Sitting of 16 July 1897

QUESTIONS.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT 1887.
  MR. GERALD LODER (Brighton): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the case of James Vousden, a post office inspector, who was permanently injured by a fall when on duty in 1895: on what grounds compensation under the Superannuation Act 1887 has been refused; and, whether compensation is invariably granted when it can be shown that the accident was specifically attributable to the nature of the duty being done, such as travelling from place to place as in the present case?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston): As the hon. Member points out, the Act is confined to cases where, inter alia, the injury is specifically attributable to the nature of the duty, but it by no means follows that every accident that befalls a civil servant while travelling on duty is specifically attributable to the nature of his duty. If Mr. Vousden's duty had required him to run some extraordinary risk, the case might have been different; but the fact is that he simply slipped and fell on the high road while walking from one place to another, It is not even certain that the hip disease which led to his retirement was caused by the fall; but even if it was, I could not, with justice to the taxpayer, admit that his duty

  297
  caused his fall. He has received a pension of £45 a year and a compassionate grant of £25, and I cannot hold out any hope of further assistance from public funds.

  POSTMEN'S CHRISTMAS GIFTS.
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if postmen will still be allowed to receive Christmas offerings from those who value their services?
  MR. HANBURY: It will be more convenient I think to state the decision as to Christmas boxes on the Post Office Vote, when I can do so more fully than in a reply to the Questions of my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings, both of whom have taken so much interest in this subject. Of course there has never been any question of not allowing postmen to receive Christmas offerings from those who value their services.

  VACCINATION (CALF LYMPH).
  MR. EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report on the preparation mid employment of glycerinate calf lymph will be completed and circulated?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): The Report referred to will very shortly be presented to Parliament and circulated.

  SCHULTZ' POWDER MANUFACTORY.
  MR. BRAMSTON BEACH (Hants, Andover): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to override the representations of the Hampshire County Council as to Schultz' Powder Manufactory, which was arrived at after a full inquiry, without giving the Council an opportunity of considering the statements he has made in reply?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): A right of appeal to the Secretary of State from the decision of the local
  298
  authority is given by statute; and, the applicants for the licence having exercised this right in the present case, I have come to the conclusion after consideration that the licence ought to be granted with certain modifications to meet the objections raised. I have communicated these modifications to the Council, before finally deciding the matter, for any observations they may wish to offer.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) has it come to his knowledge that an ex-sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, drawing a pension of over £70 a year, carried an Orange flag through the streets of Monaghan on the 12th of July instant, waving it in the faces of Catholics; and, (2) will any action be taken to prevent a repetition of such conduct on the part of this Constabulary pensioner?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): It is true that an ex-sergeant of the Constabulary, in receipt of a pension of £48 a year, carried an Orange flag at Monaghan on the date mentioned. The flag was carried in the ordinary manner, but I have no information leading me to believe that it was deliberately waved in the faces of Catholics. No action is called for in the direction suggested in the second paragraph.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether an investigation has been made by the Education Department into the comparative cost of elementary education per child in rural and in urban districts; and whether the results obtained confirm the impression that urban education is more costly than rural education; if not, whether this circumstance will have weight with the Department in coming to a decision upon schemes for association of schools, or providing a higher scale of payment to schools in urban districts?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The best investigation possible was made, but there is no information in the possession of the Committee of Council which enables an accurate comparison between the cost of town and country schools to be made. In the opinion of the Committee of Council, it is the income rather than the cost which is the determining factor in estimating the amount of aid required by a necessitous school.

  ARMY STAFF OFFICERS.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in his calculation that for a force of similar composition as that reviewed at Aldershot on 1st July '94 staff officers would be allowed in the German Army, he included judge advocates, chaplains, surgeons, and veterinary surgeons; and, whether he is aware that the "Armed Strength of Germany," officially published, shows that for a similar number of divisions and brigades of the three arms in peace time, staff officers performing the same duties as those that marched past at Aldershot would not exceed 50 in number?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The non-combatant officers named in the Question were not included in the estimate of 92 staff officers for a German force constituted as was the force reviewed at Aldershot, on the 1st inst.; but, in order to give a fair comparison with the British staff, the staffs of the German infantry regiments, which are practically equivalent to our brigades, were included, and 12 orderly officers were allowed as attached to the staff of the cavalry division and cavalry brigades. With the exception of the Guard Cavalry division, cavalry divisions are formed in Germany only for manœuvres, and do not exist at other times.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS (CASTLETOWN BEREHAVEN).
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post master General, whether his attention has
  300
  been called to the defective postal arrangements in Castletown Berehaven; and whether, in view of the fact that Castletown Berehaven is an important fishing station, he will recommend that facilities will be given to answer letters on the day on which they are received?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that the time between the arrival and departure of the mails in Castletown has recently been abridged by 25 minutes. This is owing to the later departure of the night mails from Dublin—an alteration rendered necessary by the later receipt in Dublin of the Day Mails from the Provinces. Inquiry shall be made with the view of ascertaining whether any longer interval for reply can be afforded at Castletown.

  CROOKHAVEN PIER.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the defective condition of the fishery pier at Crookhaven; and whether he will recommend the Congested Districts Board to have the necessary repairs and improvements with regard to it effected?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have referred the suggestion of the hon. Member to the Congested Districts Board, by whom the matter has already been more than once considered. The last occasion upon which the matter was considered was in January 1895, when the Board decided they could not undertake the carrying out of the proposed improvements.

  FLOATING DERELICT (ATLANTIC).
  MR. CUMMING MACDONA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Cunard steamship Catalonia, which reached Queenstown on on 12th inst., reported having on the 9th inst. passed a waterlogged floating derelict in lat. 47° 22', long. 35° 12', in a position most dangerous to vessels travelling between England and America; and whether, as this may be the same floating derelict mistaken by Captain Lloyd of the British barque Crompton for a rock in lat. 47° N., lung. 37° 20', and reported as such by him to the Hydrographic

  301
  Office at Washington on 16th June, the Admiralty will lake any steps to rid the Atlantic of so great a danger?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): Yes, Sir; the report in question has been seen at the Admiralty. The derelict was, when sighted, about 1,200 miles both from Halifax and from Plymouth. I do not propose to take any special action in the matter.

