Sitting of 14 March 1893

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

  WAR DEPARTMENT VESSELS.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  12
  War if he would explain why crews of War Department vessels at Woolwich Arsenal are compelled to wear uniform marked with the broad arrow, and pay for it a sum of £1 16s. 9d. each, out of their wages, while at Waltham Abbey uniform of the value of £5 each is supplied free to crews of War Department vessels?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. For purposes of discipline the crews of War Department vessels are required to provide themselves with uniform clothing suitable for seamen. As they have good wages, and this clothing is supplied as cheaply as ordinary sailors' clothes, no hardship arises. The barges carrying gunpowder and explosives constitute a separate and peculiar service. There are only about a dozen men employed, and for the last half-century, and probably for a much longer time, it has been the practice to supply each man yearly with a uniform costing about £2 14s. There is really no analogy between the two cases, and it is not proposed to make any alteration.

  AN IRISH RELIGIOUS CENSUS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can inform the House about how many Protestants there are in Ireland outside the province of Ulster?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Registrar General reports that, according to the census of 1891, the number of persons returned as Roman Catholics in the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Con-naught was 2,802,448, and of all other persuasions 282,488. The latter number includes 1,497 Jews, 191 unspecified cases, 124 "unknown," and 331 cases in which information was refused; it also includes the Protestant population of Dublin and Cork cities. I do not know whether the hon. Member also desired the figures for Ulster, but I have them here. Out of a population of 1,619,814, the number returned as Roman Catholics is 744,859.

  MAT MAKING IN PRISONS.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the written assurance from the Home Office of the 23rd May last, that there was only one contract in force for the making of mats by prisoners, that this would terminate in the following July, and that it was not proposed to make any others, the Department has permitted contracts to be given for nosebags and kneeling mats, and that such are still being made at the prisons of Hull, Liverpool, and Stafford; and, if so, whether he is prepared to reverse the policy of his predecessor and permit the continuance of interference with free labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): No contracts have been entered into for making nosebags and kneelers by prison labour since 23rd May 1892. Those articles have continued to be made by prisoners at the prisons of Hull, Liverpool, and Stafford under contracts previously in force, but which will terminate during the mouth of May next. When the assurance was given, on the 23rd May last, that there was only one contract in force for the making of mats by prisoners, that it would terminate in the following July, and that it was not proposed to make any others, it was not considered that nosebags and kneelers came under the denomination of mats.

  THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is able to give the number of persons who, since the loth of February, have lodged their Savings Bank books in the various post offices throughout Ireland for the purpose of having them sent to London to be checked, and the amount of deposits withdrawn?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I will give the number of applications to close accounts for the period l5th February to 9th March, inclusive, for the three years 1891, 1892, and 1893:— 1891, 2,200; 1892, 2,280; 1893, 2,850. These figures are at the following percentage on the total number of accounts
  14
  in Ireland at the commencement of the year:—1891, 1·10; 1892,1·07; 1893, 1·27. During the same periods the following number of now accounts have been opened:—1891, 3,472; 1892, 3,366; 1893, 3,227. The percentages in these cases have been 1·74, 1·58, 1·43.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state to what extent the slight decrease is owing to the depression of trade in Ireland?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have no accurate information, but the figures rather point to that as the cause.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the decrease is due to the introduction of the Home Rule Bill?
  [No answer was given.]

  CRIMEAN PENSIONS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there are many men who suffered the loss of leg or arm in the Crimean Campaign now in receipt of pensions; what is the average pension granted to a man who lost a leg in that campaign; and if the War Office Authorities will take into consideration the case of Maurice O'Donoghue, pensioner from the 19th Foot, now an inmate of Kanturk Workhouse, county Cork, aged 62, with a view to increasing his present insufficient pension of 10d. a day?
  MR. WOODALL: Many men were pensioned for the loss of a leg or an arm during the Crimean Campaign; but I am not aware how many of them are still alive. The average pension which the Chelsea Commissioners then awarded for the loss of a leg was 10d. a day if the leg was amputated below the knee; 1s. a day if above. The Commissioners refused Maurice O'Donoghue an increase of pension in 1890; but they will reconsider his case if it can be shown that the suffers increased disability from the loss of his leg.

  MALLOW LAND SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Sub-Commissioners have not sat in Mallow for the past two years, and that there are some tenants in that neighbourhood whose cases have been listed from periods of from three to six years, and

  15
  which are yet unheard; and whether arrangements will be made by the Land Commission to hold sittings in Mallow at an early date?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commissioners report that the last sitting of a Sub-Commission Court at Mallow was in November 1890, and that another Court will sit for the Union of Mallow after Easter, the exact date of which has not, however, yet been fixed.

  COERCED PETITIONERS AGAINST HOME RULE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a county Cork magistrate, Mr. Francis Stawell, Kilbrack House, Doneraile, has lately gone round in that neighbourhood pressing labourers to sign a Petition against Home Rule, and threatening them with dismissal from employment in case of refusal, and that, being refused signatures in the district, he went to the graveyard, and took down the names from the headstones; and whether the Lord Chancellor will communicate with this gentleman with a view to discontinuance of these proceedings?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think the hon. Member has not been accurately informed. No complaint has been made by any labourer to the police in this matter, and nothing is known as to the graveyard incident referred to.
  MR. FLYNN: If I submit letters bearing out the allegations in the question, will the Lord Chancellor inquire into the conduct of this magistrate?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will, if necessary, bring any facts that the hon. Member submits to me under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. T. HEALY: May I ask whether the police have informed the right hon. Gentleman that the landlords are going round to labourers and farmers in arrears and compelling them to sign Petitions against the Home Rule Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I daresay that is so, but I have no knowledge of the fact.
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman ventures to make such a statement if he has no knowledge of the fact?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Because I thought it lay within the reasonable probabilities of the case.

  PROPOSED NEW PIER FOR MAHAREES.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is in a position to state the decision at which the Congested Districts Board have arrived with reference to the proposed now pier at the Maharees, county Kerry?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board report they are not yet in a position to announce their decision with respect to the proposed pier at Maharees.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be come to?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir, but I will cause inquiry to be made.

  DISPUTED INSTRUCTIONS TO A BAILIFF.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the evidence of Mr. Maurice Leonard, J.P., at the Tralee Assizes, at the trial of a bailiff named Lynch, in which Mr. Leonard admitted that he gave instructions to Lynch to execute a seizure at all costs, and to shoot if necessary; whether he is aware that Lynch was convicted at the trial for an assault on the son of the tenant whose cattle had been seized; and whether it is his intention to take any action with regard to Mr. Leonard's evidence?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that Mr. Leonard did not make use of the expression "shoot if necessary" on the occasion referred to, and that Mr. Leonard denies having made use of the words "all costs." Lynch was convicted at the trial for an assault on the son of the tenant.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PENSIONS.
  MR. WOOTTONISAACSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of James Monks, mounted police officer of the N Division of the Metropolitan Police, who, about the end of November 1887, was returning from duty in Trafalgar-square, when passing Shaftesbury-avenue his horse fell, causing severe injuries to his right

  17
  leg, rendering him unable to do duty for five months; subsequently paralysis set in, which has compelled his retirement from the force as unfit for duty, owing to the above injury, and a permanent cripple, on a pension of 8s. 1½d. per week only; and whether, under the lamentable circumstances of the case, he can see his way to increase the pension?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Chief Commissioner of Police, and would be obliged if the hon. Member would postpone his question to Friday, in order that I may have time to look more fully into the case. I venture at the same time to appeal to hon. Members to give longer notice, as it is almost impossible to make the necessary inquiries when the question only appears on the Paper for the first time on the day on which it is put.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I gave notice of this three days ago.

  EGYPTIAN FINANCE.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the papers that Mr. Palmer, the financial adviser to the Egyptian Government, is about, to conclude the conversion of the Egyptian Five per Cent. Domain Loan into a Four and a-quarter per Cent. Loan; whether there is any special reason why it should not be converted into a Three and a-half per Cent. Loan, the same as was done with the Five per Cent. Egyptian Railway Preference Loan; and whether he is aware that the difference would make an additional income to the Egyptian Government of £37,500 per annum?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The object of offering a Four and a-quarter per Cent. Stock in lieu of a Stock of lower denomination is to avoid the necessity for increasing the capital. This is preferable on general financial grounds.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that money has been quite unlendable lately, and that without increasing the capital it would have been perfectly easy to obtain the amount even in Three per Cent. Stock?
  SIR E. GREY: The information I have is entirely contrary to that.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Is the management of this matter entirely in the hands of Mr. Palmer?
  SIR E. GREY: If the hon. Member wants more detailed information I must ask for notice.

  SOLDIERS' BARRACK HOURS.
  MR. FELL PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what hour soldiers in the Metropolis are expected to be in barracks?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): Unless granted a special pass for a later hour, a soldier is required to be in barracks by 10 p.m.

  EDINBURGH REGISTER HOUSE.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any and what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations made in the Report issued some time ago by a Committee-appointed by the late Government to inquire into the position of the Register of Deeds Office in the General Register House, Edinburgh.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The Report of the Committee on the Register of Deeds Office, Edinburgh, was fully considered and generally approved. On the 20th of last mouth the Deputy Clerk Register was directed as far as possible to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee and to report on the state of arrears and on the measures which should be taken to insure the full registration of every deed within three months of its being handed in to the office. At the same time the Treasury were asked for their approval as to certain changes involving financial questions. When I have received replies, to these letters I hope to be in a position to lay before the House a formal Minute embodying the decision of the Government on the Report.

  PENCILS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  MR. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER: I beg to ask the

  19
  Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of lead pencils annually supplied to the various public Departments of the State; what proportion of such pencils is derived from Home and what from Foreign manufactories; what are the average prices of the Home made and Foreign made pencils, respectively; and are the Foreign made pencils superior in quality to those of Home manufacture?
  MR. MACFARLANE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if he can at the same time state the number of pieces of India rubber used, and the weight.
  MR. FLYNN: And also the number of quill pens used.
  SIR J. HIBBERT: Hon. Members will not expect me to answer such questions at a moment's notice. The number of ordinary cedar black lead pencils bought by the Stationery Office during the current financial year is about 8,330 gross, costing £2,181. No orders for pencils are given except to firms having offices or agents in England; but no instructions having been given either by the Government or Parliament that purchases should be limited to articles made in this country, it is considered immaterial where they are made. Moreover, it is obviously impossible to say how many of them are of Home and how many of Foreign manufacture without examining each parcel of pencils, and that, again, is obviously impossible, as most of them have already been issued. The average price paid during the year was 5s. 3d. a gross. The pencils specially selected for the Postal and Telegraph Service are of German make, costing 4s. 6d. a gross, and it has been proved, after a test of a set of different pencils, with the distinguishing marks obliterated, that it is not possible to get an English made pencil so suitable for these purposes for the price now paid.
  COLONEL H. VINCENT: If the Government believe it to be immaterial where pencils are made, how is it possible to carry out the Resolution of February 1891 as to the payment of fair wages in connection with Government contracts; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pencils supplied to Ministers and Members of this House bear the inscription" V. R. Civil Service: Bavaria."
  MB. T. M. HEALY:Are the pen-
  20
  knives used for sharpening those pencils all made in Birmingham.
  MR. WEIR: And where is the machinery obtained which is used in the manufacture of the penknives.
  SIR J. HIBBERT: I am sorry that I cannot answer all these questions off-band. I do not consider that the Resolution of the House of 1891 applies to this question at all. As long as this is a Free Trade country, we have a right to obtain our goods at the cheapest cost.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any means of ascertaining the wages paid by the Bavarian manufacturers of these pencils.
  SIR J. HIBBERT: I do not know whether it is possible to obtain that information, but I do not think it has much to do with the question.

  OPERATIONS IN THE KACHIN.
  MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether it is true, as reported, that the military operations against the Kachin Tribes east of the Irrawaddy river have been suspended; (2) whether this indicates any change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government; (3) and what progress is being made in negotiations with the Chinese Government for the settlement of the Burmo-Chinese frontier.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): (1) Yes, Sir. There is nothing to add to the answer given to a similar question on the 9th instant by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; (2) no change of policy is thereby indicated; (3) negotiations are in progress, but it would he inconvenient at the present stage to enter into details respecting them.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH GALBALLY.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware, that in the town of Galbally, County Limerick, there is no telegraphic communication with the English markets; that there are two creameries in the neighbourhood and one

  21
  in the town of Galbally, as well as a large woollen factory; that the nearest telegraph offices are Tipperary, Mitchelstown, and Knocklong, the two former being 9 miles and the last 7 miles from Galbally; whether a petition has reached him, signed by the gentry, clergy, farmers, and traders of the district, and stating that for the successful working of those creameries, &c, telegraphic communication with the English markets is essential; and will such communication be established?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Petition mentioned did reach me last Wednesday and, as I informed the hon. Member by letter on the same day, I am having inquiry made; but some time must elapse before a decision can be arrived at.

  A CRIMINAL COUNTY COUNCILLOR.
  MR. PERCY THORNTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Frederick Henderson, a Member of the London County Council, was, on the 9th of March, at the County of London Sessions, convicted of felony, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour; whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Judge before sentence, in which, inter alia, he is reported to have said that he hoped it would be regarded as the duty of the public to get Henderson removed from the post he had so unworthily filled; and whether the Local Government Board propose to take any steps in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): This question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and it is obviously a serious inconvenience to the permanent staff of a Department to be called upon in the morning to give a reply to a complicated question which is to be delivered in the House on the evening of the same day. I should be sorry to appear guilty of discourtesy, but so far as my Department is concerned, I must ask for a longer time for the collection of material for answering complicated questions. I will give the hon. Member the best answer I can to his inquiry. A person convicted of
  22
  felony and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour is not expressly disqualified by the Local Government Act from holding the office of a County Councillor. But by the general Law under 33 & 34 Viet., cap. 23, section 2 if any person so convicted and sentenced holds any—
  "Military or naval office, or any civil office under the Crown, or other public employment, or any ecclesiastical benefice, or any place, office, or emolument in any University, College, or other corporation,"
  his office becomes vacant. By a later part of the same section a person so convicted and sentenced is rendered incapable of exorcising any municipal franchise, and would therefore seem to be disqualified for acting as a county elector, and such a person appears therefore, under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, as applied by the Local Government Act, to be disqualified for the office of County Councillor. The question, however, is a legal one, on which the County Council will no doubt obtain legal advice. It is not a question which the Local Government Board have any power to decide.

  ILLEGAL FISHING.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five of the fishermen who were fined for fishing in the Cloghane and Owenmore Rivers, in county Kerry, have been sent to gaol in consequence of their inability to pay the fines and costs imposed upon them; and, whether, in view of their poverty, and also of the exceptional nature of their case, the authorities will consent to their speedy release?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have called for a Report in the matter, but have not yet received a reply.

  ROAD THROUGH CROFTING LAND.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that Captain MacDonald of Waternish, Inverness-shire, has refused permission to the County Council to construct a road through the crofting land on his property, which, besides serving other purposes, would enable the children of the district to attend the public school in

  23
  rough weather without endangering their lives, will the Government so amend the Local Government Act as to empower the County Council to carry out this and similar improvements?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: It is true that Captain MacDonald objects to a public road, the necessity of which he disputes, being made through the arable lands of his crofts. But he makes no objection to the improvements of foot paths and the erection of foot bridges to enable children to attend school; the School Board have expressed themselves as satisfied with this arrangement, and the County Council have applied for permission to construct the path out of recent grant for roads, and I have approved the proposal. The question of compulsory powers of the County Council to construct roads is being considered by the Government with a view to a Local Government Bill.

  THE LOCHIEL MAIL STEAMER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the small mail steamer Lochiel was substituted for the Flowerdale on the route between Strome Ferry and Stornoway; whether he is aware that the Lochiel broke down on the 6th inst. on the passage between Strome Ferry and Stornoway, causing great delay in delivery of the mails and serious inconvenience and danger to the passengers and crew; and whether, in entering into the new contract, he will cause clauses to be inserted which will ensure a more satisfactory service?
  MR. A. MORLEY: In reply to the hon. Member's questions addressed to me, as well as to that addressed to my right hon. Friend, I have to state that I am not aware of the circumstances which rendered it necessary to replace the usual mail steamer Lochiel, but I do not, doubt that the contractor made the best provision in his power to meet any emergency which may have occurred. The accident to which reference is made is much to be regretted, and I will ascertain whether it arose from any want of reasonable care. In the new contract about to be executed, clauses will be inserted to secure efficiency in the performance of the mail service.
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I, in connection with this question, ask whether
  24
  in making a new contract for the mail service in the northern islands he will endeavour to increase the postal facilities to Skye and Long Island?
  MR. A. MORLEY: That question is under my consideration.

