great Western Railway Company; whether he is aware that the Chairman and Directors of the Midland Great Western Railway Company had expressed themselves unreservedly to the Grand Jury, that having regard to the defective mode in which the projected line had been laid, and notwithstanding the modifications suggested and allowed by Mr. Barton and embodied in the Commissioners' Report, that their company would never undertake the working and maintenance thereof; and whether Her Majesty's Government would, under the foregoing circumstances, direct an independent inquiry as to the projected undertakings for giving railway accom-
  392
  modation from Galway to Clifden, under the supervision of the Board of Trade, before payment of any public money is authorised to be made for the construction of railways in Galway?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The facts are as stated in the first four paragraphs of the question. With regard to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the last paragraph, Her Majesty's Government do not see that any advantage would be derived through holding an additional inquiry, the former inquiries in the matter having been of the most exhaustive character.

  RAILWAY FROM RATHMULLAN TO FALCARRAGH.
  DR. FOX: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether application has been made to the Lord Lieutenant to schedule under the Light Railways Act of 1889 a line of railway from Rathmullan to Falcarragh, viâ Milford, County Donegal, and whether it is the intention of the Government to do so; whether it differs from the route recommended by the Royal Commission in 1887; whether it would be the extension of any existing line; whether Rathmullan and Milford are in any sense congested districts; and whether he is aware that the Grand Jury of County Donegal, at last Assizes, condemned that portion of the line between Falcarragh and Milford?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that no such application has been made to the Lord Lieutenant.

  THE ESTATE OF MR. H. B. O'SULLIVAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the professional valuer appointed by the Land Com missioners, as reported in Cork Herald, to inquire into the security offered by the holdings on the estate of Mr. H. B. O'Sullivan at Rahonna and Kilnamartyra, County Cork, for the repayment of the advance, from which it appears that the purchase money offered

  393
  by the tenants was excessive, and that the combined interests of the tenants and landlord were not deemed by the valuer security for the money; whether it is a fact that the terms of purchase agreed upon by the tenants would have brought down the yearly payments to nearly 50 percent. under the present rents; whether it is true that the rental in question was determined and enforced by the Receiver Department of the Chancery Court, and that many tenants were evicted by the Court in default of payment of rack rents; and whether it is his intention to take any notice of the Report of the professional valuer?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not seen the newspaper statement referred to; but the Land Commissioners inform me that any such statement would be wholly unauthorised, inasmuch as the Reports of their Inspectors under the Purchase of Land Acts are confidential documents. It is a fact that the Commissioners, not being satisfied with the security, refused the applications referred to, and that the terms of the purchase would have brought down the yearly payments considerably. The Chief Receiver's Department inform me that the rental of the estate was not determined there, but was furnished to the Department in the ordinary way when the management of the estate was taken over, and that one tenant only has been actually evicted.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact, as stated in the second paragraph of the question, that the terms of purchase agreed upon by the tenants would have brought down the yearly payments to nearly 50 per cent. under the present rents?
  MR. MADDEN: I have already stated that the rents would have been considerably brought down.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that these tenants have been obliged to pay, again and again, these excessive sums of money, and that many tenants have been evicted in default of the payment of rack-rents?
  MR. MADDEN: One tenant only was evicted. I presume that the others paid the rents.

  MR. McDERMOTT.
  MR. THOMAS GILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what have been the costs incurred by the Crown in the various remands of Mr. McDermott, of Clanricarde, including the cost of transporting and escorting him on each occasion from the gaol to the locality in which the secret court before which he has been summoned has been held?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that the expenses incurred in the matter in question amount to about £45.
  MR. SEXTON: This Gentleman has been 10 times remanded for refusing to give evidence in secret, and I wish to ask the Government whether during the recess they will not allow him to give evidence in open court in order that he may be able to protect himself against defamation?
  MR. MADDEN: This is an inquiry under the Explosives Act of 1883. The answer given by Mr. McDermott has invariably been that he could give evidence, but that he refused to do so. In my opinion, it would be extremely undesirable in such a case to interfere with the discretionary powers of the Magistrates who are conducting the inquiry. The man does not state that he has no evidence to give, but that he will not give it, as the law requires him to give it.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not see that if he were to give evidence in secret he would be exposed to imputations hereafter?
  MR. MADDEN: The Act of 1882 extends to every part of the United Kingdom, and the mode of conducting the inquiry must be left to the discretion of the Magistrates who conduct it.

  THE CASE OF CAPTAIN RYE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. C. J. Harold, one of the Justices who were trying the case against Captain Rye, at Crookstown, County Cork, has been, and still is, employed by Captain Rye as clerk in connection with the lime-kilns, or agent; and, if so, whether an intimation will be conveyed to him

  395
  not to take any further part in the case in which there are four other Magistrates adjudicating?
  MR. MADDEN: The Lord Chancellor's Secretary informs me that it is understood that some years ago Mr. Harold was connected with Captain Rye in the management of some quarries, but that it is not known whether that connection still exists. Inquiries on this point are being made.
  DR. TANNER: So much being admitted, will some pressure, in the interests of justice, be brought to bear on Mr. Harold, in order to prevent him from taking any farther part in adjudicating upon the case of Captain Rye?
  MR. MADDEN: I think that the interests of justice may be safely left in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, before whom the matter has come.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that the decision of the two Removable Magistrates has already been overridden by the local Justices, one of whom is, or has been, in Captain Rye's employment?
  [No answer was returned.]

  FOREIGN OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has seen the answer of the Decorators' Society to his statement in reference to the repair of furniture in the Foreign Office; and what steps he has taken to inquire into the truth of their allegations?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I have forwarded the answer of the Decorators' Society referred to in the question to Messrs. Jenks and Wood for their observations. I have not yet had an answer, as the partner in the firm who dealt with the particular subject has not returned to London, but I have no doubt I shall soon have the answer.

  EDINBURGH BOTANIC GARDENS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that 10,000 persons visited the Botanic Gardens, Houses, and Museum, at Edinburgh, the first Sunday on which they were open to the public,
  396
  and that since then they have been much used on that day; and if the conduct of the people is reported to have been orderly and satisfactory?
  *MR. PLUNKET: I am informed that the attendance at the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh averaged about 10,000 on each Sunday when the weather was favourable during the first two months after the Gardens were open on Sundays, they have been much used since, principally by the artizan classes, and I believe that no complaint has been made of any misconduct on the part of the visitors.

  THE YEOMANRY CAVALRY.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, and if so when, he intends to make a statement as to what part the Yeomanry Cavalry are to take in the second line of defence; whether their position will correspond to that of the Volunteer Infantry and Artillery; and, if not, can he explain the reason?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There are a good many difficulties in the way of assigning to the Yeomanry, with the same definiteness as in the case of the Volunteers, the exact position which they will have to fill on mobilisation, and I was unwilling to make any partial statement on the subject. But a scheme is being worked out which will fully recognise the value of the Yeomanry in the defence of the country, and I shall be glad to make it public as soon as it is finally settled.
  DR. TANNER: How soon will it be that we shall have this information?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I would rather not fix a date.
  DR. TANNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman fix an approximate time?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: No; there are a good many details involved.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have formally invited the attendance of delegates from Newfoundland to discuss

  397
  the Fishery Question; and, if not, whether the Government will cable such an invitation to Newfoundland, in view of the great excitement in that Colony?
  DR. TANNER: I have received a cablegram from Newfoundland upon this subject, and I think it would save both time and trouble to the House and the right hon. Gentleman if I tell him the effect of it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is not asking a question.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Her Majesty's Government have formally and repeatedly invited the attendance of the Premier of Newfoundland to discuss this question, and have no doubt that he will come to England as soon as the state of Parliamentary business in the Colony permits. They do not think it desirable to telegraph anything further at present. They will, of course, be glad to receive other delegates also if the Colony so desires, but they do not think they should propose it. May I take this opportunity of correcting an error in a report which I have seen of my answer upon this subject yesterday? I am made to say that the modus vivendi with France had not received the assent of "Newfoundland in its original form." What I said was "in its final form," as is obvious from the context.
  DR. TANNER: Has the consent of the Legislature of Newfoundland been obtained to the modus vivendi arranged between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, in reference to the lobster canning industry on the west coast of Newfoundland; and has any attempt been made to obtain the consent of the Legislature before the fishing season opens?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have repeatedly answered the first part of the hon. Member's question, namely, that no despatch has yet been received from Newfoundland, giving the consent of the Legislature to a modus vivendi for arranging the difficulty. So far as the last question of the hon. Member is concerned it is surely one for the Government of Newfoundland.

  THE SCOTCH SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the effect of Section 29 of "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," upon the franchise for School Board purposes in Scotland; and whether, in the case of service franchise occupiers, the entries of annual value now for the first time required to be made in the Valuation Roll by Section 29 of the Act of 1889 do not satisfy the requirements of Schedule B of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," so as to qualify as electors for School Board purposes all service franchise occupiers whose names are entered on the Valuation Roll as occupiers of lands and heritages of the annual value of not less than £4?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): In my opinion, the persons referred to in the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman are qualified as electors for School Board purposes. As the Valuation Roll is now made up their names are entered as inhabitant occupiers of lands and heritages of the annual value of not less than £4; and I do not think that the fact that they are described as "inhabitant occupiers," and not simply "occupiers," can be held to derogate from what is otherwise a clear qualification.

  TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when it will be convenient for him and the President of the Local Government Board to receive the deputation upon the subject of tuberculosis in cattle?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): In reply to the hon. Member, I may say that after communication with my right hon. Friend I have intimated to the gentlemen who desire to wait, upon us that we shall be happy to receive them at the Board of Agriculture on Thursday, April 24, at half-past 1, if that day is quite convenient to them.

  THE MORFA PIT.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the alleged extreme narrowness of the shaft in the Morfa Pit, as stated in the Daily Graphic recently; whether it is true that it would have been possible to rescue the horses now left to starve in No. 9 level of the said pit, had the shaft been of an ordinary width and the cage of sufficient size; and whether it would be possible to insert a special clause in the Mines Act rendering it illegal for horses to be used in pits wherein there are no means of saving them in cases of explosion?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: No, Sir. My attention has not been called to the structure of the Morfa Pit shaft. Until I receive the Report of the Inspector and of the legal representative of the Home Office at the inquest, I am not in a position to answer the question in the second paragraph. I will consider the suggestion in the last paragraph of the question.