  SUB-POST OFFICE (LISAVAIRD).
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he hits received memorials from the inhabitants of Lisavaird and Clonakilty showing the great want of a sub-post office at Lisavaird; whether merchants residing in Clonakilty have complained to the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, that letters sent by them through the post to Lisavaird have been returned undelivered; and, if the above statements are correct, whether he will recommend that the prayers of the memoralists be granted?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has, during the last few days, received memorials from the inhabitants of Lisavaird and Clonakilty for the establishment of a sub-office at Lisavaird. These memorials will be duly considered. There is no trace in the General Post Office, Dublin, of complaints from Clonakilty merchants that letters sent by them through the post to Lisavaird have been returned undelivered. According to the most recent information at the disposal of the Department there appears to be no case for opening a sub-office at Lisavaird.

  DOGS BILL.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has any intention of introducing a Dogs Bill in the present Session; and, if he will undertake to give time for its consideration in the country?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG, Liverpool, West Derby): I hope to be able very shortly to lay on the Table a Bill for the better regulation of dogs on the lines recommended by the
  302
  Departmental Committee by which the question was recently considered. So far as I can gather, the proposals to be embodied in the Bill commed themselves to the general opinion of the country, but it is not intended to make substantial progress with the Measure during the present Session.

  POSTAL FACILITIES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. G. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Secretary to the. Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that the postal facilities in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom, will he state whether steps have yet been taken to extend to this part of the Kingdom the improved postal service outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, if not, can he state when steps will be taken to give effect to these much needed postal reforms?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not prepared to endorse the hon. Member's assumption that the postal facilities in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom; but he may state that the Post Office Surveyors in Scotland, in common with those in other parts of the United Kingdom, have been directed to submit, and, as a matter of fact, have begun to submit their proposals for extending the delivery of letters in accordance with the promises of the Budget Speech, and these proposals, after their examination in the Secretary's Office, will be carried into effect without any unnecessary delay. I must remind the hon. Member, however, that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget Speech, the work of extending the deliveries to all parts of the country will occupy a considerable time, and cannot possibly be completed within the present financial year.

  PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state on what date he proposes to bring in the Bill which will place parish councils in Scotland on the same footing as similar

  303
  councils in England, in the matter of guarantees for improved postal and telegraph facilities?
  MR. HANBURY: I had hoped to be able to introduce this Bill before now, but it has been impossible to do so. I expect to bring it in one day next week.

  BRENNAN TORPEDO.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the system of charging the time of men engaged on experimental work or alterations is not adopted in the case of the Brennan torpedo, will he state whether, in the case of other experiments or alterations conducted by the War Office authorities, no separate accounts of the cost thereof are kept; and, if so, will steps be taken to keep such separate accounts in accordance with the practice which prevails in every well conducted workshop in the Kingdom?
  MR. BRODRICK: The torpedo was purchased as a completed invention, but in the course of its manufacture experiments have been made with a view to improvements of detail, and, as the hon. Member has been informed, it is not possible to separate fully the portion of salaries, wages, and materials expended on experiments from the portion expended on manufacture. I would again refer the hon. Member to the answer on this subject given on 3rd May 1894 by the late Secretary of State for War.

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) having regard to the allegations made by Dr. E. Berdoe relative to the use of curare in the practice of vivisection, and to the statement of the Home Office that the experiments referred to were performed under anæthetics and that curare, though used, was used when the animals could not suffer pain, will he state what anæsthetics were so used; (2) is he aware that it has been held on the highest authority (Professor Claude Bernard) that an animal stupefied with morphia is still conscious to suffering, and that an animal under the influence of curare becomes absolutely paralysed, but is still sensible to pain though unable to show it by sound or struggle; and (3) will he
  304
  state whether, in the experiments to which he refers, dogs were the animals experimented upon?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I informed the hon. Member, in my reply to his Question on Tuesday, that chloroform was the anesthetic used. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is in the negative, and to the third in the affirmative.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of experiments in which curare was used in the practice of vivisection during last year, and the number of licencees by whom that drug was used; and, will he state the names of the licensed places where curare was used in the practice of vivisection during the year?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I cannot see that the returns for which the hon. Member asks would serve any good purpose and I do not propose therefore to call for them. Curare is prohibited by law from being used as an anesthetic and I am satisfied that it is not so used.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the amount spent on maintenance, and the average attendance, for the last year for which returns exist, in town Voluntary Schools and country Voluntary Schools respectively, the terms "town schools" having the meaning given them in a recent Minute of the Education Department?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir, I cannot make such a statement.

  CYCLES (MAXIMUM SPEED).
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the numerous police prosecutions against cyclists, and want of any definite standard as to what may be considered by the courts a lawful and safe pace for a cycle on the public highway, the Home Office will lay down and announce some regulation defining the maximum speed which they consider compatible with the

  305
  public safety in town, country, and suburban districts respectively?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have no power to make any such regulations, and it seems clear, too, that the question what is furious or dangerous riding must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. I may add that I made inquiry last year of the chief officers of all the police forces in England and Wales as to the number of accidents caused by cyclists in their respective districts and the remedies they suggested if the protection given by the present law seemed to them insufficient; but their replies were such as to lead me to the conclusion that no alteration in the law was required.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, as the issue of good conduct stripes in accordance with the terms of the Tweed-mouth Committee Report is retrospective, a postman who had 20 years good conduct would he deprived of his fourth stripe for an offence committed since the fourth stripe became due?
  MR. HANBURY: In the words of the Committee—
  "Stripes are the reward of good service and good conduct, and we are strongly of opinion that each stripe should in itself be a proof that it was awarded after live years umblemished service."
  The Committee add—
  "We are also of opinion that as stripes are the toward of good conduct they should as a general rule be forfeited for serious misconduct."
  It is clear from those recommendations read together that any serious misconduct committed by a Postman would forfeit a stripe already earned, and it follows that similar misconduct committed after the stripe has become due would prevent its being granted.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE TAX.
  MR. RICHARD M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Grand Jury of the county Fermanagh
  306
  requesting the Government, out of the Treasury Grant towards reduction of county rates, to set aside a portion for the relief of taxpayers in respect of the Lough Erne Drainage Tax; and whether the Government will comply with this request?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen the resolution referred to. I must decline however, to anticipate the provisions of the Local Government Bill promised for next year.