  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BETWEEN STROME FERRY AND STORNOWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the nature of the agreement which exists between the Highland Railway Company and Messrs. MacBrayne and Company, contractors for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails between Strome Ferry and Stornoway, and whether the agreement is of such a character as to give MacBrayne and Company the monopoly not only of the mails but of the goods and passenger traffic between Strome Ferry and the Island of Lewis?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am not aware of the nature of the agreement to which the hon. Member refers, but no agreement with the Highland Railway Company can confer on Messrs. MacBrayne any monopoly with regard to the carriage of mails.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS AND THE SCOTCH POLICE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is general dissatisfaction throughout the police service in Scotland in consequence of the appointment of Naval and Military officers and others, without any previous police experience, as chief constables; and whether steps will be taken to restrict such appointments to men who have served in the police force?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have had brought to my notice one case in which the Joint Committee of a county made an appointment which gave much dissatisfaction in the police service. There is reason to believe that the appointment was due to the Joint Committee not being, as in the opinion of the Government it ought to be, a completely representative body.

  DELAYED TELEGRAM.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether complaints have reached him that a telegram addressed "Wm, Campbell, fish merchant, Plock-

  25
  ton," was handed in at Leicester on 9th March, at 9.30 forenoon, arriving at the Plockton telegraph office at 10.21 forenoon, and was not delivered at Mr. Campbell's residence till five o'clock in the evening of same day, though his house is only a short distance from the telegraph office; what the reason is for this delay in the delivery of this telegram; and what protection he proposes to extend in the future to the fishing population of Plockton district against loss in the disposal of their fish resulting from delays in the telegraph office there?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No complaints on the subject have reached the Post Office in London; but I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  SEED POTATOES, OATS, AND BARLEY IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is great scarcity of seed potatoes, oats, and barley in many parts of the highlands and islands; and whether the Government will cause inquiry to be made with the view of affording such assistance as may be necessary?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Reports have been received of the great scarcity of seed in Shetland and parts of the Hebrides. These Reports have been corroborated by the Board of Supervision, but they advise that the most satisfactory mode of giving relief is not by making advances for the purchase of seed, but by starting public works on which the poor may find employment and earn enough to buy seed for themselves. In pursuance of this policy, besides the grant of £15,000 made for the Carloway-road in the Lewis, which has been begun, £10,000 have been specially allotted for road construction in the poorer districts of the highlands.

  GERMAN KNIVES.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the statement in The Sheffield Telegraph, on Saturday last, that unstamped German knives are being extensively
  26
  sold in this country at a profit of some 200 per cent. from cards bearing English wording, and inducing purchasers to believe that the cutlery is Sheffield made; and if, having regard to the confirmation of this fraud by the Report of the Commissioners of Customs in 1889, and by much of the evidence before the Select Committee on Merchandise Marks in 1890, he will take steps on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to secure the better identification of foreign-made goods?
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the case is as stated by the hon. Member, proceedings might be taken under the Merchandise Marks Act. The Select Committee to which the hon. Member refers reported against the compulsory marking of all goods with an indication of origin, and the Board of Trade have always held that the provisions of the law as to false marking are adequate, and that no further steps are necessary to secure the better identification of foreign-made goods.

  LIGHTHOUSE TENDER.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement in Fairplay, of 10th March, to the effect that the cost of adapting an old gunboat for use as a tender to the Bahamas lighthouse has amounted to £11,800; and whether this statement is correct; and, if so, whether in future the propriety will be considered of buying new vessels for tenders, instead of adapting old vessels at such an outlay as this?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The amount, £11,800, stated by the hon. Member represents the cost of the tender for the Bahamas lighthouse service. It includes the sum paid to the Admiralty for the ship.
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask if I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright that the £11,800 is the whole sum expended in connection with this service?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; that includes the cost of the ship.
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: And all operations?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes.

  COST OF THE BRITISH FORCE IN EGYPT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the actual cost to England of the English force now in occupation of Egypt, including the pay, special and other allowances, and cost of transport, after deducting the contribution in aid to be received from Egypt?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The contribution of £87,000 arranged to be made by Egypt for the coming year was fixed on the basis of the force maintained before the recent augmentation. It was understood to cover the excess cost arising from actual occupation, but did not include any sum for the ordinary payment of the troops, nor for depots and other expenses in this country. What the excess cost may be for the coming year with the augmented force it is impossible for me at present to say.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the excess whole cost arising from actual occupation been covered?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That depends upon what is meant by "actual occupation."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What is the whole cost of the force?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That I cannot state off-hand.

  THE FISHERY TREATIES ACT, 1892.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain why a Copy of the Bill relative to the Newfoundland coast and fisheries, under the title of "The Fishery Treaties Act, 1892," and which is published in the French Yellow Book for 1892 and laid before the French Chambers, has not yet been laid before this House; whether the Bill in question was rejected by the Newfoundland Legislature; whether he will now lay upon the Table a copy of that Bill and of the Correspondence concerning it, together with the Report thereon of the Joint Committee of both Houses of the Newfoundland Legislature; and whether, as a matter of fact, the Newfoundland Legislature have objected to the court proposed by that Bill to be erected, and to the absence of any provision for compensation in case
  28
  of losses arising from any arbitration award, and that it has protested against any partial arbitration with France on the lobster question alone, until arbitration regarding all questions arising under the various matters regarding Newfoundland be agreed upon?
  SIR E. GREY: I would ask the lion. Member to be good enough to postpone this question until Thursday, when an answer will be given.

  THE ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can place any probable limit on the number of men likely to be discharged from the Enfield Small Arms Manufactory; and if, in carrying out the reductions he finds necessary, he will as far as possible consider the cases of married men with families dependent on them for support?
  MR. WOODALL: I can only say that the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that every effort will be made to keep the number of discharges as low, and to carry them out with as little hardship, as possible.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
  MR. MACARTNEY, for MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it be the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Evicted Tenants Commission.
  MR. J. MORLEY: This matter is under consideration.

  THE LOCHIEL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the mail steamer Lochiel left Strome Ferry on the afternoon of the 6th instant, with mails and passengers for Stornoway; that soon after starting an accident occurred to the machinery which created considerable delay in the delivery of the mails and caused serious danger to the lives of the passengers and crew; and whether, in view of the fact that there have been other mishaps of a similar nature, the officers of the Board of Trade will use greater diligence in

  29
  inspecting steamers engaged in the mail service on this route?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No report has yet been received in the Department of the casualty in question, but I have telegraphed for full particulars. The Board of Trade have nothing to do with the mail service. The inspection of steamships on the route referred to is conducted on the same principles as the inspection of steamships on all other routes.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND FAIR WAGES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government has issued instructions to the Board of Works and all other Departments in Ireland to have the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons practically enforced in respect to all contracts now being entered into.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): As I have before stated, the Board of Works in Ireland provide in all new contracts for compliance with the terms of the Resolution of 13th February 1891. As regards Departments which are not under the control of the Treasury, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer the question.

  IRISH RECEIVING DEPOT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a receiving depot in Ireland will be re-established where tenders and goods can be delivered, as the carriage to Woolwich places Irish contractors at a serious disadvantage in the tendering or supplying of goods for Governmental requirements in Ireland.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that any general depot for the reception of stores ever existed in Ireland, and for the purpose of inspection there must be a necessity for many stores being delivered at Woolwich. I fear it would be difficult to dispense with this in all cases.

  SOLDIERS AT POLITICAL GATHERINGS.
  MR. KEARNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Section 6, paragraph 11, of the Queen's Regulations strictly prohibits officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and private
  30
  soldiers from taking part in or attending any political gatherings of any kind in uniform; whether he is also aware; that the same regulations prohibit non-commissioned officers and private soldiers to ever appear out of uniform; and whether, inasmuch as the due observance of these Regulations debars a large number of voters in many constituencies from obtaining the same political instruction as civilian voters, he will make such modifications in them as will remove this disability?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Regulations are as stated by the hon. Member, and I am not disposed to alter them, even although a soldier may occasionally be thereby debarred from the advantage of attending a political meeting.

  THE CASE OF HARDING WILLIAM MORGAN.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether on 3rd March 1892 Police-Constable Harding William Morgan, then stationed at East Ham, was reported to the Inspector at the Romford Road Police Station for being drunk on fixed point duty, and discharged as a result of such report; and whether the divisional surgeon, who attended the man from the time of such report for the three following weeks, certified him to be suffering from neuralgia in the head and general debility; and if so, whether he will, considering these certificates, and the 19 years' service of Morgan, reinstate him, or pay him his superannuation money in proportion to his years of service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Police-Constable Harding William Morgan was found drunk on duty on 3rd March 1892, and was suspended in consequence. The following day he reported himself sick, and was placed under the care of the divisional surgeon until he was reported fit to appear before the Superintendent to answer the report for drunkenness. This charge was fully proved, and as it was the seventh report for the same offence, and his character was in other respects unsatisfactory, he was dismissed. Under such circumstances, I cannot interfere

  31
  with the ordinary rule relating to superannuation money.
  MR. THEOBALD: May I ask whether a police constable after 19 years' service is not entitled to 19–50ths of his pay in the form of pension?
  MR. ASQUITH: That depends on circumstances. I cannot interfere with the ordinary course in such a case as this.

  THE POLICE SUPERANNUATION FUND.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order the balance sheet of the Police Superannuation Fund to be printed yearly, and a copy of the same to be supplied to every police station?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Paper referred to can be obtained from Her Majesty's printers at a cost of 2d., but I cannot undertake to supply a copy to each police station.

  THE BRUSSELS MONETARY CONFERENCE.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if any report has been received from the Indian Delegates at the Brussels Monetary Conference; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  SIR E. GREY (for the Under Secretary of State for India): Yes; there is no objection to its being laid on the Table of the House, if the hon. Baronet will move for it.

  THE DEPUTY SURVEYORSHIP OF DEAN FOREST.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a successor has been appointed to Sir James Campbell, the present Deputy Surveyor of the Forest of Dean; whether the duties of the office are to manage the surface estate (including timber, quarries, railways, roads, tramways, &c.) of the Crown in the Forest of Dean; and whether a barrister-at-law has been nominated to the post in preference to the practical Surveyors who were applicants for it?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, sir; a successor to Sir John Campbell in the Deputy Surveyorship of the Forest of Dean has been nominated, and will,
  32
  subject to the control of the Commissioners of Woods, &c, have the management of all the surface rights of the Crown, including quarries, within the Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels. The gentleman in question is a barrister, and, having had considerable experience in estate management, is unusually well qualified for the position which he will occupy.

  THE PARISH AND DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to name a day for the introduction of the Parish and District Councils Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY (for Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): A statement with reference to this Bill will be made on Thursday next. That is also an answer to the hon. Member for Chester.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  MR. THOMAS HENRY BOLTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government desire the question of the expediency of permitting the Channel Tunnel to be left entirely to the new Parliament, whether the Government will undertake to communicate with the promoters of the Channel Tunnel Bill, with the object of securing due notice of the Second Reading of the Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLA (for Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I have only just seen this question. I must ask the hon. Member to put it down for some other day.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I will repeat it on Thursday.

  CHARGES ON THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
  SIR J. DORINGTON: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Great Western Railway Company are now charging to traders not having ledger accounts the excessive rates which they have promised to withdraw, whilst the larger traders only now make payments on account pending the settle-

  33
  merit of rates; and whether he would make a representation to the Railway Company in reference to the hardship thus inflicted on farmers and small traders with a view to its removal?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have been in communication with the General Manager of the Great Western Railway, who states that if any trader who has not a ledger account will apply to the company any reduced rate adopted since 1st January, 1893, will be applied to his consignments in the same manner as those having ledger accounts. He further states that all reductions made during the revision will be applied retrospectively as from the 1st January, 1893, and that no distinction is drawn between large and small traders in the matter.

  WOMEN IN INDIAN MINES.
  SIB JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what Correspondence has passed between the Viceroy and Her Majesty's Government in relation to the employment of women in the underground workings of mines in British India, and whether such Correspondence can be laid before Parliament?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: There are Despatches from the late and the present Secretary of State for India and Reports from India on the subject mentioned. The Papers shall be laid on the Table if the hon. Member will move for them.

  WOMEN IN INDIAN FACTORIES.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to extend to British India the principles of the Berlin Conference in reference to the employment of women and children in factories?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: The new Factory Law in India which was presented to Parliament on 21st April, 1891, by the right hon. Member, extends the principles of the Berlin Conference to the employment of women and children in factories. That law is being enforced throughout British India. Revised Regulations under that law have been published in every Province in India except one.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I beg to give notice that on the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill, I will move that it be read a second time that day six months.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I desire to ask the Secretary for Ireland a question arising out of an answer he gave a short time ago. Will he state facts on which—though he had stated that he knew nothing about the matter — he based the opinion that it is likely that landlords are threatening to dismiss their labourers unless they consent to sign petitions against the Home Rule Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw that insinuation?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this should not be allowed. The ordinary Rules applying to questions should not be broken.
  MR. BARTLEY: I only put this question because of the statement of a Minister in his place to the effect that he knows nothing about what the Irish landlords are doing, but that he believes they are likely to do a certain thing.
  MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member given notice of this question?
  MR. BARTLEY: No, Sir; the statement was only made just now.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say what the hon. Member attributes to me. I was asked whether I was aware that landlords were going about with petitions against the Home Rule Bill, and pressing their labourers to sign them—
  MR. BARTLEY: And threatening to dismiss them.
  MR. J. MORLEY: That I did not catch.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I can give plenty of instances.
  MR. FLYNN: And so can I.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I said I dared say it was true, but that I had no knowledge of the cases.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that I will take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the gross devices of fraud and intimidation which are being employed in Ireland with a view to induce or compel tenants, employés, and other persons in a dependent position to sign petitions against the Government of Ireland Bill. Meanwhile I wish to know

  35
  whether the right hon. Gentleman will receive and consider any evidence that may be tendered on the subject.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Of course I shall not refuse to receive evidence.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive evidence from the other side; will he receive it from both sides?

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (WALES) BILL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What course do the Government intend to adopt tomorrow in regard to the Welsh Local Veto Bill, seeing that they have themselves introduced a Liquor Traffic Bill which is to affect the whole country?
  SIR W. V. HARCOURT: The statement of the views of the Government will be made when the Bill comes on to-morrow.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: I should like to ask what the action of the Government is going to be, because I and other hon. Members want to know whether there is any probability of the second Bill on the Order Paper to-morrow being reached?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a few general remarks on the whole of the 120 Private Bills that are before the House?
  SIR W. V. HARCOURT: The hon. Baronet, who is an old Member of this House, must know that the Government have no control over the Bills on Wednesdays, and can give no information about them.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1892–3.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1892–3.

