Sitting of 28 November 1890

MR. SPEAKER'S CONTINUED ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House that Mr. Speaker was again unavoidably prevented from taking the Chair of the House this day.
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  YIELD OF CROPS IN INDIA.
  MR. KEAY:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Reports of the crop experiments conducted throughout India have been communicated to the Secretary of State from time to time; whether any Abstract is prepared by the Government of India, or by the India Office, showing the average yield of crops per acre throughout the different districts as deduced from the crop experiments or from other sources; and whether he will lay upon the Table any Papers containing information on this subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,:My answer to the first question of the hon. Member is, Yes; the answer to the second question is, No. But a suggestion has been made to the Secretary of State to the Government of India that a table of the average yield of the principal crops in the various districts should be prepared. In reply to the third question of the hon. Member, I may say that the information is contained in many Annual and Special Reports, such as are noticed at pages 122 and 123 of the last Moral and Material Progress Report. The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to lay these Reports en masse on the Table.

  THE INDIA-CHINA OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Government is arranging for an additional supply of opium to be prepared for consumption in India in consequence of the falling off of the demand for China; and whether he will communicate with the Indian Government and prohibit this policy if it is found to be in contemplation?
  SIR J. GORST:My noble Friend the Secretary of State informs me he has no reason to think that any such policy as that described in the question is contemplated by the Government of India.

  TELEGRAMS.
  MR. HOBHOUSE:I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is the rule of the Telegraphic Department of the General Post Office to refuse to compensate persons for loss or expense consequent on the loss, delay, or non-delivery of a telegram, and to refuse to communicate to the person injured the names of the defaulting office or officials?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,:If the hon. Member will be so good as to refer to Clause 6 of the notice which is printed on the back of the forms on which the public write their telegrams, he will find an answer to the first part of his question. The clause reads as follows:—
  "6. The Postmaster General will not be liable for any loss or damage which may be incurred or sustained by reason or on account of any mistake or default in the transmission or delivery of a telegram."
  As to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I may say that it is not the practice to give the names of the subordinate officials concerned in the transmission of a telegram or to name the office where a mistake may have occurred. Indeed, in a great many cases it would be impossible to do so, as it cannot always be ascertained with certainty where the fault has occurred or whether it is not due to some momentary disturbance of the wires or other apparatus. The conduct of any defaulting officials is always made the subject of strict inquiry by the Department.

  LOCAL TAXATION (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.)
  MR. HOBHOUSE:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Return, Local Taxation (Exchequer Contributions), ordered 24th July last, will be presented to the House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,:I am unable at present to state when the Return referred to will be presented, but every effort will be made to furnish it as early as possible. In several cases the information required has not yet been received, notwithstanding repeated applications, and in a large number of instances where the Returns furnished appeared to be incomplete or inaccurate it has been necessary to send them back for amendment.

  BOARD SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN LONDON.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Council whether he is aware that, in several of the Board schools under the London School Board, the percentage of attendances to number of boys, girls, and infants on the roll, has been a decreasing percentage during the years 1888, 1889, and 1890; whether he can state if this decrease of attendance is exceptional, or whether it is general in the London School Board district; whether similar decrease in attendance has been brought to his attention in other School Board districts; whether any and what reason has been reported to him to account for such decrease; and whether the Education Department proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,:There has, I believe, been some decrease in certain schools within the metropolitan area, but it appears to be due to local and accidental circumstances rather than to any general cause, for the percentage throughout the whole of the London district has been steadily improving since 1887, and for this year stands higher than at any previous time.

  THE CLYDE NAVIGATION.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the discovery of a bank more than one mile in length in the fairway of the Clyde navigation; whether the depth at that part marked on the Admiralty chart was from 29 to 19 fathoms, and is now reduced by this bank to a depth of from 6⅔ fathoms to 9 fathoms; and if he can state what steps are taken to put an end to such continued pollution?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,:I am informed by the Board of Trade that owing to the position not having been closely surveyed, a bank with less than 6 fathoms has been recently discovered by the Admiralty and the Clyde Lighthouse Trust—a little to the south of Cloch Point—where the Admiralty chart showed deep water. With reference to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I understand that an action is in course of being raised for the purpose of obtaining an interdict against the deposit of dredgings in Loch Long.

  INSANITARY STATE OF FACTORIES AT BOW.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Inspector of Factories for the Poplar district has had his attention called to the insanitary state of the factories in the close vicinity of the Glaucus Street Board School, Bow Common; whether the health of the teachers and children is reported to be affected thereby; and what, if any, action has been taken to abate the alleged nuisance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,:I am informed by the Chief Inspector that on the occasion of a recent visit of the District Inspector to the school in question, complaints were made of offensive smells, presumably proceeding from factories and works in the neighbourhood, and of indisposition arising therefrom. The Inspector thereupon visited various works with the view of detecting the origin of the nuisance, and he has advised the authorities of the school to address themselves to the Local District Board, who will no doubt take action in the matter. The

  161
  question is one for the Sanitary Authority.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:In view of the answer given by the Home Secretary may I ask the Vice President of the Council whether the Education Department will make any inquiry into the matter?
  SIR W. HART DYKE:Yes, it seems to me to be a case for the consideration of the School Inspector, and I will see that proper representations are made to him on the subject.

  FOREIGN FRUIT.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that consignments of fresh foreign fruit are constantly made in this country, packed in English packages, with the names of English salesmen upon them, and sold as English fruit; that the Board of Customs having been applied to to detain such consignments, under the 16th clause of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, declined to do so, on the ground that the requirement under thatsection—
  "That the name of a trader in the United Kingdom should be accompanied by a definite indication of the country of manufacture,"
  applies only when such name is borne on goods of foreign manufacture, and not to raw produce such as fruit; and whether, having regard to the fact that the word "goods" in the said Act is defined by Section 3 to mean
  "Anything which is the subject of trade, manufacture, or merchandise,"
  he will ascertain if this decision, was in accordance with the existing law; and if it is, whether he will take steps, by amending the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, or otherwise, so as to bring transactions such as these within its scope?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,:No, Sir; I was not aware of the facts alleged in the question, but having consulted the Commissioners of Customs, I am informed: "(1) That fruit imported into this country packed in a particular manner or in a particular shape would not be amenable to the Merchandise Marks Act merely on account of the
  162
  mode of packing or the shape of package; (2) that mere address marks on outer packages are not treated as coming within the operation of the Act; and (3) that the requirement under Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, that the name of a dealer in the United Kingdom should be accompanied by a definite indication of the country in which the goods were made or produced applies only where such name is borne on articles of foreign manufacture, and not when it is borne on packages of raw produce such as fresh fruit. But in any cases where the name of a dealer in this country on the package was not a mere address mark, but could be held to give a British character to the fruit, the fruit could be dealt with under Section 3 of the Act." Under these circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to propose any amendment of the existing law.

  IRELAND-PURCHASES UNDER THE ASHBOURNE ACTS.
  MR. KEAY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at recent meetings of tenant purchasers of holdings under the Ashbourne Acts, who have bought from the Duke of Leinster, the Marquess of Bath, the Marquess of Waterford, and others, and who are now agitating for the postponement of the annual instalments which they owe to the State; whether he will state the total amount of rental on each of these estates respectively which formed the basis of the calculation on which the purchases were effected, and whether he will state the total amount of rent actually paid on each of these estates by the tenants who purchased their holdings during the five years preceding the date of purchase, and the amount of arrears which had accumulated at the time of such purchase?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,:I understand that in some instances tenant purchasers have asked that the repayment of their purchase annuity should be extended over a greater period than the existing statutable one, or that payment of this year's instalment be deferred until the expiration of that statutable period. For particulars as to the area, rental, valuation, and purchase

  163
  money of the properties sold, I would refer the hon. Member to the special Parliamentary Returns on the subject—namely, No. 81 of Session 1889, and No. 115 of Session 1890. For additional particulars in regard to the sale of the Leinster estate, I would refer to my reply to a question put by the hon. Member for South Kildare on August 14th last (Hansard, Third Series, vol. 348, p. 970), where it is shown that the late Very Rev. Dr. Kavanagh, P.P., who conducted the negotiations on behalf of the tenants, wrote to the Irish Land Commissioners that the tenants were free contracting parties; that they had made excellent bargains; that their rents were low; and that the purchase would reduce these rents by 25 per cent. I may now further add that of the 348 tenant purchasers on this estate all have paid their annuities due May 1, 1890, except two, and their indebtedness does not exceed £20. The guarantee deposits amounting to upwards of £50,000 are untouched. The Commissioners have no record in regard to the subject matter of the last paragraph.
  MR. KEAY:Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask how it is that, without any regard to the amounts of the rents actually paid and of the arrears unpaid, the Commissioners have found themselves able to perform their duties under the provisions of the Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I do not see how that question arises out of my answer; but I will make inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON:As it affects the question of the Land Purchase Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman place on the Table a Return showing up to the present time the number and extent of the farms in reference to which intending purchasers have applied to the Government for a relaxation of the terms of the Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:No, Sir; I do not think anything would be gained by that.

  ANGLO-PORTUGUESE AGREEMENT.
  MR. BUCHANAN:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table Papers containing the Agreement of 20th August between Great Britain and Portugal, Correspond-
  164
  ence relating thereto, and the modus vivendi recently concluded between the two Powers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,:The Papers referred to are being prepared, and will be laid on the Table very shortly.

  THE TAUNTON ACCIDENT.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to take steps to prosecute the Railway Company for the deaths and injuries caused at Taunton by the signals being left in charge of an aged and incapacitated man?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH:I understand that the Coroner's Return giving the verdict of the jury in the case referred to has not yet been received by the Home Office, but no facts have been brought to my notice which would lead me to adopt the description which the hon. Member uses of the man who was in charge of the signals. The Report of the Inspecting Officer on the accident has to-day been laid before me. While I do not think the circumstances at all justify a prosecution, I intend to call the attention of the company to grave infringement of their regulations, which contributed to the accident.

  THE CASE OF COLONEL MITCHELL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Affidavits filed by a Retired Officer of the Royal Engineers in the Court of Queen's Bench, and on which a rule nisi for mandamus v. Secretary of State for War was obtained 17th November, 1890; and whether he intends to give effect to official recommendations of the Duke of Cambridge and Attorney General, to make a payment to this Officer, and thus end this protracted litigation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,:I am not prepared to lay on the Table any Papers as to which legal proceedings are pending, or to give any information as to recommendations which may have been made to me relative to Colonel Mitchell. When the

  165
  last action brought by Colonel Mitchell was decided against him, an appeal ad misericordiam was made to me not to press for the costs of the War Office. Colonel Mitchell having given an undertaking that the litigation was at an end, I consented to this course, in spite of which he has immediately commenced another action.

  THE DEFENCES OF THE FORTH.
  SIR DONALD CURRIE:I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for War of which I have given him private notice. I wish to know whether, in connection with, the defences of the Firth of Forth, the Government have made arrangements for the purchase of the Island of Inchkeith, and for the construction of a pier?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:Yes; it is our intention to go on with the acquisition of the Island of Inchkeith, and we propose to proceed under the Defences Act for the purpose of obtaining that island. When we have obtained it, I have no doubt that one of the works that will be carried out will be the construction of a pier.

  IRISH PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with Private Bill Legislation for Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:This must depend upon the progress made in the disposal of the Irish and other legislative business now before the House.

  THE CONVICTION OF MR. WALSH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland why the warrant upon the conviction of Mr. Walsh, of the Cashel Sentinel (now in Clonmel Gaol), for publication in his newspaper, has not been issued; and what is the power which enables the Executive to suspend warrants or secure their non-issuance or non-signing after sentence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,:The Inspector General reports as follows:—
  166
  "The warrant referred to will be lodged to take effect at the expiration of Mr. Walsh's imprisonment. This is the usual course in the absence of the warrant providing that the sentence should run concurrently with that under which Mr. Walsh is now in gaol."
  MR. T. M. HEALY:The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last question, namely—"What is the power which enables the Executive to suspend warrants, or secure their non-issuance or non-signing after sentence?" Is this warrant signed and in vigour, and, if so, why was it not enforced?
  MR. MADDEN:The question as to the Executive does not arise. There was no special intervention of the Executive, but the usual course was followed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I want to know by what authority the warrant was held over. Was it by the authority of the police?
  MR. MADDEN:If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to know on what date the warrant was actually signed, that is a different question to the one on the Paper, and I will answer it if the hon. and learned Member will put it down.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I will do so on Monday.

