Sitting of 29 May 1891

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL—(by Order.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. JORDAN: I regret that I should find myself compelled to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but I do so because those I represent feel that, before obtaining further powers, the company should make some effort to provide for the convenience and requirements of the public. Numerous re-monstrances and petitions have been forwarded to them, and deputations have waited upon them at their offices in Dublin to ask for reforms. They have not denied that reforms are necessary; all they say is that if we will wait, the reforms will come in due course; but that until the Postal Service has been

  1301
  facilitated they find it impossible to comply with the demands of the public. They seek now for power to raise £60,000 additional capital, and to increase their borrowing powers, but such an application to Parliament would have been unnecessary if the cheese-paring policy of the company had not led, some time ago, to the very serious Armagh catastrophe. I do not think that at the present moment they accommodate the public to such an extent as to justify Parliament in granting these additional powers. They ought not to be encouraged to come to this House either to borrow money or to buy land for additional purposes until they can show that they have used the powers they already enjoy for the advantage of the public. The populous and industrious community from Dundalk to Londonderry have long been knocking at the doors of the company without obtaining admittance. They say that the train service now given is wholly inadequate to the wants of the public, and that there has been a persistent refusal to give morning and evening trains from Clones to Enniskillen, and from Enniskillen to Clones, and Sunday trains from Dundalk to Derry, and from Derry to Dundalk. No matter in what part of the North of Ireland you may land you cannot get into the interior on a Sunday, and you have to wait until Monday morning or drive on car. There is also a loud complaint of the absence of sanitary arrangements and waiting rooms at several stations; the third-class carriages are most uncomfortable, and the roadways and approaches are maintained in a slovenly condition. Upon these grounds I ask the House not to give this Railway Company the powers they are now asking. At any rate, they should be required to wait until next year in order that in the meantime they may have an opportunity of considering the demands and improving their existing arrangements. The only answer the company give to the appeals which are made to them is that reforms will not pay. I do not see why they should not pay, seeing that there are seven towns from Enniskillen to Clones interested in this matter with large local traffic to schools, fairs, and markets, and for other local purposes, which ought to be remunerative if the railway
  1302
  were only properly managed. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time on this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Jordan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR E. HARLAND: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Third Reading of the Bill. Irish railways of late years have made marvellous strides, not only in speed but also in regard to the provision made for the general comfort and convenience of passengers. This opposition is directed against the station at Enniskillen, and I think I am able to say, without fear of contradiction, that if there is a railway station which has been improved more than any other in Ireland it is the station at Enniskillen. The sanitary arrangements there are equal to those of any other station in the Kingdom, although it is true that the accommodation on one side of the station is not equal to what it is on the other. The Railway Company fully recognise the deficiency in this respect, but it has been owing to financial considerations that the full development of the entire station has not taken place. There is, however, an excellent means of communication between one side of the station and the other by a bridge over the line. Unfortunately, the line is a single one, and there are difficulties in the working of a great variety of trains at different hours of the day. It must be borne in mind that Enniskillen and Clones are only junctions, so that the interests of other Railway Companies have to be consulted. If the matters complained of by the hon. Gentleman require correction, they ought to be brought before the Railway Commission, and the time of the House ought not to be taken up in discussing them. The provisions of the Bill have already been examined and passed by a Committee upstairs, and I think it is monstrous to bring such frivolous objections now against a Bill of such great importance. This is simply an omnibus Bill for the readjustment of certain powers, and I think we ought to trust to the company to develop the line for their own interests.

  1303
  Nothing has been adduced by the hon. Gentleman which ought to justify the House in throwing out the Bill upon its final stage.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to make a suggestion which I think may have the effect of shortening the Debate. The hon. Baronet opposite will, I think, on reflection, admit that he has not met the case which has been raised by my hon. Friend. The fact that there are junctions at Enniskillen and Clones is no answer to the allegation that the existing arrangements are inconvenient, and there is no reason why the convenience of the public should not be consulted by all the companies concerned. The people who go to one side of the station at Enniskillen are just as much in want of accommodation as those who go to the other, and in applying to Parliament for borrowing powers, there is no reason why the company should not be required to use some of them in making good their present defects. I am afraid the case affords an illustration of the truth of the old axiom, that what is everybody's business is nobody's business. All the company say in the document they have issued against the opposition to the Bill is that the discussion of these matters in the House is inconvenient. Now, there is nothing irregular in such a discussion, and I think the company would have been better advised if they had dealt with the specific allegations which are made against them. As they have refrained from doing so they have practically allowed judgment to go against them by default. The suggestion I wish to make is that my hon. Friend should not persevere with his Motion upon a promise by the Board of Trade that they will use their influence to induce the company to improve their present arrangements.
  MR. COURTNEY: I presume that the Railway Company in the statement they have issued refrained from entering into details, because upon a previous occasion it was ruled out of order to discuss them. The Railway Company in declining to go into them have only been following the direction of this House. I have no doubt, however, although I have no authority to speak on their behalf, that if representations are made to the Board
  1304
  of Trade they will see that proper sanitary arrangements are carried out. But it is obvious that this House cannot enter into a detailed examination of questions with which the Bill itself has nothing to do. It would be altogether contrary to the practice of the House to reject the Bill upon the grounds which have been alleged.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, but, speaking from personal knowledge, I am bound to admit that the sanitary arrangements at the Enniskillen Station are most defective, and that it is almost disgraceful that the Great Northern Railway Company should force the House to discuss them. The line is neither well nor liberally managed, and I think the company will do well to note the discussion which has taken place.
  MR. JORDAN: After the remarks which have been made by the Chairman of Committees, I think the Board of Trade may be induced to use its influence with the Railway Company, and, therefore, I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed [New Title.]

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL—(by Order.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to move to add at the end of Clause 63 as a new sub-section—
  "Any scheme or schemes passed under this section shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament and printed."
  It will be within the recollection of the House that when this Bill was before us for Second Reading, I urged that an Instruction should be given to the Committee to include in the measure the scheme of superannuation which was proposed to be established. The matter was, I believe, considered by the Committee; but although Amendments have been inserted which are an improvement of the Bill as it originally stood, there is no detailed scheme given and no indication as to how the scheme of superannuation is to work. The question is a large one, seeing that hundreds of thousands of pounds may be involved in the pensioning of the

  1305
  staff of the London County Council which now, I believe, numbers from 4,000 to 5,000 persons. I still feel bound to complain that there is no scheme defined in the Bill, although the President of the Board of Trade admitted on the Second Reading, that some scheme ought to be put forward. The Committee, however, did not include any detailed scheme, but they have given the London County Council an absolute power to frame a scheme in their own way, and I believe their proposal is that the employés shall pay a share and the ratepayers another share. That is not a bad plan in itself, but if correct I should like very much to have seen it before the Bill went through Committee. I have, it may be said, and truly said, no great amount of affection for the County Council, but I think it is only reasonable that in asking this House to sanction a great scheme of superannuation they ought to be required to lay it on the Table in order that we may know what at least the general principles are.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 63, to add as a new sub-section the words—
  "Any scheme or schemes passed under this section shall he forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament and printed."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. S. WILLIAMSON: As Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, I desire to say a few words. Rules founded on recent Legislative Acts, such as the Tyne Improvement Act, 1890, were embodied in the Bill, and special provisions have been inserted in the measure to safeguard the interests of employés, of whom there are now about 4,000. The number is being constantly added to; but the Committee considered that it was undesirable to require the County Council to frame an exact Schedule which, in the present position of the Council, would act with cast-iron rigidity. We thought that any scheme which might be framed might be allowed to remain subject to such additions and modifications as might subsequently be found to be desirable. The scheme proposed by the Council has been drawn upon the lines of the Public
  1306
  Improvement Acts; but we considered that a large measure of pliability would be very advantageous. In the case of the Corporation of Liverpool, their Improvement Act of 1882 contains a clause empowering them to grant superannuation if they think fit, but not otherwise, and if a Corporation such as Liverpool has such discretionary powers, why should the London County Council be called upon to frame a rigid cast-iron scheme. Without speaking on behalf of the Committee or of the London County Council, I wish to express a hope, on my own behalf, that the House will not accept this Amendment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The hon. Gentleman says that it would have been unwise that the London County Council should be bound down to any cast-iron scheme. I think that is a good reason why a scheme should not have been embodied in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, has considered the matter from that point of view, and having heard all the evidence brought before them the Committee probably arrived at a proper decision. But the present proposal does not involve the question of any cast-iron scheme at all. It simply says that any scheme or schemes which may be framed shall be laid before the House. The House has always dealt differently with questions of London finance than in the case of Local Administrations in other parts of the country, and the House has always expressly required that details of London finance not exacted with regard to other Corporations shall be annually placed before Parliament. This proposal is, therefore, only in accordance with the practice of Parliament, and all that would be done would be to circulate the printed information among Members of Parliament. It would not lie on the Table for the purpose of review by the House —nothing of the kind; it is merely a matter of affording information, and the London County Council, so far as I understand, do not object to the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. COURTNEY): It is impossible to feel very strongly upon this matter. The London County Council accept the proposal, although they do not like it.
  MR. LAWSON: They have no strong objection to it.
  MR. COURTNEY: I would ask the House, however, whether it is wise to accept the Amendment. I do not think it would be of any use to the employés of the Council, and as far as the interests of the ratepayers are concerned they can well look after them themselves at the triennial elections. The proposal seems to be an illustration of one of the great vices of the House of Commons—the love of appearing to regulate that which it cannot regulate, and I hope, in spite of the attitude of the President of the Local Government Board, the Amendment will be rejected.
  MR. LAWSON: Although the London County Council do not entertain any strong objection to the Amendment, they do regard it as a mischievous innovation. The scheme has been framed in exact accordance with the provisions inserted in other private Bills, and I agree with the Chairman of Committees that it would be a mistake for this House to attempt to relieve the Members of the County Council of any portion of their responsibility to the constituents they represent, and to whom they will have to go at the end of every three years. Therefore I think we are justified in opposing the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIE: I desire to be understood that I have had a distinct intimation from the County Council that they would agree to the Amendment.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I can quite understand that the County Council take no objection to this Amendment because it will be entirely inoperative as exercising any control over the scheme. It merely means a Return which it is perfectly competent for the House to order at any moment, namely, a Return of the proceedings of the London County Council. I have no objection, if the House wishes to see this scheme, that it should be laid on the Table and published; and it may be that other County Councils and Local Authorities who frame similar schemes may be also asked to present them to Parliament. At the same time, I think that to order the Return of a document in advance by an enactment of this kind is an innovation, and an unnecessary innovation.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I would ask whether the House is not proposing to place itself in a somewhat ridiculous position? The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is an active member of the London County Council. He does not object to the Amendment, because it will be inoperative, but I want to know whether if we adopt it it will not place us in a ridiculous position. I think the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) will be well-advised if he will withdraw the Amendment.
  (2.50.) The House divided: —Ayes 55; Noes 80.—(Div. List, No. 254.)

