Sitting of 9 June 1892

QUESTIONS.

  THE DISTURBANCES IN UGANDA.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Captains Williams and Lugard hold regular commissions from the East Africa Company, and if these are military commissions; if such commissions have been published in any Gazette; if the East Africa Company has the power of conferring commissions and do such commissions confer the power of levying war; and if Captains Lugard and Williams have infringed on the rights of the subjects of other European Powers, is the Foreign Office responsible?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Inquiry has been made as to the position of these officers from the British East Africa Company. They have replied as follows:—Captains Williams and Lugard do not hold regular commissions from the East Africa Company, but are fulfilling the terms of a Treaty concluded by the Company with Mwanga on the 26th December, 1890. In December, 1889, Captain Lugard proceeded to East Africa for a holiday trip, and whilst there the administrator ascertained that he would be willing, if permitted by the War Office, to serve the Company for a time. Negotiations were therefore opened in London with the Commander-in-Chief, resulting in the loan of Captain Lugard for one year from the end of January, 1890, and this has since been indefinitely extended. These preliminaries being settled, Captain Lugard was deputed to proceed to Machakos for the purpose of finding the best road to the Victoria Nyanza. Owing, however, to a change of plan consequent upon the Anglo-German Agreement, Captain Lugard, whilst waiting at Dagoreti, received instructions on the 19th October to proceed
  578
  without delay to Uganda to conclude a Treaty with Mwanga. He was informed that the district had, under the above-noted Agreement, passed under the control of the Company, and it was impressed upon him that the then existing religious dissensions must cease, and that full religious liberty to all denominations must be granted, every effort being made to impartially reconcile the conflicting interests. These instructions were fulfilled, and a Treaty, a copy of which is to be found in the recent Blue Book, entered into between the Company and Mwanga on the 26th December, 1890. A reference to this document will show that the administrative power vested in the Company's representatives is clearly defined, and it is under this Treaty that Captain Lugard and his staff are acting, assisted by Captain Williams, whose services have also been lent by the War Office.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has answered the last two paragraphs of my question—namely, whether the Company has the power of conferring commissions; whether such commissions confer the power of levying war; and if Captains Lugard and Williams have infringed on the rights of the subjects of other Powers, is the Foreign Office responsible?
  *MR. LOWTHER: I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman exactly the circumstances under which Captain Lugard was appointed—
  COLONEL NOLAN: Yes; but has the Company the power of granting commissions carrying with them the right to levy war?
  *MR. LOWTHER: I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman the circumstances under which Captain Lugard was appointed, and I cannot tell him anything more. He may form his own conclusions from the facts. As to the last paragraph of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, of course I am unable to say whether the rights of the subjects of other Powers have been infringed, for up to the present I am not aware what action Captains Lugard and Williams may have taken in the matter.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think I shall have to put a question to the Attorney General as to the responsibilities of this

  579
  country in such a matter, but I apprehend he will not be prepared to answer such a question now.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office has the War Office at present any control over Captains Lugard and Williams beyond that of being able to cancel their leave; or is the Commander-in-Chief, or the Secretary of State for War, in any way responsible for the public or official acts of these gentlemen in relation to Africans or to the subjects of other European Powers?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): These officers having been seconded for service under the British East Africa Company, neither the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief has control over them, nor can either accept responsibility for their proceedings.

  EMPLOYEES IN ROYAL PARKS.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works a question of which I have given him private notice, and that is whether he will take into consideration the complaints of the men on the establishment at the Royal Gardens at Kew and at other Royal Parks?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I am aware of the great interest taken by my hon. Friend in this question, and, as the House knows, on more than one occasion during the present Session my hon. Friend has endeavoured to press it upon the attention of the House. I have since conferred with my hon. Friend on the subject; and while I am not prepared to admit that the alleged grievances of the staff employed at Kew are really so substantial and well-grounded as my hon. Friend thinks they are, still, as I know that a good deal of feeling exists on the subject in the neighbourhood of Kew, and, to some extent, among the employees there, and as I am desirous, if I can, to set at rest such discontent or uncertainty as may exist, I think on the whole that the best plan will be to appoint a small Departmental
  580
  Committee to investigate these questions. The appointment of such a Committee is, I believe, what the employees at Kew desire, and it is not objected to by the Director of the Gardens. The case of the staffs employed in the other Royal Parks in the Metropolis will also be submitted to this Committee.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (, &c.): Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be desirable to put on the Committee both the candidates for the representation of the Kingston Division?
  *MR. PLUNKET: I have not the least intention of doing so; but if the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of serving on this Committee, which will conduct its investigations while the General Election is in progress, I shall be happy to nominate him.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: Will the case of the employees at Hampton Court be included in the inquiry?
  *MR. PLUNKET: Yes.

  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  MR. FENWICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say when the appointment of the additional Inspector for the textile trades, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) in a speech a few days ago, is likely to be made?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have decided that, in order that the various trades may have full advantage of the Act of last Session, it is desirable that an additional Inspector should be appointed for the textile trades, with special functions dealing with technical matters. The arrangements are nearly completed, and the appointment will, I hope, be made in a few days.
  MR. FENWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made as to whether there can be found a workman in the trade possessing the necessary qualifications and fitness for such an appointment; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman take into favourable consideration the claim of such a man to the position of Inspector?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I have endeavoured to find a fully-qualified person experienced in the practical work of the trade for this appointment.
  MR. SUMMERS: Will the appointment be for a particular district, or for the trade generally?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: For the whole country.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will there be an increase in the staff of assistant Inspectors?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: The question of an increase in assistant Inspectors is now under consideration, together with the question of re-casting the districts.
  MR. OCTAVIUS MORGAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if it is his intention to appoint a female Inspector as to which I addressed a letter to him a few days ago?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: This subject is also included in matters which have been referred to the Chief Inspector for information upon facts, and I have not yet had the Report I expect. There will, I anticipate, be some difficulty in finding a district for the adequate employment of a female Inspector where women are largely employed.
  MR. SINCLAIR (, &c.): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is it contemplated that this special Inspector shall have jurisdiction over textile factories in Scotland and Ireland as well as England?
  MR. HOWELL: Will the rule as to age and the other qualifications apply in the appointment of this additional Inspector?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: It is a little difficult to answer these questions in detail with reference to a matter still under consideration. What I have in view is not the appointment of an ordinary Inspector, but of a special agent; and the rules in relation to the appointment of an ordinary Inspector would not apply in this case. As to what has been asked by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sinclair), I may say that I have not yet decided whether the gentleman to be appointed will have time or will be able to visit the factories in Scotland as well as in England. No grievances, so far as I
  582
  am aware, have been reported from Scotland, but I will certainly endeavour to meet any that may be shown to exist.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury now state the intention of the Government in regard to the Orders standing Nos. 4 and 5 for Monday—the Irish Local Government Bill and the Irish Education Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Irish Local Government Bill will not be taken on Monday; but as to the Irish Education Bill, I desire to consult with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary before I make a definite statement. I do not propose to put it as first Order on Monday. I then propose to ask the House to take the remaining stage of the Scotch Equivalent Grant, and to proceed with the Scotch Burgh and Police Bill. It will, perhaps, be more convenient to the hon. Member and his friends if I set down the Irish Education Bill as first Order for a later day?
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to apply to that Bill the Resolution which is down in his name to be moved to-day? The Bill, if it is proceeded with in the form in which it is now before the House, will have to be carefully and fully debated on matters of principle raised by many important details, and I do not think it will be reasonable to insist upon proceeding with such a Debate when there are only a few Members present after midnight.
  MR. BALFOUR: Certainly the Bill is proposed to be included in the operation of the proposal I shall presently have to make to the House, but I may say it is not intended to ask the House for any very prolonged Sitting, nor do I think it will be necessary in regard to any of the Government measures.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think it was rather expected that the right hon. Gentleman, in making his Motion for taking the whole time of the House for Government Business, would tell us what are

  583
  the measures the Government intend to proceed with, and what they propose to abandon. Further, I think we should have an assurance that all private Members' Bills will be discontinued and will not have any advantage from the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule.
  MR. BALFOUR: It would not be right, I think, that under cover of this Motion additional facilities should be given for private Members' Bills, but, at the same time, it would be rather hard that a private Member having in charge an unopposed Bill—a Bill to which there is general assent—should be deprived of the opportunity of bringing on that Bill, which he would have if such a Motion were not passed. I draw a distinction between opposed and unopposed Bills, and will give an undertaking that, so far as the Government are concerned, we shall not allow opposed Private Bills to be taken after twelve o'clock. It would be hard to mete out the same measure to Bills which are not opposed.
  MR. MORLEY: Then those Bills should be announced.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: But if the question is raised as to which are the unopposed Bills it will be very difficult to answer it, because it may be that Members who have objections to urge may not be here. When the Government take the time of the House for their Bills, I have always understood it is usual for the Government to move the adjournment after their business is disposed of. If the Government are satisfied that there are Bills introduced by private Members which are of such importance that they should pass these remaining stages, and that they will do so without opposition, then the Government may adopt these Bills, marking them with the star; but if they are left open for opposition to be expressed, then we simply leave open the door for the difficulty we wish to avoid.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: May I say a word in reference to the Bills introduced by private Members? Some of these are entitled to more consideration than others, and I would suggest that those Bills which have arrived at the stage of progress in
  584
  Committee might be allowed to pass. I may illustrate what I mean by reference to a Bill to which I hope some regard will be had—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is no Question before the House.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: The Access to Mountains Bill is set down for Monday, but it will be for the convenience of Scotch Members if it is not taken until Tuesday or Thursday.
  MR. BALFOUR: I will put it down for Thursday. As to the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Sir Albert Rollit), that we should regard as unopposed those Bills which have passed their Second Reading—such, I think, was his suggestion?—
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: And are still unopposed.
  MR. BALFOUR: It is an impracticable suggestion, inasmuch as it would include the Wednesday Bills. But I think it is well worthy of consideration whether, when Bills are really desired by the House, that they should be added to the Government list, and then we could carry out the proposal that progress with other Bills should be opposed by the Government after twelve o'clock.

MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business do have priority every day, may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except on Wednesday; that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the other days of the week; and that, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Three of the clock."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not at all wish to object to the Motion or to press the right hon. Gentleman at the moment, but I suppose we may take it for granted that not later than Monday the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make a statement as to the course of business—what Bills the Government intend to persevere with?
  MR. BALFOUR: That is so.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I do not for a moment oppose the Motion; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that, while it is necessary to take all the time of the House in the way indicated to secure that which we all desire—a speedy end to the proceedings of this Parliament—it will also be necessary to clear the Order Book from some of the Bills which now stand upon it. On the Orders of the Day there are no less than twenty-two Government Bills, three of which have passed through Committee, eight are in that stage, and eleven stand for Second Reading. I would call attention to the fact that a number of these eleven Bills which have to pass a Second Reading raise some very debatable points, which, undoubtedly, demand considerable discussion, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is very desirable he should without delay—if not to-night, then on Monday—inform the House distinctly which of these Bills the Government mean to proceed with, and which they intend to drop. There is also the Bill in reference to which we passed a Resolution just now—the Telegraphs Bill. When that Bill was brought forward I ventured to say it raised extremely important questions in regard to the telegraph system; and although the Government propose to refer that Bill to a Select Committee, that Committee is not yet nominated, and cannot sit for some days, and matters will come before it that will undoubtedly demand very careful consideration, especially as the Bill was read a second time without any debate. There are other Bills to which the same remarks apply. We are to have a statement on Monday, and I do not press the question now, but I would suggest to the Government that they should clear the Order Book of some of the Bills which have not attained the stage of Second Reading.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: There is one Bill in favour of which I hope an exception will be made because of its exceptional character—the Technical and industrial Institutions Bill. The Bill has come down from the other House, and now stands for Second Reading. It has for its object facilitating the acquisition of sites for
  586
  technical and industrial schools, and is of special interest to my constituency. The result of the Bill not passing will be that the establishment of the Clerkenwell Polytechnic will be delayed for a considerable time, and probably a valuable and eligible site will be lost. This has been offered by Lord Northampton, but owing to want of power under settlements the transfer cannot be carried out. The Bill comes to us from another place with the high authority of Lord Macnaghten, and I trust the House will allow it to pass through its stages this Session.
  MR. PICTON: I think the Government may be fairly expected to give an indication of the Bills they intend to proceed with. It is quite obvious they cannot pass all these measures unless the House sits until Christmas. I will not take upon myself to say which measures should be taken, but I think we may ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that measures which are met with genuine and earnest opposition shall not be pushed. I suppose we shall all agree that we ought to carry through these stages those Bills which are esteemed as of national importance; but there are some Bills of which this cannot be said, as for instance the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think it his duty to press this Bill after midnight; the exemption of the rule should not be applied to a Bill of this kind. Again, the Industrial Schools Bill and the Reformatory Schools Bill are not yet printed, and I presume it is not intended to move the Second Reading until we can see the Bills in print. I think it is generally understood that we accept this Motion only as applying to Bills of urgent importance, and as to which there is general agreement.
  MR. SEXTON: With this Motion before us I think the time has come when we should have a definite understanding upon the important Irish Bills. The Irish Local Government Bill had a position of importance in the Queen's Speech, and I think, for the convenience of Members who have to travel a long distance to attend the House, there should now be a formal statement of that which is pretty well

  587
  understood—that this Bill will not be proceeded with. As to the proposal to take Government Business at any hour, all I have to say is that I have no desire to put any obstacle in the way of winding up the business of the Session, and I should be willing even that Irish Supply should be taken at any reasonable hour after midnight. As to the Irish Education Bill, as I have already conveyed, unless it is made matter of arrangement and general consent, it will have to be regarded as an exceptionally contentious measure and be subjected to debate; and I do not think that such a debate should be relegated to after midnight with the presence of only a very few Members on this side of the House, with the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland on the other side. The Debate should not be continued beyond midnight, or such a time subsequent as may appear reasonable to Members taking an interest in the subject. As I understood just now, the right hon. Gentleman is disposed to accept this view. I do not press the matter further.
  MR. MORTON: I do not propose to offer opposition to this Motion, because I understand there is a desire to wind up our proceedings here and get to work elsewhere. But I would suggest that to meet the object we have in view it would be more convenient to meet at two o'clock every day, and then we might, by an hour, shorten our proceedings after twelve o'clock; certainly I should prefer such an arrangement. I now only desire to express regret that so much of the time of the Session should have been wasted by the Government upon Bills which apparently they had no intention of passing, and which were possibly—I may say probably — electioneering Bills. I think we have just cause to complain of this, seeing that it will necessitate our scampering through all the questions having relation to national expenditure, as now, I suppose, we shall have to do. However, I share the general desire to have matters brought to a conclusion in view of the General Election; but I think we should have a clear understanding that the Bills of private Members will not be allowed to
  588
  be pushed through in the early hours of the morning, and with only a few Members present. I hope we may be able at least to consider some matters in connection with Supply, because there are some few matters which even now want consideration. But, generally speaking, I shall be only too pleased to assist the Government in getting the business done, so that the people of this country may have an opportunity of expressing their opinion with regard to the Government.
  MR. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman, I think, cannot have been in the House a few moments ago, when I made some remarks with regard to questions relating to private Members. With regard to what the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has said, I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland cannot be in his place to-day; and in his absence I am unwilling to make any specific pledge with regard to the Irish Education Bill, to which special reference has been made. At the same time, I may repeat my own opinion that the object of the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule is not to unduly prolong the Sittings of the House, but to avoid the arbitrary suspension of business at that particular moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait for a final reply on this matter till I make a general statement on Monday with regard to all the Bills which the Government hope to be able to proceed with.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state now whether the Irish Local Government Bill will or will not be proceeded with this Session?
  MR. BALFOUR: As the hon. Member is aware, there is great opposition to this Bill, and under the circumstances I do not see any probability of its being carried through during the present Session.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if Orders 13, 14, and 18 will be taken to-night?
  MR. BALFOUR: I know nothing about 13 and 14. With regard to 18, it shall not be taken to-night after twelve o'clock.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That for the remainder of the Session Government Business do have priority every day, may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House except on Wednesday. That the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the other days of the week; and that, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Three of the clock.—(Mr. Balfour.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1892–3.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  1. £1,215,700, Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.

  2. £125,000, Medical Establishments and Services.

  3. £11,400, Martial Law, &c.

  4. £75,800, Educational Services.

  5. £60,000, Scientific Services.

  6. £159,000, Royal Naval Reserves.