  CORONER FOR TIPPERARY.
  In reply to Mr. HARRISON (Tipperary, Mid),
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR said:I have not had time to make myself acquainted with the facts in connection with the approaching Election of Coroner for Tipperary; but it does not rest with me to make the arrangements. I believe that it rests with the Sheriff.

  DEATH OF MR. JUSTICE LITTON.
  MR. LEA:May I ask whether there is any truth in the report that Mr. Justice Litton, Chief of the Land Commission, is dead?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I deeply regret to say that the report is true.

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,:In rising to move—

  167
  "That, until Christmas, Government Business have priority over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, and the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 be suspended,"
  said: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope I may again press upon the House the grounds upon which I urge the Motion of which I have given notice, and I trust and believe that it will meet with the universal acceptance of the House. I believe it will also be for the convenience of the House itself. In addition to that, I may refer to the practice which has prevailed during the last ten years when there has been an Autumn Session. I find on reference that on no occasion on which the House has sat at this period of the year has it been customary for private Members to retain the undiminished exercise of those privileges to which they attach, and rightly attach, great value, notwithstanding the fact that they have frequently been unable to keep a House when their Bills have been brought on. It is a singular fact that I am not making any innovation on the practice of the House for the last ten years. In 1882 there was an Autumn Sitting, which was simply an adjournment of a previous Session, and in that year the Government of the day took possession of the whole time of the House until the questions submitted to it had been disposed of. In the year 1884 the House assembled for an Autumn Session, and the Government carried a Motion that the Bills which were put down for the consideration of the House on that occasion should take precedence of all other Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day on every day on which they were set down on the Paper. Again, in 1888, a similar practice prevailed. I am therefore fortified by the practice of the House, a practice which I believe is justified by its convenience, and we may by these means dispose of the business which has called us together at this inconvenient period of the year as rapidly as possible, consistently with due consideration of the important questions which will be submitted to the House. We hold that these questions are as important as any in regard to which the same privileges have been accorded and the same demand has been made on former occasions. We hold that the consideration of the very grave question of land
  168
  purchase in Ireland is one which deserves the most serious and undivided attention on the part of the House, and one the consideration of which ought not to be postponed for an indefinite period. There is also another consideration which I wish to impress on the House, and it is that if we are able—as I hope we shall be able—to make considerable progress with these measures on this occasion, we shall diminish the necessity for demanding from the House facilities which have been previously necessary. I base my recommendation to the House on the ground of greater convenience, and on the ground of the necessity which exists for facilities in order that the House may be able to deal properly and with full consideration with the grave questions before it. I trust I have said enough to recommend this Motion to the consideration of the House, and that it will find support on both sides of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:May I ask whether it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Tithe Bill or that of the Land Purchase Bill first?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I have already stated that the Tithe Bill will be read a second time on Monday and the Land Bill on Tuesday. I think the hon. Member will see that it would be hardly possible to take the Second Reading of the Land Purchase Bill on Monday, considering the importance of it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, until Christmas, Government Business have priority over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, and the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 be suspended."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE:I see with pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman has, notwithstanding previous disappointments, come back among us as sanguine as ever. But really I do believe that if the right hon. Gentleman were to continue the leader of the House for a sufficient number of years he would do his very best to absolutely suppress the rights of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the course he has proposed is usual, but for my part I assert that it is entirely unprecedented. If a Session—it may be an Autumn

  169
  Session—is called for a specific purpose and is a separate Session, I can understand the Government taking the whole of the time of the House, but this is the beginning of the ordinary and normal Session, and it is fully understood that the only object of commencing so early on this occasion is that the House may be able to rise at an earlier period than usual next year. The right hon. Gentleman now comes down when the Autumn Session has commenced, and he at once asks that the Government shall take the whole time of the House. It is true that this course has been taken before with regard to a particular Bill, or one of the stages of an important Bill, which it was desirable to pass, but the right hon. Gentleman has not presented his Motion on any such grounds. He does not ask for the time of the House in order that we may pass this or that Bill, but he asks for the whole time of the House up to Christmas for the general business of the Government. I maintain that I am justified, therefore, in saying that the course proposed is unprecedented. It is difficult to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. Seeing how quickly the Address has been disposed of this Session compared with former occasions, I think the right hon. Gentleman, instead of making a piteous appeal to us for the time of private Members, should have shown his gratitude for the attitude which has already been taken by the House this Session. We took compassion upon the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] It seems that we can never satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we discuss the Address at any length they complain, and if we pass it after a Debate of an hour and a half they jeer at us. We have been asked repeatedly to give sufficient rope to the right hon. Gentleman, and as we have now done so we should expect that he would get up and say, "It is true that at the commencement of the Session we intended to take up the whole time of the House, but having regard to the fact that the debate on the Address only lasted for a few hours, I will not now move the Motion." We have heard a good deal about the great distress in the West of Ireland, and if the right hon. Gentleman had asked for the time of the House in order to pass a Bill to
  170
  relieve that great distress, and had shown due cause for such relief, undoubtedly Radical Members would not have opposed the measure. The right hon. Gentleman, however, wants all the time of the House in order to pass a Tithe Bill and a Land Purchase Bill before Christmas. Well, I just now asked the right hon. Gentleman which he was going to take first, because I did not believe he was going to take the Tithe Bill at once before the Irish Land Bill, considering how much we have heard about the necessities and requirements of Ireland. Why does lie take the Tithe Bill? The House will remember what occurred last Session. Perpetually when the right hon. Gentleman was explaining the course of business, the distinguished son of a distinguished Peer who is Prime Minister used to come down and say, "Well, but what about the Tithe Bill?" It would seem that this Tithe Bill is a special favourite of the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister is a Churchman first and a statesman afterwards. The Prime Minister wants the Tithe Bill, and he has imposed his will on those unfortunate gentlemen who are bound to obey it, and insists that hon. Members are to be called away from their "happy homes" in order to pass this Bill, as if there were any reason for hot haste in giving further facilities to the clergy to obtain their tithes. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may be the humble servants of the Prime Minister, but we are not. Incidentally, I may tell the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House that never did he indulge a more sanguine anticipation than the notion that this Bill will be passed in one day. Why, the Welsh Members alone are pretty fair stayers in debate, and these gentlemen themselves are strong enough, without any interference by English Members, to devote, as they certainly ought, three days at least to explaining their views with regard to the Bill. As to the Land Purchase Bill, I look upon it as one of the grossest frauds ever perpetrated on the taxpayers. I regard it as a most unjust and improper thing that that Bill, after the assurances given by gentlemen opposite at the last election, should be passed in the present Parliament, and so far as I am concerned,

  171
  and others will act with me, I will not give facilities of any sort or kind for passing that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says he hopes that the passing of this Resolution will render it unnecessary for him to ask for the time of private Members later on. I have no doubt he thinks that, and means what he says; but last Session the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that the Estimates should be brought on and discussed at an early period. The right hon. Gentleman found it impossible consistently with his duty to his God, his Queen, and his country, to fulfil that pledge, and he will find it equally impossible to fulfil the pledge he has given now, that by taking the time of the House at the beginning it will be unnecessary to make demands upon the privileges of private Members later in the Session. If the right hon. Gentleman brings on Vote on Account after Vote on Account we shall be bound, after what occurred last Session, to discuss every item for which the money is granted, whether the discussion takes six weeks or twelve months. Last Session I declined to discuss the Estimates. They were brought on at the end of the Session, or within a few days of the end of the Session, and passed without any sort of discussion, because I and others on this side of the House would not take part in the farce of discussing the Estimates in a day or two after most of the Members had left town. The right hon. Gentleman last Session took nearly the whole of the time of the House, and he muddled the time away. He brought forward three different Bills that knocked against each other in such a way that one Member of the Government obstructed another, the result being that nothing was done. This Session the right hon. Gentleman has begun by muddling, precisely as he did last Session. Parliament was called together on Tuesday; the last three days have been simply wasted, and to-day the time of the House is to be taken away from private Members, not even to discuss the important Tithe Bill or the important Land Bill, but a Tenancies Rating Bill and a Pollen Fisheries Bill—what a "pollen" is—whether a fish or a river or a method of fishing—I confess I do not know. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman adopts this system
  172
  of taking away the time of private Members? I have always thought the right hon. Gentleman an exceedingly astute Member of the House. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, you agree with me because you know he always manages to take hold of the time of the House and prevent private Members bringing on Resolutions. Why does he do that? Because he knows that Resolutions might be brought forward from this side of the House on which it would be exceedingly difficult for Liberal Unionists to vote. They would find themselves in a difficulty between their duty to the Government and their pledges to their constituents. I believe, Sir, that our time is taken away, not for the benefit of the Government, but for the benefit of the Liberal Unionists. I shall go to a Division against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I will make two suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is, that he will be kind enough not to treat Members of the House of Commons as schoolboys. The right hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "If you don't do this and that I shall shorten your holidays." The only reason why some Members on the Opposition side ask about holidays sometimes is for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman himself. We observe that he often looks a little fagged from his work, and we have thought a holiday would set him up; but as far as Radical Members are concerned, they are ready to sacrifice every holiday rather than sacrifice one inch of their principles. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. They do not understand making sacrifices for principle. I, however, am explaining our creed, not that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I can understand their ridiculing the idea of anyone being such fools as to do such a thing. The other suggestion I would offer to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should not waste time by addressing homilies to hon. Members on what they are doing. We are here to oppose Bills which we consider injurious. If our action met with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, we should not have the approval either of our constituents or of our own consciences. However much we value the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, we cannot sacrifice the approval of our consciences for anything

  173
  of the sort. If, then, the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious not to waste the time of the House let him avoid casting his pearls before—[Laughter.] Yes, that is what hon. Gentlemen on the other side think of hon. Members who sit upon this side. I shall certainly go to a Division, and I hope many gentlemen sitting around me will register an immediate protest against this system, so favoured by the right hon. Gentleman, of taking the time of the House at the very beginning of the Session.
  COLONEL NOLAN:I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury to make an exception in the Motion in favour of the Seed Potatoes (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I will fulfil the obligation I have come under to him.
  MR. J. LOWTHER:I do not like to give an absolutely silent vote on this subject, having regard to the fact that for many years past I have been one of those who have always entered a protest against the appropriation by the Government of time to the exclusion of the privileges of private Members, or rather the opportunities of non-official Members of the House. It is impossible for any one who has been any considerable time in the House not to observe that the feeling among Members of the House at large towards what are called private Members has been very materially modified. There was a time when Members of position on both sides who were agreed upon no other subject, made common cause whenever, in their judgment, the privileges of non-official Members were menaced. I have constantly taken part in such movements in order to guard against the union of the two Front Benches in numerous acts of appropriation of the time of the House. Now, the position which private Members occupy in the general estimation of the House has considerably changed of late. No one can mix with his brother Members without hearing very disparaging remarks in regard to the way in which the time of the House is utilised. We frequently hear private Members spoken of as pretentious windbags and faddists seeking to obtain their own ends at the public expense. I am not saying how
  174
  far these remarks may in any instances be justified, but the net result is that the means which private Members now have of exercising any influence whatever on the affairs of the House has been reduced almost to a nullity. I think the House before it agrees to this Motion ought to carefully consider the position which it occupies with regard to the time at its command. If this were a Motion made at the ordinary time of the commencement of the Session in February, I would say that it would be the duty of the House resolutely to decline, and insist on the right every individual Member has to discharge his public duty to his country and his constituents. But with regard to this specific Motion, we have met at an unusual time, and not for the discussion of ordinary business, but specific business known beforehand. I think that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) and other Members with a longer experience of Parliament than I have myself—though my own is, I regret to say, not inconsiderable—will bear me out when I say that it always has been the practice under the pressure of exceptional circumstances to modify the Standing Orders of the House, and to afford to the Government all the facilities the House has at its command. That has been notably the case towards the end of the Session—not only in the last decade, when changes have been made which I certainly regard as bad precedents—but in former years; but then the practice was to insist upon knowing to what purpose the time was to be given up. As I understand my right hon. Friend, he does not ask for the time of the House to go into any general scheme of legislation, but to bring before the House certain specific proposals, and those proposals alone. The hon. Member for Northampton referred to the fact that the early meeting of Parliament has been connected with an earlier relinquishment of our labours. I must also remind the hon. Member that the work now down for our consideration is essentially work which was to have been done last autumn. Therefore, understanding, as I do, that the Government have pledged themselves only to avail themselves of this concession for specific purposes, and that they do not ask non-official Members to abdicate their