  CLASS II.
  1. £10, Supplementary, the Mint (including Coinage).
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had noticed, and he had no doubt other hon. Members had noticed upon the new coinage the letters "Ind. Imp.," signifying "Indicæ Imperatrix." He was surprised when he saw this on the new coins, because he had been under the impression that under the Imperial Titles Bill the title "Imperatrix," which
  36
  was then assumed by Her Majesty, was to be used exclusivey in connection with India, and not in anl ease to be adopted in the United Kingdom. Looking at the Act, he had found that the coinage was especially exemped from the rule. He had laid a Motion in the form of an Amendment on the Table; but, under the circumstances, it was obviously unnecessary to move it. At the same time he must say he greatly regretted that these words had been added to the superscription on the coinage of the United Kingdom. They seemed to him superfluous, as India, to which country Her Majesty's title of Empress referred, had a special coinage of its own. In the last Parliament, once or twice Members had asked questions in regard to the coinage, but no mention had been made by the late Government of any intention of altering the title of Her Majesty upon the coins. The title of Empress was not on the Jubilee coinage, and years hence our posterity, coming to look at the Jubilee money and the new coinage, would take the impression that the title was only assumed in the present year. He did not intend to make a complaint, but he thought that the late Government ought, when questioned on this matter, to have clearly and distinctly told the House that it was intended to make this alteration in the inscription so as to have given Members an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. He thought it only desirable to call attention to the subject, because it had been a good deal misunderstood out of doors, many people believing that the inscription on the new coinage was a violation of the Imperial Titles Act— which it obviously was not.
  SIR W. V. HARCOURT: I am not sorry that the hon. Member has called attention to this subject, because I can well understand that there may be some misapprehension on the subject amongst those who have not carefully examined, as he has done, the form of the Proclamation and the Act under which Her Majesty has assumed the title of Empress of India. At the time of the discussion of the Imperial Titles Bill there was a broad distinction drawn between instruments of all kinds which were to operate only within the United Kingdom and instruments which were to operate outside it. The general principle laid

  37
  down, to which the Government of the day pledged themselves, was that in no instrument operative in the United Kingdom alone would any other than the ancient title be employed, but that in all instruments operative outside the United Kingdom the additional title of Empress of India would be employed. That was not confined to the dominions of the Queen, but applied to places outside these dominions. That was the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), who at the same time said he did not claim the exclusion of the new title from the coinage. Any one who will look at the Proclamation will see that the coins are referred to as instruments, if I may use the term, that are specially exempted from the principle limiting the use of the new title. I may remind the Committee that during the reigns of the members of the House of Hanover, that is to say, down to the middle of the reign of George III., the foreign titles of our monarchs were always upon the coinage. I hope I have explained to the Committee that the title, which has been authorised by Parliament and by the Proclamation, can be properly put upon the new coins. The point does not turn at all on whether the coin is circulated only in India or not. The Government found that that was the view taken by the late Government, and as the responsibility then fell upon us we assumed the new title on the new coinage. I had a conversation on the subject with my predecessor in office, and I mention this to show that both Governments have taken the same view.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, in so far as they were an attack upon any one were an attack upon the late Government, who, he thinks, would have acted with more propriety if they had taken him into their confidence as to the inscription to be put upon the coinage. I think a complete answer has been given in the interesting remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the inscriptions and the action of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the course taken by the late Government was not only legal but in accordance with ancient precedent, and in itself appropriate.
  38
  Under the circumstances I do not think it necessary to make any further defence of the late Government than that which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. E. G. WEBSTERdid not wish to detain the Committee any length of time, but he found in estimating the loss incurred on the gold coinage that it amounted to £8,200, which was in the Supplementary Estimate. He was aware that that was only a very small portion of the total loss on the rehabilitation of the gold and silver coinage. On the last occasion of rehabilitation he believed the cost to the country was £400,000. He was aware that very shortly the House would be asked to vote £250,000 to rehabilitate the coinage. The loss on gold coinage was much more marked than on the silver coinage. The amount they had to pay on the silver coinage was only £200, whereas on the gold coinage it was £8,200. He thought it would be desirable for them to carefully inquire what reserve the Bank of England now held of the less valuable metal — namely, silver. He understood that the Bank now held a comparatively small amount of silver. He did not wish to reopen the discussion on bimetallism, but at a time when all countries were considering the subject they should inquire whether some palliative for the present state of things could not be adopted to aid the coinage of the country in the present difficulty.
  SIR W. V. HARCOURT: I rise to Order. I put it to the Committee whether upon this Supplementary Estimate we can have a discussion of this kind as to the reserve of silver and the general currency of the world. I make this appeal in the interest of time; for it is necessary that the Supplementary Estimates and the Army and Navy Votes shall be concluded by Friday evening.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid he would refer simply to the coinage of the United Kingdom. He ventured to say that it would be advisable to lessen the coinage of half-sovereigns. The working classes preferred to have their wages in silver. He would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those interested in the Local Veto Bill— (Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Members would see what he meant in a moment;

  39
  he would point out that by decreasing the number of half-sovereigns they would be advancing the cause of temperance. Working men who received, say, 30s. a week wages, when paid in gold found it convenient to go to the public-house to procure change, and thus were tempted to spend a large portion of their earnings in drink.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote only deals with the loss in the gold coinage.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Yes, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I fail to see how the remarks of the hon. Member are germane to that subject.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid his remarks tended to show that they should coin less of the metal on which there was so much loss and more of the metal on which there was 35 per cent. profit. This was a question of burning importance to Lancashire. [Cries of "Order!"] It was astonishing how remarkably fond of Order hon. Members below the Gangway ware this Session. Last Session they had not seemed to take the slightest interest in it. He did not think it was advisable for the Government to go on wasting so much on this gold coinage. He had received a Return from the Postmaster General the other day, which threw some light on the great saving which might be effected in the country if they adopted some system of small banknotes. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can go into these large questions on this Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid he submitted to the Chairman's ruling, and simply wished to contend that under the present system we wasted a very large sum of money. He wished to refer to the Return given by the Postmaster General.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member seemed to be still travelling outside the Vote.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid he wished to save the country expense. He would put facts before the Committee to show how much the country would gain by having a paper currency for smaller sums.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that a paper currency is not included in this Vote. This is really a simple question as to
  40
  the loss on gold coinage, and I must request the hon. Member to address his remarks to that.
  MR. WEBSTERwent on to say that in the half-sovereigns at the present time there was a vast amount of wear and tear. A sovereign had two sides, whilst the same amount of gold when made into half-sovereigns had four sides. He thought we were wasting a vast amount of the national resources in coining so much gold, and believed it would be a great advantage to the State if more paper money were used.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he wished to draw attention to the new coinage. He thought it was an example of the irony of fate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took such a prominent part 17 years ago in denouncing the "tawdry decoration" introduced by the late Lord Beaconsfield, had now to defend the use of the abbreviation "Imp. Ind." on the new coins. He Mr. Smith), as an Imperialist, was very glad to see the development in feeling which now accepted, with scarcely a word of protest, a legend which 17 years ago would have excited the strongest feeling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to allow the new coins to be sold at the Post Office a few days ago. Many hon. Members had availed themselves of the opportunity of purchasing them, and he thought the general verdict had certainly been that the new coinage was a very great improvement on the Jubilee coins, and for the best of reasons, namely, that it would have been absolutely impossible to have had anything as bad as they were. However, he was very much dissatisfied with the new coinage. He should like to know how much of the new coinage this year had consisted of the old Jubilee coins. He thought it would be a very great pity if the activity of last year had been devoted to the production of Jubilee coins. The bust on the new coins was much more dignified than that on the Jubilee coins, but he did not think anyone who was conversant with coins would be quite satisfied with it. A great deal too much was attempted to be crowded into the design, and as a result the sovereign was an extremely mean coin, looking very much like the counters one bought at 20 for 2d. for the purposes of whist. Any-

  41
  one who would compare these coins with the pristine simplicity of the classical coins would at once see the difference. He held in his hand one of the Roman coins from which the idea of the new design was derived, and it was curious to note that the old Roman coins of a pure type merely contained a head instead of the bust, and had none of the decorative details which appeared on later coins. It was not until one came to the period of decadence, from Constantine downwards, that one found in the Roman coins the wonderful elaboration which was indulged in nowadays. The older coins were designed and worked by men who were really familiar with coins, and understood the difference between a coin and a picture or a medallion. In most branches since the time of George III. our knowledge of art had much advanced, but in regard to coins anybody who looked at a coin of the time of George III. would see that we had gone back very much. The reason, he thought, was that we had no really skilled engraver now. In regard to a coin the engraver was really the most important person. A sculptor might make a design which would look exceedingly well if worked out in marble and on a large scale, but an engraver who knew what he could do within the circumscribed limits at his disposal, and could work out a design properly, was needed for a coin. Not only in regard to coins, but in reference to the art of working in metal, were we very much at our nadir, and he thought it was a pity that more attention was not given to the details of the goldsmith's art. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be better to have future coins designed in accordance with the classical model, with a head on the one side, and some historical design on the other. The Jubilee coin should, in his opinion, have had upon it, instead of Royal Arms, some allusion to the golden year of Her Majesty's reign. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be ready, if he carried through the Home Rule Bill, to place some design on the coins of the year commemorating the fact. For instance, instead of having Britannia in a sitting position on a penny as Mistress of the Sea, why should we not have Britannia and Erin shaking hands and bidding good-bye to one another?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I pass over the political allusions made by the hon. Member, and I agree very much in what he has said on the subject of modern coins. It seems to me as if the numismatic art were a lost art. If we remember the fine medals and coins that were produced by all the nations of Europe at the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries, and how all the great events of the time were commemorated on the splendid medals of France, Holland, and England, we must admit that our progress since then has been in a backward direction. The coins of the 18th century were executed by men of great genius, and I am glad that we still retain the George and Dragon which originally appeared upon coins of that date. If anyone wants to see a fine coin, he should look at the crowns of 1820, when George IV. ascended the Throne. They are the finest coins I know. I cannot answer the question put to me as to the particular progress made with the new coinage, though I agree that it is very much better than the Jubilee coinage. I think it leaves a great deal to be desired, and that the coins cannot be described as of a first-rate character. The head of the Sovereign is, however, of a higher class altogether than the Jubilee head. I think it is a very good thing that we have kept the old George and Dragon, and wish it had been on all the coins. I have taken care to have exhibited on the edge of the crown-piece the legend which was a great addition to the handsomeness of the old coin. All I hope is that our artists, who do so well in other branches of art, will devote themselves a little more in future to the art of making medals and coins. I have been asked how much of the gold coined during the last year is of the old type. I am very sorry that of the 18,000,000 of sovereigns and half-sovereigns already issued under the re-coinage of light gold scheme almost the whole is of the former type, but there still remain to be issued something like 25,000,000 of sovereigns during the next two or three years, and they will be of the new type.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid he had been ruled out of Order when speaking with

  43
  regard to the undesirability of coining so many sovereigns. The Vote was for the loss on the re-coinage of light sovereigns and half-sovereigns, and he wished to know whether he was not within his right in pointing out how that loss might be saved?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should like to answer the question which had been put by the hon. Member,—namely, why so many half-sovereigns were coined, and why more silver was not coined. The Government would be extremely glad to have more silver coin, but the public will not take it, and at this moment there is a plethora of silver for which there is no demand. They will supply the Bank of England with any amount of silver the Bank will take, but what happens to it after it goes to the Bank depends entirely upon the public demand. Somehow or other there does not seem to be a demand for silver, although the object of the Government, who gain a great deal on the silver, and lose a little on the gold, is to put as much silver in circulation as they can.
  MR. BARTLEYwished to ask a question concerning Section E. The increase in the Vote was attributed partly to the expense of transmitting silver to the country from the Bank of England. He understood some fresh arrangements had been made with the object of enabling silver to be sent about the country, and he hoped that arrangement was being pushed as much as possible. He was convinced that in many parts of England there was a great scarcity of silver, and he believed people did not know that facilities were given by the Government for paying for its transmission to the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The country bankers know it.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid the use of silver entailed a certain amount of trouble on country bankers. He hoped every effort would be made to induce people in the country to use silver to a larger extent.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, there were many complaints in many country districts about the difficulty in obtaining silver, and he believed many people would be glad to use more silver if they could induce the country bankers to supply it.
  44
  The country bankers would not do it. Would it not be possible, then, to have silver sent out to those people in the country? The Government might consider the matter, and state their intentions upon it. So far as his experience went, he would approve of some such step being taken.
  MR. HENEAGE: I had something to do, Mr. Mellor, with the change made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) regarding silver. At that time no silver could be obtained in the country districts except through the bankers, and it is generally thought in the country districts that that rule is still in forces. There is a great want of silver, especially for the payment of labour, and I think a great deal of time and money, and a great deal more, would be saved if the working people were not obliged to call for change at the public-houses on Saturday night. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in conjunction with the Postmaster-General (Mr. Arnold Morley), he might arrange to have a notice put up or circulated through the Post Office intimating the change. This would be a good way of dispensing with the intervention of the banker.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I also want to ask a. question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury. The House will observe that the expenditure is given as £10,000, and then there is an appropriation-in-aid of £9,980. What I want to know is where this £9,980 comes from? Is it a sum of increased profits at the Mint, or has it been taken out of miscellaneous revenue? The amount of profit made by the Mint is stated at £201,000, and the estimated expenses are £76,944. Out of this sum £76,900 s given as an appropriation-in-aid, leaving in round numbers a sum of £125,000 to be carried to miscellaneous revenue. But it turns out that the expenses of the Mint ares £10,000 more, and that sum must be found, being the expenditure on the establishment of the Mint. I do not understand, then, from the Estimates that this £9,980 mentioned in the Estimates represents increased profits. Has this sum been taken from miscellaneous revenue, or has it been put down to> represent increased profits?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The additional sum to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, is profit made on the coinage of silver in excess of the Estimate. There had been an increased issue of silver to the provinces during the last few years. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer's arrangement to pay the Bank of England 5s. per cent. for this transmission to the provinces dates from May 1889. The payments made from May 1889 to November 1892 amounted to £6,797 15s. 9d.; the amount due on the 11th March 1893 was £669 5s., making a total of £7,467 0s. 9d., being the charge on a total sum of £2,986,815. The average annual silver issues for the four years 1885 to 1888 prior to that date, and for the four subsequent, 1889 to 1892, were:—1885 to 1888, £691,184; 1889 to 1892, £1,431,014, showing an average annual increase of £739,830. The average price of silver in the London market in 1892 was 39½3/6d.; the average price paid by the Mint was the same. Silver must obviously be purchased when it is required for coinage purposes, without special regard to the state of the market. The total amount of silver coin issued in 1892 was £849,932, of which there went to the Bank of England direct for circulation in England and Wales, £691,000. During the preceding 10 years, that is, 1882 to 1891, the average annual issues of silver coin were £1,011,488. It is owing to the increase in the issue disclosed in the figures I have quoted that the increased profit has been made on the coinage of silver.
  MR. R. G. C. MOWBRAYsaid, the amount of silver bullion was less than it had been for the past three years, but there was increased brokerage. What was the explanation of that?
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished to impress upon the Government the necessity for sending silver into the country, and he thought they ought to make arrangements to have a certain portion of silver to be distributed in the shape of wages in connection with the Government Departments. By doing this they would set a good example to employers in the country, and thus help in the adequate distribution of silver.
  MR. V. GIBBSsaid he concurred
  46
  that the Government could do much in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Preston.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Estimate taken was not sufficient to cover the cost of brokerage. That is my reply to the hon. Member for Prestwich. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston, it is one that is well worthy of consideration. I do not know how the matter stands in those Departments, but I shall make inquiries and see that the matter shall be considered with a view to carrying out the suggestion.
  MR. V. GIBBS: Who are the Government brokers? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered the question I put to him. If he will do so now he might also tell us who the brokers are.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I stated, in my reply, that the Estimate taken was not sufficient to cover the cost of brokerage. There has been an increase for some years past, and last year more silver was produced than was anticipated when the Estimates were being prepared.
  DR. D. MACGREGORsaid he would like to direct attention to the fact that only Unionist Members of the House had any interest in putting these questions.
  MR. V. GIBBSsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had answered his question. He wished to say a few words upon different aspects of the gold question, but he did not know whether he had a right to do so now.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The whole question of coinage is now before the House.
  MR. V. GIBBSsaid, if it was competent for him to deal with the question, he wanted to urge upon the Government the importance of having the gold of this country made of the same fineness as that of other nations. This was a matter that had often been dealt with in the House, especially by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. S. Montagu). It was a matter that was fairly open to criticism, and he did not think it was unreasonable that he should bring it forward. He was of opinion that substantial economy would result, if they regulated the fineness of their gold to that of other countries. As many Members of the House were aware,

