Sitting of 15 April 1890

QUESTIONS.

  AMERICAN QUESTIONS DUTIES ON BRITISH CUTLERY.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of the duty upon British cutlery and hardware imported into the United States; and, in the event of there being any truth in the Report that it is to be still further increased, if diplomatic efforts will be used to modify such intention in the direction of those so successfully employed by Germany when, upon a recent occasion, Spain thought of putting a prohibiting duty upon German goods?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It would be impossible to state, within the limits of an answer in this House, what the duties on cutlery and hardware in the United States are. But particulars will be found in the Return of Foreign Import Duties laid before the House in 1885 (H. C., 178 of 1885). As regards contemplated additional duties, we are not in possession of detailed or official information. The introduction of the new Tariff Bill has been deferred for the present, and, under these circumstances, the Government do not propose to take any steps at the present moment.

  LONDON TRAMWAYS.
  MR. THOMAS HENRY BOLTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, as portions of Tramways (in London) will, in the course of next year, become subject to the option of purchase reserved to Local Authorities under "The Tramways Act, 1870," and as the London County Council has passed a resolution in support of the proposal to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of that Act, and to consider and report as to the desirability of further legislation in the interests of the public with reference to
  542
  tramways (notice relating to Orders of the Day, 9th May next), whether the Government will consent to the immediate appointment of the proposed Select Committee in order that the inquiry may commence without any delay?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Tramway legislation is, no doubt, of great importance to the London County Council, but it is of still greater importance to other Local Authorities, who have not, so far as I am aware, expressed any opinion with regard to it; and, under all the circumstances, I am not prepared to grant a Committee without debate.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council are of opinion that this question is so important that they have been carefully considering the whole matter, that they are prepared to give evidence if a Committee is appointed, and that the Tramway Companies themselves appreciate the necessity of the inquiry?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That may be very possible.

  BELFAST SCHOOLS.
  DR. FOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the total cost to the State per child in average attendance in the Belfast Model School for the year ending 31st March, 1889; what was the corresponding figure for the St. Enoch National Schools, Belfast; how many monitors or pupil teachers from the Belfast Model School have been appointed teachers in the Belfast National Schools during the past five years; how many in National Schools outside Belfast; and what are the corresponding numbers for the St. Enoch National Schools, Belfast, under the management of the Rev. Hugh Hanna, D.D.?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Commissioners of National Education report that the total cost to the State per child referred to in the first paragraph was £3 1s. 3d., or including charge on Board of Works Vote and cost of staff of residential pupil teachers, £4 0s. 8d. The corresponding figure for the St. Enoch National Schools was £1 15s. 7d. Two monitors and 27

  543
  pupil teachers were appointed teachers in the circumstances indicated in the third paragraph. In National Schools outside Belfast the numbers were three monitors and 33 pupil teachers. In the St. Enoch National Schools in Belfast eight monitors were so appointed. There are no pupil teachers employed there. In these schools outside Belfast none were appointed.

  ENCUMBERED ESTATES ACT.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of the value of the sales which have taken place under "The Encumbered Estates Act, 1848,"is estimated to relate to houses and buildings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Registrar to the Land Judges reports that there are no means of supplying the information indicated in this question, but that, speaking generally, the house property sold was inconsiderable.

  LAND PURCHASE RETURNS.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the Return Land Purchase (Ireland) (Names of Landowners), No. 81, of 1889, whether he can state, in reference to the particulars in the column headed Rental, what amount of the rental of £214.922 14s. 4d. consists of non-judicial rents, what amount consists of judicial rents fixed under the Act of 1881, and what amount consists of judicial rents revised under the Act of 1887; whether he will arrange that in the continuation of the above-named Return, to be presented on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Newcastle, the three classes of rents above alluded to will be separately set forth; and whether he will state the numbers of the above-mentioned three classes of tenants respectively subsisting in Ireland up to the latest available date?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that it would not be practicable to make the distinction indicated in the first paragraph of the question without investigating every individual case, which would be a work of considerable labour. I may, however, point out that judicial rents were not
  544
  revised under the Act of 1887. The enactment referred to solely provided for the temporary adjustment of such rents for the years 1887,1888, and 1889. A reference to the monthly Return of proceedings of the Land Commission, which is regularly laid before Parliament, will show the number of cases in which judicial rents have been fixed. There is no record of the number of tenants who have not had judicial rents fixed.

  THE REV. J. BROWN, C.C.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rev. J. Brown, C.C. of Ramsgrange, County Wexford, has received a communication from the Resident Magistrate of the district, informing him that he would be followed by the police if he did not refrain from holding meetings of the National League; and whether, in pursuance of this threat, it is true that a police constable followed Father Brown into the house of a dying woman; and, if so, whether the police acted in accordance with their instructions, and whether this part of the County Wexford is quite free from crime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet been able to obtain the information which would enable me to answer the question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Are we to understand that a matter such as this can occur without the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a question whether it did occur.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I will repeat the question tomorrow.

  THE LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the meeting of Fermanagh landlords held in Ennis-killen, on Saturday, the 5th April, at which resolutions were passed unanimously, complaining of several of the provisions of the Land Purchase Bill; and whether the Government intend to take any action in regard to the Bill, in

  545
  view of the attitude taken up by the Fermanagh landlords?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government will pursue the same course with regard to this Bill that has always been pursued with regard to measures submitted to Parliament—namely, to take advantage of arguments and expressions of opinion, from whatever quarter of the House they come, to make the measure as perfect as possible.
  MR. SEXTON: Will criminal proceedings be taken against Lord Erne for describing the Bill as one for the expulsion of the English garrison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have seen the letter of Lord Erne, who is not, however, in the councils of the Government.

  DISHORNING OF CATTLE.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if the dishorning of cattle is an illegal operation in Ireland; and, if so, will he take steps to enforce the law, so as to prevent this cruelty being inflicted upon dumb animals?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The law on this subject is at present in a somewhat unsettled state. In England the Queen's Bench Division decided, in 1889, that the practice of dishorning cattle as proved before them was illegal under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In Ireland, the Exchequer Division had previously, in the year 1884, come to the same conclusion. A contrary decision, however, had been pronounced by the Common Pleas Division in Ireland in the year 1885, on the evidence presented to the Court as to the character and effects of the practice, which evidence (as Lord Coleridge observed) was very different from that given in the English case; and in Scotland the Court of Session appear to have also decided in favour of the legality of the practice. The matter recently came before me officially. It appeared to me desirable that the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division in Ireland should be taken on the point, upon full and satisfactory evidence, and for that purpose I gave directions that the attention of the police should be called to the matter, with a view to instituting a
  546
  prosecution if the practice were found to continue to exist in Ireland.
  DR. FITZGERALD: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Estimates, and move the reduction of the Vote.

  THE LANDED ESTATES COURT.
  MR. SEXTON, who had the following question on the Paper,—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of Irish Estates in the Landed Estates Court for sale, showing the location of each estate, the name of the landlord, the rateable valuation, the actual present rental, the highest offer made in each case in which there has been any offer of purchase, and the period for which each estate has been in the hands of the Court?—said: I will ask this question on Thursday, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman is not ready to answer it.

  "THE CROWN V. RYE."
  DR. TANNER: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Messrs. Roche and Butler, Resident Magistrates, adjourned the Court in the case of "the Crown v. Rye" at Crookstown, against the repeatedly expressed wish of three Local Justices, including Mr. Harold; whether the report is true that the adjournment was moved in order to secure the attendance of Corcoran, the man who was wounded, and that after the adjournment one of the Resident Magistrates proceeded to Corcoran's house and succeeded, without much difficulty, in bringing him into Court, when he swore that Rye fired twice wilfully at him; whether it has been now proved that District Inspector St. George had not summoned Corcoran to attend as a witness in this case, and did not, as alleged, procure a car to convey the wounded man to Court, a distance of three miles; and whether any notice will be taken of the delay to justice in this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it is the case that the Court was adjourned for a short time, with the object and with the result indicated in the second paragraph of the question,

  547
  but that it is not the case that the adjournment was against the wishes of the Local Justices present, including the gentleman named. Corcoran was not summoned, he having been bound by recognizances to attend. There was no delay of justice beyond the interruption occasioned by Corcoran's reluctance to attend.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that Mr. Harold did not attend on the last occasion in consequence of being in the employment of Captain Rye?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information on that point.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter, and also to a breach of privilege of this House, which has occurred in connection with it.

  THE PURCHASE OF LAND ACT, 1885.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many acres of land in Ireland have been purchased by the Irish Land Commission under Clause 5 of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885;"what amount has been expended by the Land Commission in purchasing the same; how many acres have been sold by the Land Commission under the above clause, what amount has been realised for them, and what number of acres so purchased does the Commission still hold; what is the number of acres and purchase value of holdings resumed by the Land Commission from tenant purchasers under Clause 3; and how many of these have been re-sold to fresh purchasers, and at what price?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not been able to obtain a report on the subject, owing to the insufficiency of the notice given.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is the intention of the Government to print their Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr, W. H. SMITH,): The Bill has been read a first time and printed, and will be circulated immediately.

  TARIFF OF RATES IN THE DOCKYARDS.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will introduce into the Royal Dockyards a similar system to that in force in private yards of furnishing to all workmen engaged on piecework a schedule or tariff of rates for each description of such piecework, such rates having been fixed from time to time by the managers of the yards in conference with delegates selected by the workmen?
  *THE FIRST LORD or THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): War-ship work is now so complicated and varied that no simple scale of rates could be fixed. Every endeavour is now made to fix rates after practical trial of the wages that can be earned on the different jobs. It is not considered desirable that the rates paid for piecework should be made a matter of arrangement between the local officers and workmen at the dockyards; but the Local Authorities now have full power of revising the rates.

  H.M.S.BARRACOUTA.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL -HUGESSEN, who had the following question on the Paper—To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the expression of regret by the Coroner's Jury in the recent Barracouta case at Sheerness—
  "That the Admiralty had not carried out the recommendations of the jury in the Thistle explosion in 1869, by providing hospital accommodation for injured men at Sheerness, and thus caused the necessity of sending cases to Chatham;"
  whether he is aware that there is already at Sheerness a military hospital which is never full, where cases of accident could be treated; and whether he will take immediate steps to put an end to the unnecessary suffering caused by the present arrangements?—said: At the request of the First Lord I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

  THE NEW IRONCLADS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the approximate aggregate weight of the Palliser bolts and nuts to be used in the new ironclads

  549
  Renown, Repulse, Resolution, Revenge, Hood, Royal Sovereign, Royal Oak, and Ramilies?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The aggregate weight of fastenings to armour-plates in the case of the ships specified is, roughly, about 1,000 tons. It should, however, be understood that the armour bolts in question have the reduced shanks proposed by the late Sir William Palliser, but in other respects they are not made on his plan.

  THE CASE OF J. DAVIES.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inquire into the case of J. Davies, recently an operative in Pembroke Dockyard, mutilated for life in the discharge of his duty; if he will make inquiries as to the statement that, after this mutilation occurred, a guard was placed round the machinery; why this guard was not placed there previously if the machinery was dangerous; and if, as J. Davies is now incapable of any work, it would be possible in any way to provide for him?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The case of James Davies has been brought to my notice. This man's left hand was unfortunately injured in October, 1887, while he was oiling a machine in motion. The wheels in which his hand was caught are 6ft. above the ground, and were not considered dangerous; but, as this man happened to get injured, a guard was subsequently placed around them. It would be impossible to guard all machines, so that men could not by any mischance be injured by them. The gratuity granted to Davies was the highest possible under established regulations in the case of injuries short of total and complete disability, namely, a gratuity equal to the whole of a year's wages at the rate of pay received at the time of injury. These regulations are based upon the Superannuation Acts Amendment Act of 1887, and have been presented to Parliament in the form of a Treasury Warrant. Davies is still reported as capable of contributing to his own support to a small degree; but even if he were now totally unable to do any work, no further grant could be made to him out of any money voted by Parliament.
  *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Will the noble Lord say
  550
  whether machinery in dockyards is subject to the usual inspection?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, Sir, it is.