QUESTIONS.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the schools of the Christian Brothers are recognised by the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland on a footing of absolute equality with the other schools of the country as regards admitting the pupils of the schools to the examinations of the Board, awarding prizes, exhibitions, &c, to the students successful at these examinations, and paying results fees to the managers of the schools; whether these schools, which in the main are primary schools, are excluded by the rules of the National Education Board from a share in the grant annually voted by Parliament for the work of primary education in Ireland; whether attention is called to this anomaly in the Report of the Educational Endowments Commission for 1886–7; whether in the same Report attention is directed to the advantages which would result to education in Ireland if the regulations by which these schools are at present denied recognition by the National Education Board were modified in a certain class of cases, so as to enable these schools to place themselves in connection with that Board; whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1868–70, which strongly recommended this modification in the class of cases in question, that is to say, in localities where the children of the various denomina-

  1309
  tions are provided with schools of their own; whether this recommendation is based by the Commissioners on the fact that, in practice, the attendance in the primary schools in Ireland is to a very large extent unmixed as regards the religions denomination of the pupils; whether the number of unmixed schools, which in 1867 was 2,562, has increased in 1889 to 4,303; and the percentage of such schools similarly increased from 40·2 to 52·5; whether the number of Roman Catholic children in unmixed schools, which was 380,000 in 1867, has increased in 1889 to 574,660; whether it is competent for the National Education Board to make the modification in question; and whether the Irish Government are prepared to recommend this matter to the consideration of the Board; and, if necessary, convey Government sanction?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think that I have really anything to add to the answer which I have already given on this subject. The subject matter of this question was fully dealt with in my reply to a similar one put on May 19th, 1890, and referred to in my reply to a further question asked on the 5th inst. As I then pointed out, various Orders of Monks, including the French Order of Christian Brothers, find no difficulty in taking advantage of the public grants and putting themselves under the general regulations of the National Education Board, and I, therefore, do not see that it is necessary to make a special modification of the rules in favour of one Monastic Order.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether the number of Roman Catholic children in unmixed schools, and the number of such schools themselves, have increased since 1867.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I believe the figures given in the question, as regards the number of such schools, are accurate, and that the number of Roman Catholic children in those has increased.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it competent for the National Education Board to make the modification in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apprehend that it would not be competent for the Board to make any great change without statutory authority.

  TRAINING COLLEGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that (with the exception of the Official Training College of the National Education Board), the Training Colleges and all the Schools in connection with the Board are annually inspected and reported upon by Official Inspectors, none of whom are members of the staffs of the institutions on which it is their duty to report; whether the Official Training College is treated exceptionally in this respect, being reported upon, not by the Ordinary Inspectors of the Board, but by four officials who sign their Report as Superintendents; whether the "Superintendents'" Report for 1887 and 1888 contains the following passage:—
  "The management of the College is intrusted to four Professors. The Professors lecture the Queen's Scholars, and exercise a supervision over the domestic establishment";
  whether the "Professors," whose duties are thus described, are the Superintendents themselves who thus report upon their own work; and whether, if so, he will call the attention of the National Education Board to the desirability, in the interests of the Public Service, of putting an end to so anomalous an arrangement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The arrangement for the inspection of the Denominational Training Colleges and their practising schools are as indicated by the hon. Member. It is likewise the case that the Official Training College, with its practising schools, was treated for a period of upwards of half a century in the special manner referred to; but in accordance with the adoption of our proposals of last year, placing the Official Training College in all respects on an equality of treatment with the Denominational Training Colleges, it will henceforth be inspected and reported upon by the same head Inspector who has charge of those colleges.

  IRISH LAND DEPARTMENT BILL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Irish Land Department Bill cannot be proceeded

  1311
  with during the present Session, he will consider the propriety of embodying Clause 29 of that measure, which deals with long and perpetuity leaseholders, as a separate Bill, and so securing its passage this Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it is true that the chance of passing the Land Department Bill this Session is very small, and it is also true, I believe, that it would not be in order to introduce Clause 29 of that measure into the Land Purchase Bill as an Amendment designed to give relief to long and perpetuity leaseholders. But I cannot undertake to introduce a separate Bill embodying Clause 29 of the Land Department Bill unless I could be assured that it would meet with general acceptance.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As far as I can judge, there is nobody on this side of the House who would oppose such a measure. The Irish Members are unanimous in holding that a clause of this kind ought to be passed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The point is whether there would be any opposition to the proposed Bill from any quarter of the House. If the hon. Member can give me an assurance that from no quarter of the House will there be opposition I will consider the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask you, Sir, whether it would be out of order to move that the clause be introduced into the Land Purchase Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: As the Committee stage has now been closed, I cannot give an opinion before the question is raised as a point of order on the Land Bill itself.

  IRISH RELIEF WORKS.
  MR. STACK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a number of men in want of food were registered on the 23rd of March last for employment on the relief works in the parish of Glengariff, County Cork, but have not yet been taken on; why inquiries addressed to the Under Secretary on the subject have remained unanswered; and whether prompt measures will now be taken to mitigate the great distress in the parish of Glengariff by affording this employment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A list of applicants for employment on relief works in the districts mentioned was received, and the circumstances investigated, with the result that instructions have been now issued to the supervisor of works to employ those who have been found eligible. It does not appear to be the case that communications addressed to the Under Secretary on the subject have remained unanswered. On the contrary, all such received were duly replied to, and otherwise obtained prompt attention.
  MR. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, if any, and what arrangements have been made with a view of commencing relief works in Clonbur and Cong to relieve the starving people in those districts; and whether, after repeated representations by the Clifden Board of Guardians as to the distress which exists in Enislannan, and the promise made by the Government that relief works would be commenced to relieve such distress, the Government will at once make the necessary arrangements to carry out such work as promised?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Relief works have been opened in each of the districts mentioned, and the question of what further measures shall be taken is now under consideration.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any approximate estimate has been made by the Department of the number of schools to whom the grant under Article 105 of the Code will be payable during the year ending 30th August next; and if he will state the number?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): It was roughly estimated, when the new Code was in preparation, that about 4,500 schools might receive the additional grant under Article 105, but, so far as we can judge, the estimate may not be fully realised.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention

  1313
  has been called to the following report which appeared in the Daily News of the 20th instant:—
  "At the Bedford Division Police Court on Saturday, a labourer named Wallinger was sentenced to three months' hard labour for stealing four mangold wurzels, value threepence;"
  and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case, and consider whether some diminution of the sentence might be accorded?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The Secretary of State's attention has been called to a newspaper report of this case, and he has caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances.

  THE PORTUGUESE IN AFRICA.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information regarding the reported attack on Major Johnston's expedition by a Portuguese force on the Pungwé River; whether he has yet received details of the reported outrage by the Portuguese on the same river on Sir John Willoughby's expedition; whether he has yet received details regarding the seizure of the British steamer Countess of Carnarvon by the Portuguese on the Limpopo River; and whether ho proposes to lay Papers on all or any of these occurrences before the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,) (for Sir J. FERGUSSON): We have received no information as to any expedition having been taken by Major Johnston up the Pungwé River. The reported hostilities (as to which numerous reports, but no reliable information has been received) appear to have taken place beyond Massi - Kessi. A Report has been received from Sir John Willoughby respecting the stoppage at Beira of his expedition, and it is being considered. Meanwhile, the vessels and lighters detained have been released; the Agnes has gone up the Pungwé, but the expedition has been detained at Mopanda as a precautionary measure, in view of the reported hostilities by the British authorities acting with the Portuguese Governor. Reports as to the seizure of the Countess of Carnarvon have been received, but they are incom-
  1314
  plete, as the proceedings of the Court at Lorenzo Marques have not reached us. Meanwhile, she has been released on the Vice Consul undertaking that the owners will abide by the decision of the two Governments. In the present incomplete state of information it is not proposed to lay Papers.

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  MR. T. ROBINSON: I had intended to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce a Bill this Session to alter the date of the next County Council elections; if so, when he expects to be able to introduce it; and on what date does he propose they should be held; and whether he has considered the desirability of permanently fixing them to take place in the month of March, when the electors could record their votes during daylight, instead of the 1st of November? When I gave notice of the question I was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman had already answered a somewhat similar question. I am satisfied with the answer which he gave, but I should like to have his opinion as to the desirability of permanently fixing the elections.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): Does the hon. Gentleman mean with regard to the date?
  MR. T. ROBINSON: I wish to know whether the date is to be permanently fixed to take place in March?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is to be permanent, and not temporary.

  CLERK OF ENROLMENTS.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the vacancy, caused by the death of Lord Romilly, in the office of Clerk of the Emoluments; and whether he will consider the advisability of not making a fresh appointment, on the ground that the office is now a sinecure?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Clerk of Enrolments, which is, I presume, the office intended to be referred to, is abolished under the terms of the Supreme Court of Judicature Officers' Act of 1869.

MOTION.

  SEAL FISHERY (BEHRING SEA) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Henry Smith, Bill to enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make special provision for prohibiting the catching of Seals in Behring Sea by Her Majesty's subjects during the period named in the Order, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Sir James Fergusson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 345.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 297.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I feel it my duty to take the sense of the Committee on the question whether any further progress ought to be made with the Bill to-day. There are two grounds for the course which I am taking—one a constitutional ground, and the other a ground affecting the pledges of the First Lord of the Treasury. I will deal with the constitutional ground first. I object to proceed with a measure which imposes the taxation of the year without disclosing in what manner that taxation is to be spent. The question was fully raised last year on two Bills which were then before the House, and the House determined that it would not proceed with the consideration of a Money Bill until it had before it the manner and the conditions on which the money was to be spent. I know there is this difference between the procedure of last year and this—that this year no new tax is proposed, but only the continuance of an old tax at a rate which would not be necessary except for new expenditure, which would not form part of the expenditure of last year. In November the Queen's Speech stated that the Bill relating to education was to be one of the prominent measures of the year. In the Budget Statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer printed, the right hon. Gentleman put down £920,000 for
    1316
    six months' expenditure in the cause of free or assisted education; and somehow or other, by some error which has never been fully explained, the words "Consolidated Fund" were printed in juxtaposition with the sum named, it being thereby indicated to the House that the Government did not mean this money to form part of the annual expenditure controlled by Parliament, but that it was to be a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund, with which it would not be in the power of the House of Commons to interfere.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to misrepresent me. We never contemplated that the charge for education should be put upon the Consolidated Fund.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should be sorry to misrepresent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I must express my great satisfaction at hearing the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that there was some ground for the impression, seeing that the printed statement relating to the Budget contained the words "Consolidated Fund." I am, therefore, glad that the matter is now disposed of; but it does not affect my statement as to the control of the House of Commons over the Expenditure. If the Government did not propose to increase the Expenditure of this country by £2,000,000 per annum for the purpose of education, there would be no necessity for paying an Income Tax at 6d. in the £1 and a Tea Duty at 4d. The Bill in its present shape is not required unless a new expenditure on new conditions is to be undertaken. The House has a right to know what those conditions are. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated his proposals on the 23rd of April; we have now reached the 29th of May, and we are still in the dark as to what the Government are going to do. In these circumstances, the House is justified in declining to go on with this Bill until the Education Bill is brought in. I am not asking that this Bill should be delayed until the new Education Bill is read a second time, or is passed through Committee, or sent to the other

