Sitting of 5 March 1895

Preamble
The House met shortly after Three of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether (1) a system of apprenticeship exists in the Marine Department of the Trinity House Service in which the apprentices are specially educated for the requirements of that service, and by examinations qualify as officers of their lighthouse and buoy steamers; (2) whether the Irish Lights Commissioners demand special training from their men before being promoted to the rank of officers, and whether qualifications or standards are required of them; (3) and whether the Board of Trade have sanctioned the Trinity House system, and do they require that officers in lighthouse services should undergo special training?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): The answer to the first question is yes; and the expense involved in the training of apprentices for the Trinity House Service is, like all other expenditure from the Mercantile Marine Fund, subject to the control of the Board of Trade, who, however, make no special requirements beyond such as the Trinity House impose. The Irish Lights Commissioners inform me that there are no apprentices in their Service; and that all officers in their service possess Board of Trade certificates of competency for the appointments they respectively hold.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman still adheres, after that answer, to the previous answer that the Board of Trade has no control over the Trinity House?
  Mr. BRYCE: I never made any such answer.

  THE IRISH BOARD OF LIGHTS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division
  372
  of Dublin (Mr. W. Field), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Irish Board of Lights is at present mainly constituted of members who have been co-opted, save and except the four representatives of the Dublin Corporation; (2) whether complaints have been recently received from Belfast, Queenstown, and Galway; (3) whether the Irish Lights Board is responsible to any authority; (4) and whether the Government will bring in a Bill this Session to reconstitute this Board?
  MR. J. BRYCE: The case is as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. Belfast, Cork, and other ports are desirous of having representatives on the Board of Irish Lights and have made representations to this effect, which are now under consideration. The Commissioners of Irish Lights are subject to the financial control of the Board of Trade, and cannot erect, place or alter lighthouses, buoys, or beacons, without the approval of the Trinity House, and the sanction as regards finance of the Board of Trade. The duty of initiating proposals rests with them. The constitution of the three Lighthouse Authorities in the United Kingdom has been brought before the Committee now sitting on the Mercantile Marine Fund, and I do not think I ought to come to a conclusion in the matter until I have seen their report. There seems little prospect that any legislation on the subject can be proposed this Session.

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. JOHN PENN: I beg to ask the Admiralty whether any requests for an increase in the engine-room complements have been received from the captains of Her Majesty's ships and, if so, what ships; and, whether any restrictions are placed upon the development of indicated horse-power during the Naval Manoœuvres?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THK ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): While it is not usual or necessary to make public the communications passing between captains of Her Majesty's ships and the Admiralty, I may inform the hon. Member that no question of any

  373
  importance has been raised since the Secretary to the Admiralty answered his question of the 19th March, I894; in special restrictions are imposed for manœuvres, and the regulations of horsepower laid down in the Queen's Regulations apply to ships whether commissioned for ordinary service or for manœuvres.

  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that 35 men have been recently discharged at Kingstown Harbour; and that only about five of those men received the allowance usually granted to men in the employment over 15 years, although many of the employees were in the work for a much longer period; whether those cases are under consideration; and whether certain work requires to be done at Carlisle Pier and other places?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): Twenty men have been discharged at Kingstown since May 1894, of whom 13 had 15 years' service. Of these seven were discharged for age or infirmity, and have received gratuities. The remaining six were, discharged in consequence of alterations in the system which rendered their services unnecessary. It has been decided after consideration that the Treasury has power to give gratuities in such cases, and it will be done. There is work being done by the Board at Carlisle Pier and elsewhere in Kingstown, but the number of hands employed is sufficient for it.

  THE IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report of the actuaries in charge of the investigation into the financial stability of the Irish National School has vet been completed; and if so with what result; and whether the report will be furnished to the House, and to the National teachers who contribute so largely to the fund?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Several reports have been received from the Actuaries. They are now considering certain questions which the Treasury has addressed to them, bearing on the extent to which the ultimate liabilities of the Fund exceed its assets,
  374
  and the best means of re-establishing its solvency. There is no reason to doubt that the Fund is sufficient to secure the full pension of every existing teacher. When the results are finally established they will be communicated to the teachers.

  ENGLISH GIRLS AT AMSTERDAM.
  MR. W. CROSFIELD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Nottingham, Rushcliffe (MR. JOHN ELLIS), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a report from the British Consul, Mr. Robinson, at Amsterdam, with respect to the case of the girl who alleged she was refused permission to remove her personal property on leaving a situation in that city; and, if so, what is its nature, and particularly what assistance did the Consul give to the girl in appealing for justice to the Dutch police authorites as suggested by him?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR E. GREY,): A report has been received. The Consul states that two girls called upon him and asked for his assistance in recovering their luggage, which had been detained by the proprietor of the Café Chantant "Casino." The Consul at once applied to the police, who readily gave what help they could, but it appeared that the proprietor had made advances to the girls, through the London Agent who engaged them, and refused to give up the luggage until he had been repaid. The girls stated that they left because they were expected to mix with the male visitors and to encourage them to drink, arid they considered that the London Agent had not given them a fair account of the situation. The proprietor said there was no dispute between him and them, except that he could not continue to employ them. The, third girl left some days ago for London, and it does not appear that she was detained against her will. The Consul seems to have given his attention directly he was appealed to, to have taken a good deal of trouble to get at the facts of the case, and to have done all that was possible in the circumstances which I have described.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary

  375
  of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a statement made by Annie Nightingale to Mr. Bushby at the Worship Street Police Court on Friday last, indicating a system of sending girls to the Continent for immoral purposes by an agent in York Road, Waterloo Road; whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the facts; and, whether he can inform the House what means, if any, are taken, or can be taken, to prevent such a traffic from being carried on?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,): From inquiries made by the police, I am unable to say that any offence punishable by law has been committed in this country. The agent Houghton, at the instance of the proprietor of the Damrack Music Hall, Amsterdam, engaged and sent out Alice Norton to fulfil an engagement there on January 16th, and Mr. Houghton has furnished the police with a letter from Norton in answer to Houghton's inquiries on the 20th, in which she did not say anything against the character of the music hall; and on 30th January Mrs. Nightingale and a Miss Stewart went out. Mrs. Nightingale repeated to the police the statements made before the magistrate. The girl Norton came back from Amsterdam, at her own expense, to refute the statement made in the newspapers for the sake of her family; but she returned to Amsterdam before she could be seen by the police. The police exercise the utmost vigilance in all cases where they have reason to believe that there is anything illicit or criminal of the kind suggested, but it would not be expedient to state what are the measures they take.
  MR. J. C. MACDONA: May I ask whether it is not the case that in some places on the Continent, girls who go over report themselves to the British Consul, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the, Foreign Office with a view to this practice being followed at Amsterdam?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  PRIVATE POST CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the only
  376
  objections to a reduction of the fee of 2s. 6d. per quire for stamping private post cards are the cost of additional machinery and the impossibility of providing additional space at Somerset House; whether the recent introduction of post cards with adhesive stamps has resulted in a very great diminution in the number of private post cards sent to Somerset House to be stamped; whether he has observed the statement in a Treasury Minute, dated 6th August 1894,on the effects of the permission to use adhesive stamps on private post cards, that the Post Office gains from an economical point of view; under the present system the small margin of profit (about £22,000) on the material is insufficient to cover the loss entailed by selling the cards, and any diminution in the supply of official cards will diminish the cost of handling, &c.; and, further, that the reduction in the stock will not only lead to a saving estimated at about £20,000 a year, &c., but will further set free a great amount of valuable space in Somerset House; and, whether, in order to extend the use of private post cards, and so diminish the loss on the sale of official post cards, he will recommend the reduction of the fee for stamping to a figure proportioned to the charges for stamping envelopes and book-post covers, and direct that some of the space saved at Somerset House shall be utilised, if necessary?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The objection to which my hon. Friend refers is not the only objection, but it is a serious one. Since the introduction of post cards with adhesive stamps the work of stamping post cards at Somerset House has so far diminished that the machine, which was at one time exclusively engaged in this stamping, will now be occasionally available for other work. It is a great advantage to have this reserve of mechanical power for times of pressure. I am acquainted with the Minute of August, 6th, but my hon. Friend is in error in referring to a saving of £20,000 a year. The reduction of stock, which was rendered possible by the extension of the contract, is in progress, and will lead to a saving of about £20,000 this year, and a similar amount next year. But there will be no annual saving after that. The economy of space has not proved as great as was expected, owing

  377
  to the fact that the diminished stock has been distributed over a relatively greater floor-space, the old system of packing having been discovered to be dangerous to the structure. Moreover, any space that has been, or may be, economised in Somerset House, is urgently wanted for the Inland Revenue Department, which is much cramped for room, the space under their control being barely sufficient for the discharge of the proper business of the Government.

  LABOURERS' PLOTS.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the Baltinglass (County Wicklow) Board of Guardians, in which it is alleged that the Arbitrator of the Board of Works has awarded for the Labourers' Plots taken in the union compensation at the rate of 30 years' purchase on the estimated annual value, or nearly 40 years' purchase upon the Government valuation; and, whether this statement is true; and, if so, by what rule, or basis of valuation, is the Arbitrator guided in such cases.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed by the Board of Works that the compensation awarded to owners and occupiers in the case in question amounts to about 30 years' purchase of the estimated value. The Board are not able to state the proportion borne by the compensation of the Poor Law valuation. Of the entire compensation, 20 years' purchase of the estimated value was awarded to the owners, in accordance with the proposal made by the Guardians in their schedule, and with the sworn evidence produced by them. The remaining 10 years' purchase was awarded to the occupying agricultural tenants. The schedule deposited by the Guardians, proposed that these tenants should receive a sum of £4 each all round, with additions in two cases for certain buildings. The Arbitrator was bound to inquire into the circumstances and character of each plot, and, having done so, carefully awarded to each tenant the sum to which he considered him entitled, which was in all cases in excess of the amount proposed by the Guardians.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, in view of the acute distress prevailing in many parts of Ireland, the Government will consider the question of granting loans to landlords and occupiers upon the same terms as loans were granted in 1881, and for the same purposes.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The question of granting loans in connection with, and as a means of alleviating, the distress existing in parts of Ireland, has been carefully considered by the Irish Government, and it has been decided that such a policy would be of doubtful benefit to the classes who are in want of employment, and would be open to other and obvious objections, some of which I pointed out in the course of the Debate on the Address, when the subject of distress was under discussion. I may point out that under the provisions of the 10th Vic., cap. 32, and the Land Law Act of 1881, large advances have been made to both owners and occupiers for land improvements, and that in the opinion of the Irish Government the provisions of these Acts, which are still operative, fully meet the cases of persons who require loans for such purposes.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any representations have reached him from the Killorglin district of county Kerry relative to the distress prevailing there; and, whether, with a view of giving temporary employment in the locality, one of the most congested in the county, and averting starvation in many families, he will consider the question of immediately finishing the Glasha and Knocknaboola roads, already begun by the Board of Works, so that they may be fit for traffic by the end of April?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Representations to the effect stated in the first paragraph have been received. Very careful inquiries have been made into the condition of this district, and the Local Government Board do not think that, at present, any necessity exists for adopting exceptional measures to relieve distress. The outdoor relief is normal, no fresh applications have, recently been made to the relieving officer, who reports favourably as to the condition of the

  379
  people. Potatoes at the last market in Killorglin were plentiful, the price ranging from 4d. to 4½,d. per stone. The people appear to be now all engaged on the spring work, which, it is stated, is going on well since the change of weather.
  MR. J. P. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to tin Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the destitution prevailing in the union of Castletown Beerhaven, county Cork, and whether he intends taking steps to alleviate it The hon. Member further asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the permission of the trustees of the Bantry estate had yet been obtained for the erection of the boat-slip at Trafrask.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board state that, so far as they have been able to ascertain, there is not at present any unusual destitution in this Union; that the fishing has been good, and with improved weather will be a great source of income to the people. The stoppage of the work on the boat-slip at Trafrask has caused some hardship to a number of families in that locality, but I was informed this morning by the Congested District Board that the permission of the trustees has now been obtained for the erection of the slip, and that directions have been given for the recommencement of work without delay.

  TWEED FISHERY ACTS.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able to state the steps which Her Majesty's Government propose to take in view of the general discontent arising out of the Tweed Fishery Acts, to place the Laws regulating the salmon fisheries of the valley of the Tweed and of the district adjacent to what is known to the Law as the mouth of the Tweed on a more satisfactory footing?
  MR. R. A. ALLISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the laws affecting the salmon fisheries in the Solway Firth, and the inequalities which exist between the English and Scotch sides of the estuary; and if he can say when the Commission will be appointed?
  MR. BRYCE: Her Majesty's Government are aware of the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the salmon fisheries of the Tweed and the Solway, and of the consequent need for fresh legislative provisions on the subject. I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and it is now proposed to advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to deal with the subject. The reference to the Commission will be as follows:—To inquire into the fisheries of the Solway Firth and the salmon and freshwater fisheries of the river and estuary of the Tweed, including all the portion of sea comprised in the operation of the present Solway and Tweed Acts, with the rights affecting the same, the methods of fishing there used, the nature of the said industry, together with the laws applying to the said fisheries; and to report thereon and make such recommendations relating thereto as they may think fit.
  MR. F. NAPIERasked whether the terms of reference would include the rivers Ettrick and Tevior.
  SIR D. MACFARLANEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would extend the scope of the inquiry to those other parts of Scotland where similar grievances existed.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the grievances in connection with the Solway Firth and the Tweed were somewhat different to those in other places, and, as they referred to a separate and distinct area, would have to be inquired into without raising other questions. He understood, however, that the inquiry would practically cover all the salmon and freshwater fisheries.
  DR. MACGREGORgave notice that he should move to include the rivers of Inverness.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the report of the proceedings of the Limerick Board of Guardians on Wednesday last, at which two resolutions were passed, as follows, first:—
  "That, having regard to the statements of the representatives of the pig trade in the South of Ireland, that there was no reason for continuing in force the recent Order of the Privy Council in reference to the sale of swine in Ireland;"

  381
  and, secondly—
  "That a resident inspector be appointed for Limerick by the Veterinary Department, having power to re-issue movement licences, and to extend the time for export of existing licences, and that the cost of inspecting and marking be defrayed out of the public funds;"
  and what effect will be given to those resolutions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Attention has been directed to the report of the proceedings of the Limerick Board of Guardians on Wednesday last, at which the two resolutions referred to in the question were passed. In regard to the first resolution it should be borne in mind that the Order has only been in force since the 11th February. The effect of its working is being closely watched by the Veterinary Department, and if, as I have already stated, it should be found that unnecessary restrictions are imposed on the bacon industry, the question of their modification will be considered. With respect, to the second resolution, it does not appear that there is any necessity to station an Inspector of the Department in Limerick for the purpose of issuing movement licences; but the Government will be prepared to approve the appointment by the Local Authority of any suitable person for the purpose. The cost of inspection and any other expenses that may be necessary for the carrying out of the Order in the Union are payable by the Local Authority as a part of their expenditure in the execution of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and the Orders there under. One half of the amount of such expenses will be recouped to them by the Veterinary Department from the General Cattle Diseases Fund. The marking of swine should be done by and at the expense of the owners.

  BOAT-SLIPS IN KERRY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Congested Districts Board will consider the advisability of constructing slips for canoes at Ardnaganna and Ballinrannig, in Smerwick Harbour?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Hoard inform me that they have been obliged to postpone for the present the consideration of the proposal to construct boat-slips at the places mentioned in the question.

  INFLUENZA.
  MR. J. AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he has seen his way to re-issue the Memorandum of 1892 as to the precautions advisable at times when epidemic influenza threatens or is prevalent; and if, during the prevalence of the epidemic, the Local Government Board have authorised, or if not, if they will authorise, medicine and additional restoratives being given to the sufferers?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir WALTER FOSTER, Derby, Ilkeston): In view of the further experience obtained by the Board's Medical Department since the issue of the Memorandum of 1892, I am of opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the re-issue of that document; and, having regard to the natural history of influenza, it is doubtful how far its prevention can be facilitated by the issue of an additional memorandum. But, as there appears to be a demand for some further guidance as to such measures of prevention as can be adopted, the Board's medical officer is now preparing a new memorandum, which shall be issued with the least practicable delay. The Board have not authorised medicines and restoratives being given to sufferers from influenza, and it does not appear to them that the circumstances are such as to render it necessary that they should adopt such an exceptional course.
  MR. AIRDasked whether the Local Government Board, in view of the distress in the Metropolis, would give further consideration to the question of authorising medicines and additional restoratives being given to the sufferers?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked what the hon. Gentleman meant by the natural history of influenza; did he mean the microbes?
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he would give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of reading the Memorandum. With regard to the previous question, he repeated to the hon. Member that the Board did not think it necessary to take such a course, but if any fresh evidence came before the Board calling present action, it should certainly be considered.

  THE HIGHLAND LAND BILL.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he

  383
  will introduce the Highland Land Bill, and take a First Reading upon it pending the issue of the Report of the Highlands and Islands Commission; and, can he explain why the issue of this Report is so long delayed, and can he take any steps to expedite its production?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): It is not proposed to introduce the Bill until the Report of the Highlands and Islands Commission is in the hands of Members. The maps are now in the hands of the Stationery Office, and will, no doubt, be issued at the earliest possible moment. In the opinion of the Government, the Commission has brought its work to a conclusion as soon as was compatible with its being thoroughly well done.
  DR. MACGREGORasked why the Report, which was agreed to two months before, had not been issued with more dispatch?
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, the delay was owing to the preparation of a number of valuable and important maps printed in different colours.
  DR. MACGREGORasked why the maps had not been put in hand long ago, in order to save this delay?
  MR. J. B. BALFOURexplained that that was done on the earliest opportunity. Some delay, was however, unavoidable, because these maps covered a large extent of territory.

  THE WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet decided as to the merits of the, claim for compensation made by the Commissioners of Fort William against the West Highland Railway Company for the non-fulfilment of the agreement understood to have been come to between parties, as to a roadway and footpath between the railway and the shore of the loch on which the town is situated.
  MR. J. BRYCE: The Board of Trade have no power to decide a claim for compensation for an alleged non-fulfilment of an agreement. The dispute between the parties appears to resolve itself into a purely legal question.
  DR. MACGREGORasked whether the Board of Trade were not able to interfere in this matter?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, they were not able to do so except as a mediator.