  THE LATE GENERAL SIR WILLIAM JONES.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the Times, of the 11th April, in reference to the funeral of the distinguished veteran, General Sir William Jones, G.C.B.; and if he can explain the circumstances of this painful case—
  "The deceased officer recently expressed an earnest desire to receive the last honours paid to a soldier, and intimated his wish to His Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, who immediately communicated with the War Office. A military funeral was then sanctioned, and the necessary instructions to the troops now in Dublin appeared on Wednesday, in the garrison orders. The funeral was arranged to start yesterday morning from the late General's residence, Lansdown Lodge, and at the hour appointed a force of police was drawn up outside, and a number of people assembled to witness the ceremony. After a delay, however, it became evident that some hitch had taken place. It appeared that on the previous evening a telegram had been received from Lord Wolseley countermanding the military funeral. The remains were conveyed to Mount Jerome Cemetery."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Nothing is known in the War Office of any arrangements having been made by the General Officer commanding in Ireland, as stated by the Times. On the 8th inst. a telegram was received from the General Officer commanding in Ireland asking if a military funeral could be given to the late General Sir W. Jones, but as the officer was not at the time of his decease "on full pay, employed on the staff, or in the exercise of any military command," a reply was sent expressing regret that the regulations did not admit of a military funeral being granted.
  SIR E. WATKIN: Is it the fact that a General Officer of distinction, although be may not have been in full employment at the time of his death, is not to have military honours paid to him? Is the statement in the Times true, that the Quartermaster-General has authority to prevent military honours being paid, although permission has been given by the War Office?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The right to grant a military funeral rests with the War Office, but this case did not come within the rules. The Adjutant-General has absolute power to deal with all such cases, and he adopted the ordinary rule laid down.

  THE VOLUNTEER OPERATIONS.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the absence of regular troops from the operations at Folkestone caused disappointment to the Volunteers, and if, as regular troops were allowed to co-operate with the Volunteers at Portsmouth, he would, considering the vicinity of Shorncliffe to Dover, take the necessary steps to procure the presence of regular troops to act with the Volunteers at Dover in future reviews?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Full discretion in these matters is left to the General Officer commanding the district. As the hon. Member wishes it, I will, with a view to the future, ascertain from the General Officer at Dover the reasons which led him to decide as he did.

  IRELAND—CANTEEN SUPPLIES.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether complaints have reached him that nearly all the regiments stationed in Ireland obtain, or are compelled to get, most of their canteen and other supplies from the London Army and Navy Co-operative Stores, and that this occurs in consequence of a few officers of the regiments and districts in question being more or less interested in these Stores: and whether it is competent for any officer, being a member or shareholder in the Army and Navy Co-operative Stores, and holding a responsible command either in Ireland or the English provinces, to promote the pecuniary advancement of the Stores against and over the claims of local traders?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: No complaints on this subject have reached me. Regimental canteens are under the management of Committees, which act independently of the Secretary of State for War. The members of these Committees deal for their stores where they can get them best and at the cheapest rate.
  DR. TANNER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a matter of
  552
  fact, the major part of these canteens are supplied from the Army and Navy Stores?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.
  DR. TANNER: If I substantiate the assertion, and show that a certain number of canteens are so supplied, will the right hon. Gentleman promise to deal with the matter?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I cannot undertake to do that. Most of the regiments deal entirely with local tradesmen. All of them do so largely, but I am not prepared to lay down compulsory regulations.
  DR. TANNER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints have been made in this House on several occasions that gentlemen who have left the Service spend their time in touting for the Stores?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not aware of it, although, of course, it may have been said.

  RATING OF VOLUNTEER DRILL HALLS.
  MR. JAMES STEVENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the circumstance that summonses have been issued and are now pending before the South Shields magistrates, against the Commanding Officer of the Artillery and Rifle Volunteers in that town, for payment of Poor Rate on their respective drill halls; whether he is aware that this is the first time that the Poor Law Authorities have sought to enforce a claim for Poor Rate on these drill halls; and whether he can give any protection in the circumstances against what is practically a new tax on the Volunteer Service in respect of buildings provided by the Volunteers for their own purposes and without any profit from their use?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): I understand that proceedings have been instituted in South Shields for the recovery of Poor Rates which have been assessed on Volunteer drill halls. The question as to the liability of these premises to be assessed is a question of law which must be left to the decision of the Court. The Local Government Board have no power

  553
  whatever to protect the Volunteer Service from assessment to local rates for premises occupied by them when the premises are legally liable to such rates.

  THE CENSUS OF 1891.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what arrangements are being made for the taking of the Census of 1891; and whether the authority of Parliament will be required, and, in the event of legislation being necessary, when is it intended to introduce Bills for the purpose?
  MR. LONG: Legislation will be required for the taking of the Census of 1891. A Committee has been appointed to inquire as to the expediency of making any changes in the mode in which the Census has been taken and other matters in connection with the Census. The Report of the Committee has not yet been received, but as soon as it has been made the arrangements for the next Census will be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and the preparation of the necessary measure on the subject will be proceeded with.

  PROFESSOR RUTHERFORD AND VIVISECTION.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a letter in the Scottish Leader for 27th January, 1890, containing allegations of cruelty against Professor Rutherford in experimenting upon a living dog at the Edinburgh Medical Schools, which would involve infringement of the Act of Parliament 39 and 40 Vic. c. 77; whether Professor Rutherford has reported these experiments to the Inspector, or if inquiry has been made by the Inspector respecting them; if the Home Secretary will lay upon the Table full particulars of the same, together with any Reports made to him by the Inspector, or his deputy, with reference to this particular case, or to other cases of alleged infringement of the Act; if the experiments referred to were performed under Certificate C, in conformity with the Act, by whom such certificate was signed; whether this certificate releases the holder from
  554
  compliance with Sub-section 3 of the proviso to Section 3 of the Act; and whether such certificate, being held in addition to a licence, is granted for a single experiment or limited series of experiments, or is granted for an unlimited number of experiments and extends over a period of months or years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; my attention was called to the letter in question. The only allegation in that letter which called for inquiry on my part was that the dog was not killed after the lecture, but kept for other purposes. The Inspector inquired into this, and reported to me that no dogs or other animals used by Professor Rutherford under Certificate C in illustration of his lectures has been allowed to recover from the full effect of the anæsthetic before being killed. An operator under Certificate C is not required to furnish Reports of his experiments. I am not, therefore, able to lay particulars upon the Table of the House. The experiments were under Certificate C, which was signed by the President of the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, and it does not release the holder from the provisions of the Act referred to. Such certificate runs with the licence and continue valid as long as the licence is renewed. The certificate in question was granted in the year 1882.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, having regard to the increasing discontent among all ranks of the Constabulary at the continued non-fulfilment by successive Governments of the promise to deal with the question of their superannuation, he can now state if it is the intention of the Government to deal with the matter, or to leave it to each jurisdiction to promote a private Bill for its own Force; and, in such latter case, what will be the position of the Metropolitan Police?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session dealing with the question of superannuation both in the Metropolitan and the Provincial Forces.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have decided to refer the Public Trustee Bill and the Trust Companies Bill to a Select Committee, with power to take evidence, or to a Grand Committee?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The Public Trustee Bill will be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.

  UNITED STATES TARIFF BILL.
  MR. WATT: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that the Ways and Means Committee of the United States Government have arrived at an agreement regarding the Sugar Schedule, whereby a reduction of revenue upon sugar imported into the United States of from 30 to 35 million dollars per annum is reported; and, if not, whether he can state the exact amount of the proposed reduction, if any, and any farther particulars with reference to the question?
  *THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,): Her Majesty's Government have no information as to any proposed reduction of the duty of sugar imported into the United States. They have ascertained from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington that the new Tariff Bill has been postponed owing to the death of a member. The changes proposed in the Bill have not been made public.

  THE WEST INDIAN MAIL CONTRACT.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the statement which appeared in the Morning Post of 31st March last, to the effect that the new contract between the Post Office and the Royal Mail Company for the conveyance of the West Indian Mails, though not signed, is virtually concluded, and will come into force in Juno next, is correct; whether he has received any memorials from the Colony in favour of the contract being granted to the Royal Mail Company; and whether it is the intention of the Government to bring the contract, before being closed, under
  556
  the notice of Parliament; and, if not, whether he will state the particulars of the new contract, especially with regard to the maximum time to be occupied on the voyages?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): A tender of the Royal Mail Company has been accepted for the conveyance of West India Mails from the 1st of July next, when the present contract expires. The contract is now in preparation, and will, in the usual course, be submitted to Parliament for approval, with a statement as to its terms. I hope it will be possible so to submit the new contract before the date appointed for its commencement. Before accepting this tender Her Majesty's Government elicited the opinions of the West India colonies, which, equally with this country, are interested in the services and contribute to its support, and ascertained that they were almost unanimous in desiring that the new contract should be given to the Royal Mail Company.

  CABLE BETWEEN HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, AND BERMUDA.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in laying the cable, contracted for by Her Majesty's Government with a private company, between Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Bermuda; and, when may the public expect that the cable will be in operation?
  *MR. JACKSON: Under the power given to the Treasury by Section 4 of the contract with the International Cable Company, which was approved by the House of Commons on May 9 last, the time allowed for laying the cable has been extended to Midsummer next, so as to avoid the risks attending any attempt to lay the cable during the winter months. I am not able to state the precise date when the cable will be available for traffic. No doubt the company will do all in its power to complete at the earliest date, because the subsidy does not become payable until the cable is in working order.

  THE SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the fact that about 200 men of the Upper

  557
  Division of Clerks in the Savings Bank Department of the General Post Office, whoso length of service averages from 15 to 20 years, have been reduced to the Lower Division of the Civil Service; whether these 200 men have been ordered to give a daily attendance of seven hours instead of six, on and from the 16th instant, at a rate of remuneration for the additional hour which is about one half, and in some cases one third, of the amount paid for each of the other six hours, being, in fact, no more than that now given to Junior Clerks of the Lower Division; have both these Orders received the sanction of the Treasury; and, has the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown been taken upon the question whether these Orders, involving an alteration of status, interfere with the legal rights of the persons affected?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have to point out that there are no Upper Division Clerks in the Savings Bank, and also that there are no longer any Lower Division Clerks. The question of assimilating "the old establishment" of the Savings Bank to the new organisation, emanating from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, has presented much difficulty, and, after giving the subject the most anxious attention, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the best way of meeting this difficulty is to nominate officers of the Second and Third Classes to the New Second Division, thereby letting them secure the very considerable pecuniary advantages which are afforded by the Order in Council of March 21st last. I have, accordingly, given effect to this decision, and am satisfied that substantial benefit has been conferred on the officers in question, and that no legal rights have been interfered with. The hon. Member will, I think, agree with me in the views I have expressed when he has examined the full bearing of the change.

  THE MADRAS SLAVE TRADE.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the following statement, which has appeared in several papers:—
  558
  "Information has been received in London which leaves no doubt of the extent of the horrible traffic described as 'the Madras slave trade,' the existence of which has hitherto been only suspected. At a trial at Rangoon one witness, a Madragese girl, declared that she had been forcibly put on board a steamer at Negapatam, taken to Rangoon, and sold for 80 rupees. Another girl, who was seized as she was proceeding to join her husband, was taken to a house, kept a close prisoner for three days, and then sold for 90 rupees. In fact, sufficient evidence was given to show that, although Rangoon is supposed to have an ample police force, the importation and selling of girls goes on systematically;"
  and whether the evidence given at this trial has been brought before the notice of the Indian Government; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiries to be made in Madras and in Rangoon as to the facts?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State has seen the statements referred to, and also that the man who committed the offences mentioned has been convicted, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The Governments of Madras and Burma have had their attention directed for many years past to the migration from Madras to Rangoon, and to the necessity for carefully watching it. The law against offences of the kind mentioned in the question is strong, and will be vigorously enforced.