  ADMIRAL FIELD: One word upon this Vote. I wish to make another appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to ask him to give me an assurance with regard to a question of very great importance, which I alluded to in the discussion which I had the honour to take part in earlier in the Session—the question of the personnel of the Service. I wish to emphasise the remarks which I then made, and to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the subject. With regard to the efficient seamen service of the Fleet at the present time, there is a great waste, and there is no effort made by the Admiralty to prevent that waste. When the period of service of ten years or Twelve years has expired the men are allowed by the regulations to re-engage for a further period. They are allowed twelve months, during which time they may exercise the option of re-engaging or not re-engaging. But a great many of them are lost to the Service and disappear. It is with respect to this latter that I wish to press the First Lord of the Admiralty to give us some assurance. I do not want
  590
  in any way to harass or embarrass him at all, but simply to ask him to give us a pledge that this matter will be considered as it ought to be considered. Naval men feel very strongly that this waste ought not to go on; and it would be easy to prevent it by granting these men absolute liberty of action and holding out some inducement to them to remain in the Service. I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to give us a Return of the men who had disappeared last year, but I could not get that Return, and I am obliged to make a rough estimate. Roughly speaking, I think we may take the waste of men at one thousand a year. Why should these thousand men be wasted—these men who have cost the country so much on their training, who are a most valuable body of men, who are ably trained, and who are good seamen and good gunners? If a suitable inducement were held out to these men I am sure they would join the Fleet Reserve of a superior class. When these men leave the Service they take engagements in civil employments; many of them take engagements in the Fire Brigade of London and other large towns. As I say, they are a most valuable body of men, and why should not some effort be made to retain them? If I might venture to make a suggestion it would be that at the expiration of the period of service, say of twelve years, they should be able to re-engage, or that they should undertake to serve so many years in the First Class Naval Reserve. That could be made a binding engagement; and thus these men might be tempted to join the Naval Reserve by offering them either short service pensions or some other inducement. All I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to do now is to consider this whole question in all its bearings. I know that the First Lord of the Admiralty has done much with his colleagues to bring the Navy itself to such a state of perfection as to meet all the demands that may be made upon it. I know he is aware that naval men are not satisfied that the present condition of the personnel of the Navy is such as to meet the strain if war come upon us. I venture to ask him to give us a pledge that something will be done, whether by

  591
  requiring the parents of boys to give an engagement on their behalf that at the age of eighteen they shall re-engage in the new Naval Reserve or by some other means, to put a stop to this waste of valuable men.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): What my hon. and gallant Friend suggests practically amounts to this: that in the case of men who engage for the first term of service some inducement should be offered to them in order that they should enter the Naval Reserve. My hon. and gallant Friend will see that this is not a matter of which there can be an easy solution. If you make the terms so good as to offer a superior inducement to a man to go into the Naval Reserve after his first term of service, in all probability many men would decline to enter into a second term of service. Therefore, the matter must be very carefully considered; and the inducement held out must be such as not to interfere with the second term of years on the Active List. My hon. and gallant Friend states that practically the personnel of the Navy is not in as satisfactory a condition as he could wish. I only hope that he does not take for granted the statements circulated in the Press concerning the number of men available. The personnel of the Navy has been largely increased during the last three years. There have been 13,000 more men on the Active List, and 7,000 more men have volunteered for the Naval Reserve; and at the present moment, so far as our ships are concerned, if they were all to be put in commission, we have more men than would be sufficient to man them. However, I will bear in mind what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. As he has already suggested, the matter is one worthy of being carefully investigated.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £1,866,100 — Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—Personnel.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I wish to express the great satisfaction which my constituency feel at the very high standard of work
  592
  which has been done in the Government dockyards. I believe there can be no doubt that the work performed there will compare very favourably with the work done in private yards. There is one class of workmen in the yards—namely, the riggers, who are very grateful for the additional pay which has been granted by the Admiralty. While admitting that much has been done to improve the condition of things, a great deal remains to be done with regard to increasing the pay of the workmen. There is one particular grievance to which I should like to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that is with regard to the system of classification. The greatest dislike of the system of classification exists. There may be much in favour of the system of classification; but I believe I am correct in saying that it has been found from experience that it is impossible to introduce the system of classification into any private yards at all. I have been told over and over again that the men almost universally would prefer a less rise of pay, and that it should be uniform. What they ask is that if the classification system is to continue it should be by seniority, and not as at present—by selection. There is the greatest dislike and distrust of the system of selection; and if it must be continued, the workmen would prefer that they should be entitled to a rise of wages by seniority. There is another grievance felt by the caulkers, who are a small body in themselves, and whose services are not so much in demand now owing to the improvements which have been made. Their contention is that if there is to be a readjustment of wages they should be placed on an equal footing with the rest. I hope the Admiralty will see their way to favourably consider what appears to me to be the reasonable claim of these men. Then there is the grievance of the petty officers, who respectfully ask for an increase of pensions. I would also respectfully call the attention of the Admiralty to the claims of the engineers and artificers. Before sitting down I hope I may be allowed also to express the deep regret which is felt at the course which the Admiralty have taken with regard to ships built at

  593
  Sheerness. Formerly the ships built at Sheerness were commissioned there; but now I understand it has been decided by the Admiralty that they should be sent away and commissioned at Chatham. I may be told that that is necessary for the purpose of mobilisation. If that be so, it is probably useless to argue against it. But what I contend is that if such a measure is taken without due notice, and if there is to be such a disturbance of trade, there should be some compensation. I hope the Admiralty will see their way, if this policy is adopted, to do something, if not this year, on some future occasion, to make some adequate compensation for the injury which it will inflict upon such towns as Sheerness, which depend upon dockyard support.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I desire to remind the House that the number of Members who represent dockyard constituencies and who take interest in dockyard matters has been very considerably reduced. We have to mourn the loss of a gallant officer (Admiral Mayne), who sat for some years in this House and who look a great interest in all matters connected with dockyards and shipping. He always spoke with great intelligence on the subject, and was always listened to with great pleasure and instruction; and we are all exceedingly grieved that he should be taken from us in such a sudden manner. With reference to the remarks which have fallen from my hon. Friend who has just sat down, I wish to say that I endorse what he has said; and I want to make one or two remarks on the same subject. The subject is one of great importance in naval yards. As regards the question of the way in which the rise of pay has been distributed amongst the men, the two largest classes in the dockyards are those of the shipwrights and the joiners, and until the present time they have always been given a rate of wages which did not vary with length of service or in any other way. They have now been classified, and they strongly object to it. I understand that the Admiralty, in carrying out this large measure of reform, have taken the average wages given in the private
  594
  yards during the course of five or six years. Taking the average wages at 36s. 7d. a week for a certain number of hours worked, the Government provide that the men should work three hours a week less than they do in the private yards. That is, they work for one-eighteenth less time than they do in the private yards; and they therefore knock off one-eighteenth of the wages-One-eighteenth of 36s. 7d. is as nearly as possible 2s. 1d., so that that cuts down the wages to 34s. 6d. But they have again to deduct from that what represents the pension the men have to look forward to; and that is usually calculated at 1s. 6d. a week. Deducting 1s. 6d. from 34s. 6d. leaves 33s. a week. But, then, the Admiralty takes this singular course: They do not say that when a man has served his apprenticeship he shall be at once put on the average wages which are received in private yards, but he is to be put on lower wages. Instead of receiving 33s. a week, he is paid 31s. a week. I hold that that is a wrong principle. When a man has served his apprenticeship he should at once be put upon what is the average wages outside. Then there might be long service or good service pay, so that every shipwright or joiner in the yard should receive a uniform rate of pay, and a certain number, fixed by the Admiralty, by length of service, or by the recommendation of their officers, should be eligible to receive a small addition in the shape of service pay. I do not think that would cost very much money, and I think it would give satisfaction to the men in the yard. I quite endorse what has been said about the various other classes in the yard; but passing from that to another question of more national interest, I want to ask the Admiralty if they have again studied the question of making a large dock in the West of England which would be capable of taking in our ships at any time of the tide or weather? I think this is a most important point. I believe that plans for such a dock have been before the Admiralty for some time, but they do not seem to be inclined to ask for the money to carry it out. In case of war, no doubt great battles would be fought in the Channel, and especially in the

  595
  western part of the Channel, and ships of our Navy would have to run into Cork or to Plymouth; and if there is no dock ready at once to receive them at any time of the tide and weather, there might be a loss of some of our large and valuable ships. It can be done, and as it is a very important matter I hope the Admiralty may be able to say whether they have considered it, and whether they intend before long to ask for the money to carry it out?
  SIR FREDERICK FITZWYGRAM: I wish to call the attention of the Admiralty to the position of the men at Priddy's Hard, Gosport. The men are classed as skilled and unskilled labourers, and the work which they do—filling shells with gunpowder—is rather dangerous on account of the chances of explosion. The circumstances of the case, which are very brief indeed, are these: The men, until lately, belonged to the Ordnance Establishment, but they were transferred to the Naval Establishment, and then, in consequence of a rise of wages in the Portsmouth Dockyard, two shillings a week were added to the wages of the skilled and unskilled labourers on that side of the water. The Admiralty, however, have consistently refused to give that increase to the skilled and unskilled labour at Priddy's Hard which they have given to the skilled and unskilled labour on the other side of the water. In consequence of representations made, a similar class of workers at Woolwich have been given this two shillings a week which the men at Priddy's Hard think, and which I think, they are fairly entitled to.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) and the hon. Member for the Faversham Division (Mr. Herbert Knatchbull-Hugessen). I am glad to say I am not embarrassed by having a dockyard in my constituency, and I assure the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of the Admiralty, who have taken some interest in this question of dockyard classification, that I do not share the views of the hon. Members who have spoken. I think the
  596
  Admiralty deserve to be supported in the proposals they have made for classification of work in the dockyards, and I hope they will adhere strictly to it. The whole Naval Service is based upon classification afloat, and I think the Admiralty are perfectly right on this question, and I hope they will stand as firm as rocks on the matter.
  DR. TANNER: I would like to press upon the Government the advisability of carrying out some of the remarks that fell from the hon. Member opposite. It is advisable at a time like the present, that these Votes should be got as soon as possible in order that we should get to our constituencies, and I understand that an agreement has been entered into not to debate these questions at any length. But I heard, with a considerable amount of interest, the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who said that, if a time of war should arise—and it is quite on the cards that such a time may arise, though I hope it will be as far distant as possible—and any naval engagements were to take place, they must of necessity take place in the English Channel and at the western end of it, and the hon. and gallant Member spoke of our vessels having to run into Cork or Plymouth. We know a good deal of money has been spent on the harbour of Cork—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I should have interrupted the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), as I now have to interrupt the hon. Member for Cork. The hon. Member's remarks are not in order on this Vote, but they may be addressed to the Committee on the Vote for Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
  DR. TANNER: I daresay the Committee will pardon me being out of order if the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport was out of order. But I think any assurances which can be given should be given in order to help the Government out of their difficulty, and enable us to get to our constituencies.
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: I do not think, because we are not to take part in the Debate, it is understood we are not

  597
  entitled to receive any information which may be required. If we are not to debate the matter, we should not debate it.
  MR. MORTON: I do not desire to take up the time of the Committee on these Naval Votes, because I am anxious to get to the country, but I should like to ask why there is this large increase in the Vote of over £100,000? I should be glad if I can be told that you are going to pay the working-men connected with the Navy better; those at the top of the tree are well paid already—in the Navy as in other Departments. The real working men, even the officers who do the work, I do not consider are too highly-paid; and if this large increase is to go to those who do the work for the country, I do not say I am going to object to it. I want to know why there is this increased expenditure, so that we may be able to explain the position if we are asked. I trust we may have some explanation.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): If the hon. Member will turn to Page 3 of the Estimates he will see that no less than £96,000 goes to the increase of wages paid to the men.
  MR. MORTON: Does that mean more men or increased wages?
  *MR. FORWOOD: Partly increased wages, but chiefly more men. The question of classification, which two of my hon. Friends have alluded to, was brought before the attention of the Committee when the Naval Estimates were last discussed; and I then endeavoured to give the reasons which induced the Admiralty to adopt the system, or rather to continue the system, which had been in vogue at the dockyards for many years. As the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) has stated, within the last two or three days I have had the benefit of having an interview with the men themselves in two of the dockyards—Devonport and Portsmouth—and I should like to mention to the Committee that when the question of the wages paid at the dockyards was two years ago brought to our notice by the ordinary form of a Petition from the men, the men themselves
  598
  then begged that the Admiralty would arrange a higher rate of pay, and that the higher rate of pay should be on a graduated scale. They positively asked that any arrangement we should make as to the pay of the men should have a minimum and a maximum—not a uniform rate of pay, but a progressive rate of pay. The Admiralty considered it would be very desirable to continue what had been the practice in all other trades in the yard except established shipwrights and established joiners—to pay progressive or graduated rates of pay. The difficulty which has arisen in the minds of many workmen in the yard is that the graduated rate of pay, the classification as they call it, is fixed primarily according to the merit and competency of the men, and not simply according to the number of years they may have been in the employ. I submit that no great establishment like a dockyard could be continued if every man was to consider that when he arrived at a given time of service, he should thereby become entitled to a higher rate of pay, without reference to his diligence or skill. I do not think it would be possible to conduct a dockyard upon the principle of seniority; but there is very great care taken in promoting the men from one rate of pay to another, and if there are two men one who has been many years in the dockyard, and the other only a comparatively few years—of equal competency and equal diligence, the preference is given to the man of longer service. I want to refer to the fact that there is a very material difference between the two classes—the established men and the hired men. With the hired men it is perfectly optional whether they remain or go. If they are not satisfied with the rate of pay awarded to them on entry, or whatever may be given to them from time to time, it is quite optional for them to remain. It is different with the established workman. The established workman has, in a sense, a vested claim for continuous service, and a pension at the end of a given number of years, or when he attains a given age. When the established men received one uniform rate of pay two years ago, both established joiners

  599
  and shipwrights complained to me when I visited the yard that they had no chance at all of promotion. There is not the same inducement to diligence for the man on the staff who is promised continuous work; there is not the same incentive for the man who, for the rest of his life, is promised constant employment as there is for the man who is on the hired list, who may be dismissed, and whose conduct, naturally, is more closely watched than that of an established man. Therefore, in his own interest, as well as in the interest of the State, it is a very wise plan to have a graduated scale of pay. The same remark applies to the joiners. The hon. Member for the Faversham Division of Kent spoke about vessels having removed up to Chatham for mobilisation purposes. I believe that, in order that the vessels may be efficient and ready for work at a moment's notice, it is decidedly better that they should be placed at Chatham. But compensation will be given to the district which my hon. Friend represents in the shape of a School of Gunnery, which I hope will at an early date be in full swing. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Frederick Fitz Wygram), in regard to the wages paid at Priddy's Hard, that matter is still under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and I hope a communication will be made in reference to the Memorial before the Board in a few days' time.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: It is perfectly true the men did ask for a progressive rate of pay two years ago. They are just as anxious to have it now, and I am anxious that they should have it; the mistake is that the progress is downwards. The men wish to be paid uniformly the same wage as they get in private yards.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Will the School of Gunnery be established within the current year?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It will be gradually developed, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be in full working order before the end of the financial year. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), I would point out that every single man on the
  600
  establishment is now better off than he was before the classification began. The essence of the controversy is that a certain number—a very limited number—of men who are inferior workmen want to be put on the maximum rate. If we, acting on the representations made to us, acceded to the request of the men by establishing a progressive wage; and if we took care that the men who were on the lowest rate got a certain advance, I think we went a good way to meet their wishes.
  MR. MORTON: I saw that item of £96,000 in the Estimates. I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would tell us what proportion of that sum has gone to increase the wages of the men, and what proportion is due to the increase in the number of the men? Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what are the hours of labour in these dockyards?
  *MR. FORWOOD: An average of fifty and one-third hours per week all the year through. Of the £96,000 increased wages, about £40,000 goes to make up the additional pay which, with the £40,000 voted last year, makes the £80,000 added to the pay of the men; and the balance represents increased numbers.
  Vote agreed to.
  8. £1,615,500, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—Matériel.
  9. £1,289,400, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—Contract Work.
  10. £1,398,700, Naval Armaments.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I wish to ask for some assurance with regard to certain guns. I allude to the bursting of a particular gun on board the "Cordelia" in Australia last year. I should like an assurance that these guns have been withdrawn from the Service once and for ever. I understand that most of the ships of the training squadron that recently returned from abroad were armed with that class of gun. I also hear that these guns have been taken out and new ones of a superior character put in.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The guns of this particular mark have all been withdrawn. The "Cordelia" is now in dock, and her present arma-

  601
  ment will soon be replaced by a later mark. The total number of guns we have had to replace is 56.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £448,000, Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad.
  DR. TANNER: I desire to call attention to this matter of Haulbowline. On many occasions I have mentioned the important fact that a great deal of time and a great deal of money have been expended in bringing about a condition of affairs in Cork Harbour which is absolutely the reverse of desirable. We find that in places like Devonport and Sheerness, where you have Conservative constituents, more money is being spent on men and works, and absolute bribery is taking place now that hon. Gentlemen opposite have to go to meet their constituents. But when we turn to this Vote, we find that all that is to be done for Cork Harbour is that £2,115 is to be expended in dredging. The dredging hitherto has been inefficiently done; and on the Haulbowline side it has filled in again and again till it is doubtful whether, at the present time, the channel you have been dredging would admit a good-sized gunboat into the dock. You spend a great amount of time in putting up dock gates at Haulbowline, and then you let the whole thing go derelict. The staff is too small, and cannot capably perform the duties which this large dock entails. You have to pump day and night in order to prevent leakage. The time may come when you will find that this is a strategical position of the utmost importance, and instead of wasting time and wasting money you ought at once to take this matter into your serious consideration. If the Admiralty officials do not spend a little more money on this work, they will, in process of time, allow the millions which have already been expended to be thrown away. The dockyard works have been proceeding at a tortoise-like speed, although I have taken every opportunity, in season and out of season, of urging upon the Admiralty officials the necessity of completing them. I hope that when the First Lord of the Admiralty is in Opposition—as he soon will be—he
  602
  will aid me in urging the new Administration to finish the work. The only way to get it done is to hammer away at successive Administrations until it is completed. Up to the present little or no progress has been made, but I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will now be able to assure the Committee that no further delay will take place.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I cannot help rising to support the efforts of the hon. Member to get this work completed. It has certainly not been pushed forward as it ought to have been. It is most important that we should have sufficient dock accommodation in a time of naval warfare, and that we should be able, after an action has taken place, to bring out a second fleet in order that it may deal a crushing blow upon the enemy by picking up or destroying their disabled ships.
  MR. MORTON: I find that there is a sum of money down in the Estimate for a racket court and an American bowling green. I should like to know whether any provision is made against gambling in regard to these matters?
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: I agree with the hon. Member for Cork (Dr. Tanner) as to the importance of pushing these works forward. I thought the dock had been completed, and that everything was in a satisfactory state with regard to it. It is news to me to find that that is not the case. I hope no time will now be lost in completing it. There is another matter to which I wish to allude. Some two or three years ago I thought it my duty to impress upon the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for India the importance of providing a dock at Bombay. The Government of India and the Government at home could not then come to an agreement, although I understand the Bombay Harbour Trust took it up. A promise was also made at one time to construct a dock at Gibraltar. It is important that the coaling arrangements at Portland and Sheerness should be completed as soon as possible, because so much depends upon coaling in time of war.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The short discussion that we have had upon this subject shows some of the difficulties that we have had to contend with in this minor branch of our expenditure. The Vote we are discussing only relates to docks at home, but we have had proposals from the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Field) to build docks at Bombay and Gibraltar. If the whole of the expenditure which has been suggested by hon. and gallant Members were totalled up it would be found to represent something between two and three million pounds. I only mention this to show the demands which are made upon us in regard to this class of work. As to the matter to which the hon. Member for Cork has called attention, I may say that it is not being overlooked. The delay has largely arisen owing to the difficulties in the way of dredging, and the rocky character of the site of the dock. The amount asked for in the Estimate will, I think, be sufficient to enable the work to be completed, and I will undertake that it shall be pushed forward. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member that something should be done with regard to Gibraltar.
  MR. MORTON: The noble Lord has not replied to my question.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is necessary to provide some means of amusement for sailors, and it is not to be supposed that the officers would sanction any kind of impropriety.
  MR. MORTON: Are there any provisions against gambling in such matters?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is a matter for the authorities on the spot to deal with.
  Vote agreed to.
  12. 148,000, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  MR. MORTON: I desire to ask the noble Lord whether the sum of £3,900, which is required for ministers of religion in connection with this Vote, will go only to the clergymen of the Church of England, or to other ministers as well? We know that the men in the Service belong to different sects. I should also like to have some
  604
  information with regard to the sum of £1,200 which is required for carrying and entertaining Royal personages at sea. I do not object to the voting of the money for the purpose, but to the way in which it is voted, because it is another mode of increasing salaries and allowances.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The amount required for ministers of religion is for services to seamen and marines in Her Majesty's ships and at establishments at home and abroad. With regard to the £1,200, it has been the practice from time immemorial to convey by sea a certain portion of the Royal Household, and the expenses have always come under this Vote. It has also been the custom to meet the cost of conveying Royal personages between England and Scotland. The expenditure under this head sometimes varies, but the average of the last few years has been £1,200.
  MR. MORTON: May I ask whether the amount required for ministers of religion is only for those belonging to the Church of England, or for those connected with other sects?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It goes to ministers of different sects.
  Vote agreed to.
  13. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £227,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893."
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I think something should be said with regard to this Vote. The Admiralty Board should be thoroughly representative of the various interests and classes in the Service. But there are two classes which are not represented on it. One is the steam branch of the Service, which is growing every year, and the other is the Marine Force, which is not represented at the Admiralty nor at the War Office. An important reduction has been made in the engineering staff on board our ships, the necessity for which I cannot quite understand. If there is an accident on board a ship it is at once attributed to the want of a sufficient engineering staff. If the chief of the engineering staff at the Admiralty were a member of