  175
  rights in the ordinary period of the Session, I for one shall not oppose the Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the Government will not ask for the time of private Members in the ordinary period of the Session?
  MR. J. LOWTHER:The word of my right hon. Friend is good enough for me, and I venture to say likewise for the hon. Gentleman and for the House at large. Upon this understanding, namely, that in the ordinary period of the Session private Members will not be asked to abdicate their rights, I for one shall be prepared to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID:I hold that we have arrived at a period when the time of Parliament ought to be altogether rearranged. At present the time usually allotted to the Government is totally insufficient. I do not think this remark applies to this Government only, but it applies equally to any Government whatever. Therefore I say that there must be a re-arrangement, so that the Government may have more time at their disposal. I would suggest that the time has arrived when we ought to give up Tuesday altogether as a private Members' night. It is a night which is generally appropriated to mere abstract resolutions which do not result in legislation. Our Sittings on Wednesday are in a different position. They have been productive of a considerable number of useful measures introduced in the shape of Bills by private Members. I would therefore suggest that Wednesday should be 'preserved as a private Members' day; but seeing that there are more counts-out on Tuesday than upon any other day, I think that the Government should have that day as well as Mondays and Thursdays. If this course were taken, I believe that it would not be necessary in future to propose such Motions as that now before the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE:My hon. Friend who has just sat down stated that he thinks that the Government have now more to do than they had at other times, and that there ought to be an entire re-arrangement of Parliamentary time with a view to a different distribution between
  176
  the Government and non-official Members, as they have been well called by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That may be so or it may not be so. I offer no opinion on the subject, but in the earliest year that I can recollect four Bills of vast importance were passed by the Government, and I have known certainly within the last five years no approach to Parliamentary labour of that kind. There was a coercion Bill for Ireland of great labour and difficulty in that year—1833. It was followed by a Church Temporalities Bill, reconstituting a most complicated subject, and then came a vast measure, the West India Emancipation Bill, and after that the re-adjustment of the Bank Charter, and also, I think, an Indian Bank Charter; and that was all done under the present arrangement of Government time. But that is not the question before us. We have apparently a limited limitation, but with respect to the limitation I wish to have a clearer understanding than we have yet arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) made a declaration at the close of his speech that he considered the Government pledged by this Motion not to ask after Christmas for the time of non-official Members. I observed no sign whatever of assent on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury to show that he considered it to be a pledge on the part of the Government, and undoubtedly we are entitled to some much clearer indication of the intentions of the Government as to what is to take place after Christmas than what we have yet obtained. For my part, I feel no disposition to go to issue with the Government upon the question of limited extent, and I believe such would be the general feeling of the House; but what I have observed is that a small demand is after a week or ten days followed by a greater demand; that again is followed by a demand larger still, and the upshot is that the time of non-official Members is almost entirely absorbed. We want, therefore, to know what are the general intentions of the Government with respect to the time of non-official Members, because I must point out that with regard to the specific purpose of his Motion it is impossible to have a weaker position than that of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, his Motion does not corre-

  177
  spond with his notice. His notice was totally different from the Motion. His notice was that the time of the House should be at the disposal of the Government for the Irish Land Purchase Bill, the Tithe Bill, and Bills connected with Irish distress, but his Motion is that the time of the House should be given to the Government up to Christmas for all Government business whatever. They are in total contradiction to one another, and I would observe that no notice whatever is better than a misleading and erroneous one. But the right hon. Gentleman has quoted precedents. There is no precedent whatever touching such a Motion as this. He has precedents to show that on particular occasions after the commencement of the Session—for what may be done at the end of the Session has nothing whatever to do with it—demands have been made on the House for certain important measures. But now this is not a demand for this or that important measure, but a demand for Government business generally. What is worst of all is that his Motion is in direct contradiction of his own notice. The right hon. Gentleman spoke three days ago in absolute contradiction to the terms of the Motion which he now makes. I ventured in the course of the Debate on the Address to pass a eulogy, as I sometimes do, on the the wisdom of our ancestors, and the right hon. Gentleman responded to me, not only with assent and sympathy, but with fervour. He was all for the wisdom of our ancestors, but he asked, "What was our condition?" The enormous demands for the discussion of this, that, or the other subject drive the Government to such a point that we have no option except to make these requests to the House. The right hon. Gentleman added—
  "But let the House give us some indication of a disposition to assist the passage of Government measures, and we shall not then have occasion to make these requests."
  What is the first effect of that declaration of the right hon. Gentleman? We waived the Debate on the Address, and in the place of its occupying a succession of nights got through it in five or six hours. And then, again, if that was not enough to put the right hon. Gentleman out of court he produced the Tithe Bill without any explanation
  178
  from the Minister in charge of it, and, although it is a contested measure, the stage was passed without debate. Certainly, nobody can complain of the debate on the Irish Land Purchase Bill. Indeed, it seems to me that in his laudable anxiety to avoid trespassing upon the time of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was too short in his exposition of it. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio. The right hon. Gentleman left me in utter doubt and be wilderment as to some of its most important points. Undoubtedly the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday was an intimation that a disposition on the part of the House to despatch business would dispense with the necessity for making these demands. Still, the present demand is a limited one, and I do not wish to quarrel with the Government about trifles. The right hon. Gentleman is, above all things, a temperate man in his language, but in conjunction with this gentle and temperate language there is a character about his measures—I use the word in no offensive sense—of a certain truculence. I must say that I have so much respect for the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on Tuesday night that I should feel that I was insulting him with respect to that speech if I were to support his Motion as it stands without some further declaration, and I look for, from him, in his reply, a frank acceptance of the demands made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet Division for the satisfaction of non-official Members that they are not, after Christmas, to be deprived of their fair share of the time of the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I can only reply to the right hon. Gentleman by the indulgence of the House, which I hope will not be refused mo. The right hon. Gentleman takes exception to the form of my Motion by saying that it differs materially from the notice given on Tuesday night. I have always been under the impression that when a Minister of the Crown makes an engagement with the House, it is one which the House will adopt, and I hope the House will accept my assurance that it is not our intention to go beyond the engagement I made with the House on Tuesday. We ask for the time of the House in order that we may proceed with the

  179
  stages indicated of the Tithe Bill and the Land Purchase Bill which are now before the House, and to carry further, as we think it will be necessary for us to do, measures relating to the distress in Ireland, and if any other measures are to be included, it will only be such measures of urgency as may arise without our knowledge at this moment. It is not necessary for me to alter the terms of the Motion in order to express precisely the engagement I have now entered into. As to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, I said the other day that I hoped it would not be necessary to ask for further indulgence of the House if the House showed its appreciation of the necessity for proceeding rapidly to business. I fully acknowledge that the House has up to now proceeded rapidly with public business, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of public business will show him that I should not be justified, acting on the experience of three days, in entering into a rash engagement not to ask on the part of the Government for further facilities after the month of December. I repeat that if the House will, with "the wisdom of our ancestors," consider these measures of the Government with reasonable criticism and with a due regard to the time of private Members, not less than the time of the House itself, I shall be more glad than anyone if I am able to refrain from asking for further facilities for the transaction of public business than those which the Rules of the House already give us. We have a strong desire that every non-official Member of the House should have every facility for bringing forward the questions which they deem to be important; but I feel that it would be rash to make the limitation which the right hon. Gentleman opposite desires. I shall be most glad to afford ample time for the Motions of non-official Members, but that is a matter rather for the House itself than for the Government. All I hope is that hon. Members, copying the wisdom of our ancestors, will return to the practice of the past.
  MR. WADDY:The objection which I feel compelled to make to this Motion goes a great deal deeper and further than the objections which have been made
  180
  already. I desire to enter my protest against any and every measure that would tend to keep in Office a Government who, I believe, are utterly unfitted for the duties which they have to perform, and who will be swept from power at the next General Election. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches] We hear a good deal of that kind of laughter at present from the other side of the House; but it is only laughter that is intended to keep their courage up. If there is any doubt as to the truth of what I say, it could be easily solved if they would only have the courage to try a General Election. Believing, as I do, and convinced as I am, and, as I believe, that Members opposite are in their innermost selves, that if we had a General Election they would undoubtedly cease to abuse any longer the power they obtained under a misapprehension some years ago, I shall oppose any measure that is intended to keep them in places for which I deem them to be unfit. With regard to the suggestion that the Government ought to appropriate more of the time of the House, it should be remembered what has been the history of all great legislative changes. First of all the country has been awakened, and then a principle has been embodied in a Resolution by a private Member, and on the Resolution being carried the Government has prepared a Bill. One stage of that which has been up to this time the invariable progress of reform, is now entirely taken away by the course being adopted by the Government; it is being taken away by those who have been, as we believe, the opponents of all reform, and it is being taken away in a manner which is very effective, but which is extremely unconstitutional Last Session when they got any measure into such a condition that they found they were going to be beaten, instead of standing by those principles they had maintained to be right, they ran away; they held on to their offices because they knew perfectly well that in the country they would be beaten. They now want to take all the time of the House in order to prevent us moving any Resolutions which may be inconvenient for them to deal with. If we had the principle established of one man one vote, I should like to know what would become of the Dissentient Liberals or Liberal Unionists,

  181
  or whatever they call themselves. It is because the Government know that if we had the opportunity of moving Resolutions of that kind, they and their friends would necessarily be put in such a position of difficulty, and of absolute impossibility of official life, that they now propose to take the whole time of the House. I mean to oppose throughout the whole of this Session every measure which has the tendency to which I have referred, every measure which prevents us getting to the country, every measure which enables the Government any longer to hold seats which we know they would not hold if the country had the power of speech. In conclusion, I desire to point out that the pledge for which they were asked by our leader has been positively refused by the Government.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH:The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House has, by the favour of the House, made a second speech, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) is satisfied with the declarations of his right hon. Friend. I am always disposed to trust the right hon. Gentleman when he makes a statement in his private capacity, but, unfortunately, in his official capacity he is so affected with the responsibilities of office, that he continually runs back in the promises he gives to the House. What is our position? Why are we meeting here at this inclement time of the year? Nothing has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury or by any of the Members of the Government to show that there is anything special for which we have been called here. In reality, we are met together to pick up the broken threads of the last Session of Parliament. Why should we private Members be punished for the mismanagement of business by the Government during the last Session of Parliament? If the Tithe Bill was an urgent Bill last Session, if the Irish Land Purchase Bill was a Bill of most pressing necessity, why was a great part of the time of the House occupied with that ridiculous piece of business, the putting on the Records of the House the results of the Parnell Commission? But the Government started another horse, Compensation for the Brewers. That was the pièce de rèsistance with which we were favoured
  182
  last Session. In fact, the business, which in the Speech from the Throne the Government declared pressing, was thrown aside, and new and unexpected measures introduced. The House is called together at this very inopportune time to try and make up for the great, mismanagement of the business of the House by Her Majesty's Government. We have not even the poor consolation that by meeting for a month in 1890 the privileges of non-official Members are to be preserved to them in 1891. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet is a great stickler for constitutional principles and methods; but he cannot deny that there have been more inroads into, and more breaking down of the old securities with regard to the constitutional practice of this House under the present Government than under any Radical Government. There have been rumours that the difficulties and labours of the leader of the House were making some inroad on his health, and that it might be necessary for him to retire. I hope that time is far distant. We have a great regard for the private character and private virtues of the right hon. Gentleman, but as leader of the House of Commons he appears to be so singularly afflicted by a sense of responsibility as to think himself justified in upsetting all the old methods by which business has been carried on. Should it be deemed right that the right hon. Gentleman should be translated to another place, I know no title that would better befit him than Lord Topsy-Turvy.
  DR. TANNER:I shall oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and for the following reason, if there were no other. There are two Irish Bills before the House—the Railways Bill, which is proposed in connection with the relief of distress in Ireland, which has been stated by the Chief Secretary to be very urgent, and the Land Bill. The Railways Bill is to be taken second. If the distress is to be relieved, why not place the Railways Bill first? The Government are acting in a false manner. If they really want time, why did they not assemble earlier—a fortnight or three weeks earlier? The Government delayed the meeting of Parliament in order to allow gentlemen opposite to enjoy their hunting—please God the

  183
  country will hunt them before long! Because he has allowed the gentlemen opposite the opportunity their wealth affords them, the right hon. Gentleman now asks for the whole time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman wishes by his Motion to remedy the lamentable and discreditable mistake which a discredited Government has made in connection with this Session of Parliament. I must remonstrate with the right hon. Gentleman. I am always sorry to see him placed in a false position. I always sympathise with him when I hear him appeal to the House and the country, but I do think he should have endeavoured to bring about a reformation in the Cabinet, so as to prevent evils attendant upon want of discretion. In the conduct of Irish business the Government have broken their promise, and, for my own part, I shall have much pleasure in voting against this proposition.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE:When we know that distress exists in Ireland, and that thousands of people are being turned out of their homes wholesale to starve, we are asked to give up the time of the House, not for the discussion of Irish matters, but, forsooth, for the consideration of a Tithe Bill which we know will be debated by the Welsh Members in a most discursive manner. This Bill is a Parliamentary bribe given to the Church of England for supporting the present Government, and in the hope of future favours at the next General Election. [Cries of "Divide!"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to cry ''Divide," but I should have liked some of them to have seen what I have witnessed in Ireland during the last few days. I have seen hundreds of women and children turned out from their homes on to the roadside to starve. And yet we are asked not to attempt to give relief to these people at once, but to pass a Bill which no one wants but the Prime Minister—a Bill of a most contentious character, which I, for one, being a tithe-owner, and also a tithe-payer, consider a most dishonest Bill. I do not think anything more indecent could be proposed even by the present Government. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will not allow this Debate to end without the
  184
  matter being thoroughly discussed, so that the Government may learn once more that it does not expedite business by making proposals of this description.
  (5.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 173.—(Div. List, No. 2.)