  QUEENSTOWN GUARDSHIPS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say when the Queenstown guardship will return to her station?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Howe left Devonport yesterday for Queenstown.

  WELSH-SPEAKING WITNESSES.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES: I beg to ask the Attorney-General whether in courts of law in Wales there is a legal obligation to permit witnesses in all cases to give their evidence in Welsh, upon their declaring that they habitually use that language and do not feel competent to express themselves fully in English?
  SIR OSBORNE MORGANasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the question of Welsh speaking witnesses being allowed to give their evidence in Welsh was discussed more than a quarter of a century ago in the House of Commons and that the House then unanimously passed a Resolution that, as far as possible, even County Court Judges holding, their Courts in Welsh districts should as far as possible he selected from persons conversant with the Welsh language?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of Wight): The supplementary Question does not relate to the same point, but there is no doubt that it was considered by the House very desirable that Welsh County Court Judges should understand the Welsh language, and that a knowledge of the Welsh language should be considered a necessary qualification. In answer to

  307
  the Question upon the Paper, I have to state that, if a witness declares that he does not understand or cannot express himself in English, he is entitled to be examined through an interpreter, but if in the course of his examination the Judge is satisfied that the witness understands and can express himself in English, he has a discretion to direct the examination to proceed in English. It is a common practice for an interpreter to remain present in case the witness desires a question to be repeated in his language.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day the Local Government Board Vote will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I must in the first place remind him that on March 25th, in deference to the general views of the House, the Government took a Local Government Board item first and the Vote on Account afterwards. A long discussion took place with reference to the proceedings of the Local Government Board. The Vote is down again for to-night, but I think, perhaps, that under the circumstances the House will be of opinion that it has already received its fair share of attention this session. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the recently published Report of the Departmental Committee on Science and Art Grants, and the proposals therein contained for distributing such grants, he will put down the Science and Art Vote on an early date, so that criticisms may be submitted on the new regulations before they are put into force?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The time for to-night, Monday, and Friday next, is already allocated to certain Votes in Supply, and I am afraid that I cannot go beyond those three days in prophesying the order in which the Votes shall be put down. I will, however, do my best to meet the wishes of hon. Members in the matter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)asked whether, in the event of the Colonial Vote not being reached on
  308
  Monday, the right hon. Gentleman would say on what day it would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No; I cannot give any promise of that kind, but I hope that the House will allow the Vote to be taken on Monday, and for that purpose not to carry on the discussion on foreign affairs at any undue length. ["Hear, hear!"]

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMMITTEE.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to take any action on the Report of the South Africa Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government are devoting their attention to the question of the future government of the territories under the control of the South Africa Company, and for that purpose propose to consult immediately the directors of the South Africa Company [cries of "Oh!"], Sir A. Milner, and the authorities of Cape Colony.
  SIR W. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not said what action the Government intend to take upon the Report of the South Africa Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That, I think, would be action on the Report.
  MR. J. DILLONwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was proposed to institute any prosecution as the result of the Report of the South Africa Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Not that I am aware of.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEYasked whether the House was to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that the South Africa Committee were not going to meet again until next year, and that there was going to he no inquiry by the Committee into the Chartered Company's administration of the native races of South Africa?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir. The Question asked me had nothing whatever to do with the meeting of the Committee next year, nor is my answer to be supposed to refer to that part of the hon. Member's Question at all.

  IRISH JUDICATURE BILL.
  MR DILLONsaid that he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which he had given him private notice— namely, why the introduction of the Irish Judicature Bill had been so frequently postponed, and on what day it would be introduced? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill would be introduced in such a form as would meet with general acceptance. The Bill had been altered from its original shape, and he wished to know at whose request that alteration had been made.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman is apparently greatly exercised, and in my view quite unnecessarily exercised in his mind, with regard to a statement I made yesterday on the subject of the Irish Judicature Bill—namely, that the Bill would be introduced next week; and when I stated yesterday that I hoped that it would he in a form to receive the consent of all parties I assumed that the objectors to the Bill were principally to be found among Members of the Irish Bar. As far as my inquiries extended, I believed that they would not object to the Bill in its present form, and I trust it will meet with no objection from any other quarter.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question as to what day the the Bill would he introduced.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: On Thursday next.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he should also like to ask whether the Bill was modified to meet the opposition of any Gentleman from whom the right hon. Gentleman had made inquiries. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think a question has ever been asked of the Government before as to the modifications of a Bill which had not yet been introduced. [Cheers.] We have endeavoured to make ourselves acquainted with the views of those who may be regarded as the representatives of the legal profession in Ireland, and we think we have met those views, and that we shall he able to introduce the Bill in a form which will be acceptable to them and to all other parties interested in the matter.
  MR. DILLONsaid he thought his question was a very reasonable one. The First Lord of the Treasury said he had made inquiries that satisfied him that the Bill, in the shape in which it would be introduced, would be acceptable to all quarters of the House. What he asked was ——[Cries of "Order!"] Did the right hon. Gentleman take the position that because it was acceptable to the Bar of Ireland it must, therefore, be acceptable to all parties in the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! the Question has been answered. The hon. Member is proceeding to argue upon it.
  MR. DILLONsaid he only wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had made inquiry in any quarter from any representatives except those from the Bar of Ireland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have formed a conclusion upon this subject, which I trust may be an accurate one, from a large number of separate circumstances which I certainly am not called upon to enumerate to the House. ["Hear, hear!"] But I may remind the hon. Gentleman that I think it was he and his friends who expressed the desire that if there were any reduction in the Irish Judicature the money so saved should be devoted to Ireland. That promise has been given, and I therefore have some reason to suppose, as far as that goes, that they would be satisfied. There remained the question that the feelings of the Irish Bar ought to be consulted. I have endeavoured to ascertain those feelings, and trust the Bill to be introduced next Thursday will not be met with any opposition from that quarter. ["Hear, hear!"]