  ALLEGED ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the result of the recent visit of H.M.S. Starling to Barra to investigate complaints made by the local fishermen of depredations committed by trawlers within the three-mile limit; and, whether, in the interests of fishermen on the coasts of Barra, Harris, Skye, the Moray and Pentland Firths, what further means, in addition to the existing sea police, of protection is he prepared to supply in the circumstances?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR (answering in the absence of Sir G. O. TREVELYAN),said: Following on the representation made by the hon. Member to the Secretary for Scotland last month, H.M.S. Starling, under orders from the Admiralty, proceeded to Barra, but was unable to procure any definite proof of illegal trawling. She is now, it is understood, detailed for duty on the north coast of Skye, in consequence of complaints received from that quarter. I may add that as stated by the Secretary for Scotland in this House on the 21st ultimo, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are, in addition to the work done by the vessels placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board, rendering much assistance in despatching cruisers for the protection of the fishing industry.

  ROADS IN THE HEBRIDES.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will be able, to render further help this year toward making roads in the outlying portions of the Hebrides, especially the Uists, Benbecula, and Harris, where in many districts there are not even footpaths to enable children to attend the schools in safety?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The Secretary for Scotland hopes to have a certain sum placed at his disposal for the general purpose indicated, but I am unable on his behalf to make any statement at present as to how the money will be allocated.

  FEUS AND LEASES IN SCOTLAND.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Government contemplates legislating this Session on the lines of the Report made to Parliament by the Select Committee on Feus and Leases in Scotland; and if he can state when a Bill on this subject is likely to be submitted for the consideration of the House?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: A Bill has already been prepared to give effect to one of the most important recommendations of the Commission—namely, to provide for the acquisition by Local Authorities, voluntarily or compulsorily, of land for workmen's houses; and also to simplify the procedure for the acquisition by Local Authorities of land for the purposes for which they have already power to acquire it. The Bill will probably be introduced shortly.

  THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government are prepared to assent to the Resolution lately passed by the Board of Education in Ireland, and thus to facilitate the extension of grants to the schools of the Christian Brothers and to Church schools?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am quite unable to make any statement upon this subject at present.
  MR. T. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a copy of the Resolution passed by the Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, I have seen it, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that nothing will be gained by hurrying a discussion upon this subject.
  COLONEL NOLAN: May I hope to have an answer to the question next week?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I should say that hope would be very vain indeed.

  CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY PENSIONS.
  MAJOR, RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many Crimean and Mutiny men have applied for the special pension; how many have received it; how many have applied from workhouses; and, if
  386
  only 100 are granted yearly, how long the last man applying will have to wait?
  SIR J. LENGasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the rapidly diminishing numbers of Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans, it can be arranged to grant special pensions to all such as are certified to be well-conducted and deserving men in need of assistance, even if not absolutely destitute.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The Secretary of State is in communication with the Treasury on this subject, and he hopes, in making his statement on the introduction of the Army Estimates, to be able to announce to the House the decision arrived at.

  THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND MR. SADLER.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what salary Mr. Sadler is paid, and out if which Vote until 31st March, 1895; and why, as this is a fresh office, it is not included in the Supplementary Estimates?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): Mr. Sadler does not enter upon duty till the beginning of the new financial year, and his salary will only run from that date. Hence there is no charge on this year's estimates. The salary is £650, rising by annual increments of £25 to £800.
  MR. BARTLEYasked whether it was not a fact that 300 Inspectors, all of whom were suitable, to fill the office, had been passed over by the appointment of Mr. Sadler.
  MR. ACLAND: The most suitable was selected for the office.

  IMPORTATION OF ARMS INTO BRASS.
  MAJOR DARWIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether 1,500 rifles were lately imported into Brass, in the Niger Coast Protectorate; and whether such importation is contrary to the Brussels Act; and, if so, whether a searching inquiry will be made into the whole circumstances connected with such importation?
  SIR E. GREY: Such importation is contrary to the Brussels Act, and, as was stated last Thursday, the question of how the natives came to be possessed of a large quantity of arms of precision is one of the circumstances which will be inquired into.

  CONLAN ESTATE, COUNTY WEXFORD.
  MR. P. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Conlan estate, County Wexford, were in treaty, in Mr. Justice Monroe's Court, to purchase their holdings under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act; that the Norwich Assurance Company has been permitted to step in and purchase the property at a less price than the tenants were willing to pay; and that this company has proceeded to issue ejectments and writs against the tenants; and whether, in the interests of the peace of the locality, and to prevent charges on the ratepayers for extra police, he will be prepared to recommend that the tenants be permitted to purchase their holdings on this estate as originally agreed upon?
  MR. J. MORLEY: This question was only placed on the paper this morning, and, as I have not had sufficient time to inquire into the facts, I must ask my hon. Friend to defer the question until Thursday.

  ST. MARK'S NATIONAL SCHOOL, FINSBURY.
  MR. T. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the sanction given by the Education Department, in October, 1891, to the St. Mark's National School, Old Street, Finsbury, to charge a fee of twopence per scholar, under section 4 (1) of the Education Act, 1891, was given on the assurance conveyed by the managers in their letter of 1st September, 1891, that they had provided for French, shorthand, book-keeping, science, and advanced vocal music to be taught; (2) whether the promised subjects of instruction have appeared in the school time table for any year since October, 1891; and (3) whether, seeing that the report of the school for the year ending 30th April, 1894, shows that these subjects were not
  388
  taught during that year, and that no children were presented in specific subjects, he intends to continue his sanction to the special fee?
  MR. ACLAND: The statements in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question are correct. T am not able on such brief notice to give precise details as to school time tables for the years since 1891; but it appears from the correspondence, that last year, at all events, no classes were being held in either the boys' or the girls' school in any of these subjects, nor were any children presented in specific subjects. The managers were, therefore, informed by the Department on the 18th December last that the sanction to special fees would be withdrawn as from the end of the school year now current, and that thenceforth any fees charged must be within the limit prescribed by Section 2 of the Act of 1891.

  CHARGES OF INTIMIDATION IN COUNTY CAVAN.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a meeting of the Irish National Federation was held on 6th December, 1894, near Virginia, county Cavan, at which the hon. Member for Cork (as reported in the Drogheda Independent of 8th December, 1894) urged the establishment of a branch that would rouse public opinion against landgrabbers in the neighbourhood, and make them feel that it was not the pleasantest way of passing one's life; whether he is aware that subsequently a placard headed "Down with landgrabbing and the grass taking of evicting landlords" was extensively posted in the neighbourhood of Virginia; that certain persons are being prosecuted for acts of intimidation towards Hugh Moore, of Lisnafund; whether Mr. Fitzsimons who moved a resolution at the meeting above mentioned, is the Mr. Fitzsimons who has recently been appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the county Cavan; whether Mr. Tierney, who presented an address to the hon. Member for Cork on the same occasion, is the Mr. Tierney who has recently been appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the county Cavan; and whether the prosecution of those

  389
  proceeded against for intimidating Hugh Moore will be brought before the Petty Sessions at which these magistrates are entitled to sit; and, if so, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the matter, and will steps be taken to prevent these magistrates taking part in the proceedings of the Court before which these prosecutions are to be brought?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are substantially as stated. The prosecutions referred to will, it is expected, be heard on the 7th inst., and will take place at a sessions at which Messrs. Fitzasimons and Tierney are entitled to sit as magistrates. It does not, however, appear that either of these gentlemen is implicated in the proceedings in respect of which the prosecutions now pending have been directed. Should the Lord Chancellor, who has been communicated with, have any reason to think otherwise, he will take any steps that may be necessary.

  THE MARQUESS OF SLIGO AND COTENANCY.
  CAPTAIN DONELLAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Tipperary, Mr. William O'Brien, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the system of co-tenancy on the estate of the Marquess of Sligo, by means of which the landlord evades his legal liability for poor rates on holdings valued at or under £4 a year by combining a number of small holders in one tenancy; (2) is he aware that occupiers valued at less than £4 are thus charged with poor rates, from which the 6th and 7th Vic. c. 92 directed they should be exempted, and that they are at the same time declared ineligible to vote for Poor Law Guardians, and have no voice in the administration of the poor rates, which they are wrongfully compelled to pay; (3) are these co-tenants at present imploring the Government for assistance to save them from starvation; (4) whether the name of the Marquess of Sligo as immediate lessor appears on the face of the rate books as the person primarily answerable for poor rates in such cases; (5) will directions be given to the rate collectors to proceed against the immediate lessor for the future for the
  390
  recovery of the rates; and will any provision be made in the forthcoming Land Bill to prevent evasions of the law in such cases by means of so-called "voluntary agreements?"
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware that the Poor Relief (Ireland) Commissioners in 1887 called attention to the system of co-tenancy and the payment of Poor Rates on the property of the Marquess of Sligo. As to the second and fourth paragraphs, the Local Government Board are informed by the clerk of the Union that there are yet a number of cotenancies on this estate, and in all cases where such holdings are valued under £4, Lord Sligo is rated as immediate lessor primarily liable for the rate. He does not, however, pay the Poor Rates. These are paid by the occupiers, who, being valued under £4 and not being rated, are not entitled to vote at Poor Law elections. Lord Sligo lodges a statement of claim to vote as immediate lessor liable for rates in respect of the holdings of these under-rated tenants. As to the fifth paragraph, directions have frequently been given to collectors to proceed against Lord Sligo for the rates due by him as immediate lessor. The guardians took proceedings by Civil Bill against him for the amount due, as a test case, in 1881. The case was dismissed at Quarter Sessions, and an appeal was then lodged by the guardians and heard at Mayo Spring Assizes in 1881. The appeal was dismissed and the occupiers declared liable for the rates on the ground that the townland was held in one letting as a co-tenancy, and that the valuation book did not show a separate area of holding for each tenant, although the valuation of each was given separately. Similar decisions have been given by Judges of Assize on two occasions since then, and, as Lord Sligo has therefore three decisions in his favour, the tenants continue to pay the rates for which he is rated as immediate lessor. The Poor Relief Commissioners reported that, although it is a fact that in some cases the rent has been reduced by the Land Commissioners in consequence of the arrangement between Lord Sligo and his tenants,
  "still, as rates have a tendency to rise in these years of depression, it is likely that the tenant whose rent was reduced some years ago will bear an undue share of Public taxation."

  391
  Regarding the third paragraph, applications for relief works have been receiver from the districts in which Lord Sligo's property is situated, and an inspector of the Local Government Board is at present engaged investigating the alleged distress. With respect to the concluding paragraph, the Land Bill does not provide for these cases. It would require new Poor Law legislation to make provision for the case of tenants holding "in co." under a landlord. Although each of the tenants contributes his quota of rent, the Judges on appeal have decided that these are not separate tenancies valued at £4 or under within the meaning of the Poor Law Acts. It is obvious the matter can only be remedied by an amendment of the Poor Laws.

  HOME RULE FOR SCOTLAND.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will consider the expediency of devoting a fair share of Parliamentary time this Session to Scottish legislation; (2 failing this, will he consider the alternative of introducing a measure giving Home Rule to Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): In answer to the first part of the question, Her Majesty's Government will certainly consider the matter, as they desire to carry it out. As to the second part of the question, as I have answered the first part in the affirmative, the alternative is not likely to arise.
  DR. MACGREGORasked whether Home Rule all round would not be a better cry to go to the country with than the House of Lords.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I can hardly consider that a supplementary question.

  MINISTERS AND THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR S. KING: I have a question on this paper addressed to the Secretary of State for India as to the grievances of the Indian Staff Corps, but I do not see the right hon. Gentleman present. I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House whether he will make arrangements for Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for India to be answered.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, it would be a convenience if they could be informed when Ministers were to be absent. Members came down to put questions, and it was not too much to ask that they might be informed if it was not convenient to answer. ["Hear, hear," and "Oh."]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Member is a little exacting. I only heard about a half an. hour ago that the Secretary for War is disabled. Unfortunately these maladies occur rather suddenly, and I regret to see absentees from the Front Bench opposite. We really have no control in this matter.
  MR. TALBOT: But a note might be left with the doorkeeper.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the hon. Member and his friends will have a little consideration.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what business will be taken on Thursday and Friday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We propose to go on with the Estimates on Thursday, and on Friday we shall propose to go on with some of the smaller Bills.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to have the Local Veto Bill before Easter; and, if so, will the right lion. Gentleman state what day?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot say what day, but certainly before Easter.
  SIR C. DILKE: Are we to understand that the Supplementary Estimates will first be finished?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Certainly.
  SIR C. DILKE: I suppose some notice will be given whether it is intended to take the Army or Navy Estimates first?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not imagine we can take them this week.
  MR. BRODRICK: Which will be taken first?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Probably the Army Eestimates will be taken first. We are in this unfortunate condition, that at this moment the Secretary for War and the Secretary for the Navy are both laid up.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETTES ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893.
  Bill presented accordingly, and read a first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 159]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES).
  SIR W. HARCOURTOrder read.—For resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th March], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make Better Provision for the Settlement of Trade Disputes."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  SIR J. E. GORSTsaid, he had no desire to interfere between the House and the Introduction of this Bill, but they might not have another opportunity of discussing it this Session. The Government might, indeed, make some efforts to bring it to the Second Reading, and then relegate it to the massacre of the innocents. This was one of the two great social questions which they had heard so much of inside the House and so little outside. The question of the distress caused by want of employment had been referred to a Select Committee; but the second of the great, pressing, important social questions was the stopping of trade disputes; and it was with the view of putting an end to trade disputes which the President of the Board of Trade had described as being most injurious not only to the welfare of the country, but to the welfare of all the workers in the country that this Bill had been introduced. This was not the first Bill of the kind which the present Government had brought in. There was a Bill in the Session of 1893, and another Bill in the Session of 1894. Those Bills, the right hon. Gentleman would admit, were absolute shams. They were introduced, not with the object of dealing with an important question, but in order that the Government might be able to say in the country that, they had brought in a
  394
  Bill to deal with the question. The outside of the Bill contained a very important and significant title; it was described as "A Bill to deal with Conciliation and the Arbitration of Trade Disputes," but the interior of the Bill was an absolute blank. It contained nothing but powers which were elaborately given by Parliament, to the Beard of Trade to do something which the Board of Trade was perfectly capable of doing without any Parliamentary powers at all. What were those Bills brought in for? In order that the Government might be able to say that they had introduced Bills to establish tribunals of arbitration and conciliation to deal with trade disputes, and to enable the Government to tell the people out of doors that those Bills would have become law if it had not been for the obstruction of the Opposition. Even the Prime Minister was not ashamed at Glasgow to say that his Party had introduced a Bill in the House of Commons which, if it had become law, would have stopped the coal strike, and that Bill had not become law because it was obstructed by the Tory Party. But this Bill was one to which the Government had never thought it right to allocate a single, hour of Parliamentary time for discussion. It stood on the Notice Paper during the whole Session, but not an hour was given in order to have the Bill read a second time. He admitted that the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the previous evening was a little better in character, and went a little further, than the Bills of the two preceding Sessions. It was, however, a Bill which, he confessed, was wholly inadequate to deal with this great and very important question. What was that question? The question had always been debated as if in these trade disputes there were two parties only concerned—capital on the one side, and labour on the other. If people were willing to conciliate and to arbitrate, they did not need the interference either of the Board of Trade or of Parliament. There was no difficulty in finding a person to act where both sides were willing to arbitrate, and to come to an agreement. There were voluntary tribunals which had been in existence in this country for a long time, and which were perfectly competent and ready to undertake that duty. The more highly

  395
  organised Trade Societies, both of employers and employed, had established ii many parts of the country permanent standing tribunals, to which, by mutual agreement all their disputes could be referred. In all these disputes, however there was a third party whose interest were very little considered; that was the public at large. The public suffered by these strikes very much; and it was in the interest of this third party that the Government and Parliament had a right and a duty to intervene. This right t intervene on behalf of the public was now occupying the attention of the people of America; and the general temper prevailing there was that the were not going to stand that state of things much longer. A private war between capital and labour was well enough so long as these two element were the only sufferers; but in our highly organized industries, where it was impossible for any trade to strike with out involving the whole community in suffering and even ruin, it was high time that the public, and the authority of the nation, should be called in to put a stop to these internecine quarrels where the parties were ready to arbitrate or to be consulted. The Government should organise some expression of public authority which might, at least, be entitled to say to persons carrying on a labour war: "You must come before us and tell us what you are fighting about; you must explain to us the position which each of you take; and let us know what are the contentions, on each side, which you say you cannot settle without one of those barbarous labour wars." If a public authority could invoke compulsion of this kind, very often the mistakes on both sides would be rectified if they were brought to conciliation. In the State of Massachusetts there had been for years a State Board of Conciliation and Arbitration, which had succeeded in settling a very great number of cases of dispute during the last three or four years That being what the people were crying for, what a stone the Government were offering to them in this Bill—! It was regarded as of so little importance that the Government thought it sufficient to give 10 minutes at the end of a Sitting for the explanatory speech, though it was a Bill which touched the whole industries of the country. But the
  396
  tribunals established by the Bill had no power whatever; they were mere dumb dogs scattered over the country, though the Board of Trade was to be intrusted by Parliament with the perfectly novel power of galvanising any one of the bodies mentioned to deal with a particular case. For one particular case and on one particular occasion the Local Government Board was to have the power of galvanising the Conciliation Board into life. It would live to settle that one dispute, calling witnesses and documents, and then it would relapse into the state of suspended animation from which it had been aroused. He did not think that that scheme ought to go to a Grand Committee without being discussed by Parliament. He had no desire to obstruct Bills to promote the conciliation of labour disputes. (Ministerial cries of "Oh.") Of course, Gentlemen opposite, with their strong partisan feeling, assumed that he could not be honest in desiring to forward such legislation. To such liberality from hon. Gentlemen opposite he was accustomed. But he believed that it would assist the passing of a measure which might do some good if, before it went to the Grand Commitee, an opportunity were given to discuss in the House itself the great principles involved. He hoped that the Government would spare at least one day for a matter of this transcendent importance. The first great principle was this: Ought such powers as were proposed to be in trusted to the Board of Trade or to the Home Office? He had a strong opinion that the proper Labour Department of the country was the Home Office, which was not only in touch, but in friendly touch, both with the employers and the employed through the Inspectors of factories and workshops and mines. The Inspectors of the Home Office enjoyed a very great deal of confidence and official friendship among both the employers and the employed; and he knew of no official of the Board of Trade who enjoyed a like position in the country. Again, the Board of Trade was notoriously one of the most unpopular departments in the United Kingdom. He did not know that it was the fault of the Board of Trade that its Inspectors had to interfere sometimes in a very arbitrary manner; but in giving powers