    1317
    House; what I do ask is that the Government should let the House know what their propositions are and what they intend to do. A great scheme of education has been in satisfactory operation for upwards of 21 years, and it is now wisely proposed to expand it. The proposal of the Government is to confer upon the country the benefits of free education, though with regard to that I must say the House has not had any clear expression, one Minister speaking of free, another of assisted, education, one train of thought leading people to believe that it is to be universal, another that it is to be limited. We are now within two months of the end of the Session, and what is a first-class Bill has not yet been laid upon the Table of the House. Ample time should be given not only to the House, but to the country, to consider the Bill, and it is necessary that both the clergy and the Nonconformists, who are deeply interested in the question of education, should' have an opportunity of studying it. I am sure the Government would not desire to take the country by surprise. But if the Government are to introduce a first-class measure in the middle of the month of June—for that is the proposition of the First Lord of the Treasury—and a measure which is not to be considered until the Land Bill is out of the way, I say that that would be taking the country by surprise. On these grounds, if I had no other, I should be justified in asking to report Progress. But I have other and more personal grounds in the statements the Government have made. I would be the last man to imply that the Government have misled the House. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that whatever promises the First Lord of the Treasury had made would be rigidly adhered to. Let me recall what has been actually said on this question on the Budget night. The first question was as to when the House was to know the proposals of the Government with reference to free education. These were the words of the right hon. Gentleman's reply—I am quoting from the report of the Times—
    "As to when we may be able to introduce the Bill, that will depend to a great extent upon the House itself. The Government would see what progress was made with the
    1318
    Land Bill. There would be no delay on the part of the Government in introducing the Bill."
    And in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) the First Lord of the Treasury said that—
    "The Government had no intention of tying up the Education Bill until the Land Bill should be out of the way."
    But the statement last night was that it is to be tied up until the Land Bill is out of the way. The Land Bill is now at the Report stage, and after that it will be read a third time without delay. The First Lord went on to say that it is necessary to make progress with other measures. Certainly; we have six weeks to do so, and we have passed through Committee one of the most difficult and complicated measures which have ever been passed through Parliament. There has been talk of obstruction; but, considering the grave difficulties of that Bill and the masterly ability shown in its discussion by the Chief Secretary and the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), it has been got through in a much shorter time than any Bill of equal complexity has been passed in the last 10 years. And now the First Lord of the Treasury says that the new Education Bill will be brought in in the middle of June, and passed through at the end of July. In these circumstances, I think I am justified in moving that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman objects to proceeding with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill until the House has seen the Bill dealing with education. I gather from what was said by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) a day or two ago that he questions the right of the House to deal with the Third Reading of this Bill until it has seen the Education Bill. To that suggestion I am prepared to accede. But, acknowledging some force in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the allocation of

    1319
    the public time, I am by no means anxious to force this Bill through until the House has seen the Education Bill. I should still wish that the Government should be allowed to pass the Bill through its Committee stage, and in that case we would not proceed to the Third Reading until the House has seen the Education Bill. But I would go further and say that rather than lose time, which we are most anxious to save, in discussion about the particular day on which the Education Bill shall be introduced, and in order to avoid a wrangle, I will accept the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see that I have met his suggestion in the most conciliatory spirit. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members think there is some hesitation on the part of the Government in bringing in a Bill for free education at all. In that case, then, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would have been most embarrassing. But there is no such hesitation. With regard to the date when the Bill is to be dealt with, it is no doubt a first-class measure, but it could not be introduced at so early a day as first-class measures are usually introduced. The Bill depends, as the Committee is aware, to a great extent on whether there is to be a surplus or not. It was always announced that it would depend upon the existence of a surplus, and that fact could not be ascertained until the Budget was passed. It is, therefore, clear that the Bill could not be introduced before the end of the financial year. My right hon. Friend will be prepared on Monday next to state the precise date on which the Education Bill will be introduced, and we will endeavour to meet the desire of the House to have a proper interval before the Second Reading of the Bill is taken. It would not, however, be desirable to interrupt the Land Bill for a number of nights; and it is to be expected that the Debate on the introduction of the Education Bill will not be prolonged. Our action must largely depend on the assurances we receive as to the Land Bill proceeding without serious interruption. I think that is a fair suggestion to make. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that we need not expect opposition to the First Reading—that what
    1320
    is desired is to see the Bill. We are somewhat reluctant to arrest the Land Purchase Bill, but as we feel the Bill will not be seriously interrupted, we are ready to meet both sides of the House and introduce the Education Bill even before the Land Bill has been disposed of. I think I have met the proposal of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton in a fair spirit, and I trust that we shall be able now to make considerable progress with Supply. We had some hope yesterday, when we made a concession, that we should make some considerable progress with business. We got one Vote. It was an important Vote, but it was only one. I hope that we may to-day be met in a conciliatory spirit.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met my right hon. Friend in a very handsome manner, and I think he has done so because he feels that my right hon. Friend's proposal was based on a genuine conviction on his own part and on the part of those who sit beside him. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed not to proceed to-day if he is pressed on this side of the House—not to proceed to-day with the Committee on the Bill. Well, I think he must be pressed from this side of the House. We conceive that by so pressing him we are endeavouring to establish the constitutional position that we should not vote public money until we know the general outline of the Services for which that public money is designed. The right hon. Gentleman hopes that substantial progress will be made with Supply in consequence of his treatment of this matter. I think that progress ought to be made, and I will only say, in explanation of the length of the Debate yesterday, that that was really the first opportunity which the crofter Members—that is to say, the Members for nearly half Scotland in acreage—had had of saying anything on the one great subject in which their constituents are interested, because the Government recently were obliged to take the evening on which the crofter questions were to have been discussed. Now, I think it would be extremely ungracious to question that when the First Lord of the Treasury engages to fix the precise date at which he will introduce the Education

    1321
    Bill, that date will be a not very remote one. I consider the word "precise" means that it will be a declaration which will satisfy the House with regard to the proximity of the discussion, and I was very glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimate that the Bill might be, and would be, introduced during the Report of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, especially if that Report went on for any number of days. An engagement was asked for on this side of the House, and I think the Government will feel that no one can give an absolute engagement that the discussion on the First Reading of the Education Bill shall be short. For my own part, I am always in favour of short Debates and short speeches, and I firmly believe that if the Bill put before the House is a plain, straightforward Bill we might, in the course of a single long evening, put before the country an outline of our plans upon the Bill such as would enable the country to be enlightened, so far as it can be enlightened, by speeches in Parliament. But if one evening would not suffice, two evenings ought to suffice for the purpose; and I do not think that in the last resort any one would say that two evenings would be too much for the First Reading of what may be the most interesting and important Bill the House has had before it for years. But we on this Bench will use our best endeavours to meet the Government reasonably, and to cut down the Debate.
    MR. BRYCE: I should like to ask a question with regard to the Scotch Bill. There will be a grant to Scotland corresponding in amount with that which is to be made to England, and it was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before Whitsuntide that it would be impossible to state the nature of the proposals with regard to Scotland until the Free Education Bill was before the House. I hope I was right in gathering from that that he proposed to make a parallel statement with regard to the Scotch Bill at the same time as he made one with regard to the Irish Bill. I would ask the Government whether we may rely upon it that, assuming that the Education Bill is brought in, either a Bill will be introduced or a statement made on the subject? It is understood that the Government have had brought before them a
    1322
    number of different proposals with regard to the Scotch grants. That is a matter which has excited a good deal of different opinion in Scotland, and it is eminently desirable that the same opportunity should be given for Scotch opinion to be expressed as exists for the expression of English opinion.
    MR. SEXTON: I understand that on Monday we shall know whether the Report of the Land Purchase Bill will be interrupted. I suppose a statement will then be made as to what is to be done with regard to the appropriation of Ireland's share of the grant?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot allow myself to be too much impressed with the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) in this matter. We must not attempt to prove to the House the difficulty to which we shall expose ourselves if we interrupt the Land Purchase Bill Report to make a statement about business. If we are to have a Debate on the distribution of the Scotch and Irish proportion of the grant, it will be impossible for us to deal with the matter at all, or to make a statement, until the Report on the Irish Land Purchase Bill has been finished. We have gone as far as we can, and I cannot at present undertake that anything further shall be done than to introduce the English Education Bill, and I think hon. Members will see that if we are pressed too much we shall have to adhere to our original plan.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has a little misunderstood the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce). I sympathise with my hon. Friend in thinking that, as there is a large sum of money to be disposed of in Scotland, the Scotch people should have ample time to consider what the proposal with regard to Scotland is, but I do not think my hon. Friend would consider that any Debate upon the subject should be interposed on the Report stage of the Purchase Bill. We want to know as soon as possible what fate the Government has in store for us; but I do not think the claim is anything like as strong for a Debate on that subject as on the subject of English education. If I may be allowed to express what I think is

    1323
    still felt in this House I may say that if the Government introduce the Education Bill as soon as possible I do not see that there would be any occasion for any very elaborate Debate on the First Reading, and the Government may rely upon it that no unreasonable advantage would be taken of their action.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I think there should be a full understanding on this subject. I know that no hon. or right hon. Gentleman is able to enter into an absolute agreement that the Debate on the First Reading of the Education Bill shall not be continued beyond one night. It is contrary, I believe, to Parliamentary usage that a long Debate should take place at that stage, and I think I may fairly ask the House that there should be an understanding that they will not protract discussion beyond one evening.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I only interpose for one moment to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury for the manner in which they have met me. I would remind them that on the introduction of one of the most important measures of recent times—the Local Government Bill—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) deprecated discussion until the measure itself was in the hands of Members. Although there must be some discursive discussion on the introduction of the Free Education Bill, as there is on a Budget night, I certainly express my concurrence in the views of my right hon. Friend, that one night would be sufficient to discuss the speech of the statesman who brings in the Bill. Under these circumstances I think the Government have come to a very satisfactory arrangement. We must ask that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not proceed further with the Budget Bill to-night.
    MR. SEXTON: We do not intend to debate the announcement of the proposal with regard to Ireland. We shall certainly wish to know what the Government proposals are respecting Ireland. We are disappointed at not having had this information, and shall take means to make our disappointment felt.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I think we have a fair claim to get some answer from the Treasury Bench as to how the Scotch share of the money is to be disposed of.
    MR. PICTON: The Government seem to think that under any circumstances there is only to be one night of discussion on the introduction of the Bill, whatever the statement may be. But if there is anything very startling or horrifying in the statement of the Minister who introduces it, on this side of the House we cannot guarantee passing the First Reading in one night.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I think I can allay the terrible alarm of the hon. Member; his fears are not likely to be realised. For my own part I know that my hon. Friends behind me are equally anxious to see the measure, and there will be no delay in naming a day, when I trust that the House will deal with the Bill as it is accustomed to deal with a question of this kind
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES BILL.—(No. 252.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Perhaps I may may be allowed to say just a few words in explanation of this Bill. It is a very simple one, dealing with one or two small reforms which I think will be acceptable to the House. In the first place, it proposes to give us power to abolish the office of Receiver General, this having become possible by reason of the vacancy created by the death of Sir A. Slade. It has been thought that the time has now arrived to make the system in the Inland Revenue the same as that which prevails in the Post Office and the Customs Department. The result will be a saving of £l,500 a year. Clause 2 deals with Appropriations in Aid. Up to 1881 the system of dealing with extra receipts was not uniform in the various departments, and the Public Accounts Committee had been for some time calling attention to the fact. In 1881 a Treasury