MOTIONS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2.)
  Bill to make further provisions for Parish Councils in Scotland borrowing for the purpose of providing Public Offices, ordered to be brought in by Captain Sinclair, Mr. Bryee, Mr. Renshaw, and Mr. Parker Smith, presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 319.]
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES.
  Bill to prevent the removal of Monuments which have been erected in Cathedrals or Churches out of public moneys in pursuance of Vote by Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Sir Elliott Lees, Mr. Darling, Marquess of Lorne, Sir Frank Lockwood, and Sir Thomas Esmonde, presented and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 320.]

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMMITTEE AND MR. HAWKSLEY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish, Sir, to ask you a Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The time for asking Questions has passed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It is a question of privilege, Sir. It is to ask you this: The British South Africa Committee has reported to your House that Mr. Hawksley, one of the witnesses called before it, refused to answer a question put to him and refused to produce certain documents that he was ordered by the Committee to produce, although he was told he had no privilege as a solicitor to decline to do so. The question I wish to ask you is, as this is the first time that it has come to the knowledge of the House that this occurred during the sittings of the Committee, whether it is open to any Member to move that Mr. Hawksley be ordered to appear at the Bar of the House, in order that the House may deal with the question of what shall be done? [Cheers.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have had very short opportunity of looking at the Report, and I have had no notice of the Question asked; but I did look at the. Report in view of the possibility of some such question being asked, and it appears to me that this is not a case in which the question of privilege can now be raised in the House. I cannot find that there is any precedent for the question being raised, except when a Committee have specially reported the circumstances to the House with a view to action being taken by the House. Here there are facts which, taken by themselves, might have been reported as a breach of privilege if the Committee had so done at the time they took place. ["Hear, hear!"] But the Committee have not taken that view at the time. The incident took place a long time back,
  312
  and matters of privilege must be immediately taken notice of. The Committee have now presented their Report of this matter, not as constituting a breach of privilege, but as a matter which incidentally took place during the sittings, and as a matter which they did not think fit to treat as a breach of privilege. Under these circumstances I think there is no precedent for the House treating this as a breach of privilege by selecting a passage from the Report of the Committee which was not intended to raise any such question. [Cheers.]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has seen a notice put down by an eminent legal Member who sits behind him, the Member for Dulwich—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The time for asking questions has passed. [Laughter.] A question of privilege is different. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin): Before that is done, with respect to this question of privilege, may I put two questions to you, Sir—first, whether there is any case affording a precedent of a Committee neglecting to report to the House—[prolonged Opposition cheers]——the refusal of a witness to obey its order; and, next, whether the House loses its privilege through the neglect of a Committee? [Loud Opposition, cheers.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the first Question, I am not able to say whether there is any precedent of that kind. With regard to the second Question, I think I have already given what my opinion is upon it. [Ministerial cheers.] The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

  MONEY LENDING (ATTENDANCE OF JOHN KIRKWOOD).
  THE CLERK (Sir Reginald Palgrave): Attendance of John Kirkwood.
  MR. MACNEILL: He is not a millionaire. [Cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Is John Kirkwood in attendance?
  THE SERJEANT-AT-ARMS (Mr. Erskine): Yes, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Let him be brought in.

  313
  The Serjeant-at-Arms conducted John Kirkwood to the Bar of the House. Cries were raised by several hon. Members of "Hawksley," "Where is Hawksley?" and "Order, order !"
  *MR. SPEAKER: John Kirkwood, were you examined before a Select Committee of this House yesterday?
  MR. KIRKWOOD: Yes, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Was this Question addressed to you by Mr. Ascroft, member of the Committee,—
  "Mr. Kirkwood, in again asking you the following questions I may inform you that neither I nor any other member of the Committee have any desire or intention that the name of the borrower should be in any way divulged. Did you on December 23, 1890, advance to this gentleman the sum of £20, and take a promissory note for £36 15s.; and did you also on July 28, 1891, advance a further sum of £40, and take a promissory note for the same; and did he by January, 1893, repay £58 15s., leaving a balance of £1 5s.; and did you subsequently sue him for £689 for the payment of that sum and costs at £7 a month?"
  Was that Question addressed to you?
  MR. KIRKWOOD: Yes, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Did you decline to answer it?
  MR. KIRKWOOD: I did. The accounts were altogether wrong, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: You must answer the Questions I put to you, and you must confine yourself to doing so. Did you decline to answer the Question?
  MR. KIRKWOOD: I did, for reasons that were then given—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Do you still persist in declining to answer it?
  MR. KIRKWOOD: If this honourable House decides that I am to answer the Questions under the peculiar circumstances—
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not what I am asking you. Do you now again persist in refusing to answer the Question? I ask you to say Yes or No to that Question.
  MR. KIRKWOOD: If this honourable House says that I am—
  *MR. SPEAKER: You must answer the Question or otherwise I must ask you to withdraw, that the House may take action on your refusal to answer. What do you say? Do you still persist in refusing to answer that Question"!
  MR. KIRKWOOD: I will answer anything that this House orders me to do. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Then you may now withdraw.
  MR. KIRKWOOD: The responsibility row will be with this House, and not with me—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have not invited you to make any speech. You must now withdraw.
  MR. KIRKWOOD: May I say this—
  *MR. SPEAKER: No.
  MR. KIRKWOOD: I should like to make a statement.
  *MR. SPEAKER: No. The Serjeant-at-Arms will see that he withdraws.
  MR. KIRKWOODwithdrew.
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY: I beg to move, in accordance with precedent—
  "That, John Kirkwood do attend at the next meeting of the Select Committee on Money-hauling, and answer, to the satisfaction of the Commiittee, questions to which he has hitherto refused to make an answer."
  MR. SPEAKERhaving put the question,
  CAPTAIN BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)said: I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether the Question which has been put to this witness is one that under the circumstances the Committee has a right to extort from him? [Irish cheers.] The Committee are appointed, is I understand it, to gain information about money-lending and the usury laws, in order that legislation may be proposed to the House. It seems to me that we have gone rather far, however morally reprehensible this man may have been—["hear, hear!"]—in insisting in extorting from him these financial transactions, which I understand were not out of conformity with the law, however they may be out of conformity with the moral law. I am rather impressed in connection with this matter, Sir, by the different action that has been taken by another Committee recently—[loud Irish cheers]—which has caused some public interest. It does not appear to me that in this particular instance the ends of the Committee that we have appointed to inquire into this subject might not have been perfectly met without seeking to extort from this person the morally reprehensible practices which, no doubt, he is accustomed to follow.