  47
  foreign gold coins were of nine-tenths fineness, while ours were of eleven-twelfths. Our sovereign was of a softer material, and wasted away faster. There was a strong case for making the English coin the same as the coin used by other European nations. He did not suggest any change in the value of the coin, but he should like to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of regulating the fineness of the coin.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: There can be no doubt that the subject mentioned by the hon. Member is one of very great importance, but I cannot venture to say I am prepared to recommend that his suggestion should be carried out, as it would involve a great alteration in our gold coinage system. There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member says with regard to waste; and I may say that the waste is more in the half-sovereigns than in the sovereigns. The loss on the coinage of gold arises from the charge to the Vote of the metal required to make good the deficiency in fineness of the old light gold now being re-coined, and the dirt which is weighed with it but got rid of in re-melting. Only the actual deficiency in weight is charged in the provisions of the Scheme of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Up to the end of the financial year the amount of light gold dealt with is estimated at £19,000,000, leaving £24,000,000 still to be dealt with. The amount dealt with up to March of last year was £19,034,000, and by the time the whole of the gold coinage has been dealt with the total will be £43,000,000.
  MR. H. W. PAULsaid he did not know much about gold, silver and copper being more in his line, and he would like to draw attention to the double-florin and ask what was to be done about it. He did not believe that any constitutional change that could be devised by the wit of man was capable of causing half so much trouble as the difficulty in distinguishing between a four-shilling piece and a five-shilling piece. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said a man could distinguish between one coin and the other in the dark even when he was drunk, but he (Mr. Paul) found it difficult to distinguish between them in the best light when he was sober, as he was at all times. The
  48
  sooner the four-shilling pieces were withdrawn the better would it be for the commercial and social interests of the country.
  SIR W. V. HARCOURT: I would just like to say in reply to the hon. Gentleman that the four-shilling pieces have been withdrawn. As regards florins, hardly any have been struck. The pieces which are now being struck are half-crowns.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Are the new crowns out yet?
  SIR W. V. HARCOURT: The new crowns are not yet out, and I am very sorry for it, because the Committee will, I think, agree that they are the best of all the pieces. They are certainly very handsome.
  MR. V. GIBBSsaid he had just one more question to put. Now as to the coinage of silver. What price did the Government pay in 1892, and could the right hon. Gentleman say what advantage accrued from the fall that had taken place, or was there any advantage? He had been attacked as a Unionist for bringing forward subjects like this; but he could assure the House that such subjects were of great interest to commercial men.
  SIR W. V. HARCOURT: I am not in a position to give the figures with regard to the loss on silver; my attention has not been fixed upon it. But I have some figures here that would make the mouth of a Chancellor of the Exchequer water. In 1889 the profit on the Mint was £780,000; but I am afraid those days are gone, for I find that in 1890 the profit was only £244,000, and in 1891 £236,000; and then again, the figures for 1892—I do not know them yet — will not be large. Every effort is made to get silver coin out to the country; but I some months ago saw a declaration of the country bankers that they had too much silver and did not know what to do with it. One of the reasons I have heard why there has been a scarcity of shillings and sixpences, is that bankers find it a great saving of time and trouble to give out half-crowns.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he wished to support the suggestion that they should employ silver more freely for paying wages at the Dockyards and in the public service generally. The men

  49
  would not object if they were paid in silver instead of gold.
  Vote agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and question proposed:—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding.£36,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for the Expense of providing Stationery, Printing, and Paper for the Public Service."
  MR. HANBUEYsaid, this was a Vote that deserved to be very closely scanned by the House. The Department was one that was not directly represented in the House, but that was the stronger reason why they should have some light thrown upon its working. According to this Report the head of the Stationery Department stated that during the last 10 years the economy effected was sufficient to provide the country with a first-line-of-battle ship and a flotilla of gunboats. That showed the House the economy that might be effected if the Vote was properly looked into. The Secretary to the Treasury would doubtless be able to explain any questions that were put regarding the Vote. He would ask, in the first instance, was the practice still going on by which the officials of this Department were allowed to publish information which came to them through official sources, and to publish it so that they might make a profit upon it. In addition to that these officials were actually allowed certain grants. He knew that within the last few years there was a grant of £1,200 made to one official, £300 to another, and so on. That was a very wrong system and it had been condemned by more than one Committee. It was all the worse, because though these grants were made by the Department to which the official belonged, they were charged upon the Stationery Vote, with the result that the Department which really voted the money had no responsibility for the Grant. The sum of money paid for printing was exceedingly large, and while it was generally true that the House was largely responsible, as a matter of fact the House was only responsible for about one-tenth of the printing, the remaining nine-tenths being chargeable to the Departments. He should like to know on what prin-
  50
  ciple the Departments were allowed to give orders for printing and papers to the Stationery Office. He thought the Stationery Office should have more control over the Departments in the matter of printing, paper, and publications, for it cannot control the great waste of paper that goes on in the Public Departments, or check the great number of publications. He wished to know did each of the Departments at the beginning of each year submit an estimate to the Stationery Office, so that the Stationery Office might know the requirements of the Departments during the year; and also whether there was in each Department some one person responsible for the printing of that Department. He thought the time had come for the Stationery Office to be placed on a more business-like footing, and each Department made responsible for and have to pay for its own printing. That system prevailed in the Military and Naval Services. When any Department in these Services required stores, it ordered them from the Ordnance factories, and paid for them, and had to render an account of those stores. He thought the Stationery Office should be made a thoroughly separate Department, like the Ordnance factories, and that each Department should be responsible for the orders it gave to the Stationery Office, so that they should know whether a Department was spending extravagantly or not. There was an officer in the Stationery Office called the Superintendent of Printing, but it was found that one man could not efficiently discharge the duties of that office, with the result that printing had increased a great deal of late years. These duties of the Superintendent of the Stationery Office were that he should go to the Department when any order was given by it which he thought unnecessary, to show how it might be avoided or decreased in amount. The Controller of the Stationery Office asked last year that an assistant to the Superintendent of Printing should be appointed, and said the result would be that a saving of his salary, multiplied several times, would be effected. That was a matter which the Government might take into consideration. He should also like to know what was the system upon which the Stationery Office gave out its

  51
  printing to the public firms. Was it true that the printing was a monopoly, or that it at all events fell into the hands of one or two firms; and also was it put out to tender, and how long did the contracts run? Two evils resulted from the present system of giving the printing to one or two firms. One was that a large amount of over-time was worked by the workmen in these firms. There was a great objection, especially amongst the working classes, to over-time being worked unnecessarily, and he was told that the over-time worked in the printing offices to which the printing of the State was given was very large indeed. The other evil was the inconvenience to which they were habitually being put in the House owing to returns and documents being late. Over and over again Members were promised that documents would be circulated at such and such a time, and when that time came, but without the documents, the Minister to whom questions on the subject were put, had to hopelessly confess that he had no control over the printing, and could not say when the documents would be really ready. A great deal of that was due to the printing being given to one or two firms, who had so much work to do that they could not quickly cope with their orders.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BART-LETT (Sheffield, Eccleshall): I notice that this Vote has increased by £36,000, which is a very considerable sum indeed. This large addition in expenditure is divided mainly into two heads—printing for Public Departments and paper for Public Departments. With regard to the printing, it is stated that there has been a general increase in the demand from many public offices. The Committee would like an explanation as to how that increase arose; £10,000 has been paid for printing this year more than last year; £20,000 of the increase is covered by paper. That is attributed to an increase in the price of paper, a statement in a footnote giving the increase as 30 per cent. during the year. I doubt if that statement can be borne out. and I should like the authority for it. It receives a curious contradiction later on in an explanatory note, which states that the sales of waste have fallen by no less than £1,500 below the average on account of the very low prices obtained.
  52
  If paper has increased by 30 per cent. there must be exceedingly bad management if the sale of waste shows such a fall as is stated.
  MR. HANBURY: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I thought we were discussing now only the subhead for printing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion on the sub-head for paper may be rather premature, but it is not out of order.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will not detain my hon. Friend very long from satisfying the very laudable anxiety he shows to discuss one or two of those matters. With regard to the paper supply, I am afraid that since the Committee—I don't attribute it directly to that cause—but since the well-known Committee on Stationery reported in favour of larger reductions in the expenditure, the paper supplied to this House and to the Public Department has been of a very inferior quality. I remember that in the Department of the Admiralty, to which I had the honour to be connected, there were complaints for several years of the very inferior quality of the paper supplied to it. It was very difficult to write upon; it was very easily torn, and it generally presented an undesirable appearance. Many Members must have also noticed the inferior quality of the paper supplied to this House. I admit that during the last few weeks there has been an improvement, but I have here an envelope which is not the quality of envelope that ought to be found in this House.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, there was no Department which required criticism more than the Stationery Office. More than £500,000 was spent on printing and stationery, and the Committee would like to know what value was received for that large amount of money. He believed there was a Committee regulating the supplies to the various Departments. He would like to know how that Committee worked, and what check it had over orders and the prices paid for work. Some years ago the House appointed a Committee on the subject, which had at its head the present President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Great hopes were raised by the labours of that Committee; but the Stationery Vote had gone up

  53
  instead of down since the Committee reported. The whole matter wanted looking into by some Committee which would be responsible to the House for the expenditure. He thought the public would be very much surprised to learn from the Vote before the Committee that the price of paper had gone up during the past 12 months. The general cry of paper-makers was that the prices were so low, owing to competition, that the trade was in a very bad way, and yet the Committee were gravely told that there had been a great increase in the price of paper during the year in several classes, and that the average advance had been 30 per cent. If that were so, how was it that the price of wastes had not improved instead of falling off? Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would tell the Committee the manner in which this waste paper was dealt with; whether it was not almost given away, and whether, as it included Blue Books and other valuable information, it would not be better to distribute it amongst free libraries and other educational institutions of a similar kind, from which petitions were frequently received declaring that Government publications would be extremely valuable to them. He noticed that the arrangements made by the Government to encourage the sale of Ordnance Maps had led to a deficiency. That would show that the efforts of the Government in that direction were altogether unsuccessful. There was no country in Europe where Government Maps were so difficult to be obtained, or where such extravagant prices were charged for them as in this country. He thought if the Government followed the example of Continental countries, and reduced the price of the maps by one-half, and made them as easily to be obtained in towns and villages as a quire of paper, there would be four times the present sale.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was no doubt that paper had fallen rather than risen during the past year. Anybody who purchased paper was practically aware of that fact, and when he had seen the Vote stating there had been an increase in the price of paper, he inquired of a large publishing house—a house which bought more paper than any other house in the country—and had been informed that
  54
  the statement was entirely wrong. There was a certain amount of cleverness required in buying paper. If a person went to only two or three firms he would be charged a large amount; but a clever person who varied the firms from which he purchased would get the paper at much below the stated prices. If the Stationery Office did not adopt that course they would always have to pay more than they need pay for paper. He denied absolutely and entirely that paper had gone up 30 per cent. On the contrary, he could prove by the books of any publishing house in London that paper had gone down in price slightly below what it had been last year. He did not, however, agree with the argument that waste paper ought not to fall in price because paper had increased in price. It was very difficult to tell the value of waste paper, which depended very much on demand. He noticed the statement in a note on the paper that—
  "The receipts for the sale of Stationery Office publications do not appear likely to realise the average prices of the past five years."
  The reason was that these publications were charged far too high. What was done was, when a Blue Book was published a calculation of what its "setting-up" cost was made; but instead of doing that the "setting-up" should be written off, and the Blue Book should be charged for only according to the value of the paper, ink, and machining, with something added for distribution. It was the old story, if they wanted to sell they must go for small profits. They put a price on these publications which precluded institutions and individuals from buying them, with the result that there was an enormous quantity of waste.
  MAJOR DARWINsaid, a very satisfactory Report had been issued by a Departmental Committee on the Ordnance Survey. As the Ordnance Survey had been carried out for a hundred years under the Royal Engineers, and as he had served in that corps, he might be allowed to say that he had an especial interest in the Survey.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I rise to Order—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I was about to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the fact

  55
  that the Vote for the Ordnance Survey is not included in the Supplementary Estimate. This Estimate only includes the £2,000 deficiency due to the fall in the receipts for the sale of maps during the past 10 months.
  MAJOR DARWINsaid, that what he wished to speak about was the suggestions of the Committee for increasing the sale of the maps, and thereby diminishing this Vote. He thought the sale of the Ordnance Maps would be increased if they were issued in a more popular form. If an hon. Member went to any district and asked for a map published by a private firm of the district he would get it on thin tough paper, in a form convenient for folding and carrying in the pocket, and coloured in order to distinguish the various features. The Ordnance Map failed to fulfil any of these conditions. It was issued on one sheet, on thick paper, liable to tear if folded, impossible to carry in the pocket without injury, and uncoloured. The Committee to whose Report he had referred suggested that the Government should undertake the publication of popular maps, a suggestion he considered worthy of being acted upon, especially as such maps would be extremely valuable for military purposes. The Committee also suggested that the book should be published and freely distributed, showing what maps were on sale by the Ordnance Survey, and he should suggest that in addition to that the Ordnance Map of every district would be hung up in the Post Office of the district. By these means the maps would become better known, and the sale would be largely increased. He thought it was the system and not the agents that was to blame for the small sale of the maps. He did not think a worse system for the sale of the maps could be introduced than the system now in vogue. It was a very difficult thing to get the maps in the country. Another grave objection to the system was that the Ordnance Survey, not being in touch with the agents throughout the country, had no means of finding out popular requirements, which was the cause of the maps not being issued in a popular form. He hoped the Government would take this matter into consideration. He was aware that the present agency system could not be changed for a year or two, but unless the subject was taken into
  56
  consideration at once nothing would be done when the time for changing the agency arrived.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he will inquire whether it is possible to issue the cheap yearly volumes of Statutes with cut leaves. As this is a work of reference, the practice of issuing it with uncut leaves is barbarous.
  MR. HANBURYsaid he wished to say a few words on the subject that had been raised, namely, the price of paper. To him it was wholly unaccountable that the price of paper should rise as it appeared to have done. He had had some figures worked out for him by a wholesale firm of stationers, and they were exactly opposite to those given by the Stationery Office. Between the years 1891 and 1892 the figures supplied to him showed a considerable reduction. In hand-made paper the price was unchanged; rough writings, price unchanged; ordinary writings, reduced 14 per cent.; second paper, reduced 4 per cent.;—he was afraid the Stationery Department were quoting the seven months of last year, and were not taking into account the three months of this year; printing in colours, reduced 6 per cent.; buffs, 6 per cent.; blotting paper about the same. He should be rather curious to know where it was possible that the 30 per cent. could come in, and the explanation of the foot-note made it more misleading, for it stated first that the return was during the seven months of 1892, and then it was stated there was a rise in the general average of the several classes of 30 per cent., but he did not know whether they took into consideration the quantity used or the quality.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The quality and price.
  MR. HANBURYsaid they ought to have some information of the different kinds of paper on which this heavy rise had taken place. He was the more anxious to get some information on this expenditure upon paper, because, as his right hon. Friend would be well aware, the Comptroller of the Stationery himself, following up the report of a committee that sat in 1884–5, in consequence of the complaints, amounting to something like fraud, stated that for some years previous to that date large frauds

  57
  had taken place. Some idea of the frauds perpetrated might be gathered from the fact that in the first year of the Parliament after the Report of that Committee, nearly 5,000 reams were rejected absolutely as being something different to what they purported to be; 12,200 reams were accepted at a reduced price, and fines were inflicted, amounting to £477, for light weight. And that was at a time when only about a quarter of the paper was used that was used at the present time. But so late as 1890 he found the same thing was going on upon a much larger scale, because from that report it appeared there were over 29,000 reams rejected; 12,000 reams were accepted at a reduced price; and fines amounting to £1,105 were levied. That bore out his point that this question of the price paid for paper was a subject on which they ought to have a little more light, especially when the information afforded was so different to the private information they had. With regard to this purchase of paper, we should like to ask from how many firms the paper was purchased, and upon what terms it was purchased, and how long the contracts run. All this information was necessary, because it was evident that a large number of firms treated that Department dishonestly. He thought those who sent in paper which had to be rejected as being different to what was contracted for were dishonest, and he should like to know how the Department had treated those firms, because when they found they sent in bad articles they should be struck out of the contractors' list. They had it upon evidence that there had been a large amount of paper attempted to be foisted on the Stationery Department which was not such as was in the terms of the contract, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to tell them how those firms had been treated, because until they arrived at a stage when it was impossible for these things to go on, they would never be able to conduct the Services economically and satisfactorily.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I would reply to my hon. Friend who brought forward this question on the several points he has raised. The first point he raised was with respect to the desirability of economy in the management of the Stationery Department. I am sure we all
  58
  agree with him in this, that in this very important and growing department we should try and aim at economy; but I go one step further and say that we should also aim at efficiency as well as economy, and that what we buy should be good and not something that was merely cheap. With respect to economy, I must say the cost of this department has been very much decreased of late years. In 1886–7, and in 1889-90 the Estimates for those years were respectively £562,000 and £600,000, whereas during the present year the whole Estimate, including the present Supplementary Vote, has been brought down to £512,000, showing a very considerable decrease, without, I hope, any loss of efficiency. My hon. Friend first asked me what was the practice of the department with regard to allowing Members of the department to publish records belonging to the department. I am informed that the officials in no department are now allowed to publish for their own profit articles based on their official knowledge; that has been put a stop to in every department of late years, and is a very proper decision to have arrived at. My hon. Friend also asks whether the departments have obtained estimates as to the amount of paper they require for the year from the Stationery Department. I am told the Stationery Office at the commencement of the year asks for Estimates of that kind and invariably receives them. The next question was whether there is a responsible person for the printing in each department. I am told that is the case, that every department has now one of their officers responsible for the printing of his particular department, and I have no doubt the delay that is sometimes occasioned in the printing of papers that are presented to Parliament would be very much worse if we had not these responsible officers. My hon. Friend opposite asks whether there is a monopoly.
  MR. HANBURYsaid he had not asked whether there was a monopoly, but whether the contracts for the stationery was in the hands of only one or two.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is in a few hands, but it is not a monopoly. Since the matter has been considered by the Committee and the Department, the public printing has been given