  CUSTOMS—DUTIES ON VIOLINS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury if he would now state under what authority a violin (consigned from Paris to Mr. D. Lawrie, of Glasgow, at the Midland Grind Hotel, St. Pancras), dated 1696, and purporting to be the work of Antonius Stradivarius, 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 of the label before the instruments are given up by the Customs; whether the fact of an old violin having passed the Customs is to

  559
  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?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The violin in question, the value of which was declared to be £80, was imported from France, and was found upon examination to be marked "Antonius Stradivarius Cremonensis Facie bat, Anno 1696," and was detained under Sections 3 (Sub-section 1b) and 16 (Sub-section 1) of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. The violin was at once delivered on the facts being reported to the Board, although the value was declared at £80, and not £800, as stated in the hon. Member's former question. The fact of any violin having passed the Customs is no guarantee of the accuracy of the description which it may bear, the action of the Department, in the absence of specific information, being confined to inscriptions obviously misleading. It is assumed in the case of a violin imported for private use that the purchaser has satisfied himself as to the genuine character or otherwise of the article; but should it subsequently become an object of trade after passing the Customs, if it infringes the provisions of the Act, the person selling it would be liable to the penalties involved.

  THE ESTIMATES.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to take any steps to realise the expectation held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the Estimates, in the discussion on the subject on 30th April, 1889, when he used the following words:—
  "I trust the Government may be able at an early date, possibly next Session, again to submit proposals to remove what all on both sides of the House consider to be the present unsatisfactory state of things?"
  *M.R. W. H. SMITH: I should be very glad, indeed, if it was in my power to make proposals to the House to improve the conditions under which Estimates are considered and voted by the House. But the Government have been as yet
  560
  unable to devise any plan in substitution for the present system which would secure the general support of the House, without which it would be most unadvisable to introduce any changes.

  DESTITUTION IN EAST LONDON.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of yesterday evening to the effect that on Saturday the East London Coroner had before him the case of a man who had dropped dead at the feet of his paymaster and whose death the doctor said was from starvation; and whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform the House whether other cases of a like lamentable nature have been reported as having occurred at the East-end; and whether it will be possible to do something to organise labour in that quarter so that such cases may not occur in future?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman has not given me any notice whatever of the question. I do not complain of that, but I am sure he will see—and the House will see—that a demand upon the Government to organise labour without any notice whatever is one which the Government cannot undertake to deal with. I am not aware of any measures which any Government could take which would prevent such a sad and sorrowful occurrence as that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  MR. CUNUSTGHAME GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question whether information of other cases of a like kind have reached the Government.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No such information has reached Her Majesty's Government. These matters are dealt with, as a rule, by the Local Authorities, who have ample means of dealing with them.

  THE CREWE MURDER.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to give notice that on the Vote for the salary of the Home Secretary, or upon the next Vote on Account, I will challenge the reply which the Home Secretary gave last evening with regard to the case of Richard Davies and will take the opinion of the House upon the subject.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Francis Tress Barry, Esq., for New Windsor.
MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may he entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and the Proceedings thereon shall not he interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I rise to a point of order as to the form in which this Motion is made. When a similar Motion was made by the President of the Board of Trade, in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, last year, there were some words at the end of the Motion which have now been dropped out. Those words were—"But after such proceedings are disposed of no opposed business shall be taken." I wish to ask whether, if the Resolution is passed in its present shape, it would be possible to take any opposed business after the Reports of Supply and Ways and Means have been disposed of?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite true that the words quoted by the hon. Gentleman were in the Resolution of last year, but I am clearly of opinion that they are not necessary. The words of the Standing Order would come into operation, and the business of the Sitting would be dealt with according to the Rules applicable to measures taken after 12 o'clock.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Then, I gather from your ruling that last year something was passed which was not necessary?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not know that the words were unnecessary, but they were surplusage.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would suggest an Amendment in the nature of a compromise. As the Resolution stands, the right hon. Gentleman could bring on Report of Supply and have discussions upon it at any time of the night. I would suggest
  562
  that after the words, "The proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted," we should insert, "If entered upon before 12 o'clock." By stopping the discussion which might be before the House a few minutes before 12, we could proceed at once with the Reports of Supply and of Ways and Means.
  Amendment proposed, after the words "That the," to insert the words "Proceedings on the."—(Mr. Labouchere)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not think the proposal of the hon. Gentleman can be accepted. The hon. Gentleman proposes that we should enter upon the consideration of the Report of Supply any time before 12, and go on to any time after. I should prefer to adhere to the Rule adopted in successive Sessions. If the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, it might be necessary to ask the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to apply the Closure; and it is possible that there might be two or three Divisions, with the result that we should waste half an hour or three-quarters of an hour and not arrive at Report of Supply. In these circumstances, I must ask the House to adopt the Rule which has been in force during the last two or three Sessions. I trust that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman will not be pressed, because it must be negatived, and that, again, would occupy the time of the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think it is a very questionable kind of enjoyment which the right hon. Gentleman is good enough to give the House the facility of acquiring. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Motion has frequently been made in previous Sessions, but I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman can show a precedent for making a, Motion of this kind so early in the Session. Nothing has happened in the present Session which renders this exceptional haste on the part of the right hon. Gentleman reasonable or to be expected. There is evidence forthcoming of a kind which the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to question the force of—that this Session the House has been exceptionally expeditious in the performance of its work, and that it has

  563
  been performed in an exceptionally satisfactory way. [Mr. W. H. SMITH shook his head.] The right hon. Gentleman appears to question that statement; but the right hon. Gentleman will not question the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means. My right hon. Friend told his constituents the other day that the progress of business in the present Session has been very great, and? that there has been a remarkable amount of work in Supply before Easter this year. Looking at the past my right hon. Friend thought that the business of Supply this Session will not occupy a larger amount of time than it ought to occupy, and that, so far, the House of Commons has discharged its business well. It is rather surprising, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to make this Motion in view of the exceptionally satisfactory despatch of business by the House. I do not think there is any great force in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment of my hon. Friend; but at least there ought to be a very clear and full understanding that on occasions when the right hon. Gentleman is asked to provide a full opportunity for discussing upon Report questions that have been inadequately dealt with in the proceedings in Committee, a large interpretation should be given to such an undertaking.
  MR. BUCHANAN": I wish to point out that a similar Motion was brought forward last year, and that Morning Sittings immediately after Easter appear to be becoming a regular Parliamentary custom. I had expected, however, on the present occasion that the First Lord of the Treasury would have slid something in support of his proposal. No information has been given to the House as to the condition of Supply, or what obstacles have been met with in getting through Report of Supply as well as Supply itself. It is the common knowledge of the House that Supply is well advanced this Session. A similar Motion was pissed on April 30 last year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated then that 34 Votes in Supply had been got in 12 Sittings. But this Session the Government have got 52 Votes in Supply in eight Sittings. On February 25, 16 Supplementary Votes were presented to
  564
  the House, and on that day all the Votes were obtained, the Report of the 16 Votes being taken next day without discussion of any kind. On February 27 the two remaining Supplementary Votes wore taken, and the Report was obtained the next night after 12 o'clock without discussion. On March 17 the First Lord of the Admiralty got 10 Navy Votes in one Sitting—the expedition was supposed to be due to the fact that it was St. Patrick's Day, and that there were no Irish Members present—and the Report of 15 out of 16 of those Votes was got on Wednesday, March 19, after half-past 5 o'clock without any discussion. Practically, therefore. the Government are in a more favourable position as to Supply than they wore last year, or than they have been for several years.
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDY: Hon. Members opposite seem to have forgotten that a few weeks ago the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir G. Trevelyan) brought forward a Motion dealing with the Sittings of the House, which was nearly carried, and the discussion on which showed that there was a disposition prevalent among hon. Members to put up with some sacrifices early in the Session in order to get away earlier in the autumn. It, therefore, seems to me to be absurd that hon. Gentlemen, having supported that Resolution, should now offer objections to this mild form of coercion which is sought to be put upon the House. The experience gained from this Motion in former years is, that it puts an end to obstruction on Report of Supply. If Report of Supply is brought forward before 12 o'clock it is generally talked out, while if it is brought on after midnight the general feeling of hon. Members has been that they wished to get home to bed, and hence those questions only have been discussed which needed discussion. I hope that the Government will stick to their guns, and I am sure they will be supported.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the hon. Gentleman scarcely understands the point at issue. The Amendment of my hon. Friend really proposes that if the Report of Supply is taken before 12 o'clock it should not be talked out. A good deal has been said as to the progress made in Supply on St. Patrick's Day in

  565
  the absence of the Irish Members. It is true that on that day a good many Irish Members were absent from the House; but it should be remembered that the Votes taken were English Votes, in which the sons of St. Patrick had no direct concern. Therefore, the benign influence of St. Patrick is a myth, and the Prime Minister was quite in error in attributing the progress made to the absence of the Irish Members. The First Lord of the Treasury has made out no case for his Motion. He referred to the proceedings of the House in the last three years, but I fail to see what that has to do with the matter. I think the House has treated the Government exceedingly well. They have obtained a Vote on Account for a period unusually long; they have almost gone through Class 1, and they have made some progress in Class 5. I think my hon. Friend is entitled, in a case of this kind, to ask from the Government some guarantee that only urgent business will be taken after 12 o'clock. Supply is in a very forward condition, and it is not the case that the Government have been unduly embarrassed in regard to Report of Supply. I am not aware of any circumstances that have arisen this Session to entitle the Government to anticipate obstruction of Report of Supply. If Report of Supply happens at any time to be urgent, why should not the Government bring it forward, say at 11 o'clock? It is no reply to say that three Divisions would be taken. I do not believe that would be so; but, even if it were, three Divisions would not occupy all the time between 11 and 12 o'clock. If the Motion be carried the Government will be able to put down Report of Supply whenever they please; and inasmuch as other business, such as a Scotch Endowment debate, may be taken first, we may be called upon to discuss Votes on Report at 1 o'clock in the morning or later. There is a growing tendency in the House to defer discussions on Votes until the Report stage; and, that being so, I would ask is it fair or expedient to pass a Rule under which the Government will be able to take Report of Supply at such an hour as will render adequate debate impossible and prevent the communication of the substance of the debate to the public? I think my hon. Friend has made a reasonable proposal, and one which, if 566
  adopted, will tend to facilitate rather than obstruct Supply.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I wish to give the House the reasons why I intend to support the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Labouchere.) I do not think any Government ought to have power to bring on Report of Supply at any time it chooses. I understand that, after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) is willing to give a guarantee that Report of Supply will not be brought on at too late an hour. I think if my right hon. Friend will say it shall not be brought on in general circumstances after half-past 12 the House will be quite satisfied. Members on this side of the House are just as much interested as Gentlemen opposite in having this matter properly discussed, and no Party feeling ought to enter into the matter at all. It seems to me that there is nothing so detrimental to public business as to have important questions discussed on Report of Supply at an hour when many Members cannot attend. I think the hon. Member for Northampton has approached the question in a reasonable spirit, and I hope my right hon. Friend will deal with it in a similar spirit. I believe that Gentlemen in all parts of the House have the greatest confidence in his conduct of public business, and if he will only give a guarantee that Report of Supply will not be brought on at an unreasonable hour I am sure the hon. Member for Northampton will withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only speak by permission of the House, but I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in answer to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). I have not the slightest hesitation in giving the House an assurance that Report of Supply will not be brought on at an unreasonable hour. My Motion has not been made with the intention of enabling us to take an unreasonable course. On the contrary, I think I have a right to appeal to what took place last Session in order to prove that we have no desire to act unreasonably. If ever a question of importance has been