  1325
  Minute with regard to Appropriations in Aid with regard to the Army and the Navy was considered by the Public Accounts Committee and adopted. Since that time there has been a considerable step taken in the direction of using these extra receipts and appropriations by way of reduction of the Estimates rather than paying them into the Exchequer and dealing with the money twice over. There is now no statutory authority on the Controller and Auditor General to audit these accounts, and, though he does so, it is thought desirable to settle the matter by imposing the duty upon him. The Bill also proposes to make a slight alteration in the adjustment of certain annuities which is consequent on the conversion of the National Debt. Clause 4 gives power to deal with the money for the light railways in Ireland. The House will remember that power was given to the Treasury to spend £600,000 as a capital sum under the Act of 1889, or an equivalent sum in Annuities. Power was also given under the Act of 1889 to spend the balance of £40,000 a year given under the Act of 1883. The balance remaining can only be used in the form of Perpetual Annuities. The Government are of opinion that in contributing, as they are doing, towards the capital cost of these railways that capital cost ought not to be contributed in the form of Perpetual Annuities, but that there should be power to pay either a capital sum out of the loan or to allow Terminable Annuities not exceeding 10 years, and in that way shorten the period during which the whole of the capital contributed by the Government will be paid. I think the House will approve of that. The other portion of the Bill practically abolishes the preachership of the Rolls Chapel. It has been found necessary either to pull down or seriously alter the Rolls Chapel, and therefore it is proposed in this form to abolish the preacher-ship, which is worth some £200 a year, payable out of the Consolidated Fund. I hope I have sufficiently explained the provisions of the Bill, and will now move its Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to make a few remarks on this Bill. The mandate to the House is to amend certain provisions of the law with respect to charges on the Consolidated Fund. That is a large and vague order, and may, perhaps, justify the irrelevancy of the subjects the Bill deals with. Practically the proposal of the Bill comes to this, that we are substituting a capital sum for certain annual sums of £20,000 and £40,000, which appears to me to involve a capital sum not of £600,000 as stated in the Bill, but of £666,666.
  MR. JACKSON: No.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I think it does; at any rate, that is how I read the Act. There are in all five or six distinct proposals, including one to disestablish and disendow a fragment of the Church of England. I do not object to that proposal, but I propose to add to the miscellaneous contents of the Bill myself. I desire to move, either by way of Amendment or by way of Instruction to the Committee, that certain other charges shall be taken off the Consolidated Fund —namely, the charges relating to the inferior order of Judges in Scotland, in England, and in Ireland. If such a proposal is not relevant to the Bill, I protest against the present contents of the Bill, on the ground that if they are held relevant it would be giving power to the Government to do that which a private Member is not allowed to do. I am not going to oppose the Bill I have risen simply for the purpose of getting a position for myself in respect of the Amendment I propose to move.
  MR. ROBY: I do not rise in opposition to this Bill, but to elicit some information relative to the 5th clause. I have searched in the financial accounts of last year to see how this sum is expended, but I have been unsuccessful. I observe that Clause 5 proposes to discontinue on the next vacancy the preachership. I want to know what is to become of the readership and the other offices. I should have rather expected—possibly that is still to come—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an old Oxford man, would have shed a tear, perhaps even have pronounced a funeral eulogium

  1327
  upon the preachership of the Rolls Chapel, remembering as he will the famous sermons of Bishop Butler, and remembering also a recent occupant of the office, Mr. Brewer, one of the most able and learned historians of England in my time. If there is no congregation, and the chapel requires to be removed, then I think this is a very desirable and useful reform, though I regret the loss of an ancient office and the abolition of what might have almost had a place among the list of ancient monuments.
  MR. SEXTON: I would point out on the financial question, that the Treasury ask power to limit the capital sum to £600,000, which reduces the annual sum accordingly. They will take the whole balance by way of a capital sum; and such a financial arrangement, sanctioned by Parliament, is not open to serious question.
  MR. COURTNEY: If the chapel is to be pulled down, there is one special question I would like to ask. It is whether some special care will be taken of the beautiful monument erected in the chapel in the reign of Henry VII., one of the finest monuments of the early part of the 15th century. If the skill of Bishop Butler s not strong enough to preserve the chapel, at all events let us preserve that little monument against harm.
  MR. JACKSON: I believe the readership and the preacher ship have been united for some time, so that the one office will be abolished with the other, and inasmuch as the charge is on the Consolidated Fund, legislation is required. I stated that the chapel was to be pulled down, but in doing so I was looking a little into the future. Anyone who is acquainted with the enormous growth of requirements upon the Rolls Office must know that eventually the chapel will have to be pulled down; but it is true that there is a tender regard for the ancient structure, and the interesting monument to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. For the present the chapel is to remain, and passages and communications will be so arranged and dovetailed that the necessity for pulling down the chapel will be avoided.
  MR. CRAIGOn referring to Sub-section 1 of Clause 4, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee that the sum required is £666,000.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS I.
    1. £135,770, to complete the sum for the Surveys of the United Kingdom.
    MR. ROBY: I rise to continue the remarks which I began on the 6th of April, and which were interrupted at midnight. I wish, in the first place, to say that I do not in any way reflect on the officers of the Ordnance Survey. I believe the survey has been conducted with great ability and excellence, and I desire not to be understood as throwing any blame on the Department. Nor is this in any respect a Party matter; it is one on which I hope Members on both sides of the House will make common cause. I can assure the Minister of Agriculture who has charge of this Department, that I have not the smallest desire to say anything against his conduct of the business. I believe he will agree with me in saying that this survey ought to be carried out more speedily. The real fault is, as is generally the case, with the Treasury, the money appropriated not being adequate for the work that is to be done. It will be known to many Members that the survey comprehends three principal distinct publications. The most important is the survey of the country on the scale of 25 inches to the mile, the next six inches to the mile, and the next one inch to the mile, besides some very large surveys of towns. The 25 inch survey constitutes practically the parish plans. I find that the whole of England has been published on that scale, with the exception of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Part of Scotland has been published on it, but at present very little of Ireland, and the survey there is now proceeding. The survey itself on the 25 inch scale has been carried on since

    1329
    the year 1862–30 years. As to the six inch survey it is that on which a a map of the whole of England and Scotland and Ireland has been published. But the survey is still older. It began in 1842, and went on to about 1854. Consequently we have 25 inch survey, which is the root of the whole, reduced to six inch, and then to one inch, in a period reaching over 30 years. The six inch survey reaches up to 50 years, and hardly any of it is less than 35 years. Now we come to that which is regarded by many people as the Ordnance Survey, namely, the one inch, and it is upon that I wish particularly to speak. It is the only one which comes within the ordinary notions of a map for military or general purposes. Indeed, the origin of the whole survey arose from the necessity of making military roads in Scotland, after the rebellion of 1745. After being stopped for a time at the beginning of the century, it was pushed forward at the desire of gentlemen in Lincoln who wanted a good hunting map. I hope that will win the sympathy of the Minister of Agriculture. Well, now, the first publication of the English survey began in 1801, and was finished in 1870. The maps which we have at present of Lancashire and Yorkshire rest upon the survey of from 35 to 50 years. These counties have changed in the course of that time, and I cannot help thinking it an extraordinary thing that it should be left to me in the year 1891 to plead for more rapidity in the publication of the survey of these two counties. I find from the Director General's Report that at the present time the maps of half of England are based upon the old survey. I do not know whether many hon. Members have looked at the publications of the Ordnance Survey. These are now published in two ways; in outline or with contour lines, and with hill-shading. It is sometimes said that outline maps are more popular than hill-shaded maps, but I believe that the real reason of the greater popularity of the former is that they are generally of later date. I have been in the habit of frequently using both, and undoubtedly, for all practical purposes, the hill-shaded maps are the best. For ordinary persons a map with hill-shading is the only map
    1330
    that realises their idea of what a map should be. Yet only one-fifth of the maps of the new series have hill-shading. Now, there is the old series of maps going back to 1801, while of the new series only one-fifth have been published with hill-shading, and of those the great bulk are of the 6in. survey. If any one examines the maps attached to the Director General's Report, he will see that the hill-shading is hardly to be found anywhere except in the Northern Counties maps. The Director General reckons that the new series of 1in. maps will not be completed before 1925, or, on the average, 55 years after the survey was made. It has often been urged that strenuous efforts should be made to expedite the work, and in 1882 the Treasury in a Minute "recognised the necessity of a revision of the survey, which should be constantly in progress at such a rate that the whole would be completed in 15 years at least." Before I knew of this, my feeling was that 20 years might be a reasonable limit; yet the Treasury in 1882 said 15, and the Director General, in his last Report, admits that at the present rate of progress the series will not be completed till 1925. When, on 22nd December, 1886, the Treasury issued an Instruction on the subject it took care to add a cautious Memorandum, and to insist "it should be clearly understood, with reference to the revision of the survey, that it did not bind itself to any fixed term for its completion, or to supply any fixed annual sum for executing the work." In other words, having come to a certain resolution, they intimated that they would give no effect to it. It is a curious fact that that Memorandum was issued just at the time when a right hon. Gentleman, who is now surveying Africa, described himself as appalled by the magnitude of the Estimates for the Army and Navy. Was he frightened by the word "Ordnance"? The Director General, in an article contributed to a magazine, recently explained that the revision of the survey had unfortunately fallen so much in arrear that in many places revision really meant a new survey. Those who wish to learn something about the topography of Leeds and its environs can only do so by taking two maps, repre-