  605
  the Board he would be able to speak with authority in regard to this matter; he would also be responsible for the policy adopted. There is the same want of responsibility with regard to the Marines. I do not see why there should not be some representative officer at the Admiralty, or at the War Office, to deal with all matters relating to the Marines.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I must express my strong disapproval of the suggestions made by my hon. and gallant Friend. They strike at the very root of the whole Naval Service. However distinguished the Engineer-in-Chief may be, he has no right to a seat on the Admiralty Board, which is responsible for the proper conduct of naval operations in time of war; and the same remark applies to the Adjutant General of Marines. Such duties can only be efficiently discharged by naval men thoroughly conversant with the Service. I, therefore, utter my strongest protest against the adoption of any such suggestions.
  MR. MORTON: I notice that the Government are continually asking for money under one head of expenditure and spending it on another, although we were told the other day that it was illegal. I ask the noble Lord why the practice is still continued? It prevents the House of Commons from having any control over the expenditure. The special matter about which I rose to speak was the salary of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, which is £1,000. When it came up for consideration last Session it was in the middle of the night, and we had only a few minutes to deal with it. Therefore I did not then attempt to take a Division with regard to it. I now want to know what are duties of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty? I have been unable to ascertain what they are. So far as I can make out, his duties are to go about the country making electioneering speeches, and to play chess in the smoking-room.
  Hon. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  MR. MORTON: I do not object to his going about making electioneering speeches and denouncing his political opponents, but I do object to our paying him for it, especially as hon. Members on the other side so strongly
  606
  object to the payment of Members. I should be satisfied if Members were paid less than £1,000 a year, which is paid to the Civil Lord. If some information could be given as to the duties of the Civil Lord, I am sure it would be news to the Committee and also to the country. I will not further occupy the time of the Committee, but will move to reduce Item A, Salaries, by £1,000, the amount of the salary of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Morton.)
  DR. TANNER: I hope my hon. Friend will not trouble the Committee further with this trivial matter. I would remind him of that picture by Leech in which one servant asks his fellow, "Ham I engaged for use, or ham, I engaged for hornament?" Let my hon. Friend gaze at the Bench opposite, and he will at once understand that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is engaged for ornamental purposes. He is, as we all know, paid £1,000 per year on the distinct understanding that while holding his tongue in the House of Commons he may outside speak to his heart's desire. I may say that the Civil Lord is the joy of the Primrose Dames; he is the delight of the ladies, and wherever he goes his path is strewn with flowers. We have occasionally had the pleasure of seeing him in the South of Ireland, but he journeyed thither in the interests of pleasure, and he pursued that mission to its utmost bent. He attends the House at a late period of the evening, when there is no Admiralty work to be done; and as to his Department, we have had no answer from him during the last eight or nine months. Thus his services are of the lightest nature; they are ethereal, and as they will not be required or desired much longer, it really would be better not to trouble the Committee with such a very insignificant subject. Some Members of Her Majesty's Government have important duties to discharge, others have not; but in connection with the Admiralty it is pre-eminently desirable that they should at least have a Civil Lord, and they have a most extraordinarily Civil Lord in the present appendage. When this Government is,

  607
  as it shortly will be, succeeded by another, I hope there will be an endeavour to secure as Civil Lord some Member of the House who is acquainted with the duties, so that the salary of £1,000 per year may not be thrown away upon tomfoolery in the country.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: This office has for some years past been brought to the notice of the House. The office of Civil Lord embraces important and onerous duties; and it is an office which has been held by Lord Brassey and by other gentlemen of unquestionable position in regard to naval matters. These gentlemen, I think I may say, have earned distinction, and distinction also for the manner in which they have discharged their duties. I know something of what goes on in the office, and I think that when this Government comes to an end—although I believe it will not come to an end so soon as some imagine—I think it will be found that the work done by the Civil Lord in respect of the Admiralty will contrast well with the work done by his predecessors. The fact is, my hon. Friend the Civil Lord is attacked not because he inefficiently discharges his duties, but because he has the power of making eloquent speeches, and I think it unfair that that should be the ground of attack upon any hon. Member of this House. I read a very effective speech he made at Peterborough recently, and therefore I can, in some measure, understand the Motion. The Civil Lord has so contrived to manage the business of the Works Department that it progresses quietly without attracting the attention of Parliament, and, consequently, that few questions are put in this House is much to his credit. I only rise for the purpose of protesting against those continued attacks upon the Civil Lord—attacks which I am certain are not due to any question of his ability to efficiently discharge his duties, but due simply to the fact that he contrives on the platform to powerfully illustrate the political creed which he professes.
  MR. MORTON: What are the duties?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Member is head of the Civil Branch of the Admiralty—that is to say that all questions connected with pay, allowances, and pensions come before him. He has, in addition, the control of the Works Branch, the management of Greenwich Hospital, and of the School and all property connected with it. Therefore it is quite a mistake to say that because my hon. Friend acts outside and in different parts of the country that he does not adequately and properly discharge the duties of his office. I also desire to utter a word of protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Devonport (Captain Price), who seems to think the Board of Admiralty is based upon the principle of proportional representation. I protest against the doctrine and maintain that each separate branch of the Navy stands equal, and that the work of the Admiralty is well divided. There is one Lord who is the chief adviser to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and head of the executive service, and under him there are three Naval Lords—one at the head of the personnel, one at the head of the matériel, and the other deals with the various subsidiary services connected with the naval work. Under these three heads every branch of the Service is properly and adequately represented. My hon. Friend suggests that the Engineer-in-Chief should be a member of the Board of Admiralty. He is a technical officer, and, however able a technical officer he may be, it is not advisable that he should be put in a position of the highest executive authority, because then he would have to judge upon his own specifications and plans. The present system has worked very well. Once only in the course of the last twenty years a very able expert was brought in from outside and made a member of the Board of Admiralty; but nobody cognisant of the working would say that his introduction tended towards efficiency. The Board of Admiralty exists for one purpose, and one purpose alone, and that is to maintain the highest standard of efficiency of the Navy practicable in conjunction with economical administration.
  MR. MORTON: The noble Lord has pointed out the civil duties of these offices; and if these duties are so numerous I desire to know how a Civil Lord can, consistently with their proper discharge, gallivant about the country making speeches to dames, Primrose or otherwise. The First Lord of the Admiralty made some reference to a speech delivered by the Civil Lord at Peterborough as influencing me on this occasion, and in this connection it appears to me that we have made a discovery. The First Lord stated that he had read the speech, and hence I presume it is the duty of the Civil Lord to send his speeches, probably before delivery, to the noble Lord for his correction possibly. From this we may infer that speaking in the country is considered one of the duties pertaining to the office of Civil Lord. I do not propose to proceed to a Division, but I trust that the Government if in office any length of time, or another Government, will take care that the holder of the office will attend to the duties set forth to-day by the noble Lord instead of wasting his time in the country. I beg to withdraw my Motion to reduce the Vote.
  DR. TANNER: I desire to say that when I have put questions to the Civil Lord they have been invariably answered by someboby else, and that, consequently, we have arrived at the conclusions we have expressed. I now ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is or is not a fact that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is paid £1,000 per year on the explicit understanding that he does not attempt to open his mouth in the House of Commons?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100 in order not to call attention to a grievous hardship which exists among our sailors, but to draw attention to another subject which has connection with this Vote. The Committee is probably aware that the Estuary of the Thames furnishes a most productive
  610
  fishing ground, and that the East End of London largely subsist on the fish there taken—whelks, flat fish, and mussels and cockles. Previous to 1888, the Metropolitan Board of Works, Municipalities generally, and private individuals were in the habit of discharging refuse of all kinds into the fishing ground. To use a colloquial expression, they simply "dumped" the refuse of London into the fishing ground at the Estuary of the Thames. In the Sea Fisheries Act of 1888 a clause was inserted by which Sea Fishery Boards were created with the power to bring actions and secure penalties against persons who infringed the Act by throwing rubbish into a fishing ground. The result of throwing rubbish into the Estuary of the Thames is that nets are torn, and that the fish are poisoned and leave the ground. That means that the fishers' occupation is taken away, and that the whole fishing district is practically ruined. That certainly is a grievance, but the one to which I desire particularly to call the attention of the Committee is that whereas the Sea Fisheries Boards are able to prosecute and obtain convictions against contractors, municipal authorities, and private individuals, the authorities at the Admiralty Dockyard are in the habit of discharging mud immediately into this fishing ground, thus destroying the fish, ruining the nets, and practically taking away the occupation of the fishermen. During the last six weeks I have been in communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty on this subject, and the noble Lord informed me at first that he thought the matter was one connected with the General Election. On another occasion he thought that the fish probably rather liked to have mud thrown at them than not. I could get absolutely no sufficient answer from the noble Lord on the subject. All we ask is that the Admiralty should be subject to the same regulations as are binding on private individuals. If the noble Lord will give me his assurance that the mud from the Admiralty Dockyard should be conveyed to the other side of the Nore I shall be perfectly satisfied, and if he cannot do so I shall have to press my Amendment to a Division.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100."—(Major Rasch.)
  A LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,): My noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has asked me to reply to the hon. and gallant Member. I can assure him that neither the First Lord nor the officers responsible for the conduct of the removal of the mud have the slightest desire to injure the interests of the fishermen whom he represents. The hon. and gallant Member will recognise that in connection with the great Dockyard at Chatham dredging must go on. The entire carrying out of what he wants would involve the country in an increased expenditure of at least £30,000 per year. In consequence of the representations which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made to the First Lord of the Admiralty upon this question, the officers of the Department who conduct the dredging have lately made further soundings and examination, and they discovered that a portion of this mud has been deposited contrary to instruction on certain shoals, where possibly it have done some injury to the fishing. The Admiralty, however, have the greatest desire to avoid this for the future. They have given instructions that these shoals are to be avoided—while I do not undertake that the mud shall be carried as far as the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes—and the mud cast into deeper water. They have further given instructions that more complete soundings should be taken and the whole question considered. I hope the reply I have given will be considered satisfactory.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the hon. Gentleman say that the mud should not be deposited?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLFTT: No, I am not prepared to say that now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have remarked that this question has already been investigated in consequence of his representations, and that certain advantages have resulted. Directions have been given to avoid certain shoals which are important to fishermen, and every endeavour will be made, consistent with the public service,
  612
  to avoid future injury to the fishermen he represents.
  MAJOR RASCH: If I have the hon. Member's assurance that mud shall not be thrown on these shoals in future, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. MORTON: The noble Lord has not answered my question with regard to money voted under one head and expended in connection with some other. I should be glad to have a little explanation.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman does not quite accurately state the existing practice or law. The Admiralty and War Office both have power, when they have obtained sanction, to apply to another purpose a Vote obtained under a different head, but they cannot do so on their own authority. In some cases it is necessary to make formal application to the Treasury, and until sanction is received no such transfer is made. I am not aware in this connection that any reports have been made on the action of the Admiralty. The Auditor General, however, did on one or two occasions call attention to the fact that payments had sometimes been made a little in advance of contracts entered into. The hon. Member will observe that in carrying out so much business as is connected with the administration of the Navy it is impossible to meet every want during the year. If unforeseen accidents occur it would be necessary to meet the expenditure by a supplementary sum, unless the Admiralty can meet it out of other sections—a proceeding which does not, I think, in any way interfere with the control of public money by the House.
  MR. MORTON: I have myself distinctly said that it would be impossible to carry on the business of the country without sometimes spending money not previously voted. In one case, I should like to point out that the Treasury or the Auditor General said that the matter ought to have been brought before Parliament. I object to the present system altogether, although I do not object

  613
  to the Government spending the money in cases of emergency. The system is bad. If you had to spend this money, and then brought it up in the form of a Supplementary Vote, the House of Commons could become acquainted with the circumstances.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (14.) £764,200, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
  (15.) £941,600, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I wish to allude to one or two points upon which the minds of warrant officers and seamen are exercised, and are likely to be until some satisfactory assurance is given by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) that the matters will be dealt with in the way that is desired by them. With regard to the petty officers, let me say that their appeal to have their grievances redressed has not met with that encouragement which I think it deserves. One burning question with them is that, although a seaman may have served well and faithfully up to within one year of the time when he is entitled to his pension, yet, unless he can get a character marked "very good" for the last year, he is deprived of his gratuity and part of his pension. That seems very hard. What they urge is that the word "good" should be considered sufficient. Another thing asked is that when a man is entitled, on the completion of his time, to a gratuity, and he enlists to serve a further period, it shall be secured to him in the same way as his pension is secured. I come now to the vexed question of the chief petty officers' claim to have their position recognised by an increased pension. They respectfully urge the First Lord, through me and other hon. Members acquainted with their position, to have this matter settled once for all. There will be no peace on this matter unless the First Lord assents, because they have been already encouraged to hope for a recognition of their claim by the First Lord, who three years ago said that the matter had been carefully considered, and that the importance of
  614
  making a distinction in their case was fully recognised. I shall, perhaps, be told that there is a difficulty in adding to the pay or pensions of the non-effective force. That seems to me a most insulting term. These men are some of the most effective servants of the Crown. We can only get at the Treasury through the First Lord, with whom the decision of the matter rests; and I hope he will see his way to grant the concessions asked for. If I have the honour to be returned to this House again, I shall continue to press this matter upon whatever Government may be in power. Another grievance to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee relates to the divisional officers of the Coastguard. These men are recognised as being on the same footing as warrant officers, but their pensions are not awarded to them on the same principle. The warrant officers' pensions are calculated on the basis of £4 for each year served, and 30s. for each year of seaman's time, whereas the divisional officers of the Coastguard get only £1 for each year of seaman's time. The grievance is that this extra 10s. is not granted to them. Another point is that the warrant officers obtain an increase of pay with every five years served; but the divisional officers of the Coastguard get no such increase, which is very unfair. Then the seamen of the Coastguard have another serious grievance, inasmuch as when they re-engage for a further period of service at the end of ten or twelve years they are not granted the extra twopence per day which is awarded to the seamen of the Fleet. This matter should be adjusted without delay; the country relies upon the Coastguard Service in time of war, and they ought to be treated in a just manner. And let me point out that in satisfying the divisional officers the House will be satisfying the men below them, who hope to rise to their rank. Anything that tends to give satisfaction to the seamen of the Fleet, or to the divisional officers of the Coastguard, in the way of removing a grievance is, in my opinion, worthy of the attention of the House, and I hope the noble Lord will give due consideration to these representations.
  MR. MORTON: I agree to some extent with the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Field), who, having been defeated by the Salvation Army, has now turned his attention to the grievances of the seamen and others.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: We have not been defeated yet.
  MR. MORTON: I think it is only right that the petty officers and others who actually do the work of the Navy should be properly paid and receive fair and reasonable pensions. But let me point out that there is a considerable number of admirals, captains, and others connected with the Navy who, although fully able to work, are receiving large allowances. I think, if we were to reduce their allowance—I will not say take it away altogether—we might obtain in that way a sufficient sum to recompense those men who have to do the real work.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: With regard to this question of pensions for petty officers, I may say that I stated their grievances in a letter to the noble Lord a short time ago. I only now rise to say that I fully endorse all that has been said by the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Field). The matter that has been alluded to with reference to the chief petty officers has now been before the House for a long time, and I think some way out of the difficulty should be found without further delay.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I am anxious, as far as I can, to meet any grievance that may exist in the Service, and to do justice to all the men employed in Her Majesty's Fleet; but when the hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Admiral Field) lays down the proposition that we should give satisfaction to all grades of the Service he is making a large demand. The hon. Member for Peterborough says you ought to reduce the pensions of admirals and captains, and so on, in order to pay seamen and petty officers better. I do not believe there is an officer of any position who does not do the actual work of the Navy, and I may remind him that if there is any branch of the Service whose pay is not increased it is the executive
  616
  branch. Let me also say that there are no retired officers who are fit for active work. If these men draw pensions, it is in consequence of their past service, and it would be a ridiculous thing to deprive men of pensions they have earned, in order to give pensions to others. To go back to the proposition my hon. and gallant Friend has advanced, I may repeat that I wish to meet, with due regard to financial considerations, all the grievances of any branch of the Naval Service. Let us take one of the various grievances which my hon. and gallant Friend has brought before the notice of the Committee. It is quite true that the chief petty officers are probably the only class whose pensions are not increased when raised, from a lower grade. Owing to that, they allege that they are subject to a disqualification which other branches of the Service are exempt from. But the fact is, the grade out of which they are chosen have pension rules of an exceptionally favourable character. We looked into the question of their pensions carefully, and we found it was absolutely impossible to increase them without at the same time dealing with the pensions of various other grades. I may add that if this one matter alone were dealt with in the way suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend it would add £40,000 a year to the Pension Vote. This is a serious consideration, and I want to point out that in these matters there is a limit beyond which the Government cannot go. Wherever there is the slightest infringement of any of the conditions upon which the men have enlisted, the State should act liberally; but I am opposed to giving a ready assent to all the propositions for additional expenditure for the purpose of giving satisfaction on all points. We have no difficulty whatever in getting the best possible class of men for the Navy, and that is not to be wondered at considering the advantages which are offered to a well-conducted lad. Let anyone compare the position of such a lad at forty with that which he would have held supposing him to have occupied the same station in life as his father. I think it will be seen that the balance of advantages is consider-