  RIGHTS OF WAY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Buchanan, Bill to confer on County Councils in Scotland the power of maintaining and protecting Rights of Way, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Rights of Way in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Asher, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Shiress Will, and Mr. Birrell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 127.]

  POLICE FORCES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Commins, Bill for the better regulation of the Police Forces in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Commins, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Roche, Mr. Crilly, Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Sheehy.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 128.]

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Rathbone, Bill to amend the Law relating to Charitable Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rathbone, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Howorth, and Mr. Bryce.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 129.]

  CHURCH BUILDING ACTS (COMPULSORY POWERS REPEAL) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Powell, Bill to repeal the provisions of the Church Building Acts relating to the compulsory purchase of sites for Churches and Burial Grounds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Powell, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Addison.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 130.]

  CORN SALES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jasper More, Bill for making the Sale of Grain by weight compulsory, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Rankin, Sir Joseph Bailey, Mr. Biddulph, Colonel Cornwallis West, Mr. Mark Stewart, Colonel Waring, Mr. Channing, and Mr. Mahony.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 131.]

  LAND TENURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Mahony, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mahony, Mr. M'Cartan, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. John O'Connor, and Mr. Pinkerton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 132.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR.BRADLAUGH:I am afraid it is rather an old story with which I have to trouble the House, but I have the satisfaction of knowing that I need not trouble it at any great length, for all I propose to do to-night is simply to ask it to support the position taken up by its own Committee, which sat in 1887. The decision of that Committee was not the decision of a majority, it was the unanimous decision of a Committee having upon it an over-whelming majority of Conservative and Unionist Members. There were eight Members of the Conservative Party, headed by the Attorney General; there were two Liberal Unionists, and five Liberals, as well as two Members of the Irish Party. That portion of the Report upon which I to-night ask the House to express an opinion is a portion on which the Committee was unanimous, and I would suggest that unless the Government have very grave reasons for so doing they should be exceedingly careful about asking the House to depart from that decision. The Report recommends that all offices with salaries, without duties or with merely nominal duties, should be abolished; that existing perpetual and hereditary pensions and allowances should be determined and commuted; that in all cases the method of commutation ought to involve a real, substantial saving to the nation, and that the rate of commutation, usually adopted—namely, 27 years' purchase—is too high. It is the last words I have just read that the Committee affirmed without the slightest disagreement, without any Division, under the sanction of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England and with the concurrences of Members sitting in all quarters of the House, and I now ask this House to re-affirm them. I beg to move—
  "That this House disapproves of so much of the Treasury Minute relating to perpetual
  186
  pensions, hereditary payments, and allowances as proposes to commute some of such pensions, payments, and allowances at the rate of practically 27 years' purchase."
  In a Treasury Minute laid upon the Table on July 19th, 1888, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that in their opinion the terms on which the Treasury had commuted already involved a saving to the nation, and ought to be adhered to. I am far from denying that any commutation, however extravagant—does involve some saving to the nation; but the Committee, having examined the matter with great care, resolved unanimously that it was not a sufficient saving. I challenged the Government on the matter in 1889, and, before the Motion was brought on, the Secretary to the Treasury laid on the Table a Minute in which he showed that the saving would, by the proposition of the Treasury, be larger than had hitherto been made, because the Government would be able to borrow at 2¾ interest at 99 to the 100. But that Minute was not complete. I do not know why the Secretary to the Treasury omitted from the list certain pensions, but I need not now trouble the House upon that point, as I dealt with it fully on a previous occasion. I propose, however, to cite the case of the Pendrel pensions amounting to £450, as a specimen of the omission—
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,:The Minute is as described by the hon. Member a statement of pensions, allowances, and payments charged on the Exchequer, but the payments, allowances, and pensions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not so charged, and therefore could not be included in the list.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I am sorry to disagree with the Secretary to the Treasury who, with the greater information at his command, is so much more exact than I can hope to be; but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Paper handed in by Sir Reginald Welby he will find that, while in point of form he is perfectly exact in what he states, in point of fact these payments form as much a charge upon the nation as any of the other pensions. It is perfectly true that in the original grants many of these pensions were charged in particular ways, such, for instance, as on the Post

  187
  Office, but they are ultimately chargeable upon the nation. The Pendrel pensions are obtained by stopping the income of property which would otherwise be paid into the Exchequer, and I want to make it plain that there are pensions now payable which do not appear in the list laid on the Table by the Secretary to the Treasury. It is clear it will not do to be governed in our estimate of the saving by the supposition that the sum necessary for the commutation can be borrowed by the Government in 2¾ Consolidated Stock at 99 per cent. Indeed, at the present moment it is perfectly clear that the Government cannot borrow at 2¾ getting 99 per cent. It is wiser not to take figures yielding the highest economy which might be effected, but to take ordinary rates. In 1889 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very fair promise, which has been fairly carried out, that in future the Treasury, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, would apply different methods of commutation, and the result would be laid on the Table, so that the House might have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before the commutation was carried out. On July 15 last year a Treasury Minute was laid upon the Table with regard to five pensions. As to three of these pensions, I shall have to make very few remarks. The decision of the House will turn on the two closing pensions in this Memorandum. The first is the pension to the Duke of St. Alban's. I will not say very much about that, because it has been much more efficiently dealt with on several occasions in this House by the hon. Member for Stockport, who will do me the honour of seconding this Amendment, and also by the hon. Member for Preston. But one most extraordinary thing is this:—As appears by the Report of the Committee that the sum of £965—a perpetual payment to the Duke of St. Alban's—is made up in this way:— A sum as salary for the Master of the Hawks, a sum for falconers, a sum for hawks, and a sum to provide for pigeons, hens, and other meats for the hawks. It was stated frankly by Sir Reginald Welby that falconers, hawks, and pigeons kept by the Duke there were none. What I have principally to point out is that with regard to the pensions to the Duke of Hamilton and the Marquess of
  188
  Downshire this distinction is made, namely, that the keeper and the porter in the case of the Duke of Hamilton, and the warders in the case of the Marquess of Downshire, who have been and are actually employed at the present moment, and are in receipt of their salaries; the Treasury say, very properly I think, that these things ought to cease with their lives. But in the case of the falconers' salaries, which are not paid to persons employed as falconers, and of the hawks which do not exist, and of the food for them which is never furnished, these things are to be commuted as perpetual pensions. The word "dishonesty" is one that I should not like to use in this House, but it would appear that there is in the minds of the Treasury an idea that some sort of consideration is to be shown in the case of the falconers' salaries, which are not paid, which is not to be shown in the case of the warders, keepers, and porters who did actually exist in the other case. I hold that this proposal is downright monstrous. I have mentioned these matters in the hope that even at the eleventh hour the Treasury may be induced to take some other view than that which they have hitherto adopted. I do not propose to occupy the time of the House one moment longer on this point, but I would refer any hon. Member who desires any further information on the subject to the examination of Sir Reginald Welby, in which he will see all the facts duly stated. I now come to the real appeal which I desire to make to the House on the subject of the perpetual pensions which are bestowed upon Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney. I regard these as test cases which ought not only to govern the decision of the House to-night in regard to these two cases, but which should undoubtedly govern the decision of the Treasury as to all other pensions coming within the same category. This would mean about £31,000 a year not commuted and still commutable. It is not desirable that I should trouble the House in regard to any other pensions of this class than these two, and I shall, therefore, confine myself to the cases of Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney. I do not say that the Treasury have selected what are actually the strongest cases on which to argue this question, although no doubt they have taken

  189
  two of the strongest cases. The original grantees of the pensions in each case had the grants conferred upon them for life and not in perpetuity; the fact being that they were afterwards made perpetual by the Parliament of the time, and I have now no right to impeach the action that was consequently taken. There were doubtless public services rendered by the ancestors of these persons—naval services which figure in the pages of our history, and which I should be wanting in decorum to attempt to minimise. But I would point out to the House that Lord Rodney and his successors have received no less a sum than £214,000 as the result of those pensions, while Lord Exmouth and his successors have received a total of £152,000. I affirm, therefore, that, however eminent their services may have been, they have been sufficiently recognised and rewarded by the State. The position I now take on this subject is that, keeping my promise and putting the matter on the broadest possible form, I have to point out that the whole subject was carefully examined and inquired into by the Committee, and the Committee unanimously held that not only was the spirit of the present time against this system of perpetual grants, but that all these perpetual pensions should be abolished and got rid of. They held that to commute them on the basis of 26·995 or, putting it roughly, 27 years would be an extravagant waste of public money, and I think that at least some concession might have been made by the Treasury to the opinion of the Committee thus expressed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) represented the Front Bench of the Opposition on that Committee. The Attorney General was there to represent the Government in this matter, and I may state that there was not a difference of opinion, and that even on the part of the Liberal Unionists there was no protest; they were all with us. Indeed, there was not one word of difference; it was a point upon which there was perfect agreement on the part of every Member of the Committee, and I think that, under these circumstances, it is too much for the Treasury to attempt to set the opinion of
  190
  that Committee on one side. The conclusion they arrived at was not the result of any party or snatch Division; it was the result of mature consideration and reflection. There was no disposition on their part to take the ground which I personally should have been inclined to take, namely, that these people have been over-rewarded and that there ought to be nothing more done for them. On the contrary, a disposition was evinced that there should be fair and reasonable commutation; but it was said, that while there were declarations of misery and distress in the country, and while the House was appealed to on one side and the other to take steps in some way to alleviate this distress, it was an absolute farce to open the purse-string of the nation and allow money to continue to be poured out under a system which every one is agreed ought never to have been originated, and ought not now to continue. I think I should be acting with more wisdom in not detaining the House any further. I trust that this will not be considered a matter on which there is any need of party lines being taken; the Members of the Committee who sat with me through 12 months of the investigation will remember that I did not try in any way to provoke party or any individual hostility in regard to the cases into which I had to examine. I may add that in the evidence taken, in regard to which there was an immense amount of labour, we were greatly assisted by Sir Reginald Welby. There are some of the pensions which cannot now come under the cognizance of the House. I refer to two cases, one of which might well result in the early reversion of lands, which I believe will be of great value to the country; while in the other, though the reversion is more problematical, the lands are still of some considerable value. I say that the Government ought not to have administered to the Committee the slap in the face they have given by the manner in which they have treated its recommendations. To say that the conclusions arrived at by that Committee amount to nothing is a little too much, seeing that their own Attorney General was a member of that body. If this had been a Radical Committee, or a Committee with a Radical majority who had thrust their conclusions down the