  59
  out in groups. Since that distribution of the printing in groups there has been a saving of cost which is very considerable indeed. It has been found that in nearly every case there is a great reduction, therefore I believe that system is a good system and one that ought to be continued, though, of course, Estimates might be obtained from a greater number of firms. The great proportion of the printing contracts are entered into after the contracts have been advertised and the tenders considered by the Stationery Department. Another point my hon. Friend referred to had reference to the cost of the paper. Before I go into the question of the paper, I should like to explain how it is that the great increase of printing arises in the Public Departments. I hold in my hand a Report from the Stationery Department which shows the departments which were answerable for the great increase, and the chief of those are the Post Office, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Patent Office. I take first the Post Office, which includes the Telegraph Service; though there is no alteration in the price of printing for that department, there is an increase for the nine months of the year since the Estimates were prepared, of £1,864 as compared with the corresponding months of last year. The Patent Office and the Admiralty again have necessitated a very great increase. The Admiralty has an increase of £5,257 for the nine months contrasted with the same period of last year. In the Patent Office there is also a very considerable increase in the cost, though I have not got the figures with respect to it, but I believe the great increase there is owing to the pressure brought to bear on the Patent Office to do away with their arrears of patent revisions, and I think we shall all agree it is most desirable to do everything we can to place the Patent Office in a position of efficiency. I now come to another matter which is requisite for all the Public Departments.
  MR. HANBURYasked that before leaving the question of the Public Departments the right hon. Gentleman should inform them whether the additional officer asked for by the Stationery Department had been appointed?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, he has. Now I come to a more difficult question,
  60
  and that is the advanced cost of the paper, and I can only, of course, speak from the report I have placed in my hands. I believe that it is quite true that the increase of cost is not the same throughout the whole of the different classes of paper; it varies according to the different classes. Paper purchased by the Stationery Department is divided into five different classes— hand-made, loft-dried, ordinary writing, secondary or inferior writing, and imperial. In the first of these classes, the hand-made paper, the increased price is not so great as in the other classes, the percentage being 11½. The greatest increase is in the loft-dried paper, which is 63 per cent., and in the fifth class there does not appear to have been any rise in price during the same period. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to this: the cost of the paper on which the Parliamentary Reports are printed is something like £8,000 a year, but that of course is not under this Vote, which refers to the Printing for Public Departments and not to the printing for the House of Commons. I do not know that I can say any more with respect to this question. I do not understand how it is my hon. Friend's information differs so much from that I received from the head of the Stationery Department; I do not suppose the gentleman who represents that Department is less able to go into the market than those who represent the private firms in the country. But there is one other matter I should like to allude to with respect to paper, and I do so because it will be a matter of pleasure to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite who takes the view that we should not make use of foreign paper. A year or two ago complaints were made with respect to the paper used in the Blue Books, and it was stated that the paper was very inferior in comparison with that used formerly, and was not of a lasting character. It appears that that class of paper is made from wood in two modes. One mode of making this paper is by grinding the wood into a fine powder, and then mixing it into a pulp, and from that is made the paper that is objectionable and inferior. The second mode of using the wood to make paper is to put it through some process of steaming, which does not cause the same injury to the paper as the process of grinding to powder. There-

  61
  fore, while the one mode of using wood is inferior and objectionable, the other mode is not bound to be so. The Stationery Department have decided in the future not to buy or receive any paper made by the inferior process, and therefore in the future we shall have a better class of paper for our public documents. Now I come to the statement that will interest my hon. and gallant Friend. This inferior method of making paper is one that exists abroad, and not in this country, therefore it has been decided to a large extent not to use this foreign-made paper. I have no doubt that the Stationery Department is quite alive to the advisability of using the best paper they can obtain. Something has been said with respect to the writing paper and envelopes. (An hon. Member: And pens.) And pens; and I must say I rather sympathise with what has been said. I very often complain to my secretary of the paper, and say it is not so good as it used to be. I have no doubt, if I used quill-pens, I might find the same fault with them; but I hope there will be an improvement, and that we shall combine efficiency with economy. So far as I can prevail upon the Stationery Department to carry out that principle, I shall be very glad to do it, and I shall use my utmost endeavour to see that all we buy is of the best quality.
  MR. HANBURYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state what treatment had been accorded to those firms who sent in a paper that was rejected, and another paper accepted at a lesser price.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am not aware how they have been treated; I can only say I fancy they would not have been allowed to tender again— that is the principle I should adopt, and I presume that is the principle the Stationery Department has adopted; but I will ascertain what has been done. My hon. Friend opposite spoke of the Statutes being issued with uncut leaves. I think myself it would be a great advantage to have the leaves cut; we all object very much to have the bother of cutting, and I do not think it would increase the cost very much to have the leaves cut. There is only one other matter I wished to allude to.
  MR. LABOUCIIEREsaid before
  62
  the right hon. Gentleman left the question of the price of paper, he wished him to be good enough to tell them the names of those firms who tendered.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid that from inquiries he had made in the City, there had been no increase in the price of paper, and he should like to ask if, before giving this enormous increase of from 60 to 63 per cent., inquiries had been made from other firms dealing in paper?
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid that whilst this discussion had been going on, he had telephoned to Messrs. Peebles, in the City, who were large paper manufacturers, and they assured him there had been no difference in the price of paper during the last 12 mouths or in the previous 12 months.
  MR. T. H. SIDEBOTTOMsaid that one of the largest paper manufacturers in England, a constituent of his own, told him not a week since that he was amazed at the low-price of paper offered by foreign competitors.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid he had a Motion on the Paper to move the reduction of this Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid before the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved the reduction of the Vote he would like to ask for the name of the contractor who supplied the paper that was rejected.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have not got the name of the contractor here.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are the contractors paper-makers or stationers?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: They are generally stationers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: That is exactly it.
  R. LENGsaid he was a consumer of paper to the extent of 50 tons a week, and he thought the statement made as to the cost of paper, was most extraordinary. The experience of all consumers of paper was that there never was so much competition as at present, and the price, instead of going up 50 and 60 per cent., had tended in the other direction. During the past 12 months more particularly, the prices of paper had been lower than previously, and if the consumption of paper by the Stationery Office had

  63
  largely increased, the diminution in price he should expect would have gone far to compensate for that increase in quantity. The Committee ought to have more information as to why it was the experience of the Stationery Office was different from that of all private consumers.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought he could explain why the experience of the Stationery Office was different to that of other consumers. He asked just now, whether the contractors were stationers or paper manufacturers, and he was told they were stationers. The stationer was the middleman who got a considerable profit. No newspaper proprietor or publisher would go to a stationer; he would go to the mill-owner and get the paper at the real price.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have stated that the Government have been giving up the use of this common paper, and the increased price they are called upon to pay now is for a higher class of paper. In that way I think it may account for the increase.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: What steps have been taken to get any quotations from any contractors who have not been doing business up to the present with the Government.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Stationery Department generally advertise for tenders for paper, or they invite a number of firms to tender for the supply of a certain quantity of paper. The Stationery Department would be glad to consider any names or tenders sent in.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay upon the Table of the House a carefully prepared Return showing the names of the firms who have had tenders?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I shall be glad to lay on the Table a Return showing the names of the firms, the amount of the paper purchased, and the prices paid for each class of paper, not only for this year but for last year.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTwas much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having to some extent dealt with the question of foreign paper, but he had not done so fully. From questions he (Colonel Vincent) had put on the subject he had not gathered that there had been any considerable diminu-
  64
  tion in the amount of contracts given by the Stationery Office to the agents of foreign mills. He had information from a very good source that as much as 50 per cent. of the paper supplied to the Stationery Office was drawn from abroad, and although the contracts were not sent direct to the foreign mills, they were given to the agents, located in this country, of foreign firms. In many cases they were simply the agents of foreign capitalists and mill-owners who, therefore, gave no employment to the people of this country. He should be glad to know that the increased cost of paper was due to a cessation in giving these contracts to foreign firms or their agents, which had thus led to the increased use of British-made paper, but his information did not lead him to believe such was the case. Considerable attention had this Session been drawn to the paper from which post-cards and the Post Office Guide were made, which paper came from abroad. At the present time he believed some 60 bales of foreign-made paper arrived every week at Hayes Wharf in the City of London on account of the Government. That was an unfortunate state of affairs, and it was still more unfortunate in so far as it prevented a Resolution of the House of the 13th February 1891 being carried into effect. That resolution was as follows:—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is the duty of the Government in all Government contracts to make provision against the evils recently disclosed before the Sweating Committee, to insert such conditions as may prevent the abuse of sub-letting, and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current wages by each trade for competent workmen."
  It was quite clear it was impossible for the Government to carry that Resolution into effect if the contracts were given to foreigners. Every year, following the example of the late Mr. Peter M'Donald, he had moved for a Return of the contracts given out to foreigners, and he was glad to see there was a considerable reduction in them. From 1879 to 1885, inclusive, no less a sum than £886,556 of English public money was given to foreign contractors. That was reduced something like £39,000 for last year, showing a very satisfactory decrease. But at the same time when they found a large amount of foreign paper was being received every week on account

  65
  of the Stationery Office, for the postcards we used in this country, for The Post Office Guide, and for other purposes, it was a most unfortunate condition of affairs, because it was clear if these contracts wore given to foreigners, the Government could have no control whatever over the wages paid in the manufacture of the articles supplied. No trades union existed abroad, the trades union rate of wages were not paid, and therefore in these contracts there wore none of the conditions appertaining to British manufacture, and which were laid down by the House as essential to fair manufacture. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton), in a recent speech, spoke of the great injury which was being done workmen in this country by this system of indiscriminately giving out contracts to agents of foreign mills instead of to manufacturers bona fide employing the people of this country. He would quote an extract from this speech—
  THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going rather wide of the mark. So long as he confines himself to the price of paper, so long I think he is in Order, but when he leaves the question of the price or amount of paper, then I think he is going rather wide of the mark.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTwould not pursue that subject further, except to point out that the Under Secretary for the Colonies stated that the present system of giving out con-tracts to foreigners might be cheap, but it was exceedingly nasty. The Trades' Union Congress last year at Glasgow passed a resolution on this subject, part of which he would read—
  THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): I think I pointed out that this is only a Supplementary Estimate relating to paper for a Public Department. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman confines himself to the price of paper or the amount of paper, then I think he is in Order.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, if it was not in Order to refer to the Resolution he would not do so. They were asked to vote £26,000 for paper, and it was perfectly obvious that a considerable proportion of that paper had been obtained from the agents of foreign mills. That was a state of affairs which ought not to be allowed
  66
  to continue, and if his right hon. Friend would give an assurance that he would prevent this being done in future, it would not be necessary to press the question to a Division. But if, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman maintained that the Stationery Office was at liberty either to employ home manufacturers or the agents of foreign mills, without any inquiry as to where the manufacturing process was done, or the amount of wages paid, then it would be necessary for him to press the Motion for a reduction of the Vote to a Division. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item F, of £20,500 for Paper for Public Departments, be reduced by £1,000."— (Colonel Howard Vincent.)
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The point raised in this Amendment is by no means a trivial one. When we made inquiries during the present Session as regarded certain articles supplied to the Stationery Department, attempts were made to turn the whole question into ridicule, and to minimise the point at issue. The question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is one which I venture to think the Government will realise it behaves them very closely to consider and give a clear and definite answer on in the House. My hon. and gallant Friend's point is this: that the House by a Resolution placed certain definite obligations upon a Public Department in this Country, and this very vote the Committee is now asked to sanction involves a distinct breach of a Resolution of this House. That of course, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see, is a specific statement on a point which requires the very careful consideration of the Government, and one on which the Committee is entitled to a clear answer. The Resolution of this House which has already been referred to states that—
  "In the opinion of this House it is the duty of the Government in all Government Contracts to make provision against the evils recently disclosed before the Sweating Committee, and to make every effort to prevent the abuses arising from sub-letting, and to secure the payment of such wages as are accepted as the current wages in each trade for competent workmen."
  I have a right to ask has Her Majesty's Government taken steps to carry out

  67
  this Resolution? Have these contracts been given only to persons who complied with the conditions laid down in that Resolution? Something has been said about tenders being made and contracts being given to foreign manufacturers. Into the policy of letting out work abroad I am not going to enter. I need hardly say I strongly disapprove of recourse being had to foreign manufacturers when manufacturers in this country are prepared to do the work. The Resolution passed, by this House renders it obligatory on the part of the Government to see that the conditions laid down in the Resolution are enforced and obeyed to the letter. What precaution has the Government taken in this respect? I understand tenders have been accepted and contracts granted to persons doing their business outside the limits of this country. Do the Government assert that this Resolution does not apply to foreign contractors? If so, I should be glad to be favoured with the grounds on which they base such an extraordinary construction of the plain language unanimously adopted by this House. I remember this Resolution was originally proposed in another form. It was altered, and I believe a very high fiscal authority, now in another place, Lord Playfair, was the draftsman of the amended Resolution. Its terms are distinct and specific to a degree, and if the Government are letting out contract work to persons, in whatsoever country they may reside and carry on business, without making it clear that the Resolution of the House must be complied with, they are committing a distinct breach of a Resolution of this House, and are guilty of gross disrespect to this House. Of course, when I speak of the Government I speak of the Government in a sense of continuity. I am not directing any special charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his colleagues, but rather directing my observations with the view to hoping they will in future take care that this Resolution is obeyed. This Resolution was proposed by one of their colleagues, it received the unanimous assent of the House, including Her Majesty's present Advisers, and I am rather curious to know their view of the matter. I was in hopes that after my hon. and gallant Friend had stated his case, the Secretary to the Treasury
  68
  would have given us an intimation as to who the contractors are.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I offered to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the names of the contractors, the amount of paper bought from them, and the average price of each class of paper both for this year and last year.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to contend that this Resolution has been complied with?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not contend anything of the kind. I do not consider that Resolution has anything to do with the question of paper.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Now we understand each other a little better. I now understand the right hon. Gentleman to contend that the Resolution unanimously adopted in this House, designed to meet the particular class of cases distinctly pointed out at the time to the House, does not apply to the question of contracts in the Stationery Office.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Oh, no; to the question of the purchase of paper, I say.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Yes, Sir, exactly; to the question of paper. Does the right hon. Gentleman undertake to assert that in this Resolution there is any exemption of the commodity of paper? The Resolution is universal. I am not saying whether the Resolution was a wise one or not; that is a matter into which it would obviously be irregular that I should go at present. But here it stands on the books of this House as a Resolution in force at this moment. My noble Friend (Lord R. Churchill) very properly points out that it was a Resolution of the last Parliament—
  MR. W. REDMOND (interposing): I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask your ruling as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order on this Vote in discussing a Resolution passed by this House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Only so far as it strictly bears upon the Amendment. I did not stop the right hon. Gentleman when he was inquiring as to the contracts for paper, but now, I take it, he is travelling beyond that.
  Mr. JAMES LOWTHER: Of course, Sir, I should not think of contravening your ruling, with which I entirely concur. I was entirely confining myself to this question of paper. I wish to ask