  315
  [Cries of "Oh !"] I do not see that there is anything very exceptional in saying that. ["Hear, hear!"] I should like to ask in reference to the Motion that has been made whether, supposing this witness refuses to answer the question at the next meeting of the Committee, it is intended to be followed, or will necessarily be followed, by any legal action on the part of the House? I do not think that the dignity of the Committee or of the House will be served in that way, because I am personally much more solicitous of the liberty and the legal right of every individual rather than of the dignity of any Committee.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: It would be wise for the House of Commons carefully to consider the question which has been raised by the hon. Member, whether it would conduce to the dignity of the House of Commons to deal with a comparatively insignificant and humble man by this rigorous method of procedure in view of what I am informed is the fact—that when he refused to answer the question put by the Committee he pleaded in justification for his conduct that a much more important Committee had allowed a much more distinguished man to refuse to answer questions—[Irish cheers]—on a much more important matter. We know that we are without precedent with respect to that matter, and you yourself were unable to inform us of any precedent. The much more important Committee to which I refer, appointed to investigate an infinitely more important matter, a short time ago, when they were openly defied by a very prominent and distinguished man in this City, and when information that was required by that Committee was refused by this individual, declined to put into force against Mr. Hawksley the great power with which the Committees of this House are armed. I put it to the British House of Commons—how will they stand before the public of this country—[Irish cheers]—if, against a humble and obscure individual, whose proceedings are of infinitesimal importance as compared with the proceedings of Mr. Hawksley and his friends, in respect of information which is sought for on matters which have exceedingly little to do either with the investigations of this Committee or the business of the House, they set in motion the enormous
  316
  and immense power of the House of Commons? When once you set that power in motion, you cannot restrain it, because, if you act on this occasion against that man, and if he again defies the Committee, you must deprive him of his liberty. [Irish cheers.] I ask you again—How can you stand before the public of this country, and before a wider audience than the public of this country —[Ministerial laughter and Irish cheers]—namely, before the nations of Europe, who watched the proceedings of the British South Africa Committee with gathering interest and gathering suspicion—[cries of "Order!" and Irish cheers]—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not turn this Debate into a Debate on the proceedings of the South Africa Committee. The question is whether the Motion before the House should be agreed to.
  MR. DILLON: I regret that I am not able to turn the Debate into a Debate on the proceedings of the British South Africa Committee. I may add that I think the House would do well to consider whether they should proceed in the manner proposed in view of what occurred in that Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know whether I ought to answer the question put to me by my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for the Holderness Division. My hon. Friend asked me two questions:—First, whether the interrogations put to Mr. John Kirkwood by the Money Lending Committee were within the terms of reference to that Committee; and, secondly, whether, in the event of his again refusing to answer, further action will be taken. With regard to the second matter, I understand that Mr. Kirkwood has expressed his willingness to answer the questions before the Committee if the House orders, and therefore, the matter does not arise. The first of my hon. Friend's questions I unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative. ["Hear, hear!"] The questions put to Mr. Kirkwood by the Committee were, in my judgment—if I may express an opinion on the point—entirely within the reference to the Committee—["hear, hear!"]—and they involved no breach of confidence whatever on the part of Mr. Kirkwood. With regard to the other

  317
  questions raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, I understand you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled them out of order—[Nationalist cries of "No, no!"]—and therefore I will make no reference to them.
  Motion agreed to nem. Con.
  *MR. SPEAKER (addressing the Serjeant-at-Arms): John Kirkwood will attend at the Bar.
  The Serjeant-at-Arms, bearing the mace, proceeded to the outer Lobby, and immediately returned with John Kirkwood, who made three low bows as he approached the Bar.
  *MR. SPEAKER: John Kirkwood—I am directed by the House to inform you that they consider that you are bound to answer the Question, and to direct you to answer it to the satisfaction of the Committee. I therefore have to admonish you to attend the Committee at the next meeting to which you are summoned and to answer the Question satisfactorily. I think I may add the satisfaction of the House at hearing that you have declared your intention of doing so. ["Hear, hear!"] I now direct you to withdraw.
  MR. KIRKWOOD: May I say one word, Sir? [Some cries of "Hear, hear!"] I answered every Question fully, frankly, and unreservedly until I came to this exceptional case.
  *MR SPEAKER: Order, order!
  The Serjeant-at-Armstouched Mr. Kirkwood on the shoulder, and, after a lowly bow to the House, he withdrew.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [SEVENTEENTH ALLOTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  ['The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1897–8.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,726,335 (including Supplementary sums of £109,875 and £50,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year
  318
  ending out the 31st day of March 1898, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post office services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolver-hampton)said he desired to raise for the consideration of the Committee the important question of the unsatisfactory nature of the relations between the Postmaster General and the House of Commons. He was sure no one would impute to him any desire to cast any reflection either upon the Secretary to the Treasury, who discharged the duty of representing the Postmaster General in the House as he discharged all his other duties, with great ability—["hear, hear!"]—or upon the Postmaster General, who as a public officer, deserved, and possessed the confidence of the public. But he wished to lay lay down the broad principle that in the case of the Post Office there was not that Parliamentary control which existed over all the other Departments of the State. He ventured to submit that there should be in the House of Commons a responsible Minister of a Department like the Post Office, which involved so large an outlay of public money and so widespread a public taxation—a taxation which pressed so universally, he did not say heavily or unfairly, on all classes of the community. When he was Secretary to the Treasury he had to do what was done now by the present Secretary to the Treasury, he had to represent the Post Office in the House, and he therefore knew from personal experience the unsatisfactory manner in which those duties had to be discharged. The Secretary to the Treasury had not only very difficult duties, but very conflicting duties to discharge. The right hon. Gentleman had to answer in the Douse questions of administration of which lie had no personal knowledge, in respect to which he was not responsible, and which he was unable to alter if he disapproved of them; while, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman occupied, in financial affairs, the position of a checking authority over the Department, for his business as the Financial Secretary was to prevent the Post Office spending too much money. What was wanted was that the House of Commons should have, not