  397
  to deal with such a question as conciliation and arbitration, it would be far better that the powers should be entrusted to the Home Office rather than to the Board of Trade. In the second place he did not believe that it was possible to induce the local authorities to become participators in a sham. If these tribunals of conciliation and arbitration were to have no power, and to be a mere name, the local authorities would never take the trouble to create them. He was sure that many of the great municipalities in the United Kingdom, which had distinguished themselves by their readiness to embark in experimental legislation, would, under a well-considered scheme, be very likely to establish these boards, and would, at any rate, consider the question. But if these boards were not to act unless they were put into motion by the Board of Trade, he should think that the local authorities would refuse to appoint them. Supposing that Manchester established a Board of Arbitration, and a dispute arose in the cotton trade; and supposing that the Board thought it could intervene successfully, and by calling parties and witnesses and documents could arrive at some plan which would conciliate conflicting opinions on both sides, why on earth should such a Board, which knew all about the, circumstances, was on the spot and understood the feeling both of employer and employed, have to go to London to ask the leave of a permanent official who knew nothing about Lancashire before it might embark on this most proper experiment? He believed that he was one of the very few people in the House who was really in favour of local self-government. The Departments of the State did not like it. They created local authorities, but they did not trust them. Why would not the Government trust the Local Authorities in this matter? They would not proceed rashly, or upset commerce and industry for the sake of trying rash experiments. If the Local Authority of a great city like Manchester chose to establish a Conciliation and Arbitration Board, in the name of common sense let that Board be given some power, discretion, and authority, instead of being kept in the tutelage of some ignorant person at the Board of Trade. Although this ought not to be made a Party question, it was a question of great importance. The
  398
  history of the Bills for establishing methods of conciliation and arbitration ought to be a lesson. They had all been a dead letter, and not one had succeeded in stopping a single trade dispute. A day should be given by the Government, and the principles on which the Bill should proceed ought to be determined by debate in the House. Then, if the details were sent to the Grand Committee, a measure might be framed of real practical utility. He knew that there was a strong temptation to make political capital out of the question; but if the right hon. Gentleman would trust the House he would find that there was every disposition and desire to assist the Government to pass a Bill which was not a sham, and which would help in putting an end to labour disputes.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, that the Bill had not yet been circulated, and that it could be better discussed on the Second Reading, when its provisions had been examined. The difficulties of trade conciliation were very great, but there was a unanimous feeling in the country that something should be done. The great difficulty was to know what powers were to be put into the hands of any council, whether local or Imperial. It was not possible to dictate to any workman what wages he should receive, or to any employer what wages he should pay. What was wanted was some tribunal, quick in action, with the power of examining witnesses and making a report. There was nothing which terminated a strike so quickly as public opinion. If evidence could be at once taken as to the rights and wrongs and general bearing of strikes by a tribunal which would influence public opinion, then probably strikes would be brought to a much earlier close. The impossibility was to make a man receive wages he was un-willing to receive, and another man to pay wages at a rate he could not afford Still there was usually a meeting point for the parties where a settlement could be hoped for, and trade would get into working order again. His right hon. Friend (Sir John Gorst) had suggested that the Government tribunal should be the Home Office, but there was nothing to prevent his moving an amendment in Committee for the substitution of the words "Home Office" for "Board of

  399
  Trade." In such matters it was very much a question of porsonnel, and that Department became most popular which had an able and popular Head. He was most anxious to see the Bill before suggesting any alterations. He did not suppose his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) looked on the Bill as perfect, and dealing with such difficult and delicate subjects all proposals of the kind must be tentative in character. He could not agree that such Bills were shams, and if thoroughly discussed in Committee the Bill might become of great value, dealing as it did with social questions which were the life and soul of the trade of the country. He hoped that without a long discussion the Bill would be introduced, and would be shaped into a workable measure for the interests of both capital and labour, and of the many thousands who, whilst not immediately responsible for trade disputes, were great sufferers from them.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDsaid, that in a great part of the country this would be considered the most important Bill of the Session, and he trusted it would prove acceptable to those interested. There was no reason to depreciate this short preliminary discussion; but when the Second Reading stage was reached, he hoped and trusted, with some confidence, the Bill would be approached in a less controversial spirit than had been displayed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Gorst). It was easy to describe previous attempts at Legislation in this direction as shams to catch votes, but such was not the spirit in which a social question that required the co-operation of either side should be approached. It was a subject of extreme difficulty, and if it was approached by all Parties in the House, as he believed it would be, with a desire to assist the Government to cope with these difficulties, then those difficulties would be overcome. Both in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and in that of the hon. Baronet, there was criticism with which he was rather disposed to concur. There are at present a large number of so-called Boards of Conciliation in existence, and they fulfil most useful functions. They might be described as representing capital and labour, masters and men coming together generally in equal numbers, and usually with a neutral
  400
  chairman, their object being to come to agreement on a disputed matter. But that was not a Board which could give an authoritative decision. If the Members of the Board could agree, well and good, but if they could not agree, there was no decision in the matter. He would like to see in the Bill a more distinct recognition of some tribunal that would be in a position to give a decision which would carry with it more or less weight, according to the composition of the tribunal and the reasons publicly given for the decision. In this respect the right hon. Gentleman opposite had scarcely done justice to the Bill. As he understood, it was intended that the Board of Trade should step in with authority, but more than that was required. If the existing Boards of Conciliation were such as he had described, and if some body was to have the power of authoritative decision, then the principles of appeal and review should be clearly recognised in the Bill, and should be one of its leading features. Such appeal might lie to such Boards as the President of the Board of Trade referred to, and upon which he said a good deal. The power of summoning witnesses, of taking evidence, and getting all the information required, should be with the appellate authority without application to the Board of Trade. Would the Boards have any legal powers? Examples had been cited, and in New Zealand lately an Act was passed which established a supreme tribunal for the decision of these cases, with very large powers. He agreed that to go that length would be attended with extreme difficulty, but it would be possible to give some powers. In most of the Bills which had dealt with this question there had been a studied reservation made of the question of future wages, and without a formal recommendation submitted to the arbitrators this could not be entered upon. But in nine cases out of ten future wages was the sole question in dispute. Possibly some other labour questions entered into it, but nearly always the question, of future wages was concerned, and surely Boards should not be discouraged from entering upon that subject; for any arrangement would cover that ground. These were the only points to which he now desired to call the attention of the House—namely, the necessity of a distinction between

  401
  a mere meeting of the parties for the purpose of coming to an agreement if they could, and the establishment of public boards with more or less authority who would be able to take into consideration the public interests in the matter, and this was one of the points that made an efficient measure of this kind absolutely necessary.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFsaid, no class would be affected more by this Bill than employers of labour like himself. His firm had had to face a good many strikes, accompanied with heavy losses to employers and workmen, and therefore he felt an interest in the subject. If he had any faith that such a Bill would put an end to strikes, if it would materially diminish their number or shorten their duration, then the Bill would have his earnest support. It was difficult to speak of a Bill not yet introduced, and he would rather have waited until he had the Bill in his hands before speaking if he were not almost certain the House would never have that opportunity. He remembered the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill being brought on after Twelve o'clock; and when the Bill went to Grand Committee it would be removed from the discussion of many members deeply interested. The Bill he thought, was not likely to come before the House for another discussion. Was there such an intention?
  THE PRESIDENT OF PHE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,): Certainly.
  MR. WOLFF: If that is understood, when?
  MR. J. BRYCE: I cannot say more than that I hope to go on with the Bill.
  MR. WOLFFsaid, there might be the intention, but would opportunity be given for full discussion? He remarked with surprise the absence of many Members who were supposed specially to represent the interests of the working classes. Returning to the Bill, he certainly thought from this explanation that it was an improvement upon the Bill previously introduced, but he doubted if it would effect anything like the result intended. It was proposed to give power to local authorities to elect councils: Who would propose these; and would they represent every trade in a town? No doubt Boards of Arbitration, elected by the workmen and their employers,
  402
  themselves, had done a great deal of good; but he did not think that any confidence would be felt in Boards appointed by the local authorities. The only thing such a body could do would be to take evidence, and by publishing it affect public opinion in that way. Beyond that he did not think they could go. Beside that, a number of strifes went on between different classes of workmen, and he did not see how a Conciliation Board could deal with those disputes. They would not have the knowledge or the competence to do so. He could only urge most strongly on the right hon. Gentleman, that, if he wished his Bill to have a real effect, he would give the House an opportunity of fully discussing it, inasmuch as there were so many Members who did not belong to the Grand Committee.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLAregretted very much the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He would not in the slightest degree follow him in those Party recriminations in which he had indulged. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Bills of last Session and of the Session before as absolute shams, and said that they were simply introduced for the purpose of making political capital. The Government, over and over again, urged the House to send those Bills to the Grand Committee to be dealt with there, and no Committee did its work better than the Grand Committee on Trade in connection with industrial questions. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in one thing, namely, that the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing this Bill, and his right hon. Friend was willing and anxious to give that opportunity. But again and again last Session the time that should have been spent in discussing the Bill was wasted in talking it out. [An hon. MEMBER: "After Twelve o'clock at night."] No, not only after Twelve o'clock at night. This matter was too serious to be made the subject of contention between the two sides of the House. He had watched during the whole of his life the working of the trade of the country, and he never knew a time when the condition of trade was more serious or more worthy the consideration of the House than the present. The late coal strike undoubtedly had a very serious

  403
  effect in the coal trade, and that effect would be increasingly felt in future years. There was abundance of evidence that it diverted a good deal of export trade into other channels, and it was not easy to get diverted trade back again into its old channels when it had once left. At the present moment there were three or four serious strikes pending in the country, notably one in the shoe trade which would affect 200,000 persons. It was said that nothing could be done by a Bill of this kind to effect conciliation between the respective parties. Twenty years before he came into the House he devoted a great deal of time to this question, and he presided for 11 years as President of a Board of Arbitration. The Bills the right hon. Gentleman opposite had denounced as worthless had been submitted to gentlemen best qualified to judge of them, including Mr. David Dale and Dr. Spence Watson. The latter had made 43 awards in trade disputes, and Mr. Dale had done admirable work in the same direction in the north of England. These gentlemen were all of opinion that it would not be safe to go any further than the Bills produced last year and the year before. It was not an easy thing to give compulsory powers to everybody to say that employers should pay a certain rate of wages or that workmen should work at a certain rate. When an arbitrator had made an award workmen could not be compelled to work on the terms of the award. It was not by such means that conciliation was to be brought about. It could only be brought about by setting up these Conciliation Boards with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, the Board of Trade was anxious to interfere with. That was just exactly what the Board of Trade did not wish to do. The Bill did not authorise the Board to interfere where there was a Board of Arbitaation in existence, but where there was none; and then the object of the Bill was that somebody acquainted with the matter should make a Report and bring the parties together and endeavour to get them to form a board. Conciliation could only be brought about by employers and employed meeting together in friendly conference. He was going himself to Staffordshire that week to arbitrate in a trade dispute, and in
  404
  that case the parties had applied to the Board of Trade to appoint an arbitrator; and that might be done all over the country. It was not expected that this Bill or any other machinery that could be devised would put an end to trade disputes, but it was to be hoped, if the House put aside all Party feeling in the matter, that they would be minimised. This was a question which affected the prosperity of the country. It was almost a question of humanity, when the women and children who suffered were considered; and if both sides of the House would only consent to make their best efforts to devise such machinery as would enable a competent authority to deal with these disputes, he was quite satisfied that we might in this country enjoy more immunity from them than any other country in the world. No compulsory powers had been given to Boards of Arbitration in America or any other country. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there had been lately two Royal Commissions sitting, and both had recommended the adoption of the substance of this measure. He thought it was really wasting the time of the House to discuss the principles of the Bill on its introduction. They ought to be discussed when the Bill was before the House, and then they ought to try to make the Bill a useful and effective measure.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, after a speech lasting for 20 minutes, stated that it was absurd, I suppose he meant in us, to engage in any discussion upon this Bill at this stage. I hope the House will, at all events, allow those who differ from the right hon. Gentleman the liberty he has taken himself. The Bill has been spoken of, no doubt, with a certain amount of contempt by my right hon. Friend opposite; but, after all, if that language is thought to be too strong, hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this Bill in the country have only themselves to blame. If they had only put forward the Bill as an experiment from which they expected only very small results, or from which, at all events, they only hoped to get some further information and experience on a difficult and important subject, I do not think that any of us would have refused to

  405
  meet them and work on the same lines. But if they assert that they have brought in a Bill that is going to put an end to strikes, that is going to prevent the misery and suffering caused by strikes to working men, their wives, and families, they are estimating their achievement a great deal too highly. I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill may be not only a sham, but a pernicious sham. Hon. Members on this side of the House seem to agree that this subject is as important as any that could engage the attention of the House, and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire has said that this Bill is, in fact, the most important measure of the Session. Now, do the Government believe that? If they do, why do they not give the Bill a better place? If they really believe that Bills of this kind, dealing with social questions, are of the utmost importance, why do they not put them in the front of their Programme instead of giving precedence to all their controversial and contentious business? In the absence of positive assurance that this Bill will be put down for Second Reading as the First Order of the Day, we are almost bound to treat this occasion as if it were a Debate on the Second Reading. Now, what is the object of this Bill? It is, I suppose, to enable something more to be done than can be done at present. For many years I settled the wages in the coal trade of the Midlands, and the wages for the iron trade, and, therefore, I may claim to know something about the subject. As long as arbitrations were accepted by both sides, and the decisions arrived at were observed, they were most valuable and useful. It is admitted, however, that now they are not universally accepted, and I am afraid that they are less popular than when first introduced. Therefore, if this Bill does not enable more to be done than can be done at present, it will be a farce and a sham. In the shoe strike, which, we are told, is imminent, it will, of course, be open to the parties to establish a tribunal which shall consist of employers and employed, of the chosen representatives of both. But the Bill will not assist matters. Supposing a body were appointed under this Bill by the Leicester Town Council, and called a Board of Arbitration, it would not be in a better position to effect a settlement than a voluntary board.
  406
  But if you are prepared to give to a Board of Arbitration power to compel attendance and to enforce its decisions, you are going to take a great step. Doubts have been expressed as to the possibility of conferring such powers. I do not say that it is possible, but I may point out that in New South Wales they have an Act of Parliament containing provisions to enable Boards of Arbitration to enforce their decrees. I do not say that there is an absolute power of enforcement, but there is a power of recovering damages, which, in many cases, would be equivalent to a power of enforcement. I am not certain, then, that you might not have Legislation giving this power to Boards of Arbitration in this country, but I am doubtful whether the employers or the working classes are yet prepared for such a stringent arrangement as that, and, therefore, I do not make it a complaint against the Government that they have not introduced a system of that kind. But, then, what remains for them to do? I think they might, at least, establish a Board of Arbitration, so influential, so authoritative, so dignified, that no body of employers or workmen would dare to refuse to submit their case to it. Unless they are prepared to take some steps towards compulsion, that is, in my opinion, the only thing that the Government can do. As yet, however, they have, done nothing of the sort. They have given permission to create tribunals which would be less authoritative than those which are already in existence. Their scheme is to create a body ad hoc for each dispute, and this body is to be elected by persons whose impartiality may not be beyond dispute. I doubt very much whether the work of establishing judicial tribunals ought to be intrusted to Local Authorities. Let me take the case of Birmingham. There, upon the Town Council, there are about five Unionists to one Home Ruler. Do you suppose that those people in Birmingham who belong to the Home Rule Party would not at times feel a certain amount of doubt as to the absolute judicial impartiality of a tribunal which had been entirely appointed by their opponents? If people suspect the impartiality of those tribunals, they will not take advantage of them. If the Government were not prepared to go further than

  407
  they have gone, they ought to have left the subject alone. The unfortunate Board of Trade is to have power to invite persons who are engaged in a trade dispute to go to arbitration; but, supposing that they do not want to go to arbitration, can anybody believe that the invitation of the Board of Trade will have much effect? If one party wishes to go to arbitration and the other does not, and says so, is the Board of Trade, on the application of the former, to inform the latter that it has the honour to invite them to accept an arbitration which they have already practically refused? That would put the Board of Trade in a ridiculous position. It must be assumed that the Department, in every case in which application is made by either party, is thereupon to send an official to make an elaborate inquiry into the whole circumstances of the strike and dispute. You will want a perfect army of officials to conduct these preliminary inquiries, and the interference of a Government political Department in questions of this kind is not likely to be very useful. I give the Government credit for having tried in difficult circumstances to do something, but it would have been more frank on their part to have said, "We find we cannot do anything," because no official of the Board of Trade can have advised the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) that any practical result would follow such a proposal as this. But the Government have not had the courage to say that they are powerless, and they have not proposed compulsion or the formation of a tribunal of a sufficiently judicial character. It would be most improper to smuggle this Bill through the House without full discussion. Unless it is very much altered in Committee, I entertain no hope of its having any practical result.
  MR. W. ALLANobserved that he had had a great deal to do with strikes, and he thought he understood pretty well the sentiments of the working men in this country. There was now a general opinion in favour of conciliation. At this moment, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers in Newcastle were promoting the formation of a Conciliation Board. In all the arbitration cases that had come under his notice he had found that the men were distrustful of the Arbitrator, and, as a rule, they
  408
  considered that his decision was one-sided. Therefore, they preferred Conciliation Boards. The Government were making a huge mistake with this Bill of theirs. The time had come when every trade dispute ought to be settled as a civil case, and when the Government ought to appoint Trade Judges—men whose characters were beyond reproach and whom the men would trust in. These judges ought to go down to the district and hear both sides, namely, the delegates of the men, and those of the employers. They should have power to examine the books of the employers, so as to satisfy themselves whether the profits could stand a rise of wages or a reduction of hours. That was the crux of the matter as regarded distrust on the part of the men. The men said: "Show us your books, and we will tell you whether our demand is right or not." He had never yet seen the men satisfied that they had got a fair rise in their wages, even after a long strike. He would advise the Government not to have a big Bill at all. To bring in men who knew nothing about the trade was to satisfy neither workmen nor employer. He spoke of the unemployed, the men who should settle trade disputes should be two judges who should have power to inquire into the exact conditions of trade profit or otherwise, and then give their decision either for the employer or employed. That was a simple method of settling the whole bother.
  MR. G. HOWELLsaid, he had had to do with conciliation in trade disputes for over 30 years. He was concerned in the framing of the measure known as Lord St. Leonards' Act in 1867, and even before that time he was connected with an Association to promote conciliation. He had done his best to disseminate the principle among workmen on all occasions. No doubt there had been a great number of inquiries upon this subject; but at the same time things had changed so considerably that the reference of the Bill to a small Select Committee might be a good idea. He did not see that much good was going to come out of sending Board of Trade Representatives perambulating the country. There were men at the Board of Trade in whom he would have confidence—one, for example,