  69
  the right hon. Gentleman how he can account for a departure from the terms of this Resolution with regard to the purchase of paper? I ask for nothing else. I take it that a Resolution adopted by this House, until repealed by this House, has always been considered by the Government of the day, especially when the Government of the day was specifically named in that Resolution, and my contention is that the point before the Committee is whether in the contracts, for the discharge of which we are now asked to pay in this very Vote, regard has been had to the distinct obligation of a Resolution of this House? That is, I think, one of the most pertinent and pointed questions which could be addressed to any Minister of the Crown. I am not going into the policy of the Resolution or anything of that kind. I maintain that the Secretary to the Treasury has correctly represented the views of the Government in saying that the item of paper is exempted from the operation of this Rule, and I at once join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. I undertake to say that if the right hon. Gentleman has not borne this Resolution in mind when these contracts were being considered, he has committed a distinct breach of an Order of this House. I think we ought to call him to account for it. This is a clear Resolution; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a party to the Resolution, and I defy him to get out of this, that if he lets a contract for any article which has to be supplied to the Government without due regard to this Resolution, he has committed a distinct breach of an Order of this House.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am perfectly familiar with the resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and, for my part, I am prepared to say it has no relation whatever to the question now before the House. I should like to know whether the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman desires to lay down is that the Government of this country are prohibited from purchasing any articles manufactured abroad, because that is what it comes to?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I did not say that at all. I did not go into that point. What I said was this: In my judgment Her Majesty's Government, from whatever side of the House it might be formed, is bound by the specific terms of a Resolution of this House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I say no doubt they are, but I say that the terms of the Resolution have no relation whatever to the question of the purchase of goods which are manufactured abroad. We are all pretty familiar with the views of the right hon. Gentleman, and what is the object of the whole discussion. We have spent an hour-and-a-half upon a Supplementary Vote for the purchase of paper in order to go into the whole Protectionist theory. We know perfectly well that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Thanet, have made this a peg upon which to hang their Protectionist view that they will prohibit the Government from purchasing abroad any goods. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen), would prohibit the Government from purchasing any goods abroad, and whether the preceding Government have regarded that resolution as prohibiting the purchase of any goods manufactured abroad? Now it really comes to that, and the only point raised here is that there has been a certain amount of paper purchased abroad, and the question is whether this resolution has the smallest relation to that question. I believe it has none whatever. There is no connection whatever between that resolution and the question before the House. Of course we cannot by this resolution regulate wages paid abroad, and the contention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman amounts to this, that the Government of this country, therefore, is prohibited from ever purchasing any goods manufactured abroad. The Government cannot regulate wages paid abroad, but the division, if there is to be one, would be on the simple question, Are the Government to be prohibited from purchasing any goods manufactured abroad? It would be absurd to suppose that the House of Commons would lay down a rule that they should be prevented from purchasing goods from abroad. It would not be in the interests of our own manufactures that we should do so. Are you going to set up a similar barrier against your own goods? No policy could be more suicidal. I hope the Committee will now proceed with the Votes. As the right hon. Gentleman knew the Army and Navy Estimates must be

  71
  finished by Friday next, I must object to these discussions on the protectionist views of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member on a Supplementary Vote of this character. We do not object to goods coming from abroad; but if the question must be discussed, it ought to be raised in some other way.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not going to detain the House. I just want to point out a matter which occurs to me, and I think it may tend to shorten the proceedings on this Vote. With the general drift of the remarks of my right hon. friend I entirely agree; but we are left in a somewhat anomalous and unfortunate position. The manufacturers of paper who supply the Government are also left in an unfortunate position, because, by an Order of the House they are put under all kinds of restrictions as to the wages to be paid, and other matters concerning their employés, and these are restrictions from which foreign manufacturers are free. The foreign manufacturers have, therefore, a distinct advantage over the English manufacturers so long as that order remains in force. I do hope that at a future time the House will give attention to this subject, which is of great importance to English manufacturers. I have also to say that now that we have got a clear view of the Government position, I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied, and that he will not put us to the trouble of a division.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I must take objection to one remark of which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has not taken notice. It would beyond doubt be intolerable that, when this House of Commons passed a Resolution on an abstract subject, such as the regulation of wages and contracts, that regulation should be held to be binding on a future House of Commons. I am anxious to be guided by high Constitutional views, but I object altogether to the view that a Rule passed in one Parliament should fetter the action of another Parliament by arrogating to that Resolution or Rule the force of law.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had no sympathy with protectionist views, but he would suggest if they wanted to begin a policy of protection that they should leave off using
  72
  Foreign wines. This would show whether hon. Gentlemen who held those views were in earnest. He was anxious for economy in all Departments, and understood that there was something wrong as to the cost of this paper.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he was not going to say more than a word or two. He did not wish to delay the Committee, but he wished to say that he had to protest against the suggestion that he had brought forward his Motion in order to elicit a protectionist discussion. He only wanted to impress upon the Government their duty with regard to the trade of the country. After the appeal that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,170, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for Land Charges, England."
  MR. HANBURYsaid he certainly should divide against this Vote. In his opinion there was no Department with which the public were less acquainted than the administration of the law as carried on by the Law Officers, and it was a Department that required to be very carefully watched. The reorganisation, while it was one of the most plausible, was perhaps the most unbusiness-like, the most extravagant, and the most hypocritical he had ever known. He had no wish to attack his hon. Friend the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell). In the debates which led to this reorganisation he was bound to say the Attorney General took no part, and he was willing to admit that the Attorney General was actually a loser by the new system. The Attorney General, at any rate, was shut out, under an arrangement which he hoped would soon be done away with by creed from attaining the highest office of the profession. It was clear to him that the Solicitor General was going to benefit a great deal more than the Attorney General by this reorganisation, and they

  73
  were going to have this anomaly—that the salary of the Solicitor General would be higher than that of the Attorney General. He had complaints particularly of the Solicitor General, because he was new to the office, and had no kind of prescriptive right as the Attorney General had. The Government could have struck their own bargain with the Solicitor General, but they would not do so. There were many Members of the Bar in that House who would have been perfectly willing to take the office on more reasonable terms. He objected to all reorganisations; but this one had special disadvantages of its own. They bad two sets of officers—those who were permanently employed by the State, and those who were only temporarily employed. They had worse than that—some of the officers were to be wholly paid by the State, and some were partly paid by the State and partly from private sources. They would thus have the confusion between public and private work, and they would never know how much was to be given to public work. He did not say there had been any jobbery; but it was evident there was a fair opportunity for jobbery in this new Department. There was no limit of age. There was no limit to length of service. There was no qualification for the clerks in the Department. It was true that two of them must satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners, but special exemption was given when they were appointed by the Attorney General. Of the four clerks appointed, he should like to ask how many had been clerks of the Attorney General or his Colleague? He was told that one was a man who for some time had been keeping the Records of the Department, and who had now an ex-clerk of the Attorney General's put over his head; and that three were ordinary clerks of the Law Officers of the Crown. What was the explanation of this unbusiness-like procedure? The Treasury Minute gave two reasons, neither of which would hold water. The first was that it was to establish, as far as possible, a uniform practice in the manner in which papers were submitted to and dealt with by the Law Officers. He should have thought submitting papers was the work of the Public Departments, which had legal staffs of their own. As to the manner in which they were dealt with, that was
  74
  a matter for the Law Officers to settle with their ordinary clerks. The second reason given was that it was necessary to insure a complete record of the opinions given by successive Law Officers of the Crown. During the last 10 years the law officers had engaged a man whose duty it had been to keep such a record, Mr. Abbs, who thoroughly understood the work, who was first paid £150 and then £300 a year; and now it was said a clerk of one of the Law Officers was to be put over his head to do the work. The work had been done and the law officers bad paid for it; but the public would pay for it in the future. What were the pleas under which the law officers claimed to have their clerks paid for? There must be some confusion in the Estimates, because the salaries asked for were salaries for clerks engaged in non-contentious business, in addition to the fees paid to the law officers of the Crown when they were engaged in contentious business and fees were paid to their clerks, so that the salaries paid to the clerks did not include contentious business, and must be confined entirely to non-contentious business. The Treasury Minute of December 5th, 1892, stated that the salaries paid to the law officers of the Crown should include all clerks' fees in business other than contentious business. Why were they to pay twice over—once in the salaries of the Law Officers, and once by a separate Department? It seemed as if there had been some bargaining between the date of the Treasury Minute in December, 1892, and January 12th, 1893, when another Treasury Minute was issued. One argument for paving the salaries of these clerks was that they would be losers, owing to the fact that the law officers would have lost private practice in the future. As a matter of fact, the fees of the clerks varied very much with the fees paid to their employers. He thought the Law Officers might have made up to their clerks for any loss they sustained. Assuming they were not prepared to do it, he would point out that with regard to all future Law Officers this was one of the bargains that ought to be struck with them. No doubt the present Attorney General, who had held the office before, had a prescriptive right not to be a loser on being re-appointed. Even then it would be only a temporary arrangement, for a permanent

  75
  arrangement ought not to be made simply of a small temporary loss in the case of the present Attorney General. After all the great argument in favour of the change was that given in the Treasury Minute of the 15th of December, which fixed the remuneration of the law officers of the Crown, and limited the business in which they might appear as counsel for private clients. Certainly they ought to adopt one of two systems —either they ought to adhere to the old system, in which the Law Officers were allowed to engage in private practice side by side with their public work; or they must go on a new principle altogether, abolish private practice, and require the law officers to devote all their time to the service of the State. That would be logical. But the principle now adopted was wholly illogical. It had all the faults of the old system and several new faults besides. He did not want to cut down the salaries of Law Officers to a ridiculous extent. They ought to get the best men and to pay them well. But during the last 11 years the salaries and fees of the Law Officers, exclusive of private practice, had amounted to more than the salary of any officer of State. The salary and fees of the Attorney General had averaged £11,000 a year— twice as high as the salaries of the Prime Minister and of the Secretaries of State, and much higher than the salaries of Ambassadors and Judges, and even of the head of the profession, the Lord Chancellor himself. This was an enormous price to pay for services which were coupled with private practice. The system had been discussed in the House and condemned, and the heaviest condemnation had come from Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench. He could quote one hon. Gentleman who was absent, but he would not do so. He would say, however, that the hon. Member the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) initiated a Debate three or four years ago, and contended that the Law Officers ought to abandon private practice altogether. He could quote—for he saw him present—the present President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who spoke strongly and ridiculed the idea that they were to pay the Law Officers higher salaries if they abandoned private practice, which they might not regain when they gave up office. The right hon.
  76
  Gentleman ridiculed that idea then. Did he still do so? The right hon. Gentleman did not contradict the statement, and he did, therefore, hold the same view. He would ask him if he still held another view, which he had expressed very distinctly, namely, that not only should the Law Officers of the Crown give up their private practice, but give the whole of their time to the work of the country for the salaries and fees they were drawing. If that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman now, as it was then, and he (Mr. Hanbury) believed that it was, because if the right hon. Gentleman was notable for anything it was for his consistency—he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would vote with him to-day. What was the position of the Law Officers under this new arrangement? In the first place, they got their old salaries. There was no doubt about that, although there was in the last Government an Attorney-General who distinctly said it was his opinion that if clerks had to be found to carry on the record work, to which he (Mr. Hanbury) had alluded, the salary of the Attorney General ought to be cut down in proportion. The clerks were now being provided out of the public purse, yet the salary of the Attorney General had not been reduced by one sixpence, as the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor had suggested. As to the question of fees, the fees of Attorneys General during the past 11 years had averaged over £5,000 a year; and this, added to the salary of £7,000 a year, brought up the Attorney General's total emoluments from salary and fees to £12,000 a year. That was what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had said would be ample, if the Attorney General gave up the whole of his time to the public service. But what was going to happen now? The Attorney General was to give up a certain portion of his time to the public service, and the result would be that he would get more contentious business on behalf of the Crown. The Attorney General distinctly bargained that this should be the case, according to the rule laid down in the Treasury Minute. He held that whenever the Attorney General desired to engage in a case a brief should be given him for it.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: That is not new.
  MR. HANBURYsaid that was not new, but at any rate the hon. and learned

  77
  Gentleman would have a great deal more time to engage in this business, and the chances were he would have a great many more eases. When the Attorney General had private practice he would not care to take up too much public business. He (Mr. Hanbury) did not lay so much stress on the quantity of this work the Attorney General would have to do as on the increased fees which would be paid for doing that work. What was the difference in the position of the Attorney General as to fees under the old Treasury Minute of 1889, and the new Minute? It was a remarkable one, and he should hardly like to put, it into figures. The old Minute, which was in existence up to the 5th December 1892, fixed a maximum fee, but under the new Minute there was no maximum. That was entirely swept away, which in itself appeared a suspicious circumstance. Apart from the maximum, what was the principle on which the Attorney General was to be remunerated? The Law Officers received fees—
  "according to the ordinary professional scale of fees which a Queen's Counsel of average standing in the profession might properly accept from a private client, subject to the maximum fee of 150 guineas brief fee and 30 guineas a day refresher."
  The main difference between the old and the new system was that in the future the fees paid to the Law Officers would not be such as a Queen's Counsel of "average standing" might accept, whatever "average standing" might mean Fees, as everybody knew, varied very much. The Treasury Minute rather implied that fees above those which would be given to a Queen's Counsel of average standing had been paid to the Law Officers in the past, but that he (Mr. Haubury) should rather doubt. He hoped the Treasury officials had kept an eye over the matter better than that, and that the fees paid to the Attorney General had only been such as would have been paid to a Queen's Counsel of average standing. The Attorney General kicked against that, no doubt. He wished to be paid in future, not the fees that would be paid to an average Queen's Counsel, but the fees that a private client would have to pay Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., if he went into Court to plead. The difference would be very considerable. No doubt if paid according to merit, the fees of the present Attorney General would be considerably more than those of an "ave-
  78
  rage" Queen's Counsel, and if the Treasury put a high assessment on the right hon. Gentleman's services, no doubt, they would be quite right in doing so. But his point was that the Treasury had no right to be called upon to assess the Attorney General's services in that way. It was unnecessary, and looking at the high salary paid, looking at the amount of practice allowed, and at the fact that £1,300 a year was asked for clerks, the Attorney General might in the future be content with the smaller fee allowed to a Queen's Counsel of "average standing." He would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether this difference would not represent an addition of some £3,000 or more to the fees of the Attorney General. What would be the advantage to the State under such circumstances of the Law Officers giving up private practice? All the plums were being kept, if this exception was to be made in favour of the House of Lords and the Privy Council—not, he would admit, for the present Attorney General, but for the Solicitor General and future Law Officers. He wanted to know why some exception should not be made in favour of the Attorney General? There was no principle involved in this difference of treatment between the Law Officers. Therefore they were in this position, that while they were requiring the Law Officers to give up private practice they were retaining the plums of that practice for the Solicitor General, and probably for future Law Officers, while, at the same time, the State was paying £1,300 a year for clerks, £3,000 a year in enhanced fees, and was allowing the Law Officers to keep their old retainers. He was not a lawyer, therefore he wanted to know what was the meaning of those last words in the Treasury Minute. Did they moan that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were only to retain briefs in cases in which they had actually been engaged before they took office, or did they mean that solicitors and others who had retained them in the past would be able to do so in the future in all cases? If the latter were to be the case, the abolition of the right to private practice was a farce, and the net result would be that the Law Officers would have made a very pretty bargain for themselves. They would have retained their own private practice, they would be drawing £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 a year more

  79
  in increased emoluments and clerks' salaries. That would be a monstrous thing, and if that was really the state of the case he should press his motion to a division. He had been arguing on special grounds, but on higher public grounds he objected strongly to the new arrangement. It was the fact, he took it, that the Law Officers had clerks who were paid under this Vote. These clerks ordinarily worked for the public, but they might at any time be called upon to assist the Law Officers in their private practice. That, he contended, was a bad principle to introduce into any public Department. Then he strongly objected to the Law Officers being allowed to draw fees, not only in all cases where they were actually present, but in all cases in which they were "expected to attend." When Parliament had the control of the Law Officers of the Crown, it ought to try and break down, and certainly ought not to encourage, a very pernicious state of things in the legal profession by which men were allowed to receive fees for work which they did not do. This practice was thoroughly unfair to the public, and he should do his best to put a limitation to it as altogether contrary to his idea of fair play. The cost of getting justice was enormous, and the Law Courts were practically closed against poor men. The Courts of Appeal were closed against men even of moderate means. The fees paid to some men in the legal profession were out of all proportion to the fees in other professions. They had a most pernicious effect, and were directly contrary to what ought to be the aim of Parliament, namely, to bring law and justice within the reach of the poorest. That was the main ground upon which he moved the reduction of the Vote, and he thought he should be justified in pressing his Amendment to a Division.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item A, of £770, for Law Officers' Salaries, be reduced by £500"—(Mr. Hanbury).
  SIR C. RUSSELL: The Committee will perhaps not be surprised if I intervene in this discussion, inasmuch as the Vote relates to the Department which I and my hon. and learned Colleague are closely connected with. I have to thank the hon. Member for his personal courtesy to myself in the discussion, but I must say that one thing surprised me very much, and it was this—knowing as
  80
  he must know that the Law Officers suffer deprivation of private practice under the new Minute, and that the clerical staff is a consequence of the Minute, he did not give us his views as to the policy of that change.
  MR. HANBURY: I said one of two things should have been done—either the old practice should have been allowed to continue or private practice should have been abolished altogether. My complaint was that the Minute did neither.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: It is necessary that the Committee should be reminded of the nature of the great change that has been made, and the minor changes that have followed as a consequence. The great change, in a word, is that, whereas Law Officers were formerly entitled, while attending to the public duties of their department, to continue their private practice, that state of things has been put an end to, and for the future the right of the Law Officers to appear in Court is limited to cases before the House of Lords and before the Privy Council. Now it is no secret to many of my Friends on both sides of the House that personally I was strongly opposed to the change. It has involved a very large pecuniary sacrifice in my own case, and there is no reason why I should not say that. Indeed, my experience in the character of Law Officer is perhaps to some extent unique. I was Law Officer for a little less than six months in a previous Parliament, and during that six months I had to serve my country in my honourable office at a loss of some £2,000 to myself. Instead of gaining anything by being Attorney General, I have lost by it. The hon. Gentleman has said a great deal as to the brilliant pecuniary prospect to the Law Officers under the new Minute, and I only wish it could be realised. But I, Sir, shall be a serious loser. I wish to tell the Committee why I came into the new arrangement. I need scarcely say that my mind was greatly influenced by the honour attaching to my present position. I was further aware that hon. and learned Friends of mine, for whose judgment I had high regard, took an opposite view of this matter to myself. I was aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), who for many years held the office that I have the honour to fill, took the view that it was