    1331
    senting the survey of 1853, and two others representing the survey of 1843, and these maps are of different sizes. The plates from which the maps were printed are much worn; the hills have almost vanished, and the rivers are disappearing rapidly. Indeed, the maps will be worth keeping as a curiosity, because they will show what was considered to be an adequate representation of the English country towards the end of the 19th century. The question of revision is simply a question of money. It is almost impossible for the Survey Department with its present staff to cope with the arrears that have accumulated. When once the arrears have been cleared off, it would become simply a matter of revision. I would suggest to the Government that the Survey Department should be divided into two parts— one to undertake the revision of the survey, and the other for the maintenance of the survey. Of course, it would be necessary to increase the staff, in order to bring up the survey to a reasonable date. The Director General reports that for this work a military organisation is much more satisfactory than a civil one. May I point out it always has been a military organisation? The heads of the Department are officers of the Royal Engineers, who hold their appointments for five years only. I think that they ought to continue at the work for a longer period, instead of being removed just when they have thoroughly mastered their duties. A large number of civil servants are employed, but they obviously hold inferior positions, seeing that in the Estimate they are all lumped together under one head at wages of 25s. a week. I do not profess to be able to give a confident opinion as to the desirability of a change in this respect, beyond urging that the officers' period of service should not be limited to five years. That would ensure a more permanent staff. I am told that the officers do not care for the work. Mr. H. T. Crook, the Civil Engineer of Manchester, to whom, as I said before, I am so much indebted, writes to me—
    "The major portion of the work is now in no sense military, and I know of Royal Engineer officers who have resigned their survey appointments on that ground."
    1332
    I commend that matter to the attention of the Government. Nobody could desire less than I do to cast a slur on the Engineers, but the Government might consider the conditions on which these appointments are held. It is sometimes said that the delay in issuing hill-shaded maps is due to the difficulty in finding a sufficient number of persons trained to do the hill shading. I do not agree with that. Another point I have to urge is that the convenience of the public would be greatly served if the three or four sheets which a person wishing to become acquainted with the topography of an important locality, such, for instance, as Manchester, Bradford, or Leeds, or any tourist district, is now in many cases compelled to procure, could be reduced to one by a photographic process. Another essential thing is that on every sheet the date of the publication and the date of the survey should invariably be put. It seems to me to be a matter of sheer honesty and of necessary information for the purchaser that these particulars should be given on a map published by the Government. There is only one other matter on which I think I must detain the Committee. In the two last Reports there has been a chapter repeated in identical terms on the utilisation of the survey. The Director General complains that though in Ireland the survey is recognised by Act of Parliament as of authority, it is not so recognised in England. If we go to the expense of making a survey, it ought to be recognised as of authority. The greater the authority attached to it the better will the work be done. I believe it is excellently done now; but my point is that the maps should be kept lip to the mark continually. They should be useful maps of the country, as people know it and see it. I will not move the reduction of the Vote, because I want to see the money spent upon the survey increased by half as much again. I only commend these remarks to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, and trust he will use his best exertions to signalise his advent to office by taking the requisite steps to secure thoroughly trustworthy maps.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think we are under the greatest obligation to my hon. Friend for having brought this subject so clearly before the House. Accustomed as I am to countries more civilised in this respect, I am rather astonished that we have nothing better than this barbarous, out-of-date, military survey. In France and in most European countries they have the survey kept up to date. In India the surveys are incomparably ahead of the surveys in this country—so far ahead that is impossible to compare the two—and the shading is admirable. I have often been surprised at the perfection of the surveys, even of those portions of that vast country only reached by sportsmen or explorers. It is wonderful, but in my own country I find nothing of the kind. Here in one of the most cultivated and civilised places in the world we have nothing but the old survey. It is a disgrace to the country that we should not have decent maps. Coming from India, where I was accustomed to those complete surveys, and having some property to deal with, I wanted to make use of the maps, but I found I could obtain nothing to answer any purpose, and we were obliged to survey our own property. It is absolutely impossible to have a proper system of land registration or land transfer unless there is a proper system of land survey. I hope the Government will say that they are determined to correct the evils of the present system, and to have a survey which shall be complete and adequate.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I happen to represent a part of the country which is extremely badly off in this respect. In the County of Somerset our 1in. survey is between 80 and 90 years old. The consequence is that the maps are practically useless, and there is this further aggravation—that in the greater part of that county the 6in. survey has been completed and published for some years. Surely it is not beyond the power of the Department to quicken the reduction of the 6in. survey into the 1in. The other day I asked a question with regard to the establishment of an office in London where these maps can be consulted by persons in the Public Service. It seems a pity when one wants to con-
    1334
    sult them that they have to be sent for from Southampton. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now be able to give me some satisfactory assurances on this point.
    MR. BARTLEY: wish to endorse every word which has fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite on this subject. The same complaints were made when I first had to do with this particular branch of the Public Service. I think the secret of the delay is to be found in the fact that the work is left in the hands of military officers under the present conditions. The Engineers are excellent for their proper purpose, but they remain only a short time at the work, and then they go to something else. The consequence is, the survey is not carried on as rapidly as it should be, for fresh officers have to learn the duties continually. It would pay much better as a commercial speculation if the work were pushed on with greater rapidity. Thirty years ago a Treasury Minute was issued that the survey then in progress should be completed with much greater rapidity, and an increase of the staff was agreed to, but I do not think that the increase of the staff has led to a proportionate increase in the rapidity of the survey. I think the time has come when the work should be put into the hands of a permanent staff, and that the maps should be continually revised and kept up to date.
    MR. MORTON: I quite agree that the survey ought to be made as complete as possible, and that we ought not to grudge any necessary expenditure. I, however, wish to receive some information with regard to the account before the Committee. I notice that the estimated expenditure this year is £215,770, exactly the same as that of last year. Although there are reductions, the expenditure in the two years is the same. Perhaps we may receive some explanation of this remarkable circumstance. Then, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why all these Major-Generals, Lieutenant-Colonels, and Majors are required in this service. I have never seen these gentlemen do any work: it is only the noncommissioned officers who do the

    1335
    work, and I desire to know, therefore, why we are called upon to pay these Major-Generals, Lieutenant-Colonels, and Majors?
    MR. MALLOCK: My complaint is not that the country is not even never re-surveyed, but that when the survey has been made the maps are not published for a long time afterwards. Maps relating to some parts of Devonshire were published 30 years ago. They were revised some five or six or seven years since. I have tried two or three times to get the revised maps at Stanford's, and have always been told they are not yet published. It seems that if the heavy part of the work, namely, the survey, has been done, it is advisable the map should be published as soon as possible. The population of the particular part of Devonshire I am speaking of has increased enormously during the last 30 years, and it is clear there must have been great alteration in the towns of that district. It is very necessary, therefore, that the maps should be published at once.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I have listened with great interest and attention to the speeches made on this subject, more particularly that made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roby), who introduced the question, and who evidently spoke after the most careful study of the subject. It is not very long since the Ordnance Survey has been placed under the control of the Department over which I have the honour to preside, but we have had some opportunity of gaining information on the subject. The hon. Gentleman appealed to me to take such action as may be in my power to give effect to the views he has laid before the Committee, and I am bound to admit there is great force in many of the hon. Member's statements, and I assure him there will be no lack of endeavour on my part to bring about such changes as may be desirable in the conduct of the Survey Department, and to effect some, if not all, of the improvements he desires. In the first place, let me notice some of the minor matters to which the hon. Member drew
    1336
    attention. He raised the question of the military element, which occupies so prominent a position in the Staff Department under which all these operations are conducted, and my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) seemed to think that some of the deficiencies and shortcomings which are complained of are due more or less to the fact that there is so large a military element in the staff of the Department. With all respect to the hon. Gentlemen, I must say I hold an exactly opposite opinion. From the inquiries I have been able to make, and from personal inspection of the Department, I am convinced that it is not possible that any Department could be more admirably conducted than the Ordnance Survey is at present, considering the means at its disposal, and I attribute this, whether rightly or wrongly, very largely to the large employment of the military element.
    MR. BARTLEY: I should not like to be misunderstood. I did not object to the military element as a military element. I took exception to the system of temporary employment—five years— under which the men are constantly changed, and to which I thought was, to a great extent, to be attributed the slow progress which was made with the work.
    MR. CHAPLIN: So far as I am aware the changes are not so frequent as the hon. Member seems to imagine, and if there is a deficiency at all in the work I am afraid it must be traced to the deficiency of funds at the disposal of the Department. The hon. Member for Eccles went on to ask for a reduction of the size of the maps for the convenience of travellers and others.
    MR. ROBY: What I asked for was such a reduction from three or four maps as might make one convenient map.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I did not quite gather that.
    MR. ROBY: I do not want a smaller scale than the 1-inch. Take the case of Leeds and the district around. Instead of having a map with Leeds in the south west corner, and three other maps with the district around, I should like one map of convenient size, with Leeds in the middle.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the correction. I am not aware of any reason why what he suggests should not be carried out. I cannot pledge myself that it shall be done, but, at all events, I can promise that the matter shall receive my careful consideration. Then he suggested that on every map that was newly published the date of publication should be printed.
    MR. ROBY: And the date of the survey.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Yes; well there again I cannot give a pledge on the subject but I see, myself, no objection to the proposal. Now I come to the question of the utilisation of the maps of the Ordnance Survey. No doubt, we are all agreed that an enormous amount of money has been spent in the production of the maps which are issued by the Ordnance Survey Department, which production has now extended over a great number of years. It is eminently desirable that those maps should be brought into the widest use. I am of opinion that probably this might be brought about by a re-consideration of the mode in which the maps are sold at the present time. I do not wish to convey to the House that I have formed a final or decided opinion on the subject, but it is a matter which is receiving the most careful attention of the Department, and in that direction I myself look for the wider circulation and use of these maps than could be obtained in any other direction. The hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) asked whether it was not possible that some convenient place might be found in London where Ordnance Survey maps might be deposited and where they would be available for the inspection, either of the general public or the officials of Public Departments. I hope to be able to make a satisfactory arrangement of that kind, and within a very short period. I may inform the Committee that some extension of the offices of the Board of Agriculture is being arranged, the present accommodation being very insufficient, and as soon as some portion of the Department is enabled to be moved into the new building I see my way at once to the establishment of a place where the maps will be open to public inspection,
    1338
    in a way which I hope will fully meet the views of the hon. Member. As to the more important questions raised by the hon. Member in the speech with which he opened this discussion, I wish, in the first place, to make some few observations with regard to the revision of maps. I may, perhaps, state what is the work on which the Ordnance Survey Department is engaged at the present moment. We are now surveying Lancashire and Yorkshire on the 25-inch scale, all the various towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire on the 10-feet scale, Ireland on the 25-inch scale, the new parts of London on the 5-feet scale, whilst maps are being made of the new parts of Plymouth on the 10-feet scale. I do not think the Committee, considering the amount of the Estimates, will be of opinion that full value is being received for the money which is being expended.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is being done in Scotland?
    MR. CHAPLIN: I will deal with that presently. Everybody must admit that it is very desirable that the Ordnance Survey maps, on which so much money has been expended, should be revised at such intervals as will make them of real use. At present many of the maps have gone for a much longer period than the 15 years which it is considered ought to be the limit without revision. That, of course, destroys to a large extent the use of these maps. On the other hand, I have to draw the attention of the Committee to this somewhat serious consideration, that it would cost an extremely large amount to bring about a complete revision within a comparatively small number of years. We are at present spending £215,000 a year, but to complete a system of revision under which no survey should be more than 15 years old, would mean a very large expenditure. It has been estimated that if we were to do this and complete it within the next 10 years, it would involve an addition to the Estimates of at least £55,000 a year. I do not say it would be necessary or desirable, in the first instance, to spend so large an additional sum as that, because it takes a long time to obtain the necessary staff; and it would be impossible within two or three years to

    1339
    obtain a sufficient and effective staff to deal with so large an addition with advantage. A good deal might, I think, be done by a much smaller outlay than that to begin with. To carry out a system such as that pointed out by the hon. Member, and which would ensure that for the future, at the expiration of a period of 10 years, the survey should not go on longer than 15 years without revision, would involve an expenditure of something like £500,000. No doubt it would be extremely advantageous that this should be done. But if the whole is impossible, I think something might be done on a somewhat smaller scale. At any rate, the hon. Member may rely on it that the matter is receiving my attention, and, as far as it is in my power to bring about adequate improvements, I shall be glad to do all I can on the question. Coming to the next point, the statements of the hon. Member with regard to the 1-inch maps, which are deficient in hill shading, are perfectly correct. It is contemplated that the 1-inch map of Scotland will be completed in 1893, and that of Ireland in 1894; but it is perfectly true that in England it is not in contemplation that they will be completed until the year 1925. It is, however, I think, exceedingly desirable that there should be one uniform topographical map prepared before a period so distant as 1925, and I do think the work might be expedited without any great or serious cost. I am informed that by a proposal now under my consideration, and by the aid of the modern invention of photo-zincography, maps of this description might be completed by the year 1900. I have myself seen specimens of the work done by means of this particular invention, and the results appear to be excellent, and I hope, as I think, that by this means it may be possible to meet the views of the hon. Member upon this point. I have now only to deal with the observations made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton). He dealt rather with the details of the Estimates than with the general questions raised by the hon. Member who opened the Debate. The hon. Member expressed some surprise that the Estimate for this year was precisely the same as that for last year. He seemed to imagine that because we have a certain sum at our
    1340
    disposal we think it necessary to spend it. I can assure the hon. Member that is very far from being the case, and the only complaint I have heard made on the part of the Department is that we have not as much money as we should like.
    SIR C. PALMER: May I ask whether the Royal Engineers engaged in Ordnance Survey are subject to five years' service or not?
    MR. CHAPLIN: I am very sorry that I am insufficiently informed on this point, to say positively whether that is so or not. A question was asked as to why there was a decrease in the military element and an increase in the civil element. The reduction in the military element is due to a re-arrangement of duties. The increase in the Estimates for the civil part of the Department is accounted for in this way: The increase is an increase of necessary expenditure, which has for several years exceeded the amounts in the Estimates. I hope the explanation I have given may be satisfactory.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, as far as he is personally concerned, is a very satisfactory one; but, unfortunately, the matter does not rest with him alone. It rests largely with the Treasury. My hon. Friend (Mr. Roby) pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is practically mainly responsible for the expenditure under this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has not as much money to spend on the matter as he could wish. This subject has been for many years under the consideration of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what took place in 1882, when I was myself responsible in this House for the Ordnance Survey Department. In that year, in response to the great pressure put on the Government by this House, there was a very large increase in the Vote for the Survey Department, with the view of accelerating the survey, and completing the 25-inch maps within reasonable time. No less an addition was made to the Vote than £60,000. The Vote was increased from £184,000 in 1882–3 to £243,000 in 1883–4. In the following year it was further increased to £247,000, and in 1886–7 to £249,000. I find on referring