  409
  was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade (Mr. Burt), the other was Mr. Burnet of the Labour Department; but they could not expect always to have such men available, and if a great number of disputes were to arise, there were no other men at the Board of Trade to send out. He failed to see that the Board of Trade had not at this moment power to do all that was proposed in the Bill; of course with the single exception of payment for services. There was already in existing Acts the power, to a certain extent, to enforce awards, to call witnesses and documents, and examine books, provided there was a voluntary disposition on the part of the bodies to submit these books to inspection. But something more was needed to give vitality to Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration. Hon. Members seemed to be alarmed at the idea of enforcing an award. But what, after all, did it come to? It simply meant the fulfilment of a contract, and nothing more. Power to enforce awards would have a salutary effect upon the malcontents that existed in almost every trades union, and would greatly strengthen the hands of the board of management or executive council of the society. He asked hon. Members on both sides, whether representing the Labour Party or employers, to endeavour to approach the subject with a sincere desire to smooth the way, in order that conciliation should be more widely employed. The only fear he had was, that by this Legislation they might possibly injure voluntary efforts that were now being made; but his desire was to get rid of Party notions in dealing with this matter, and that the House should endeavour to settle the problem on a basis which would be for the benefit of employers and employed, and the public generally.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. T. BURT,)remarked, that if he might say so without disrespect, a good many of the criticisms which had been expressed would not have been uttered if hon. Members had known the contents of the Bill, and as to the remainder they pretty effectually answered each other. He knew the deep and long-continued interest which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had taken in social questions affecting
  410
  workmen, and with a good many of the sentiments he uttered he entirely agreed; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman, whether consciously or unconsciously, introduced a partisan tone into the Debate and said things which it would have been better to have left unsaid. He concurred with what had been said as to the success which had attended the efforts of the Joint Committees in the north of England. They had settled hundreds of disputes in an amicable way, many of which, but for their intervention, would have ultimately resulted in strikes. But these Committees dealt entirely with local or sectional questions and had no power whatever as to district or general difficulties. He did not concur with his right hon. Friend when he said that when once the parties to a dispute had agreed to go to arbitration they could very easily decide upon an arbitrator or umpire. Undoubtedly the preliminary difficulty was to induce the two sides to go to arbitration; but it would be of enormous advantage to have some power outside to whom they could appeal for assistance in suggesting, or helping the parties to find, an arbitrator. He fully acknowledged that there were other parties than employers and workmen concerned; in fact not unfrequently the chief sufferers were those who had nothing at all to do with originating the dispute and who had no power whatever to bring about a settlement. It had been said that the Bill was not a strong Bill. He did not think it was, but he believed it was as strong as the weight of opinion—especially the opinion of the masters and workmen—would justify. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham, expressed a doubt as to whether the opinion of the employers and employed would go in the direction of a more drastic measure than the Bill which was outlined so well by the President of the Board of Trade the previous night, and he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He fully recognised that the hon. Member for Gateshead had had large experience, and was very competent to give an opinion upon subjects such as this; but still, with every respect for the hon. Member, he was quite sure that as far as the workmen were concerned they were not prepared to go the length the hon. Member had indicated, and he doubted

  411
  very much whether the employers were. All he would say, was that the Bill was a tentative measure and the Government were prepared to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon it. He quite agreed that there should be an opportunity of discussing the Bill on the Second Reading, though the fact that they had had so many second reading speeches on; this stage of the Bill rather diminished the argument in favour of much time being given on the Second Reading. After the Second Reading stage, however, the President of the Board of Trade intended and desired that there should be the fullest discussion in Committee, that Members should bring their opinions and experience to the question, with a full recognition of the enormous importance of the subject and the great interests at stake, and that then the general sense of the Standing Committee should be taken and the subject thoroughly thrashed out. The Government had certainly no desire from any preconceived notions of their own to adhere rigidly to any of the provisions of the Bill that would not bear the fullest discussion. He hoped the House would now consent to the First Reading.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURbelieved there was no more fair-minded man in the House than the hon. Member for Morpeth, and he congratulated him upon the reasonable statement he had just made. The hon. Member had complained that the right hon. Member for the Cambridge University had in his speech shown, perhaps, too much partisan feeling. He did not think his right hon. Friend had shown any partisan feeling, and he could have wished that other Members of the Government had been as moderate in their statements concerning the Bill of last year, which was practically the same as the present Bill. He did not desire to discuss the merits or the principles of the Bill at this stage, but he should like to make one remark. The hon. Member for Morpeth had suggested that after the discussion that had taken place to-day it would not be necessary to have anything like an extended discussion on the Second Reading. Against that view he desired to protest. He had remained silent up to the present time because he did not wish to state his view on the First Reading of the Bill, but he should
  412
  be sorry if in consequence of the discussion that had taken place he and other Members who wished to state their views should be debarred from doing so. If the President of the Board of Trade would undertake that the Second Reading of the Bill should be put down as the First Order of the Day on some future date, he thought it would be perfectly reasonable that the discussion should come to an end. He hoped before the discussion closed they should get a pledge from his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that full and adequate time for discussion would be given on the Second Reading of the Bill. He did not think, however, that that could be secured unless the right hon. Gentleman undertook to put the Bill down as the first Order of the Day.
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHhad not the slightest wish to debate the Bill on the present occasion, because he considered that any observations he desired to offer to the House would come more appropriately on the Second Reading stage, but he wished to second the appeal just made by his hon. Friend. Some Members of the House had taken a great interest in this question, as he had, both as a President of the Board of Trade and as a Member of the Labour Commission, and he, perhaps, might be more inclined to sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his views on the matter than his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Gorst) sitting near him. For that very reason he was anxious to express his opinions to the House. The Bill of last Session was brought on half-an-hour before midnight, a few speeches were made upon it, and it never came on again. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for this, because he supposed he could not find an opportunity for bringing the measure before them again, but if this was an important Bill, if it was worthy all that had been said of it, surely it ought to be discussed on the Second Reading. And yet they (the Opposition) were blamed in the country by more than one Member of the Government—he thought he might name the Home Secretary as one—for having blocked Legislation on this subject, and prevented a reform which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers, would really have almost put an

  413
  end to strikes altogether. He thought that was an extremely exaggerated estimate of the possible effects of any Bill of this kind; but if it was worth bringing in at all, it was worth discussion in that House, and he trusted that, before the Debate closed—which he hoped it would do very soon—they might have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he would meet what he believed were the general wishes on both sides on this matter, and give them an opportunity of amply debating the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked the Government for a pledge that time would be given for the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading, not only by the two Front Benches, but by all the Members representing the various interests concerned. He thought hon. Members on his side of the House might be pardoned if they expressed some incredulity as to the real intentions of the Government on this Bill. He did not desire in a matter of this kind to introduce any Party views; but they knew perfectly well that Bills dealing with the industrial and social interests of Great Britain had, during the past three years, received absolutely no attention at all. This Bill was brought in in an unpretentious way; but when the President of the Board of Trade was asked to give a definite pledge that there should be adequate opportunity for its discussion, he merely said, interrupting the hon. Member for Gateshead, that the Government intended to give some opportunity, but he never said that they were ever going to put it down as the first Order of the Day. This was eminently a Bill for which there should be facilities for adequate discussion; and why could they not have an assurance from the Leader of the House that they should have, not one day—for that was not sufficient—but if necessary two or three days for the discussion of the proposed measure? If he thought that was the only time Members would have for the consideration of the Bill, he certainly would speak at considerable length. But he hoped the Government would pay some attention to the representations made to them, and give a definite pledge that not only one, but, two or three days, if necessary, should be given for the discussion of the
  414
  Bill. He did not believe that in the whole Government programme there was a Bill of such importance, or one which might be so beneficial to the country as the Bill before the House.
  SIR A. K. ROLLITsaid, that while he did not join in the large demand made by the last speaker for time, he shared in the hope that the Government would give adequate opportunity for the discussion of the measure. He believed that so great was the need for a Bill which would do something, no matter how little it might be, that he would heartily support the present measure. The great practical danger in dealing with the subject was not a Bill that would do too little, but a Bill that possibly might do too much. Such was the lesson from the failure of the Acts from 1867 to 1872, with their complex provisions and cumbersome machinery; and he, therefore, hoped that this Bill, which promised to give facilities for the formation of Conciliation Boards, and other powers which the experience of the London Conciliation Board, and himself personally as an Arbitrator, had shown him to be urgently wanted, would receive favourable consideration from all parts of the House.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, it would greatly assist the business of the Government if a reply were given to the appeal made to them from both sides of the House in regard to the time which would be allowed for the discussion of the Bill on the Second Reading. He was certain the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would remain no longer silent on the subject; but that he would assure the House, if necessary, after a communication with the Leader of the House, that the opportunity for further discussion, which had been so respectfully asked for, would be given.
  MR. J. BRYCEwished the remarks the House had just beard had been made at the beginning, rather than at the end of the discussion. A great deal of valuable time had been spent not very profitably, because many arguments advanced were made in misapprehension or in ignorance of the actual provisions of the Bill. A great many of the observations made would be instructive and useful to him, but still the obvious disadvantage of a First Reading Debate was that a great

  415
  deal of what was said was really said without any knowledge of the actual provisions of the Bill, and was therefore of no practical value. In reply to the appeal which had been made to him, he could only say that it was impossible for him to give anything in the nature of a positive undertaking, in regard to times and seasons, which seemed to be expected; but he was much impressed by the desire shown that the matter should be fully debated, and it would be no fault of his if the House would not have the opportunity of so doing. It was not possible for him to say more at that stage without consulting with those with whom he acted.
  Leave given to introduce the Bill.
  Bill brought in by Mr. Bryce and read 1°.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  The House went into Committee on the Supplementary Estimates.
  Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  On the vote for a supplementary sum not exceeding £14,000 for the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. T. W. LEGH, complained of the smallness and discomfort of the reading-room. It appeared to be designed, more or less, on the model of the prisons of Venetian political prisoners, which were so made as to be as hot as possible in summer and as cold as possible in winter. It really only fulfilled the purposes of a kind of enclosed tea-room, where Members were in a sort of glass cage to be inspected by inquisitive and irreverent strangers. He thought there should be a larger selection of literature in the room. Why should not the leading Continental papers be provided, and why should not the papers supplied be arranged properly as to be easily found? This might seem a trivial question to many, but in his opinion it was as important to have a suitable reading-room, as a tea-room, a dining-room, or even a bath-room. In case his right hon. Friend, the First Commissioner of
  416
  Works, should not have a policy in the matter, he would suggest that the present paraphernalia for tea and muffins in the room should be abolished altogether; that the tea-room should be abolished also, and the two rooms thrown into one. He thought tea a purely unnecessary meal, and most people would be better without it. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £100.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONhoped the recommendation of the hon. Member would not be acceded to. He, for one, was a teetotaller, and he did not wish to be driven out of the tea-room. At the same time, he thought an improvement of the reading-room desirable. The fault he found with the room most he could not read in it; there was too much talk going on, and he thought that if the First Commissioner of Works gave them a talking-room it would be much better.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. J. GLADSTONE,)said, he was sorry his hon. Friend, the Member for Newton, did not bring his suggestion before the Committee, which sat on the whole question of the Houses of Parliament last year. He was bound, however, to disagree with his hon. Friend. He was sure that hon. Members would protest against any suggestion to deprive them of the tea-room. Of the two rooms he thought the tea-room was more used, and was more valuable as a tea-room than it would be as a reading-room. He thought the proposal of his hon. Friend might be ascribed to the raising of the standard of comfort, brought about by the extensive alterations made during the last Recess; and, if the proposals were persisted in, he did not know how to meet them, because, of course, the space at their disposal was limited. If his hon. Friend wished for a larger and better reading-room he must use his influence with another place to obtain a partial evacuation in order to find space for his requirements. But, so far as the space at their disposal was concerned, there was really no room at present for further enlargement.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that the newspapers in the reading-room were in such a condition of chaotic confusion, that he generally found it impossible to get the newspaper he wanted. There was nobody there to arrange the papers.
  MR. H. J. GLADSTONEsaid, there was an attendant whose duty it was to do so, but hon. Members were in the habit of shuffling up the papers.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, the attendant was very casual in his attendance, no doubt because he had other duties to attend to. He thought there ought to be attendants there to relieve each other.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he could not advocate the abolition of the tea-room. He thought the real objection to the present paper-room was that it was a passage-room. The doors opened on both sides of the room, and the windows were draughty. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to set apart another room, without interfering with the tea-room, for this purpose.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought it strange that the right hon. Gentleman should say that he had never heard complaints as to the reading-room before.
  MR. H. J. GLADSTONEpointed out that he had said that no complaints had been made to the Committee.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, it had been a matter of common complaint during the ten years he had been in the House. Hon. Members generally took in the literature in which they were interested themselves, and this room gave them an opportunity of reading their opponents' views, than which there was nothing more educational. He thought they might find a space where 30 or 40 Members might sit in reasonable comfort to read the papers. The arrangement of the papers was very unsatisfactory, but the accommodation was more so, and he thought a room which was so much used should be of proper proportions.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, they were all much indebted to the First Commissioner of Works for much that he had done, but he felt bound to say that a great deal yet remained to be done, and he thought it was a great pity that nothing had been done to improve the accommodation of the House itself. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that Members should have to attend there on special occasions many hours before the House met in order
  418
  to obtain a seat, and, if they conformed to the strict Standing Order, to remain within the precincts of the House.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the discussion must be confined to the points before the Committee.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid that something had been done to improve the accommodation for Members of the Press, but still it might be made very much better than it was at the present time. The interest taken in the Debates of the House by the newspapers throughout the country, and by the public generally, was so great that the accommodation for the members of the Press was far too limited. He thought it was extremely desirable that some arrangement should be made not only to increase the accommodation for provincial papers in the Gallery, but also to improve the accommodation for the journalists who attended the House.
  MR. W. CROSFIELDasked the right hon. Gentleman to make some improvement in the ventilation of the serving room of the tea-room.
  MAJOR L. DARWINasked what steps the right hon. Gentleman would take in regard to the provision of a type-writing room?
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was extremely doubtful whether there should be a newspaper reading-room, as it very much diminished the attendance in the House. Members were often reading the illustrated papers instead of listening to an interesting debate on hypothec or the Law of Settlement in Scotland. He thought, however, that if they were to have a reading-room they should have one sufficiently large and adequate. He thought that there were still some defects in the kitchen arrangements. The kitchen authorities having been provided with a new serving-room, there was no reason for retaining the old serving-room, which was a block in the middle of a long corridor, intended to be a private corridor. The effect of this was to drive a Member outside the corridor, sometimes with disastrous results, as he might from that cause meet a constituent. There were Members, too, who wished to smoke and write at the same time, and there was inadequate accommodation for them.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERasked the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence in the proper quarter in order that Members might be provided with the papers they desired to read, especially the French papers. He did not agree with the suggestion that the tea-room should be abolished, but suggested, as it was more necessary to have a good reading-room than a good tea-room, that the present tea-room should be used as the reading-room.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the traffic in the reading-room was very inconvenient. The dining-rooms were usually empty from four to six o'clock, and he suggested whether tea could not be served in the northern dining-room during those hours.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, the suggestion just made was a practical one, and he thought one of the adjoining rooms might be thrown into the tea-room, and further accommodation thus obtained. It was very desirable also that the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn should be carried out, and the block in the passage prevented. But he rather begrudged the public money spent for the comfort and convenience of hon. Members themselves. They ought to be very careful of spending money in this direction, and he could not help saying that he thought a good deal of the money spent during the last six months might have been better; utilised. A proper and complete reading room was one of the first things that should have been provided. They had gone on spending money year after year on tinkering alterations, and yet things were not yet in order. The conditions even of that Chamber itself were not altogether satisfactory. But the point to which he desired to draw the special attention of the Committee, was the fact that not one penny of the £14,000 which had been spent, appeared on the Estimates last Session, nor was its expenditure sanctioned by Parliament. The circumstances might possibly justify the expenditure, but the fact was none the less a great irregularity. It would be impossible to carefully supervise the Estimates on a proper system if such irregularity was permitted. The fact, he was bound to say, was a very bad precedent.
  MR. H. J. GLADSTONEsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that the money has been expended on works recommended by the Select Committee, and that last Session the question of carrying out this and other works was discussed time after time in the House. A great deal of pressure, moreover, was brought to bear upon him to carry out the work. The proposal to appoint the Committee was before the House for several weeks certainly, it was mentioned in the discussion in the Estimates, and therefore the whole question was within the knowledge of hon. Members. The Committee was appointed; it was representative of all sections of the House, and they were unanimous in recommending the execution of the work that had been carried out. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield about the Press Gallery, he could only say that it was not possible to do more than had been done without making large structural alterations.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Then make them.
  MR. H. J. GLADSTONE: The work done had been carried out efficiently and economically, and great credit was due to those who had superintended it. In particular he must mention Mr. Taylor (the Chief Surveyor of the Office of Works), Mr. Price (the Resident Engineer), and Mr. Jones (the Clerk of the Works). The Contractors (Messrs. Holland & Hannen), had carried out their work in a most satisfactory manner. With respect to the tea-room and dining-room, although he thought those matters came more properly under the authority of the Kitchen Committee, he should be glad to gather the general opinion of hon. Members, and confer with the Chairman of the Committee, with a view to see whether anything could be done to meet the suggestions thrown out by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, and other hon. Members. Between four and six o'clock the tea-roon certainly did not afford sufficient accommodation, and he did not think it would be advisable to change that room for a smaller one. He agreed with the hon. Member for Lynn Regis that it would be desirable to remove the wine service room if it could be done, but