  81
  desirable that Law Officers should be separated from private practice. I knew also that that was the view of Sir Horace Davey, and I also knew, though I learnt it rather late, that that opinion was shared by my present colleague, the Solicitor General. Well, taking all these matters into consideration, and bearing in mind the strong view which had been expressed by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and still more the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, I came in, but I came in reluctantly, to the new arrangement for abandoning private practice. I want the Committee to understand the full consequences that that surrender of private practice entails. The clerks of the Law Officers, who up to the time of this alteration had been earning large salaries—paid, not out of the pockets of the Law Officers, but out of the fees paid by clients according to custom with the briefs delivered — cease to receive that remuneration, and under the new arrangement become clerks of a Public Department of the State. Their business is no longer attending to matters connected with the private practice of the Law Officers, but discharging duties connected with the business of the Department. I ought to have said that one of my strongest reasons against the change was the opinion I held, and an opinion which I have not yet abandoned, that it was very desirable that the Law Officers representing the Government in this House in its legal affairs should be men in actual touch with the Bar, and in the actual practice of the Bar. But, to proceed, when the Minute practically ends the private business of the Law Officers, then the clerks of the Law Officers become, as I have said, clerks to a Public Department. The first question I have to ask was this: Was it to be expected that in addition to the sacrifice of income the Law Officers had made, they should put their hands in their pockets and pay £1,000 or £1,500 a year to the clerks. The Committee will see at once that that would have been a great injustice. The hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to the case of my hon. and learned Friend; the Solicitor General as being capable of being distinguished from my own; but the distinction is not a very marked one. My hon. and learned Colleague, by taking office, loses at one fell swoop three-quarters of a large income, not with stand-
  82
  ing the practice which he retains in the House of Lords and the Privy Council. Though my practice in those departments is not equal to that of my hon. and learned Colleague, I am in other respects a very considerable loser. The House must, in considering this question of the remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown, bear one or two facts in mind. When a counsel accepts the position of a Law Officer he is taken away by this Minute from the regular practice of his profession. He is separated from those who have hitherto been his clients, and there is no return in the way of pension secured to him for his loss of income. When the Government to which he belongs goes out of office, it is impossible for him to resume the thread of his practice at once. In the case of every man, I do not care what his position is, a considerable period must elapse before he can resume his former position at the Bar. There is another consideration to be borne in mind. Rightly or wrongly, Ministries are desirous of securing as their Law Officers the most prominent men in their profession. I use the word "prominent" as distinguished from "able," because I do not think that the most prominent men are always the most able men. Far from it. I do not hesitate to say that though Ministries may under the change get thoroughly competent and able men to fill the offices of Attorney General and Solicitor General — all, perhaps, that is wanted—I doubt very much whether they will secure the services of the most prominent men, or in other words, the leaders of their profession. But I go on. Is a staff necessary? I have said what I have to say of the manifest injustice of not only taking three-fourths of the income of the Law Officers away from them, but of asking them to pay out of their own pockets a large sum for a clerical staff. What is the ordinary clerical staff? A minimum of three clerks. First, there is the Clerk to the Law Officer, then there is a junior Clerk, and in addition there is the third Clerk to whom the hon. and learned Member has referred—a very worthy young man. Does the hon. Member know that Mr. Abbs has been from the first a salaried clerk paid by successive Law Officers? It will take the House by surprise to learn that in connection with the Department of Law

  83
  Officers there has not been, up to the issue of this recent Minute, one single clerk paid for by the State as a permanent clerk. That is an extraordinary state of things to disclose in connection with a Department certainly not the least important in the public affairs of this country. I would state to the House what is the range of business over which that Department of the Law Officers extends. I do not think hon. Members have any adequate idea of it. I am referring to it not for the purpose of exaggerating any claim the Law Officers may have in the matter, but as pointing to the necessity for having a clerical staff. In the first instance, the Law Officers are the legal advisers to the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Home Office, the India Office, the Privy Council, the Treasury, and the Solicitors to the Treasury. In addition to that the Attorney General has his own particular burden and responsibility, the advising and direction of the Public Prosecutor and the Queen's Proctor. If you add to that the large amount of contentious business in which the Crown is necessarily from time to time engaged, you will, I think, see that a staff of three clerks to attend to the order and regularity of the business involved in these various Departments is an exceedingly limited staff if the work is to be adequately done. The chief clerk of the Attorney General, now the permanent clerk, fills a position of very great responsibility. It is a position that requires to be filled, not merely by a man of experience in this particular Department of work, but by a man in whom implicit confidence can be placed. The very enumeration of the wide area over which the duties of the Law Officers range would, I think, suggest to hon. Members opposite the great extent of the work that has to be done. First of all they have to keep an accurate record of the papers received, showing how they are dealt with, when returned, and to whom sent, and they have to keep a record of the opinions, or drafts of opinions, which have been written by the Law Officers, or for the Law Officers, in relation to those papers. My hon. Friend says the record is already correctly kept. I beg to assure him that that is not so. A record is kept at present in a book of the opinions given
  84
  by the Law Officers to the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office, but there is no such record of their opinions with reference to any other Department. The only Record Report is a record of the bare fact that an opinion was expressed on such a subject. The draft opinions are kept in a pigeon-hole with a bundle of papers containing the notes of the Attorney General or Solicitor General's "devil," as he is called. I have established a system which will provide for a proper record being kept, together with a copy of all the opinions given by the Law Officers. There are separate solicitors in connection with several of the Government Departments, and it has happened in the past, to the great inconvenience of some of the Departments, that an opinion given to the solicitor of one Department was not made known to the solicitor of another Department, although it was of equal importance to the latter. I have established a system under which in future opinions of general interest will be communicated not only to the solicitor of the Department from which the request for an opinion emanated, but to all the Departments. Much work of a merely clerical character has to be done in the office, and there is a considerable amount of correspondence involved in these various business transactions, in making engagements for meetings respecting the contested business which has to be done by the various Departments, and so on. In addition to all this, the patent business, of which Mr. Abbs, who was first appointed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), has charge, often makes a considerable demand upon the time of those employed. If the hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury) thinks the Patent fees ought to be applied in payment of Mr. Abbs's services, I may say that those fees, which I believe are more than enough to discharge the Law Officers' salaries, now go into the Treasury, and not one penny of them is received by the Law Officers.
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that the Law Officers were responsible in the old days before the Patent Act was passed for the Patent business, and that Mr. Abbs did the work for them. I understand that the Law Officers do not do that work now.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: My hon. Friend is mistaken; they do the work now.

  85
  Well, I think I have given the Committee sufficient reason for thinking that the clerical establishment, which an ordinary leading counsel in full practice thinks it necessary to maintain, is not an excessive staff' for the office of the Attorney General. I, myself, have appointed the Chief Clerk. After him comes Mr. Abbs, who has chiefly been concerned with the Patent business, with which he is thoroughly acquainted, but who has also to a large extent assisted, in the general work. These are the only two permanent clerks. The third clerk is not permanent at all. He is not a Civil servant, and is merely in receipt of a sum, in the case of the Attorney General's clerk, of £250 a year, which begins when the appointment begins, and ends when the appointment ends. This payment is made under the new system, because of the large part the Attorney General takes in the contentious legal business of the Government. I come now to the personnel of the staff. I do not associate my hon. Friend opposite with what I am going to mention. I have been told that in a perfectly respectable political paper there lately appeared a question as to whether it would be consistent with Parliamentary usage to interrogate the Attorney General as to the nationality, politics, and, I think it was added, religion of the Chief Clerk he has appointed. Well, has political controversy fallen quite so low as that? I am in a position to give an answer on all these points. [Cries of "No."] Well, I do not think there is any Member of the legal profession in this House who does not know the man I have appointed, and I do not think there is a man who knows him who does not respect him. It was a surprise to me that my clerk accepted the position at all. His salary was much nearer £900 than £500 a year, and I think the only reason why he accepted the position of Chief Clerk was that it gave him a permanent status as a member of the Civil Service. He has been in my service, and in the most confidential relations with me, for the last fifteen years. He is a thorough gentleman in every sense of the word, and a man who brings to the office the qualities which the office requires. The second clerk is Mr. Abbs, a younger man, whose ability I do not undervalue. My hon. Friend is wrong in saying that his salary was
  86
  £300 a year. He was in receipt of a salary of £260 a year, which the Law Officers between them contributed. As regards the third clerk—I had, of course, to appoint another clerk in my own permanent service—he will continue to be my clerk when I leave office; and I may say, as regards the Chief Clerk, that it will be my loss that we shall be unable to resume our former relations when I leave office. I have little more to say, except to draw attention to one or two minor points the hon. Member has made. He complains that there is no limit as to the age with the clerks, and so forth. These gentlemen have, as a matter of fact, to satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners that the case is one in which a dispensation from the ordinary examinations should be given. Does the hon. Member know that the same thing exists in the case of other persons—as, for instance, clerks of the learned Judges—who are paid salaries, not by the Judges, but by the State, and who are in the same way dispensed from any examination? Then the hon. Member said there was the question of retainers. He seems to think that a retainer from a particular solicitor is a retainer for all time. That is not so. The retainer is the retainer of the client and not the retainer of the solicitor, and therefore the exception mentioned in the Minute merely means that where a counsel has been retained by a particular client before his acceptance of office he is enabled to act for that client in that particular case.
  SIR H. JAMES: There are general retainers?
  SIR C. RUSSELL: The number of general retainers is extremely limited.
  MR. HANBURY: Supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman has a retainer from a Railway Company, will he be at liberty to appear in all cases from that Company?
  SIR C. RUSSELL: Yes; but the number of general retainers is limited. The hon. Member was anxious about the enormous increase of fees that will result from this Minute. I do not hesitate to say that I hope my hon. Friend is right, but I am greatly afraid that he is entirely wrong. I will point out to the Committee the only change which has been made. The old Minute was that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General should receive any fee

  87
  which any other Queen's Counsel might properly accept.
  MR. HANBURY: Of "average standing"?
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I am giving the substance of it. The only difference made in the new Minute is that each of these officers is to be entitled to such fees as counsel of like standing may be expected to receive. Whether that will have the effect of increasing the fees or not I do not know, but I sincerely hope it will. I want to know this from the Committee: whether, if the Law Officers are entitled to be paid for outside business — if that is admitted — should they, acting for the Crown, be paid on a different and inferior scale to what they would have been paid upon if they had been retained by a private client? I do not think it is the opinion of the Committee that they should. I fail to see why those serving the State should be paid on a lower basis than if they were acting for private clients. I have, perhaps, spoken at greater length than was necessary, but I hope I have given reasons why the Law Officers have not properly been made the subject of the very courteous but rather vehement attack of the hon. Member, and I hope the hon. Member will spare us the necessity of going into the Lobby in defence of our salaries on the present occasion.
  LORD R. CHURCHILLhere rose——
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  Whereupon MR. TIMOTHY M. HEALY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  And the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolution [13th March] reported.
SUPPLY—REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. 1892–93 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

    CLASS VII.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding
    88
    £11,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions and Committees, including Special Inquiries."
    Resolution read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the resolution be read a second time."

    MONETARY CONFERENCE IN BRUSSELS.
    SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I would appeal to the Government not to press this Report at this time of the evening (6.50). There was a very important question I wished to bring on in relation to a Vote passed last night, but I was excluded by the application of the Closure. The question is in connection with the Brussels Conference. I would ask the Government to fix the Report for a time when there can be a fair discussion.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As a point of Order, I would remind the House that the hon. Baronet has now exhausted his right to speak on the Report.
    SIR J. HIBBERT: I would appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press his objection to the Report. We have only one more day for the Supplementary Estimates, and there are still 14 or 15 Votes to be taken. I do not see what opportunity there will be for the hon. Baronet to discuss this question.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I think that is a very vague reply to offer to the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet has had his notice down on the Paper for several days, and not only that, but if there is a Member of the House more entitled to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon this important subject than another, it is my hon. Friend, who was one of the delegates to the Brussels Conference. He took a most prominent part in all these proceedings and he was most anxious to take part in the Debate which occurred in the House about a week ago.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman objects, the Report of Supply cannot be taken now. Does the right hon. Gentleman object?
    MR. CHAPLIN: Certainly.
    It being after ten minutes to Seven of the clock, and Objection being taken to

    89
    Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. CONYBEARE: I wish, Sir, with your permission, to utter one word of explanation in reference to a sneer, if I may so gay, used yesterday by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who in bringing before the House a letter addressed to a certain newspaper made use of these words:—" Unfortunately the hon. Member who sent the letter is not in his place to-day. I should have supposed that after writing such a letter he would have made it his duty to be in his place. I have not had the opportunity of communicating with him." If the hon. Member had communicated with his Whips he would have known that I had paired, and that I went down to Liverpool on Saturday afternoon to fulfil certain public engagements. The letter in question was written in the train as I went to Liverpool, and I had no possible means of knowing either that it would be published or that it would be brought before this House.
STANDING COMMITTEE-ON LAW, &c.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.— (Sir George Osborne Morgan.)
POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 156.)
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 159.)
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Coinage (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law as to the endowment of the Archdeaconry of Cornwall." [Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill [Lords.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES), LAW, &c.
SIR JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Haldane; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. H. L. W. Lawson.
TRADE, &c.
SIR JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacture; the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Bill:—Mr. Butcher, Mr. Cayzer, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Flynn, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Heneage, Sir Henry Howorth, Sir Seymour King, Mr. Walter M'Laren, Mr. MacInnes, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Mather, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Mr. Woods.
EVENING SITTING.

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES.
  MR. BURNIE: I had given notice to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, an unreasonable Rate or Charge made by a Railway or Canal Company should be declared illegal; and that under the Board of Trade, a cheap, simple, and expeditious mode of determining, in cases of dispute, what is a reasonable Rate or Charge should be established."
  I wish to explain that I have been prevented from moving this by the fact that a somewhat similar resolution was moved earlier in the Session. Had it not been for this restriction I should certainly have moved the Resolution and pressed it to a division, because I hold that unless Parliament deals with the question promptly, serious injury will be caused to British trade and commerce.