  THE FACTORY ACTS—VAUGHAN & Co., CARDIFF.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the workers in the steam laundries of Messrs. Vaughan and Company, of Cardiff, are under the Factory Acts; if so, how does it come that fines are exacted by this firm; and if Messrs Vaughan and Company's works are under the Factory Acts how is it that the Factory Inspector for the district has not brought this matter under the notice of the proper authorities?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I understand that these laundries are under the Factory Acts. I have not at present any information as to what fines are exacted by the firm. I will make inquiry into the matter.

  FACTORY ACTS-GREAT WESTERN COTTON WORKS, BRISTOL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  400
  the Home Department if he has had any Reports from the Factory Inspectors of the Bristol District in regard to the engine having been repeatedly run overtime at the Great Western Cotton Works in Bristol; if he would make inquiries in order to avert a strike amongst the female operatives in those works; whether he is aware that last autumn an agreement was entered into by the Directors of the Works that the engine would be stopped at 8.30 a.m. to 9 a.m. for breakfast; from 1 to 2 p.m. for dinner; and finally at 5.30 evening, as the operatives complain that in every instance this agreement is not complied with; can he explain why these hours, which are those stipulated by Act of Parliament, have been broken; whether complaints have reached him that on Friday, 21st of March, the Chief Inspector and Sub-Inspector called at the factory, but confined their inspection to walking-through two weaving sheds, and that, as soon as the Inspectors left, steam was put on, and the engine ran overtime; if the Inspector notified the manager of his visit; and, if so, why; and why, with the excessive heat and dust that prevails in these works, no preparation has been made for the application of "The Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1889,"which came into operation 1st March, 1890?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I have not yet been placed in possession of the necessary information to enable me to answer all the questions of fact. I have received no Reports as to the engine running overtime, and no complaints as to the visits of the Chief Inspector. The Chief Inspector has been, and is, visiting several towns in connection with the carrying out of the provisions of the Cotton Cloth Factories Act, and, amongst other places, has paid a special visit to Bristol. Inquiries will be made as to the statements in the hon. Member's question

  THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TELEPHONE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether all or any of the Government Offices in London are connected with the telephone erected for the use of Members within the House of Commons; and, if

  401
  not, whether, considering the great convenience it would be to Members for making inquiries and appointments, he will have connections established?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Although telephonic communication with the Government Offices might be of some convenience to Members, I am afraid I cannot say the same with respect to Ministers. To them it would be very inconvenient. Suppose, for example, a Member wished to communicate with the Treasury upon some matter of business. There would probably be involved a communication from the Treasury to myself, and I would in all probability be in the House. Inasmuch, therefore, as the convenience would only be available to Members during the sitting of the House, and all the Government Offices are represented in the House, it would be more convenient that a communication, if urgent, should be made direct to the Member of the Government responsible for the Office with which communication is desired. All communications on Government business made to a Government Department should be subject to the authority and supervision of the head of that Department.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. P. O'BRIEN,
  *MR. JACKSONsaid: My own personal view is that a clerk communicating upon Government business with a Government Department should only be subject to the supervision and authority of the head of that Department. No information would be obtained through the telephone in the absence of the head of the Department.
  DR. TANNER: Might it not be absolutely beneficial to the Minister himself——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member cannot argue the matter now.
  DR. TANNER: I will raise the question on a future occasion.

  PRISON TREATMENT OF GEORGE HARRISON.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he
  402
  has seen the report of an interview between a representative of the Press and Mr. George Harrison, lately released from Millbank Prison, in which Mr. Harrison alleges that while in Chatham Prison he was four times punished by solitary confinement on a charge of refusing to work when he was unable to work through illness; that he was on these occasions placed in a cold, badly-lighted cell, the smell of which was horrible; and that on one occasion after release from the punishment cell, and while suffering from the effects of the extra punishment, he was struck on the head by an official; whether the Prison Rules require that the medical officer's sanction must be obtained before a prisoner is placed in solitary confinement or any extra punishment, and whether reduction of dietary or increase of labour are inflicted; has this rule been observed in Mr. Harrison's case; and whether he will cause a full inquiry to be made into the allegations and state result? I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the statements of Mr. George Harrison, lately released from Millbank, to a representative of the Press, that two prisoners named Gallagher and Hawkins, confined in Millbank, are only allowed a quarter of an hour's exercise daily; whether this statement is true; and, if so, why are the prisoners named deprived of the two hours' exercise daily prescribed by the Prison Rules; whether he has seen the further statements of Mr. Harrison, namely, that—
  "The food and general treatment of prisoners in Millbank has been so bad that several cases of insubordination occurred."
  "There was one man in a dying condition, over whom a pail of water was thrown as a remedy, with the result that he had to be removed to the infirmary and his parents sent for, so critical became his condition."
  "On another occasion, in the cell next to mine, I heard two officers go in and beat a prisoner unmercifully with their staves…He is either in the infirmary or dead. I stopped in my cell about two hours after that, but never heard him move."
  "They (the insubordinate prisoners) were scourged on the bare back, and sometimes put in irons, according to the orders of the Director, before whom the Governor took them;"
  and, whether he will cause an investigation to be made into those allegations, and state the result? I have further

  403
  to ask: the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the statement of Mr. George Harrison, that, when he was imprisoned in Pentonville Prison, the Chaplain, addressing him, said—
  "You are like some of the rest. You want to turn the world upside down. We've got a lot more like you";
  whether he has seen the further allegations against the Chaplain of Chatham, namely—
  "He did not come near me till I sent for him, after three months had gone, and, when he did come, his words were, what will men not do to make themselves popular before their fellow men";
  whether he will cause an investigation into the truth of these allegations; whether he will give the names of the Chaplains of Pentonville and Chatham respectively; and whether any communication has been addressed to them in connection with these matters?
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I have also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the paragraph published in the Star newspaper of the 29th ultimo, in which George Harrison, who was released on the morning of that day upon a ticket-of-leave, is made to speak of gross ill-treatment suffered by the prisoners at Chatham, and to use the following words:—
  "I will give you an instance of some of the treatment. There was one man in a dying condition, over whom a pail of water was thrown as a remedy, with the result that he had to he removed to the infirmary, and his parents sent for, so critical became his condition …On another occasion, in the cell next to mine, I heard two officers go in and beat a prisoner unmercifully with their staves. It was something terrible, for I could hear that it was his head they were beating. I have not seen him since. He is either in the infirmary or dead. I stopped in my cell about two hours after that, but I never heard him move";
  whether there is any, and, if so, what, truth in the statements contained in such paragraph; and whether there is any power to revoke the licence of a prisoner released on ticket-of-leave, in the event of his causing the publication of accusations against warders and other prison officials, charging them with murder or attempted murder, which, upon inquiry, may be found to be wholly untrue?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I will answer the three questions of the hon. Member and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. J. Kelly) at the same time. With regard to the allegations as to Harrison's treatment, as far as I have been able to ascertain in the short time allowed to me he was punished by close confinement four times, but in each case was certified as tit to work and to receive punishment by the medical officer. Shortly after his arrival at Chatham he complained to the medical officer that the work was too hard, and he was exempted from spade work and heavy lifting, and thenceforward put to-light labour only. The cell in which he underwent punishment was not cold or badly lighted; the temperature was 60 degrees; ample provision is made for the ventilation. The story about his being struck on the head the Governor states to be a pure invention. With regard to the charges made against the Chaplains I have made inquiry, but have-not had time to receive answers. No complaint was made at the time to the Visiting Director at Chatham. The Rev. Mr. Wheeler is Chaplain at Chatham, The Rev. Mr. Stocker is Chaplain at Pentonville. As to the statement that Gallagher and Hawkins had not more than a quarter of an hour's exercise, I presume the reference is to Callan and Harkins. The rule is that every prisoner during his first nine months is allowed an hour's exercise daily, which these men had. The Governor of Chatham Prison denies absolutely the story as to a pail of water being thrown over a dying man. As to insubordination caused by bad food and general treatment, and as to a man being unmercifully beaten by two officers in his cell, I invite the hon. Members who give publicity to such statements to supply the dates and particulars relating to them. Corporal punishment can be ordered only by a Director after proof on oath of very serious breaches of discipline, and must be inflicted in the presence of the Governor and medical officer. The rules also require that dietary punishment shall not be inflicted on a prisoner, and he shall not be placed in a punishment cell unless certified by the medical officer to be in a fit condition of health to undergo such punishment. These

  405
  rules were observed in Harrison's case. There is power to revoke a licence at the pleasure of Her Majesty; but though I should deplore the conduct of this licence-holder, if he has been spreading in the Press charges which I believe to be absolutely without foundation, yet I cannot say that on this account I should be justified in advising the revocation of his licence.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I cannot give the dates. I have only asked questions in reference to what I read in the papers. All I ask of the right hon. Gentleman is that he will institute some independent inquiry.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am quite prepared to make an inquiry into the matter, and the character of the inquiry will depend upon the information I receive.

  CUSTOMS-DUTIES ON VIOLIN'S.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state under what authority a violin (consigned from Paris to Mr. D. Lawrie, of Glasgow, at the Midland Grand Hotel, St. Pancras), valued at £800, dated 1690, and purporting to be the work of Antonius Stradi-varius, of Cremona, was on the 25th March detained by the Customs Authorities at Dover; if it is true, as stated by the Station Master at Dover in explanation, that its detention was due to the fact that in consequence of violins, represented as the work of classic makers, having been imported, consignees of such instruments are now required to state whether the imported article is for private use or sale; and, if for sale, to prove the accuracy of the date and name on the label before the instruments are given up by the Customs; whether the violin will be delivered to Mr. Lawrie without further delay; whether the fact of an old violin having passed the Customs is to be taken as a Government certificate of the genuineness of its date and signature; and if the regulation is intended to protect purchasers of violins against imposition, why an exception is made in the case of violins declared to be for private use, but which may subsequently be sold?
  *MR. JACKSON: The question appeared on the Paper only this morning; but I have been able to ascertain that this violin was imported at Dover as described by the hon. Member. It was declared to be of the value of £80, and it was detained. On the 28th of March a letter was received from Mr. David Lawrie stating that the violin was his own property, and was intended for his own use. Upon that statement directions were given for its delivery to him, and it has, I believe, been delivered.
  DR. CAMERON: Is it the fact that if a violin is declared to bo for sale it is stopped unless the signature on it can be verified?
  *MR. JACKSON: I have not been able to obtain information in answer to this question.