  421
  hitherto it had not been found possible to do so. As to the supply of newspapers, he had nothing to do with the selection of the papers, but he would undertake to communicate with the proper authority, and see whether some better arrangement could be made to meet the wishes of the hon. Members. The matter of type-writing accommodation for hon. Members was already under his consideration. He was in communication with a number of persons for the quotation of prices, and he hoped in a week or so to be able to state the result.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, the financial point raised by the hon. Member for Preston was a very important one, and he desired to press it further. The Committee, he presumed, must have made its Report towards the end of last Session, and if the First Commissioner had made up his mind about the work, he could have obtained a Vote for the money while Supply was proceeding. The money had been spent during the Recess without the sanction or supervision of the House, and its established practice in financial matters entirely reversed. He called for some answer or explanation from the Government.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, it was all the more necessary to press the point, because it was very important that the House should do its best to check Ministers from spending money without proper authority, and as to which no Estimate has been submitted. This work was not contemplated when Estimates were laid on the Table last Session. It was no answer to say that a Committee recommended the work, for that gave no authority whatever. The report of the Committee was no authority for undertaking the works, and did not free the right hon. Gentleman from the duty of obtaining the sanction of the House. This way of administering the finances of the country ought never to be tolerated. The Committee never considered the question of cost, and it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to have brought an estimate before the House last Session.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, it was only fair to his right hon. Friend that he should say a word or two upon this question. Of course, he was obliged to look after the interests of the Treasury,
  422
  but there were two sides to this question. The hon. Gentleman found fault with the right hon. Gentleman for expending this money without the assent of the House. The Committee reported on the 7th of August; the House adjourned on the 23rd, and, therefore, it would have been quite impossible to have had estimates prepared in that interval. His right hon. Friend laid the matter before the Treasury. The Treasury went carefully into the proposed expenditure, and they gave their consent—for this reason, that it was impossible to carry out these works except during the Recess. Therefore, his right hon. Friend was perfectly justified, having got the assent of the Treasury, in carrying out these works during the Recess. He quite agreed that no large expenditure of money should be carried out without the assent of the House of Commons, but, in this case, it would have been quite impossible to obtain a Vote before the Adjournment.
  CAPTAIN G. R, BETHELLthought the right hon. Gentleman was to be congratulated on having had the boldness to spend this money on a purpose connected with the comfort of Members of the House. It would, he thought, be horribly inconvenient to be deprived of a tea-room of some sort, and he did not think the proposals of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, would at all meet the circumstances of the case.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had really made the matter much worse. The right hon. Gentleman tried to console them by telling them that the consent of the Treasury was obtained, and he seemed to suggest the monstrous proposition that that was as good as the consent of the House. But that was an entire subversion of the Constitution. This was a matter that should especially have been submitted to the House, because the matter was one which applied to the personal comfort of Members of the House; and they therefore ought to be more chary in going outside the proper rules and practice. With regard to the time available, he would point out that almost the whole of the period between the 7th and the 23rd of August, was occupied in dealing

  423
  with Estimates, and there was no difficulty in getting them passed because the Government closured nearly every one of them.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he wished to offer a word of explanation which must be satisfactory to the hon. Member. The sanction of the Treasury was generally much more difficult to obtain than the sanction of the House of Commons.
  MR. W. L. JACKSONthought the Secretary to the Treasury was getting into lax habits. The First Commissioner of Works was a little unwise in resting a case of this kind upon the sanction of a Select Committee. If there was one question, when he had the honour of being at the Treasury, about which he was always drilled more than another, it was that no new works should be undertaken by any Department unless the sanction of Parliament to an Estimate had first been obtained. Whether these works were to be described literally as new works might be an open question. They certainly could be described as alterations. He hoped the Treasury would not slacken the rule as regards the desirability of the sanction of the House; otherwise the Treasury would lose all its support and all its control. The House seldom acted as the friend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was generally more extravagant than the Treasury was disposed to be. At the same time, the Treasury could not without danger, slacken any of its rule. The Treasury was, after all, the only reliable support the country had in matters of expenditure, and they ought to require that its rules were rigidly adhered to no matter what Government might be in power. Work of this kind, however, could only be done during the Recess, and great inconvenience would have been caused if it had been postponed for a year, The question of principle had been most properly raised, and he thought they might rest satisfied with the protest that had been made.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that during the time of the late Government, material alterations in the drainage system of the House were carried through, before the money was obtained from Parliament.
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If the principle of the works has been assented to by
  424
  Parliament by the Estimate presented, then the question stands in a very different position.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that if he found that he was wrong, he would unequivocally withdraw and apologise. He wished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the doors of the dining-rooms were altogether too narrow. Then he thought more money might have been spent on the House itself.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order!Order!
  DR. TANNERsaid he wished to prevent hon. Members going into the Division Lobby and then taking advantage of those means of escape from voting which existed there.
  MR. A. C. MORTONagreed to the principle that no money should be spent by any Department without the sanction of Parliament. But this was an exceptional case. Hon. Members had been pressing his right hon. Friend to carry out some: alterations, and he thought they should be obliged to him for what had been done. The largest expenditure had been in connection with the kitchen arrangements, which applied more particularly to the comfort and convenience of the servants than to themselves, and certainly had not been incurred before it was necessary. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred to the danger of coming out of one the rooms straight into the Lobby, perhaps only to meet some of his constituents, but there was a greater danger he had to meet—namely a bar, and he begged to ask whether it would not be far the greater safety and convenience of the hon. Member, that it should be removed, or only non-intoxicating drinks supplied from it. There had not yet been time, however, to judge of the real value of the work that had been done; but the greatest difficulty seemed to be that of finding room. A good many rooms were occupied in connection with the House of Lords which might better be devoted to the convenience of Members of this House, but as something was likely to happen to that body in the Autumn, he had no doubt they would have more space at their disposal then.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought it a farce that, whilst the Public Accounts Committee should have to make every

  425
  Department explain and enter into their accounts, if they spent even a few shillings which were not in accordance with the rule, the right hon. Gentleman should enter into this expenditure without any authority at all. There would have been no difficulty in obtaining the sanction of the House last Session by means of a supplementary Estimate, and he was glad the matter had now been brought before the Committee, because these things ought to be done more in accordance with the rules.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid that work had been undertaken on behalf of hon. Members. In connection with that work he had made a close inspection of all the arrangements of the House, and could say emphatically that the arrangements and accommodation for the Press, the Police, and for the large staff of servants were of such a character that would not be tolerated by the owner of any private house, while the precincts of the kitchen would have been condemned by any factory inspector of the country. He had but deemed it his duty to alter that state of things.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTthought that, while there might have been some irregularities in regard to this matter, he ought not to let the occasion pass without expressing the thanks of the Kitchen Committee for what the right hon. Gentleman had done for their convenience. There was one point, however, which he wished to call attention to, and that was, that although they had been given more room in the kitchen, yet the heat was something unbearable, the temperature at times being over 100 degrees.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 173.—(Division List, No. 19.)
  On the Vote for £7,300 for the Foreign Office,
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERasked what was the cause of this large expenditure for telegrams. Was it recent events in Armenia which had caused this large amount to be spent?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick)said, it was difficult to state the actual cause, but he might say roughly that the supplementary expenses for
  426
  telegrams were due to the war proceeding in the East. As far as he was aware affairs in Armenia could not be said to be the cause of this Supplementary Vote being required.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESthought they ought to have details about the stupendous sum. Nearly £35,000 had been spent on telegrams, and it was not sufficient for the Under Secretary to talk of telling them roughly how this arose. He must press the hon. Member to tell them what these telegrams were about. Had any of them connection with Armenia or Siam—with the ordering of a British ship by the French to clear out of the harbour?
  SIR E. GREY: No telegrams of that kind were sent.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Oh ! I beg pardon. The point was how was the money spent? The Under Secretary could tell if he chose how every sovereign was spent.
  MR. T. W. LEGHsaid, telegrams were necessary, and telegrams from the far East were very expensive. If they attempted to cut them down by leaving out the prepositions and auxiliary verbs there might be mistakes, and possibly the telegram would have to be repeated. He thought it would be unwise economy to insist on these messages being shortened. While telegrams were necessary, he thought instructions might be given that they should be compressed as much as possible under certain conditions. No one could read the telegraph despatches without being struck with the fact that certain representatives found it much easier to compress their messages than others. Perhaps no harm would be done if instructions were issued that telegrams were to be compressed as much as possible where necessary.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYthought they might have a little more information. These Supplementary Estimates gave no information whatever. Generally they had a foot-note showing fairly what the money was for, but they had this item of £7,300 for telegrams without any explanation. Surely the hon. Member might tell them generally how the money was spent. Surely it was remarkable that more than a quarter of the expenditure of the Foreign Office should go in telegrams, and yet no explanation

  427
  was forthcoming. Were they telegrams to distant places like Siam and Argentina—had they to do with Jabez Balfour, or were they telegrams to nearer places in Europe? He admitted that telegrams from distant places were necessary as post would take too long, but the post might be used to places in Europe. If a large number of telegrams were sent to places in Europe he should object, because there were other means of communication which might very well be utilised. They had the Queen's messengers who go all over Europe, why not use them? He knew it was said that telegrams had to be sent in cypher; why not send letters in cypher? They were entitled to an answer, arid the hon. Member did not save time by sitting still on the Treasury Bench.
  SIR E. GREYsaid, he had no wish to refuse to give information. He had answered the question addressed to him and since then three hon. gentlemen had spoken dealing with one or two points. The first was the general policy of keeping down the expenses of telegrams. That is an understood thing by all—that the expense of telegrams was to be kept down as low as possible. Of course whether a telegram was necessary was a matter which must rest with the individual on the spot. He would do his best to give the details asked for by the hon. Member for Preston, but out of such a large number of telegrams it was impossible to do more than give the details in the rough. It was asked whether the excess of those telegrams was due to the communications made in Europe, and the hon. Member indicated that in his opinion it was prima facie more unjustifiable to have this excess arising from communications in Europe than with distant places. In the first quarter ending June, 1894, he found that the total expenditure was £3,637 2s. 4d. If hon. Members multiplied that amount by four they would find that it was slightly in excess of the original sum, but nothing like the excess amount they were obliged to ask for during the whole year. Out of the above amount he found that there were telegrams to Pekin and Tokio amounting to £1,716, Bangkok, Rio Janeiro, £536, Mozambique and Zanzibar, £531, Guatemala £58, and other places £1,117. The figures for the December quarter, which was an abnormal
  428
  quarter, were £5,670, and if the other quarters had been of the same abnormal character, the total expenditure would have been over £20,000. The amount in the abnormal quarter was due to telegrams to Bangkok £416, Rio de Janeiro £297, Guatemala £46, Mozambique and Zanzibar £334. The telegrams in this quarter alone to Pekin and Tokio amounted to £3,001 as against £716 in the first quarter; to all either places the amount was £1,572. The excess therefore, had arisen through communications with distant places, and the enormous amount of the charges to Pekin and Tokio was an excess due to communications rendered necessary by the war between China and Japan.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD, asked whether the charges for telegrams included those sent from this country abroad as well as for those from abroad to this country.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked what proportion of these telegrams were sent in cypher, and what was the number of telegrams sent over subsidised lines. Were telegrams sent for the Government over subsidised lines at a reduced cost?
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESwished to know what the "anticipated savings" represented. Were they savings on the whole Vote, or were they "anticipated savings" on this particular additional Foreign Office Vote? How was the saving arrived at?
  SIR E. GREYexplained that the savings would be in respect of another sub-head as to salaries. The savings owing to salaries had arisen because there had been a great many promotions of persons who had not yet attained to the full salary which they would ultimately receive. The great bulk of the telegrams were sent in cipher. He did not absolutely see them in cipher because their preparation was a perplexing matter; but he was informed with regard to the cost of sending them over certain subsidised lines that a number of telegrams were sent at a reduced cost.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER, pointed out that under Head II. the Estimate was £10,250, while the details of the revised Estimate were £17,550; so that £19,225 had been spent on telegrams. In his judgment this was a curious method of preparing an account.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid that as far as he could make out, the remarks of his hon. Friend were correct. The revised estimate was practically speaking double the original estimate. The Committee was being asked without further information to vote a sum of £9,000, which formed just a seventh part of the whole cost of the Foreign Office, for those extra telegrams. The fact that the savings were to come out of either votes aggravated in his judgment the position. Although it was true that some of the charges might have been due to the war between China arid Japan, he pointed out that the figures of the hon. Baronet did not really account for the whole of the extra cost. He thought that there must be some other explanation of the affair, that the Armenian arrangement must be included in the Vote; and if so this raised the question whether the Committee could fitly discuss the Siamese question also. He asked the ruling of the chair as to whether hon. Members could discuss the Siamese question on the vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: What is the service provided for relating to Guatemala?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the subject-matter of the telegrams referred to, to be discussed.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: What were the telegrams which were dispatched to Guatemala?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet cannot ask that question on the Supplementary Vote.
  SIR E. GREYsaid it would be impossible for him to enter into the details of the telegrams; but inasmuch as the amounts for Guatemala were £41, £46, and £58, the hon. Gentleman would see that the amount was neither large nor important. As to the form of the estimate, he could only say that he believed this form had always been in use, and had been adopted without question. If the form was to be altered, the alteration would presumably have to be extended to other votes. He understood that the amount was for telegrams sent out from home only, and did not include the cost of those sent from abroad.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: How far has telephonic communication been made use of by the Government?
  THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote applies to telegrams.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: How do the "anticipated savings" arise?
  SIR E. GREY: Out of salaries on another sub-head.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This only applies to telegrams.
  MR. HANBURY: You will recollect there was a discussion in the House——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow any discussion on a ruling given.
  SIR E. GREY: I do not think it is possible for us to deal with telephones under this Vote.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESfailed to see how any saving could have been effected in salaries, when, according to page 18 of the Votes, more money was asked for salaries.
  SIR E. GREY: Those are superannuation allowances.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that surely the Treasury could not transfer from one sub-head to another.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is not at all irregular. It is more regular than it used to be before. What has been done in altering the form in which the Supplementary Estimates were now framed was done at the suggestion of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  MR. H. S. FOSTERasked whether, if Parliament voted money for one purpose, and the whole of it was not required, the Treasury, without coming to Parliament, could sanction the expenditure of the balance for another purpose.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTreplied in the affirmative, if the purpose were similar.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, whether it was out of order on a question like telegrams to inquire for what purpose they were sent without discussing the policy involved.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As a method of raising the question of policy it would be out of order.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Supplementary Vote for £1,500 for the Colonial Office.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether the payment for telegrams sent out to the Colonies included the charges for telegrams in reply? Telegrams to and from

  431
  India were charged on the Indian Exchequer most unfairly, and he wanted to know whether the same practice was followed in respect to the Colonies? There ought to be a distinction between India and the Colonies in a matter of the kind.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)replied that with one exception—telegrams to the High Commissioner in South Africa—telegrams to the Colonies were paid for by the Home Government, and telegrams from the Colonies by the different Colonies themselves. He did not know what practice prevailed with regard to India.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that the Committee should know what I kind of telegrams were to be paid for and how any excess arose.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONstated that telegrams of the High Commissioner paid for in England were those relating only to Bechuanaland and Swaziland and other territories under his control. The excess was practically due to the South African telegrams.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Board of Trade Vote for £2,500 for the Mercantile Marine Fund (grant in aid).
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the Vote was in aid of the expenditure on electrical communication with lighthouses. Nearly three years since the House accepted unanimously a Resolution in favour of establishing electrical communication with the lighthouses of the country, and a Royal Commission was appointed, which had made two Reports upon the matter, and recommended what was looked upon as a limited scheme. The whole sum required had been put at from £200,000 to £300,000. So far only £24,000 had been voted. The safety of seamen and shipping was concerned. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that a little more effective progress would be made with this very important public work.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that last Autumn, at a certain place on the coast, he found that the telegrams which were
  432
  sent ashore from the lighthouses giving information as to the position of wrecks, were communicated only to the National Lifeboat Association, by the Coastguard, and were withheld from the Volunteer Lifeboat and others.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Vote had reference only to lighthouses.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that to put himself in order he would move a reduction in the Vote of £1,000. It was well understood why the coastguard kept the telegrams from the knowledge of the Volunteer Lifeboats. It was because the first boat to reach the wreck was entitled to the salvage. On some parts of the coast it was difficult to ascertain the position of a wreck, except by information from a lighthouse, and this information ought to be made as widely known as possible. If he could not get a satisfactory answer on this point he should divide the House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, that he should be very much concerned to know that such a practice prevailed as the lion. Member had described. It was clearly the object of communication with the lighthouses that every opportunity should be given for saving life, and to conceal the information so received would be very wrong. He had no information on the subject, but he would inquire and give all he could to the hon. Member. As to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, this sum of £2,500 was really a re-vote of what had been voted in previous years. The works were not begun in time enough to enable the whole sum to be spent within the financial year, and therefore, the surplus had to be refunded to the Treasury. Now the works were being proceeded with, and so the money appeared in the Estimates again. At this distance of time, it was impossible to say what was the cause of delay in the initiation of the work. It might have been that the weather was unfavourable, or that the contracts had to be got out.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he was quite willing to take the assurance of his right hon. Friend that the information should be given to every one who wished to have it.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that he spoke only for the Board of Trade. He did not

  433
  know what the Postmaster General would say about the stations which were under his authority.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that it was obviously to everybody's interest to get away as many lifeboats and other boats as possible to a wreck. He (Mr. Morton) was anxious to bear testimony to the good work done by the National Lifeboat Association, but all others who were willing to assist in saving life and property should be encouraged to do so. He would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that on June 7th of last year, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question on this subject said:—
  "In the last financial year. £10,000 were placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade for the purpose of effecting electrical communication with light vessels, &c. That money was expended in connecting the Kentish Knock and Goodwin (N. Sand Head), light vessels and the Gunfleet Pile lighthouse with the shore. In the present financial year £11,000 has been similarly placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade, and it in intended to expend this amount in connecting the Haisborough and Shipwash light vessels with the shore, and in laying a vessel to the Taskar Rock lighthouse. I am afraid that the other works recommended by the Royal Commission must wait until the Treasury can place more money at my disposal."
  Had these works all been completed? The £10,000 was not as a matter of fact expended in the first year.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that the Gunfleet light and the Taskar Rock light had been dealt with, and his impression was that the work was practically completed. There were three lights still remaining to be dealt with.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: The Haisborough light?
  MR. BRYCE: That has been done. The Fastnet still remains.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether this money applied to the northern and Irish lights or only to those under the Trinity Board?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that the latter was the case.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked as a point of Order. This sum of £2,500 was part of a Vote in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of last year, the
  434
  Vote in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund was no longer to be the specific sum of £40,000, but such a sum as would make up the whole balance against the Fund, whatever that balance might be. He wished to know whether, under the changed conditions, it would be in order to discuss the whole of the Mercantile Marine Vote or not?
  The CHAIRMAN: This Vote has nothing to do with the particular Act to which the hon. Member refers. It is a grant-in-aid in respect of lighthouses, and all discussion must be confined to that alone.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that unless he received satisfactory explanations, he must move a reduction of the Vote. He contended that there was an adequate sum already voted for this communication with lightships. The Board of Trade would of course have control over this expenditure. A fortnight ago, when the President was asked whether the Board of Trade had control over the Trinity Board, he replied "None whatever;" but to-day he had said the contrary.
  MR. BRYCE: Of course we have control over the spending power.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLEScontinued, that the sum asked for was not required, because £500,000 was received in light dues, and only £437,000 was expended upon lighthouse purposes, whilst £70,000 was spent upon clerks and establishment charges. Let the money obtained for lighthouses be spent upon lighthouses, and then, if more money were needed, let Parliament be asked for it; but this —2,500 ought not to be asked for whilst there was an available surplus from the light dues.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYdesired to ask what control the Board of Trade would have over the spending of this money, and who were the men who were to be engaged in making these electrical communications? It was impossible that it could be undertaken by the men in the lighthouses, who worked 17 hours a day, for small wages, and practically had no holidays. The House ought to know who it, was that was responsible for a state of things that would not be tolerated on any railway nor in private works. If the Board of Trade were not responsible for the expenditure of this money, he failed to see why, for the