  617
  ably in favour of the lad who enters the Navy. This question which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised is a large one, and must be dealt with on its merits. I have had a good many representations made to me by hon. Members who represent dockyard ports and portions of sea counties; and I am bound to say that they have put before me the claims of those in the Service with great assiduity. But I have taken the best possible advice, and having looked disinterestedly into this matter, I feel bound to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that I do not think it is possible to move in the direction he has indicated, unless the question of naval pensions is dealt with as a whole. Then we might possibly be able to make a little concession here and there, but it might be attended by reductions in other respects. I know the difficulty in which my hon. Friends find themselves now that an election is approaching in which these questions will, in certain localities, assume undue prominence, but I wish to impress plainly upon them my own opinion, which is, that a great mistake will be made—whoever is in office—if they think that by the pressure of a General Election these concessions can be made. There is no other wish on the part of the House than to deal liberally with the Navy, but each question must be argued on its own merits, and I do not think it is reasonable for the House to give its assent to propositions of the kind advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend, one of which involves an increased expenditure of £40,000 a year, without dealing with the whole question in the way I have indicated.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: I should like to ask the First Lord whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the Report of the Committee as to the old-age pensions at Greenwich Hospital?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My hon. and gallant Friend in his speech alluded to the present rules, which require the character of chief petty officers for the last year of service to be marked "very good," in order to ensure the full pension. I omitted to refer to that point, but I think that is a matter I might look into. With regard to the old-age pensions at Greenwich Hospital,
  618
  I may say that the Select Committee to whom the interpretation of the conditions was referred interpreted them in a sense favourable to the pensioners, and I feel we are bound to give effect to their recommendations. The first proposal respecting the payment of £5,000 per annum rent for Greenwich College will be carried into effect at once, and that will be an indication of the spirit in which we propose to deal with the pensioners, but the other will require legislation, and cannot be carried out this year. It will, however, be soon taken in hand, and then I believe this long-standing controversy as to these pensions will be set at rest.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: I wish to assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am entirely free from all dockyard and pensioners' pressure. What I have said I have said as an honest man, and not from any ulterior motives.
  MR. MORTON: I gathered from the noble Lord opposite that there were no officers in the Navy who were not at work. I should like to ask if that is the fact? Are there no men, like Prince Henry of Battenberg, for instance, who do no fighting?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: He is not in the Navy, neither does he draw any pay.
  Vote agreed to.
  16. £313,700, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
  17. £60,300, Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters.
  MR. MORTON: I do not know if we get this money back again or not, and I should like to ask the noble Lord how the matter stands.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was a Member of this House at the time the Act dealing with this matter was passed. The arrangement was simply this:—We undertook to build a certain number of vessels at a cost of £850,000, which were, for ten years, to be in Australasian waters, and the Australasian Colonies undertook to pay for the cost of their repair and maintenance during that time. They also agreed to pay five per cent interest on the cost of construction, which sum amounted to £35,000. In order to repay the

  619
  £850,000 which was advanced from the Consolidated Fund, an annuity of £95,000 was added to the Navy Estimates for twelve years; but there is an appropriation in aid against that which reduces the net amount chargeable upon the Navy Votes to £60,000. Last year the amount we had to pay in the form of annuity was considerably less than £95,000, because the amount charged to the Consolidated Fund had not reached the maximum of £850,000. This year the annuity is calculated on the whole amount, which accounts for the increase of £25,500. The arrangement with the Colonies is one beneficial to both parties. For ten years they get additional protection, and at the expiration of that period the vessels come back to the Imperial Government.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1892–3.

    CLASS I.
    (18.) £60,643, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to express my opinion that these parks should be given up to the London County Council, to be managed by them at the expense of London. I do not see why they should be charged to the country. At all events, I think they ought to be under the control of the London County Council, and managed by them in the interests of the people. I will not, however, proceed with that question now, because I do not believe it could be properly discussed.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: As we have now reached the Civil Service Estimates, it would, perhaps, be convenient if I were to say a few words as to the view which is held on this side of the House as to the course which should be pursued. I must say, first, that we very deeply regret that these Estimates should not have been brought forward at a very much earlier period of the Session, in order that the House might have had an opportunity of discussing them, especially as that discussion has been promised for the last two or three years. But we must
    620
    recognise the facts as they are, and it is evident to everyone in the House that at this period of the Session it would be absolutely impossible for us effectively or satisfactorily to criticise the Civil Service Estimates. The alternatives are that we must either discuss them in a very perfunctory way with no practical results, or at once recognise that they must be passed through this year with the hope that next year they may be adequately and fully discussed. I am aware that it is possible to do in 1892 what was done in 1886—namely, to take a Vote on Account and postpone the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates until the new Parliament met. But that was not found to be satisfactory in 1886. The new Parliament was quite as anxious to get through the Estimates as quickly as possible as the Parliament that expired would have been. My own opinion, if I may suggest it to my Friends on this side of the House, is that we should accept the circumstances and pass the Civil Service Estimates, reserving the right to discuss them on a future occasion. This year, owing to circumstances for which this House is not responsible, it is impossible at this period of the Session, and it would be equally impossible at the commencement of a later Session in the autumn, to give to the Civil Service Estimates that examination which they very much need, and, so far as we are concerned, I think we should afford to the Government every facility to wind up that part of their work.
    MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: Under ordinary circumstances I should have liked to have had certain explanations, both in regard to this Vote and some others. It seems to me, so far as I have gone through these Estimates, that they are most unsatisfactory, and if this is a fair specimen of the way in which the Estimates are prepared by Her Majesty's Government, I think that millions of money might be saved to the country. I think it is our duty to give very careful attention to the matter of expenditure, and it is to me very unsatisfactory to find that we are not going to discuss the Estimates properly and effectively.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to say that I quite agree with the right hon.

    621
    Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), but I very much regret that it is impossible for us to consider these Estimates properly at the present moment. It has always been understood that the great work of a Member of the House of Commons is to carefully criticise the Estimates whatever Government happened to be in power. I have no doubt we could criticise these Estimates as well now as in an Autumn Session, and therefore I agree that it is advisable to let them go through as quickly as possible. At the same time I think it is necessary for us to ask some questions, because we are shortly going to our constituents, and we ought to be in a position to answer any questions which may be addressed to us. But I do not intend to in any way unnecessarily occupy the time of the House.
    *MR. JAMES ELLIS: I believe there is a general impression in the country that these Estimates will never be thoroughly overhauled until they are taken in hand by the two Front Benches. Private Members may struggle in vain, but they cannot find their way through them, and the time will come when the people will demand that the two Front Benches shall take them in hand.
    MR. HOLDEN: I differ entirely, Mr. Courtney, from my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I think the two Front Benches should be excluded in this matter, and I am confident that private Members, if they only give sufficient time and thought to it will be able to effect a very considerable saving of money to the country.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.40.) 19. £25,125, to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament Buildings.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to ask why such a large sum of money is proposed to be spent on the House of Lords, That House is very little used, and it does not appear to me that it wants re-seating. I think that is a waste of money. I notice that there is a reduction of £350 in the amount paid for oil lamps; but no information is given with regard to the
    622
    contract, and I am afraid that an immense amount of money is wasted over these lamps. Then, again, although we have voted a larger sum this year for the electric light a larger sum is asked for the supply of gas. That certainly seems rather extraordinary.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I should like to ask for an explanation of an item of a rather mysterious character which appears under this Vote. I have heard of repairing a table or a chair, or of repairing a cart, but I never heard the word used in connection with works of Art. There is a sum of £250 for repairing frescoes in the House of Lords. I should like to know what is the nature of the repairs, and whether they are likely to be successful?
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I must admit that "repairs" is not the most accurate term that could have been used. I am afraid I cannot, at the moment, give a full scientific explanation of the processes to be employed for the purpose, but we have taken the best advice that could be got, and the object is to preserve those valuable frescoes, which are still in good condition. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton), he must know very well that there is a very elaborate style of decoration in the House of Lords which needs from time to time to be repaired. These decorations have not been repaired for some time, and they stand very badly in need of it. The time has now come, I think he will admit, when it is necessary that this expense should be incurred, or the whole of these decorations will be seriously injured. I confess it does seem extraordinary that while there is an increase in the charge for electric lighting there should also be a large charge for oil lamps; but, as hon. Members know, the electric light has not yet reached that part of these buildings where the greatest number of these oil lamps are used—that is to say, the Committee Rooms and residences attached to the House. It is in those parts of the House that oil lamps are most used, and as the electric light pushes its way into other parts of the House we may

    623
    reasonably expect the charge for oil lamps will be reduced. With respect to the increased charge for gas, I may say that just as the Estimates were being settled we received a notice from the Gas Company to the effect that they would be compelled to increase the charge for gas by, I think, about eight per cent., and that accounts for the increase in the Estimates. I may also say that a very large amount of gas was used during the short winter days before the House sat in making the alterations recommended by the Committee which sat last Session on the ventilation of the House. These expenses have not yet been met, and they are included in this Estimate.
    MR. MORTON: What about the seats in the House of Lords?
    *MR. PLUNKET: The benches are in such a condition that they require re-seating.
    MR. MORTON: I do not object to the House of Lords being kept in order, because it may be wanted some day. But the right hon. Gentleman suggested that I could see for myself that these repairs were necessary. I hardly know where the House of Lords is, and it is curious to note that when people come up from the country they ask where the House of Commons is, but they never ask for the House of Lords. They take no interest in it. With respect to the sanitary condition of the House, I may say that since the warm weather set in I have heard a large number of complaints of bad smells. I should like to know if everything has been done that can be done to put the House in a good sanitary condition, and how it is that bad smells constantly find their way into the House from the east end? Within the last few weeks these smells have been very bad, and a right hon. Gentleman who is now sitting on the Treasury Bench told me that he felt quite faint in consequence. I think this matter should be inquired into.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: As I had the honour of serving on the Committee which inquired into the sanitary condition of this House, I may say that the drainage is completely cut off from the main drainage outside, so that nothing of a bad character can
    624
    find its way through the sewers into this House. I think some of the smells in the Corridor arise from the machinery which has been devised for keeping out bad smells. Some of the antiseptics do smell very strong, but they are not unhealthy. It is quite evident from the position of this House that occasionally a bad smell may penetrate from outside. We draw nearly all the air in the House from the terrace, and it goes without saying that the air in the House cannot, therefore, be purer than it is in the reservoir from which it is drawn. As hon. Members know, barges pass up and down the river, from which now and again we may get an odour that is unpleasant. But I do state—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) will bear me out—that the drainage of this House is absolutely perfect.
    MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has noticed the condition of the frescoes on the way to the Committee Rooms? They are in a very bad state, but I do not see anything in the Estimates referring to them.
    *MR. PLUNKET: We have frequently considered the condition of these frescoes. They are, unfortunately, in a very bad state, and whether it was owing to some infirmity in their original construction or whatever was the cause, we have been unable to arrest the process of decay, and some of them, I regret to say, have got beyond recall. With respect to the sanitary condition of the House, I entirely adopt everything that was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) with respect to the theoretical perfection of the drainage. Every suggestion that has been made that was considered to be an improvement on the system of drainage has been adopted. We have no means of getting better air than we can get on the terrace, and it is evident that we must occasionally get unpleasant odours from passing barges. That cannot be prevented, but every possible care has been taken to prevent injurious exhalations getting into the House. The drainage has been completely isolated; it has no connection whatever with the sewers of the neighbourhood, and is as nearly perfect as it

    625
    can be made. Some complaints, very few, have reached me during the last few weeks. I repeat that everything has been done that seemed possible to prevent the escape of bad smells. If any further suggestion should be made I shall be very glad to consider it, but the House may rest assured that this is the best-drained and best-ventilated building in London.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) has been down the sewers to see for himself what is the condition of things? The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) confessed to me that he has not been down the sewers. I have been down. I had an invitation from the engineers when the works were done about four years ago, and I am not satisfied that it is impossible for bad smells to get back into the House. I dare say I know more about the subject than the right hon. Gentleman, and I should like an undertaking from him that he will go down the manhole and see for himself. I received no salary from the House to look after the business, and as he is a paid officer I am sure he should not object to see into the matter.
    MR. CRILLY: I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the bells in the old smoke room are out of order and will not ring. I think we might have electric bells in the old smoke room as there are in the new.
    MR. PLUNKET: I will inquire into that matter.
    Vote agreed to.
    20. £30,200, to complete the sum for Admiralty, Extension of Buildings.
    21. £38,946, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain.
    MR. MORTON: I see that under this Vote a sum is charged with respect to the new Wandsworth Police Court. I am told that has been built on a leasehold site when a freehold site could have been obtained. I should like to know how that is.
    MR. PLUNKET: I am unable to answer that question now, but I will endeavour to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on the Report stage.
    Vote agreed to.
    22. £21,809, to complete the sum for Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I am unwilling to take up the time of the Committee, but this is a matter of some importance. Several questions have been asked with respect to the arrangements for Science and Art teaching at South Kensington, and I think it is time that better accommodation should be provided. I observe in the Estimates an item of £50,000 for extension of buildings, and I should like to know whether that is to be devoted to the extension of the buildings now used for the purposes of Science and Art teaching, or whether it is to go for what I must consider a much less useful object—the erection of an Art Gallery which I believe will eventually cost about half a million, and we have nothing very particular to put into it. The claims of science teaching are recognised, and I have been told over and over again in reply to questions that the matter was under consideration. I hope now that something has been done, and I hope very shortly to see a suitable building for the teaching of science. The science teaching is now being, carried on in most wretched premises. I should like to refer specially to the astronomical department, the work of which is being carried on under conditions which would astound hon. Members if they could see them. It is in ramshackle buildings, more like the caravans of a travelling managerie than anything else. I am told that the instruments, many of which are of a delicate and costly nature, have to be carried from one building to another, a quarter of a mile away, and that they get shaken up, put out of gear, and sometimes destroyed. This is not creditable to a country which has done so much to advance scientific teaching. I shall be glad to hear that steps will shortly be taken to put it on a better footing. I think before buildings are erected on a large scale the subject should be considered by a Committee, on which there should be representatives of the science staff, so that their wants and wishes may be known. In the past there has been too much dis-

    627
    regard of the wants and the wishes of the staff by the Department.
    *MR. PLUNKET: The sum of £5,000 is only for the purpose of providing temporary accommodation for certain objects of art and science which it is necessary to remove from their former home to make room for the building we are preparing for the housing of art objects in the future. The Science and Art Department have, I have no doubt, taken all the advice necessary, and they have made proposals which are now being considered by the Treasury. As soon as the Treasury have come to a conclusion, my Department will come on the scene, and we will do our very best to carry out the proposals of the Science and Art Department as sanctioned by the Treasury. We have in the meantime in the New Cross Gallery and the other galleries a certain amount of space to devote to the pressing necessities of science.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask whether the Science staff have been consulted as to the extent and kind of accommodation required. Unless they have been consulted, the buildings may not meet their requirements.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I believe the Science and Art Department have consulted all those best able to advise them on the matter.
    Vote agreed to.
    23. £23,114, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
    24. £230,000, to complete the sum for Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.
    25. £124,015, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Great Britain.
    26. £142,110, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.
    DR. TANNER: It was understood when the House adjourned that all the Irish Votes should be held over till Monday, when the Irish Members were to be in their places. I think very much might be said on this question as affecting Ireland. I see the First Lord of the Treasury has come into the House, and I will appeal to him whether he is going to carry out the pledge which I understood was given on Friday.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have no recollection of the pledge to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If any such pledge was given, of course, it will be adhered to. I did say that the Irish Education Bill should not be taken before Monday, and doubtless that is what was in the hon. Member's mind. But I should be very much surprised if the hon. Member can find any words of mine which would bear the construction he has put upon them. I rather gathered from what the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) said this evening that he would not be at all averse to seeing the Irish Estimates got through with all possible despatch in order that we might end up the Session at an early date.
    DR. TANNER: I distinctly understood that the Irish Members were to be in their places on Monday to discuss these Estimates. It is only a question of two days.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In connection with the Ordinance Survey there appeared an article in the Times a day or two ago dealing with the work of the Department. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir John Gorst) whether his attention has been directed to that article. The article, which appears to be by a trade rival, refers to the four miles to the inch map, and says that it is costly, is worthless, and that any member of the public would be unwise to spend two shillings on a single sheet unless for the amusement which would be caused by the errors in the map. It alleged that the map was based on the Survey of 1803, which was revised in 1823, and that all that has been done in the present issue is to add certain railway lines. The article was evidently written by someone with a considerable amount of detailed and authoritative knowledge. It said that many parishes were represented as having roads which were abolished years ago, and that new roads were not marked. Local Authorities who were likely to rely on the map would, therefore, find it perfectly worthless and misleading. If these allegations are true it would be interesting to know

    629
    how much money has been spent on the map, and who are the authorities responsible for the issue of it. If the allegations are well founded the state of things is such that the Treasury ought to overhaul the Department, and see who is responsible for the waste of time and money, and the misleading character of the map. I ask the Financial Secretary if he knows anything of the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): My attention has not been drawn to this article, and I am afraid I cannot reply to the question of the hon. Member. I certainly have not seen it, and this is the first occasion on which I have heard of it. I understand the hon. Member to say that it appeared a few days ago, during the holidays, and that would account for my not having seen it. The Board of Agriculture is responsible for the policy of the Survey Department at the present time, and the maps are produced under its direction; but it is news to me that any map of the description the hon. Member speaks of has been produced.
    MR. O'CONNOR: Then we have gross blunders, waste of time, serious allegations, in what is regarded as an authoritative journal, on the productions of a certain Department, and when the Vote for the Department comes on there is no one on the Treasury Bench in a position to answer the allegations. It is the question of a map of the whole country on the scale of four miles to the inch. I am bound to say I was startled by the allegations contained in the article, and thought they seemed to be written by some trade rival. But it is extraordinary that the Minister who emphatically says he is responsible for the publications of the Department is obliged to admit that he has not seen the article and knows nothing about the publication referred to. I think, therefore, it is not unreasonable that the Vote should be postponed till the Minister has been able to look into the matter. A sum of £7,800 is taken for the Department, and if the attack is warranted a considerable portion of that sum ought to be withheld till the responsibility is fixed.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I think it is unreasonable of the hon. Member to come here and say that an article has appeared in a newspaper attacking the issue of a certain map if the hon. Member cannot specify the map referred to. This matter has already received the attention of the House this Session. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) called attention to the matter, and a Departmental Committee is now sitting, and will, no doubt, inquire into any concrete allegation which may be made. But a general statement that a map is worthless can hardly be considered by them.
    MR. O'CONNOR: The Financial Secretary knows perfectly well that the Committee is to deal with matter totally distinct from the question of the production of maps. It is to deal with the civil employees of the Department, as distinct from the military employees. The right hon. Gentleman says I am unreasonable because I challenge the work of the Department as a publishing Department. I believe the civil employees are underpaid and grudgingly treated as to leave; but my allegation is that the direction of the Department is bad, and the administration of it faulty, and that it ought to be overhauled by the Minister of Agriculture or by the Treasury itself. Money is wasted by the Department in the production of maps which are utterly worthless. What has that to do with the Committee on the status and privileges of the civil employees of the Department? The Financial Secretary knows that it has nothing to do with that Committee.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot admit the accuracy of the allegations which the hon. Member has made. I can now give him some information as to the duties of that Committee, and I think he will find the reference sufficiently wide to embrace the question to which he referred. The reference is to inquire and report upon the present condition of the Ordnance Survey, and specially to consider what steps should be taken to expedite the completion and publication of the new one-inch map; what further arrangements should be made for the continuous revision and speedy