  COLLISION IN THE BRISTOL CHANNEL.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the President of the Hoard of Trade whether, having regard to the loss of life which has occurred, he will direct an inquiry into the cause of collision on the 12th instant, in the Bristol Channel, between the steamer Grantully and the trawling smack Holme Bay, of Lowestoft, as the result of which was that the five or six hands on board the smack were lost?
  SIR SAVILE CROSSLEY: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the serious loss of life which occurred through the collision, he will order an inquiry to be held into the facts of the case?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): As all those on board the smack perished, and no evidence on their behalf has been available, I have not thought that any useful purpose would be served by ordering an official inquiry. But if the hon. Members are in a position to furnish me with any evidence I shall be quite ready to re-consider the question.

  PARAFFIN.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the

  407
  terms of an agreement between Thompson and Bedford Company, Limited, as representing American producers of paraffin, on the one part, and the Scottish Mineral Oil Association on the other part, limiting the production and fixing the price, and imposing other restrictions on the sale of the materials necessary for the manufacture of candles within the United Kingdom, and establishing a differential charge of "not less than ½d. per lb." against all candle-makers who are not members of the Candlemakers' Association and do not maintain minimum prices of 4s. 4d. and 4s. 6d. per dozen pounds, and also providing that
  "The minimum prices herein agreed to are only binding until 30th June, after which they may be raised but not lowered;"
  whether he is aware that all the leading candle makers of the United Kingdom, with one exception, have been coerced into submission to the conditions of this agreement; and whether, having regard to the judgment of Lord Esher in the recent case of the "Mogul Steamship Company v. M'Grigor," he will bring the matter under the notice of the Public Prosecutor, in order that the opinion of the Law Officers may be taken as to whether the facts would justify a prosecution as for an indictable public wrong?
  MR. MATTHEWS: This is a question which ought to be put to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the instructions to Inspectors will be distributed, and when the Code will be printed and circulated in such a form as to show separately all articles cancelled, modified, or established since the last edition, in accordance with custom and the provisions both of the Code now in force and of the New Code? I also beg to ask when the New Code of Regulations will come into force?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have already stated that the instructions to Inspectors will be distributed as soon as possible; the changes in the Code are so extensive that it would not serve any useful pur-
  408
  pose, while enormously increasing the bulk of the document, to print it in the form suggested; the plan observed in the year 1882 has therefore been followed. In reply to the second question of my hon. Friend, I cannot do better than refer him to the terms of the Minute prefixed to the Code, showing that it will practically come into operation on the 1st of September.
  *MR. POWELL: When will the Code become law?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It will become law when it has been duly discussed in this House, and perhaps amended.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: When will the instructions to the Inspectors be issued?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have already said that I hope they will be in the hands of Members next week. They will be published in the form of a Parliamentary Paper.

  THE KITCHEN COMMITTEE.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg-to ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee how much money the Committee will save by putting the waiters on half pay at Easter time; and whether he would consider the advisability of consulting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to making provision for the amount necessary to give the waiters full pay during the adjournment of the House?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT,): The saving would be about £58. The circumstances would not warrant any application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject.
  In reply to Mr. P. O'BRIEN,
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid: According to the present arrangements it would be impossible to add very much to the expense of the staff without altering the tariff.
  DR. TANNER: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that a sufficient sum of money is not now received for the extremely bad catering we get?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE CROXTON VILLAGE SCHOOL.
  MR. NEWNES: I beg to ask the Vice Presi-

  409
  dent of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Croxton Village School, which is in receipt of a Government grant, was refused to the Liberal candidate for West Cambridgeshire on 18th February, on the ground that it could not be let for political purposes, and on the 12th March was let, or lent, for the annual meeting of the Croxton Conservative Club; and whether he will take any steps to prevent the Government aided schools being used in the interests of one Party and to the exclusion of another?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It is not the duty of the Department to determine for what purposes managers or owners of schools may allow them to be used out of the ordinary school hours. I have no means of bringing pressure to bear one way or the other upon these owners of schools; but I have already expressed an opinion in this House that schools should be lent to both Parties, because the more the views of hon. Members opposite are disseminated the better for the political future of our own friends.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not the fact that these schoolrooms are almost universally lent for Conservative demonstrations and refused when asked for by the Liberals?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: No, Sir; that is very much denied.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOWN HOLDINGS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Select Committee on Town Holdings will be re-nominated to take evidence and report on the rating of ground rents and values?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I understand that the names will be handed in in the course of the evening.

  VACCINATION RETURNS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: My attention has been called to the Returns of Vaccination that have been laid on the Table. May I ask how it is that several counties have been absolutely omitted from them?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask for notice of the question.

  IRELAND-THE CLONGOREY HOLDINGS.
  MR. SEXTON: I gave notice of my intention to call the attention of the House to this case to-day; but I beg to postpone any further action until after the Easter recess.

  TAXATION OF LAND AND BUILDINGS IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND IN BRITISH COLONIES.
  Address for—
  "Return showing—

  1.Taxation on land;

  (a.) The per-centage on the annual value which the rate levied amounts to;

  (b.) The total amount raised, the totals for local and National purposes being stated separately;

  (c.) The per-centage which the amount raised by taxation of land bears to the total taxation;

  2. Taxation of buildings:

  (a.) The per-centage on the annual value which the rate levied amounts to;

  (b.) The total amount raised, the totals for local and National purposes being stated separately;

  (c) The per-centage which the amount raised by taxation of buildings bears to the total taxation."—(Mr. Provand.)

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Proceedings on Supply have precedence at the Evening Sitting this day, and also to-morrow; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Sittings of the House this day and to-morrow."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the right hon. Gentleman should have given some reasons for the Motion. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman will remember, was the first day on which the House was asked to consider the Civil Service Estimates, and that being so any hon. Member had a right to call attention to subjects before the Speaker left the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman said he expected to pass the whole of the first Class of Civil Service Estimates. Now, with all respect

  411
  to the right hon. Gentleman, looking at the precedents, that was a preposterous expectation. We might have gone on with the preliminary discussion until 12 o'clock; but as we understood that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to have some money, we took the unusual course of allowing you, Sir, to leave the Chair at 8 or half-past 8 o'clock. It must not be forgotten that the matter was put off until the very last day before the holidays. Everyone knows that the Votes on the Royal Palaces and on the Royal Parks invariably gave rise to a very considerable amount of discussion, as various Members desire to make comments upon them. The right hon. Gentleman got those two Votes, and he was fortunate in getting them. On the first Vote there was a good deal of discussion, but upon the second there was hardly any. The right hon. Gentleman also got a Vote on Account for two months; and if he will point out one or two Votes in connection with which there are contracts we will be ready to assent to them. But I think it is unfair to us and to hon. Gentlemen opposite to call upon us to pass the whole of the first Class of the Civil Service Estimates before we leave for the vacation. A good many Gentlemen, not dreaming that the right hon. Gentleman would ask for these Votes, have gone away. If it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to get money, it is the duty of hon. Members to criticise the Votes. Let there be a modus vivendi. The next Vote is a very controversial Vote.
  An hon. MEMBER: What is it?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It is a Vote of £195,000 for the Houses of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to take a couple of Votes which will give him enough money, and will then agree to the adjournment of the House, the whole thing can be settled; but to ask us to pass the whole of these Votes in a perfunctory manner is to ask us to abrogate our duties as an Opposition. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he persists in taking this extraordinary course the proceedings are likely to be somewhat lengthy. There is only one instance in which Class I. of the Civil Service Estimates was taken in one night, and it was when the Government
  412
  brought in their Local Government Bill. There was a feeling on this side of the House that we should be able to turn out right hon. Gentlemen opposite upon that measure. We were deceived, and it was no encouragement to induce us to act in the same manner again. I ask the Government to take now that which has been the usual course on other occasions, and not to keep hon. Members here when they want to be elsewhere.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am in the recollection of the House when I state that from time to time during the last week I urged upon the House the necessity which the. Government were under of asking for Class I. before the Adjournment. The grounds upon which we asked for those Votes were that there were contracts involved, and, unless the Votes were sanctioned, the most favourable opportunity for building operations would be lost, and serious inconvenience would be caused to the public interest. These contracts extend to all the Votes, and it is on that ground that I adhere to the intimation which I gave with regard to them. Therefore, though it may be the duty of hon. Members to criticise the Votes, it is equally the duty of the Government to endeavour to conduct the business of the House with due regard to the convenience of the House and the public interest, even though in doing so they may trench upon the holidays which hon. Members have a right to expect. Some of the discussions last night might have been curtailed without injury to the public interest. The Government are most anxious to meet the views of every Member of the House, so far as may be consistent with their obligations to the public.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? I think we may come to an arrangement if the right hon. Gentleman will leave out Votes No. 6 (Art and Science Buildings) and No. 7 (the Diplomatic and Consular Buildings), which I do not think are pressing. There are a great many Gentlemen who desire to discuss questions connected with them. [Ministerial cries of "No, no !"] If the right hon. Gentleman will do that I believe we shall be able to come to an arrangement.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am exceedingly sorry that I am not able to comply with the suggestion, which the hon. Gentleman deems a reasonable proposal. The views of hon. Members might be expressed shortly; I am sure they will be expressed shortly on this side of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: There are Members who wish to speak who are not here.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot postpone the Votes. Hon. Gentlemen have had ample notice that these Votes would be asked for before the Adjournment. We must ask for Votes down to No. 13 (Rates on Government Property), postponing Vote 14 (for Public Works and Buildings), before I can move the Adjournment of the House.
  DR. TANNER: Are the Government in earnest in pushing forward to-day the Contagious Diseases (Animals) (Pleuropneumonia) Bill?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Votes which involve building contracts is a very reasonable one. The Diplomatic and Consular Buildings Vote, however, is scarcely subject to that observation. This Vote includes the building of an agency house at Cairo, a subject which has frequently given rise to discussion. It is important that the contracts referring to buildings in England should be entered into at once; but as it is not so important in the case of the diplomatic and consular buildings I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should postpone that Vote.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House, but I wish to state that there is a special reason connected with the Cairo item in the Vote which obliges the Government to ask for the decision of the House upon it. There is a contract for the land on which the Agency House is to be erected, and this contract only lasts until March 31. The contract has been extended for a few days, in order to give the Government an opportunity of obtaining the decision of the House on the question. If the Vote is postponed the contract lapses altogether, and there would be no site available upon which to erect a building.
  DR. CAMERON: I am afraid that when the two sides of the House get to loggerheads the public business makes very little progress. It is quite evident that the Government can, if they choose, force these Estimates through the House with very little discussion. But if they take the Committee stage before Easter, there is still the Report stage to follow. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to afford an opportunity of discussing the Votes on Report?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, I think that is a reasonable proposal, and I will endeavour, as far as possible, to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman as to any particular Vote on which discussion may be desired.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the discussion on the Report of the Naval Vote.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I agree to that.
  MR. COBB: I think we want a more definite assurance as to the opportunity of discussing the Votes on Report.
  MR. MORTON: To my mind this question of dealing with the public money is the most important question which the House of Commons has to consider. The manner in which Votes of money are rushed through the House appears to me to be simply scandalous. A great deal of time is occupied by the House in discussing other matters, but it does not give nearly sufficient time to the consideration of spending money. If Supply is rushed through in the hasty way now proposed, there will be no opportunity afforded to hon. Members of ventilating grievances, which, in the interests of the people, we ought to have. It is not merely a question for hon. Members. It is a question for the country, and the people of the country demand that all questions concerning the expenditure of money should be properly discussed and considered. I object to anything like a threat on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members will lose their holidays if these Votes are not passed. This is neither a fair nor a proper argument to use towards the House. It may be all very well to treat the Irish Members in this way, but