  435
  first time, the House should be asked to make a special grant. If the money was to be added to a general fund administered by Trinity House, why was this vote earmarked and treated separately? In what respect did this sum differ from an ordinary grant in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund that it should be treated in this special way?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, this money was not specially voted or earmarked for the first time, but in two preceding years these special grants had been voted. The whole business had arisen out of the recommendations of a Royal Commission, which recommended that electric communications should be established in certain cases; and the Board of Trade had endeavoured to carry out the recommendations. These votes were quite distinct from the Mercantile Marine Fund, the affairs of which were being investigated by a Committee over which the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) presided. It would not be right to enter upon any question concerning that Fund until the Committee had made its Report. This money was voted for a special purpose, and would not be mixed up with the Mercantile Marine Fund. It was not at the general disposal of Trinity House; but it was appropriated for the purposes recommended by the Royal Commission. As regarded the unemployed and the Lighthouses he had every reason to believe that Trinity House and the other Lighthouse Commissioners took care that additional men were provided to do additional work and that they did not ignore the considerations which had been mentioned. The money was spent in the way and upon the general principles that Trinity House, and the other Lighthouse Authorities managed the lighthouses generally. Contracts were made by them and were submitted for the approval of the Board of Trade; and the accounts were regularly audited. There was nothing exceptional in this Vote except that the money was given for a special purpose. It was found that the Mercantile Marine Fund was not able to bear the charges that were coming upon it, and, therefore a special grant had to be made. But the whole subject would come under review when the Report of the Committee was presented.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it would have been better that they should not have been asked to vote a sum in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund seeing that the explanation was, that the Vote had nothing to do with that Fund. He complained, therefore, of the form in which the Estimate was presented. The extra work involved in making the communications would fall upon the men in the lighthouses at the very time that their ordinary work was heaviest.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he must press upon the President the giving of a little more attention to this matter, for he was not absolutely free from responsibility for the treatment of the men. There should be a distinct promise from the President of the Board of Trade that the case of these men should be inquired into. There should be a distinct declaration that no extra work should be thrown upon them, and, if it could be shown they were overworked, extra men should be appointed for the relief of their burden.
  MR. BRYCEshared with the hon. Member the feeling that these men were worthy of every consideration. But, he repeated he had no power to interfere with Trinity House, its servants, or property. He would, however, be happy to communicate to Trinity House the hon. Member's observations, and the discussion would, no doubt, draw attention to the subject.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the vote of £496 for the Local Government Board, Scotland,
  DR. G. B. CLARKasked for an explanation with regard to the anticipated savings appearing in the Estimate amounting to £602.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridge-ton)said, that part of the saving was due to the retirement of a first-class clerk, and to the consequent promotions in the offices of the Local Government Board. Every clerk promoted in consequence of the retirement began with the minimum salary attached to his post. In addition to this there was a saving of some £200 under the head of Special Inquiries by the Commissioners of Loans.
  MR. J. CALDWELLasked what was the salary of the legal and medical members of the new Board?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYANreplied that the salary of each was £1,000.
  MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER,wished to state that the appointment of the gentleman who had been made the legal member of the Board had given very great satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that it was stated, when the subject was before the House on a former occasion, that the medical member of the Board was to give his whole time to the work of the Board, while the legal member was only to give such time as was at his disposal. The salaries given to these gentlemen being equal, he wished to know whether there was an equality of service. He did not, of course, impute that the legal member would not give full attention to the duties devolving upon him.
  SIR G. O. TREVELYANexpressed great satisfaction at the hon. Member's approval of the appointment of Mr. Patten MacDougallas legal member of the Board. There was only one opinion as to the merits of that gentleman in all quarters of the House. It had been stated that it was a matter of great importance that the full time of both the medical member and the legal member should be given to that office. They were regarded by the authorities, not only as an eminent legal member and an eminent medical member, but as two responsible administrators. It was quite, understood that the full time of the legal member was given to the work of the Board. Mr. MacDougall, eminent as he was as a lawyer, was at heart a thoroughgoing administrator, and he gave no time to private practice.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked whether the desirability of issuing more stringent dairy orders in Scotland had been considered? There had been cases of infectious disease breaking out on the premises of dairymen, and the result had been that customers had suffered in health. He had heard that day of a sad case in Dumfriesshire. Scarlet fever had broken out on a dairyman's premises, and 16 families were now affected by the disease. Did the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Public Health Committees had
  438
  sufficient power to deal with cases of that kind, and if he thought that they had not sufficient power, would he consider the advisability of issuing a general order which should apply to the whole of Scotland?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYANsaid, that the matter had engaged his attention. The case specially referred to by his hon. Friend was a most important case, and the results were sad and pathetic. The law on the subject was extremely doubtful, and the question was what ought to be done in the circumstances. He was most unwilling to make the County Government Bill, which he was introducing, a Public Health Bill as well, but this was such a pressing case that he was sure the Government would not be averse to a special provision being inserted in the Bill, if such was the general wish of hon. Members.
  MR. DALZIELwas much obliged to his right hon. Friend, and added that from what he knew of the feeling of hon. Members, no opposition would be made to the adoption of the suggestion.
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: I do not promise it will appear in the original draft of the Bill, but I should be prepared to insert it in Committee.
  DR. CLARKsaid there had been three Public Health Acts passed for England since they had had one for Scotland. Scotland, indeed, was 50 years behind England in this matter. More people proportionately died in Scotland from preventable disease than was the case in England, and the state of the Public Health Law in Scotland was a disgrace to the House of Commons.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £16,570 for Law Charges, England,
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he desired to take the first opportunity of calling attention to the change made in the position of the Law Officers of the Crown by the Treasury Minute of last year. The change was not only an important, but, he thought, a most mischievous one in every regard. It was mischievous to the character of the Bar, injurious to the offices of Attorney General and Solicitor General, and he

  439
  believed in the long run it would be found seriously injurious to the public service. One immediate effect had been an increase of charge which appeared on the face of the Estimate, and which had been caused by the prohibition of the law officers of the Crown from taking any private practice at all. This change made them political officers, and not the leaders of the Bar. If it were to be permanent, the Attorney General would no longer be the head and recognised leader of the Bar. If he was hardly ever seen in the Courts, and scarcely ever brought into contact with his brethren, he must of necessity lose a position which was obtained not merely from the possession of high office, but by the fact that he had been a leader of the Bar himself. He had always thought there was much to be said for altering the position of the Attorney General. It was a great mischief that there was not in the House one lawyer who sat in the Cabinet, and who in the Cabinet would have to consider the course of public business in the House. Too often the Law Officers in previous Governments had not been consulted in regard to measures, and had been delegated to defend them when actually proposed in the House. That was a position which had its disadvantages, and there was something to be said, therefore, for making the Attorney General a legal member of the Cabinet, sitting in this House. But there was nothing to be said for the present change. At present the law officers received £10,000 and £9,000 respectively. But that was not all. The change which had been made involved the creation of a public office, the Patent Office, upon which some hundreds a year were now spent. The whole of that money was provided before the change by the law officers themselves. Besides that, a grant was made for the clerk of the Attorney General and for the clerk of the Solicitor General. The charge now came to £19,000 for the salaries of the law officers and £700 a year for their clerks, and there must be added to that a sum of at least £800 a year which was now expended upon the Patent Office, making £20,500. This was a larger sum than the income of the Attorney General and Solicitor General came to during the last years of their predecessors in office. Not only had
  440
  there been this increase of charge, but the Law Officers had to be assisted by Other counsel, for whom the House had to provide the means of payment. In the excess vote before the Committee there was an item of £4,000 for agents' costs, counsel's fees, and other expenses in certain prosecutions, and a further item of £11,000 for agents' fees, counsel's fees, and other expenses in a Chancery suit, and he should like to know how much of these items was for counsel's fees. If this were a permanent charge he should challenge the decision of the Committee upon it, but it was not. The change was brought into effect by a Treasury Minute, and the Leader of the Opposition had stated that he looked upon it as nothing more than an arrangement made between the present Government and the present Law Officers. Of course, what the Treasury had done by Minute it could undo, but he could not refrain from making his protest against the change at this the first opportunity. He was sure his hon. and learned Friends who worthily filled the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General would recognise that it was with all friendly feelings he made this statement, but he had a very strong opinion indeed, which was shared by his hon. and learned colleague the Member for the Isle of Wight, and, he believed, by the present Lord Chief Justice of England, against the change which was made, and he desired, with all courtesy and friendliness to the present Law Officers, to make it understood that he looked upon this as a temporary arrangement in which he regretted they were induced to acquiesce.
  MR. CYRIL DODDregretted excessively the speech which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, because it meant that if at any future time the Conservative Party should happen to be again in Office, then the Law Officers of the Conservative Party would revert to the old practice, which, he thought, was an unfortunate one. The old practice was, that the Law Officers of the Crown were entitled to act for private clients as well as for the Government of the day. There had been cases when the Law Officers were so engrossed in private work that the business of the country was neglected and thrown over time after time. In addition there had been

  441
  cases where public duty to the country would necessarily conflict with the duty of a Law Officer to private clients. It was because of the difficulty and danger there might possibly be of the Attorney General or Solicitor General using his influence and position for private clients that it was thought right to put an end to private practice on the part of the Law Officers. He regretted the suggestion that such a practice was likely to be again revived. With regard to the suggestion that when the Attorney General was engaged in private practice he was in the Courts, and in all the Courts, and more in touch with the Bar, he agreed that that was the case. It was also true that in such circumstances he was more the leader of the Bar. He denied, however, that it was the duty of the Government to pay for or to provide a leader of the Bar. If the Attorney General was not in a position to lead the Bar, then the Bar must provide their own leader. The country desired that the legal Members of the Government should give their whole time to the Government, and have no other interest than that of the Government. One suggestion which had been made by the hon. and learned Member' for Plymouth had often occurred to him as deserving consideration. The hon. Member suggested that a legal Member of the Government should also be a Member of the Cabinet. He agreed with that view, seeing that the Law Officers of the Crown had often to advise on important international matters, as well as upon questions concerning domestic and other affairs. His principal object in rising, however, was to enter his protest against any attempt to go back to the old bad system of allowing private practice on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. T. REID, Dumfries, &c.)recognised the friendly way in which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had made his criticisms on this subject. He must say, however, that ever since he had been at the Bar he had entertained the opinion, which had, if possible, been strengthened by his experience as Law Officer, that his hon. and learned Friend was entirely wrong in the view he took of the matter; and he should very much regret if he thought that what he had said represented any settled policy on
  442
  the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to revert to the old system, which he believed to be most injurious to the public service. With regard to the point of economy, it was an entire delusion to suppose that any additional sum was involved by the Treasury Minute of June 1894. He believed the salaries fixed on that occasion represented the average of the sum of payments which had been made to the Law Officers during the preceding five years antecedent to 1892. In regard to the particular cases mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend was the Cordite case, in regard to which practically the whole expense was undertaken and incurred under the old system. The other related to expenses in the proceedings connected with Mr. Jabez Balfour, who was now in Argentina, and did not in any sense affect the salaries of the Law Officers. His hon. and learned Friend further suggested that Counsel were more frequently instructed now than they used to be under the previous system. He could only say that the Solicitor General and himself had been most scrupulously particular that there should be no ground of complaint in regard to this particular point; and they had accepted every brief and conducted every case in which any single Department had even hinted their desire in this direction, except in one case in which the Queen's Proctor considered it was not a matter in which the Law Officers should intervene. On the question of whether it was in the interest of the public service that the private practice of Law Officers should be discontinued on their taking Office, he did not make the least reflection on their predecessors, who did their work most ably and with a real desire for the public service; but he held that it was incompatible with the duties of the Attorney or Solicitor General that they should appear for private clients in the Courts of Justice. In the first place, they could never say when, unexpectedly, some political complexion would be attached to a case. Those who had studied the history of the country would know that the battles of the Constitution had been largely fought out in the Courts of Law. In the second place, it was conceivable that in a case in which the Attorney General was concerned for a private client perjury might be committed; and

  443
  would it not be an anomalous position that the person whose duty it was to direct a public prosecution should be the Attorney General of the day who had himself been counsel for one of the parties who might be accused? For himself, he could only say he could not do the work of a Law Officer of the Crown and any more work if he was to do it efficiently. If further work was to be attached to the various numerous and annually-increasing duties of the Law Officers he was perfectly certain it could not be done efficiently and with that moderate degree of leisure which allowed a man, at all events, to think over the opinion or the advice he had to give in matters of enormous importance like those in which the assistance of the Law Officers had to be invoked. He believed that his hon. and learned Friend and himself could not perform more work than they did at the present time unless they sacrificed quality to quantity. With reference to the point as to the position of the Law Officers in relation to the Bar, he should feel it exceedingly if he thought there was any diminution in the authority which was held by the Law Officers in regard to the Bar of England. But he did not believe there was any feeling of the kind. The Law Officers of the Crown were constantly in the Courts of Justice, and were constantly brought into contact with the profession; and he believed the honour and high-standing of the Bar were better served by those who led the Bar, holding conspicuous and prominent positions in the House of Commons, than by anything else they could be. No gentleman was very likely to be appointed a Law Officer of the Crown, who had not risen to a very considerable—indeed, he might say—a great position at the Bar beforehand, and if the Law Officers were able to shew that they held public, which commanded respect in men, they would command the respect of the Bar. He would conclude by repeating that he should regard it as a very deplorable thing in the public interest, if he should persuade himself that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth was right in his prophecy.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I made no prophecy.
  SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he hoped, in any case, his hon. and learned
  444
  Friend was mistaken in his view, for he should regard it as a very great misfortune if, on the advent of another Government to office, the rule which had been happily made with regard to the Law Officers should be reversed. He was sure his hon. and learned Friend would, on reflection, see that the first thing to look at in the matter was the Public Service; and that the Public Service would best be served by appointing the best and most able men at the Bar, and requiring them to occupy the whole of their attention with the interests of the State.
  MR. C. J. DARLINGsaid, he thoroughly agreed with the arrangement which required that the Law Officers of the Crown should not serve private interests during the time they hold office. He did not think that any other arrangement was possible in the public interest. He regretted that during years not long gone by, Law Officers had been seen much more frequently engaged in cases on behalf of private clients than in cases on behalf of the Crown. It had been said that if they made the Law Officers depend on their salaries, they would not get the best men for the positions. He thought he could point in the not distant past to more men in the positions than the two present Law Officers—he did not allude to the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, or any appointment so recent—men who were surprised to find themselves promoted to the offices, and who, notwithstanding the salary, could not resist the temptation to neglect the business of the Crown in order to attend to private clients—he knew the Bar very well, and he could not think that a salary of £10,000 a year would not provide a very adequate barrister to advise the Crown. The same amount provided a Lord Chancellor, and half the amount a Chancellor of the Exchequer. And yet they were asked to believe that for £10,000 a year they would not be able to induce to accept the Office of Attorney General a barrister adequate to advise the Crown as to the rights of the Japanese against the Chinese, although he had got to assist him another barrister at £9,000 a year, whom the hon. and learned Gentleman, the present Attorney General, said he could not easily distinguish from

  445
  himself, and as to whom it was a mere accident that one was Attorney General and the other Solicitor General. With the last remark he agreed, but he and all at the Bar were glad that an accident had not supplied the House with a Scotch metaphysician, instead of one or other of the present occupants of the Law Offices of the Crown. He could not, for the life of him, see that the business of the Crown had been worse done since the arrangement had been come to, than when it was perfectly notorious that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were engaged in all the great cases up and down the country and unable to give time to their duties to the Crown. Turning to the Vote itself, he could not compare the Estimates for 1894–95 with the Estimates for 1892–93 without being struck with the fact that they had been largely increased. He should like to know the reason. Item A, Salaries, &c., stood this year at £14,255, and the additional sum required was £4,070, whereas the same item in 1892–93 was £13,000. For criminal prosecutions the amount in 1892–93 was £19,200; the original estimate for 1894–95 was £25,000, and a supplementary sum of £4,000 was now asked for, but they were not told why the additional sum was required. In item C, legal proceedings, other than criminal, the original estimate for 1894–95 was £12,000; the revised estimate was £23,000; whereas in 1892–93 the amount was only £4,000. The intervention of the Queen's Proctor in 1892–93 cost £2,300; this year it cost £6,500; the total in 1892–93 was £39,450; this year, the original estimate was £55,255; and the revised estimate was £76,000. Another item that struck him as most extraordinary was, £2,500 for costs in divorce cases in which the Queens Proctor had unsuccessfully intervened. To a Law Officer, like the Queen's Proctor, that was a very discreditable matter. He thought the Committee should have some little explanation as to what those cases were, and as to how it came to pass that the Queen s Proctor had been condemned in those unsuccessful interventions. He was, of course, aware that there was an immense amount of perjury in the Divorce Court. He knew there were many people who thought it
  446
  a point of honour to commit perjury in the Divorce Court. At all events, it was committed in the Court by an enormous proportion of co-respondents; and the county did not seem to think the worse of them. The Queen's Proctor might be wrong now and then, but it was certainly startling that in one Supplementary Estimate it was admitted that he had intervened unsuccessfully to the extent of £2,500.
  SIR R. T. RELDsaid, it was not fair to blame the Queen's Proctor, who only intervened upon the direction of the Attorney General.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, he was extremely sorry to hear it. The Attorney General did not seem to have expected so much successful perjury as had been committed, and perhaps he would tell the House what these cases were in which he had advised so unsuccessfully. He made these remarks in no unfriendly spirit to the Law Officers, nor to the offices which they held. He could not help thinking that the Crown was well served by its Law Officers, and that the terms on which they held those offices were the best that could be made.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £7,000 for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses,
  SIR E. J. REEDsaid, the circumstances in regard to the arrest of the eminent man of science, Dr. Cornelius Herz, were, he thought, most discreditable to us on this side of the water, and very much more discreditable to the French Government. It would not be desirable for him to state the case at full length, because it was a very elaborate and complex one, but the object of his observations was to put an end by some means to the present state of things. The charge upon which Dr. Herz was prosecuted was such that within three years of the alleged offence he could not be prosecuted at all, consequently those who were implicated, in common with Dr. Herz, in the, affair in which he at any rate played a secondary part, were free men, walking about Paris and London as they pleased, although many of them were convicted by Courts in