  567
  deferred until Report, an arrangement has been made which has been satisfactory to the House as a whole, although I admit it may not have pleased individual Members. I assure the House it will be my object, under such circumstances, in the future to make such an arrangement as will suit the general convenience of the House. My only desire is that business should not be obstructed, as it may be by a single Member under present circumstances. With this assurance, I hope the House will assent to the Motion.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman has just given a guarantee, and I need not assure him that his word will be accepted at once. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has not replied to the request that he would favourably consider any suggestion from this side of the House in favour of the postponement of any particular matter of importance arising on Report. I hope the House understands perfectly well what we are asked by the right hon. Gentleman to do. We are asked to reverse all those reforms in the hours of the House carried four or five years ago in the expectation that the period of prolonged vigils, which were of such a torturing character in previous years, had been put an end to for ever. We find that is not the case, and two months after the commencement of the Session we are asked to go back to the old system of either all-night Sittings or half-night Sittings. I have had experience of all-night Sittings, and I do not wish to repeat it. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has gone through similar experiences—in fact, we have gone through them together—and I congratulate him on the excellent health and spirits with which he has emerged from them. The hon. Gentleman who represents one of the Divisions of Kent said that in voting for the Motion his object was to shorten the Session and give us an opportunity for an early vacation—a thing; we all desire. Well, those who supported the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow the other day can consistently support the Amendment of my hon. Friend to-day; for the result of that proposal of the leader of the House, if carried, will be to give us both longer
  568
  Sittings and a longer Session. If I thought the proposal would have the effect of shortening the Session I should be found in the Lobby supporting it; but I am convinced that its effect will be not only to prolong our Sittings, but to prolong the Session. I am afraid, also, that its effect will be to lengthen our discussions in Supply, because if hon. Members find that they will have no adequate opportunity on Report of raising questions left in an unfinished state in Committee of Supply they will be tempted to prolong the discussions on that stage. Although. I have known many occasions on which Report of Supply was a matter which could be passed over with brief discussion, or no discussion at all, I have known other occasions on which, owing to fresh information having been received on certain subjects subsequent to the debate in Supply, long and important discussions have occurred. It was, for instance, on the Report stage of Supply that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) succeeded in getting the Clangorey prisoners released from their unjust imprisonment; and I remember many other occasions on which debate on Report has brought about important results. Then, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury why he proposes this Resolution at this period of the Session? It may be that at a later period we shall find ourselves in the midst of a prolonged discussion on the Tithes Bill or the Irish Land Purchase Bill, and it would be time enough for the right hon. Gentleman to demand further facilities for the consideration of Government business when he finds himself in difficulties in regard to such measures. If he had made his Motion, say, a month hence, if the progress of business was so slow as to justify it, we, at any rate, should have raised no opposition to it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WATS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY,): Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word as to the Amendment before the Committee. If I understood the hon. Member for Northampton's interruption aright, he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that it would be quite sufficient for his purpose if the Division, on whatever subject might be before the House, were

  569
  taken at 10 minutes to 12, so as to enable Report of Supply to come on soon after 12. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) thinks it would be reasonable to provide that half-past 12 should be the time after which Report of Supply should not be taken. I would point out that the Report of Supply is necessarily an Order of the Day, and the operation of this proposal will be confined to Mondays and Thursdays. If any kind of discussion is anticipated, it will only be necessary for an hon. Member to say "I object" when previous Orders are called on, and Report of Supply will then be reached at a reasonable time after 12. It is practically impossible that the Report of Supply can be postponed beyond a quarter-past 12. If Report be preceded by other Government Orders at the top of the Paper, the debate is interrupted at 12 o'clock, and hon. Members have only to say "I object" to the preceding Orders, and we roach Report, which comes next.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should not think of objecting to these Bills in order to get to Report.
  MR. COURTNEY: Well, others would. Speaking from experience, every one knows how easy it is to rush through the Orders in order that the Report of Supply may begin early. With reference to the point of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, no doubt if the First Lord of the Treasury receives a strong, or even a considerable representation, that the report of a particular Vote is likely to occupy a considerable time, he will make special arrangements, and then the object of the Amendment will be met.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have not the slightest hesitation in giving the assurance referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and asked for by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. I am only doing what has been the practice for many years past of all those who have held the position I now occupy. If there is any subject on which the House, or an important section of it, really feels that further debate is required, undoubtedly the leader of the House has always deemed it to be his duty to make pro-
  570
  vision accordingly, and I shall certainly do so.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question put.
  (4.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 102.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
  Resolved, That the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, though, opposed, and the proceedings thereon shall not he interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In moving the other Motion which stands in my name, I may perhaps be allowed to say that although it is the case that considerable progress has been made in Supply, the number of Votes obtained does not exceed the number voted last year at the same date. The progress made has not been so considerable as hon. Members suppose. The Vote on Account this year has been obtained at the same time as was that of last year, and unless some farther progress is made with Supply, the House will undoubtedly have reason to complain. Last year I asked the House for Tuesdays on the 10th of March, and for Fridays on the 30th of April.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That on and after Tuesday, April 22, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at 2 of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order No, 56 be extended to the morning sitting on those days."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. SEXTON: I noticed this morning in the Times newspaper, which has lately taken upon itself the function of director of the business of this House, the suggestion in a leading article that the proceedings on the Land Purchase Bill next week ought to be taken de die in diem. I understand that this Motion is made with the intention of providing Morning Sittings for the purpose of Supply. ["No, no!"] Then, I should desire some information as to what is intended to be done at the Morning Sittings. Do the Government intend, to take Supply or the Land Purchase Bill on Tuesday and Friday mornings?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That question has not been considered by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman will ask a question on Thursday on the subject I shall be glad to reply.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I think that last year the Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays were asked for solely for Supply. If such Sitting's are to be taken without reference to Supply, certainly I shall vote against that proposal. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that Standing Orders become of very little avail if at a certain period in each year the Minister in charge suspends them for the benefit of the Government. You might as well have said in your Standing Orders that they were only intended to apply up to Easter, and we should have understood you. The position of private Members is getting absolutely ridiculous. There have been only four occasions in the present Session on which private Members have had any nights at all. If the business of Parliament is to be only Government business, let it be so understood; but do not let it be used against private Members that they are responsible for a destructive policy only, and that they never introduce constructive legislation, when the Government put it out of their power to do so. I claim for private Members that their position should not be made a sham, and if the Government compel us much more than we do to discuss their Votes the blame rests on them, because they deprive private Members of the opportunities which the practice and procedure of Parliament were intended to afford.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I understood the object of this Motion, as defined by the First Lord of the Treasury, was that one Sitting should betaken for the purpose of Supply, but, from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) it is evident that the Government have not yet made up their minds as to what they will do with the times they are about to take—that, indeed, they have not considered what they are going to do with the mornings they ask for. That the First Lord should come down to the House and ask for the time of private Members without giving the slightest reason why the request should be complied with is most extraordinary. I, as a private Member, protest against the intolerable uncertainty in which we find ourselves. In
  572
  consequence of the uncertainty as to the state of business, private Members are unable to make any engagement or to answer any letter in respect to any future appointment. I am one of those who think there is a great waste of time in the House. I consider that time is wasted in other ways than by speaking. I think that when the First Lord of the Treasury moves a Vote of this kind by a simple nod of the head and without a word of reasonable explanation why ho takes away the time of private Members, he conduces greatly to waste of time, and does not facilitate the progress of business. Then there is another fruitful source of waste of time, and that is, unwise persistence with business at unreasonable periods, and which the Government ought to know cannot pass. Several instances of this occurred last Session. The Tithes Bill was introduced on the 7th of June, and we all remember the confusion and chaos which prevailed in consequence, with the result that the House did not get up until the 30th August. The leader of the House, addressing his neighbours in Oxfordshire the other day, said that his title to hold his present position is owing to the fact that he is a man of business. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will so order the business of the House that the time of the House will not be wasted. I hope that private Members will not have their Friday nights interfered with, but that these will be secured to us for the discussion of questions of public importance. If the Motion before the House is carried I trust it will be taken as a pledge that the Government will do what it can to bring about a much earlier rising of the House than that which occurred last year.
  SIR R. FOWLER: Allow me to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was always the practice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to take Morning Sittings at this period of the year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) will recollect that a great part of the Irish Church Bill, 20 years ago, was taken at Morning Sittings. I certainly think it is unreasonable on the part of hon. Gentlemen to object to the present proposal of the Government.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: We must press the First Lord of the Treasury for a distinct answer to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast. How can we say whether we are inclined to give up two days of the week unless we know what use is to be made of them? It seems to me most extraordinary that the Government should ask for Tuesday and Friday morning's and not have made up their minds as to what business they will take on those occasions. We wish to discuss the Irish Land Purchase Bill fairly, and at reasonable length. We certainly do not want it to be cut up int.) shreds and patches—one patch snipped off at one Morning Sitting and another patch at another Morning Sitting. Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays are usually taken for the business of Supply, and what we now want is an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that, except on the occasion of a real emergency, the Morning Sittings he asks for will be devoted to Supply, and to Supply alone. If the right hon. Gentleman will not give us such an assurance, I shall be bound to move, as an Amendment, to add after the words "two o'clock," the words "for the business of Supply."
  MR. BARTLEY: I suppose we private Members must give way- on this occasion, but I should like to point out that if anybody are the sufferers it is the private Members sitting on this side of the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can and do talk as much as they please, but we, who wish to see the business of the House carried on, have not much chance of doing so. As we have to give up our mornings on Tuesdays and Fridays, I think we may fairly ask that the Government should feel it their duty to make a House when we re-assemble on Tuesdays and Fridays at 9 o'clock.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think that the private Members will be the gainers rather than the losers by the adoption of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Derry says that Morning Sittings ought to be confined to Supply, but I do not understand the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman in that sense. In theory we have private Members' days on Tuesdays and Fridays, but in practice
  574
  we have not. There are two important Bills before the House this Session—the Land Purchase Bill and the Tithes Bill. No sooner will those Bills get into Committee than the right hon. Gentleman will ask for facilities, and will take the whole of Tuesday as well as the whole of Friday, consequently private Members will be entirely shut out. If, however, we accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he will not ask for further facilities, but will leave us in the enjoyment of the Tuesday and Friday evenings. [Mr. W. H. SMITH signified dissent.] What, have I been deceived by the right hon. Gentleman? Have I been induced to support the right hon. Gentleman under a delusion? I imagined this was to be a settlement of the whole question. I thought that during the rest of the Session, except perhaps in the last two weeks, we were to have Tuesday and Friday evenings. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this is only one bite at the cherry, and that he will take the whole of the Tuesdays and Fridays if he wants them, I do not see how we can vote with him. There must be a bargain on both sides.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis) made a complaint as to the management of the business. I would be exceedingly glad if the hon. Member could give us any assistance in arranging the proceedings of the House so that the course of business may be forecast with reasonable certainty. I would also be exceedingly grateful if the hon. Member would render the Government that assistance which he appears to think may be rendered by some one, whereby the time of the House may be saved. No doubt, if the time of the House were arranged on strictly business principles, a good deal more work might be done, but there is an ancient privilege of Members of the House which no Member of the Government has either the power or the desire to interfere with, namely, the liberty of speech of hon. Members. So long as that liberty is indulged in with the freedom and want of responsibility shown by some Members, I am afraid no Member of the House in my position can lay down any rule or make any proposal to the House which will entirely obviate the loss of time and unbusinesslike results which occasionally follow. It is not the inten-