  415
  there is no one strong enough in this country to treat with contempt and also with impunity Members representing English constituencies. I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to answer the questions which are put to him, and not to compel hon. Members to ask the same questions twice over. Let them tell us what they want in regard to these building contracts and we shall be glad to comply with their wishes. The Government must remember that they cannot conceal these things; they can be discussed either now or on Report; and I insist upon proper answers being given to hon. Members by the right hon. Gentleman. I trust that in future hon. Members will take more interest in questions connected with the expenditure of the money of the people.
  DR. CAMERON: Supposing the right hon. Gentleman obtains the Votes he desires in a reasonable time this afternoon, will he then move the Adjournment of the House at once?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Last night I indicated that the Government would ask the House to pass the Committee stage of the South Indian Railway Purchase Bill and the Second Reading of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. I believe that those Bills will take but a very short time.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  RAILWAYS, &C, RETURN TICKETS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Morton, Bill to enable passengers in railway trains and on steamboats, &C., to make use of return tickets for twelve months after the date of issue, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Morton, Mr. Causton, Dr. Clark, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, and Dr. Tanner.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 217.]

  BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. James Campbell, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law of Bankruptcy in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Thomas Sutherland, and Mr. Baird.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 218.]

  SHOP HOURS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Provand, Bill to amend the Law relating to the employment of women and young persons in shops, &C., ordered to be brought in by Mr. Provand, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Jenniings, Mr. Channing, and Mr. Samuel Smith.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 219.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

    CLASS I.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £165,767, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings in Great Britain, including the Houses of Parliament."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to call attention to Item C, the rents of houses. There is a large number of houses that are rented as public offices, at the same time that there are a considerable number of public sites that are unoccupied and have been unoccupied for years. I notice that the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty has a residence in Queen Anne's Gate at a rental of £700 a year. I could never understand why the First Naval Lord should have a residence, seeing he has a salary of £2,000; it is out of all reason. The Board of Trade Offices might be erected on a vacant site, instead of rents being paid for the present ramshackle buildings. I hope the First Commissioner of Works will, as rapidly as possible, get rid of the hired houses, and to do his best to provide buildings on sites already purchased.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): For a long time past various plans have been tried by which the bad habit of the housing of the public establishments in hired premises might be got rid of. In recent times the India Office, the Local Government Board, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and others have been properly housed. The Board of Works are at present engaged in erecting new Admiralty buildings; the War Office will probably be undertaken next, and when those two Departments are provided for, there will be comparatively little room for complaint with regard to the use of hired premises.
    MR. CAUSTON: I would wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great want of accommodation in the Offices of the Board of Trade. When a deputation attends there is no room into which they can be shown without the presence of the clerks. The offices are a disgrace to the country.
    MR. PLUNKET: I agree that the accomodation at the Board of Trade is unsatisfactory, and I think it ought to be improved as soon as possible, with due regard to priority of claims, on the part of others of the Government Departments.
    MR. MORTON: I want to ask a question on Item C. I notice an item of £2,800 for Dover House, and I see, "Stables occupied by the First Lord of the Admiralty." I should like to know what the First Lord of the Admiralty wants with stables. Are they occupied by the celebrated Horse Marines. I think we are entitled to know something about it, because it looks a large sum. Then there is an item on page 22 for the supply of water to various public offices by private companies. I want to know whether that supply is regulated by meter, and what is the cost per 1,000 gallons. On page 23 I see that carpets, &C, cost £2,300.; then there is £3,050 for various articles—baskets, glass, and china ware. Are these articles supplied by public tender? So far as I am concerned, I shall not be satisfied until the Government—I do not care of what Party— adopts a system of publicly inviting tenders, a system adopted by the smallest Municipal Authorities throughout the country. I think we ought not to enter into contracts for works costing, say, £200, without publicly advertising for tenders. I do hope we shall have a more satisfactory answer this afternoon upon this point than we had yesterday.
    DR. TANNER: There are some matters in connection with this Vote to which I think attention might be called. Some of the larger items are in connection with the sanitary improvement of some of the offices, where a perfectly new scheme has been adopted. We are asked to vote on account a further sum of £5,000, and I ask for what practical
    418
    purpose is the money to be expended? Take the University of London. Of course, everybody taking an interest in the higher education of the country necessarily feels a deep interest in the education provided by this University, which I believe to be one of the best in the country. Still, I think it right to call attention to the large expenditure of £9,500 which is proposed for the purpose of providing additional accommodation for the students coming up for examination. I want to know whether this is in consequence of an increase in the number of students requiring to be examined, and whether the proposal is one that has had the sanction of the Governing Body? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works will perhaps excuse my putting these questions, and will probably allow me to say further that I am glad to find that money is needed for providing increased accommodation for the University of London. I hope that this will tend to set at rest any question that might be raised in regard to the Royal University of Ireland that will come later on. I may add that I am pleased to see that the expenditure required for the Royal Courts of Justice has this year been reduced. There is one other point to which I wish to direct attention. Yesterday evening I made reference to the item put down in connection with rent, insurance, and tithe rent-charge in respect of our public buildings, and I desire so say that when the Estimates for next year are prepared, I hope these items will be placed under separate headings. As it is, it is impossible for us to know what insurance money is paid by the country in connection with our numerous valuable buildings and institutions. I yesterday called attention to the small sum payable for the insurance of the Royal Palaces. Taking up the list of the public buildings of Great Britain, I find that there is a sum of £4,709 l1s. 3d. to be paid under the three headings I have named, which is an increase of over £1,000 on the sum payable last year. This being so, I think it would be advisable to put the amounts payable under separate headings, so that the country may know exactly how much it has to pay for each. I

    419
    hope the right hon. Gentleman will deem it necessary to offer some explanation with regard to these matters.
    MR. PLUNKET: In answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, I have to state that the supply of water to the Public Offices is by meter, the price being from sixpence to nine-pence per 1,000 gallons. As to the stables, certain of the Public Offices carry with them the right of stabling; but there being no stables at the Admiralty, stables have been provided at Dover House for the First Lord of the Admiralty. With regard to furniture, it is not possible to take contracts for all the furnishing which has to be provided; but whenever the quantity of furniture required exceeds, say, £15 or £20, competitive tenders are invited. Any firm of standing may be placed on the list of those who are invited to tender. With regard to the London University, there is a great increase of students, which has made the present accommodation inadequate. If the hon. Gentleman complains that there are certain firms not on the list, I will see that they are included.
    *MR. MORTON: No, Sir. All I wish is that the Government should adopt the system of publicly inviting tenders, though I am quite aware that it could not be carried out in all cases.
    MR. CREMER: I should be glad to know who the firms really are? A great many people would be glad to be enlightened.
    MR. PLUNKET: As I have said before, if any hon. Gentleman chooses to submit a firm, I shall be glad to put it on the list. The names I have here are Holland & Sons, Johnston, Norman & Co., Jenks & Wood, Hampton & Sons, Hughes & Co., E. Coote, and occasionally, also Gillows, Howard, Oetzmann, as well as a few others.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the further accommodation will be available for the examinations by the Civil Service Commissioners, who have been very much inconvenienced by not having a suitable place for holding their examinations?
    MR. PLUNKET: The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is a very pertinent one, and is well worthy consideration, inasmuch as the present accommodation for these examinations is not only insufficient but expensive.
    MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the same rule will be applied to buildings and repairs of buildings as is to be applied to furniture; and are we to understand that, where the repairs are of a serious amount, tenders will be invited by advertisement?
    *MR. PLUNKET: Yes.
    DR. TANNER: Will it not be advisable to settle this matter by attaching to the Estimates a list showing the various contracts entered into under the different headings. This would save a good deal of trouble, and would protect the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works from any insinuation or innuendo as to things not being square.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I have a few observations to make in moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £500 on account of the restoration of Westminster Hall. The chief point I desire to raise is one that relates to the total want of proper accommodation for carriages and carriage horses in Palace Yard. There is a cave or cavern at one corner of the yard, which is used for the shelter of horses and carriages, but in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) has said that it is intended not for carriages, but for saddle horses. It would, no doubt, be a convenient place for carriages; but for the sudden and abrupt descent from the yard above, and although it is said not to be intended for carriages, I may state that I myself saw within it when I left the House last night no fewer than five carriages. For my part, I am unable to understand why saddle horses should have preference over the carriages and carriage horses which are usually waiting in Palace Yard at night. The precipitous descent into the new cave or cavern might have been easily avoided by the architect, and the fact that it exists is the fault of the Government