  447
  France of the misdemeanours with which they were charged. But Dr. Herz was held under arrest up to this moment, and, so far as he could learn, would be held under arrest until the end of his life. He had been in his bed for more than two years while under the arrest of an English police officer for alleged misdemeanours in France, in spite of the fact that on the very day of the last of the three warrants the President of the French Republic and the Minister of Justice in France declared in a public decree that for no one of the charges alleged against him could he be tried in France. His belief was, that if Dr. Herz had been well enough to have had his case heard at Bow Street, he would have been immediately discharged. There was no need to arrest Dr. Herz under the Extradition Treaty, because he was confined to his bed by dangerous illness and was not a fugitive, the treaty applying only to fugitives from justice. On the very day on which the last of the warrants was served on him the Journal de la République published a decree signed by President Carnot and the French Minister of Justice declaring that Dr. Herz, could not be tried in France for any of the charges alleged against him. It was the duty of the French Government to have communicated this fact to the British Government, but as far as he knew they had never done so. He held that from the moment that decree was published, Dr. Herz had been improperly kept under arrest. According to the present state of things the man might be kept under arrest for any number of years; until the French Government made the next move in the case the British Government appparently could do nothing. The French Government had asked them to arrest Dr. Herz; they did so, and they still hold him without any prospect of release. He should have thought that the decree issued by the French Government would have been sufficient to induce the British Government to liberate Dr. Herz, but they closed their eyes to the decree because it had not been officially communicated to them. Before July last the Home Secretary received a number of certificates from certain eminent physicians as to the deplorable state of health of Dr. Herz, and Sir
  448
  William Broadbent was officially sent down to examine him. He did so, and his report to the Home Office fully corroborated the previous certificates, and showed that the man accused was utterly unfit to be removed to London. There was this peculiarity in the matter—that under the Extradition Treaty his case could only be heard by the Bow Street Magistrate in the Bow Street Court, or in some other Court within his jurisdiction. So that this gentleman, who was ready to prove his innocence, was not allowed by his physicians to remove to London, and the law did not permit the magistrate; to go to the place where he was lying. The consequence was that he might have to remain under arrest where he was for his whole lifetime, unless he recovered and could come to London, which was very improbable. It could hardly be agreeable to Englishmen to know that a man was being victimised on their soil in this way simply because the law made no proper provision for the case. He had always understood that it was the practice in this country to give to unconvicted persons simply under arrest the benefit of any doubt, or of any misfortune that might occur to them. He had suggested to the Home Secretary a year ago, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to bring in a small Bill to remedy the defect in the law and to have the case heard; but, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman said he was unable to do so. In July last year many protests were made by different persons in regard to the case; and the Government were asked to try and meet the difficulty. The occasion arose for another medical certificate, and a word or two from this certificate would, he thought, satisfy the mind of the Committee as to the state of the invalid. On the 21st of July of this year, Sir Richard Quain, Bart., Sir George Johnson, Dr. T. Lauder Brunton, Dr. William Frazer, and Professor Malcolm McHardy reported in a formal certificate that they had on that day visited and examined Dr. Herz, and found that—
  "he is suffering from grave diseases of his aortic valves and also of the mitral valve, and that the walls of the heart are diseased. This condition of the heart—"

  449
  they continued—
  "leads to attacks of angina pectoris, in any one of which death may occur. The attacks are brought on by the slightest movement, such as an attempt to sit up."
  They further added—
  "Under these circumstances, we are decidedly of opinion that any attempt to move him would be fraught with the greatest danger to his life. Dr. Herz, has long been suffering from diabetes, and from degeneration of his arteries."
  The condition of Dr. Herz was reported to the French Government, but such were the political exigencies and excitement of the Chamber of Deputies that, within six days of the issue of that certificate, he was tried on the assumption that he was contumaciously refusing to go to France to be tried, while our Government, the instrument of France for the purpose of holding him under arrest, with the full knowledge that he was incapable of coming even to London, or of travelling at all, or even of sitting up in his bed with safety, remained silent. His contention was that, if at that moment Dr. Herz was being held under arrest in the interest of the French Government, and if the French Government did not consider the British Government a sufficiently good and honest agent for its purpose, the British Government might well have said—
  "In these circumstances, as you do not believe us, as you do not accept these statements of the most important medical men, as you do not accept the statement even of your own medical men, why should we hold this gentleman any longer? You discredit us as your agents, consequently we wash our hands of the case."
  He was conscious that a full and satisfactory account of the case could not be given here; but he thought it wrong, feeling a close interest in the subject, to allow this money to be voted for the further indefinite holding under arrest of this unfortunate gentleman, for no other reason than that the French Government were afraid to say to the British Government—
  "We cannot expect you to go any further in this course of irregularity."
  He was not making these remarks for any other purpose than to bring the case to the notice of the Committee. He did not make them by way of censure upon
  450
  the Government, although the Government had frequently said—
  "We cannot go into the question of whether Dr. Herz could be tried in France or not. It is enough for us to know that we have him under arrest here, at the request of the French Government made two years ago."
  He could not believe that the House would be content with this. He hoped the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration, and, because he looked to them to exercise more discretion and activity than they had hitherto shown, he wished to make his remarks as moderate as as he could. He hoped the Solicitor General would understand that his speech was not made by way of complaint, but by way of statement. He believed the Members of the Government, individually, would be as willing as anyone to do justice to this unfortunate individual. But the case was peculiar. This gentleman was there because there was no law applicable to the case, and he could only do one thing—he could lie arid he could die. That was the only course open to him, unless, as he feared, his brain and mind gave way under the circumstances. Was it right that the British Government should be called upon to go on in this way? When Dr. Herz underwent the ridiculous mock trial, the French Court sentenced him to the fullest term of imprisonment that was possible for the alleged misdemeanour—five years. This gentleman might be in this country during the five years, and if the French Government did not move, if they were afraid of the outcry of a certain section of the Deputies, he might thus fulfil his sentence, and might yet be under arrest a prisoner for the same reason that he would be lying under arrest now. He was not at all unfriendly to France, he had a great many friends in France, some of them among her Ministers; but if the French Government were so timid as to be afraid to do justice in a case like this; if it refused to make any communication with the British Government, then, in his opinion, Dr. Herz ought to be released on the ground of common humanity; or at least a communication ought to be made to the French Government to the effect that the British Government were not satisfied with the present state of things, and that they could not allow it to continue.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FRANK LOCKWOOD, York)said, his hon. Friend, in addressing the House, had displayed no unfriendly feeling towards the Government of this country, but had spoken rather strongly with regard to the conduct of that of a friendly State. As he understood the case, Dr. Herz was one of the persons charged in connection with what was known as the Panama scandals, and at the time the charges were made he left France, or, at any rate, was not at home when the investigations were made. He came to this country, whereupon a requisition was made for his surrender as a fugitive criminal, and the Secretary of State had no option in the matter. It became his duty, under the treaty existing between this country and France, to signify to a police magistrate that such a request had been made, and to obtain the issue of a warrant for apprehension. That course was followed, and an officer went down to Bournemouth for the purpose of executing the warrant. It was not executed, however, because Dr. Herz was ill in bed. Nor had the warrant been executed up to this time, though an officer was in attendance to put it into force in case he left the house. In that sense Dr. Herz might be said to be under arrest at the present moment. Now his hon. Friend had said that under those circumstances it was the duty of the Home Office to withdraw the warrant, and no doubt it was within the power of the Secretary of State to take such a course, but upon that point he would express no opinion. Another matter alluded to was that many of those persons who were charged at the same time in connection with the Panama case, were now walking about in Paris enjoying themselves, but, to use a common expression, they might be described as having served their time.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid they were within the doctrine of prescription, and, on the ground that they had been improperly tried, the High Court ordered their immediate discharge.
  SIR FRANK LOCKWOODsaid, if that were so, his apologies were due, not to his hon. Friend, but to the persons in question, and he would make them accordingly. The next point was that the President had declared that none of
  452
  these charges could be tried under the conscription. He had had an opportunity of looking at the proclamation of the President of the French Republic, and, Dr. Herz holding a high position in the Order of the Legion of Honour, that proclamation appeared to have been made for the purpose of depriving him of his position in the Order. He had no doubt the same course would be followed in this country in similar circumstances; and the controlling authority would withhold its judgment until the criminal Court had pronounced a verdict. There would be, no doubt, something in the point if Dr. Herz had been acquitted, or if there had been, as he was reminded by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, a trial on the merits of the case. Then he did not know that his hon. Friend would not have something to say. He had had an opportunity of speaking with the Home Secretary on this matter, and he would be glad, indeed, if he could assist his hon. Friend in making an investigation or representation. But beyond that he could not say more. He did not think there were any grounds for suggesting that the Government had been guilty of any harsh conduct. The position was this. They had been requisitioned by a friendly Power under a treaty which bound them. The Secretary of State, acting on that requisition, made application to the magistrate. A warrant was applied for. The warrant could not be executed owing to this gentleman's condition of health. No unnecessary indignity or inconvenience was inflicted, arid it was to be hoped that he would be happily restored to health and the warrant properly served upon him.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEthought that the statement made by his hon. and learned Friend was quite unassailable. No doubt, this gentleman was in the position of one with respect to whom the French Government were entitled to make a requisition, but there, was, he thought, a question to be considered. He did not want to discuss the legal aspects of the question. Nor was there any doubt as to the reality of the Gentleman's great sufferings and terrible condition, because that had been investigated by the highest authority. All were agreed that he had been for two

  453
  years in the custody of an English police officer, who was in the next room. He did think that this was a case, not for the Home Office, hut the Foreign Office, which should make some representation to the French Government as to the undignified position in which this country was placed with regard to the cruel harshness exercised towards Dr. Herz. He hoped the Government would see that some representation might be made to the French Government to put an end to a state of affairs painful to everyone.
  SIR EDWARD REEDcontended that this gentleman was being held here under arrest on charges for which he could not be tried in France; and, secondly that he was being held here in spite of the fact that the French Government had treated this country with so much inconsideration in alleging practically that they did not believe what was said by our Government and our physicians.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid they appeared to be placed in an anomalous position in this matter. Here was a gentleman who had now been under arrest for practically two years. From what he understood, the warrant which was issued by Sir John Bridge was issued ultra vires. Dr. Herz said, in effect, that if he could being his case before the police magistrate he should prove that the warrant ought not to have been issued, that it ought to be cancelled, and that he ought not to be extradited to France. That was the position from the fact that this unfortunate gentleman was suffering from a conplication of diseases and unable to leave his room or his bed. He was unable, in fact, in consequence of the state of our law, to bring his case before the Court. It was not the fault of the Government, but the fault of our law; and it was the duty of Parliament so to amend the law as to meet cases of this description. He believed that a simple alteration of the Definition Clause of the Act of 1870 would be adequate. The whole difficulty depended upon, this—that in England we did not allow a trial to take place except in the presence of the prisoner, and under the Extradition Act all these cases must de tried in the Bow Street Police Court. But were there no other police courts or other magistrates capable of trying these cases? The Government
  454
  ought to introduce some exceptional Legislation to deal with an exceptional case, and to such Legislation he did not believe there would be any opposition.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTasked whether all these expenses were borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund and not by the French Government. In the time of the late Lord Aberdare at the Home Office all expenses incurred for the arrest of a prisoner beyond the Metropolitan Police district were borne by the prosecutor, and an indemnity was always required from the prosecutor for extraordinary expense in connection with sending Metropolitan Police officers beyond the district.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that under the Extradition Treaty with France the cost of the Herz case had to be voted by Parliament. Unfortunately, this country had to pay the expenses in the Herz case under the French Treaty and the expenses in the Jabez Balfour case under the Argentina Treaty. In fact, we were burning the candle at both ends.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he had had experience of many of these cases, and they were never undertaken in his time without seeking an indemnity from the French prosecutor.

  EXTRADITION OF JABEZ BALFOUR.
  MR. DARLINGcalled attention to the expenses incurred in the proceedings taken to obtain the extradition of Jabez Balfour, and moved to reduce the vote of £7,000 by £100. He had put several questions to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to when the country might expect to see Jabez Balfour. Several of his intimate friends were at this moment placed on their trial, and some regret was felt that Jabez Balfour could not be included among them. He had not been able to get from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs an exact explanation of what was the position of affairs with regard to the extradition of this gentleman, nor what were the expectations of the Government as to his arrival in this country. Jabez Balfour was a very notorious and important public man; he had exercised a very great influence in the politics of the country; £7,000 had been spent in obtaining his extradition,

  455
  and still his extradition remained unaccomplished. He wanted an explanation of the way in which the money had been spent, and what the Government had done to obtain the extradition. He gathered from other sources that Mr. Jabez Balfour was in the Argentine Republic, lived there in comfort, and wrote from his home there articles for The Pall Mall Gazette. The Government professed to be anxious to secure his return to this country, and what had they done? He understood they had negotiated some sort of special Extradition Treaty. But the Committee should know, and were entitled to know, if they did enter into an Extradition Treaty—a special Extradition Treaty "ad hoc," as the Solicitor General would say—what had been the result? Whether there had been a Treaty or not, some one was found, after Mr. Jabez Balfour's extradition had been directed, to bring some sort of collusive action against him. He would like to know who this was, and what the action was brought for? As the result of this collusive action, Mr. Balfour was detained in Argentina. The moment was not propitious for his arrival in this country. What prospect was there of the termination of the action? What were the points raised? What had the Government done to combat those points? And what prospect was there of the Courts of Argentina being influenced by the arguments urged on behalf of the Government? The kind of arguments that would influence the Courts of Argentina should be known to the Law Officers of the Crown. They ought to know from the Government all that the Government knew. If the Committee knew half that the Government knew it would be enough. Would the Government tell them exactly what they had done? If they had entered into a Treaty, what did it provide? If the Treaty had been without effect, how did it become inefficacious? What was the action that delayed Mr. Jabez Balfour's departure? And how was it that, while the Government were asking the Committee to pay for the watching of a man who could not leave his bed or his room, M. Herz, the newspapers stated that the detective put to watch Jabez Balfour had been told to return to England? Was Mr. Jabez Balfour still watched by a detective? Was he under
  456
  arrest or free? Had this country any rights over him? Until he was satisfied on these points the Government would have difficulty in getting this Vote.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would like to point out to the House that the whole of this extraordinary expense in connection with the tardy action of the Government——
  THE CHAIRMAN (to Mr. Darling): Does the hon. and learned Member move or not?
  MR. DARLING: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the whole of the expense incurred in attempting to bring Mr. Jabez Balfour to justice was due to the original neglect of the Government to take action in time. His point was, that there, was a period when the Official Receiver's Report was made known to the Law Officers of the Crown; that that Report contained practically the whole case as it was now known against Jabez Balfour; that several weeks were allowed to pass by the Government without anything being done to prevent Jabez Balfour leaving the country. By allowing him to escape, all this expenditure had become necessary. The same extraordinary delay took place in the institution of proceedings against those who were jointly responsible with Jabez Balfour. The proceedings were begun after a delay of 12 months, and only two days before the opening of Parliament—just in time to save the Government from a very serious charge. He made no attack upon the present Attorney General, who was not responsible; but the charge was good against the Government and the previous Law Officers.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that, as far as the Foreign Office was concerned—and their concern extended to the whole of the points traversed by the hon. and learned Member for Deptford—his intention was to conceal nothing from the House of what the Foreign Office knew in this matter. He hoped that the Committee would accept that statement in the spirit in which it was made, and he should like to be confident that the hon. and learned Member for Deptford would accept it also. [Mr. DAKLING: "Hear, hear!"] He hoped that he was justified in saying that the object of the hon. Member's

  457
  speech was not to attribute to the Government any want of good faith; because, if it were, the hon. and learned Member could not accept his statement on any point. The hon. and learned Member complained that he had not been able to get any explanation from the Government as to the circumstances of the case. He had given him that explanation in answers to questions, and if those answers had been accepted, some parts of the hon. and learned Member's speech would not have been justified. He was asked in the House originally what the position of affairs was, and he then stated to the House that the Government had applied to the Argentine Government for the extradition of Jabez Balfour, and that legal proceedings were pending in the Republic as to whether, under the Extradition Treaty, Jabez Balfour could be extradited. The request was made directly after Jabez Balfour arrived in that country. Various complicated questions arose under the Treaty. Considerable time and expense were entailed in threshing out those questions in the Courts of the Argentine Republic, but it was eventually decided that, under the Treaty, the extradition ought to take place; and the Federal Government declared themselves prepared to carry it out. But, during this time, Jabez Balfour had been not at Buenos Ayres, but at Salta, a place 2,000 miles distant. The Argentine Republic had a Federal Government, and several Provincial Governments, under one of which Salta happened to be. The Federal Government having decided that they were in duty bound to extradite Jabez Balfour, a further question arose under the Provincial Government. Suits were there brought against Jabez Balfour for offences which he was alleged to have committed since he arrived in Salta—offences of which Her Majesty's Government could have no knowledge, but which, the Argentine Authorities said, must be decided in the Argentine Courts. That was all that the Foreign Office knew, and all that they could know. They could not possibly try or go into the details or actions brought for offences committed long after leaving this country, on Argentine soil, and in circumstances of which they knew nothing. But Her Majesty's Government did
  458
  press their demand that, as it had been decided that Jabez Balfour should be extradited, the extradition should be proceeded with. The answer given to the British Government was that, under the Treaty they had signed with the Argentine Government—and by the general Law of Nations it was an established practice—a prisoner whose extradition was demanded should first be called upon to satisfy the Law Courts of the country in which he was, for offences committed in that country. On that point also, appeal was made to the Argentine Courts, and the Courts decided that, under the Treaty, they were entitled, first of all, to try Jabez Balfour, and to see that he paid the penalty for offences committed in that country before he was extradited. This was what was stated in answer to the hon. Member for Deptford the other day. The Provincial Authorities of the Province in which Salta is decided that they must try him on the charge brought against him in that Province, and he told the hon. Member the other day that the legal vacation in that Province ended about the end of last month, and at the close of the vacation the prosecution was to be proceeded with. The result of this prosecution was not yet known; but meanwhile we had contended that under the Treaty the Federal Government ought to extradite Jabez Balfour, and we had done our best to secure that the extradition should take place immediately; but the Provincial Authorities put forward their claim to try their case first. There was one further point, and it was whether there was any flaw in the Extradition Treaty which the present Government might have avoided, and by the avoidance of which the extradition might have been expedited. He had pointed out that the Government had done everything they could to enforce the provisions of the Treaty which exists; the only remaining point was, whether they were in any way to blame for the fact that it did not contain provisions as stringent as it might have done. The hon. Member for Deptford talked about a special Extradition Treaty, passed with special reference to this case, ad hoc being the phrase he used. When Jabez Balfour arrived in the Argentine Republic there was no Extradition Treaty