  191
  throats of the minority, I could understand the Government disregarding their views; but as that is not the case, I ask the Government not to make this matter a Party question. I am not at all inclined to cast any censure on Her Majesty's Government, because they are only doing what other Governments on both sides have done, and, therefore, criticism on one Government would be criticism on the other; but, at the same time, I would point out that this perpetual pension system is condemned by the country, and I do therefore ask the House to act in accord with its own Committee, and to endorse the recommendations they have arrived at on the subject.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House disapproves of so much of the Treasury Minute relating to Perpetual Pensions, Hereditary Payments, and Allowances as proposes to commute some of such Pensions, Payments, and Allowances at the rate of practically 27 years' purchase,"—(Mr. Bradlaugh,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. JENNINGS:I rise, Sir, for the purpose of seconding the Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, and I do so on the ground that the Resolution does nothing more than seek to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, who were entirely unanimous in making those recommendations to the House. As a member of that Committee, I may say that we searched carefully into every case, and inquired into every circumstance connected with it. Sir Reginald Welby afforded us a great deal of information regarding these circumstances. Having all the facts before them, the Committee recommended the House to terminate these perpetual pensions, and also to take into consideration the circumstances under which the several pensions were originally granted in arriving at a decision on the question of commutation. As far as the Report of the Committee is concerned, their recommendations have been entirely set aside by the Treasury Minute which has been laid upon the Table of the House.
  192
  Had the circumstances under which the pensions were originally granted been taken into account, the House would hardly now be advised to commute the pension of the Master of the Hawks on the basis of 19½ or 20 years' purchase. Some of those perpetual pensions were more or less scandalous in their origin and nature, and I cannot but regard them as being a disgrace to the country. They were, for the most part, granted at a time when the public funds were regarded in the light of their own private property by persons occupying distinguished positions, and under this assumption they were distributed among the friends and acquaintances of those individuals in whatever manner they deemed proper. The worst of these cases is, no doubt, that of the Master of the Hawks. The hon. Member opposite has gone carefully into that case, and in so doing has abstained from using anything like strong language, but, for my own part, I do not hesitate to say that that pension has been received for many years under circumstances which amount to nothing less than a fraud upon the country. The money was originally given for certain specific purposes, and it was to be divided among certain individuals, distinctly designated in the Warrant. Those persons have, however, long since disappeared, if, indeed, they ever had any existence at all, and the money which was intended to be applied to a distinct purpose has found its way into pockets it was never intended to reach. The whole system has been one of fraud and wrong from first to last. I think that if the House were to commute this pension on the basis of only ten years' purchase it would be far too liberal an arrangement. If you were to take the opinion of the taxpayers of the country, I think you would find that they would not be disposed to give even ten weeks' purchase. They would say the pension has gone on too long already. With regard, however, to the Treasury, I admit that there is a legal claim upon them for the payment of the money, but I think they might have made a much better bargain for the country than they have proposed in suggesting a commutation on the basis of 19½ years' purchase. If the Treasury had intimated to the

  193
  recipient of the pension that there existed a strong feeling on the part of the Committee against it, and a strong feeling also on the part of the House against it, it is very probable that much easier terms would have been obtained than those the country is now asked to accept. I think the House should remember that most of those pensions have been conferred in cases where no services whatever have been rendered, while in other cases the services that have been rendered have been of a highly scandalous and disgraceful character. We all know that Charles II. was a man who took things very easily, but I should say that that Monarch never imagined, even in his wildest dreams, that the British taxpayer would, in the year 1890, still be paying £965 a year to a descendant of Nell Gwynne's. For my own part, I do not hesitate to say that were it within my power I would stop the pension at once and pay no commutation at all. The country has been robbed enough, and the robbery should now cease. Had the House been aware that this subject was to arise to-night, it might not have been too much to ask Members to look at the brief Report of the Committee who set forth the facts. I venture to ask the House to consider, whatever may be the case made out by the Treasury on behalf of these pensions to-night, that the Attorney General sat on the Committee, and I believe also the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. JACKSON:No.
  MR. JENNINGS:Well, the Attorney General as representing the Government. All the objections which we shall hear to-night have been raised since the Attorney General agreed to the recommendations of the Committee. I venture to think that it is a little late in the day to put aside the facts and reasons which guided the Committee, whose decision, considering the whole of the facts, is worthy the support of the House. In these days nobody sympathises with paying a way the tax-payers' money merely because it is handed to the descendant of some King who never rendered any service to the country that I ever heard of. If the House supports the recommendation of the Committee, it will
  194
  offer encouragement to Members to give their time to Committees, because they will have the knowledge that they will not make Reports merely to be thrown overboard by the Treasury. I hope the House will not hesitate to assent to the Resolution.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,:Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member who has just sat down has said that it would be poor encouragement to Members to serve on Committees, if the proceedings of these Committees had no influence upon the Executive Government; but I can assure him, and I can assure the House, that the proceedings of the Committee had a considerable effect, and the very Minute now before the House shows that is the case. Various suggestions were made, one that all existing pensions should in time be brought to an end. We are endeavouring to bring about that result, but I will prove to the House how difficult it is to combine that recommendation with the subsequent recommendation, that the usual basis of 27 years' purchase is too high. The only way of getting rid of these pensions, unless our terms are voluntarily accepted by the pensioners, would be to bring in an Act of Parliament to compel the holders of pensions to accept arbitrary terms. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, while it is my duty to promote as far as possible the interests of the Exchequer, I have also to act as guardian of the public faith. The Committee did not go the length of saying that if we could not induce persons to commute at 27 years their pensions ought to be compulsorily commuted. Now I wish to ask Members whether, in cases where a grant of land has been made it is to remain in the hands of the descendants of the original grantee, and not to be resumed, while a money grant may at any moment be the subject of discussion in Parliament.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:Hear, hear. Lands have been resumed by Parliament, and this repeatedly.
  MR. GOSCHEN:I should be glad to learn that such a case has occurred

  195
  within what I may call modern practice. I do not know whether the hon. Member goes so far, having succeeded with regard to perpetual pensions, as to make an attack on some of the lands which have been granted under circumstances perhaps no more creditable than those under which money pensions have been granted. But the hon. Gentleman suggests that we have not done sufficient as regards the recommendations of the Committee. We have looked into special cases, and as a result of the Report of the Committee we have made better terms in some of them than in any of the cases which have gone before. Previously all commutations took place at 27 years' purchase, and looking into special cases we have commuted on different and far more advantageous terms. I advised with the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether these grants and allowances were legally binding, and we were informed that they were legally binding. We have endeavoured, at the same time, to bring about that which the Committee desired and represented, namely, the abolition of perpetual pensions. We have accordingly negotiated with some of the recipients of those pensions, and we have commuted on far better terms than has ever been done before. With regard to the Keeper of the Hawks, my hon. Friend spoke as if the whole of the pension was due to the keeping of the hawks, but a portion of it was a perpetual pension standing on the same footing as other pensions. In all these cases we have endeavoured to make the best terms we could. My hon. Friend suggests that we ought to have informed the recipients of the public feeling with regard to them. I think they have had ample opportunity of reading the speeches of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Northampton, and they know the feeling of the House of Commons. It is, no doubt, in consequence of their knowing that feeling that they have consented to the terms which we now propose. Hon.
  196
  Members are aware that we have no power to stop these perpetual pensions, unless by Act of Parliament. But that is not the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee never faced that. They have not said that Parliament should say, "We will break faith." They have stopped short at that. We have endeavoured to negotiate in such a manner as to lighten the burdens which these pensions throw on the people, and do something which is recommended by the Committee. The Committee recommend that in all these cases we ought to ensure a real and substantial saving to the nation. I can tell the Committee what has been done in the two special cases referred to in the Resolution of the hon. Member. If we were to take the Consols value of each of their pensions of £2,000 a year, their value would be £75,000; their value at which we have commuted them is £54,000—a saving of £21,000 between the legal value and that which we have given, or 28 per cent. of the legal value. That may fairly be said to be a substantial saving to the nation. The hon. Member says that all these matters were known to the Committee, but some of the circumstances were not known to the Committee. I do not think it was brought before the Committee that negotiations were going on with regard to these two cases. I do not insist on that to any great extent, but it will, at all events, account to the hon. Member why these two cases are now brought forward.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:Sir Reginald Welby stated that he hoped I would not press for the names, as the negotiations were going on, and they had been suspended in consequence of the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. GOSCHEN:If the names had been pressed for, the matter might have been discussed by the Committee. I wish the hon. Gentleman had pressed for the names, because in the eyes of the Committee and in the eyes of the public a strong case has been prejudiced by a weak case. The recommendation simply states in general terms that the rate of 27 years is too high. It takes no account of good cases or bad cases. Now

  197
  the hon. Member takes two of the strongest cases for fair consideration, those of Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney, and asks the House not to sanction 27 years' purchase. But there is one circumstance which should have weight with Members of the House. Since the Committee sat, the rate of interest on Consols has been reduced, so that 27 years' purchase now represents considerably less cost to the nation than it did when the Committee sat. Therefore, the substantial saving to the nation will be greater now than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Mundella) knows that the price of Consols regulates the commutation, and those who commute their pensions now will receive less than they would have done at the time the Committee sat. This 27 years' arrangement is more beneficial to the public and less beneficial to the holders of pensions than it was at the time the Committee sat. So that there is the less reason to declare that the rate of commutation was condemned by the Committee. I am sure the hon. Member for Northampton would not have attacked these two pensions unless he had thought they would govern all the other pensions. We do not admit that these two pensions would govern the whole of the rest.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I suggested that £214,000 in one case, and £156,000 in the other, already received, constituted sufficient reward.
  MR. GOSCHEN:That is a different point. The hon. Member objects to 27 years, because he thinks that if we adopt that proposal we shall set up a standard for the remainder of the pensions. We do not hold that that would be the case. We accept the view of the Committee that each case should be inquired into on its merits. Formerly all these cases were dealt with alike, but now the Government are inquiring into every case, and the Minute now before the House shows that out of five cases mentioned in it, in two only is 27 years' purchase proposed, while in the other three cases 19, 22, and 25 years' purchase are proposed. The hon. Member for Northampton asks us to disapprove
  198
  of the commutation of Lord Exmouth's and Lord Rodney's pensions at 27 years. If the pensions are not commuted on these terms, to which the holders agree, what is to be done? Are we to bring in a Bill as regards these two pensions, and say to the holders that, although the faith of the nation has been pledged by Act of Parliament to the descendants of those two gallant officers, we will now arbitrarily fix the number of years' purchase at which their pensions shall be commuted? I must say that while I shall be always prepared to commute all pensions on terms as favourable as possible to the nation, I am not prepared to bring in a Bill to terminate a particular pension in an arbitrary manner. Without wishing to set up a standard to be followed in other cases, I would ask the House not to come to any determination that will stop the commutation of these two pensions —a commutation which, as now agreed upon, will be extremely beneficial to the nation—nor to make it necessary to bring in a Bill which will set aside the public faith. We have largely acted on the advice of the Committee, and we shall endeavour in all future instances to study the circumstances of each particular case, but, at the same time, to have regard to the fact, that these pensions are legally binding on us, and certainly I shall not be the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a Bill to terminate an arrangement made with the consent of Parliament.
  SIR W. HARCOURT:I confess I have not been able to follow the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that 27 years is not to be a standard by which the Treasury will be governed. No man who has listened to his speech can fail to see that if the holder of a pension refuses to take less than the 27 years' purchase, he is entitled to have it, and the Treasury must give it him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech has made 27 years the standard. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Treasury are bound to give 27 years if the holder will not take less. Why, then, having so admirable an advocate as the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he is entitled legally to 27 years, should a holder take less?
  MR. GOSCHEN:They have taken less.
  SIR W. HARCOURT:Yes, but that was perhaps before they had heard so admirable an argument as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A more conclusive argument why the holders should insist on 27 years it is impossible to conceive, because it amounts to this: ''If you will only hold out for 27 years I must give it you, and I beg you will do so." That is not what they call wisdom in the City, and I am quite sure that in other matters the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not deal with a money transaction on that footing. It is quite true that transactions in regard to these pensions in past times cannot be defended, and that the principle of commutation in past times cannot be justified. It is greatly due to the exertions of the hon. Member for Northampton that the matter has attracted much public attention. The Government consulted the opinion of a powerful Committee—which is a sort of microcosm of Members of this House, and which is representative of the taxpayer—as to what should be done in this matter. Having received the Report of that Committee, the Executive Government fly in its face. I say that is not a legitimate way of dealing with the question. I cannot understand the course the Government have taken. I should have thought that what they most would have desired would have been to be relieved of responsibility in so difficult a matter as this. The Committee took the responsibility on themselves. They told the Government they ought not to take 27 years as the figure, and yet the Treasury fly in the face of that opinion, and propose to give, in certain cases at least, terms not in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. That seems to me a very independent course. I think the pension of the Master of the Hawks is a most indefensible pension. I was astonished at the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the point. He said he split that pension up into two. One part he regarded as standing on a personal footing, and the other as being in the nature of allowances. For the allowances he gave 11 years' purchase.
  MR. GOSCHEN:We were advised—and the former Law Officers were of the same opinion—that these allowances, though they shock the right hon. Gentleman, were legally binding on us, and we now propose to get rid of an obligation legally binding on us perpetually at 11 years' purchase.
  SIR W. HARCOURT:Oh, I quite understand that. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was shocked to the extent of 11 years' purchase. He was so shocked that, instead of giving 27 years' purchase, he gave 11 years'. I do not see why allowances of this kind should be taken into consideration at all. I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the Law Officers, but I think the tax-payers are perfectly competent to form an opinion. If a pension has been given to a man for rendering services which he does not render, that is a point on which the public can make up their minds. The right hon. Gentleman was very much shocked at the notion of bringing in a Bill, but has he never heard of commutation of freehold offices on a fair basis? Transactions of that kind, I believe, have not been unfrequent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should have gone to the recipients of the pensions, and said, "A representative Committee of the House of Commons has laid down a certain scale, beyond which we cannot go; and if you are not content with that scale, we will take the opinion of the House of Commons in the form of a Bill." That would have been a perfectly legitimate position to take up. Why did you appoint a Committee when you did not act on their opinion?
  MR. GOSCHEN:We did act upon it largely.
  SIR W. HARCOURT:You acted upon it largely! You ought to have acted upon it altogether. Having asked the deliberate opinion of a Committee of the House upon the question, you ought to have told the pensioners that you would act upon their Report, and, if they refused to accept it, that you would ask Parliament for authority to enforce it. That would have been a reasonable and fair method of dealing with this question. I,