    421
    Officers. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford in his place, because I know that he, as a former Commissioner of Works, has gone into the matter, and I submit to the House that it is quite a new thing not to have a carriage shed in connection with this House. I have been a Member of this House for a great many years, and I cannot remember the time when there was not a shelter for Members' carriages. Why such provision has not been made in connection with the new work it puzzles my comprehension to understand. The architect, by the exercise of a very small amount of ingenuity, might have provided such a shed; but instead of doing so, he has built a walk right across the entrance to the new buildings, and to the north of that wall there is a large platform of ground which is of no use whatever to Members of this House. I cannot see why that wall should not be removed and a proper carriage shelter erected there. Having thus brought this matter before the right hon. Gentleman with as little circumlocution as possible, I shall be glad to hoar what he has to say in regard to it. On the last occasion of the discussion of these Estimates, I endeavoured to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the extraordinary character of the stone parapet at the southern side of Westminster Hall, near Sir Charles Barry's Staircase. It is totally out of harmony with the original design, and I pointed out to my right right hon. Friend that it is totally useless for any practical purpose, for anyone wanting to enter the south-west door might approach it by steps through the old iron gates. In conclusion, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item N, for the restoration of Westminster Hall, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    MR. PLUNKET: I have considered the matter of the staircase in Westminster Hall to which my right hon. Friend has referred. I have taken advice upon the subject, and I now propose to make some alterations. I propose to take the present moulded coping off the wall, and reduce the height of the latter by 1 ft. 6 in.; to
    422
    continue the coping which was fixed by Sir Charles Barry in lieu of that removed; fix a guard rail on the latter coping, and re-fix the iron gates and railing to correspond with those on the opposite side. I have had a Report made to me to the effect that the use for the shelter of carriages of the covered place intended only for horses to stand in is very dangerous, and certainly the building was not planned to be used for any such purpose. I considered the question whether it would be possible to erect in the centre of Palace Yard any considerable shelter for carriages, and I came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to do so without disfiguring the appearance of the yard.
    MR. CAUSTON: I think the use to which the new rooms outside Westminster Hall has been put fully confirms the views expressed by many of us who, in 1885, opposed the erection of the new buildings. There has evidently been great difficulty on the part of the Government in finding a use for them at all. I would point out also that the divisions and the bookcases which have been put up in the different rooms are entirely out of harmony with the rest of the elaborate design of the building. I would further draw attention to the fact that the fireplaces and grates are simply ornaments; they cannot be used. Neither coal nor gas can be burnt in them, for the simple reason that there are no chimneys. The health of the officers who use the rooms will, I am afraid, suffer in consequence of this state of things. In consequence of the arrangements adopted for heating the atmosphere is unbearable, and I believe the officials have to spend a great part of the time which should be devoted to work in walking up and down Westminster Hall for the purpose of getting fresh air. The large room does not seem to have been applied to any purpose, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say what he proposes to do with it? I know the right hon. Gentleman is not himself for the building, but I believe it to be practically useless.
    MR. PLUNKET: I cannot in the least agree with the view taken by the hon. Member as to the utility of the rooms. It seems to me that by the

    423
    placing of now Smoking Room, Reading Room, and Ladies Dining Room at the disposal of Members during the present Session — I think much to their satisfaction — by the removal of certain officers to the other side of Westminster Hall, a very great addition has been made to the comfort and convenience of the House. I admit that some complaints were made at first as to the heating of the newly-erected rooms, but they seemed to be due to the differences of opinion existing among the occupants as to the temperature which ought to be kept up. I have since put up partitions between the various offices, and I believe the officials are now as happy as possible. It is true there are fireplaces which cannot be used; but as the rooms are perfectly well warmed and ventilated by other means, I do not think that is a very serious complaint. It is the case that £ am not responsible for the new building. I wish I were, for in my opinion it is a very handsome and stately; addition to the old Hall.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think I must have been misunderstood on this question. I certainly never said that the erection at the side of Westminster Hall was intended as a shelter for carriages. On the contrary, I always said it was intended only for horses. That was fully explained when the scheme was being discussed. It replaces the shed which stood close by formerly, and which was certainly only intended for sheltering horses. It very often happens that 30 or 40 carriages are in the yard at the same time, and it would be impossible to make provision for sheltering the whole of them. A proposal was made to erect a carriage shelter on the other side of the yard, bat it was rejected on the ground that it could not be carried out without spoiling the artistic appearance of the Houses of Parliament.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: The reply given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) as to carriages is most unsatisfactory. We know quite well, after many years' experience, that the old shed accommodation in Palace Yard was amply sufficient for the protection of the coachmen and carriages who come down. All I ask is that equal accommodation should be given now. It seems to me ridiculous
    424
    that when you are spending this vast sum of money on the new buildings and upon the land in front of them you cannot provide some kind of shelter for servants and carriages of Members during the winter months. I should like to know why the zig-zag wall has been erected on the north side. It is certainly no ornament.
    *MR. PLUNKET: It was in the plans, and was approved by the Committee.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: The fact of its having been in the plans does not make it of any use, and I think that every decision the Committee arrived at ought to be condemned. This is not a question of ornamentation, but one of usefulness and almost of humanity to the servants and to the poor dumb animals brought down here night after night. Last night, at midnight, I found five carriages in the new buildings, and I am informed by the constables in attendance that as many as 10 or 12 have been in there at one time. Does not this show in the clearest way in the world that some such accommodation is necessary? I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will see the new shelter is to be handed over entirely to the horses of telegraph messengers and to the bicycles and tricycles one sees stored away there. I think Members of this House ought to be considered by the right hon. Gentleman before the telegraph boys and messengers. Members of this House are those who vote the money, attending here long hours, and I think they are entitled to some consideration. There is no doubt if the right hon. Gentleman would consult Mr. Taylor, of his own Office, who is a gentleman of ability, some means could be devised for giving shelter to carriages. All I would ask is that Members of Parliament who use private carriages and often have to take them home, as I have, late at night, shall have some consideration given to them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford can say that this question was before the Parliamentary Committee. I should hardly think that such an important question could have been omitted. However that may be, I think the question now is a serious one, and that, although there is not a large attendance of Mem-

    425
    bers, we ought to take a vote of the House about it. Members may come in and outvote us without having heard the discussion, but we must take the chance of that.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. At present, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the shelter is used for carriages. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner has said that it is dangerous to use it for that purpose, and, that being so, I presume he will forbid such use being made of it. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that we have not yet arrived at that democratic age when we all use omnibuses or walk down to the House, but have horses and coachmen who are liable to be affected by the inclemency of the weather when the House sits late, I hope the First Commissioner of Works will make inquiries to see if a change cannot be made without injury to the architectural beauties of this building—to see if some shelter cannot be put in Palace Yard or somewhere else where carriages which have to wait for Members can be protected from the weather.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I will undertake to give the matter most careful consideration.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I must say I am rather sceptical as to the extreme satisfaction of the clerks with the new rooms adjoining Westminster Hall. Though I have heard no complaint, I fail to see how they can be satisfied with the atmospheric conditions under which they live—with the manner in which the rooms are lighted and heated. In the case of one of the rooms it is said that the clerk occupying it likes it, but whether he likes it or not he ought not to be permitted to remain in it, for it is stuffy. It cannot be healthy for any one to remain in it any length of time. Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works tell us what is to be done with the large room called the Conference Room? It is a room of splendid proportions, and so handsome that it is a pity it cannot be used for some practical purpose. I should deprecate its being used for a Grand Committee Room for the reason that it is too great a distance from this
    426
    House, and it would overtax the energies of even the most agile to get from that room to the Lobbies here during the short time the Division bell rings. Members who are old and infirm and not fitted for the athletic performance of running helter-skelter from the Committee Room to the House, traversing a tortuous flight of stairs on the way, would find it impossible to discharge their Parliamentary duties if required, to sit on a Grand Committee in this room. I hope, therefore, we shall not be put to the inconvenience and possible danger of having to use this room as a Grand Committee Room. As to the new shelter for horses and carriages, I think it is equally dangerous for both. I do not think it can be safe for horses to come down that very steep and narrow incline, especially in wet and slippery weather. Whilst inspecting the place to-day, I noticed one or two horses there, and saw a young man suddenly dash down amongst them on a bicycle. Such a thing as that, I should think, must be very inconvenient and very dangerous to horses. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, without interfering with the architectural proportions of the building, to make some sort of descent down, which horses could be driven with safety?
    MR. CREMER: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would like to put a questien to him with reference to a matter that I raised in the House the other day—though if he has not yet had time to consider it, I will not press for a reply. I desire to know why Members are not allowed to visit, and to escort their friends through, the Painted Chamber and the Buckingham Chamber in the other House? Why should it be necessary to obtain the escort of a Peer in order to visit these places? Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman undertook to ascertain why we are precluded from visiting the crypt, and if he is now in a position to enlighten us on the subject I shall be glad.
    DR. TANNER: I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the ventilation of this House—a subject which I had occasion to deal with five years ago. On certain occasions, when, for instance, we are expecting a great Division, the atmo-