  459
  between it and this country. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Deptford said "Hear, hear !" Why was there not? An Extradition Treaty between us had been drawn up and signed, not by the present Government, but by the late Government—he was not quite certain about the date, but he thought it was in 1888; anyhow, it was signed one or two years before the late Government left office. The present Government came into office and found it signed. The late Government were undoubtedly anxious, and rightly anxious, that an Extradition Treaty should exist between the Argentine Republic and this country, and they had got it signed; but they did not succeed in getting that Treaty ratified by the Argentine Republic. Then arose a case of great interest and notoriety owing to Jabez Balfour having taken up his residence in the Republic. He did not know whether in those circumstances it would be supposed it would have been more easy for the present Government than it had been for the late Government to have secured a rapid ratification of the Extradition Treaty. It was, however, the fact that the present Government, within a comparatively short time of its coming into office, did find itself in a position to exchange the ratifications of that Treaty which had been signed by the previous Government. The present Government, finding themselves without an Extradition Treaty, and finding themselves face to face with the fact that an Extradition Treaty had been signed, but had not been ratified by the Argentine Legislature, spared no expense and no trouble to get Jabez Balfour extradited under that Treaty. Immediately it was ratified the point was raised whether its action was retrospective or not, because it was not ratified till after Jabez Balfour arrived in the Argentine Republic. That was a very serious and novel point. It was decided that, although the Treaty was not ratified until after Balfour's arrival, it did apply to his case, and since then his extradition had been pressed for. There was no reason to presume that if the prosecution of Jabez Balfour in the Provincial Court resulted in a conviction he would not undergo the proper punishment for his offence; still less was there any reason to suppose that, if the prosecution
  460
  failed, the Federal Government would not at once act up to the spirit of its own declaration and proceed—as it had already endeavoured to proceed, and but for these prosecutions in the Provincial Courts would have proceeded—at once with the extradition of Jabez Balfour.
  MR. B. L. COHENsaid, he was sorry there should be in the minds of any Members of the Government the slightest suspicion of a desire to attribute to Her Majesty's Government a want of good faith; but he was bound to say he did not think the imperfect statement just made had very much improved the case. Until the hon. Baronet rose he was certainly under the impression, which he shared with other Members, that, for this expenditure of £7,000, at least an Extradition Treaty had been obtained; but now the Committee had been told that the Treaty existed before the Government came into Office.
  SIR E. GREY: No; I expressly stated that the Extradition Treaty had not come into force.
  MR. COHENsaid, he was coming to that. The Treaty was signed before the Government came into Office, and all that had been secured by the zealous efforts of the Government was a ratification of this celebrated Treaty, and as the result we were no better off than we were before the ratification, when we had not incurred this expenditure. It would have been interesting had the Under Secretary informed the Committee what portion of the expenditure had been incurred in connection with Jabez Balfour, and how far the position had been improved by the zealous efforts of the Government. All that was generally known was that a Police Inspector had been sent to the River Plate, the cost of his passage being some £80 or £90, and the ratification of this Extradition Treaty seemed to be the only return for 87,000 now asked for. He did not think the country would grudge £15,000 or more to obtain the presence of this much-sought-for ex-Member who held an office under the Crown, to which he was appointed by Her Majesty's Government before he left the country. The efforts to obtain that presence had turned out abortive, and he thought the

  461
  country would have been better satisfied had this money been made a contribution to the Liberator Fund, where it would have done more concrete good than in obtaining the ratification of this Treaty, which had not secured nor did it seem likely to secure the extradition of the person for which object the Treaty was ratified. The country would be disappointed with the statement of the hon. Baronet, which showed we were no nearer our object than we were 18 months ago.
  SIR E. GREY: I just wish to explain that an Extradition Treaty signed is worth nothing until ratified.
  MR. W. R. CREMERsaid, Members could not disguise from themselves that there was a strong feeling out of doors among large sections of the people and not confined to any political Party—that some Members of the House had no sincere desire to see Jabez Balfour return to this country. He expressed no opinion as to the accuracy of this belief, but that the belief did obtain among a large number of people of this country it would be idle to deny. There was a general belief, too, that Her Majesty's Government had not made the efforts they ought to have made to secure the return of the person in question. He did not say that he shared that belief, but the feeling existed and was growing. He had listened attentively to the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and did not think it answered one or two questions in so complete a manner as the Committee had a right to expect. He failed to gather whether Her Majesty's Government had made any effort to ascertain the nature of the charges made against Jabez Balfour at Salta. It was natural to expect this information, and to obtain it was a duty Her Majesty's Government owed to our countrymen, hundreds of thousands of whom had been victimised by this man. Could the Government say who was the prosecutor and was it a collusive or a bona-fide action? Another mystery attaching to the matter was, whence came the funds which enabled Jabez Balfour to remain in that, part of the world? Thousands of pounds had been expended in efforts to prevent Jabez Balfour from being extradited. He had heard
  462
  that a large sum of money went out about a year and a half ago, ostensibly for the purpose of some waterworks, said to be in progress in that part of the world. Was the statement true, and if so, where did the money come from? He was surprised that hon Members should laugh at his statements, especially as so many thousands of people had been absolutely ruined by the collapse of the Liberator and the other Companies. He contended that it was the duty of the Government to find out from what source those funds came. It was rumoured that they came from a certain source——[An hon. MEMBER: "What source?"] He was not going to fall into that trap. There was also a question put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, as to whether there was any desire or intention on the part of the then Government, whether in fact they winked at the escape of Mr. Jabez Balfour? He did not think they did, but the point ought to be cleared up, and he hoped the Under Secretary of State would give more information on that head, so that the suspicion which the hon. Member for Sheffield had voiced should be set at rest and silenced from this date.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTapologised for troubling the Committee again, but he happened to know something of this case, not only from his police experience, but from having been in Argentina, and in a personal capacity seen the Minister there in reference to Mr. Jabez Balfour. Of the charge of£7,000, £600 was due on account of the case of Cornelius Herz; and, on the police regulations bearing thereon, he contended that the French Government should bear the expense as regarded Herz. As regarded Balfour, he thought there had been a great deal too much formality and Government action. No doubt an Extradition Treaty was of no avail until ratified, but the case was perfectly well known in police practice, and he was quite sure the Metropolitan Police would have done everything possible to have effected the arrest of Jabez Balfour, and he did not doubt they had put forward every possible exertion. It was well known that it was often easier to obtain the surrender of a prisoner from a country with which there was no Extradition Treaty than from a

  463
  country with which such a Treaty had been concluded. The arrest of a prisoner was generally a mere matter of energy and money. He knew that the late President of the Argentine Republic and the Minister of the Interior were most anxious to facilitate the extradition of Jabez Balfour, and the greatest credit was due to Mr. Welby, the First Secretary of the British Legation at Buenos Ayres, and to the Consul-General at Salta, for the efforts which they had made. The Government ought to let the Argentine Republic know that they attached the utmost importance to the speedy surrender of this criminal. If that view was expressed energetically, he believed that there would be very little delay before Jabez Balfour was shipped to this country. He did not understand why such an enormous sum should have been expended in connection with this case, especially as we seemed to be as far away as ever from the time when this infamous fugitive should appear in the dock at Bow Street.
  SIR R. T. REIDexplained that in addition to the expense of sending police officers to Buenos Ayres, very heavy legal expenses had been incurred in that country, where the scale of legal remuneration was, he was informed, more satisfactory than it was here. If, as had been said, suspicions were entertained in connection with this case he trusted they would be duly formulated. The hon. Member behind him had spoken of suspicious sources of money, and he regretted that when he asked what those sources were the hon. Member should have thought that he was laying a trap for him.
  MR. CREMERsaid, that he thought the question was addressed to him from the other side of the House by the hon. and learned Member for Deptford.
  SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that the hon. Member's explanation was entirely satisfactory. He could quite understand men and women who had lost very large sums of money through fraudulent companies entertaining suspicions even if they were unreasonable. His view was that the sooner these rumours were translated into plain language the better it would be.
  MR. CREMER: I will do as the hon. and learned Member suggests. The
  464
  general impression out of doors is that the money has come from the Debenture Corporation.
  SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that he had never heard that rumour before, and that he had himself no knowledge of the sources from which the money had come, if money had been sent to Jabez Balfour in Argentina in order to assist him to remain abroad. If the hon. Member would bring to his notice any proper ground for instituting criminal proceedings against any one in the United Kingdom in respect of this or any other offence he would see that justice was done. The hon. Member had asked him to explain the nature of the charges at Salta that had delayed the extradition of Jabez Balfour. He believed that they were charges of fraud in conection with some brewery company which was supposed to have been formed by Jabez Balfour in Argentina. It was not in the power of Her Majesty's Government to estimate the importance of those charges. The point was this—in the Extradition Treaty the Government of the Argentine Republic were bound to hand this individual over to the Government of this country, but it had been decided in the provincial Court of Salta, in Argentina, that before handing an individual over to any foreign country he must first have met any such charges that might have been made against him in Argentina, and the Public Prosecutor in Argentina would not forego that. The point was that the Government of this country were not in the least responsible for what had been done in Argentina, and he would further say they knew nothing at all about the question of where the funds came from, but if anyone would give him information on the subject it might be of service and would receive attention. The hon. Member for Sheffield made certain observations with regard to the delay which had taken place in this case, and he was good enough to exempt him from the very sweeping, and he thought unfounded, charges he had made against his predecessors in office. He would much have preferred it if the hon. Member had made these charges when those gentlemen were in the House to meet them.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I made precisely the

  465
  same charges last year, and the hon. Gentleman explained to me that he was not personally responsible for the delay.
  SIR R. T. REIDsaid, his observation was that he wished the hon. Gentleman had made those charges in the presence of those to whom he imputed the delay. The person responsible in this matter was not the Solicitor General but the Attorney General, and when the House met last year the Attorney General was Lord Justice Rigby, and his predecessor was the Lord Chief Justice of England. But he, personally, had never had any responsibility whatever in regard to this matter until the month of October last, when he became Attorney General. It would be a very strong thing if any Attorney General had winked at the escape of Jabez Balfour. It really would be, he should imagine, a proper subject for impeachment, and it would be a most shortsighted policy for any man to do anything of the kind. The facts were these. At the time when the prosecution against Hobbs and Wright took place, in December, 1892, there was no evidence before the Public Prosecutor which would warrant any charge being made against Jabez Balfour, and if the hon. Gentleman had only seen the huge mass of papers in the case he would well understand how long a time it took to extricate from its confusion the enormous volume of complicated transactions which were involved. In December, 1892, when Hobbs and Wright were arrested, there was no case whatever to warrant proceedings against Balfour. Immediately on the arrest of Hobbs and Wright, Balfour disappeared from the country. Why was there any delay in endeavouring to bring him back? At first the difficulty was that the Treaty had not been ratified. Then, from that time proceedings had been going forward constantly in the Argentine Republic, and they had been in the hands of the Foreign Office and had been carried on, he had no doubt, with all expedition. It was only in October, 1894, that, the final order of the Court of Appeal was made for the extradition of Balfour, and immediately upon that came these proceedings in the Provincial Court, which, it had since been held, precluded the extradition until Balfour had met the charges made against him in that country.
  466
  As long as it was thought, as it was thought from month to month, that Balfour would be sent to this country, proceedings were postponed, because it was obvious in the interest of public justice, that all these men should be tried together; but immediately it was seen that there would be indeterminate delay in the case of Balfour, proceedings were commenced against the others. As far as he could see, there had been no delay whatever, except such as was deliberately adopted in the hope entertained from month to month that Balfour would be returned to this country for trial. He hoped there would be no suspicion—for it would be a very unworthy suspicion—that there was the slightest desire on the part of any Members of the Government, past or present, to shield from trial the person against whom these charges were made.
  MR. T. T. BUCKNILL, whilst accepting without reserve the statements made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and others who had spoken for the Government, did not think that those statements had gone far enough, and that they had not got quite so much light on the subject as they ought to have. The facts as stated by the Government were these: That having obtained this extradition order so to speak, from the Federal Government, Jabez Balfour, at the very critical moment, went to Salta, where some charge was preferred against him.
  SIR E. GREY: He was at Salta, and the Provincial Government there said they could not give him over to the Federal Authorities until he had satisfied the charges brought against him at Salta.
  MR. BUCKNILLsaid, that being at Salta, he understood Jabez Balfour had committed some offence against the criminal law within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government, and what they wanted to know, and what he thought they had a right to know, was what was the offence against the criminal law with which Balfour was charged, and until he had answered which the authorities at Salta declined to hand him over to the Federal Government. Fraud was a very general term. What they desired to know, and what the Government surely ought to know, was what were the charges of fraud with regard to

  467
  some alleged brewery business? Salta was not a large place, and this matter could surely have been somewhat better cleared up than it was at the present moment. If the fraud charged related to something which, by some representative out there, could be made known to the Government here, the Government had been very lax in not obtaining more information than they seemed to have got. Then, were they to understand that if Jabez Balfour was acquitted of the charges made against him by the Provincial Government of Salta he would be immediately handed over, without further trouble or expense, to the Federal Government, who would transfer him to the law officers of this country.
  SIR E. GREYreplied that the Government had never contended or admitted that the offences with which Jabez Balfour was charged before the provincial authorities were entitled to impede his extradition to this country. On the contrary, they had pressed for his extradition in spite of these charges. The central fact, however, was not what the charges were, but that the public prosecutor of the provincial Court had refused to abandon those charges, and the provincial Court had refused to give Balfour up until such charges had been satisfied. That was the central point, and it was one which it was not in the power of the Government to overcome. As to the other question of the hon. and learned Member, if Jabez Balfour were acquitted of the charges, the Federal Government had demanded that he should be given up by the provincial authorities. As far as the Government knew and understood, the only ground upon which the provincial authorities had refused to surrender him to the Federal Authorities was that the, charges in their Courts must be first satisfied, and they had every right to assume that if he was acquitted of such charges the provincial authorities would surrender him to the Federal Authorities who were anxious to do the best they could to extradite him under the treaty.
  MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEYremarked that the narrative of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stopped at the most important point. Inspector Tonbridge had
  468
  now come home, and there could be no earthly doubt that he had told the Government the whole details of the proceedings now pending against Jabez Balfour. What they wanted to know was, were these instituted by the provincial authorities or were they instituted at the instance of a private individual?
  SIR E. GREY: At the instance of the public prosecutor of the province.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Then was he in custody?
  SIR E. GREY: Yes.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Was there any engagement that upon his regaining his liberty this country should be entitled to claim his extradition?
  The hon. Member was speaking at Twelve o'clock, when the Debate stood adjourned.
  The House resumed.

  MAGISTRATES AS CHAIRMEN OF DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  Address agreed to for Return showing, in each county, the number of Magistrates who have been placed upon the Bench in virtue of their election as Chairmen of District Councils, in accordance with Section 22 of the Local Government Act, 1894.—(Mr. Loder.)

  GRAND JURIES (IRELAND)(NO. 2)BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  And, it being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again 6th March.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.
THE EARL OF JERSEY, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, said that it was brought in at the instance of the Middlesex County Council, and the object of it was to amend the Act of 1880, under which the Secretary of State had power to declare a close time during which wild birds should not be shot, by enlarging the time mentioned in the Act. The county of Middlesex suffered greatly from eruptions of a certain class of sportsmen, who went out on Saturdays and Sundays and shot birds in the hedgerows, to the great inconvenience, and even to the danger, of the inhabitants. The effect of the Bill would be to give the Secretary of State power, on a County Council passing a resolution with that object, to extend the close time beyond the breeding season. He understood that the Government approved of the general object of the Bill, subject to certain Amendments to be moved in Committee. The promoters of the Bill would be only too glad to adopt any Amendment which would make the Bill easier to work, if the principle of the measure met with the approval of the House.
Bill read 2a.

SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL.
LORD MACNAGHTEN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said that it had been introduced at the instance of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and the object of the Bill was to assimilate the law relating to solicitors in Ireland to that which prevailed in England. In Ireland the governing Act was the Act of I860, which was founded on the English Act of 1860; but the English Act had been amended since in many
370
particulars in which improvements had been made in the law. The intention of this measure was to place the profession in Ireland on the same footing as the profession in England with regard to the qualifications, admission, and discipline; and the Bill consisted almost entirely of details with which he should not be justified in troubling their Lordships; in fact, it consolidated the provisions of the English law and applied them to Ireland. If the Bill were read a second time, it would be reasonable to allow a sufficient period to elapse before the Committee stage in order to enable those who were interested to make themselves acquainted with the details. He had brought in the Bill with the concurrence of Lord Ashbourne and Lord Morris, who had promised to give him every assistance in carrying it.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was entirely in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, and hoped it would become law without any delay. The solicitor profession in Ireland, as in England, were represented by an Incorporated Law Society, and that was represented by a council composed of the leading men of the profession, men who were sincerely anxious to promote its honour, to secure its dignity, and to serve and advance the cause of public justice. This Bill merely sought to obtain for the profession in Ireland the privileges and rights which had long been enjoyed by their brethren in England; and he was satisfied that if it passed into law it would be found to be, on the whole, a most advantageous measure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HERSCHELL), said the Irish Government had no objection to this Bill. It seemed reasonable to assimilate; in the manner proposed the law of the two countries.
Bill read 2a

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL.
Passed through Committee and reported without Amendment.
House adjourned at Fifteen minutes to Five o'clock.