  201
  for one, should heartily support the Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,:I should not have intervened in this Debate but for two causes. In the first place, very prominent reference has been made to me in the matter by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and, in the second place, we have heard a very extraordinary speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). The Motion before the House has reference to a certain Treasury Minute. Two only of the pensions therein proposed to be commuted are complained of—Lord Rodney's and Lord Exmouth's—and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would have been better advised had he consulted the terms of the Minute and made himself acquainted with the facts of the case before he attacked my right hon. Friend. The Motion is directed only to that portion of the Minute which relates to the two pensions proposed to be commuted at about 27 years' purchase. A great deal has been said about my own position. I am free to admit that, had I known what I now know with regard to the actual facts respecting the two pensions complained of, I would have opposed more strenuously than I did the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton. In a moment I will point out that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did not do justice to the position in this respect of the Treasury authorities, whom he has described as flying in the face of the Report. It was originally proposed that the Report should state that the rate of commutation usually given—namely, about 27 years—was "far too high." It was pointed out by myself and others that we had not before us the particular circumstances in which the various commutations had taken place, but only the gross figures, although I did not shrink from saying that in many cases 27 years was too high a rate. The words of the paragraph were therefore altered from "the rate has been far too high" to the words "the rate is too high." For reasons which I think were fair, no
  202
  special case was gone into, and the two cases now attacked were not gone into before the Committee.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:The hon. and learned Gentleman must pardon me. We had the exact facts before us. The only thing the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to was the specifying in the Report the particular cases, but the full particulars were given in the Appendix.
  SIR R. WEBSTER:The hon. Member is really interrupting not at all with reference to the point on which I am speaking. What I say is that the circumstances under which anything had taken place with regard to the commutation of these pensions was not before the Committee. The pensions of Lord Rodney and Lord Exmouth were before the Committee in this sense only, that they were known to be for services, and, what is much more important, they were ratified by Parliament in 1782 and 1814, so that the House has by Act of Parliament recognised them as being payable for ever at the rate of about £2,000 a year. I am not ashamed to say that if I had thought that the paragraph about the rate of commutation was going to be used in this House as an argument for saying that the rate of commutation of these two pensions was too high, I certainly should not have assented to the proposition. It was because I was aware there were differences of circumstances that I assented to the words. It may be I ought not to have assented to them, but I thought they did represent the meaning I now attribute to them, namely, that it was a high rate, unless there were special circumstances. But there is another point which I now know, and which, I regret, has not been gone into more fully—namely, that in 1885, before that Committee had sat, Lord Rodney had practically agreed to a commutation upon these terms at the instance of the Treasury Authorities, and the same was the case with regard to Lord Exmouth. Therefore, their claims would not have only rested upon statutory authority, but by reason of

  203
  negotiations with the Treasury Authorities there was in equity, if not in law, a bargain that the commutation should be carried out on those terms. I think, therefore, that it is not just to say with regard to these two pensions that the Treasury are flying in the face of the Report. With regard to other matters, in my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has, I am sure unintentionally, been unjust to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not correct to say that the Treasury has not regarded the Report or its recommendations. The matter came before me in order that I might see how far it could legally be carried out, and, so far from the Report being disregarded, every case has been examined specially in order to ascertain its legal position. There is another matter which was not before the Committee, but which should be mentioned here. In not a few cases the claimants—the persons now receiving the pensions—were purchasers for value of the original pension; that is to say, they had invested money on the faith of sometimes a State and sometimes a Parliamentary bargain. I do not believe that anyone would wish to save his money as a taxpayer by breaking a contract made on the faith of the nation. With regard to this Treasury Minute, I appeal to the common sense of those present. I go so far as to say that in the case of Lord Rodney and Lord Exmouth, if the country is going to keep faith, if this House is going to keep faith, a less figure could not with propriety be adopted. It is wholly unjust to generalise from these two cases. I maintain that the Treasury has carried out the recommendations of the Committee, that they have done all they could consistently with the good faith of the nation, and I for one decline to be a party to anything amounting to a breach of faith in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has suggested that an Act of Parliament might have been brought in. For my own part, I can only say that any idea of compulsion was never presented to or discussed by the Committee at all. What was discussed was that there was power to commute these pensions, and that under ordinary circumstances the rate established would be regarded as being more than ought
  204
  to be paid. But I say if there was to be compulsion, if a Bill was to be brought in, then in order to form a right judgment each particular case should be decided on its merits. With regard to the obligation of paying these pensions, it does not depend upon the opinion of particular Law Officers. It is a matter which, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian well remembers, has been considered for years gone by by successions of Law Officers, and it has only been when the legal authority of a pension has been proved to be established, that the Treasury has found it necessary to commute at a high rate. I do respectfully protest against the suggestion that the Government have flown in the face of the Report. On the contrary, they have, as far as possible, consistently with the faith of the country, given effect to every paragraph of it.
  MR. MUNDELLA:As I was Chairman of the Committee, I must take exception to some of the statements just made by the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the question of compulsion as applied to the determination of perpetual pensions was never considered by the Committee. Does he mean to say the Committee left it entirely to the option of the Master of the Hawks whether his pension should be commuted or not? What was in the mind of the Committee was that the Government should act upon the Committee's recommendation, and that recommendation was
  "That all existing perpetual pensions, allowances, and payments, and all hereditary offices should be determined and abolished,"
  not at the will of the recipients, but at the will of this House. The Committee felt that if an Act of Parliament were required to determine and abolish perpetual pensions, the Government should bring in the Bill, such a scandal did most of the pensions present. There were only five Members from the Opposition side of the House to ten Conservatives on the Committee, and I think it is to the credit of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the feeling against

  205
  the continuance of the present system is quite as strong on their part as on the part of the Liberal Members. With respect to the pension of the Master of the Hawks, if the argument of the Attorney General is to be maintained, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, we have no right to determine the pension without the voluntary consent of the Master of the Hawks. It is thought that at 11 years' purchase the commutation is very moderate. What are the facts? Within living memory a certain sum was to be paid annually for hawks, for meat, and for service. All these things have been taken as part of the income of the Master of the Hawks. No hawks, meat, or service have been provided, and yet the Attorney General takes credit for a commutation at 11 years' purchase.
  MR. GOSCHEN:The right lion. Gentleman and his friends had been paying it for the last 20 years.
  MR. MUNDELLA:Yes, but there was no Report of a Committee 20 years ago. The Committee made a Report on the point to the House, and it was understood that the Government would obey the behest of the Committee. If there is any force in the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be a breach of public faith to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, but we do not believe there would be a breach of public faith in carrying out that recommendation. We believe the whole system of perpetual pensions, even for good services rendered at remote periods, is in itself a vicious system. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer argues that the reduction of the rate of Consols entitles the owners of these pensions to receive larger rather than smaller sums, surely that is an argument that cannot be maintained, for the right hon. Gentleman must know that some of the persons purchased these pensions years ago when the rates were very different to the rates now, and the argument cuts as much one way as the other. In respect to this particular recommendation the Attorney General says he should have more strenuously opposed it if he had known some things that have since been brought to his knowledge. Now,
  206
  I have in my hand the original draft of the Report as submitted by the hon. Member for Northampton, and this original draft stated that 27 years was "far too high." The Committee agreed to this draft, the only objection being in a suggestion made by the Attorney General that as the question had not been inquired into before it would seem too severe a censure on the Treasury—a retrospective censure on the Treasury—to use the word "far." "Let us leave out 'far,'" he said, "and say that 27 years is too high." I am bound to say we had all the pensions before us; we knew that some were for meritorious service at a distant date, and some were for scandalous disservices at a distant date; we held the opinion that 27 years was far too high, and I think it was the duty of the Government, had there been no other method of proceeding open to them, to bring in a Bill for the commutation and determination of all perpetual pensions, and to state in that Bill the terms upon which they were prepared to commute pensions. If this intention had been communicated to the recipients of the pensions, I believe there would have been no occasion for a Bill.
  SIR R. WEBSTER:If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment—there was a proposal made in the Report that pensions should be compulsorily commuted, and this was struck out—negatived by the Committee.
  MR. MUNDELLA:But what does the Attorney General understand by the paragraph in the Report which declares that all existing perpetual pensions, allowances, payments, and hereditary offices should be determined and abolished?
  DR. CLARK:I regret very much that the hon. Member for Northampton should have introduced his Motion in this form with reference to 27 years' purchase, because, practically, it is only directed to the pensions granted to Lords Exmouth and Rodney, and does not touch the worst cases—the payments to the Duke of St. Alban's, the Duke of Hamilton, and the Marquess of Downshire. Now, on the last occasion when this subject was before us, I wanted to move an Amendment against the

  207
  worst cases, but unfortunately I was not allowed to do so. I cannot see that the pensioners have much to complain of in the action of the hon. Member for Northampton, and really I think he deserves a testimonial from those who are interested. He has gone for the principle of commutation, and, with all deference, I think if this is fair Parliament ought not to haggle about giving a few years' purchase, more or less. So far as the pensions to Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney are concerned, their pensions were deserved, and you are going to buy them out by fair treaty. I think these cases will compare very favourably with other cases of pensions commuted by the late Government when our Deputy Speaker (Mr. Courtney) was Secretary to the Treasury. As you have been paying at the rate of 27 years, and if the hon. Member for Northampton considers the proper method of determining these pensions is by commutation, I think you cannot get off with much less unless you introduce some new principle. I have been against commutation. Parliament has determined that some pensions shall be perpetual, and Parliament may determine that some shall cease. I do not think that the unborn have any rights. Those living have certain rights, and probably if you take these rights away you ought to give compensation, but Parliament may determine in the exercise of its power that no child shall be born the inheritor of these special privileges. I, for one, think if we are going to get rid of perpetual pensions, the best method is either to permit the living lineal descendants of great Admirals and Generals who in the past saved the country and assisted to make her what she is to enjoy these pensions during their lives, and to declare that with these lives the pensions shall cease, or to pay a fair price down, which is 27 years' purchase. The first would be a conservative method of putting an end to the pensions; your present method of making them perpetual at the cost of the present generation I object to very much. I do not see why the present generation should pay the whole cost. Technically, we are only discussing that portion of the Minute which affects the commutation at 27 years' purchase, but
  208
  I fail to see why the hon. Member for Northampton should complain of these two cases. He can complain of the other three cases, but, technically, they do not come under his Motion, because 27 years' purchase is not the offer in those cases. The first and typical case is that of the Duke of St. Alban's. I do not think the hon. Member for Northampton represents the view of the Radical Party in this matter at all any more than on other points he does.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I am sure I am very glad.
  DR. CLARK:I am sorry that on the last occasion when this question came up and I uttered these sentiments, the hon. Member was not present, and the report did not correctly represent what occurred. So far as over a million is concerned—because there is £600,000 now held by Trustees for the Duke of Richmond, and I think half a million more for the Duke of Richmond—these gentlemen hold these sums because the pensions were granted to heirs male, and, these failing, the amounts will return to the Treasury—
  MR. BRADLAUGH:If the hon. Member will read the Report he will find the exact opposite to what he is saying.
  DR. CLARK:I am talking from the results of several Committees. I am not referring to the late Committee, but to three or four Committees, and the conditions under which pensions were commuted. I may be corrected, but I think that is the case. The payment to the Duke of St. Alban's is on a par with these pensions, and you are commuting the pension which was to be paid to him perpetually as Master of the Hawks. Now, I do not see that any moral crime attaches to a country by reason of the fact that a particular leader has committed a serious social offence, but surely it is much more serious if you put upon generation after generation payment for the fruits of debauchery and adultery. I do not think it shows a high tone of honour in a nation to pay thousands year by year as the fruit of debauchery and adultery. Here is a perpetual pension paid to the Duke of