    427
    sphere gets extremely stuffy, and laden with carbonic acid gas. The draught coming up from the chamber below through the floor is always the same. It cannot be graduated and made to fit the particular circumstances of the time, therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether something cannot be done in the matter? If it is possible to effect a cure it will be greatly to the advantage of the Members of the House, and even more so to the officials who remain here throughout the sittings. The draught could be increased by enlarging the apertures for the escape of foul air overhead. I think the mode of introducing fresh air from below requires alteration. It comes up through the floor, and, therefore, of necessity, brings up with it small particles of dust, which get into the lungs of hon. Members, causing discomfort and danger to health. These are small matters, but they deserve to be gone into. I should also like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of restoring the frescoes up stairs near Sir Charles Barry's statue, which are in a most dilapidated condition.
    MR. CREMER: [Cries of "Divide."] I trust the Committee will bear with me for a moment, as it is seldom I waste the time of the House. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would not place a few trees or shrubs and flowers on the terrace outside the House, which at present has a most cold and barren appearance?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman to soy he will inquire into the matter to which I draw his attention, I will not press my Amendment to a Division.
    MR. PLUNKET: The suggestions made by the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Tanner) some years ago with the view of excluding fogs from this House were, as the Committee knows, adopted with beneficial results. I shall be very glad to confer with him and the officials who have charge of the ventilation as to whether it is possible to do anything more to improve the ventilation of the House. As to the largo room on the other side of Westminster Hall, I am afraid it is too remote to be used by a Committee, unless it is arranged that its sittings shall not over lap those of the House;
    428
    but in every other respect the room is well adapted for the purposes of a Grand Committee. I have made some inquiries respecting the picture galleries in the House of Lords, and, as regards the Painted Chamber, access can be gained to it only through the Division Lobbies and the writing-room of the House of Lords, so that it is not reasonable to expect that it should be accessible, even to the Members of this House, when the other House is sitting. I will make further inquiry as to whether additional facilities can be given to Members to visit the room when the House of Lords is not sitting. With reference to the Buckingham Chamber, I am still in correspondence with the Lord Chamberlain. I have not yet received an answer to the inquiry I made respecting the admission of Members to the Crypt. As to the frescoes on the staircase, I have taken the best advice I could obtain, and have been assured that they are no longer within the reach of remedial art; and no one is able to suggest a plan by which decay can be arrested.
    MR. CREMER: I am not so unreasonable as to imagine that Members of this House should be admitted as of right to the Lobbies and the writing-room of the House of Lords when that House is sitting. But I would point out that the House of Lords does not meet until half-past 4 o'clock, and that it frequently happens that Members of this House are desirous of visiting the Painted Chamber and the Buckingham Chamber between the hours of 2 and half-past 4. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain whether Members of this House will be admitted to those Chambers during the hours I have referred to, and, in fact, during the time the House of Lords is not sitting?
    MR. PLUNKET: The public are admitted in the usual way when the House of Lords is not sitting on Saturdays, and on Monday and Tuesday in Easter week, and at other times, but I will make inquiries to ascertain whether there is any objection to admitting hon. Members of this House whenever the House of Lords is not sitting.
    MR. CREMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply as to the shrubs.
    *MR. PLUNKET: The question has been considered. I have spoken to a large number of people about it and the general opinion is that to put shrubs or flowers on the river terrace would not be an adornment, but rather a disfigurement.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: IS it not the fact that the restrictions upon hon. Gentlemen visiting the House of Lords are of recent date? A few years ago we were free to visit the House of Lords at any time the House was not sitting.
    MR. PLUNKET: I will inquire.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    *MR. MORTON: I see an item of £200 here for the supply of oil for the lamps used in the Committee Rooms. Why is there so much oil used here? I have been looking about but have been unable to find many lamps in use. I also find that the Resident Engineer has a salary of £250, rising by £5 annual increments to £300; but he is here accredited with £400. How does that happen? I notice that he receives other sums under other heads but there is nothing to account for the increase of salary. Would it not be well in future to put the whole sum paid to this gentleman down in one item instead of dividing it in this way? I am aware that payments are sometimes put down in this way in order that more than the maximum salary can be paid, and, perhaps, that has been done in this case. If so, I must say I do not agree with the system.
    MR. PLUNKET: Up to the present year the salary of the Assistant Engineer was as stated by the hon. Member, but Dr. Percy, the eminent Engineer of the House of Commons, unfortunately died last autumn, and we took the opportunity of re-modelling the Department. Instead of filling up the vacancy at the old salary of £600 a year we added £100 to the salary of the Assistant Engineer, giving him £400 instead of £300, and conferred the whole responsibility on that gentleman. As to the consumption of oil, oil lamps are used in Committee Rooms and in the residences attached to
    430
    the House, but the consumption of oil will be reduced as the electric light is extended, as it will be during the Easter and Whitsuntide holidays.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £21,000, to complete the sum for Admiralty, Extension of Buildings.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: There has been such a long delay in commencing the extension that I was in hopes the rumour was true that the Government had determined to re-consider the matter, and I regret to learn from this Vote that it is intended to persist in the extension scheme. Two years ago we had the assurance of architects that the work would be completed in two and a half years. Now, two years have passed and nothing has been done beyond digging the foundations. I presume no contracts has been entered into for the new building. I am opposed to the scheme because it will prevent for any period within present contemplation the bringing of the Admiralty and the War Office under one roof. That defect has been prominently brought before our notice by the Report of the Army and Navy Royal Commission. The whole question seems to me to turn on the expediency of bringing the naval and military Departments into harmony with each other. One of the proposals of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) was that these two Departments should be placed under the control of one Secretary of State. Though that proposal was rejected by the Royal Commission it is obvions that the Commissioners regarded it as of enormous importance that the two Departments should be brought into harmonious working, and I understand that they have a plan for effecting that. I believe myself there would be no mode in which the two departments could be brought into greater harmony with one another than by putting them under the same roof. Until quite recently that has always been the view of every high Authority who has considered the matter. In time of peace the adoption of such a scheme would involve economy whilst in time of war it would involve a large increase of efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), who has presided over the Admiralty

    431
    and the War Office, and who was at the head of the War Office at the time when this country was involved in war -with Egypt, stated in evidence before the Committee that in time of peace it was important that the two Departments should be close together, whilst in time of war it was absolutely essential. He also said that the separation of the two Departments was a cause of weakness and might be the cause of disaster. Within the past two or three years a somewhat adverse opinion has been given on the point by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton) and the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). I quite admit the high authority of the First Lord of the Treasury in such matters, but at all events he has not had experience of the advantages of such relations between the two Departments in time of war. I believe some proposal has been considered for putting the War Office on the other side of Whitehall on the site of what is known as Carington House; but if that proposal were carried out the War Office would be on the other side of the street, and it would involve great additional cost. It was with the view of bringing the two Departments together that the Spring Gardens site was purchased seven or eight years ago. I am not now recommending that Messrs. Jennings' plan should be revived, as that scheme, in my opinion, is dead.
    MR. COURTNEYretired and the Chair was taken by Sir J. GORST.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREcontinued: At the same time some scheme might be adopted which would carry out the plan I am advocating. Looking at the question from an economic and an artistic point of view, I must again challenge my right hon. Friend, as I did two years ago, to say whether he could bring forward any single architect of influence or importance who will recommend the present proposal either upon architectural or economic grounds. The proposal is to add two wings to the existing Admiralty at a cost of something like £195,000. The existing Admiralty, which is, I believe, about 150 years old, certainly would not cost more than £80,000 or £90,000 to re-erect. You are going to add to an old building, which is
    432
    certainly very deficient as an office, and which is not a lofty building as compared with offices in other parts of London, an extension which will cost £195,000, and from the necessity of maintaining the old building you are practically going to extend all its main defects to the two wings. From an economic point of view, that does not seem to be a wise course. As to the artistic point of view, I believe every Authority who has looked at the plans has condemned them. They have been condemned by the Institute of Architects, and I believe I am right in saying that the professional officers of the Office of Works itself have not recommended them to the Government, and that those who are entrusted with the erection of the buildings do not consider the scheme a wise or sound one. I believe myself that even now, at the eleventh hour, it would be wise not to proceed further with the scheme, but to invite suggestions for utilising the site, which was bought at very considerable cost, for the erection of a great building which would accommodate both the Admiralty and the War Office. At present the War Office is spread about in numerous separate buildings. I believe there are as many as nine or ten of them, in different parts of London. The existing War Office site cannot be made available for new buildings, and it will, therefore, be absolutely necessary at some future time to purchase a new site at a very considerable outlay of money. The most serious defect of the present scheme is the impossibility of the two great Departments ever being brought into continuity. On the whole, I most seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether even now it would not be a wise course to postpone further progress with the building, and consider whether it would not be possible to erect upon the Spring Gardens site a building—not according to the original plan of Messrs. Leeming—which will be suitable both for the Admiralty and the War Office. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think, in the remarks I have made, that I have any personal feeling in the matter, arising from the rejection of the scheme which I originally recommended to the House. On the contrary, I shall be most willing to support the right hon. Gentleman in any

    433
    scheme which, on the whole, commends itself to me as one likely to attain the object I have set forth. I do not think the present scheme will prove effective from an administrative point of view. I believe that, architecturally, it will be a failure, and that in the long run it will land the country in greater expenditure.
    MR. PLUNKET: Certainly any suggestion on such a subject coming from the right hon. Gentleman is worthy of very respectful and careful consideration; but when he asks us not at the eleventh hour, as he says, but at half - past 12 to reject the present scheme he can hardly expect us to assent. I do not suppose that it is desired that I should follow the right hon. Gentleman through all the arguments which he has put forward on several previous occasions, and which have been answered over and over again. The whole question was very carefully considered by a strong and important Committee who rejected the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. It then became our duty to do something, and accordingly in 1887 were entrusted to Messrs. Leeming the duty of preparing fresh plans. It is true Messrs. Leeming preferred their own original plan, but for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee they do entirely approve of their present plan. That plan was adopted in principle by the House in 1887, when it voted the sum of £500 for the preliminary expenses which it entailed. In the following year the plans when prepared were exhibited in the Tea-room, and in the same year the House voted £5,000 on account of the cost of carrying them out. In these circumstances, I think that it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Committee to go back in the matter. In December last the Government authorised the expenditure of £21,000 upon the construction of the foundations of the new buildings, and I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman is serious when he asks the Government now to stay their hands in the matter.
    MR. SHAW LEEEVRE: I do not wish to do any injustice to Messrs. Leeming. I have no doubt they con-
    434
    sider they are making the very best of the job which has been entrusted to them, and that they are as a matter of fact doing the work as well as it can be done.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. Motion made, and Question pro posed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £52,522, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, viz., County Courts, Metropolitan Police Courts, and Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am afraid I shall be obliged to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division on this Vote. The Committee will see that it includes a very large sum for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings. It is the old question whether these Metropolitan Police Courts ought to be paid for by London or by the Imperial Exchequer. I have raised the point when Liberal and Conservative Ministries were in power, and before London got its County Council, and the reply I always got was, wait until London gets a County Council or some sort of Municipality. The very last year before the County Council was established the point was especially impressed upon the House, that as soon as the County Council was set up a new arrangement would be made. We have got a County Council, but we still have to pay for the Metropolitan Police Courts. It may be urged that in some sense some of the expenditure is Imperial. A little of the business at Bow Street is connected with extradition treaties and so on, and no doubt to that small extent the expenditure may be regarded as Imperial. Many of us represent towns in different parts of the country, and we know that our constituents have to pay for their own Police Courts. Why, in the name of goodness, should we be called upon to pay for our own and also for the Police Courts of the richest place in the entire country? Under the circumstances, and seeing that neither Liberal or Conservative Governments have kept faith in the pledges given, I beg to move that the Vote be