  575
  tion of the Government to proceed with the discussion of so important a measure as the Irish Land Purchase Bill in the patchwork fashion suggested by the hon. Member for Derry. In asking the House for Morning Sittings, the Government have before them the necessities of Supply. Last year and the year before, however, we declined to bind ourselves not to take any other business which it might be desirable to deal with, and we must take the same course now, although our principal object is to discuss Supply on the days we ask for. I should be only too glad if the House should consider the Bills before it in such a business like way as to make the de die in diem prosecution of any measure unnecessary, but if towards the end of the Session the same course should be followed as was pursued at an earlier period, when a debate in which no interest was taken was continued day after day, then the Government must ask for the facilities which were given last Session and have been given in the past. The object of the present Motion is in accordance with precedents Parliament has sanctioned, and the practice under it will be precisely similar to that adopted last Session.
  MR. JOHN MORLBY: The right hon. Gentleman has, after all, given the House no reason why we should take this unprecedented course in a Session when the progress of business has been extraordinarily satisfactory. It realty comes to this, as the hon. Member for Northampton has said, that we might just as well come to an understanding that the Standing Orders should apply only up to Easter, and that afterwards they should be abrogated. What the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the difficulty of making an exact division of business of course we all understand, but with business in the present advanced state that the right hon. Gentleman should make this extraordinary demand is a course against which I and those around me feel bound to protest in the strongest manner. I think we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make this one concession. He says he cannot assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Derry that Supply only should be taken on Tuesdays and Fridays until the end of the Session, and, of course, we can understand why he should not agree to that; but the Government
  576
  might meet the wish of the House—for I believe it is the wish of the greater part of the House—by consenting to make Supply the business on Tuesdays and Fridays until Whitsuntide. That, at all events, might be done, and would meet many objections. If you, contrary to precedent, take these Morning Sittings before Whitsuntide, I think, at least, you might give an undertaking that until Whitsuntide they shall be devoted to the business of Supply.
  MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I am sorry to trouble the House, but my right hon. Friend has not answered the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington as to the Government making a House on Friday evenings. It is a question that has been before the right hon. Gentleman before. As my right hon. Friend knows, when Lord Palmerston was leader of this House, from the time he entered it at 4 o'clock he seldom left it until the House rose. Lord Beaconsfield, too, was in constant attendance and rarely went home to dinner. Now, 9 o'clock, as has been pointed out, is an extremely difficult time for Members to return, but not more so for Members of the Government. The Government have not more to do now than in times past, and they have more accommodation provided within these walls than previous Governments have had, and it is not too much to ask that they shall be in their places at 9 o'clock. It is upon record that predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman have admitted the moral obligation of Members of the Government to make a House at 9 o'clock, especially on Fridays. The Members of the Government, I believe, muster about 30, and I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that some 15 or 20 of these should consider that to assist in making a House is part of their duty. They receive considerable salaries, and it is no great addition to their duties to sit on that Bench at 9 o'clock on Friday evenings. I hope the First Lord will favourably consider this suggestion. He must remember the opinion of his old leader, and how vexed the late Lord Beaconsfield used to be whenever the House was counted. I have myself received, and so no doubt has the right hon. Gentleman, reminders that it was necessary I should be in

  577
  my place. No statesman ever sat in this House who more desired to respect the rights of private Members than the late Lord Beaconsfield, and I hope that spirit may still continue to animate his successors in the leadership of the HouS3.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If I may be allowed to make a reply it must be to the effect that, so far as we can, we will assist in making a House on Friday. As for the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, we will do our best to secure a House for him, and I can say no more than that. But I do not know that if any private Member is unable to secure a quorum for the consideration of a Motion he desires to submit, it is the duty of the Government to make and keep a House. I would remind the House that twice during the Session the House has been counted out on Tuesdays, and we are really asking for time therefore that private Members do not greatly require. I am sorry that I am not able to give the undertaking asked for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. We may have to ask the House to provide from day to day for the ordinary Government business taken on Mondays and Thursdays. We shall proceed as in previous Sessions, and of this I do not think the House can complain, that, unless the House shall otherwise order, we shall sit at 2 o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays, and we propose this to facilitate the progress of Supply. The House has the power to otherwise order, if it sees fit, in reference to any special measure. I wish again to say that we reserve to ourselves the right we have exercised in the past of dealing with financial business, and of dealing with any measures of urgency on Tuesdays and Fridays, in fact to forward the business of the Government in any way.
  MR. SEXTON: Have the Government so far made up their minds as to say whether Supply will be taken on Tuesday and Friday next week, and the Land Purchase Bill on Monday and Thursday?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot make any engagement just now.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In consequence of the extremely unsatisfactory reply in reference to proceeding with important Irish business, I think it becomes necessary
  578
  to move an Amendment to the Motion by adding after the words "two o'clock" the words "for the business of Supply." The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is a very serious inconvenience to Irish Members not to know what is intended to be done in regard to the Land Purchase Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will not give my hon. Friend the information he desires; but, I think, in view of the importance of the matter to us, the right hon. Gentleman might stretch a point and decide now. In view of the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman I must insist on the Amendment if we have nothing definite as to the intention with regard to the Land Purchase Bill.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "clock," to insert the words "for the business of Supply."—(Mr. W. Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words be there inserted."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only repeat what I said in answer to the hon. Member for Derry, that we shall not proceed with the Second Reading of the Land Purchase Bill at a Morning-Sitting.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I take it as a definite pledge that the Bill will not be taken at a Morning Sitting?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Second Reading debate will not be proceeded with during a Morning Sitting.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then the debate will begin on Monday, and be resumed again on Thursday next week?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I must reserve the right to move that the Land Purchase Bill shall take precedence of all other business, if it should be necessary to come to an arrangement of that kind.
  MR. SEXTON: At what stage, and how soon?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: That will be on Monday. I reserve the power to propose a Motion, if we think it necessary to do so; but I hope that the Government may come to some understanding with hon. Members as to the debate on the Land Bill, so as to render that unnecessary.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Well, it is not very plain. It is as yet uncertain whether the Second Reading debate will be taken next week or not.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: It must be so until we arrive at an understanding as to the termination of the debate. I hope

  579
  we shall come to an understanding and make an arrangement that will be generally satisfactory.
  MR. SEXTON: I must submit that the right hon. Gentleman does not treat us with that consideration and candor we have a right to expect. He was first asked to confine Supply to Morning Sittings, and he replied that it was not fair to require him to enter into a binding engagement. He was then asked to give an engagement for the time between now and Whitsuntide, and ho refused to give an engagement to this limited extent. From his reply to my question we infer that he has not yet made up his mind as to proceeding day by day with the Land Purchase Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman, by various forms of language, endeavoured to convey that the operative motive of the Government in this Motion is to proceed with Supply. Well, if that is the object, why decline to give us an engagement that for next week Morning Sittings shall be used for Supply? Have some 80 Members of this House no right to be informed what day it is proposed to proceed with the Land Purchase Bill, to enable us to communicate with our Party as to attendance here to take part in a Division? Why, it is but the most ordinary view of the rights of Members that we should be informed now whether the debate opened on Monday is to be resumed on Thursday, or when. Only on such information can we make arrangements for attendance, and as a Party we may claim such facilities.
  MR. BARTLEY: I think we may claim to know something about the 22nd. I look at it from a private Member's point of view, having the first Motion on that day. It is reasonable we should know what is intended. I do not wish to do anything unfriendly to the Government, but I must press for a definite answer.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If it is the desire of the House, I will say at once that the Morning Sitting next Tuesday shall be for Supply, but I trust by that time it may be possible to arrive at an understanding as to the course of the debate on the Land Purchase Bill.
  MR. WADDY: I object very strongly to the Standing Orders being suspended in this fashion. The Rules are framed upon the principle that they shall apply to all
  580
  ordinary circumstances; and no matter how often you make the exception when you take facilities for Government business, you proceed contrary to the principle and spirit of the Standing Orders, and on each occasion you do so especial reason is shown for it. Though there are precedents, still it is an exceptional thing to do, and not the slightest reason for it has been given in the present instance. Two important Bills only are mentioned or suggested as likely to be brought forward for our careful consideration. No hint is given of any other measure of importance being submitted to Parliament, and of these two one of them is of such an obnoxious and prejudicial a character that it is not unfair to call it a purely Party measure of a most objectionable character—I mean the Land Purchase Bill. I am confirmed in that conviction by the inarticulate interruptions from the other side. The other Bill deals with a matter of deep importance, upon which the Government last Session could not make up their minds, and their proposals met with such little favour that, on your ruling, Sir, they were forced to withdraw the malformation into which the Bill had grown. With these two Bills before us. we are called upon to grant special facilities for Supply. I earnestly hope that the House will divide against the Motion, unless we are assured that the House will rise the earlier because of it. What is the object of the Motion? Are there some other Bills to be introduced at the last moment, as was the case last year—little surprises of an objectionable character, of which we knew nothing until three weeks or a month before the time when the House was: expected to rise? If there is nothing of this sort intended why begin so unprecedentedly early in the Session to obtain extra facilities for Supply? We are establishing a precedent which, year by year, will be improved upon.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: A pledge having been reluctantly given that next week the Land Bill shall not be taken on Tuesday, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  (5.52.) The House divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 109.—(Div. List, No. 49.)
  Resolved, That on and after Tuesday, 22nd April, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 he extended to the Morning Sitting on those days.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton, Bill to amend the seventy-eighth section of "The Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862,"ordered to he brought in by Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton, Mr. Octavius V. Morgan, and Mr. Beaufoy.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 243.]

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT (1889) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Hozier, Bill to amend, as far as Scotland is concerned, "The Prevention of Cruelty to and Protection of Children Act, 1889,"ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hozier, Mr. Baird, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Leng, Mr. Charles Parker, and Mr. James Smith.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 224.]

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHISTS.
EARL COMPTON: I do not think I need make any excuse for bringing forward what I consider to be the just grievances under which telegraphists are suffering at the present moment. I have no political or Party object in bringing forward the Motion with which I intend to conclude my speech, and I, therefore, hope the Government will allow the vote to be taken as a non-Party one. The grievances have been of long standing, not only in the central office, but in the provinces, and they extend also to Scotland and Ireland. Both males and females complain bitterly of the conditions under which they perform their work. That work has increased enormously since the introduction of the Fawcett scheme in 1881, and as the work has increased the grievances have increased also. At the end of last Session I gave notice of my intention to bring this matter forward, and, therefore, it cannot be said that I have taken the Postmaster General by surprise; he must, indeed, have expected some such course as this would be taken after the numerous questions which have been addressed to him, and the avalanche of petitions forwarded to him, both from the central offices and from provincial telegraphists. The answers of the Postmaster General to questions on the subject have either been a decided
582
negative or else the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the matters com plained of are under consideration. How many years they are to remain under consideration I know not, but perhaps the result of this Motion may be to expedite their consideration. I am afraid I must say at once that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman has been rather that of an unsympathetic non possumus to all questions which were asked. I myself have been one of the victims who have been unable to get any very direct replies to the questions I have put. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has been cramped by what is called officialism. In that case, if the present Motion is passed the right hon. Gentleman's hands will be strengthened, and he will be able to redress the grievances which have been brought under his attention. Those grievances may be summarised under four heads—(1) the hours of duty; (2) the question of pay and salaries; (3) the question of classification and promotion; (4) the very burning question of meal-times. As regards the hours of labour, it seems to me that this is a difficult matter to be dealt with by anyone who does not possess an intimate acquaintance with what is going on in the offices. There is a complicated system of regular and irregular work, and of overtime; and the principle upon which this is carried out seems to be that of extracting the largest possible amount of work out of each individual at the least possible cost to the country. I should like first to allude to the Fawcett scheme of 1881 in regard to the hours of labour. It was laid down in that scheme that, as a rule, there should be 16 hours' work for two days' work, and that was to be divided so as not to give more than 11 hours on any particular day. I contend that that scheme has not been adhered to. There have been weeks, particularly in the central office, when the hours of work have been 10 daily. That means 20 hours in two days, instead of 16 hours, under the Fawcett scheme. It is, no doubt, said that this has been compensated in the succeeding week, when there have been only 36 hours of work, or six hours a day. I maintain, however, that is no compensation. This irregularity of hours is a great hardship to those who are working in the telegraph office. It does not appear to me to be a difficult matter