    631
    publication of maps; and whether the maps as at present issued satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public as regards style, execution, and form. I think the hon. Member will see that that is a very wide reference, and whatever may be the shortcomings of the Department, or the neglect of the Board of Agriculture in the performance of its duties with regard to that Department, that category contains subjects which, if they are fully inquired into, will cover any defects which may exist.
    MR. SEXTON: Mr. Courtney, I beg to move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I put some questions to the First Lord of the Treasury this afternoon, on the subject of Irish business, and in view of what he then stated I am surprised to find the Committee now engaged on this Vote, which involves expenditure in connection with the Administration of the Land Acts in Ireland. I am still more surprised to learn from my hon. Friend near me (Dr. Tanner) that some controversy has been raised between him and the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether Irish business should be taken before Monday next. I was careful to adopt the course, before the House adjourned for the Recess, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how soon after the holidays he proposed to proceed with Irish business, and his reply was: Not before Monday next. The Irish Members are now almost entirely absent from the House. While we do not intend to discuss the Irish Estimates, or any other business this Session, at undue or even at substantial length, I think in the first place that when a certain engagement is made it should be carried out; and in the second place that it is not seemly that the financial business of the year should be carried on in the absence of the Irish Members. I wish to read the following extract from the Times report of the proceedings of the 2nd of June:—
    "IRISH BUSINESS.—Mr. Sexton asked how soon Irish business would be taken after the holidays. Mr. Balfour: I shall not take it before the first Monday after the Recess."
    I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention or desire on our part to prolong discussion in
    632
    Committee either now or on Monday next; but we claim the fulfilment of the engagement, and if the right hon. Gentleman proposes, notwithstanding that engagement, to compel us to enter upon the discussion of Irish Votes, all I can say is that such of us as are here will feel it our business, as the best method to adopt, to give our attention to English and Scotch Votes, as well as to Irish Votes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I stated in the short conversation which occurred between the hon. Member for Mid Cork and myself I have no intention of breaking in the letter or in the spirit any engagement entered into either with the Irish Members or anybody else; and my own impression was that, so far as I could recollect, my own intention at the time was that no Irish business other than Supply should be taken before Monday next. The hon. Member has quoted from the Times report, but I think that does not give a correct account of what I said on the subject. But if the hon. Member's own personal recollection of the words I used on the occasion confirms the accuracy of the Times report—
    MR. SEXTON: Certainly; the Times report is quite correct.
    MR. BALFOUR: My own recollection is that I was referring to the Irish Education Bill and other matters which should not be taken before Monday next; but of course, if that is the recollection of the hon. Member, and if I was understood to give an engagement on the subject, I shall not take any Irish Vote before Monday next.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Vote agreed to.
    27. £23,909, to complete the sum for Harbours in the United Kingdom and Lighthouses Abroad under the Board of Trade.
    28. £24,870, to complete the sum for Peterhead Harbour.
    29. £5,000, Caledonian Canal.
    30. £137,058, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.

    CLASS II.
    31. £27,269, to complete the sum for the House of Lords Offices.
    MR. MORTON: So far as any real work is concerned the money spent upon the House of Lords is absolutely wasted. Since the introduction of Free Education the people are beginning to take an intelligent interest in how the money of the country is spent, or rather in how it is wasted, and they are especially asking for information as to the expenses with regard to the House of Lords. If the officers of the House of Lords are only properly paid, I think we very much underpay the officers of the House of Commons, especially you, Sir. The time will come when we shall honestly appropriate the expenses connected with these matters; and then we shall bear in mind that we ought to reduce the amount paid to the officers of the House of Lords by at least £30,000. I confess I should under other circumstances have great pleasure in moving a reduction of the Vote to that extent, and taking a division upon it, just to show the country what I think, at any rate, of the expenses with regard to the House of Lords, but I wish on this occasion simply to protest against the waste of money in connection with the management of the House of Lords.
    Vote agreed to.
    32. £33,752, to complete the sum for the House of Commons officers.
    MR. MORTON: The other day I called attention on the Vote on Account to the salaries and expenses paid to what I may call the Lower Division of officers, and I was told by the First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings that he had nothing to do with it. I presume the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has something to do with it, and I should like to know whether he will take that matter into his consideration. I do not say that anything is required to be done; but it occurs to me that in comparison with other officers the officers of the Lower Division are very much underpaid.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I cannot promise to take this matter into consideration, because by law the control of the salaries paid to the officers of the House is vested in a Commission by statute, consisting of the Speaker of the House of Commons, a Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, and the Attorney General and Solicitor General for the time being. I am not a Member of the Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Speaker of the House of Commons are generally the acting members of the Commission, by whom the salaries of the House of Commons are regulated. I do not know that there is any complaint at the present time as regards the payment awarded to the officers of the House for their services; but if there is, and if it is represented in the proper quarter, it will receive attention, and, if the circumstances justify it, there will be an amelioration of the condition of the Lower Division of officers to whom the hon. Member refers.
    MR. MORTON: It appears to me that there is not one of the Commissioners present who have the management and control of the expenditure in connection with the House of Commons to give us any information on the subject. I hope that on another occasion one at least of these Commissioners will be present when these matters are discussed.
    DR. TANNER: There is another small matter which I have deemed it my duty on two or three occasions to bring under consideration—that is, the item of £1,000 allowed for service in the refreshment room. As a member of the Kitchen Refreshment Room Committee, I find that in that Committee it is nearly absolutely impossible to satisfy the members of this House, who make use of this particular department, and at the same time to make both ends meet. The consequence is that some members complain of the charges, which they consider excessive. They also complain of the method in which they are supplied; and a great number of members complain that the Kitchen Refreshment Room Committee make large sums of money yearly by the sale of intoxicating liquor.

    635
    What is more, I have heard the question raised just now by a friend, and during the last few years, that we are not licensed to sell intoxicating liquor, and that the time might come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer might summon us before a Court of Justice for a breach of the law of the land, for selling intoxicating liquor without a licence. The present Kitchen Refreshment Room Committee have found it nearly impossible to do everything to carry out the wishes and desires of Members, and to do everything as it should be done, with the £1,000 a year which is granted for that Department. I bring this matter forward in order that in due process of time it may be dealt with successfully, not by Members sitting on one side of the House or the other, but by all the Members of the House. There is one other matter to which I wish to call attention on this Vote, and that is the sum of £429 charged for the police in attendance on both Houses. Why should not the House of Lords pay their own share? It would only be a matter of a couple of hundred pounds. I find that on every possible occasion everything that can be done is done to put the share upon the democratic and more popular representative House by the noblemen who live above. I think that item is improperly placed upon this Estimate.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: As regards the criticism of the hon. Member I shall take care before the Estimates are prepared next year to see that this matter is attended to, and to see that the cost is fairly shared between the two Houses.
    Vote agreed to.
    33. £60,692, to complete the sum for the Treasury and Subordinate Departments.
    MR. HOWELL: I should like to ask the representative of the Government in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been done with regard to the constitution of the Board that is to deal with the Trustees of Savings Banks—the appointments that have been made, by whom these appointments have been made, and
    636
    the salaries that are being paid for all these appointments. I endeavoured at an earlier period of the Session to extract some information on the subject, and so far as I can learn—and I should be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury can give us any information on the point—these nominations are more or less on the responsibility of the Members of that Board, and none of these appointments will come under review by the House of Commons. After all is said and done, the Savings Banks Department forms a very important Board under the Crown. Money is voted by this House annually which goes to that Department; and I think especially after the exposures which have been made in this House with regard to how some of these Savings Banks are managed every care should be taken that the Act passed for the constitution of that Board should be properly carried out, and that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of calling attention to the work done by that Board when money is voted for it.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House some time ago the constitution of the Board. I am afraid I have not got the names of the Board with me now, and with regard to the particulars of the salaries—
    MR. HOWELL: I think the right hon. gentleman misunderstands me. I do not mean the Board, I mean the appointments made by the Board.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: Does the hon. Member mean the appointments made by the Statutory Board?
    MR. HOWELL: Yes.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I do not know whether they have yet made any appointments, but if the hon. Member puts a question on the subject on the Paper I shall be happy to give him an answer; or, if he writes me a question privately, I shall give him all the information in my power.
    MR. HOWELL: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. All I ask is that care should be taken with regard to the men appointed under that Board, and that this House shall have an opportunity of reviewing those appointments and the salaries from time to time.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This Vote illustrates very accurately the patchwork system which is adopted by the Government. We are supposed to be discussing the Treasury Vote, and we find introduced in connection with the Irish Teachers' Pension Office an item for the salary of a gentleman named Robinson, who is a clerk in the War Office. Last year there was a Vote of £50 for assistance in preparing the quinquennial valuation for the Pensions Fund. This year the Clerk in the War Office and his assistants got into a terrible mess, and instead of having £160,000 surplus they found themselves deficient to the extent of an equal sum, and with no money at all. That accounts for the re-valuation, which we know perfectly well is now going on. We have asked over and over again for the Papers relating to the pensions, and we have not yet received them. We have not had any Report from the Board of Actuaries, which is now supposed to be sitting and hard at work on the accounts in connection with this Pension Fund. I presume there will be a Supplementary Vote taken for the purpose of defraying the cost of this re-valuation, as no money is asked for it in this Vote. I wish to know what is to be the expense of this re-valuation and how the actuaries are to be paid, when their Report will be presented, or, if they have reported, whether their Report is before the House?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: It is not a revaluation which is taking place; it is an examination by a Committee of Actuaries of two valuations, one of which was made last year and the other five years before. The cost of that investigation will not be charged on the Pension Office for Ireland, as it would be very unfair that that should be done. The Committee have not yet concluded their work. Whether their Report will be presented to the House this Session or not will depend upon the length of the present Session.
    MR. MORTON: As regards this matter of the Teachers' Pension Fund, it appears to me that if this gentleman does this work and goes to Ireland for the purpose he cannot discharge his duty in the War Office. I want to know why he should receive this money at all?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: His duty consists of superintendence in the Teachers' Pension Fund Office, and he can perform that duty in London without going over to Ireland—at least, without being constantly in Ireland. I believe he has paid one or two visits to Ireland; but his presence there is not so necessary as in any way to interfere-with his duties in the War Office.
    MR. MORTON: Why does he get the money?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: He gets it for doing the work of the Teachers' Pension Office in London.
    MR. MORTON: When we come to the War Office Vote I shall inquire further into this matter. A sum of £50 was allowed for assistance last year. I want to know why this money has been wasted.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: The £50 was paid out of the Vote for services rendered.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to ask whether the Treasury have withdrawn their block with regard to the acceleration of mails to America by Queenstown. A short time since the hon. Member for the City of Cork raised this question, and we were then told by the Postmaster General that the whole blame lay with the Treasury.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That subject could properly be discussed on the Vote for the Postmaster General's salary.
    DR. TANNER: The Postmaster General himself threw the whole weight of this matter on the Treasury, and I am only trying to get some explanation, notably as I have heard recently that there is some chance of the matter being settled.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss it on this Vote, although the Treasury does exercise a superintending authority over the Postmaster General.
    MR. MORTON: I want some information with regard to the Receiver of Hereditary Revenue: Who is the Receiver of this revenue, and where is the office? I understood that this was one of the offices that was to be abolished.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: The officer is an officer who collects small branches of hereditary revenue. The receipts amount to about £4,000 a year. The

    639
    salary was formerly paid by deduction from the receipts, but in 1869–70 it was provided for in the Estimates, and the total receipts were paid into the Exchequer. On the death of the late Receiver the recommendation in favour of the abolition of the office was not for various reasons carried out. The present Receiver has a salary of £300 and an allowance of £145 per annum for office expenses.
    MR. MORTON: I have asked two questions and neither has been answered. Surely we are entitled to have the name of anybody receiving public money and to know where the office is?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: The gentleman is Mr. Kebbel, and the office is at Abingdon Street.
    DR. TANNER: I cannot help being struck with the extraordinary appearance of three items in this Vote, namely, those in reference to the British Directors of the Suez Canal. The Resident Director in Paris receives £500 a year. The late Resident Director was allowed to retain his fees, in lieu of salary, but the change was made in order to save expense. I should like the Committee to look at the position of the two non-Resident Directors, who do very little of the work. One, in addition to receiving retired pay from the Army, gets £450, and the other, in addition to his salary as Controller General of the National Debt, gets £500. That is a very foolish state of affairs, and I would like to have some explanation of it.
    SIR JOHN GORST: When the hon. Member says the non-Resident Directors do nothing he is not accurate. The duties of the three Directors are very much alike; they have all to attend the meetings of the Directors. Possibly the Resident Director in Paris may attend more committees than the others, but their duties in looking after this enormous national property are very much alike. I think that with a gigantic affair like the Suez Canal and the interests involved in it, it cannot be said that these salaries are too large.
    MR. MORTON: Does the Resident Director at Paris, who is also a clerk in the Foreign Office, receive a full salary from the Foreign Office
    640
    although absent from that office all the time?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Yes. The gentleman referred to is, strictly speaking, a clerk in the Foreign Office, but he is temporarily employed in the Diplomatic Service. Under an arrangement, which has gone on for a considerable time, exchanges occur between gentlemen serving in the Diplomatic Service and those in the Foreign Office. These exchanges have been approved recently by a Commission. Consequently, it happens occasionally that gentlemen in the Diplomatic Service come home and serve for a time in the Foreign Office and gentlemen in the Foreign Office take their places abroad.
    DR. TANNER: Are we to understand that one gentleman is paid by the Foreign Office for doing Diplomatic work, and another gentleman is paid by another office for doing Foreign Office work?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: No, it is the same office.
    MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: Then, is that the reason why our Treaties are so badly drawn at the present time? I have been in the Foreign Office, and I think there has been a great deal of neglect there. It seems to me pretty clear that the cause of Treaties being made which no one can understand is that the Foreign Office clerks are doing other work.
    (8.15.) Vote agreed to.
    34. £61,599, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
    MR. MORTON: I understand that the Home Secretary has charge of the 'buses and tramways of the Metropolis, and I want to know whether it is legal or right that the fares should be doubled on holidays, as was done last Monday?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Home Secretary has no control over that.
    DR. TANNER: As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary receives the large salary of £5,000 a year, I desire to press upon him a matter upon which he has so far given

    641
    me most unsatisfactory replies. One province over which the right hon. Gentleman exercises control is most important, because it has to do with human life and the prevention of suffering. I have on several occasions raised the question as to the means which should be taken in connection with fires for the provision of reasonable means of escape in the case of high buildings, notably in this Metropolis and in other great cities. I pointed out reports of recent cases where lamentable loss of life had occurred owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not paying attention to this matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I am not aware that this is a function which has been put under the control of the Home Secretary. The argument of the hon. Gentleman appears to be that it should be under the control of the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not a question which can be raised in Supply.
    DR. TANNER: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman himself accepted the situation. I took every advice, and was advised by the officials to put the question to the Home Secretary. I thought at first I should address my questions on the subject to the Local Government Board or to the Board of Trade, but I was told I should address them to the Home Secretary, and he has answered several questions on this matter. Only the other evening a house at the top of the Haymarket was burned down and a number of young men lost their lives; and am I to be told that in a matter of this kind, where human life can be saved if proper attention were paid, I am to be shunted from one right hon. Member to another? If more lives are lost, the responsibility must rest with Her Majesty's Government; if the Government wish to shunt the duty from one person to another, let the blood be upon their own heads.
    MR. WALLACE: I just desire to refer to the question of these fares. I understand that the Home Office licenses these carriages, and they must have power surely to make some sort of conditions
    642
    with respect to the terms on which the licence should be granted, so that they shall not be allowed arbitrarily to overcharge the public when it suits their convenience. I think this is a very important and serious matter, for they may be doubly charged at the very time when they ought to be, if possible, convenienced in the way of regulations of that sort.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): No Department of the State at present has power to lay down the fares stage carriages shall charge. The Commissioner of Police, who acts generally under the direction of the Home Office, licenses these carriages and sees that they are fit for the accommodation of passengers and the service of the public. The Commissioner of Police also has the power to prescribe the route for such carriages. I am not quite sure whether there is a maximum fare prescribed by the Statute. We have left these matters to be settled roughly by competition, and by the supply and demand of passengers and carriages, but I have no power to regulate the fares. I am not aware—certainly it has not been brought to my notice—that there is a maximum fare prescribed by the Statute, but if there is, I am sure the present fare is very much below it. With regard to the matters raised by the hon. Member opposite, I would point out to him that I have absolutely no power, under any Statute, in any way to regulate the precautions to be taken against fires.
    DR. TANNER: To whom am I to address myself then?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: There is no Department of the State charged with any authority in matters of this kind.
    DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that these fires are to occur day after day, and that the Government will not accept any responsibility when life can be readily saved? You have got provision made for this matter in the United States of America, in Germany, and in Japan, and why can you not do something in England in this respect?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: It will have to be done by legislation. No Department of the State, not even a County Council, is invested with the power to impose regulations on the owners of private buildings, requiring them to adopt certain precautions against fire. Possibly some regulations upon that subject may be very desirable; but in this country, at any rate, the Legislature has never thought fit to prescribe regulations of that kind. I would just point out to the hon. Member that last year I introduced a clause into the Factory and Workshops Act, providing that there should be certain precautions taken against fire. Considering the vast number of private buildings in such large towns as London, Manchester, and Liverpool, I am afraid we shall have to deal with great caution in imposing regulations of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
    DR. TANNER: I will introduce the subject early in the next Parliament, and I hope I shall have the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, with regard to the Factory and Workshops Act, may I ask whether steps have been taken to provide female Inspectors for the inspection of places, of factories and workshops, where women are employed. This is a matter which has commended itself to the judgment of a very considerable portion of the public, and in that I am sure I am speaking in the name of the ladies of England, Ireland, and Scotland. I think women ought to be inspected by women. In the present day you have got lady doctors; you have got ladies in every department of the State except the House of Commons, and I understand that certain Members are pressing to have them admitted here. But I certainly think some steps ought to be taken to provide female Inspectors for the inspection of their sex in connection with factories and workshops. I have the pleasure of knowing many gentlemen who hold high office and responsible positions as Inspectors of Factories, and they do their duty in a wholehearted and ungrudging way. I read their reports conscientiously, because I always find that in reading those reports which are furnished us by the Factory Inspectors you are reading
    644
    matter which shows up a great deal of suffering, and of cruelty, and of injustice existing in these countries. It is only by reading these matters that we find out where the shoe pinches, and it is only by putting questions upon these points in the House of Commons that substantial justice has occasionally been done. But some of these gentlemen have complained to me that it is very hard and very difficult for them satisfactorily to carry out the proper inspection of premises where females are mainly employed. There is greater difficulty for men to do this than there would be if women were employed. I do not wish to deprive men of the chance of earning their daily bread, but, at the same time, where women can possibly be engaged as Inspectors of their own sex, with the view of redressing the grievances under which they as women suffer, I think they should be so occupied. As this matter has been broached before, I simply content myself with asking the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps have been taken in this matter, or whether it has been thought advisable to defer action at the present time?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot myself say that I am strongly in favour of female Inspectors. I think it is an experiment that might well be tried if the Departmental arrangements can be satisfactorily made. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member say that complaint has been made to him by some of the Factory Inspectors, and I should be glad if he would privately communicate to me the names of those Inspectors who had expressed themselves in favour of female Inspectors. The reports which have been made by them to the Department are quite to the contrary, and they point out the difficulty there would be in the appointment of women. Certainly, you would have to raise the age of Inspectors, for no young woman could go about the streets and slums where the Inspectors have to go in order to see that the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Act are carried out. It is not fit work except for a woman of mature age. I believe there is a very large public feel-