  209
  St. Alban's simply because one of his female ancestors was frail and adultery was committed. For this the country has been put to perpetual expense. Really I think there should be a prosecution of the Lords of the Treasury and the Duke for making and receiving payments under false pretences. The pension was granted for keeping and feeding hawks, but the hawks do not exist, the feeding is not required, and still the Treasury permitted the man to continue to draw the money under false pretences; and now you are doing more—condoning the original offence and granting 19 years' purchase. Why, many a poor man under such circumstances would find himself in Bow Street Police Court. So far as the cases of Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney are concerned, there is much to be said; but the other three cases are utterly indefensible. You might apply the principle applied in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," and say the advantages having been enjoyed so long should content the recipients; but it seems this, though applied to tenants whose rights are stolen, is not recognised in these cases. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right; we have to go beyond the point touched by the Committee; it is time we should abolish pensions that have a disgraceful origin, and we are not upon any principle of justice bound to give compensation where no services have been rendered.
  MR. PHILIPPS:The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a point of the Government having made better terms with the pensioners than any Government before them; but surely if the pensioners are on the same footing as other holders of such privileges, they should have equally good terms. Government perpetual annuities are known to be worth considerably over 33 years' purchase; and if the Government have made a bargain for 27 years', it is obvious that the recipients believe there is something very different between the basis of their privileges and that of other annuities. It is well-known that this property is becoming more insecure every day, these pensions are getting
  210
  worth less, because public opinion is being aroused as to their origin, and nobody has done more to arouse this public opinion than the hon. Member for Northampton. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts us in this dilemma: if we are not to commute on the best terms we can get from the pensioners, are we to do nothing, or bring in a Bill to pay a reduced sum? Of course, we should prefer a Bill to pay a very much reduced sum. We cannot expect that, but we may fairly ask the Government to wait. We know what the influence of public opinion has been; let the Chancellor of the Exchequer give more time, and we will develop public opinion a little further. We are all supposed to be guardians of the public purse, not of the privileges of the pensioners. I say if we only wait a short time, and let public opinion declare itself, pensioners will be glad to take a sum very far short of 27 years' purchase.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  (6.48.) The House divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 3.)
  Original Question again proposed.

  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL:I desire to take this opportunity of saying a few words on behalf of the dismissed postmen for whom I pleaded a few months ago. The Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) has been obdurate against all the private representations made to him, and I am therefore compelled to appeal to him in public. The dismissed postmen may be divided into three classes. The first are those dismissed because they refused to discharge their ordinary duties. They refused under mitigating and extenuating circumstances, I think; but, still, they committed a grave breach of discipline, and I do not to-night say anything more about that part of the case. Then there are the men who were dismissed simply for attending the meetings or becoming members of the Postmen's Union. I hold in my hand a printed statement of the reasons for which postmen have been

  211
  dismissed. In that paper I see over and over again statements of this kind:—"Dismissed for attending a meeting in Hyde Park;" "Dismissed for attending a meeting on Clerkenwell Green," and so on. I desire to call particular attention to the case of one postman of long service to whom a number of questions were addressed by the officials. The first question is as follows:—
  "You are called upon to state what action or part you took in the recent postmen's agitation,"
  Now, I can hardly conceive anything more inconsistent with fair play than to ask a man a question of that kind. If you have any complaint against your servants surely you should prefer a specific charge against them, and give them the opportunity either of defending or explaining, or, possibly, of apologising for their conduct. Here the official appears to have adopted the plan of putting fishing questions to these comparatively illiterate men in the hope, I suppose, of obtaining from them entangling answers. The second question was to the following effect:—
  "Why did you attend the Fawcett Association meeting, and on that occasion call upon the sorting force to join the Postmen's Union?''
  The answer this man gave was, that permission had been granted to the members of the Fawcett Association to hold a meeting of the foreign branch; that such meeting was open for discussion and debate; that being in favour of Unionism, he decided to oppose the amendment that all sorters should join the Postmen's Union; and he drew attention to the recent statements made from time to time by the Postmaster General in the House of Commons admitting that the servants of the Post Office had a right to combine for their mutual benefit, and stating that in no case had any servant been punished for expressions of opinion at officially sanctioned meetings. The Postmaster General has again and again informed us that his only object in requiring the attendance of shorthand writers at postmen's meetings is to inform himself of the grievances of the men, but I point out here the use which has been made of the information conveyed by a shorthand writer. Some statement or argument made by one of the men
  212
  who attended is made a charge against that man, and it appears to have been part of the case upon which he has been dismissed. The Postmaster General last Session gave an undertaking that he would carefully investigate each individual case. I should like to inform the House what is the proportion between the number of reinstated men and the number of the men originally dismissed. I will take the case of the Western District Office in Vere Street. Fifteen postmen were dismissed from that office for attending meetings or joining the Union, and of these two only have been reinstated. I may add that among the men whose livelihood has been taken away there were many who were teetotalers, and bore an exceptionally high character. It is not possible for the Postmaster General to contend that the severity of his action has been forced upon him by his subordinates at the local post offices. It is not the case that the local postmasters have reported that this severe treatment was necessary as a disciplinary measure, and that unless an example were made they could not be responsible for the discharge of their important functions. On the contrary, I am in a position to say that the local postmasters have from the very first held out to these dismissed men the hope of being reinstated, and I may say with confidence that no one is more surprised than they themselves are at the unparalleled severity of the Postmaster General. Nay, more—even officials at the Central Office have made to the men distinct pledges. On the 31st of July a deputation waited on the Postmaster General for the purpose of laying before him the grievances of the postmen, and urging the reinstatement of all men who had been dismissed. The deputation saw the Postmaster General, and afterwards they were seen by the Controller, Mr. Tombs, who was asked by a man named Cox what was intended to be done in the case of the men dismissed for merely attending meetings. The answer given by Mr. Tombs was that these men would be reinstated. Mr. Cox asked for and obtained from Mr. Tombs permission to repeat that promise to the men. So that if that statement is true—and I have every reason to believe it is—there has been a distinct violation of a pledge

  213
  given by one of the most highly-placed of the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates. This is a most serious issue. The men for whom I plead have lost, not only their present means of livelihood, but also their prospective pensions, which are merely deferred pay. And that for what? They have lost these advantages simply because they attended meetings, or for becoming members of the Postmen's Union. These public servants are between the horns of a dilemma. The Postmaster General punishes them if they form a Union for their own protection. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer punishes them if they appeal for the intervention of this House, for as recently as the occasion of the Lord Mayor's banquet he went rather out of his way to lecture hon. Members who ventured to interfere on their behalf. So that public servants are to be left absolutely defenceless against the heads of Departments or Parliamentary chiefs, who, without autocratic power, are quite as likely to act tyrannically or offensively towards those they employ as private bodies are under similar circumstances. I have thought it right to bring this matter before the attention of the House. I hope I may receive support from both sides; but if I am disappointed, then I can only appeal to a wider tribunal, and I shall be much surprised if the public outside do not resent the drastic and severe treatment meted out to a most deserving and respected body of public officials.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,:I have to thank the hon. Member for the brevity of his speech; but, in doing so, I must point out that, until I came down to the House to-day, I did not know that this subject was to be brought forward, and consequently I am without any particular data, to enable me to answer the statements which have just been made. I can only, therefore reply to them in their general aspect and I think I can satisfy the House that those statements have been put forward to the hon. Member—I will not say by him—in a very exaggerated form,
  214
  and with a good deal of illustration of a not very accurate kind. The hon. Gentleman says that the men were dismissed for being members of the Postmen's Union, for attending the meetings in Hyde Park and on Clerkenwell Green, and for taking part in the agitation. As I say, I have not the papers at this moment in my hands, but I think I am accurate in stating that no man was dismissed for being a member of the Union. As to the Hyde Park meeting, that matter was discussed fully before the House rose a few months ago. The postmen were warned not to go to it, and t culminated in a disgraceful riot, in which two superior officers of the Post office were cruelly handled by the mob. The men suspended for attending the meeting had in every case an opportunity of recovering their situations if they would make an apology and give assurances for their good behaviour in the future within a reasonable time. With regard to the Clerkenwell meeting it is possible that those who took a prominent part in that desertion of duty may have suffered for instigating the revolt, but I am not in a position to say that anybody was dismissed for attending that meeting. As to questions being put to the men with reference to the part they took in the agitation, there again I am without material to enable me to give a specific answer, but I would remind the House that the men to whom any such questions were put were already dismissed for deserting their duty, and that if such questions were put it was done with the object of enabling the men to clear themselves as far as possible from the imputation of having been instigators or ringleaders of the revolt, and not in order that they might condemn themselves. If questions were put at all it was for the purpose of eliciting extenuating circumstances on behalf of the men. The hon. Member has also referred to some men having been dismissed for taking part in a meeting of the Fawcett Association. I am very much inclined to doubt whether any man was dismissed for merely attending a meeting of that Association. The hon. Member speaks of my having undertaken to examine into each case. He must be already aware that I have given to each case all the attention which it is

  215
  possible for me to give. I had all the papers relating to each individual case sent to me for consideration. I read through every letter, and carefully studied the records of character in the case of every man. There were several men who made no appeal for reinstatement, and the cases of those men were allowed to go by default; but in regard to all the other cases I gave the best attention I could to every representation or recommendation that was made to me in their behalf, whether by persons outside or inside the Post Office. As to only two of the 15 men dismissed from the Western District Office having been reinstated, I think that that is extremely probable. I cannot now give the reasons for the action in that particular instance, but I can say that I was most anxious to find extenuating circumstances in every case, and that whenever such circumstances existed, or there was even reasonable ground for supposing the existence of extenuating circumstances, I gave the offender the benefit of them. The hon. Member says that local postmasters did not urge severity, and were astonished at my decision. Well, as to any communication by the local postmasters with the Postmaster General, and the statement that they were astonished at my decision, I fail to see how the hon. Member could become aware of such communications, because they would be strictly confidential, and I am unwilling to believe that any local postmaster would commit such a serious breach of duty as to divulge them.
  MR. PICKERSGILL:I founded my allegation on the statements made again and again by the local postmasters, especially the postmaster in the Eastern District Office.
  MR. RAIKES:I am unaware of any statement having been made by the postmaster of the Eastern District Office to the hon. Member or anyone else. I can only say I am surprised that any Postmaster can have committed such a breach of duty as to have entered such a protest as that the hon. Member speaks of.
  MR. PICKERSGILL:It was not a breach of duty at all.
  MR. RAIKES:I can only say, speaking from recollection, that my belief is that I reinstated far more than I dismissed of the men who were recommended to me for reinstatement by the local postmasters.
  MR. PICKERSGILL:Will the right hon. Gentleman state that the number reinstated in the Eastern District of those recommended for reinstatement by the local postmaster exceeded the number dismissed?
  MR. RAIKES:I am not in a position to make that statement. The hon. Member, by not giving me timely notice of his intention to raise this subject, has precluded me from the possibility of making a specific statement to-night. I am not speaking of one district in particular. It is very possible that in one district the number dismissed may have been greater than the number reinstated, but I am speaking of the whole force. It is quite possible that in some districts I reinstated more men than in others. With reference to the statement of the hon. Member respecting certain communications which are said to have passed between Mr. Tombs, the Controller, and a Mr. Cox—whose name I cannot now recall—it is quite possible that some communication did take place, and that some statement may have been made, and made in good faith, but I am persuaded there is some misapprehension in the matter, for I feel certain that the Controller would never have made any such unqualified statement as the hon. Member has alleged. I apologise for detaining the House, because the whole matter was threshed out on the Estimates in July last, and it has now been brought up again in a very loose manner, and without any particular notice. I have only further to repeat what I said on the previous occasion, namely, to express my sincere regret that I cannot with the full consideration of my public duty go further than I did in reinstating these unfortunate men. I think a great many of them are very much to be pitied, for they no doubt acted under bad guidance, and I sincerely commisserate the position in which they are placed. But my duty is first to the Service over which I have the honour to preside. I am bound to