  319
  only control over the expenditure of the Post Office, but that the Department itself should he in touch with the House. It was impossible for anyone outside the House of Commons, no matter how distinguished or experienced, to understand the House of Commons' temper, the House of Commons' disposition, or the House of Commons' desires. The House of Commons represented in this matter the commercial interests of the country; and the commercial population were constantly requiring additional postal conveniences. He did not shut his eyes to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, during the last few months, proposed very considerable additions to the postal facilities and conveniences of the public; but there were constant questions arising in reference to Post Office administration, which could not possibly be properly dealt with in the House of Commons, except by a Minister who, while he had knowledge and control of these questions, was also responsible to the House of Commons. The late Mr. W. H. Smith, a good many years ago, before he reached to the responsible position of Leader of the House, was, at one time, as would be seen by a letter to Sir Stafford Northcote, which would lie found in his "Life and Letters," in favour of the abolition of the office of Postmaster General and of putting the Department entirely under the Treasury. Nowadays, he was sure that the House of Commons would never tolerate a great spending and administrative Department like the Post Office being put under the Treasury, whose first and proper duty was to cut down expenditure, and not to consider public convenience. He wished to speak of the Treasury with the greatest respect, but, after all, cutting down expenditure was not the whole duty of an administrative Department. He was sure that a great deal of money which had been well spent in all Departments would never have been spent at all, if the decision had been left entirely to the Treasury. The House of Commons, which looked to efficiency as well as to economy, must be the final authority on the wisdom of expenditure. The argument was certainly strongest in regard to the Post Office, which could not legitimately be looked to as a source of public revenue. Sir Robert Peel held that the profit earned by the Department
  320
  should be applied in promoting the public convenience; but of course it was too late to raise that doctrine now. When, however, the Post Office was producing a large and increasing revenue, now approaching four millions, the public had a right to bring pressure to bear in order that their convenience might be fully considered. It did not always follow in matters of this kind that even the two front Benches were right. He could remember the two front Benches being defeated on the sixpenny telegram question. If that question had been left to the Treasury alone we should not have sixpenny telegrams to-day. This showed the necessity of keeping the Post Office free from Treasury administration though under Treasury control. Without casting the slightest reflection on the present head of the Post Office he thought that the present mode of telegraphic messages between the Department and the House of Commons, and questions being answered by a Gentleman who had no responsibility for Post Office business, was very unsatisfactory, and removed control from the House of Commons. He should not move an Amendment, but he would ask the First Lord of the Treasury to give an assurance that this matter would he considered.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that no one would complain of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman, who undoubtedly spoke with special authority, because he had himself been Secretary to the Treasury, and had carried on in the House the functions which the right hon. Member for Preston performed with such distinguished success. Though he sympathised with much that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and admitted that the point raised was well worthy of consideration, he thought there were certain aspects of the question which the right hon. Gentleman had omitted from his view. The right hon. Gentleman was careful not to put in a claim that every Minister responsible for great expenditure should necessarily and for that reason have a seat in the House of Commons. Every successive Government—those to which the right hon. Gentleman had belonged as much as any other had found it absolutely necessary to have some of the Ministers responsible for vast expenditure in the House of Lords. Therefore

  321
  the question was, not whether the Postmaster General should be in the House of Commons, but whether he should have some representative to deal with Post Office questions in the House of Commons other than the Secretary to the Treasury. Of course there would be some advantages in the creation of a new tinder Secretary to deal with Post Office questions, but there would also be disadvantages. In the first place, to create a new office was a rather serious responsibility. The House kept the number of paid Government officials to the narrowest limits conformable with the due discharge of public business; and every Government and every Opposition would look with well-founded caution on any suggestion creating a new Ministry, a new official, or a new Parliamentary representative either of existing Departments or of a new Department. If that were a difficulty—and it undoubtedly was—what was the special necessity in the case under discussion? He was prepared to maintain the view—provisionally, at any rate—that the Treasury were specially qualified to deal with questions connected with the Post Office. After all, the Post Office could not start any great policy except by the direct sanction of the Treasury. In a sense that was also true of every Department; and no doubt there had been occasions when the Minister responsible for some Department hail had to defend a policy which had been rather imposed by the Treasury than suggested by his own initiative. But if the Post Office were represented in the House of Commons by an official—not the Postmaster General, but a subordinate—would not that representative be put in a position incomparably more embarrassing and awkward than that of any Minister? Every question of Post Office policy was really a question of Treasury policy. Of course there were a vast number of important details of administration in which the Treasury never interfered. But questions such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman had made special reference—questions in which the Post Office came into contact, and, it might be, into collision, with great commercial interests—were for the most part Treasury questions rather than Post Office questions. The Postmaster General had no interest but to satisfy every demand which the public
  322
  made upon him; but he could not act in these matters except as, in some sense, a subordinate of the Treasury. He was a great independent Minister from some points of view, but from others he could not be independent of the controlling authority of the Treasury. And, if the Treasury were to be really responsible for the control of the Post Office in these great matters it was just as well that the Treasury should have to defend their own action by the mouths of their own officials. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was carried into effect and an Under Secretary of the Post Office were created to represent the Department in the House of Commons, while the Postmaster General was in the House of Lords; supposing some great demand were made upon the Post Office for greatly increased facilities in respect of some district, or some commercial interest, which desired to have cheaper and easier communications, the Post Office would probably, as far as they alone were concerned, be very ready to grant every facility. But the Treasury, which was the controlling authority, had to consider wider interests than any single Department. Would it be advisable or for the convenience of the House that the person who had to get up and refuse the demand of which the Treasury disapproved should not be a Treasury official, but some subordinate of the Postmaster General, who, if he had only to consider his own Department and not his position as a member of the Government, might be glad enough to sanction the demand? While there was something to be said for the right hon. Gentleman's contention, there were very strong arguments on the other side; and the fact that the Post Office was more closely and inevitably connected with the Treasury than any other Department made it not inappropriate, and in many cases exceedingly fitting, that the Treasury officials should be responsible to the House of Commons for the policy pursued by the Post Office. Though he did not wish to enter a non possumus answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought there were distinct advantages in the existing arrangement—advantages which should be well weighed before they were abandoned in favour of the more symmetrical, but not more practical, scheme