    1341
    to Hansard that I stated that this great increase was agreed to by the Government with the express object and intention of completing the 25-inch survey by the year 1890. There can be no doubt whatever that if expenditure had been continued at that rate, we should have seen this important branch of the work completed by 1890. But as the right hon. Gentleman says, the 25-inch maps for Lancashire and Yorkshire are not completed, and a large area of Scotland, six counties, which, I think, embrace nearly half the entire area of the country, are undealt with in this way, and very little has been done in Ireland. What, I would ask, is the reason for this delay in the 25-inch maps, which in 1882–3 were promised should be completed in 1890? It is perfectly obvious, if you look at the Votes, how it is that the promise made in 1883 has not been fulfilled. Between 1887 and the present time there has been a reduction in the annual Vote of £30,000 a year. In 1887–8 there was a reduction on the preceding year for the Survey Vote of £20,000, and in 1889–90 there was a further reduction of £10,000, and I think that affords a sufficient explanation of the delay in the completion of the 25-inch survey. Such an economy effected by the retardation of this work is, I think, unfortunate, for, as my hon. Friend behind me has said, when work of this kind is undertaken the sooner it is completed the better, and I do not think it is a wise economy to make such a reduction and retard the work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Agricultural Department will use his influence with the Treasury to obtain an acceleration with a view to the completion of the work so far as the 25-inch scale is concerned, and if it is necessary I hope an increased Vote will be asked for the purpose. Then again, my hon. Friend behind me has called attention to the fact that the smaller hill shaded maps will not be completed until 1895, but again I say when once the series was begun it should have been pushed on with all possible rapidity, and this could have been done had the 25-inch scale maps been completed according to the original undertaking. It is a question of present expenditure, and I suppose the Treasury are responsible for the delay, and it has been their desire to reduce the Estimates
    1342
    by economy in this branch of the Service.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to get some information in reference to the non-completion of the counties of Scotland on the 25-inch scale, and I can supplement what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has said by a further piece of information. During the past 10 years it has always been a complaint that the metropolitan counties of Scotland have not been surveyed on the 25-inch scale. Experience has shown that this is the best scale on which a survey can be conducted. About the year 1886–7 the survey office in the Post Office Buildings, Edinburgh, was closed, and the staff were transferred to the North of England. Complaint was made at the time that the staff should be removed before the survey was completed, but we were told that work in the North of England was urgent, but that when this was completed the work for the home counties of Scotland would be taken in hand and completed. This, however, has not yet been done, and I hope that now the Survey Department is under a new authority the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will apply the necessary pressure to have this work completed. I think it is a reflection upon the administration of affairs in this country that the 1-inch survey with hill shadings should not be completed until 1925. We are behind all the countries of the Continent and of the United States in this respect, and I would urge that by a more liberal annual grant we should put ourselves on a par with foreign States in this respect. On this subject, too, I would mention another point more than once raised in this House, and I think by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in "another place." In Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and I think in the United States, the survey includes not only the geographical contour and the lines of hills, but also of the sheets of water and their varying depths. This has been done with the lakes of Italy and Switzerland, and it has been often urged by scientific authorities that it would be of value in describing the configuration of the country that soundings should be taken

    1343
    of sheets of water in the United Kingdom. A survey was made by naval officers of Loch Lomond and Loch Awe in the early part of the century, and there were soundings made in the locks on the Caledonian Canal, but these soundings were not undertaken upon any system, and the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh have often recommended that such soundings should be included in a complete survey. I hope this will be taken into consideration, for I am sure the reliable data thus acquired would, from a scientific point of view, amply repay the expenditure.
    GENERAL SIR F. FITZWYGRAM: Complaints have frequently been made, and are I think well founded, that publication of maps is so long delayed that in many cases the map is obsolete when it is issued. I certainly know such an instance in regard to Hampshire. I forget in what year the survey was completed, but I know that a road the construction of which was completed three years before the map was published, yet was not marked upon the map, that is to say, the map was three years old before it was brought out. Therefore I would urge that the publication should follow as quickly as possible after the survey is completed, that the public may have the advantage of really reliable information.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I can confirm what has been said by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) in reference to the Scotch counties; and in regard to the general question, I think it must be admitted we require a radical change in the system. For my part, I cannot say if this amount of £216,000 is economically administered or not, but I am quite sure that if by the expenditure of another £50,000 we can get a better system, we ought to have it, especially if, as we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), there has been a reduction of £30,000 a year from the sum formerly allocated to the Department. I have a suspicion that it may not be altogether a question of money; the mode of publishing and other circumstances lead me to fear that the Survey Department proceed on stereotyped and antiquated lines; that it is not a progressive establishment permitting and promoting
    1344
    reform. I should like to know something more of the personnel of the establishment. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he has visited the Survey Office, and is convinced that the military character of that establishment is a great advantage. I can quite understand his feeling. In official life in India I have worked a great deal with Engineer officers, and I found they did admirable work. I desire to speak of the corps with the greatest respect; but I have grave doubts, founded on my experience, whether the work, which is more of a civil than a military character, can be effectively done by military officers liable to constant change. The right hon. Gentleman is not, I think, quite aware of the rules, but I know that in India there were complaints that while Majors and Colonels were receiving appointments in the Department most of the work was being done by civilians, and you cannot get good civilian work unless civilians have prospects of promotion in the Department. The heads of the Department appear to be purely military, and I gather from the Estimate submitted that the civil element is entirely subordinate. Civil assistants to the number of 1,600 receive £143,000—an average of £90 a year—and that seems to imply that they only fill the inferior positions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some information as to what prospect these civilians have of promotion.
    MR. CHAPLIN: In reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, it is undoubtedly the case that the military element does form the basis and foundation of the staff of the Ordnance Survey Department. With regard to the questions asked in reference to the Scotch counties, I have to say that while we think Scotland has been fairly well treated in this matter, we do consider ourselves pledged, as soon as the Lancashire and Yorkshire maps on the 25-inch scale are completed, at once to proceed with and complete the Scotch counties upon that scale. I may remind the Committee of what has already been done in Scotland. The maps on the scale of 25-inch to the mile are complete for 28 counties in Scotland; and the 6-inch map has been completed for the whole of Scotland. The new 1-inch map for the whole of Scotland has been completed,

    1345
    and on this 28,000 acres out of 30,902 acres have been hill-shaded. On the whole, while I respect the zeal Scotch Members display in the interest of their country, I think they will admit that Scotland has been in no way neglected.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As the Secretary to the Treasury is now in his place, I think I am entitled to ask him why the expenditure on the survey has been so largely reduced during the last four or five years? As I pointed out a few minutes ago, a large increase was undertaken in the year 1882–3, with the object of completing the 25-inch scale surrey by 1890. On referring to Hansard I find that the increase of expenditure by £60,000 was agreed to on the express understanding that the survey should be completed in 1890, and had the expenditure been maintained there is little doubt the work would have been completed. Yet while a very considerable portion of Scotland remains unsurveyed, a reduction of £20,000 was made in 1887, and a further reduction of £10,000 in 1889–90. Nobody can object to economy in this or any other branch of the Public Service, but it can scarcely be called economy when useful work is thus delayed in spite of the assurance given in 1882.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Although I am not acquainted with the circumstances under which the promise was made in 1882, I imagine that what was then said referred to the cadastral survey being carried on at that time, and which it was contemplated would be completed in 1890. As work became completed expenditure naturally fell off. So much has this been the case that a large number of those employed on the survey have been transferred to Ireland, in order that the work there might be proceeded with more quickly. There has been no reduction made with the idea of stinting the work, and there has been an increase of expenditure on the work of revision, which has been taken in hand more actively.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Still, the fact remains that work which it was said would be completed in 1890 remains in 1891 uncompleted.
    MR. ROBY: The Director General states that the total area of Scot-
    1346
    land, published on the 25-inch scale, amounts to 12,687 square miles, and that is not half the area of Scotland. I must say that it is no answer to a complaint to assert that the survey has been completed if the results of the work have not been published. The survey is of no use to the public unless the maps are accessible. Not half of Scotland has been published, and very little of Ireland, on the large scale. It is possible and reasonable that the survey should be completed in a shorter time, and I hope that persistent pressure will be put upon the Treasury to that end. I am informed on good authority that the whole survey of Austro-Hungary was completed in 11 years. If that is done in 11 years—and the Treasury say 15 years ought to be enough for revision —I sincerely trust that steps will be taken to carry it out. I hope that a strong step will be taken to insure that we have practical, usable, living documents in our hands, representing the work of the Ordnance Survey. It seems to me that maps based on surveys 20, 30, or 50 years old may be suitable for antiquarian documents, but are not suitable for present practical purposes.
    MR. MORTON: As long as the money is spent economically I am willing that it should be spent. I thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture for what he has said, and for his courtesy. Will he allow me to say that I think he has been better occupied here this afternoon than he would have been if at the Oaks.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £16,596, to complete the sum for harbours in the United Kingdom and lighthouses abroad under the Board of Trade.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think some explanation is due to the House in regard to this Vote. I find that almost all round there has been an increase of expenditure. The expenditure on Dover harbour has increased from £3,000 last year to £4,100 this year; the expenditure on Holyhead harbour has increased from £10,000 last year to £30,000 this year. In like manner there have been increases in connection with the other harbours mentioned in the Vote. We

    1347
    have had no explanation of these increases, and I think we are entitled to ask for one.
    MR. JACKSON: The explanation is very simple. In regard to Dover harbour the Admiralty Pier belongs to the Government. The ways on the pier have from time to time to be improved, and this year there is to be a very large improvement effected. As to Holyhead harbour, it has been decided to expend £7,000 this year on improvements, because during the recent severe storms there have been difficulties experienced in bringing up steamers to the pier in consequence of its exposed condition. These improvements have been pressed upon us for some time, and it has been thought desirable to proceed with them this year. In addition to this expenditure, there is to be a further outlay of £2,500 to make a new landing for small boats. It is a curious fact that, magnificent as the harbour is, there is no place where a boat can land.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: What is the reason of the increase for Flamborough Head?
    MR. JACKSON: We have had a ship at the Bahamas which is old and practically worn out. It is a question whether we should build a new one or hire one, and whilst the matter remains undecided it has been resolved to hire a vessel at a cost of £1,000.
    MR. MORTON: Are the works at Dover and Holyhead to be put out to tender?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £25,040, for Peterhead harbour.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: As this is a very large item, I think we have a right to ask what is being done. The total amount to be expended on the harbour is £785,000, of which £140,000 has been spent, leaving over £600,000 to be spent. If the money is only provided at the rate of £30,000 a year it will take 20 years to complete the harbour. How is the work to be conducted? Do the Government contemplate spreading it over 30 years? I should like to have some explanation of this point.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member forgets that Peterhead harbour is rather an undertaking for the purpose of providing work for convicts than for the purpose of providing a harbour. The work done, so far, has been mainly preliminary, and there are at present some 200 or 250 convicts employed upon it. It is necessary, in the interest of the men themselves, that some work should be provided for them. There has been no complaint of the manner in which the work has been done. The engineers have been instructed to report from time to time, showing the amount of work done.
    Vote agreed to.
    4. £3,000, to complete the sum for Caledonian Canal.
    5. £140,173, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,719, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in [course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Officers of the House of Lords."
    MR. MORTON: I desire to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £20,000. It appears to me that, so far as business is concerned, the House of Lords does not do much for this money. I do not want to raise the question of the necessity of a House of Lords, or of a Second Chamber, but I find that the annual expenditure on the House of Lords is £42,000, while that of the House of Commons is only £49,000, or £7,000 or £8,000 more. Bearing in mind that this House has about 10 times as much work to do as the House of Lords, I think there ought to be a greater difference in the cost. I am aware that there are other charges in connection with the House of Lords. There are further sums to be provided against, against which there are fees to be put, so that they have nothing to do with the question of emoluments. With regard to these officers in the House of Lords, it is plain that some of them are overpaid. I find that the Chairman of Committees gets £2,500 a year, or exactly the same amount as the Chair-