  217
  maintain discipline and order in that Service, and I believe that that discipline and order can only be attained and maintained by making examples of those who deserted their duty in the most conspicuous manner in this unfortunate affair. I have only further to say that if the hon. Member wishes I will make inquiry as to the alleged conversation of Mr. Cox with the Controller, this being the only case in which the hon. Member by giving names has enabled me to follow up the statements made.
  MR. ISAACSON:I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has paid no attention to the Petition I presented to him from 57 dismissed postmen of the East End of London who had been in the Service for terms ranging from three to thirty years. These men, unfortunately, acting under bad advice, went out on strike for a few hours. These men did not join the Postmen's Union, and they did not attend any meetings in Hyde Park, and yet, because they struck work for two hours only, they were discharged and thrown helpless on the world. As I say, I myself presented a Petition in their behalf to the Postmaster General, and the right hon. Gentleman gave me reason to believe that the men would be reinstated if their characters were found to bear investigation.
  MR. RAIKES:I hope the hon. Member will allow me to say that I never made any such statement.
  MR. ISAACSON:I will read what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that—
  "He would inquire into individual cases, and if he found that their characters were satisfactory, he would reinstate them, with all due tegard for the Public Service."
  MR. RAIKES:Hear, hear.
  MR. ISAACSON:Well, the characters of the men were investigated, and were found to be satisfactory; yet when I again wrote to the Postmaster General I received a reply that the right hon. Gentleman declined to interfere in the matter. The promise made to me with regard to those men has not, therefore, been carried out. I believe the men have been very harshly treated, especially when it is considered that the feeling of insubordination at the time in question would never have arisen if a proper
  218
  system had been adopted at the Post Office to put a stop to the widespread discontent that existed. I do now trust that the Postmaster General will go through these 57 cases again. The men deserve well of the Post Office. They have been diligent in the discharge of their duty—some of them for 30 years, and I think it a great shame that they should be thrown out of work and compelled—knowing no other business than that of postmen—to go skulking about London to earn a shilling where they can. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General will look into this case, and, if possible, allow further reinstatements to be made. As it is, not a single reinstatement has been made, although the characters of these men will bear the strictest investigation.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS:The Postmaster General has stated that this question was thoroughly thrashed out a few months ago, but I trust he will allow me to remind him of the position in which it was left just before the House rose at the end of last Session. The right hon. Gentleman then gave us an assurance that he would investigate the whole of these cases, and we are now in the position of knowing that the result of that investigation has been very unfortunate indeed for the poor postmen who had been discharged. He has said to-night that he was hardly prepared to meet the question thus brought on; but he must recollect that a large number of men who have devoted many years to the Public Service were not only discharged from the Post Office, but, having been discharged, they have thereby suffered great disadvantage in their efforts to obtain other employment. Many of them have come to me, and I have advised them to seek other employment; but they have said that the fact of their having been discharged from the Post Office has told so heavily against them that, had they lost their characters through any really serious dereliction of duty, they could not have been placed in a worse position. Even the Postmaster General must admit that the charge should be a very serious one that would prevent even one out of a total number of 57 men from being reinstated. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman

  219
  can hardly deny that the action he has taken has been very severe indeed. I have taken the trouble to investigate the statements of many of the men, and as far as I could get evidence in the cases of those who have been in the Service a large number of years, they have discharged their duties well and faithfully in the past, as is proved by the fact that they have earned good conduct stripes, one of these men wearing no less than three of them, which is at least a proof that for a long period of years he has performed his duties thoroughly in the judgment of his superiors. This being the case, I think we have good cause for asking the Postmaster General to re-investigate, at least, some of these cases. I will take only two of the districts. In one of them there were 57 men discharged, of whom not one has been reinstated; and the Postmaster General has admitted the allegation made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) as to the Eastern District, that out of the 15 men who were dismissed only two have been reinstated. My hon. Friend spoke of a man who attended the first Post Office Association meeting. He did not say the man was discharged for attending that meeting as a member of the Post Office Association, because the man was not qualified to belong to that Association; he merely attended to ask the sorters to form a Union of their own, in which they might be allowed to associate in the same manner as the other servants of the Post Office. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General must see that a new departure is wanted in the case of these men—that some very broad and generous line must be laid down, otherwise this question will arise again as soon as opportunity is given for it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the House a clear and definite statement as to the position these men are to occupy—whether they are to be allowed to organise themselves for their own benefit and protection or not. I certainly think that some line with regard to the right of meeting on the part of these men ought to be laid down. I will not press the question further now; but I do say that if, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, many of these men have not been reinstated,
  220
  their cases ought at least to be re-investigated. The right hon. Gentleman has said that those who have not been reinstated are to be pitied. And I put it to him whether, if they are deserving of his pity, they shall not be re-appointed? They now stand in this position: In many cases they have sacrificed not only the work of a large numbers of years, but their chance of pensions has also gone, their prospects in life being thus entirely ruined. Under these circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman can he not meet these men in a more liberal spirit?
  MR. CONYBEARE:As it may be some time before we shall have an opportunity of reopening this matter on the Estimates, I think it desirable to offer some slight criticism on the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken on this question. He has spoken to-night in even harsher terms than on former occasions of these men being leaders in the revolt, which clearly shows that, however much he may talk of his most anxious desire to consider all the circumstances and temper justice with mercy and all that sort of thing, he nevertheless entertains the same strong view we have always known him to hold as to the right of the men to form a Union. I will not trouble the House with details, but I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite exact in speaking of the loose manner in which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green brought this matter forward. The hon. Member made statements backed up by verbatim reports, and those statements, together with others made from other quarters of this House, show that we on this side are even better informed on the question under discussion than the right hon. Gentleman himself. Without going into detail, I would simply ask the House in a broad general way whether the men are or are not to have the right which is accorded to all other workingmen throughout the country, of combining for their mutual interest and protection where individually they are not strong enough to obtain fair play. On this important question the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately cast

  221
  down his gage, and declared that nothing shall induce him to respect the Union, or the right of the men to form a Union, but that, on the contrary, he will do everything in his power to smash any Union of those under his control. The right hon. Gentleman took up the same position on previous occasions, and has re-asserted it in rather violent language against the men this evening. That is the present position of this question, and it is a position which I ask the House not to endorse. There are one or two points which I might be allowed to say a word upon before resuming my seat. The right hon. Gentleman defended himself on the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green insisted upon as to the questions put to the men before reinstatement. But I say that those questions were put merely to induce the men to incriminate themselves, and not as the right hon. Gentleman put it, to enable them to clear themselves. The right hon. Gentleman might just as well ask us to believe that it is a principle of law or equity in this country that questions should be put to a prisoner for the purpose of enabling him by his answers to offer extenuating circumstances or to clear himself from guilt.
  MR. RAIKES:After sentence.
  MR. CONYBEARE:I do not quite catch the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, but it is surely a principle of justice in this country that men should not be led into incriminating themselves by having incriminating questions put to them. If the right hon. Gentleman had been so anxious to do everything in his power to reinstate these men and condone their offences he would not had done anything such as he must have seen the questions he put tended to do to make the men incriminate themselves. Such a system of dealing with—if you like to call them so—refractory servants must rather be to encourage among them the habit of lying in order to shelter themselves from consequences that might otherwise result. I will not combat the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, but will give him full credit for sincerity when he stated that he had given all the attention possible to these cases. He was taking the waters on the Continent when the cases
  222
  came on, and I hope he gave every possible consideration to them. Nevertheless, the number of those whom he reinstated was lamentably small compared with the number subjected to punishment. Last Session he asked us to believe that a great proportion of those who went out on strike were intimidated by the ringleaders of the agitation. I said at the time I did not believe there had been any intimidation, and the result of the right hon. Gentleman's investigation now shows what a miserably small amount of intimidation there must have been when so few of the men have been reinstated, because I conceive that those who were reinstated were not all subjected to intimidation, but that he also took into account other extenuating circumstances put forward by the men. The right hon. Gentleman commented severely on the breach of duty committed by certain postmasters who, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has stated, told the men they were astonished that so few had been reinstated. I should like to know what possible breach of duty could have been committed by these postmasters who expressed such an opinion in talking the matter over with the men. Had these postmasters come to myself or my friends and complained of what had taken place, and asked us to take it up in this House, there might have been some colour for what the right hon. Gentleman has said; but, as it is, I consider the course taken by the Postmaster General has been inconsistent with the demands of justice. The right hon. Gentleman has complained of the inconvenience of discussing this question on the present occasion, when the notice has been so short. For my part, I feel the inconvenience quite as much as he does. I was not aware of my hon. Friend's intention to bring it forward to-night; but we are discussing it, and the discussion is not wholly irrelevant or premature because the matter was discussed at some length last Session. This being a new Session, we are entitled to bring forward old grievances; if not, I do not see why we should keep the House open at all. I, for for one, shall take every opportunity to protest against the harsh, high-handed, and unjust, if not wholly unconstitu-
  223
  tional, acts for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible.
  MR. CREMER:I have no desire to discuss this matter at any length in an almost empty House, but I wish to join my friends in asking the Postmaster General to extend a little mercy to these poor men. It is in the recollection of hon. Members that when the House prorogued last Session we received what we conceived to be a distinct pledge from the Postmaster General that he would deal as tenderly and mercifully as possible with the postmen who had, unfortunately, rushed into a contest with their superiors. I then took the opportunity of stating that, as far as the small band of Members with whom I usually co-operate in this House was concerned, we were in no way responsible for that unfortunate strike; and that had the men followed the counsels we gave them, that strike would not have taken place. We promised to do the best we could to ventilate their grievances in this House, and, if possible, get justice done to them without their resorting to the foolish step they took. Our counsels were, however, overruled by some evil genius, and we know the unfortunate results which followed. I will not say that, the Postmaster General violated his pledges to us—I will be more charitable, and say we misunderstood him; but, at any rate, we hoped he would restore to their places nearly all the men who had been so foolish and had acted so precipitately. I once more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise a little more clemency in the case of these poor men. Surely when the right hon. Gentleman has triumphed over the men as he has done he can afford in the hour of victory to give a little more consideration to those who are now in a starving condition, and from whom comes up the bitter cry that their wives and families are so in need. I hope before the Estimates come under consideration the right hon. Gentleman will render it unnecessary that we should again raise this question, and that he will not, after these men have suffered months of privation, continue conduct which I cannot but describe as cruel. These men acted foolishly I admit, but I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he would like to face his
  224
  family suffering from privation, or be deprived of his situation merely because his colleagues considered that he had been insubordinate? The right hon. Gentleman may smile at the suggestion; but if he saw these men and their dependents wanting, as they are, the necessaries of life, I think, rather than smile, he would feel grief, and be moved by it to generous action. In what I have said I have no particular interest or Party purpose to serve; I simply make an appeal in behalf of suffering fellow-men, and bespeak for them considerate treatment even at this the eleventh hour.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 91.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MACARTNEY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it had been submitted to a representative body of fishermen, and he thought he might assure the House that they fully approved of them.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTION.

  MIDWIVES REGISTRATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Fell Pease, Bill to provide For the registration of Midwives, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fell Pease, Sir Frederick Fitz Wygram, Sir Guyer Hunter, Sir Roper Lethbridge, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Rathbone, and Mr. Pritchard Morgan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 133.]

  LAND PURCHASE ACTS (IRELAND) (APPLICATIONS).
  Return ordered—
  "Giving particulars of the cases in which the Land Commission has received applications from purchasers of their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, 1885 and 1888, for an extension of the time of purchase or an abatement in the amount of instalments due."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock till Monday next.