    645
    ing on the subject, and I am anxious to meet the view as far as I can. I would rather not take any decided action in the matter until the Commission on Labour has reported; but I may inform the hon. Member and the Committee that I have directed the Chief Inspector of Factories to prepare a statement as to the districts where there is a sufficient number of factories and workshops where women are mainly employed, and to see whether they can be arranged in geographical districts, so that I am getting the ground ready for the appointment of female Inspectors if there is shown to be any necessity for them.
    Vote agreed to.
    35. £49,004, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
    (9.0.) Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; Committee counted, and forty Members being found present.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the exact position of the Newfoundland matter at the present time, and whether the Government can give an assurance that the question is likely to be settled before long?
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I think the hon. Member will not expect me to make a very lengthy statement upon this subject; and I am afraid all I can tell him is that the matter is at the present time receiving the most anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. As the hon. Member is aware, the Newfoundland Government did not recently see its way to pass the Bill which Her Majesty's Government hoped would have received the assent of the Newfoundland Legislature. Her Majesty's Government now have under consideration the reasons which induced the Newfoundland Legislature to take that view; and of course it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to carefully consider these reasons and to see what further steps, if any, must be taken. Meanwhile the French Government have not ratified the Arbitration Convention.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to know whether the modus vivendi arranged last year cannot be extended so as to give the Newfoundland and the Home Government time for consideration?
    *MR. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir. It is in operation at the present time. I am afraid I do not carry in my mind at the present moment the exact date when it will cease. The modus vivendi is, however, at present in operation, and what is being done on the west coast of Newfoundland is being done under that arrangement.
    MR. MORTON: The modus vivendi extends until 1893, and the question is whether it cannot be extended for another year or two so as to get the matter settled. I should like to know, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot allow us to have a copy of the Bill rejected by the Newfoundland Legislature in order that we may consider the reasons for the rejection, and whether their complaints are correct?
    *MR. LOWTHER: I do not see any reason why the Bill should not be in the hands of Members. The question, however, more closely concerns the Colonial Office, and perhaps the hon. Member will put a question to my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: As one representing a trading community, I have great complaint to make of the conduct of the Government in connection with the French Treaty. I have always understood that there are two to a bargain, but it seems to me in this case that the Government have quietly stood aside to the disadvantage of our country. In consequence of the neglect of the Government, the town which I represent is very severely suffering. It seems to me that the Government is perfectly indifferent as to our trade with France, and I am certain that a person of less importance and less ability than anyone sitting on the Treasury Bench could have done better for this country than Her Majesty's Government have done. I believe that Her Majesty's Government know nothing about the Treaties we have made with that country, and the effect those Treaties have on the commerce of our

    647
    country. I have endeavoured to get information from them, but they seemed to neither know nor care how matters stood. I make my protest against this action in allowing France to put on something like double the duty of the old tariff. I believe that France does not intend these high duties to be applied against this country. They were intended to affect Germany; but Her Majesty's Government have, by its thorough indifference to the trade of this country, allowed these mistakes to occur.
    *MR. LOWTHER: I am afraid the hon. Member is under a misapprehension.
    MR. HOLDEN: I know what I am talking about.
    *MR. LOWTHER: The only Treaty we have with France is a Treaty made in 1882. Under that Treaty the arrangement is that France and this country shall make their own customs tariff. We have no Commercial Treaty with France beyond that; and under that Treaty, made in the year 1882, the French Government, on 1st February this year, brought into operation a tariff which, I quite admit, affects the hon. Member's constituents very severely. But I think that if the hon. Member would really give a little close attention to this matter he would see that obviously the tariff settled by the French Government is not in the interests of the hon. Member's constituents, or in the interests of English trade, but is arranged in the interests of the French trade. Her Majesty's Government were not consulted as to the tariff, and I venture to say that if Her Majesty's Government had made any suggestion that the leather merchants of England would be injuriously affected by the tariff the probable result would have been that the tariff, instead of being lowered, would have been increased.
    MR. HOLDEN: I consider the reply of the right hon. Gentleman has been most unsatisfactory. All I can say is that for the last four months we have been under a different tariff. If four months ago Her Majesty's Ministers knew that a tariff was being instituted against English traders, I think they ought to have endeavoured to do something
    648
    on the other side. They have not done so. By a little exertion on their part there might have been a different result; but I rather think they rejoice at the present state of things, as an aid to return to Protection.
    DR. TANNER: My hon. Friend is under some misapprehension. He ought to know that if it suited the political exigencies of Her Majesty's Government, they would so deal with the matter as to catch votes. The Government do not care about the commerce with France of that good Liberal centre my hon. Friend represents; but if a Tory centre had been concerned, he would have found Her Majesty's Government busy preserving its interests. I rise, however, to complain of the way in which French fishermen have been allowed to carry on depredations on the coast of Ireland. This question has been frequently raised, but the Government have not taken one step in the direction of protecting Irish interests. Last year I raised the question of these fishing smacks coming from the north-west of the northern coast of France, and making use of a net of small mesh. If this is permitted to continue, a great and productive source of benefit for our fishery folk in Ireland will be destroyed. Were an Irish boat to be driven into a French port there would be no reciprocity—a tax would be levied upon every fish on board. You ought to make all foreign boats observe the seven miles limit; and if you were to send a remonstrance to the French Government calling attention to the fact that French boats are destroying a valuable fishery, I think the result would be to safeguard Irish fishing interests.
    *MR. LOWTHER: I can assure the hon. Member that any cases brought to our notice will at once be considered, and the attention of the French Government, if French boats are concerned, drawn to them. We have from time to time similar cases occurring on the east coast of England, and the cases are at once investigated by the foreign Governments I think I can say with

    649
    most satisfactory results. I can only assure the hon. Member that if any cases are brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, they will at once be dealt with. During the short time I have been there I do not recall any Irish case; but if the hon. Member will call my attention to any specific instance of what he complains of, I will see that it is dealt with.
    DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that as the trouble I have alluded to, such as the destruction of nets usually takes place during the night, it is difficult to provide these specific cases. As a matter of fact, all we know is that the injury is done by French boats. If a remonstrance calling attention to what transpires were sent to the French Government I am sure the whole matter would be at once settled.
    MR. MORTON: There are many points in connection with this Vote I should have liked to consider, and especially with regard to the £5,000 for the Secretary of State. He has been making what I may call revolutionary speeches, speeches no Secretary of State ought to have delivered. Had he been an Irish Nationalist Member he would have found himself in prison long ago. His reward, however, I gather, is to be a dukedom. I consider it the duty of a Prime Minister of this country to induce the people to respect the law, and especially is this to be expected from the head of a Government which has boasted so much about "law and order." While not intending to move a reduction, I do enter my protest against the delivery of such a speech as that I have referred to.
    DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that the Foreign Department will look into the question I have raised.
    *MR. LOWTHER: If the hon. Member reflects about the matter he will see how difficult it would be for the Government to make a general remonstrance to the French Government, because the latter would at once say, "On what grounds do you base your general remonstrance?" And naturally they would ask for specific cases. You
    650
    cannot found a general remonstrance upon anything except special knowledge of the particulars, and to allege generally that French fishermen have been guilty of the destruction of nets would simply meet with the rejoinder I have just indicated. I can only say that if any specific case is brought to the notice of the Foreign Office steps will at once be taken to ensure that the proper proceedings follow.
    Vote agreed to.
    36. £27,501, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to get a little information with regard to the position of affairs in Newfoundland. I understand that the French Shore Bill was rejected by twenty-two votes to nine in the Colonial Legislature, and that the Governor-General, in his speech at the prorogation of the House, said he hoped no bad result would follow, and made other remarks reflecting upon the action of the Legislature. The Colonists complain very much of the Governor-General having presumed to lecture the Legislature—a thing that the Queen never does in this country. They have heard over there that Lord Knutsford has said, with regard to Queensland, that it is dangerous to interfere with an independent Colony; and they want to know why the same treatment should not be shown towards them as is shown towards this Australian Colony when dealing with the aristocratic sugar-planter. I want also to inquire if a copy of this French Shore Bill will be placed in the library of the House? It is stated that clauses were introduced into the Bill when the majority of the delegates had left this country last year, and I think that it is only right we should be able to see for ourselves whether these statements are correct. Another thing I should like to ask is whether it is not possible to extend the modus vivendi another year or two. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us what information he can on these points, because it is only right and proper we should feel a certain amount of interest in this, our oldest colony.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): I am sure the hon. Member will not think me discourteous when I repeat the answer I gave the other day to a similar question put by him on the same subject. I then said it was impossible to enter into any details relative to the negotiations now pending in which international questions are involved besides those directly concerning the Colony, and that under those circumstances I could not make any answer to the question of the hon. Member. I am obliged to repeat that answer now, and I am sure the hon. Member will see the force of it.
    MR. MORTON: I cannot see what objection there can be to telling the House whether it is possible to extend the modus vivendi for another year. I must also press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether we cannot see a copy of the Bill, which is public property in Newfoundland?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: We have not received a copy of the Bill yet, but when it arrives I shall be happy to show it to the hon. Gentleman.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to ask if the Government have any further intelligence in connection with the Uganda business, and, if so, of what nature is it?
    SIR JOHN GORST: In answer to the hon. Member I am obliged to say that no further intelligence has been received.
    Vote agreed to.
    37. £9,616, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
    DR. TANNER: I want the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some explanation of the expenses under the Pharmacy Act. Some of the prosecutions which have taken place under this Act have resulted in scandalous injustice being done to people.
    SIR JOHN GORST: These expenses are those of officers appointed by the Privy Council to be present at examinations under the Pharmacy Act.
    Vote agreed to.
    38. £110,470, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
    DR. TANNER: Owing to the benevolent legislation of the present Government we have an increased number of emigrants leaving Ireland every year, and I want to see proper steps taken to provide for the comfort and health of these people whilst crossing the Atlantic to find a new home. Again and again I have shown the House that these emigrants am crowded into cattle ships, and that very little, if any, precaution is taken to ensure their health and comfort. It is monstrous that these men, women, and children should be battened down for days in the holds of large steamers without any proper water supply or sanitary appliances being provided. I complained of this matter in 1886, and now in 1892 very little improvement has been effected. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) has only to go to his Inspectors in Liverpool to find that several cattle ships within a fortnight of landing their cargo at that port have embarked a human freight to carry across the Atlantic without providing any sanitary arrangements. I was told by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that it was absolutely impossible to deal with this matter unless I was able to produce medical authority for these complaints. But I, for one, am not going to give away the medical men who earn a livelihood on these boats, because I should in that way expose them to the arbitrary conduct of the great shipping companies. If the same attention were devoted to this traffic as is bestowed upon the emigration service to New Zealand and Australia, and other English colonies, a great number of the grievances of which I have complained would be swept away. I do not wish to weary the Committee about this matter, but in making this appeal on behalf of poor people, who have no power to protect themselves, I feel I am only doing my duty. Within the last two months there was a case of a steamer which put to sea with 1,200 steerage passengers, and had only one water tank out of which to supply these people with water for all purposes.

    653
    This is a state of things which ought not to be allowed to exist, and I hope by dint of hammering away on this matter to succeed in influencing the right hon. Gentleman or his successor to remedy it. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether anything has been done.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member has made the same speech to-night as he has made for the last two or three years; but he has never given me any kind of clue by which it would be possible to examine into the charges he makes. I think the hon. Member, with one exception, is the only person who has made a similar complaint to me during the time I have held my present office. I sent an Inspector to Liverpool to inquire into the case of the particular ship complained of, and I satisfied myself that the charges were without foundation. If the hon. Member (Dr. Tanner) had during the past three years given me the faintest clue, it would have been followed, because I desire as much as he does to prevent the occurrence of anything of the sort referred to by him, and I instruct my officers on this side to be as careful as possible in these matters. But, as the hon. Member declines in any way to substantiate his charges, I am forced to conclude that he relies upon information which, so far as I can ascertain, is absolutely baseless. Until I have reason to conclude otherwise, it is impossible for me to take any further action.
    DR. TANNER: I have placed before the Committee what I know to be facts. My information is derived from medical men on board these ships; but I dare not give their names, for the simple reason that if I did they would lose their positions to-morrow. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Government have taken steps to deal with this matter? All I ask is that some steps should be taken between the officers of the Board of Trade on this side and the American officers on the other side to satisfy themselves as to whether the state of
    654
    things of which I have complained does or does not exist.
    MR. MORTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) a question with reference to Railway Companies. Early in the year it was announced at a meeting of the Caledonian or North British Railway that arrangements had been made against the possibility of competition by other railways, and therefore against the interests of the public.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I rise to order. This is a matter that does not come within my power.
    MR. MORTON: Then I think some Government Department should have power to deal with the monopolies which the House of Commons grants, and which are supposed to be granted, not in the interest of capitalists and company-mongers, but in the interests of the people at large. Another question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, Has he any power to deal with overcrowding?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: No.
    MR. MORTON: I am sorry to learn that, and I think his Department should have. In connection with this matter I allude especially to lines on the south side of London, where there are a lot of empty first and second class carriages, whilst the third class are continually in a crowded state. There is one other thing. Although we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done with regard to the Patent Laws, yet we shall not be satisfied until he still further reduces them so as to give inventors in this country the same advantages as are enjoyed by those living in the United States of America. This country depends upon trade, and trade in these days depends upon inventions, and therefore nothing in the shape of fees should be put in the way of inventors. I trust the right hon. Gentleman, if he remains in office, will see his way to do something more than he has already done in this direction.
    DR. TANNER: I have a word or two to say with regard to the electrical adviser to the Board of Trade, who I

    655
    find is drawing £658 a year in addition to his regimental pay of more than £200. It appears to me an extraordinary thing that an ex-army man should have been selected for a position of this sort. The same kind of thing goes on in Ireland. If you want a Resident Magistrate or a Removable Magistrate you get some pensioner. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say how it is that a man is chosen from among retired officers for the position of electrical adviser to the Board of Trade when there are so many professional electricians who would be competent to fulfil the duties. Most of these things are "jobs," and it is for that reason I raise this question. I should like to know who this gentleman is, what his qualifications are, and how it comes to pass he has been chosen for the position in preference to a practical electrician?
    *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: If the hon. Member for Cork (Dr. Tanner) knew anything about the matter, he would be aware that the name of the gentleman to whom he has referred carries confidence with all who are engaged in electrical affairs. He is an electrician of great ability and practical experience, and if the Board of Trade had searched the whole of Her Majesty's Possessions they could not have found an abler man. He was appointed before I went to the Board of Trade, but I am bound to say, from my experience of the matter, that his salary is below his merits.
    MR. CHANNING: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in respect to a matter that I have previously brought to his notice, and that is the appointment of boys to dangerous duties on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. The attention of the House was called to this matter in connection with the death of a boy who had not reached his 15th birthday. I had at that time specific information in my possession from railway servants that the employment of boys in duties of the kind referred to was frequent, and I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman received any further information from the Railway Company or any
    656
    remonstrance was addressed by the Board of Trade.
    *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I cannot charge my memory entirely with the case, but to the best of my recollection the answer which the Railway Company sent about this particular matter in regard to which the hon. Member asked a question was entirely satisfactory. I am sorry I cannot say any more, but the hon. Member did not give me notice that he intended to bring the matter forward.
    Vote agreed to.
    39. £9, to complete the sum for the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
    40. £40,710, to complete the sum for the Board of Agriculture.
    DR. TANNER: Have any steps been taken with respect to the provision of a remedy for sheep scab? I know the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with Ireland, but in Cork and Tyrone this disease has been very bad; and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether he has made any inquiry to find out what is the recipe which proved so successful in Australia and New Zealand.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The hon. Member approached me the other day on this subject, and I have since been in communication with the proper authorities. What I gather from them is that they are not aware what is the specific remedy in Australia, and we have not yet been able to ascertain. But it may be taken for granted that a careful application of the treatment, whatever it may be—and there are various recipes for this particular purpose—is more effective than the use of a specific recipe. We have a number of recipes at the Office, but I cannot charge my memory with them at this moment; but if the hon. Member desires further information I shall be glad to place all we have at his disposal.
    MR. MORTON: Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman promised some particulars with regard to the fees charged for information in regard to