    435
    reduced by £18,000, which will allow a little for the Imperial work at Bow Street.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Items G to K. for Metropolitan Police Court Buildings, be reduced by £18,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    (5.13.) At this point Mr. COURTNEY returned to the Chair.
    *MR. PLUNKET: Of course I am not going to enter into the general question whether or not these buildings ought to be maintained by the country at large or by the Metropolis itself. That is a question, no doubt, for discussion. The answer I have to give to the hon. Member is simply this, that I am an humble builder who must follow instructions, and the 17th and 18th Vic. cap. 94, authorises and commands me to provide these buildings.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is bound by Act of Parliament to provide these buildings, but if my Motion is carried the Parliament that gave him that authority will relieve him of it.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: The question is not as small as the Motion seems to indicate, and I desire to state the reason why I intend to vote against the proposed reduction. I am not prepared to vote for the transfer to the County Council of any expenditure on Metropolitan Police Courts or the Police, now incurred by this House, until the whole question of the control of the Metropolitan Police has been settled in the only way it can be settled, and that is by handing over that control to the County Council.
    MR. MORTON: I do not propose to discuss the question as to who should pay this money, although it is very hard that the people in the provinces should have to pay for their own Police Courts, and that the London Courts should be paid for out of the general purse. What I want to know, however, is whether the works in connection with the Wandsworth Police Court are to be completed. I understand that a site has been purchased. Is the building to be proceeded with at once?
    (5.20.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 51; Noes 130.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    4. £18,062, to complete the sum for Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.
    *MR. F. S. POWELL: I desire to know whether the First Commissioner of Works can assure us that the New National Portrait Gallery is secure against fire, and also that the building is proof against damp. With regard to South Kensington, many friends of the Government expressed great regret two or three years ago that the Government could not do more for that institution, and especially for the building devoted to educational purposes. It is with great gratification, however, that they now notice that the Government heve adopted a more liberal policy. There is a Vote this year for £100,000 for South Kensington. I trust that, having so well begun, and having occupied sr worthy a position in connection with education, the Government will proceed further in the same direction. The point I am coming to now is in reference to South Kensington Museum. I think it is greatly to be regretted that that magnificent building, South Kensington Museum, should be left incomplete; that while some portions of the building are just cause of pride, other portions remain in that miserable condition in which they have stood for many years. In the course of last Session I called attention to one particular part of the building, the shed that adjoins the main building, the roof of which was in a hopelessly dilapidated state. Last autumn when I visited the museum and saw beautiful specimens of art from various parts of the country, which were being prepared for exhibition, so unsound was the state of the roof, that large portions of the floor and tables were marked out as being not safe to receive the drawings. Notwithstanding all the care thus exercised many drawings were seriously injured by wet. I cannot conceive anything more mortifying than for students to prepare drawings with much diligence and skill, and then to find them so little cared for or appreciated that they are injured in exhibition. Another point of more importance is the danger to the Museum itself. This building to which I have alluded is of such a character that it is full of inflammable material, and it might well

    437
    take fire from negligence that could scarely be called culpable. I do not think there is any warehouse in the country that is liable to such risk as this shed, to which I called attention last year. If a fire should break out the building must inevitably be destroyed, and a great body of fire will be called into existence to the extreme danger of the rest of the buildings. Although in theory the Museum itself is fireproof, we know what a great difference there is between theory and fact in these matters, and how buildings which are calculated to be fireproof are apt to succumb to the influence of fire by reason of some unsuspected crack or flaw in the ironwork, which makes your precautions vain, and so your building is destroyed and your collection perishes. I cannot conceive anything more discreditable to the administration of this country than to allow such a risk to the South Kensington Museum for the sake of the paltry saving over this shed. Other parts of the building are in a not more satisfactory condition; but this shed calls for special condemnation as a discredit to British art and an alarming danger to the Museum. I will not occupy time by going into the history of the South Kensington Museum, but I may be permitted to call attention to the fact that so long as seven years ago, when the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was in charge of the Department of Works, he placed on the Votes a sum of £5,000 as the beginning of the completion of what was then known as the South West Wing. He withdrew that Vote under pressure of debate in the early part of the Session, but he said he would replace it on the Estimates in the course of the Session. This was a distinct promise in 1883, but from that time until now no steps whatever have been taken, so far as I know. I feel great reluctance to occupy the time of the Committee now, for I know how valuable time is. I will content myself with saying that the condition of these buildings is a discredit to this country, and the continued postponement of the necessary work shows an uncertainty of policy which is a condemnation of our administration. I do hope that ere long fresh proposals will be made to the House towards completing the buildings, making them worthy of
    438
    their purpose, and that, as a preliminary step, this shed may be taken in hand and rebuilt, so that we may have a place wherein to exhibit in safety those specimens of art sent up by our young students all over the country.
    MR. PLUNKET: Certainly my hon. Friend has no need to make any apology for the remarks he has addressed to us on a subject most interesting and important. I think that in a few words I can satisfy him. In the first place I can assure him that the building in which the National Portrait Gallery collection is housed at Bethnal Green is as carefully provided with every possible appliance to prevent danger from fire as any building can possibly be. I need scarcely say that in the new building about to be erected for the collection at the back of the National Gallery every care that experience and science can suggest for the exhibition, lighting, and security of the pictures will be taken. My hon. Friend has alluded to some imperfections in the roof of the South Kensington building and to damage caused to pictures there; but this damage, I think, was caused by the neglect of some of the attendants, who left the sky-light windows open, and allowed the rain to enter. Whatever imperfections in that roof there were have been set to rights. As to the larger question, my hon. Friend is aware that a few weeks ago we obtained, by a Supplementary Estimates, £100,000 for effectually improving the housing of the science and art collection at South Kensington, and I think my hon. Friend will accept that as an earnest of the goodwill of the present Government to carry out the objects he has at heart. We have undertaken the purchase of a large piece of land, and hope to make, if I may use the expression, a really good job of the whole thing for the future. No more time than is necessary will be occupied in the preparation of plans that will take the utmost advantage of the great acquisition of space secured, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that we are prepared to put the buildings on a proper and worthy footing.
    DR. TANNER: There is one point to which I should like to call attention. By dint of continual questioning a certain amount of conces-

    439
    sion has been obtained. There was a great amount of protestation offered at the time we were urging that the British Museum should be thrown open in the evening, and much was said about the additional expense that would be incurred. I am glad to see that these forebodings have not been fulfilled. The British Museum is now opened in the evening, and I notice that under sub-head D, for maintenance and repairs, there is a decrease of £10. There is, I think, sufficient encouragement in this to justify our urging that the Government should go a step further. The Trustees have not incurred that large expense which it was alleged they would have to incur to make the concession to public opinion, and certainly I would hope that, seeing that in every way in which you approach the subject, the public would benefit by the opening of the Museum on Sunday——
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is a question that should be raised on the Vote for Administration, not for the Maintenance of the building. The hon. Member should discuss the point he desires to raise when the Vote for Administration and Personnel comes forward.
    DR. TANNER: In that case I will defer my observations.
    Vote agreed to.
    5. £33,993, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: This is one of the Votes we were anxious to have postponed, and there is one item in it really very important—£9,000 for the purchase of a site for building a house at Cairo. It can hardly be said that in the present condition of affairs we can discuss this matter just now; and what I would suggest is, that if the Vote is passed now, it should be understood it is without prejudice of any opinion we may have to express as to the purchase of this Cairo site, that we have in no way pledged ourselves, and that we may raise the question on Report.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member would only be within his right in raising this question on Report; and, as he says, the passing of the Vote now is without prejudice to any Motion he may think it right to make on Report,
    440
    when he will have full opportunity offered him for raising a discussion. I have explained the circumstances under which we are compelled to ask for the Vote, and those circumstances will equally hold good when we ask the House to confirm the Vote of the Committee.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not hear them.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: We are compelled to purchase the site, and the arrangement will lapse unless we complete the purchase within a given time.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The House may amend the Vote.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: We must take our responsibility for that. The hon. Member will be perfectly within his right in moving the reduction of the Vote by £9,000, but I need not say the Government will adhere to the original sum, and we have no doubt the House will sustain us.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I only hope it will be fairly understood that we have not assented to it.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall put it no higher than that the Committee has assented to the Vote.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: That is just it.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall ask the House to approve the assent of the Committee. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is entirely within his right to move that the House shall disagree with the Committee to the extent of £9,000 or any other sum.
    MR. LEVESON GOWER: I have no wish to waste time; but can the Government give us any information as to the increase under the head of new works for the Legations in China and Japan? The item is £5,200 this year; it was only £2,000 last year.
    MR. PLUNKET: As the hon. Member is aware, our relations with China and Japan are becoming very much more extended, and it has become more and more expedient, as the importance of our relations with these countries has increased, that our representatives should be placed in positions