583
to reorganise the office so that the work should be more regular. As regards overtime, I find that during the summer of 1889, for certainly a fortnight, the telegraphists were worked something like 196 hours. That made 98 hours during a working week, including regular hours and overtime. I contend that those hours are too long for any public servant, and considering that the question of the hours of labour is coming prominently before this country, and other countries, I think it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to set a good example to other employers, and to say that by them, at all events, long hours of labour will not be tolerated. I am told that a clerk has been mildly censured for having worked 14 hours in one day, but working too long hours is the fault of the employer and not of the employed. It may be said that men are not compelled to work overtime. I am unable to admit that the overtime work is completely voluntary. Under the system which prevails a man who volunteers to work overtime can be kept at it until it is convenient for those in charge to release him. A man may volunteer for two or three hours' extra work, but once he volunteers he may have to work for many more hours than he wishes. The men are called upon for overtime at a moment's notice, and in 1888, during the summer, it was frequently the case that men were on continuous duty for 16 hours, with only half an hour for dinner. Last summer there were many cases of 14 hours' continuous duty, and one clerk was suspended for refusing to do overtime, though he pleaded ill-health as an excuse. Yet, in face of this, we are told that overtime is voluntary. I should like to know if it is true that clerks, after having done duty from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. have been compelled to come on duty again at 10 in the morning and work till eight in the evening; or, in all, 17 hours. Last year I asked the Postmaster General to state what is the greatest number of hours any individual clerk is called upon to work, and the right hon. Gentleman replied—
"The number of hours in one day during which a telegraphist may be kept on duty is governed by the exigencies of the Service."
This debate will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of qualifying that answer. As long as I have the honour of sitting in this House I in-
584
tend to be studiously moderate in my language, but I confess that strong language rises to my lips when I receive such an answer as that. We take great care that animals are not driven to death, and that men who do such things shall be prosecuted and punished. It is not a question of the exigencies of the Public-Service how long our servants shall work, and I, therefore, hope the Postmaster General will either withdraw or modify that statement. As to annual leave, the telegraphists are asking for one calendar month's leave for those who have served 10 years, and three weeks' leave for those who have served less than 10 years. This seems to me to be a very moderate demand, and I think it is in accordance with what Mr. Fawcett intended, for, in a letter to the Treasury, he said he was considering a scheme, the effect of which would be to give one month's leave to men who now had only three weeks, and three weeks to those who had only a fortnight. That shows the spirit in which Mr. Fawcett approached the matter, and I hope that this grievance will be speedily redressed. It ought to be remembered that the telegraphists have no Bank holidays, and work on Sunday. For my own part, I wish that there was no Sunday labour; but admitting that it was necessary for a certain number of telegrams to be sent on Sunday, Sunday labour should be limited as far as possible, and should be paid as full overtime. I find that in the provinces, prior to the Fawcett scheme, the clerks had to do eight hours' work, without extra pay, every fifth Sunday; now they have to do it every fourth Sunday. Now, I come to the question of salaries. The highest officials are, of course, well paid, and deserve to be, for they do hard duty. Since 1880 the pay of superintendents has risen from £300 to £400, while the pay of assistant superintendents has risen from £210 to £300. I am told that a new scheme, last was night, posted at the Liverpool office which will give increased salaries, but I know nothing of the details. Before 1881 the maximum pay of the senior clerks was £160 a year; now it is only £190, a rise quite disproportionate to that of the assistant superintendents, who are next above the senior clerks. Moreover, senior clerks are in many cases doing the work of

585
assistant superintendents. I hold that in such cases the clerks should receive promotion and a higher salary. In a Circular issued by the Post Office to attract youths into the Telegraph Service the prospect of rising to a salary of £190 per annum is offered. But if a block in promotion takes place, as is frequently the case, the clerks have no hope of attaining the £190. The telegraphists ask that all overtime should be paid for equally on the basis of the rate and a quarter, and they object to the deduction from pay during absence on sick leave. Then I come to the question of pensions. At present, before a clerk is eligible for a pension, every day he is absent through sickness is deducted, although his salary has been reduced by that absence; while nothing is said about the overtime he may have worked. Again, there is the question of promotion. In the provinces the advance is very slow. Take, for instance, the Cork Branch. The maximum in the second class is £98 per annum, and it takes 15 years to arrive at that maximum, even if a man is lncky. At the present moment there arc three clerks there who, although they have been over 18 years in the service, are waiting for promotion. During the last six years there have only been nine promotions into the first class, in which the maximum is 50s. a week; and there has only been one promotion since 1881. In the provinces, too, Sunday labour is unpaid for, while the London telegraphists are insufficiently paid for it. Then, again, although the work has increased, the different classes of clerks have not increased in the same ratio; and I contend that they ought to be enlarged to permit of speedier promotion to the maximum of £190 a year. As it is, some clerks may secure their promotion in seven or eight years, while others may have to wait for 18 years, though all have equal qualifications and length of service. I hope that something will be promised in connection with this matter of classification. And now I come to the question of mealtimes. This may appear to be a small matter, but it is a matter of vital importance, because it affects the health of those whom we employ. There is at present no cessation of work for meals during the turns between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m., 3 p.m. and 11 p.m., 5 p.m. and 2
586
a.m., and 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. Sometimes, of course, the clerks may have spare moments, but very often their work is continuous. I will refer to a letter sent to the Controller on this subject by a member of the Telegraphic Staff, in which the writer asked that, as he was on duty from 2 p.m. until 10 p.m., ho might be allowed an interval for dinner. He said he had to leave home at 1 p.m., and, therefore, was compelled to have a meal at the latest by half past 12, and, with the exception of the two slices of bread and butter supplied by the Post Office between 5 and 6 p.m., and which had to be eaten while the operator was working—he had no opportunity of getting any food until he left the office. The answer to that was,—"I see no reason for departing from the general rule." I think it is time that these matters were laid before the House, in spite of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite. Men have actually been punished, I am told, for having partaken of food during these hours. There was a case at the end of last year where two men who had two extra hours duty were punished for delaying their work by talking while taking their suppers. They denied the talking, but, even if they did talk while taking their food, there was not very much harm in it. Other clerks have been punished by transference to another staff, which, to many of them, is a punishment. I must also mention the case of the submarine telegraph clerks who lately waited on the Postmaster General. They have a just grievance, which, I believe, has been promised consideration. I find that there are certain vacancies in the Central Telegraph Office, and I should like to know whether estimates intended for clerks in the central office have been given to the Submarine Telegraph clerks. I imagine there must have been a mistake, because I do not believe the Postmaster General would do such a thing intentionally. I will not detain the House by going into further grievances; I have referred to the strongest of them. I may be told that the matter is still under consideration. I shall not consider that a satisfactory answer, and I shall certainly take a Division if that should be the only answer I receive. I may receive a distinct negative, which, of course, would necessitate a Division. I may be told that there are great difficulties as

587
regards the financial question, and, having served many years in the Foreign Office, I know what those difficulties are, and how the Treasury insist on economy. I am quite well aware that it is not easy to obtain the assent of the Treasury to a proposal which involves an increase of expenditure. I was told, last year, by the Postmaster General that he had not consulted the Treasury.
*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): On what subject?
*EARL COMPTON: On the subject of the increase of the salaries of the telegraph clerks. The Fawcett scheme of 1881,I find, was supposed to have cost the country something like £67,000 down, and £250,000 per year. I should like to know whether the improvements promised under the Fawcett scheme have been carried out. We contend not. Then we are told that there is an annual deficit. But that is owing to the high price paid for the telegraphs, and is not the fault of the telegraph clerks, who should not be overworked at inadequate salaries in order to make up that deficit. I consider that Mr. Scudamore's price was a great deal too high; and to tell the clerks that once the deficit is paid off then the question of salaries will be considered, is to say that the present generation of clerks are to receive small salaries, and be overworked, in order that a future generation of clerks may have larger salaries and less work. Then I am told that Civil servants have no business whatever to combine or agitate to get their grievances redressed. Sir, the ventilation of grievances is one of the most healthy things we can have. It is a safety valve, and if anybody tries to drive discontentment beneath the surface harm must inevitably ensue. There have been no underhand manœuvres. Petition after Petition has been properly signed and sent up in the last two or three years, and the subject has been discussed in the Press. But in a Treasury Letter, in answer to Mr. Fawcett, objection was taken to organised agitation being brought to bear upon the House of Commons. The Treasury Letter said—
"My Lords reserve to themselves the power of directing that the execution of the terms of the agreement be suspended in any post office of which the members are henceforth known to be taking part in extra-official agitations."
I call that a monstrous doctrine, and it
588
means that these men are to do nothing beyond simply appealing to the heads of their Departments, or, that if they go beyond, that they are to be punished. That is a paragraph which should be expunged as speedily as possible from the Letter of Her Majesty's Treasury. It appears to me that is pretty much the doctrine on which the Postmaster General acted with regard to Cardiff. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff is by ill-health prevented from being present, but it is his intention to bring the case of the Cardiff telegraph clerks before the House before the close of the Session. That case has been mentioned in the public Press; and though repeated representations were made by the Cardiff telegraph clerks, it was not until their case was taken up by the Western Mail that it received attention. A new Postmaster and staff were sent to Cardiff, and eight men were punished for this extra-official agitation. They were removed from Cardiff, which was a punishment to them, because the only reason given for their removal is that they took part in this agitation, which they deny. I hope we shall lay down at once the good rule that men may combine and agitate if they choose to do so in a legal way, whether they be Civil servants or not. I think I have laid before the House the facts. There is a stagnation of promotion and an inadequate scale of pay, and other grievances for which I ask a speedy remedy. The hardships are of a most harassing character, how harassing may be gathered from the detailed Superannuation Report, from which it appears that in 1885–6 50 per cent. of the clerks who retired did so from physical and nervous affections. Telegraph clerks undergo great bodily as well as mental fatigue. At an early age, in order to qualify them for higher positions, which in many cases are never open to them, they are expected to know something of electrical science and to be ac-quainted with the Frenchand German languages, besides being good geographers, of which there are few nowadays. The duties of telegraph clerks are becoming harder. The Postmaster General knows that cipher and code telegrams are increasing enormously in number. If a word is sent wrong or a number omitted, it might mean ruin to the individual or disaster to a large number of the