    657
    tithes and also with respect to the tithe plans. Has he got that information? Further, under Sub-head H., I see an item for rent of stalls for market places, &c, £420. The late Mr. Joseph Hume discovered that "et cætera" meant sherry and biscuits, and I think this is a loose way for the Government to present the Accounts.
    MR. CHAPLIN: In reply to the first question, I have given instructions that the question of fees should be reconsidered, and, if possible, a new scale of fees drawn up and submitted to me for my consideration and decision. But we have had this misfortune at the Board of Agriculture, that a gentleman who has recently been appointed in that Department, and who would have done this work, has been taken ill, and it is only a very short time since he has been able to resume his duties. I have therefore not yet had an opportunity of considering that scale of fees which I desired should be submitted to me, but the preparation is not likely to occupy much time. With respect to the other item mentioned, I may say that the item has only just been transferred to my Department from the Board of Trade, and the only information I can give is that it is precisely in the same form as it has appeared for a number of years. However, I will inquire into the matter, and shall be able to make a statement on the report stage.
    MR. MORTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take care that the "et cætera" does not mean sherry and biscuits.
    Vote agreed to.
    41. £24,485, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to ask whether this is the last grant which is to be made to the City of London Charities. This is about £50,000 that has already gone for this purpose. I believe money is to be paid back out of the funds devoted to certain charities, and though I do not object to a better application of money than is possible under the old trusts, I must say that the remedy in this case is worse than the disease. It seems to me that by
    658
    far too large a proportion of this money is being spent on management and in payments to officials, and I can only hope that this is a final vote. Then with respect to local inquiries, I am told that the Charity Commission has not power to interfere. Would it not be well for the Government to give the power?
    *SIR. JOHN GORST: The expenses of the London Charities are in the first place defrayed by moneys voted by Parliament, and in accordance with the City of London Parochial Charities Act of 1883 they are ultimately repaid to the Treasury out of the Charity Funds. That is the reason the Vote appears in the Estimates, but there is no charge on the taxpayers in consequence. The powers of the Commissioners under this Act will only run till the 30th September in the present year; therefore, there will be no further expenditure, and this sum will not again appear in the Estimates. With respect to the suggestion to give extended powers to the Commissioners, there is no chance that Her Majesty's Government will be able to propose any legislation in the present Session of Parliament.
    MR. MORTON: I complain that this money is being taken from the charities. This money was left by pious people for a specific purpose, and they certainly did not intend that it should be wasted in paying officials. There is another matter that I might mention. Many of the endowed school trusts have been terribly hit by that piece of business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reducing Consols from 3 per cent. to 2¾ per cent., and when they have wished to get better interest for their money than 2¾ per cent., they have been met by the Charity Commissioners with a refusal to sanction the investment. I think the Commissioners might be more liberal in this way.
    Vote agreed to.
    42. £26,324, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
    43. £37,249, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.
    MR. MORTON: I do not see where the Comptroller and Auditor-General gets his salary from.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is charged to the Consolidated Fund.
    MR. MORTON: I do not wish to say one word about the accounts; they are admirably prepared, and are most useful to Members of Parliament.
    Vote agreed to.
    44. £4,743, to complete the sum for Friendly Societies' Registry.
    45. £107,049, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to call attention to the length of time it takes to get a reply from this Department in respect to applications for Free Libraries and other matters. I have not the letters with me now, but a complaint was made that in one matter it took between two and three months to get an answer from the Board to get their consent to take a building for a short time for the purpose of a Free Library. I know the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with ordering an inquiry, and I think many of those inquiries are unnecessary; but I think we might get a reply in less than three months. I do not know whether the Department is under-staffed.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): No doubt there is a time of the year when the pressure upon the Local Government Board with regard to these matters, especially matters of inquiry, is much greater than at other times, and unquestionably there are delays at particular times which are to me a matter of regret, but which are at the same time inevitable. It would be impossible so to over-staff the Local Government Board with Inspectors as to be able during the busiest part of the year to take up these matters with the rapidity that Town Councils and Local Authorities desire, and I can quite understand that sometimes there has been undue delay in replying to their inquiries and applications. But I assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that these matters are taken up with as great rapidity as possible.
    660
    If we had a greater number of inspectors; no doubt we should be able to deal more rapidly with these applications than we do now, but that would very largely increase the cost of the Department, and lead to complaints on the part of the taxpayers. The hon. Member seems to think that some of these inquiries could be dispensed with. That may be so, but these inquiries are held in the interests of the ratepayers. If I had been aware that the hon. Member intended to bring forward the particular matter to which he has referred, I would have prepared myself; but, according to my recollection, it was in the month of March, 1891, that the Town Council of Peterborough resolved that they would hire a building, and it was not until September in the same year that application was made for sanction to the Local Government Board. Even then we had to make further inquiries, because the particulars supplied were not sufficient to enable us to give the definite sanction, and it was not until the end of the year, December, that we obtained the particulars that it was necessary for us to have before we could direct the inquiry. Therefore, I think the Committee will see that the fault of the delay did not rest altogether with the Local Government Board.
    Vote agreed to.
    46. £8,981, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
    47. £25,000, to complete the sum for the Mercantile Marine Fund (Grant in Aid).
    48. £34, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
    MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: We should like to know something about the new coinage.
    SIR JOHN GORST: That question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Questions have been addressed to him very recently, and he has given very full answers. I have nothing to add to what he has said.
    Vote agreed to.
    49. £9,641, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
    50. £13,953, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
    51. £6,827, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
    52. £41,049, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
    53. £350,846, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
    MR. MORTON: I see that a sum of £100 is included for supplying Parliamentary papers to Free Libraries. I should like to know what papers are sent and how the papers are distributed, and whether it would be possible to let the Libraries have copies of the Statutes passed every year.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I think every encouragement should be given by Parliament to the people to study the papers which are issued, and the suggestion of the hon. Member shall receive every attention. At the same time, I question whether the public would find much to interest them in the Statutes to which the hon Gentleman has referred, and I think the £100 is spent in sending to the Libraries a more interesting kind of document than the Statutes.
    MR. MORTON: How is the money expended?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will tell him exactly what papers are sent out.
    Vote agreed to.
    54. £15,914, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c, Office.
    55. £37,051, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
    MR. MORTON: I wished to ask the First Commissioner, if he had been in his place, one or two questions. One was with regard to Holyrood Palace.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That comes under Class I. The occasion for raising that has passed. This Vote only refers to the organisation of the Office.
    MR. MORTON: I wished to ask a question with regard to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman which was
    662
    not quite in accordance with my information. I also wished to ask a question with regard to a reply he gave me as to the water in Trafalgar Square. I will defer my question till Report or some other occasion.
    Vote agreed to.
    56. £16,000, to complete the sum for Secret Service.
    57. £7,206, to complete the sum for the Secretary for Scotland's Office.
    MR. MORTON: I wish to ask a question with regard to a vaccination case which came, before the magistrates, at Ayr on Jan. 12. A man was only fined one shilling, but the expenses were £1 19s. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the expenses were legal charges. I have a copy of the bill of costs, and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman had not this paper before him when he answered the question I put to him. There are seven items, and I want some information about the second and third—copy of plaint, 3s.; copy of service, 3s. I am informed that these are overcharges. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say now whether that is so or not I will defer the question. The matter is one which requires the consideration of the law officers of Scotland.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): This is not the first time this question has been raised. I do not carry all the particulars in my mind, but my recollection is that I had the bill before me when I answered the question, and that I went through the items and was satisfied that the charges were correctly made under Schedule A of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act. The item which appeared to me doubtful was a charge by the Inspector; but I understand that this item was wrongly put down as fees, and that it was really out-of-pocket expenses. However, if the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him the information he desires.
    MR. MORTON: I shall take an opportunity of putting a question down.
    Vote agreed to.
    58. £15,318, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board, Scotland.
    59. £3,856, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
    60. £5,566, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
    61. £6,117, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision, for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health.

    CLASS III.
    62. £42,358, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
    63. £24,942, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.
    64. £200,702, to complete the sum for Supreme Court of Judicature.
    65. £4,510, to complete the sum for the Land Registry.
    66. £31,029, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
    67. £3,185, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
    68. £37,566, to complete the sum for Police (England and Wales).
    69. £455,432, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.
    70. £129,865, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
    71. £24,013, to complete the sum for the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
    72. £62,742, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland.
    73. £25,302, to complete the sum for the Register House, Edinburgh.
    74. £5,935, to complete the sum for the Crofters' Commission.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to ask how this Commission is getting on, and when it is likely to finish its labours. It appears to me to be high time that all the crofters had been dealt with, so far as Parliament intended—namely, with respect to the enlargement of their holdings and the reduction
    664
    of rent. I should like to impress on the Commission, through the hon. and learned Gentleman, the necessity of a further reduction of rent. Two shillings an acre is too much. I have taken the opportunity of going over many of the crofts, and they seem certainly not worth more than a shilling an acre. I was pleased to notice that the crofts were kept in much better condition than was to be expected.
    *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Crofters Commission are getting through their work with all the rapidity they can. One of the reasons why arrears must sometimes accrue is that the Commissioners have to personally visit outlying districts to engage in the work of valuation and to hear evidence. I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman all the information he desires, but no doubt he will find most of it ready to hand in the Reports of the Commission. In one Department, that dealing with the increase of the size of holdings, there is not so much to show for the work of the Commission as in the two other departments—those dealing with the reduction of rent and the working off of arrears. In those two latter departments the Commission have done good and useful work. With regard to the enlargement of the holdings I fear that in many cases the position of the crofters is such that they cannot afford to fulfil the conditions which are necessary before an enlargement can be made. I do not think the hon. Member made any objection to any particular items of the work of the Commission, the Vote for which shows a decrease on that of last year.
    MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: When we consider that in any future war we must depend a great deal for our forces on the classes of Scotch crofters and Irish peasantry, I trust the Commision will do everything to foster the class of crofters, and not to drive them away from their holdings.
    MR. MORTON: I have seen the reports to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and have also visited the crofts. I want the Commission to get on a little faster, to reduce the rents and to enlarge the holdings. I

    665
    am glad to know that a very large amount of arrears have been wiped off. The justice of the complaints made by the crofters on the point is proved by the fact that the Commission should have wiped off from five to eight per cent. of the arrears. I hope a happier time is coming for these poor crofters, when, instead of driving them to the sea or to foreign countries, we shall give them an opportunity of living decently and respectably in their own country, and shall use the land for the benefit of the country and the people instead of keeping it for sheep, deer, and sport.
    *MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I do not propose to go into the question of the policy of the Commission, but I desire to say a few words about its administration. I have received many complaints of the way the Commission appoints its assessors; it has limited itself to the appointment of people who have been historically opposed to the crofters, and there is no excuse for that. There are amongst the crofters many men as intelligent as any of the assessors; and that was not denied by the predecessor of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do not suppose he will deny it. We do not ask that the assessors should be entirely appointed from the crofters, but that, at any rate, some of them should be. I fully admit that the Lord Advocate has no power of interfering with the Commission, but I think we are perfectly justified in bringing this question before the House as a matter of administration which requires reforming. I regret to be obliged to make these remarks about the Crofters Commissioners; but in my opinion, until it is shown that there is some connection between the evidence led and the judgments delivered, there will be no satisfaction given in this matter. The Judges of the land do not think it beneath their dignity to give the reasons for the judgments at which they arrive. Why then should the Crofters Commissioners persist in giving no reason to show there is a connection between the evidence led and the rent fixed? I think I would not be justified in allowing this
    666
    Vote to be taken without expressing the opinion that there is great discontent among my own constituency and the people of the Highlands as to the manner in which the rents are fixed,, and because the Commissioners, notwithstanding the representations made on the subject, have chosen their assessors from one class of the community, which is known to be utterly opposed to the crofters in every respect.
    Vote agreed to.
    75. £62,648, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.
    MR. WALLACE: I wish to say one word upon the Prisons Vote for Scotland in connection with the inequality of the salaries of the officials in the English and Scotch prisons. There is a very great inequality of the salaries between the officials in English and Scotch prisons, and for no reason that I can see, except the general reason of the contempt of the English for Scotchmen. The duties performed by Scotch prison officials are identically the same, but the salaries are extremely unequal. I shall not go into details, but I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say that I am in error when I affirm that either the Scotch officials are very much underpaid or the English officials are very much overpaid for performing the same work. I think this is particularly aggravating in the case of prison officialism. I do not see why prison duties in Scotland should be so much under-valued as they are. I rather think it should be the other way. I have considerable—I will not say connection but experience in scoundrelism both in England and Scotland; and I venture to say that in the particular claim for bad eminence the Scottish criminals occupy a higher position in their peculiar walk than that which is attained by the English criminals in the same direction, and in my opinion it requires a higher class of official to pay the requisite attentions to the prisoners. Perhaps I may be told corruptio optimi pessima, when I say that taking everything all round the Scottish ruffian is a person of a higher

    667
    class and occupies a more eminent position of baseness than the corresponding representative of the Anglo-Saxon description; but so far from the Scottish prison official being paid in an inferior way in comparison with his Anglican rival, I think if there is to be any inequality it ought to be the other way about. I know there is one argument which will probably be used by the Secretary to the Treasury, whose serious demeanour I observe in this matter. He is always serious, but sometimes he is more serious than usual; and in this connection, as I now see him studying with great gravity the paper before him, I am aware that one of the arguments he will probably use is that in Scotland we have greater facilities for obtaining suitable men in this connection, and that therefore there is a larger market available for the selection of prison officials, and that therefore they can be obtained more cheaply in Scotland. Well, that possibly may be true; but what I want to put is this; if that be so, why do not the English prison officials open their market to the Scottish supplies? If it be true that capable men for attending to criminals are more abundant and more easily procured in Scotland, why do not they advertise in Scotland for applications to be sent in for English employment? If it be true, as is alleged, that Scottish prison officials are paid less than English prison officials because they are more easily procurable, then I ask what sort of English economy is it that they do not apply in Scotland for applicants for such situations? If that argument has nothing in it, I say that the English administration of prisons is conducted in a most extravagant manner.
    SIR JOHN GORST: This is a matter which has been already discussed once during the present Session, as well as in previous years; and it is extremely creditable to the patriotism of a Scottish representative that this question should be raised again. But the real fact is that there is no intention whatever to inflict any slight on Scottish nationality. There are a great many Scotchmen employed in English prisons, and Irishmen
    668
    too. It is not a question of the nationality of the officers employed; it is a question of the locality of the prison in which the employment takes place. And I should say myself that the real cause of the low scale of salaries in the Scottish prisons is due to the action of the Scottish Local Authorities themselves before the prisons were taken over by the Imperial Government, because I find that as soon as the Scottish Prisons Act was passed in 1877 there was a new scale of salaries for all persons employed in prisons immediately prescribed by the Treasury; and on the whole, taking them all round, there was a rise of over ten per cent. on the salaries paid to officials in the Scottish prisons. The taxpayers are not disposed, I think, to allow an increase in salaries to take place at too rapid a rate; and I think the hon. Member who has just sat down will admit that an increase of ten per cent. all round was a very substantial increase on the salaries which the Local Authorities thought adequate for the payment of those officers. There is no allegation that the officials in the Scottish prisons are in anyway inferior to those in the prisons in London, or Manchester, or Liverpool, or in any other large town. Any suggestion that may be made to the Government with regard to the payment of salaries will receive attention; but so far as I can see no complaints of this kind have been made. If it can be shown that there is any prison in which the service is inadequate, and which is improperly conducted, by reason of the low scale of pay which is given, no doubt it would be a good ground for the Treasury to increase the scale of salaries in that particular locality.
    MR. WALLACE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite taken the point. What I wish to say is, if the Scottish prison officials are sufficiently paid for performing the same duties, I want to know upon what ground of economy the fact can be defended that the English prison officials, who perform the same duties, are paid more highly? It is not simply a Scotch question. I am not merely a Scotch Member, but I am a Member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and

    669
    I speak from an English point of view. Granting all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, if the Scottish prison officials are properly paid, then the English prison officials are too highly paid, and I want to know on what grounds he defends English extravagance.
    SIR JOHN GORST: The salaries of the English prison officials must be raised on the English Prisons Vote. If the hon. Member thinks they are too high, and attacks the English Prisons Vote, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will show adequate reasons for the scale of pay of English prison officers. I ought, however, to have mentioned that so much impressed were the Government with the views of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) on this point that a Committee has been appointed to consider the scale of pay of Scottish prison officers. If the result should be that the Committee report that the scale is inadequate, no doubt it will be increased.
    MR. WALLACE: I am glad to have dragged that information from the right hon. Gentleman, and if he thinks the technical escape that he has made is sufficient for his defence I have no objection to his enjoyment of that position.
    MR. MORTON: I am satisfied that this is more an English than a Scottish question, and what I want to do is to reduce the English and Irish salaries to the Scottish level. The Scottish Estimates are more economically managed all round. Although the Lord Advocate is quite as good a man as the Attorney General he does not get one half or one fourth of the Attorney General's salary. If you would allow the Scottish people to manage your business a little more you would save a great deal of money. The remedy for the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) to adopt is Scottish Home Rule—to allow the Scotch to manage their business for themselves—and I believe he will then find that the Scottish people would not consent to increase the salary either of the Lord Advocate or anybody else.
    (11.19.) Vote agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    76. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,796,213, 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, 1893, for Public Education in England and Wales, including Expenses of the Education Office in London."
    MR. SINCLAIR (, &c.): I think this is in ordinary years one of the most important and interesting of the Votes taken in the House of Commons, and I am sorry that it has been put without any explanation by the Minister for Education. Last year a change was effected by which a grant of ten shillings per child in average attendance was given, and it would be exceedingly interesting to have on this occasion, from the Vice-President of the Council, a short statement as to the result of this change upon education in England, because few subjects attract more attention among the electorate generally than the way in which this large sum, amounting to six millions sterling, is applied, and the useful work that it accomplishes in the country at large.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member is quite right in his remark that it is usual that the Minister in charge of this Vote should make a statement upon it. I have not thought it right to do so for reasons which will be obvious to the Committee. The hon. Member asked for information with regard to the Act passed last year. We have not yet very full information with regard to the working of the Act, but I may assure the Committee that, so far as the effect has been ascertained by the Department, there is not only nothing to complain of—and no complaints have come from any part of the country—but we have two points to the good. The first operation of the Act has been to increase the attendance of children at school. There are exceptions, of course, but in most districts an increased attendance has resulted from