    441
    of dignity and comfort. Without going in detail into the work, which, in various places has been necessary, I may assure the hon. Member that this additional expense has been found to be absolutely necessary, and it is a not altogether unsatisfactory sign of increasing importance of our relations with these countries.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the increased cost of the Legation at Tangiers? That which was last year £2,195 is increased this year to £6,200. For a place of this kind it would seem to me it is a disproportionate increase. Also I should like to have some explanation of items under Sub-head T, whore there is a decrease from the estimate of last year for various Missions and Consulates. It appears to me that there are many places abroad where largo sums of money are spent under this head without any returning advantage. I should like to know how the Government proceed in regard to this expenditure, whose estimate they act upon, and whether any tenders for the contracts are invited. It is fit matter for remark, I think, that we should be asked to sanction an increase of £4,000 on a place like Tangiers without an explanation.
    MR. PLUNKET: As to the Legation at Tangiers, that was a subject of discussion last year, and this is the carrying out of an undertaking I then explained which involved an expenditure of £9,000. The principle we proceed upon, when it becomes necessary to sanction additional expenditure, is where it is practicable to sand a surveyor to make personal investigation as to value. We have an officer who is frequently employed in such work. The necessity (Tangiers) has arisen from reasons I need not now go into again. Shortly, I may say that the growth of Native building around the old house has rendered it unfit for the habitation of our Representative.
    Vote agreed to.
    6. £281,465, to complete the sum for Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.
    7. £176,000, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.
    8. £17,375, to complete the sum for Harbours and Lighthouses Abroad under the Board of Trade.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I understood the First Lord to say that he would be satisfied if the first eight Votes were taken.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No. I said it was absolutely necessary that the first eight Votes should be taken because of the contracts to which I referred; but there wore other Votes I mentioned as being of a character that would not occupy much time, and these I asked the Committee to take before the Adjournment. That was the understanding.
    MR. W. REDMOND: It appears, then, that I was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to take these Votes as being of a non-contentious character, but that does not apply to Vote 10. Occasion arises for a short discussion upon Holy-head Harbour, upon which item there is an increase of £4,702, due to the repair of damages caused by storm. Upon this matter questions have been addressed to the Government, and I am aware that great dissatisfaction has been expressed as to the manner in which works on the breakwater at Holyhead have been carried out. I am not, myself, prepared to state the case; but I know there is much to be said on the subject by Members not now present, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Vote to stand over, or to give an undertaking that a full opportunity for discussion shall be given on Report.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry that I am unable to consent to a postponement; but, undoubtedly, there will be an opportunity on Report for the hon. Member and his friends to make such observations as they may think fit. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that I distinctly stated that I must ask the Committee to continue until these Votes were taken.
    Vote agreed to.
    9. £25,040, to complete the sum for Peterhead Harbour.
    10. £4,000, to complete the sum for Caledonian Canal.
    11. £156,453, to complete the sum for rates on Government property.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday 14th April.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday 14th April.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

    CLASS 1.
    Resolutions [31st March] reported.
    1."That a sum, not exceeding £31,725, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
    MR. W. REDMOND: I think before the House agrees to this Resolution we ought to have a promise from the Government that they will endeavour to lessen the expenditure on the unoccupied Royal Palaces. As I said last night, we do not complain of proper provision being made for proper Palaces for members of the Royal Family, but it does seem a monstrous thing that year after year thousands of pounds should be expended upon Royal Palaces that members of the Royal. Family never occupy. At least, I think an undertaking should be given that inquiry shall be made with a view to the reduction of this expenditure. I do not see why the Government should not undertake to appoint a Committee on the subject. I am quite sure there is much dissatisfaction caused throughout the country as public attention is drawn year after year to the large sums of money the House of Commons is called upon to vote for buildings that serve no public purpose whatever, and I think the Government should give an undertaking that they will endeavour to practise economy under this Vote.
    MR. PLUNKET: Certainly; I can give an undertaking that I will always do my best to reduce expenditure under this Vote, and every other Vote for which I am responsible. So far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured I will give my best attention to the matter.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Committee?
    Resolution agreed to.
    2."That a sum, not exceeding £78,775, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. W. REDMOND: I cannot lose the opportunity of expressing my strong opinion that a great many of these Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens might, without any detriment to their use by the Royal Family, be thrown open to the public. I may mention, for instance, Hampton Court Park and the grounds of Buckingham Palace. These last, I believe, are extensive, and I am assured on good authority are never used. It is only reasonable, of course, that while Her Majesty is in residence at Buckingham Palace the public should be excluded; but for a great part of the year the Palace is empty, and then the grounds might be thrown open to the public. Open spaces in London are not so many that this would not be a great boon to the people, and I cannot help thinking that Her Majesty would not object to her people having an entry to the grounds during her absence from London. There is no intention whatever of encroaching unwarrantably on the privileges of those who have special claims to the enjoyment of the Royal Parks, but surely it is not an unreasonable request that the people who contribute nearly £100,000 towards the maintenance of the Parks should have some share in the enjoyment.
    MR. MORTON: Several questions were put last night in relation to this Vote to which no answers were given for want of time, and, perhaps, we may have the answers to-day. I asked whether in future the expenses of St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park could be kept separate. I also wished to know the functions of the bailiff of the Royal Parks. He appears to be a military officer, but I cannot understand what his duties are. Then I find a large expenditure for the Rangers' Department, and I ask why this expenditure when we have a large item for police. Then I asked for an explanation of the item on page 12—£96 for allowances in lieu of fees. If fees are abolished and you then make allowances

    445
    out of the public money, I do not see much gain in the result.
    Resolution agreed to.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) BILL.—(No. 168.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): It has been arranged that this Bill shall be taken to-night, and I will, therefore, explain its object very shortly. The Bill proposes to confer upon the Board of Agriculture further powers for the purpose of dealing with pleuro-pneumonia, which has previously been dealt with by Local Authorities under various Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council. Most stringent measures have been taken, and large sums of money expended for cattle which have been slaughtered, and great expenses have been incurred by the various Local Authorities, but without any adequate result, owing to a want of uniformity of action, which experience has taught it is almost impossible to obtain. Under these circumstances, it seems impossible and useless to persevere with a system which has involved so many sacrifices without satisfactory results. If that is so, one alternative is that we should altogether abandon the hope of ever getting rid of that disease. That would be a most unfortunate conclusion, for the example of the Netherlands shows the possibility of extirpating the disease. By the Bill it is proposed that there shall be placed at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture a sum of money which it is hoped will obviate the necessity of trenching on local resources. The adoption of this principle is, I think, absolutely necessary, because the Local Authorities cannot be expected to submit to a large and wholly unlimited expenditure of their funds by a Central Department over which they will have no control. It is further provided in the Bill, in view of the possibility of a deficiency arising, that it is in the case of Great Britain to be met out of the local taxation accounts of England and Scotland respectively in the proportions mentioned in the Bill, which are the same as those in which the Probate
  446
  Duty is distributed. I am aware objection may be taken to that on the ground that it interferes with the allocation of moneys already provided for certain specific local purposes, and also that a county perfectly free from disease may be called upon to contribute. On the other hand, it should be remembered, first of all, that the risk is very remote. It has been impossible to obtain an accurate estimate; but on the best estimate we could get, I have every reason to hope that the risk of calling upon local resources will be very remote. In the second place, if the localities are called upon to pay, it will be a fractional amount, considering that the whole deficiency would be distributed among all the different counties; and, in the third place, it must be remembered that although there are now a great number of counties entirely free from the disease, they are all liable to it at any moment. In view of the great advantages they are going to receive, they may be well content to bear the infinitesimal risk to be thrown upon them. Ireland will be treated separately under the Bill, and the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council will be substituted for the Board of Agriculture. A sum will be provided by the Imperial Exchequer, and any deficiency will be met out of the General Cattle Disease Fund, which is already in existence and which has been frequently used for that purpose. I hope I have described clearly, if briefly, the objects of this Bill, and the means by which it is intended to carry them out. I sincerely hope the House will allow the Bill to be now read a second time. It is a Bill with regard to which the Government have received numerous appeals and petitions from various parts of the country, and I think there is a general wish that it shall now be read a second time. If there is any objection to it in point of detail that can be dealt with in Committee. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Henry Chaplin.')
  MR. MUNDELLA: I conclude that the House is in favour of this Bill being read a second time to-day. I do not therefore oppose

  447
  the Bill; but I wish to guard the House against being committed to everything it contains. Some of its provisions will, no doubt, have to be discussed in Committee. The Bill arms the Agricultural Department with very large powers in order to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia. I believe that the only way to effect the object of the Bill is by the pole-axe, as has been proved by the experience of the Netherlands. Not only should all the cattle affected be slaughtered, but everything which has been brought into contact with them should be destroyed also. It has been a long, painful, and expensive process in the Netherlands, but it has been successful; and I believe that if the powers in the Bill are courageously acted upon their object will be attained.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I hail the Bill with satisfaction, and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having so well signalised his accession to office. I have the honour to represent in this House a cattle breeding and feeding county; and I may say that great inconvenience has been experienced in Aberdeenshire owing to the various Local Authorities not being equally strict in their enforcement of the Acts and Orders. We know perfectly well that pleuro-pneumonia is not a disease which springs up spontaneously, and I believe the prospects of stamping it out will be much increased if the provisions of this Bill are properly carried out.
  DR. CAMERON: I am hardly so sanguine as my right hon. Friend, who apparently wants to slaughter everything and everybody happening to be brought into contact with a diseased animal. It should not be forgotten that there is a remedy short of extermination. In some of our Colonies the disease has been stamped out by means of inoculation, which is a much less expensive process. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a reasonable time before the Committee stage is taken.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 24th April.
  Resolutions agreed to.

SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY PURCHASE BILL.—(No. 195.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 14th April.

CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  (6.28.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist at this hour in pressing forward the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The whole of the Bill, except one point, has been practically accepted by the Government. As I am willing to abandon that point, I hope the Government will allow the Second Reading to pass. To utilise spare minutes such as these is the only chance that a private Member has of passing a Bill; and I think it is rather hard that, in such circumstances as I have mentioned, the Government should bar its further progress. If the Government intend to adhere to that course, then I am ready to challenge a Division. I will strike out every portion of the Bill to which the Government takes objection.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Then I assent to the Second Reading.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 14th April.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 200.)
Ordered, That the Bill, as amended, be printed. [Bill 220.]

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House, at the conclusion of the Morning Sitting, this day, do adjourn till Monday 14th April.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock til Monday, 14th April