589
general public. How well the work is done I need not inform the House. Newspaper reports, commercial business, and many of the relations of life, depend upon the accurate and faithful work of the telegraph clerks, who are a deserving body of public servants. I leave with confidence this Motion in the hands of the House of Commons, who represent the public, whom it is the aim and object of every telegraph clerk to serve faithfully and well, and who only ask for justice to be done as regards their grievances. I have very great pleasure in moving the Resolution which stands in my name.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the present position of Telegraphists in London and elsewhere is unsatisfactory, and their just grievances require redress"—(Earl Compton.)
BARON F. DE ROTHSCHILD: My noble Friend who has moved this Resolution has entered so clearly and minutely into the subject that I will only trespass on the time of the House for a few moments in seconding his proposal. The Government might object to this Motion upon two grounds—the first being political, and the other financial. They might consider it inexpedient that private Members should lend themselves to agitation on the part of the Civil servants of the Crown, when this agitation is directed against the superior officials. I might compare this case with that of one of the great merchants in the City employing a considerable number of clerks. Supposing he were to underpay those clerks, they would naturally agitate for an increase of wages. In so doing they might come to some friend of theirs and ask him to lay their case before the merchant who employs them; but the merchant is in a very different position from that of a Minister of the Crown, because the clerks do the private work of the merchant, and it is to the interest of the merchant to see that that work is well carried out, and, consequently, that his clerks should be well paid for doing so. The Postmaster General may well say it is no business of ours to interfere between the Civil servants of the Crown and himself, but here I would venture to ask him whether those Civil servants are not quite as much our servants as they are thos3 of the Postmaster General. The telegrams they have to send day and
590
night are our telegrams, and is it, therefore, to our interest that the clerks who send them should be placed in such a position as will safeguard our interests. I might here cite an incident which, although at first sight may appear trivial, but is nevertheless to the point. it happened only the other day that a racing gentleman sent a telegram to Newmarket to ask a member of the ring to back a horse called Semolina, but instead of sending the name Semolina the telegraph clerks sent the name of another horse, Signorina, who did not win, and the consequence was that the gentleman who had thus been made to back it lost his money. There can be no doubt that if the telegraph clerks were to be better paid there will naturally be a demand for much more money, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to provide for in his Budget; but it seems to me that one of the chief sources of the national income is the money derived from the Inland Service, and inasmuch as there is a considerable increase in the Returns from the Telegraph Service it seems only right that a proportion of that increase should be given to those who are instrumental in producing it. When we are told that the telegraph clerks have no right to agitate, I would point out that this is no new agitation. In point of fact, it began something like 20 years ago, namely, in the year 1870, when it led to a strike which took place in the year 1872. That strike was only settled by an enormous expenditure. For my part, I hope that those difficulties will be adjusted without a strike on the part of the telegraph clerks, although at the present time it would appear that strikes are pretty much the order of the day. I would, therefore, put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that ho should offer some positive assurance to my noble Friend that he will in due time, and after careful consideration, lay before the House some kind of scheme that will do substantial justice to the interests of all parties, and so obviate the existing difficulty. Without troubling the House any further, I have only to express a hope that we shall hear from the Postmaster General, not an evasive answer to the case we have put forward, but a reply that will prove satisfactory to all who take an interest in this question.
MR. RAIKES: I cannot enter upon what I have to say without, in the first place, congratulating the noble Lord (Earl Compton) on the moderate tone of his speech and upon the scrupulous accuracy of his statements. If it were necessary that this Motion should have been made at all, I do not think it could have been brought before the House in a better way than that which the noble Lord had adopted; but, at the same time, I regret to have to say that, in my opinion, the time the noble Lord has selected for bringing forward this question has not been well chosen. A reformer is often told that he is either too early or too late in moving; but this Motion is both too early and too late. The noble Lord has been too early because he has brought forward this subject at a time when the Government have not had an opportunity of arriving at any conclusion with regard to the proposal it embodies, while be has raised a number of small points of detail which are at the present moment occupying the attention of the Department. The noble Lord has ranged the grievances of the telegraph clerks under four heads, namely, those which relate to the hours of duty, those relating to the rates of pay and allowances, those affecting classification and promotion, and those concerning the amount of leave. But I must complain that no official communication has been made to me with regard to the grievances of the London telegraph clerks before this Motion was brought forward in this House, a course which I think is altogether unprecedented. I can scarcely understand how the noble Lord opposite, who has evidently taken up this subject most conscientiously, could have reconciled it with his duty to have brought forward this Motion without having previously given the Department an opportunity of investigating the grievances which he alleges to exist.
*EARL COMPTON: I beg pardon. I certainly understood that a Petition had been presented from the London telegraph clerks to the Postmaster General on the subject. The Petition which I hold in my hand does not, however, appear to bear a date.
*MR. RAIKES: The only communication I have received from the London Central Telegraph Office was a request made to me three days ago, some weeks
592
after the noble Lord gave notice of this Motion, that I should receive a deputation which would present a Memorial to me; in answer to which request I have directed a reply to be sent appointing a day in the course of next week, when I hope to receive that deputation and to hear what those who compose it have to say. I am, of course, aware that there has been a Petition flying about the country for some months past, which I have seen unofficially in the newspapers; but I may remark that the last persons to whom the grievances referred to in that Petition were made known were the official superiors of the Department. The first Petition on the subject that I have seen from the provincial offices was one from Newcastle, which was presented on February 28 in this year, and this was followed by a great number of other Petitions in identical terms from other offices. It was on March 4, four days after that Petition reached me, that I came to the conclusion that whilst it was not in my power to entertain or to recommend to the consideration of the Treasury several of the points that we raised by that document, yet that with regard to the other points I would take steps to secure their consideration by the immediate appointment of the best Departmental Committee I could select, upon which I would invite the representation of the Treasury with a view of considering the points put before me in order that I might see how far it is possible to go in meeting the grievances complained of. That Committee have now been sitting between a fortnight and three weeks, and they have not yet, of course, been able to deal with the intricate matters to be considered so as to enable them to arrive at any conclusion. But I am sure the noble Lord will agree that no time has been lost in the endeavour to probe to the utmost these grievances of which the telegraphists have complained. Now, there were nine points alleged in the Newcastle Petition, and in Petitions that have reached me since from other places; and upon four of these points I felt that I should not be acting fairly by the men if I allowed myself to hold out false hopes that it was at all likely these demands would be conceded. The first question upon which I felt it was impossible to encourage the Memorialists—was in regard to the request for the abolition of classifica-

593
tion, and I think that the noble Lord, and those who think with him, are really hardly as careful as they should be in forming their conclusions if they encourage members of the Civil Service to think that what has been from the outset a cardinal principle of Civil Service, is likely to be modified in the case of telegraphists or any other particular branch of the Postal Service. I am assured by those most competent to form a judgment on the subject that the abolition of classification in the Telegraph Service would entail an addition to the expenditure of not less than £990.000 a year at the maximum—that is to say, an additional million—including changes that would have to be made in the Postal Service, for Members must see that we must place the two branches on the same footing as Mr. Fawcett placed them. There would be a claim for equality it would be impossible to disregard. If the position of the one branch is immensely improved, it will be impossible to refuse consideration of demands, though founded on very insufficient grounds from the other branch, which, up to the present time, has occupied its position with reasonable contentment, and has made no such claim. This demand is the largest, but there are others which I could not hold out any hope would be conceded. The second demand which cannot be entertained is the demand concerning the annual increment of the pay of junior officers. At present the increment is 1s. 6d. in the weekly wages, and the Petitioners are anxious that it should be raised to 2s. Those who support this demand need to be reminded that these telegraphists entered the service of the State on well-understood and recognised conditions. In their Petitions they gravely state that they are prevented from performing what they call "the duties of manhood," because their pay is so poor. What they mean is that they are not able to enter the state of matrimony eight or nine years before an ordinary member of the middle class would think of undertaking the burden of a family. Of course, I should be very glad if all these deserving men, excellent servants of the State, were receiving much larger incomes, just as I should be very glad if any hon. Member in this House were enjoying double his present income. But the Government
594
must consider what are the terms on which these telegraphists entered the service of the State, and it is a little hard that after these people have entreated to be admitted to the Service, we should be told that those terms, after they have been freely accepted, are inadequate and insufficient—nay, almost savage and barbarous in their results. Those who take up this question are hardly treating the State fairly. It is easy to throw stones at the State, but the duties of the Government are not confined to the manifestation of pure benevolence towards individuals. There are five points as to which I have informed the Newcastle Petitioners that I shall be glad to obtain the best advice available, and see if anything can be done in regard to them. These five points do not include the burning "dinner" question, which arises in London only; but I shall be glad to consider whether I can include in the purview of the Departmental Committee any fresh point of that kind raised by the London Memorialists as soon as I shall have seen their Petition. It is impossible to pledge myself as to what points may be submitted to the Departmental Committee until I have the Memorial before me.
*EARL COMPTON: I cannot quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply on this matter. I am distinctly informed that the particular Petition to which reference has already been made, and many other Petitions, have been sent in the last three or four years to the right hon. Gentleman from the Central Telegraph Office. There was also a document setting forth the views of the senior male and female clerks of the first and second class in the Telegraph Department. I cannot believe that all these have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice.
*MR. RAIKES: Of course, there have been previous Petitions in former years presented to myself and my predecessors in office. In fact, I may say that few months ever pass without the presentation of some Petition or Memorial from the Telegraph Staff. But I am referring-now to the Memorial, which, I understand, is ready for presentation, which has not yet reached me, and which I only know of because I have been asked to receive a deputation, who propose to present the Memorial.
*EARL COMPTON: I did not allude to that. I referred to the Petitions

595
showered upon the right hon. Gentleman himself and his predecessors as to these grievances. They all contain the same prayer.
*MR. RAIKES: The noble Lord refers to previous Petitions, and I to a particular Petition. There is another point the noble Lord has alluded to just now to which I must call attention. A printed pamphlet, purporting to present the case of the senior and junior telegraphists in the Central Office, was said to have been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. Will it be believed that the first opportunity I have had of seeing that document was this very morning, when it reached me through the post? It was supposed in the Department that some statement was made to the Civil Service Commission, and we feel that we should like to have an opportunity of studying it. I have been unable before to obtain a copy of that Memorial, and I have not, of course, been able to give it any consideration. In fact, it has been sprung upon the Department at the last moment.
*EARL COMPTON: It is in the same spirit, and contains precisely the same points as have been raised in all the previous Petitions.
*MR. RAIKES: The noble Lord referred to it just now as if I must have seen it, but I had not until this morning. It is likely that there would be a family resemblance between this and previous Memorials, for they all contain demands for more money and less work. The precise contents of the document, however, are not yet known to me. In the Report of the Royal Commission there is no indication of the contents of the pamphlet, and, as far as I know, there is no proof of the statement that the Royal Commissioners received it; they certainly have expressed no opinion upon it. It is part of the series of spring guns, man-traps, and sudden surprises which make this subject one so difficult to deal with. I will now tell the House what are the five points which I have referred to the Departmental Committee. The first is as to the sufficiency of present wages. The demand of the Petitioners is for a maximum of £200. I felt it right to inform the Memorialists that I could not hold out the hope of granting this, but I would consider how far the present rate is sufficient; the second is the request of the Petitioners that all overtime should
596
be paid for at the rate of one and a quarter; the third is the demand that all Sunday work should be paid for as overtime; the fourth is the demand that sorting clerks and telegraphists of 10 years' or less service should receive three weeks' annual leave, and that those of more than 10 years' service should have one month; and the fifth is the request that full pay should be allowed during absence from duty through sickness. All these points are being sifted by the most competent tribunal I could appoint, and upon it I have a gentleman representing the Treasury. I think it extremely desirable, if possible, that I should be fortified with a unanimous Report of the Committee before requesting the Treasury to take any action. I had decided, before these questions were raised in the agitated form in which they have recently been presented to the public, that there were three principal requirements of the Service which merited special consideration. The most important of these concerns the position of the superior officers of the Telegraph Department. The noble Lord has referred to what he has heard from Liverpool this morning. Only a fortnight ago I obtained the sanction of the Treasury to a considerable improvement in the position of these officers at Liverpool. The consequence is that about 40 promotions have been made on the Telegraph Staff of that office. There are now one Chief Superintendent rising from £400 to £500 by increments of £20 a year; one Superintendent from £310 to £400 by £15 a year; four Assistant Superintendents of the first class rising from. £260 to £310 by annual increments of £10; eight of the second class from £200 to £260 by annual increases of £10; one Assistant Female Supervisor rising from £80 to £105 by £5 a year. Liverpool is the largest and most important provincial office; but it is intended to take Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, and other large towns in order. Careful inquiry will be instituted, not in any slap-dash fashion, or with a mania for uniformity, to ascertain the needs of the different offices; but Liverpool is as yet the only place where a change has been given effect to. I trust it will be seen that, although I have not been able to give any countenance to the proposal for the abolition of classification, which would in effect be the abolition of