    671
    the passing of the Act. We have also this point to the good—we have been able to encourage thrift among the very youngest of the population. We have issued from the Department a Memorandum giving information in that direction, and the scheme has been very largely taken up in our elementary schools. In many cases I am glad to say the children are now putting the amount of their school fees into the savings banks. We have therefore, at all events, a great encouragement with regard to the working of the Act. I should like to have gone into a long disquisition on this Vote to-night. I am in the hands of the Committee in the matter; but I do not like to disturb the equable course of the Estimates. What I should propose to do is this—if there be no opportunity upon Report, I shall publish as a Parliamentary Paper an elaborate tabular statement with regard to the progress of education during the past year; and I think it would be better to do that than to break in on the course of the Estimates.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think a great deal may be said in favour of the course indicated by the right hon. Baronet. No doubt this Vote has been reached much earlier than was anticipated, and a good many Members who are specially interested in the education question are not in the House at the present moment. Under these circumstances I would suggest to the right hon. Baronet that he might make his statement on a future occasion. He might with the approval of the Leader of the House make his statement on one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill, as has been done on occasions when the circumstances were similar. At all events, it would be very undesirable to embark upon a very abbreviated discussion to-night.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am perfectly satisfied, and have quite achieved the object I had in view, with the observations of the right hon. Baronet. He has referred to two points of very great interest, but there is another of equal importance to which he has not alluded at all and on which a few words would be very welcome. We should like to
    672
    know what has been the effect of the measure of last year upon the regularity of the attendance of the children whose names are on the roll. Has free education had the effect of increasing the regularity of attendance, or has it had the effect which it was supposed in some years it would have—especially among the children belonging to the very poorest classes—of diminishing the attendances at school, on the ground that there are certain people who do not think so much of that which they receive for nothing as of that for which they have to pay?
    SIR W. HART DYKE: It is very difficult to answer that question at the present stage with the information we have now in our possession, but that information shows that, with regard to the regularity of the attendance of the children, we have still something to complain of. It may be necessary, perhaps, to enforce attendance by some more stringent methods than those we are now able to adopt, especially in those cases where as indicated by the hon. Member, parents may think that what they get for nothing is not worth having. But I may assure the Committee that from the information I have received in travelling about the country and otherwise, the result of the Act of last year has been to actually increase the regularity of the attendance.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to know whether it is really a fact that compulsion has not been successful, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the present state of affairs with regard to school attendance in England. The right hon. Gentleman asks for over three million pounds, and instead of making a speech with regard to it he says he will present a statement to the House later on. Now, is that a satisfactory way of dealing with the voting of several millions of money? Too often have I seen responsible Ministers get up at a late hour of the night and tell us that it is too much trouble to make statements, although they are jolly well paid for doing so. Why does not the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Sinclair), who raised the question, stick to his guns,

    673
    and force a statement from the right hon. Gentleman? Why is there all this shilly-shallying, which would disgust the heart of any honest man. If we have come here to do business, let us do it. English and Scotch Members should remember that their constituents will ask them what they are doing with this money. Instead of the minute and a half-statement from the right hon. Gentleman we should have had the whole position of affairs explained in a business-like way to the country, so that the people might know how the money was to be used. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to put the statement on paper, so that there should be no lapsus linguœ; but he has had to admit that compulsion in England has proved unsatisfactory, and that he will have to ask for more stringent powers to compel children to attend school.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the Government intend to do with respect to allowing public meetings to be held in elementary schools. Is the Bill now before the House to be dropped or to be proceeded with, if not in its present form, at least in some form or other?
    MR. HOWELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question put by my hon. Friend, I would like to say that the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cork (Dr. Tanner) on the question of compulsion in regard to free education must not be taken as representing the views of English Members. Many of us may feel that it has not done all that it was expected to do, and that more yet may be done; but it should be remembered that there have been difficulties to overcome, and that the Free Education Act has done a great deal of good in England. I believe that the more rigidly the compulsory clauses are enforced the more satisfactory will be the results.
    MR. MORTON: When the Act was passed last year it was certainly hoped that the adoption of further compulsory powers would be unnecessary. I am sorry to hear that more stringent measures are required in order to get the children to school.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: The hon. Member is mistaken. I am only asking the Committee to pass this sum of money. As to the results of the Free Education Act, I say they are hopeful. At the same time, notwithstanding the large sum of money that has been spent in carrying out the Act, it will not do to expect too much from it alone. What we wish to see is that the taxpayers get their money's worth.
    MR. MORTON: I am glad to get that explanation, I agree that compulsion is necessary, especially in order to get what are called the gutter children into the schools. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make clear in his printed statement how many schools have been made entirely free by the Free Education Act. I find in the accounts an item of £800 for an architect to the Education Department. Does that refer to the same gentleman who recently acted for the London School Board? I have been asked to call attention to this matter. It is further stated in the foot-note that this gentleman is likewise architect for Scotland; but so little value is attached to him there that he is given no salary. It is strange that the Scotch Members cannot find an architect of their own.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for some information with reference to the regulations as to the teaching of physiography in the rural districts of Scotland. A great number of people call for the revision of these regulations. It is absurd to suppose that gentlemen holding degrees from Aberdeen University are not capable of teaching the elementary stage of physiography.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I must express my surprise that this great and important branch of national expenditure should have been brought forward without any preliminary statement. Six years ago such a statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), who then occupied the position now filled so admirably by my right hon. Friend the present Vice President of the Council.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: On the Appropriation Bill.
    *SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: It is essentially to the credit of the House of Commons that, before the Session closes, a full and proper statement should be made by the right hon. Gentleman on the question. The Report Stage of the Appropriation Bill or some other time may afford the opportunity. I can quite understand that nobody would expect such vast sums of money to be voted away as they have been this evening, and I do not know what people outside will think of it. At all events, we have been sitting and allowing things to go on until we have now reached a Department, in connection with which a statement has always been made. And I think the House and the country are entitled to a regular statement from the responsible Minister explaining the educational results of the year, and the reports of the several inspectors, and also containing some reference to the Code—if any changes have been made, if any are intended, and, if so, how will they operate. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that people in the villages, as well as in the towns, regard with exceptional interest all these matters; and I earnestly hope that some proper opportunity will be taken to make the usual statement. In reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Sinclair), I think I may fairly say that the general impression is that the measure of free education has tended to improve the attendance; but, nevertheless, attendances remain very unsatisfactory in the interior of the country as compared with the great towns, and I hope that warning will be taken in this matter, because if it should happen that attendance under the voluntary system is not secured so regularly as under the School Board system, there will be an agitation in favour of the latter. I am afraid, at all events, that one effect in the metropolitan area of freeing schools is to further endanger the voluntary schools; and the opinion of many metropolitan managers is that before long we shall have to take charge of many of the voluntary schools, to the great augmentation of the rates. I am very
    676
    happy to be able to confirm what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir W. Hart Dyke) in reference to the Savings Banks. So far the result has been very satisfactory, and I believe with my colleagues that we shall before long see a large development of the Savings Bank system, in connection with our educational institutions, which will greatly conduce to the foundation from childhood of thrift in the minds of the people. An expression fell from the hon. Member for Peterborough, with regard to which I must express my surprise. The hon. Member spoke of "gutter children," an expression which never now comes from the lips of an educationist. It is not considered a proper expression to use with reference to those children who are unfortunately situated, and who ought therefore to be the first object of our care. With reference to the architect of whom inquiry has been made, I may say he was employed in connection with the School Board of London; but his services were transferred to the Education Department. I should like to point out to my right hon. Friend that School Board people regard with much anxiety the new Bill with respect to Industrial Schools. We consider these schools part of outwork. In connection with them most useful and benevolent operations are successfully carried on, and we should be sorry to see them transferred. We have been enabled to do much good to these poor children to whom the hon. Member for Peterborough applied a term not properly applicable.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to say to the hon. Baronet that I did not use the term of which he complains in an offensive sense. It is a technical term which has been used for some years. The complaint shows, I think, how careful we can be of the working-men's votes when we are near the General Election. It is notorious that the London School Board neglected for years that class of children; it was said that they were not clean enough. I am sorry to learn from the hon. Baronet that the architect referred to is the gentleman who was in the

    677
    service of the School Board, because in my opinion he is responsible for the costly defects in London school buildings. I do not see how a man of that sort can be good enough for the Education Department if he was not good enough for the School Board. I am glad to note that the Vote is so largely increased, although we are still considerably behind the United States, and I trust that the time is not far distant when, instead of wasting money on war and other matters, we shall devote a still larger sum to the free education of the children of this country.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I wish to support the appeal made by the hon. Baronet for a fuller statement. The statements that attendance had improved and that thrift had been furthered were not supported by figures, and consequently they were not of great value. I hope, when the statement is made, it will include a complete percentage of attendances under the Act passed last year, and also full statistics in respect to the Savings Banks.
    *SIR W. HART DYKE: I hope the Committee will appreciate the extreme difficulty of my position to-night, and I venture to urge that no hon. Member suffers more from the procedure than myself. I have been most anxious—and nothing would better suit the supporters of the Government—to give to the House a full, detailed statement as to our six years' work; and I hope there will yet be time to do so, instead of falling back upon the expedient of a printed statement. I shall be glad to give the detailed information asked for from my place in Parliament before the Session ends; and with reference to a question asked regarding a Bill now before the House as to the exemption of schools from rating, I presume that it will be embraced in the First Lord's statement on Monday next with reference to the course of Public Business. Then the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) asked a question with reference to the Architect to the Education Department. That gentleman
    678
    is still retained by the Department as Consulting Architect, and we find him a very competent adviser. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) asked me a question in regard to the teaching of elementary physiography in the rural districts of Scotland; and if the hon. Member will be good enough to allow me a day or two for inquiry, and submit a question to me, I will endeavour to answer him. We are now under the shadow of a Dissolution; but I honestly believe, considering the progress we have made to-night, that I shall be able, after consultation with my right hon. Friend, to find an opportunity to make my statement.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: The right hon. Baronet has told us that the First Lord will make a statement with regard to the Bill in question, but I should like to ask him if he is in a position to say what will be done to carry out the Resolution passed by the House if the Bill is not carried?
    SIR W. HART DYKE: The Resolution is embodied in the Bill, and I ask the House to pass the Bill in order to carry out the Resolution.
    MR. HENRY J. WILSON: When the right hon. Baronet makes his statement I hope he will include in it some explanation of the recent appointment of three Inspectors, which has been the subject of a good deal of observation in certain quarters. It has been suggested that there has been something like change of policy, if not a breach of faith, in the appointment of these gentlemen, and that all of them are without experience.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: I shall be glad to allude to that matter.
    DR. TANNER: I noticed that the First Lord of the Admiralty said that we were not near a Dissolution, but now we are told that the real object in passing the Vote is to get through the business, and have a Dissolution as soon as possible. I only waited for some such admission on the part of a responsible Member sitting on the Treasury Bench in order to assist to

    679
    the utmost of my power the passing of the Votes. I would suggest that the Government take them en bloc; and if they decide to do so, they will receive my most loyal support.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    77. £400,054, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
    78. £104,560, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
    79. £8,577, to complete the sum for the National Gallery.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of these Estimates whether there is any chance of increased accommodation being provided for pictures in the National Gallery? Owing to want of space the flow of benevolence is now checked, and the possibility of getting further works of art into the gallery is at an end. If the First Commissioner of Works were present I should have addressed to him a few words respecting this matter. I believe he holds there is plenty of room. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman who may be in charge if there is a probability of any extra accommodation being found for pictures which may reasonably be expected to be added—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member seems to have forgotten that the question with which he is dealing comes under Class I. Vote, which has been already discussed.
    Vote agreed to.
    80. £1,228, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
    81. £14,896, to complete the sum for Scientific Investigations, &c.
    82. £40,000, to complete the sum for Universities and Colleges, Great Britain.
    83. £183, to complete the sum for London University.
    84. £366,336, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
    MR. PARKER SMITH: Will the Lord Advocate say whether he is going to make any statement on this subject?
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have no doubt that an opportunity may be found to make a statement on this subject at a later stage of the business.
    Vote agreed to.
    85. £2,950, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c, Scotland.
    Resolutions to be reported tomorrow; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

  TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.—(No. 219.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN GORST, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 1, lines 9 and 10, leave out "exceeding," and insert "less than"; line 10, after "poundage," insert "or which would have been payable to the clerk by way of poundage if he had been so paid"; line 13, leave out "exceeding," and insert "less than"; line 18, leave out sub-section (3).
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  MARRIAGES ABROAD BILL [Lords] (No. 361.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  DR. TANNER: We have no explanation of any of these measures, and I think we ought to have some explanation to save us the trouble of reporting Progress. The Government have already got about eight millions of money to-night, and they are not satisfied, but want to pass fifteen Bills without any explanation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): This Bill is merely for the purpose of putting into one Bill the Acts that have been passed with respect to marriages abroad. It includes the Act that was

  681
  passed last year. It was felt that there should be a consolidated Act, putting all the legislation on this subject into one measure. The Bill has been most carefully drafted, and I have gone through it carefully myself. It introduces no new matter, and is merely for the purpose of consolidating all the Acts that have been passed on this subject.
  DR. TANNER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on taking all the stages to-night, as he did on the last Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Amendment proposed, to add the words "And whether he is or is not a minor."—(The Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be added."
  DR. TANNER: If this is simply a consolidation Bill, why should it require amendment? If the Bill has been drafted under the special and all-important supervision of the Attorney General, I am at a loss to know why he should now seek to amend it. The way we are now scrambling through legislation is not worthy the reputation of the House.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The Schedule of one of the Acts which is being consolidated said that the marriage form should state whether either or which of the parties was or was not minor. The drafters did not notice this particular Schedule, and did not repeat the particular words. The words are not absolutely necessary, and the Bill would have been, practically speaking, complete without them. But I thought it was better that the words should be clear as to the obligation to state the ages, and, therefore, I moved this Amendment.
  DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman assured us a moment ago that he had gone through this Bill with great care and had given it his special sanction.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I said nothing of the kind.
  DR. TANNER: I speak in the recollection of the House, and I stand by my words. With respect to this Bill there are no Amendments on the Paper, and the hon. Gentleman gets up and proposes Amendments as it suits his fancy or humour. I cannot quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to insert these valuable words if the Bill would do just as well without them, and I think his conduct in respect of this Bill is extraordinary.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  Amendment proposed, to insert the words "and shall inform the parties."—(The Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
  DR. TANNER: Here, again, I think we ought to have some explanation.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The present Marriage Law provides that where the Secretary of State shall give directions as to a marriage being allowed to be solemnised the marriage officer shall obey the directions of the Secretary of State. It was suggested to me from the other side of the House that it was desirable that the parties should be informed of the decision of the Secretary of State, and that seemed so reasonable that I adopted it and have embodied it in this Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 19.
  Verbal Amendment proposed.—(The Attorney General.)
  DR. TANNER: I want some explanation of this Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The first paragraph directs the officer to solemnise marriage or to allow it to be solemnised in his presence, and this is simply a correction in the proviso of the clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 26.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 20, after "consul," to add "or other marriage officer."—(The Attorney General.)
  DR. TANNER: I should like an explanation of this Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: In the repealed Acts marriages are allowed to be solemnised before a British Consul or other marriage officer. The Bill provides for the marriage before the Consul, but omits "or other marriage officer." The Amendment is to rectify that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL (No. 359.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  DR. TANNER: This is a measure calculated to take away from the House certain privileges in connection with this Order, and we have had no explanation of the Bill. One or two of my hon. Friends who have just left the House asked me to try and get the Bill postponed in order that an explanation of it might be given. I therefore move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I confess I did not know that there was any opposition to this Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman assures me that any large section of Members desires to discuss the Bill in Committee,
  684
  I will agree to his Motion to report Progress.
  DR. TANNER: A very large section. Several of my hon. Friends have recently left the House, not knowing that the Government were going through all these Bills in this way.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  POLICE RETURNS BILL.—(No. 376.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  DR. TANNER: I should like some explanation of the object of this Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Under the County and Borough Police Act the police are obliged to make their Returns on the 29th September. The Returns of other Departments are at the end of the year, and this Bill is simply to enable the police to make their Returns coincide with the other Returns.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA OFFICERS' BILL. (No. 246.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I appeal to the Government not to go on with this Bill tonight, as there are a number of hon. Members who are interested and desire to say something upon it.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I join in making this appeal, as I know there are important Amendments down which hon. Members desire to urge.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I also appeal to the hon. Gentleman to allow the Bill to pass this stage? I gather that the objection is not to the principle of the Bill, but to details. If the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will agree to the Bill being now read a second time, I will put down the Committee stage for Monday.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL.
  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for further proceeding on Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. HOWELL: I appeal to the House to let the Bill pass. The matter has been agreed to on all sides, and it is a compromise Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By leave of the House I would like to explain that at question time a pledge was given that no private Members' Bills should be allowed to pass after twelve o'clock. I therefore regret that I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HOWELL: I objected to that course at question time, and I should have followed it up, but that I understood that the pledge did not refer to Bills which had reached a certain stage. I think this is one of the Bills which could be proceeded with, and I appeal to the Government to allow the Bill to pass.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The understanding was that the House should adjourn after the Government Business was disposed of.
  DR. TANNER: I certainly understood that unopposed business would be taken; and upon that understanding, I have waited to move for a Return, notice of which stands in my name.
  MR. SPEAKER: Objection being taken, the Bill stands over.
  Consideration deferred till Monday next.

  ARTIFICIAL MANURES, &c. (ADULTERATION) BILL.—(No. 127.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CHANNING: In moving the discharge of this Order, I may be allowed to say I do so because, under present circumstances, it may not be possible for the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture to report in time to enable legislation to be carried through this Session.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACTS (COTTAGES).
  Return of the operations under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts up to 31st March, 1892.—(Dr. Tanner.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow this to stand over for our next Sitting, when probably it will be granted as an Unopposed Return, but my attention has not been called to it until now?
  DR. TANNER: The notice has been on the Paper some little time, and I understood there was no objection to its terms.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I do not anticipate any objection if the hon. Gentleman will postpone it to the Sitting to-morrow.
  Deferred till To-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 374.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ACCUMULATIONS BILL.—(No. 277.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 351.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS) BILL.—(No. 385.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 293.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS BILL.—(No. 360.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 294.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.—(No. 378.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 242.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (INTERMENTS) ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 107.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GUARDIANS OF THE POOR (QUALIFICATION) BILL.—(No. 84.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) [GRANT].
  Resolution [3rd June] reported, and agreed to.
  TELEGRAPHS [ADVANCES].
  Committee to consider of authorising (a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for the purposes of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1889, and of any Act of the present Session to make further provision respecting Telegraphs, and (b) the creation of terminable annuities, for providing such sums, payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Sir John Gorst.)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT (OPEN AIR MEETINGS).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 14th March; Mr. Secretary Matthews]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR)—INSPECTORS' REPORTS.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 26th April; Mr. Channing]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (SILVER QUESTION).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 30th May; Sir William Houldsworth]; to lie upon the Table.
  GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
  Select Committee on Galway Infirmary Bill nominated of,—Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Colonel Nolan, and Mr. Pinkerton, and Two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (RE-ARRANGEMENT OF ROOMS).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Re-arrangement of the Rooms contiguous to the Members' Lobby.
  Ordered, That Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Cyril Flower, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Marjoribanks, and Mr. Plunket be Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.