    1349
    man of Committees in this House, and, seeing the difference in the amount of work that these officials have to do, it does not appear to me that it should be necessary to pay such a sum as £2,500 to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. Then I find that the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords gets £2,500, and an allowance for a house of £500, the Assistant Clerk gets £1,500, the Chief Clerk £1,200, and the Reading Clerk £1,200, and so on. I confess I cannot see the good of all these officers. I look into the House of Lords now and then to see what they are doing, and I cannot find that they ever do much. Two or three hours work two or three days a week is all they have to do. It is all very well to say that we ought to keep these people going; but if they want to be relieved out of the taxation of the country, they should find some better way of bringing it about than getting themselves put into offices where there is no apparent work to do. The House of Lords have been considering whether they cannot reduce the cost of this Department, and they have done so to some small extent—by getting rid of a few housemaids I believe. What they want housemaids, there at all for I do not know. They intend to reduce the salaries of some of the officials as vacancies arise, but it seems to me that it is their duty to do away with a number of these offices altogether. A claim has been made that we do not pay for our officers in the House of Commons enough; but, so long as we have to pay for work which is not done in the House of Lords, of course we cannot afford to pay more for the work of the officers of the House of Commons. Mr. Cobden used to say that if you want to reduce the expenses of a Department, the proper way to do it is to reduce them by a round sum, and insist on the Department getting on with the reduced Vote. My proposal, therefore, is to reduce this Vote by a round sum. If it is reduced by £20,000, the House of Lords will still have£22,0001eft,and that I consider quite sufficient. I do not suppose I shall be likely to carry this Amendment to-day; but I do trust that somebody will give us an explanation why there should be this excessive charge for the officers of the House of Lords. I should also like
    1350
    the Government, if they can, to give the country some assurance that this excessive cost is going to be reduced in some reasonable time. It is in the vain hope of eliciting some explanation that I move the reduction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,719, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Morton.)
    MR. JACKSON: I do not think it is necessary for me to say much in answer to the hon. Member. He will no doubt recognise, at all events, that during the last two or three years a real attempt has been made to save all unnecessary expenditure in connection with both this House and the House of Lords. There has, indeed, been a thorough overhauling of the expenditure, and I do not think that the operation could have been more efficiently carried out, even if the hon. Member had done it himself. The hon. Member has made a comparison between certain salaries in the House of Lords and certain salaries in the House of Commons. It is not fair to do that, as the conditions are dissimilar.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: It is obvious, taking into consideration the work of the two Houses, and the small difference there is in the amount of their expenses respectively, that the expenses of the House of Lords are a great deal too high. The argument in support of the existing condition of things is that we owe a certain courtesy to the House of Lords, and that we are bound not to reduce their establishments too suddenly and rudely. The Secretary to the Treasury has spoken of an overhauling of the expenditure in both Houses, and I should like to know whether there has been any reduction in the expenses of the House of Lords, or whether there is any prospect of a reduction? So far as I can make out, the Vote for the House of Lords has only been reduced by £474, or about 1 per cent., whilst that for the House of Commons has been reduced £951, or about 2 per cent. I think we ought to know that the reduction is going on in the House of Lords with some celerity, and that there is every hope that before long the ex-

    1351
    penditure will be brought within reasonable limits.
    DR. CLARK: I quite agree that there has been a thorough inquiry into the expenditure of the Houses of Parliament by a Departmental Committee, and that the Committee has made radical changes in the matter. Large salaries are, of course, still paid to old officials, but when new appointments arise there will, no doubt, be reductions. I do not think we can go farther in that direction. A point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee in regard to this matter is that the fees charged by the House of Lords are a very great grievance. They fall very heavily upon those who bring in small Private Bills, such as relate to piers, harbours, tramways, and waterworks. I hope some means will be found of reducing the amount of the fees, which at present are simply preposterous, and amount, I find, to £2,000 more this year than last year. There ought to be one uniform scale of fees for unopposed Bills, and another for Bills that are opposed. The cost of getting a Bill through is sometimes 25 per cent. of the total sum the promoters wish to spend on their undertaking.
    MR. LENG: On the question of fees, I must say I am one of those who do not object to men who discharge responsible duties being adequately paid. I should not grudge a sufficient remuneration to the Clerks of Parliament, but it does seem to me objectionable that while they are well paid for the duties they perform, new charges should be continually imposed in the way of fees. I directed attention yesterday in a question to a charge recently imposed for the first time for certified copies of the Companies' Acts. Hitherto it has been possible to obtain these from the Queen's Printers, but it seems that now you must have a special certificate to an Act, and one Act costs £1 1s., while to obtain certificates to a set of the Companies' Acts costs £25.
    MR. JACKSON: All I can say to that is, that, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, the Clerks have no interest in the fees, which go into the public Exchequer. It has always been cus-
    1352
    tomary, I believe, to make a charge for these Acts. The hon. Member for Caithness said the House of Lords' fees are £2,000 more than they were last year. That is not owing to any increase in the amount of the fees, but to an increased number of Bills.
    DR. CLARK: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of modifying the Standing Orders? By the present system you are absolutely preventing a large number of private works being carried out.
    MR. MORTON: I am not satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. It is absurd on the face of it to pay the officials of the House of Lords almost as much as the officials of the House of Commons, without regard to the fact that they do not do one-tenth the amount of work. It is ridiculous to let it go forth to the world that we, as business men, allow such a state of things as that to exist. I want the Government to give us an assurance that some inquiry into the matter will take place. I appeal to them upon it as a matter of principle. I do not ask them only to reduce the salary of an office on the death of its present occupant, but to abolish offices altogether where they are not needed. I want to know whether any gentlemen opposite justifies these charges? [Cries of "Oh!"] Such cries are no argument, and if that is all hon. Gentlemen opposite can do, the sooner their constituents send someone else the better. I am ready to take a Division upon this question, and I only sat down to allow the Minister time to make some explanation of these charges in the House of Lords.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be better, instead of moving a general reduction, to move the reduction of some particular item, and we would then be in a position to give him our support. I agree that a reduction of these charges in the House of Lords ought to be brought about in the interests of those who are called upon to promote Private Bill legislation.
    MR. MORTON: In proposing a general reduction, I was endeavouring to avoid mention of any particular office. I moved the reduction as a matter of

    1353
    general principle, believing that the reduced sum ought to be sufficient for carrying on the business of the House of Lords.
    DR. TANNER: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that, instead of moving a general reduction to the Vote, he might move, or I will move, the reduction of the Vote for the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords by the amount of the salary of his Counsel. There is a crowd of Law Lords in the Upper House, and I cannot see the necessity for paying an exorbitant salary to an official who enjoys a perfect sinecure. That the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords should have a Counsel is perfectly absurd; and I think we should begin by docking his salary and other salaries, and finally the House of Lords itself—a course which would be just to the taxpayers and beneficial to the country at large. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent for the hon. Member to move the reduction until the item is reached.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to call attention to a very serious grievance in reference to the charges in the House of Lords in respect of Private Bill legislation. The charges in the House of Lords are much higher than in the House of Commons. In the House of Commons you only pay £5 on the deposit of a Bill, £5 for each day it is before the Examiners under Standing Order, £5 for presentation, £15 for First Reading, £15 Second, and £15 for Third Reading, and £15 for Committee, so that the whole cost of a Private Bill Committee in the House of Commons is £75. If the amount involved in the Bill is above £100,000, these charges are doubled. Now, in the House of Lords the cost of the Second Reading alone is £81, which is more than the entire cost in the House of Commons. The only Bills which get through cheaply in the House of Lords are Divorce, Naturalization, and Change of Name Bills, each of which costs £27. These charges in the House
    1354
    of Lords fall heavily upon the promoters of Private Bills, and I think we ought to have some explanation of why these exorbitant fees are charged.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,619, be granted for the said Service."—(Dr. Clark.)
    MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member must be wrong. I have not got the particulars of the charges in the House of Lords, but I find the total amount of them is the same as that in the House of Commons, a circumstance which would seem to indicate that though the manner of imposing the charges in the House of Lords may be different, yet their aggregate amount is the same as that of the charges in the House of Commons. If, however, there be any discrepancy—and I fail to see how there can be, in view of the fact that the total of the amounts are the same—I will look into the matter, though I cannot promise that the question of the fees is a matter that must be re-considered.
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [28th May] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

      CLASS VII.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £47,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Expenditure upon certain Public Works, and for improved Communications, within the Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
      MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: Holding this Vote as an instalment of the policy of Government in the development of certain exceptionally scheduled districts in the West Highlands and Islands, I have to thank the Government on behalf of my constituents for having adopted the present attitude, and for their determination in pushing the matter forward.
      DR. CLARK: I do not think the Government are doing anything which is specially deserving of the gratitude expressed by my hon. Friend. Some time ago we were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that, whereas about a century back roads were required in the Highlands, tramways and railways are now wanted. The Government have been negotiating in some Scotch railways, and now that the First Lord is in his place, I would like to have some information as to what the Government proposals are. You are developing the county of which my hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) is a representative, and a new railway is to be constructed there. I would like to know from the First Lord of the Treasury what is the position of these negotiations, and whether it is the intention of the Government to subsidise one of the railways down to the coast? There are five railways touching the neighbourhood, and the Government have, I learn, been in communication with the Highland, the North British, and the Great North of Scotland Companies. I wish to ask whether it is a fact that the Highland Railway Company have refused to undertake the work, that, on that refusal, terms were made with the Great North of Scotland, which agreed to go on, and were going on, with the work, and that the Highland Railway have subsequently endeavoured to prevent the contract being carried through?
      MR. JACKSON: The negotiations are still in progress, but it is undesirable under the circumstances to state at this moment what the nature of them is. Generally, however, it may be taken that the means of connections between the mainland and the Highlands and Islands are being promoted as quickly as possible, and that certain suggestions which have been made will be adopted.
      Resolution agreed to.

    BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERY BILL.
    MR. BRYCE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can, before Monday, lay on the Table any further Papers con-
    1356
    nected with the Behring Sea seal fishery dispute, showing the present position of the question?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): If we have the consent of the United States Government, which we have asked for by telegraph, those Papers will be presented and circulated, I hope, on Monday, but if not circulated they will be in the Vote Office before the Bill is taken. The Bill will, I hope, be circulated tomorrow.

    PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL, 1891.
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Return relating to all Holdings in Ireland classified according to Valuation—(1.) Over £50; (2.) £50andunder; with Esimates as to the Allocation of the Capitalised Value of the Guarantee Fund for Purchase, on the assumption stated within."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 260.]