597
promotion by merit, I have not been slack in giving effect to the real requirements of the Service, and that in advance of the demands made upon me. I sympathise with the case brought forward by the noble Lord with regard to the hours of duty. But I am obliged, as the head of any Department would be, to consider first the exigencies of the Service. Reasonable care will, of course, be taken to prevent cases of hardship. It would be a scandal if the servants of the State were exposed to hardships which might easily be prevented. But, as everybody knows, the Telegraph Service is necessarily exposed to great fluctuations, in which occasional cases of hardship are inevitable. And I am sure that it will not be believed that the Department is indifferent to the hardships inflicted upon individuals. I can assure the noble Lord that everything shall be done which I can do to diminish any undue pressure. I regard the passage quoted from Mr. Fawcett's scheme as the recognised principle of the Department, that two days' work should not exceed 16 hours, and that no day should exceed 11 hours. The Secretary to the Treasury can bear witness to the importunity with which I have urged additions to the staff. But these questions are complicated by the considerations to which the noble Lord has very fairly referred, namely, that the men who are complaining of overwork are not extremely in favour of additions to the force, because it diminishes their opportunities of adding to their salaries by overtime. The noble Lord would be surprised if he knew how great has been the increase of the staff during the last few years. As regards the dinner hour in London, I do not see any great hardship if men whose hours are from 2 to 10 are requested to dine before they come on duty. They are allowed time for refreshment between 5 and 6, and it is enough if these men, who can hardly expect a life of luxury, are enabled to enjoy reasonable comfort. I admit the exceptional character of the Submarine staff, who have special claims on the consideration of the Department. They were handed over to the Government, which had but an imperfect knowledge of their position in their former employment. I have had the pleasure of meeting a deputation of these clerks, and
598
have told them that though I cannot promise the large gratuities to their widows which the companies granted, yet I hope to improve their position. Then the noble Lord referred to the Cardiff branch of the subject, and upon this I in no way wish to shirk discussion. The claims put forward on this point are, I think, about the most nonsensical with which I have become acquainted. But the hon. Member who has special charge of this part of the subject is not now in his place, and I think it would be unfair to him to attempt now to make a general statement on this branch, and for the moment I pass over it. The only other matter I need refer to is the Circular issued from the Treasury under the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. The responsibility for that Circular rests with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the quotation which has been made from it to-night is the first I have ever heard of. Whilst I think that the language used in that Minute is of rather too uncompromising and peremptory a character, I cannot but think that it would be a bad thing for the Civil Service if its members were constantly to be bringing their grievances before Parliament. I believe that in the great Republic across the water, which we are always being called upon to imitate, every inhabitant of the district of Columbia is disfranchised. Although that would be a very drastic measure to apply in any other country in the world—and we must remember that Washington is only an official centre—it shows that American politicians recognise the danger which arises in cases like the present. I hope that after the statement which I have been able to make this evening the House will recognise the claim of every Government that it shall not interfere with matters of Departmental administration, except where it thinks fit to censure the Minister in charge. So long as a Minister occupies his position at the head of a Department he ought to be allowed to conduct it in his own way. I venture to hope that the House will leave questions of this sort in the hands of those who are directly and primarily responsible for them, in the belief that the grievances of the servants of any Department are not likely to lack careful consideration and, I believe, just and fair treatment.
SIR A. BORTHWICK: I will only detain the House a few moments while I explain the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper, namely—
"That this House, while anxious that all public servants should receive fair and adequate remuneration, regrets the increasing tendency to invoke the direct interposition of Parliament between the Executive Government and the Civil Service"
That Amendment is fully justified by the speeches which have been delivered this evening, especially that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, indeed, has assumed that I put my Amendment on the Paper in some spirit of hostility to the telegraphists. That is in no way the case. I yield neither to the noble Lord nor any other Member in my admiration for the general body of public servants, or my appreciation of their merits, and of the way in which they perform their duties. So much is that the case that I have taken on several occasions the course of inquiring carefully into a grievance, and bringing it before the notice of the legitimate authority; and whenever I have done that, I have generally succeeded in having the grievance redressed. My objection to the Motion lies in its enormous breadth. The noble Lord assumes that the presant position of the telegraphists is unsatisfactory, and that their grievances are just and require redress. I should have sympathised most cordially with him if he had adduced any one distinct grievance, but, instead of that, when the noble Lord came to speak on the grievances, they ranged over every possible matter of duty, pay, classification, promotion, bread and butter, and matrimony. The object of my Amendment is to declare that the House is not competent to deal with so many subjects at once; and we have now heard it fully explained by the Postmaster General how not only should we have been wrong in dealing with those subjects, but that, after spending last night in every kind of cheeseparing over the Estimates, we should now be voting away £1,000,000 of public money if we supported the noble Lord. The answer of the Postmaster General seems so satisfactory that I can hardly doubt that the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion. For my own part, any sentimental difficulty in opposing the Motion has
600
been entirely obviated by the clear and masterly statement of the Postmaster General, and I shall, therefore, instead of moving my Amendment, support the Government in giving a direct negative to the noble Lord's Motion.
MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: In the absence of the hon. Member for Cardiff I conceive it to be my duty to call attention to what took place in Cardiff last August. Certain telegraphists complained of the length of hours they had to work, and went on to state some of their grievances, and the consequence was that six new postal clerks and eight ordinary clerks, together with a Postmaster, were added to the staff. A letter was written to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, complaining that the clerks had been punished for simply complaining that they had not been paid for overtime, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that they had been so punished by removal to other places. Public attention was first called to the matter in the Western Mail, which was a strong supporter of the Government. The excitement in the matter had been intense, and the Mayor and other influential people had taken great interest in the question, feeling that the clerks had been very badly used. I hold in my hand a telegram asking me to call the attention of the House to the moderate requests of the hard workers in the Cardiff office. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that while they were on sick leave, under the certificate of a Government doctor, one-third, at least, of their pay was deducted. These men, too, have to work eight or 10 hours without any chance of getting food, which is a far worse position than that of a sailor, soldier, miner, or even a prisoner in his cell. I think arrangements might be made by which some of the grievances might be remedied.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I only intend to say a few words. I am extremely glad to have heard the fair speech of the Postmaster General and the concessions which he has promised. The officers for whom the appeal has been made are, as we all know, a body of most efficient and meritorious men, who have always done their work with great zeal for the Public Service. There is a great difficulty in ascertaining whether the rates of pay in such offices, where special

601
knowledge is required, really represent a fair remuneration, and, therefore, it is very necessary that whenever there are grievances they should be well formulated in order that the Department may inquire fully how far they are just or unjust. The Postmaster General has told us that he has already appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the alleged grievances, and I think my hon. Friend would he well advised if he takes this concession in the spirit in which it has been offered and to accept the inquiry which I am sure, with my knowledge of Departmental inquiries, will be fair and just to the Telegraph Service, and if he does not press this Motion to a Division until, at least, he finds what is the result of the inquiry.
MR. W. REDMOND: I only desire to say that the dissatisfaction which exists amongst the telegraph clerks of this country is very considerably shared by the telegraph operators throughout Ireland. I have received communications from telegraph operators in many parts of Ireland, expressing the hope that Irish Members will co-operate with the noble Lord in his endeavour to obtain the redress of their grievances, and I am convinced that if the noble Lord goes to a Division he will be followed by the majority of the Irish Members. It seems to me that the demands of the telegraph operators are perfectly reasonable, and that the statement of the Postmaster General is anything but satisfactory. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to me to assume a tone of antagonism all through his speech to the complaints of the telegraphists. Irish Members have no desire that any but real grievances should be put forward, and some of the grievances enumerated by the noble Lord are undoubted. For instance, it must be impossible for the Postmaster General to explain how it is right and proper that the telegraph clerk in London receives pay for operating on Sunday, while the telegraph operator in Ireland receives no pay for Sunday labour. I will not go into other matters, but simply add that many people in Ireland are completely at one with the noble Lord, and that I hope he will go to a Division.
DR. TANNER: I sincerely trust the noble Lord will go to a Division. Several Irish Members have come from Ireland specially to support the noble Lord in the Division Lobby. I have come here now, at considerable inconvenience, to support the just claims of the telegraphists. Nowhere can you find a more efficient class of men than the telegraph operators in Cork. Sunday after Sunday these men are kept at work in consequence of the nefarious administration of Her Majesty's Government. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, I say there is infamous misgovernment in Ireland; and the major portion of the messages sent across the wires in Ireland on Sunday relate to the suppression of public meeting in Ireland, and to everything that is antagonistic to the popular opinion of the country. We think that when these men are doing Her Majesty's work they should be paid. It is disgraceful the way these men are treated, and I want some definite assurance from the Postmaster General that their grievances will be redressed unless this is given: and if the noble Lord withdraws his Motion I hope some of our friends on the Opposition side of the House will, at any rate, put Her Majesty's Government to the trouble of a Division.
(7.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 142.—(Div, List, No. 50.)

FIARS COURTS IN SCOTLAND.
MR. M. J. STEWART: I beg to move—
"That it is desirable that the constitution and proceedings of Fiars Courts in Scotland should be reformed so as to obtain a better and more uniform system of striking corn and other averages than at present prevails; and that other agricultural produce should be included in the prices struck by the Fiars juries, especially meat and dairy produce, with a view to annually collect and publish the same in an efficient form."
It is of great importance that there should be a just, intelligible, and fixed procedure for ascertaining the money to be paid by commutation. The modes of striking fiars are different, inconsistent, and contradictory, and their process is loose, inefficient, and incorrect. I may explain to the House that under the old Act of Parliament fiars were struck on nine articles, namely, wheat, barley, here, oats, peas, beans,

603
rye, oatmeal, and malt. Some of these are obsolete, and I should like to substitute for hero and rye, for instance, meat, cheese, wool, and potatoes. Let me very briefly put the House in possession of the origin of this question, because there can be no doubt that many hon. Members are unacquainted with either the origin or the practice of liars. The word "fiars" is derived from the French word feurs. The old definition of striking the fiars is—
"The ascertaining and fixing by judicial authority the average prices of the different kinds of grain in each county, of a specific crop and year, and the prices thus held to be legally ascertained and determined become the rule and rate of payment in all transactions where money is substituted for grain at fiars prices."
It was deemed important several hundred years ago to ascertain in a legal manner the value of victuals, rents, and fen duties, payable to the Crown. At one time the value was ascertainable by the Sheriff of the Court of Exchequer, and at another period—in Reformation times—it was ascertainable in the Commissary and Consistorial Courts. One old statut3 bearing on the subject was one relating to the stipend of the clergy. It was passed in 1584. But there was even a statute passed in 1564. In those early days no jury had to be summoned, but the Sheriff was the sole arbiter on the evidence given by the witnesses, and many are inclined to resort to that tribunal at the present day. The Act of Sederunt, which regulated the procedure of Fiars Courts, was passed in 1723. Some may object to that Act as not being a regular Act of Parliament. Mr. Erskine says of such Acts that they
"Are not law in the strict sense of the word, because they are not created by the supreme power, but the obligatory force is as strong as if they had the express sanction of Parliament."
Under the Act of Sederunt 15 men serve on the jury, by whom the prices are struck. Eight of these are heritors or proprietors, and they have to meet between the 4thand the 20th of February. One objection to this system is that the time of year at which the prices are taken is most inopportune, because between the 1st of November and the 20th of February it is difficult to say that any good grain will find its way into the market. In that period farmers
604
only rush bad grain, or grain that will not keep well, into the market. Then, again, it is very near Candlemas rent time, and that operates in the getting rid of the grain which the farmer may be compelled to sell in order to pay his rent. In that way, therefore, the clergy, who depend on this system for their stipends, get the worst average. The evil might be avoided by the period being made as late as April or May, and then the greater part of the grain will be sold, and in consequence a fairer average taken. I may say, in passing, that the two parties whose interests are most at stake in this matter are, first of all, the tenant farmer, and next the clergy. The system operates very harshly on the stipends of parish ministers. It is impossible that they can feel satisfied, because in many counties only one fiar is struck, and they are entitled by the 48th of George III. to have the stipend paid on the highest fiar. When only one fiar is struck in the county it is impossible to say that that is the highest average of the price of corn in the county. Again, in some counties it is practically impossible to get together as many as eight heritors to form a jury. Many proprietors at that period of the year have left their Northern homes and come South. It would be better, in my opinion, to have a new arrangement respecting the jury, and one which would not give the proprietors an overwhelming majority on the jury. There is a great grievance felt as to the mode in which witnesses are summoned. They are brought from all parts of the country, and very often have very little to say. They stand about, practically, all the day idle. The producer gives an account of the grain on his farm. The dealer is called, and his evidence is welcomed because he can speak of many transactions, and very often gives his views of the same class of grain as the producer has just given evidence of.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock till To-morrow.