THE HOP INDUSTRY.
MR. BROOKFIELD*MR. BROOKFIELD (Sussex, Rye), who had given notice to move the following:
"To call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry should be carried out without any further delay,"

91
said, his first duty was to thank the Government and their supporters for the strong interest they appeared to manifest in the question. Still, he could not pretend to believe that the auguries were exactly propitious for a very protracted debate or even adequate discussion. He felt encouraged, however, by recalling that on July 5 1889, under equally ominous conditions, he succeeded with the assistance of the Member for the Faversham Division of Kent in carrying a Motion for a Select Committee, The Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the causes which had produced a steady decrease in the amount of land under hop cultivation and the serious displacement of labour occasioned thereby, and to report as to the best means, if any, of providing a remedy. He proposed on this occasion to confine himself strictly to the Motion before the House—to the recommendation of the Select Committee which sat in accordance with the Resolution to which he had referred. But it would not be out of place for him to say in almost a single sentence that the hop industry occupied such an exceptional position that that was why they felt justified from time to time in calling attention to it, and in urging on the House the claim of the industry to exceptional treatment. The hop industry, speaking relatively, furnished per acre a greater amount of labour all the year round than any other branch of agriculture. Not only so, but the rate of pay in it was higher than that given for ordinary labour. While a hundred acres of pasture land furnished employment for not even one man, and a hundred acres of arable land only required four men, the same quantity under hop cultivation furnished remunerative employment all the year round, more or less, for from 35 to 50 men. And owing to the nature of the employment the wives and children could assist in a very material degree. It had been found that an ordinary single labouring man employed in hop growing could earn about £40 a year; that he might even earn with piece-work, which he could easily obtain, £50 a year, and that if he was a dryer he could make his earnings up to £50 or £60 a year. The "dryers" employed in "pocketting" could earn £5 or £6 more. Unfortunately the steady decrease of which they complained in 1889 had continued. The soli-
92
tary recommendation of the Select Committee had never been attended to, and the state of things continued as bad as ever. The hop acreage of Great Britain was slightly greater than in 1891, but the present total, 56,259 acres, was still considerably below the acreage before 1889. In Kent, indeed, there had been a loss of 206 acres since 1891. The Kentish area, 34,000 acres, was now nearly 4,000 acres short of the acreage of 20 years ago. That meant a loss of remunerative employment to at least 1,600 men. The Select Committee to which he referred took a great deal of evidence, and the recommendation they made was that "hop substitutes," when used, should be declared. Lame and impotent though that recommendation might appear to those best acquainted with the real wants of the trade, it was not possible that a recommendation could have been made in simpler or clearer terms. In moving for the Select Committee, his colleagues and himself had directed attention to many matters which they considered of far greater consequence, but the majority chose to differ from them, and also from the majority of the witnesses. The persons who gave evidence before the Committee were most of them, of course, interested in the growth of hops—owners and occupiers of land. But there was another very valuable class of witnesses; he meant the scientific witnesses—the chemists and analysts. He would show the connection which these witnesses drew between the decrease of the acreage and the adoption of substitutes. One witness, named Best, was a large hop grower in Worcestershire, which had been lately overtaking Kent in the cultivation of this very remunerative crop. This witness attributed the decline in the demand for hops to the use of substitutes. Being asked by the Chairman—
"Do you think that hop substitutes are largely used?"
The witness answered—
"They are largely used by a certain class of brewers; not by the important brewers, but they are largely used by a certain class of brewers."
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present.
House adjourned at twenty minutes after Nine o'clock till To-morrow.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl Beauchamp,—after the death of his father.
The Lord Lovel and Holland (E. Egmont)—Took the Oath.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SANDFORD: I beg to ask the Lord President whether, in view of the proceedings at the inquiry recently held by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors into the school supply of Farnham, he will state (1) for how many children the Education Department requires school accommodation to be provided in a parish with a population of 12,000; and (2) on what basis this accommodation in schools which have hitherto been in receipt of annual grants is now calcu-
  2
  lated? He reminded the House that a short conversation had taken place there on the 10th February upon a question put by Lord Norton to the Lord President with respect to a Circular issued by the Education Department, which had caused apprehension and alarm among managers of voluntary schools. In that feeling he shared, and still more strongly now than at that date, because, though in answer to the question the Lord President's statement that it was merely a circular of inquiry went at first sight to diminish the apprehensions of Voluntary School managers and teachers, yet on the very next day reason was given why it should not be regarded in that light. For on the following day appeared a long and detailed report of a meeting of the National Education Association which had been held in London on the 3rd February. He had not previously heard of the Association, and at first supposed it was one of the societies, congresses, or bodies which in the last 20 years had from time to time sprung up to attack the National system of education prevail-

  3
  ing in the country for three-fifths of the children in our schools, and based upon voluntary effort and definite religions instruction. Among the members, not merely of the Association but of its Executive, he found belonging to the present Government two Cabinet Ministers, four Under-Secretaries of State, two Parliamentary Secretaries, two Junior Lords of the Treasury; and of the last Liberal Government, one Cabinet Minister, three Under-Secretaries, one Junior Lord of the Treasury, and the Solicitor-General— in all 17 Members of the present and past Liberal Administrations, not including the Vice-President of the Council, who had very properly, on succeeding to office, left his place on the Executive of the Association. Seeing the constitution of its Governing Body, he read the speeches delivered at the meeting. Mr. Lyulph Stanley, whose knowledge of and interest in educational matters was so well known, was in the chair. The main object of the meeting was to express the regret of the Association at losing the services of Mr. Acland, and to congratulate him upon his entrance into the Government with a batch of new administrative laws in his portfolio. The second subject was a laudation of this Circular No. 321, which their Lordships had been told was merely a Circular of inquiry. Referring to this Circular issued by the Department, it was stated at the meeting by the Chairman that it was of the greatest importance and would probably within the present year produce immense results, requiring the Inspectors, as it did—
  "To report faithfully upon the real structure and real accommodation of the schools"—
  as if they had not done so in the past; and further, that—
  "The absolutely inadequate amount of 8 square feet per child had been employed to enable all sorts of unsuitable and insanitary buildings to be used year after year by representing that they possessed a far larger amount of accommodation than they were absolutely fit-to furnish."
  That was hardly language which would be used in reference to a mere circular of inquiry. Then came a detailed statement of bad cases of neglect on the part of the Education Department which called for inquiry in enforcing the provisions for sufficient accommodation. Among those bad cases was Farnham,
  4
  and the spirit by which the Association was actuated was shown by the statement that at Farnham the Bishop and the Nonconformists were always embracing. Evidently Mr. Stanley and the Association were not of opinion that this was a mere circular of inquiry. Many parents held that secular instruction without religious education did not deserve the name of education at all, but this did not apply to schools throughout the country in which the 3,000,000 out of the 5,000,000 children were receiving it, though a mere fraction of their parents' definite religious instruction. Inquiry was called for on the part of the Department into the school provision at Farnham, and the Association not only called for inquiry, but were kind enough in the report of the Executive to lay down instructions as to how the Inspectors were to conduct it. They said:—
  "The Inspector, in reporting upon the supply of their districts, should be instructed to disregard the inadequate basis on which the Voluntary Schools are measured, and to calculate all the Voluntary Schools by their seat supply, in accordance with Regulation 72."
  In other words, the obnoxious Circular 321. The meeting of this Association, which comprised 17 members of the Liberal Administration, having been held on the 3rd February, and the report of its proceedings issued on the 11th, the inquiry, presumably under the instructions of the Association, came off in the week 20th to 26th February, so that the Department was not long in acting upon the instructions of the Association, which, in fact, looking at its constitution, might be called in these days of co-operation a joint or auxiliary department. The Inspector came down; it was agreed to take the population of Farnham at 12,000; and he laid down the law that for that population school places to the extent of one-fifth, that was 2,400, ought to be provided. The existing school places he took at 1,943, showing a deficiency of 457. But he went on to disallow a corrugated-iron room at St. Thomas's, which held a certain number of children and five class rooms in the National and the British Schools, on the ground that they were below the minimum size prescribed by Circular 321. That added 205 places to his previous requirement, making 650. Testing that

  5
  by the previous requirements of the Department, the report for 1891–92 issued just before the late Government went out of office, stated that to meet the wants of the children for whom schools are provided, and who constitute one-fifth of the total population, the number of school places provided ought to be one-sixth. That was not a new rule, but had been repeated in Reports year by year, and the Department had dwelt upon the great advance made in Elementary Education under it. He, therefore, desired to know how it came about and under what authority one-fifth was to be substituted for one-sixth. This was a very serious matter for a place like Farnham with a population of 12,000, whore the Inspector admitted there were 1,943 seats according to the present rules, and where a voluntary effort might easily be made to supply the deficiency of 57 and make up the number of 2,000. The Inspector had not taken into account the fact that there were at the time 453 vacant places. This was a matter affecting the whole country, and would mean that 6,000,000 school places must be provided, instead of 5,000,000 as at present. Accepting for the moment for the Voluntary Schools the measurement of 10 feet, instead of 8 feet, accommodation existed for 5,200,000 children, and 1,000,000 seats were already vacant, which with the 1,000,000 to be added under the one-fifth rule would give an excess of 2,000,000 seats. Mr. Stanley was very fond of talking about the unsuitable and insanitary conditions attending the 8 square feet measurement, but the Prussian rule was only 6½ foot, and the Prussian soldiers who had marched so rapidly over France were neither weakly nor without education. Another astonishing point to which Mr. Stanley referred in his speech was that Mr. Acland had laid it down that he would not consider there was a free school place available for a child if the number on the roll of the school in question was equal to the accommodation of the school. Therefore, notwithstanding, there were always 20 places vacant out of 100, no child could claim admittance if 100 scholars were on the roll. It was easy to see what dishonest uses might be made of that rule, by retaining
  6
  names on the books of the school, as had been done in the case of a London school where the master had declined to receive a dirty boy. He thought, therefore, he was entitled to ask for definite replies to his questions. Places like Farnham or Cheltenham were not like the densely-crowded districts of London or Manchester. The circumstances and population of Farnham wore quite normal, and the one-sixth rule would very properly apply to it.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONdesired, on behalf of the neighbourhood immediately adjoining Farnham, to express his gratitude to the noble Lord for the interest he had taken in this question. The population of Farnham had doubled within his own recollection, and a very keen interest was felt just now in the educational requirements of the district. Public meetings had been held in order to put the case before the inhabitants as fully and fairly as possible, and it was the general feeling that but scant attention had been paid to those requirements by the Department. He hoped that some arrangement would be arrived at which would not conflict with the interests of an improving town. At present a feeling existed there that what had taken place hitherto had been dictated by the somewhat peculiar educational views which the Vice-President of the Council was known to entertain.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (the Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I must begin by saying that I think nothing could be more reasonable and fair than what the noble Viscount has said, and I am certain it is the wish of the Department to take fully into consideration the desires of Farnham. I believe it is perfectly true, that it is wished in Farnham the schools should be put on a satisfactory footing, and every attention will be paid to the matter by the Department. The noble Lord who has asked the question seems to be animated by a strong desire to prevent the schools from being made thoroughly efficient. I cannot construe what he has said to-night and on a former occasion in any other way. He has attacked in strong language, without notice to me, the Circular which has been issued, which he called the "ob-

  7
  noxious Circular," and I have no doubt it is obnoxious to the noble Lord. The meaning of that Circular is to obtain for the Department correct information on which can be founded fair and reasonable action for bringing up to a satisfactory state schools deficient in accommodation or sanitary arrangements, and that is what I understand makes the noble Lord indignant against it. For my own part I strongly hope that the result will be to bring a variety of schools into a better condition; and any one who has the well-being of education at heart will not sympathise, I am sure, with the extreme fear of the noble Lord in regard to some expense being thrown upon those connected with schools, which are, to a large extent, supported out of the public purse, in order to put them in the condition they ought to be in. I am aware that there was a considerable number of schools which were formerly reported as in a fairly satisfactory state. But is the country to stand still for over in this matter? Is no advance to be made in the condition of the schools? Such a position would be absolutely intolerable. It would be unreasonable, of course, to suddenly require all the schools throughout the country to come up to the standard which the Department thinks a proper one; but the noble Lord must be prepared for a considerable number of cases occurring in which it is absolutely necessary that the schools should be brought to a higher standard. With regard to Farnham, the Bishop of Winchester by no means disapproved of this investigation being made. In ordinary cases the Department is satisfied with provision for one-sixth of the total population, but in the case of Farnham, where there was a population of 12,240, there are actually 2,187 children (considerably more than one-sixth) on the books of public elementary schools, and all the representatives of the locality whom the Inspector mot thought that it would be reasonable to require 2,400 places. The accommodation in the existing schools is estimated on the basis laid down in the Code, which is that of eight square feet per child, in all the schools in Farnham; but about 200 places are not reckoned, as being either in class-rooms too small to be healthy or in a corrugated iron schoolroom only temporarily recognised. If any mistake or error has been
  8
  made in the inquiry which has taken place I am perfectly confident that the matter will be fairly considered. I will not give the noble Lord so little credit for zeal in the interests of education as to suppose he has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary children should be taught in places not properly adapted for their health, or that he does not consider it right, when the matter has been investigated, that the school should be brought up to the proper standard. That is all I have to say in the matter. I have not seen the report of the Association, and I am quite ignorant of the proceedings he has referred to. I have the greatest possible respect for Mr. Lyulph Stanley's zeal and ability in educational matters, but he is perfectly at liberty to express his opinions on the subject, though I may not feel bound to accept those opinions. I have had the honour to be a member of that Association, but I do not know that we ought to be guided in the Department by what passes in bodies which are not responsible, beyond this, that when opinions are expressed by gentlemen who take great interest in these matters attention should undoubtedly be given to what they desire. More than that I do not wish to say.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid on the question of an iron schoolroom being healthy, such structures had for five years been recognised as schools; and he would like to know whether the managers of the iron school had been warned that its fate was sealed; otherwise no time had been given to replace it by voluntary effort.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Lord must really excuse me. I cannot answer that question without notice.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that if the noble Lord were to manage his own Department all would be well, but the Managers of Voluntary Schools were naturally suspicious of the Vice President of the Council, Mr. Acland, who was a deserter from the Church of England, of which he had been a clergyman, and who, therefore, was the last person who ought to have been appointed to that post. Though the Lord President said he was not under the influence of the gentleman mentioned

  9
  (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), he rather thought Mr. Acland was under that influence.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid in reference to the requirements of the Department, the sanitary considerations should certainly not be ignored in schools and class-rooms. A larger number of the latter, separately, were called for, in which the multifarious branches of knowledge now taught in so-called elementary schools could be imparted. He agreed entirely with the Lord President in thinking that legislation in connection with educational matters should not stand still, and he was pleased to observe that the Department over which the noble Earl presided continued to exercise more and more common sense in its requirements. Children were very properly no longer required to make perfectly uniform progress in each of the three R's. Nothing could be more absurd or unpractical than to expect them to do so year by year. Still he considered that rather more flexibility in the architectural requirements would often be an advantage as regards convenience, economy, and beauty. But it was gratifying to see the great improvement which had been made in the administration of the Department during the last two years.

THE EDUCATION CODE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTONasked the President of the Council how many days the Education Code had already been laid on the Table without being printed and circulated; and what information would be given of rules to be laid down as to the qualification to be required for teachers of drawing in elementary schools. He said the new Education Code (which was issued every year), had lain on the Table for some days without their Lordships knowing anything about it. Every successive Vice President of the Council sought to immortalise himself by attaching his name to a new edition of the Code. This process of legislation by incubation, as it might be called, was very dangerous, even in trifling matters, but National Education was a most important subject, and in actual cost, including voluntary contributions, involving an expenditure of £10,000,000
  10
  annually, and it should not be left to Departmental treatment merely lying on the Table in dummy for 40 days. Parliament should not legislate in the dark on such a subject. Some of their Lordships, if they knew what the document was, might not wholly approve of it, or might wish to move it off the Table altogether. It was not only the Education Department in Whitehall which laid such eggs on the Table to hatch, but these rules and instructions relative to National Education collected together from no less than five different Departments of the State. In reference to drawing, they came from South Kensington. He was led to bring this matter before the House by a letter from a school manager in the Midlands asking him to get certain alterations made in the rules referring to drawing. He could not ascertain what was meant, as no paper on the subject was before the House. The Code itself did not comprise the whole subject by any means, for there were auxiliary regulations emanating from other Departments which did not appear in it at all. He begged now to be informed where to find the rules and regulations relating to drawing in Elementary Schools, and to the qualifications required for the teachers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must say I agree with the noble Lord that it is not a convenient practice that the Code should be laid before Parliament and not distributed as soon as possible, for the reasons he has given. The Code was laid on the Table on the 27th of February. I will make further inquiry to see whether the distribution can be accelerated. It is intended to give an opportunity for discussion. No technical qualification is at present required for teachers of drawing in elementary schools. No change has been made in the new Code in this respect.

SCHOOL OF COOKERY AT ALDERSHOT

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF STRAFFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for War where the instructors at the Aldershot School of Cookery received their instruction. He hoped the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State for War, would be able to answer the question in as

  11
  satisfactory a manner as that put upon the subject a week ago.
  LORD SANDHURST: The sergeant and an assistant, that is, another noncommissioned officer, passed through a course of Cookery at the National School of Cookery with very satisfactory results, and the War Office Authorities have every reason to be gratified at the courtesy shown them by the Executive of that body.

THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ARRANasked Her Majesty's Government when the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission would be laid on the Table of the House; and whether the statements on which the Report was founded would be laid on the Table at the same time. He said no doubt the report of the Commission would take some time to draw up, but there was no reason why the evidence, which was completed early in January, had not been produced after the Commission ceased to sit, and sufficient time had elapsed for correction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, the Report of the Commission, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, was laid on the Table on the 9th inst. It is understood that the printers forwarded from Dublin last night copies of the Report, and their distribution will follow in the ordinary course. The second volume, containing the evidence, will not be ready for distribution for at least a week. This matter, however, did not depend on the Government or the Commission, but on the arrangements made at the Stationery Office.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.