  323
  which the right hon. Gentleman had urged.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT, in rising to move "That item (a) (Salaries) he reduced by £1,000, in respect of the salary of the Postmaster General," said the Amendment was intended to reflect upon the Report of the Committee rather than upon either the Government or the Department, for he thought more might be done to remedy the abuses which were known to exist in the course of the Report itself. To speak of the Post Office as a revenue-earning machine was, in his opinion, not a full or adequate description. He shared to the full the opinion that its first object was to give facilities to the public rather than merely to earn profit, and also to do justice to its employés. Nothing could be more unfortunate for the State than that its employés should have grievances, and those grievances remain unredressed. There were grievances which had not been redressed by the Report, and the House had a great deal more to do in that direction. It was no answer to say that the Treasury had appropriated a large sum of £139,000 for that very purpose, for after all, what did the appropriation amount to? It only amounted to a rectification of the inadequacies of the past. It was not in London only, but throughout the United Kingdom that something like chronic discontent existed. The complaints were loud and wide-spread. He did not at all agree as to the propriety of the course intimated by way of notice to the Postmaster General, that if the grievances were not redressed overtime work at night would be suspended. That was an extreme remedy in cases where the public convenience and service were concerned; but, after all, every man's labour was his own right, and if there were no disposition to remedy present grievances, even that extreme way of trying to bring about a remedy might possibly have to be resorted to. The Treasury was, of course, a barrier to a good deal. He did not say the heads of Departments who were represented on the Committee would not try to do justice, but sometimes time head of a Department did not value as much as he might do pecuniarily the services of those who contributed to the joint effort which he and they made for the public advantage, and if we had
  324
  a splendid Civil Service in this country, he thought it had one great defect, and that was a too glaring disproportion between the salaries of the highest officials and those of the lower, and this disproportion might well be redressed. He could not go into all the cases, he could only take one or two instances. There was first the case of the telegraph clerks. Their claim to the Committee was that they should have 28s. a week, and after five years' service an annual increment of 2s. 6d. per week, to a maximum of £200 a year after 27 years' service. When he mentioned that there were now large numbers of men who after 27 years' service were only earning a maximum of £145, after a life's work, and with no real prospect before them, he submitted that the claim was not in itself an unreasonable one. That their position was a hard one was not challenged by the Postal representative on the Committee. One witness said that during 23 years the maximum had only been raised for these clerks 12 per cent., while the maximum of the second division clerks had been raised no less than 75 per cent. Yet these facts had been ignored by the Committee. To take next the question of classification, against which a long protest had been made. The Committee were warned that if they abolished classification without making some change in the scale, the position of the telegraph clerks would be worse by £30 a year. No compensation for that had been given or recommended by the Committee, and what was worse, classification had been retained between the first and senior classes, and so a barrier was interposed, and what was before possible was no longer possible in the shape of advancement. One of the men summed up the position thus:—
  "The possible maximum salary of the telegraphist has been reduced from £190 to £160 per annum. What Mr. Fawcett conceded in1881 has been withdrawn by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee in 1897, in spite of the fact that the greater portion of the staff entered the service on the distinct understanding that £190 was a salary to which all operators were entitled to rise."
  The interposition of a new examination was really a violation of the contract with these operators, and was a grave and gross injustice to them. Another point of complaint was that the holi-