EVENING SITTING.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    NOTE: Mr. ATHERLEY JONES had upon the Paper the following notice:—To move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may he pleased to appoint a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring how far the Judicature Acts have contributed to the more speedy, efficient, and economical administration of justice, and in what respects an Amendment thereof is desirable."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,—
    The House was adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON: I beg to ask the noble Marquess at the head of the Government what is the present state of the proceedings relating to Newfoundland?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the sources of information on that subject are as open to my noble Friend as they are to me. As I understand the circumstances, they are these: Her Majesty's Government proposed to read a second time yesterday in the other House the Bill which passed through this House. In view, however, of certain telegraphic information which has come from Newfoundland, they intimated at the same time that there was a very strong probability that it would not be necessary to carry the Bill to its ultimate conclusion. The House of Commons appears to have disliked the idea of passing the Bill a second time, which it was not certain was to be carried forward, and in place of passing the Bill they passed a Resolution which, as I understand it, pledges that House—I have not got the terms before me, and I am speaking from memory—to support the Convention recently entered into between France and Her Majesty's Government, and to support Her Majesty's Government in executing all their obligations towards France. As to what the immediate result of that proceeding will be, of course, I can only speak with a certain amount of reserve. I do not know what view the French Government will take of it; my present impression is that they will consider that it is an adequate satisfaction of any engagement which Her Majesty's Government has entered into, and that probably we shall go forward to arbitration. But until I have had an opportunity of communicating with the French Government, and until the Treaty has been approved by both Chambers of the
  1294
  French Legislature, I cannot speak on that subject with absolute certainty. With respect to the future, I understand that the result is this—that the House of Commons has pledged itself to support any legislation that may be necessary in order to carry out the obligations which this country has incurred towards France. Whether such legislation will be necessary we do not know. It must depend largely on the action of the Colonial Legislature. The Colonial Legislature is at present in the position of having bound itself absolutely to the modus vivendi, as I understand, until the arbitration shall take place, and, after the arbitration has taken place, has bound itself to the execution of the award up to the end of 1893. The information we have received from the delegates is that if by that time Her Majesty's Government shall have agreed upon legislation with respect to the tribunals by which the award and the Treaties are to be enforced, and compensation due to any persons who may suffer under them, then in that case the Newfoundland Legislature will give permanence to the provision which we understand they have now adopted until the end of 1893. One, therefore, of two things must happen. Either we shall agree with the Newfoundland Legislature, and in that case the Act which has just been passed will be made permanent, or, at least, an Act satisfying the essential international conditions of that legislation, or we shall not agree with the Newfoundland Legislature, and then the pledge that has been given by the House of Commons will come into operation, and Imperial legislation in the course of 1893 will be necessary in order to fulfil the international obligations we have contracted towards France. That is my understanding of the result of the proceedings which took place last night, but as the Resolution which was passed was not drafted by a supporter of the Government, and was only accepted by the Government, I have, of course, no more knowledge of the precise meaning to be attached to it than any other person who can judge by the newspapers of what took place. I do not know that I have any cause to regret the terms of the Resolution which was passed; but I think we have all cause

  1295
  to regret, in view of our international obligations, much of the language used by authoritative persons in the course of the Debate which then took place.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I should like in reference to the observations which the noble Marquess has made to ask whether, if the Act passed by the Colonial Legislature is substantially in the terms of the Act which it was proposed the Imperial Parliament should pass, so that the Executive possesses the power to enforce Treaties to the same extent as they would have possessed them if an Imperial Act had been passed, it is any concern of France whether those powers are conferred upon the Executive of this country by the Act of the Colonial Legislature or by the Act of the Imperial Parliament—whether that is not entirely a municipal matter with which no foreign Power can have any concern; and whether their concern is not alone to see if the Executive have power to enforce, and to enforce as they have a right to claim we should, any engagements made with them—whether the mode in which that power should be conferred upon the Executive of this country, and the relations between the Government of this country and the Colonial Legislature, are not matters entirely beyond the province of any foreign Government? With reference to the criticisms which the noble Marquess had made upon the language used in "another place," of course I do not know to what language he particularly referred; but I am not aware of any language used there yesterday which casts the slightest doubt upon the obligation of this country towards France, completely to fulfil all its engagements, or on the duty of the Government to see that it was in the possession of power to carry out its Treaty obligations. Beyond that, I venture to submit that the discussion which took place can not be a matter of concern to France.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this question, which I have studied very deeply. I understand completely what the noble Marquess has just told us, that legislation is absolutely necessary, but I contend that legislation in this matter is unnecessary. The Treaty has, as we all know, been in operation for nearly 200 years, and legislation during the whole
  1296
  of that period existed for only 13 years—for three years after the Act of 1883 and for 10 years after the Act of 1824. Therefore, from the date of the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, down to this year, 1891, there have been only 13 years during which any Act of Parliament at all has been necessary. No explanation has ever been given why the Act of 1824, which was the same as the Act of 1883, was necessary. We know that it was dropped in 1834, and there is no tittle of evidence to show that it was dropped because of the legislative powers given to Newfoundland. On the contrary, if for so many years before it was not wanted, it was not wanted then; and the proof is this, that from 1834 down to 1883 no claim was made for legislation. It was never asked for. And why? Quite clearly, in my opinion, because the Queen has absolute power to make Treaties and to give her officers at sea instructions to carry into effect any of the obligations of those Treaties at sea. Then what did the colony do? They are accused of having done nothing. On the contrary; the fact is, they gave every naval officer who commanded on the station a Colonial Commission of the Peace, and under that Colonial Commission he acted in carrying into effect the Treaty obligations on land as part of the Municipal Law of the colony. I admit there were two causes why legislation was not wanted: the Queen, as Admiral of the Seas, carried into effect the obligations of the Treaty at sea, and the colony, by means of the naval officers, carried them into effect on land; and therefore, during nearly two centuries, there has been no Act of Parliament required at all, except that, for some unexplained reason, there was an Act of Parliament in existence during 13 years. Then a Bill was brought in upon a statement that the colony had neglected to perform its Treaty obligations, and what were those Treaty obligations? Why, in the very Preamble of the Bill that was brought in it was stated that the modus vivendi was not within the Treaty at all. It states that the Bill was brought in to carry into effect permanent obligations, and it is stated on the face of the Bill that these matters are not within the Treaty obligations, but that the provisions of the Bill are to apply as if they were within the Treaty

  1297
  obligations. I confess I am at a loss to understand how it can be said that the colony has shown any laches in the matter. The reason why a Colonial Commission was required for the law to be carried into effect on land was that it was part of the Municipal Law; but, undoubtedly, with regard to the modus vivendi, which they say on the face of the Bill is not within the Treaty obligations, when they began to talk of permanent obligations, which they say on the very face of the Bill are not within the Treaty obligations, then undoubtedly legislation was required. That being so, I say no blame can be attached to the colony for not carrying into effect obligations which the Government themselves admit, in bringing in the Bill, are not within the Treaty obligations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I have not misunderstood my noble and learned Friend, I am rather astonished to hear it suggested that Her Majesty, by Treaty, could allow her Admirals to interfere with the private rights of any one of Her Majesty's subjects. That is a new doctrine to me, as matter of law, and I must protest against it.
  LORD THRING: I did not state that the Queen had any right, by reason of her Prerogative, to carry into effect any measures on land whatsoever, but that the Queen has at sea, except by a recent Act to which I need not now refer, always had power to act with regard to obligations under foreign Treaties.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In answer to the question addressed to me, I may say that as far as I can judge I understand the state of the law was quite accurately explained by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Hers-chell) that the mode in which this country carries out its international obligations is matter for its own concern, and its own concern only, being purely a matter of Imperial discretion. The only thing which I understand France has a right to do is to take notice of any indications which should induce her to think that we did not intend to fulfil any Treaty obligations we have entered into. We have promised to execute the award. If France was justly able to say that anything we have done threw doubt on the genuineness of that intention, I do not say that it would justify, but it would explain the conduct of the
  1298
  French Legislature in declining to go on with the negotiations in regard to the Treaty. But I must not be understood for a moment as saying that anything we have done lends the slightest countenance to that suggestion. I do not think it does. I think it is only from ignorance on the part of people who are unaware of what has actually happened that such a suggestion could be made. I do not think for a moment that anything which has taken place could bear that construction. The House of Commons voted a Resolution unanimously last night; and there is not the slightest ground for believing that there is the slightest intention on the part of any Member there that we should not execute to the fullest the obligations entered into by the Convention. But the French Chamber may not be so thoroughly acquainted with our Parliamentary methods as to enable them properly to appreciate the effect of what was done. With respect to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, one difficulty about the distinction he drew between sea and land is that the Treaty largely affects the land, and I am afraid the Queen's Prerogative as Admiral of the Sea will not enable us to dispose of the difficulties that arise on the land.
  LORD THRING: I did not say it would. I said exactly the contrary—that the naval officer had power as a Magistrate under the Commission as Justice of the Peace from the Colonial Legislature to execute the obligations of the Treaty which were part of the Municipal Law of the colony.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can only deeply regret that the noble and learned Lord, was not sitting on the judgment seat in Newfoundland at the time the recent action was brought, for, if he had, Her Majesty's officer would not have been cast in damages. It was laid down very distinctly by the presiding Judge that it was not in the power of Her Majesty to confer upon a Treaty concluded by her the character and quality of a municipal obligation.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I have only to say this, as the proceedings in that particular case were not laid before this House, that the point was never raised to which I am referring now, and that it is intended to raise it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, I do not know what the noble and learned Lord has been told, but as far as the recent communications go, I gather that they support the view of the law, in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agrees, that Treaty obligation, old or new, is no part of the Municipal Law of the land, and cannot be made so by any Act of the Executive. That is the difficulty under which we are, and under which we have been for a long time placed. There were two Acts in existence giving that power; one of them, unfortunately, was dropped per incuriam I think in 1834; and the other was swept away by the noble and learned Lord with the besom of destruction in one of those Statute Law Revision Acts with which he has so abundantly presented Parliament, and the result of that activity on the part of the noble and learned Lord has been the creation of much of the difficulty into which we have fallen.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I beg to say in reply to the statement just made that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government is wrong on every point. With regard to the Statute Law Revision Acts I have had the assistance of every Lord Chancellor, beginning with Lord Cairns, and including my noble and learned Friend who at present occupies the Woolsack in passing them, and I beg to say that they have been far the most complete measures for the reform of our law that have ever been enacted. Noble Lords may sneer or laugh as they like, but that is the fact. Then with regard to the statement that we have altered the law, that is not the case. This has been contradicted over and over again. So far from the law having been dropped, as the noble Marquess has said per incuriam, it was no such thing. The Act of 1824 was continued first for five years, then for another five years, and was then dropped in 1834. It is not true, as has been stated by the noble Marquess, that any blunder was made by the Statute Revision Acts, for that Act had been entirely obsolete for more than 50 years. Therefore I am justified in saying that the statement with regard to the result of the labours of the Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, is entirely untrue. Then, my Lords, I have never said the
  1300
  Queen had power on land, and I have never said that the Treaties necessarily became part of the Municipal Law. What I say is, that under the very peculiar circumstances of the Treaty of Utrecht, a state of circumstances which I suppose has never existed in any other country or colony, I believe that inasmuch as the legislature of Newfoundland took all their powers subject to that Treaty, in that sense it was part of the Municipal Law of Newfoundland, and has always been in force as such for 200 years.

  MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to mortmain and charitable uses—Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 140.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.