  325
  days of so many of the men were given during the winter months, when it was impossible to enjoy them; but while three more days were given in some cases, in other cases the holiday was reduced by seven days. The staff complained, moreover, of the hardships of the pension system, which the Committee declared itself incompetent to deal with. The sorters complained that there had been an insufficient salary for those entering that branch of the service, and an ungenerous pension system with reference to those leaving it. They claimed 24s. per week, and they pointed out that in the Post Office character was all important, and there were risks involved, and that they had great temptations. The Committee said that with reference to the pension question they had no jurisdiction. The Report of the Committee made a reduction of overtime rates and Sunday duty. The rate hitherto had been 6d. per hour; the rate recommended by the Committee was rate and a quarter. Overtime work was generally performed by the younger officers, and they would receive 4½d. per hour under the terms of the Committee's Report, instead of 6d. This selection of the lowest-paid men for overtime work at a reduced rate was throwing the work into the hands of the inexperienced, while at the same time it was sweating labour by enabling less to be paid in consequence of the lower salary of the men employed. By the Report of the Committee the Sunday rates were to be reduced to a rate and a half. Here, again, there had been a material alteration of the contract under which servants entered the Department. This Sunday rate was strongly objected to, because it affected their wages on Christmas Day as well as Sunday. Another claim made was that the sorters should have a senior class, such as existed in the Central Telegraph Office. There were some sorters who were called upon to do work of supervision, and these men should be in a class which was better remunerated, especially as the work had been done for a long time without extra pay. Then there was the question of civil rights, the right of combinations and similar subjects. For a long time past there hail been great uncertainty in the Post Office with reference to the extent to
  326
  which their civil rights could be exercised at election times. The Committee said that they were incompetent to deal with this matter, but indicated that the Treasury should from time to time define be regulations what were the rights of Civil Servants at elections. But Civil servants should have just the same rights as other people. The junior sorters complained that having entered the service a higher state of efficiency was demanded of them, while their position was made stationary at 19s. a week. The postmen had asked for a minimum of 20s. a week with annual increments of 2s. to £2 for London and the large towns, and corresponding pay in the case of the provincial cities and towns. They had also asked that Christmas-boxes should be abolished, 2s. a week being added to the wages as a compromise. Evidence had been given that 5s. was the real value of the Christmas-boxes, but the Committee said that there should be no solicitation for Christmas-boxes and no compensation for their loss. Complaints were also made that promotion was stagnant and that the supernumerary postmen in London were distinguished from the auxiliary men without any reason at all. He hoped that a statement of grievances, which were, provoking the strongest possible feeling, with disadvantage to the efficiency of the Post Office, would be listened to. He was extremely glad to recognise that the Postmaster General had been willing to receive two deputations—one on June 15, which had not yet been replied to, and one yesterday. But he would urge upon the Department and the Government that the real remedy for this strong and wide discontent was the appointment of an independent Committee, because the decision of such a tribunal, composed not of officials but of practical business men, who would perhaps have more sympathy with men in the lower grades of the service, would be loyally accepted, and thus the public would be advantaged and contentment restored to a service which was of great value to the country. [''Hear, hear!"] He concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote.
  CAPTAIN CECIL NORTONdesired to confine his remarks to that portion of the question which touched London; but wished first to say this on the general question—that

  327
  in his opinion it was of the first importance that employés in any branch of the public service should be kept in a state of contentment, and that they should feel that under no circumstances would they be treated with injustice, and that when they laid their claims before a Committee those claims should be fairly considered if not generously met. [" Hear; hear!"] In every public service those who were lowest down in the scale should feel that equally with the highest they had some hope of promotion. Now, the Controller General of London, who was, perhaps, the best informed on these matters, had distinctly stated that, as far as London was concerned, the prospects of promotion were worse than they had ever been. The complaint of the employés in London was that insufficient consideration had been given to the evidence which they brought before the Committee. Take one simple matter—the case of the parcel postmen. They had been absolutely ignored. In such a small matter as the supply of uniform overall leggings, they were told more than a year ago by Mr. Hall that a large issue was about to be made; yet nothing had been done. Then, no consideration whatever was shown to the case of the letter carriers, i.e., postmen who were, properly speaking, letter carriers, but who at times dealt with parcels. Passing now to the main question of wages, the demand was 24s., with an increment of 2s. up to 40s., irrespective of the zone system. They complained bitterly of this zone system, which brought about the most glaring anomalies. In the constituency which he represented, he could, for example, point to two men who were doing precisely the same duties, yet one of them was in a far superior position to the other, simply because he happened to be working in a different zone. This system of zones, he contended, could not be applied successfully to a great town like London, because it had been shown by the employés that it was impossible for a man to obtain suitable house accommodation in close vicinity to the office to which he was attached. Then again, the duties of postmen were shewn to be equally responsible and equally arduous with those of the second-class sorters; yet those men found themselves in a far less
  328
  advantageous situation than the second-class sorters. With reference to scales, since in one scale there were only eleven men, the number of scales was practically reduced from three, that was to say, 26s., 30s., and 34s., in other words, the maximum for town postmen was not increased except in some eases, and men who formerly were able to attain to the maximum of 32s. had to remain in the 30s. class. Therefore, they had one class of postmen paying, as it were, for the advantage gained by another class. There was a disparity of some 8s. between those who had the highest rates in central London and those who were getting the highest rates in outer London, whereas the difference in the cost of living certainly did not justify such a difference in pay. He now came to the case of the supernumerary class. The men in this class felt that they were treated with undue severity. The reason was not far to seek, they were a. vanishing class. Now the last thing that a Government should do was to treat a whole class of servants who had been valuable servants for a considerable time with a want of consideration. Because it must be remembered that these men, not being established men, had no pension and no bonus; yet they were kept at 26s. a week with 1s. rise, though doing precisely the same duties as men in whose case it was possible to attain to a much higher rate of pay. He was aware that most of these men were on duty in central London, but a certain number were on duty in outer London. The men who were employed in outer London could obtain the maximum for a town postman, but the men who were working in central London were unable to do so, and were, therefore, disadvantaged to the amount of 8s. a week. He now came to those in whom he took the deepest interest, namely, the auxiliary postmen, who numbered 14,000. These men performed identical duties with the other postmen in all respects, save one, they worked only for a limited number of hours. These men had no advantages, no sick pay, no holidays, no boot-money, no pensions, and no stripes. They were placed at a distinct disadvantage compared with the auxiliary postmen in the country districts, where they joined the service on the distinct understanding that as vacancies occurred they

  329
  would be eligible for them. The London auxiliary postmen were absolutely without hope. What they complained of most bitterly was that, having placed their case before the Tweedmouth Committee, they had distinct reason to believe that something would be done for the old auxiliaries. He would call the attention of the Committee to this fact, that there were auxiliary men in London who had served the postal authorities some twenty, some thirty years; and he asked whether it was fair that a man who had been in the public service between twenty and thirty years, even if he only worked five or six hours a day, should be turned adrift without any consideration, after he had given the best years of his life to the service? These men had reason to think that those who were too old to go on the establishment would be included in the new class termed "assistant postmen." But what was the conduct of the Department in reference to them? These men had every reason to believe that they had made their case good before the Tweedmouth Committee. Over 75 per cent. of these men were doing more than five hours per day; but an Inter-departmental Committee immediately, revised their duties and brought them dawn to an average of four and a half hours per day, and thus defrauded—there is no other word for it—75 per cent. of the men of advantages which in their belief the Tweedmouth Committee intended they should he entitled to, leaving only 25 per cent. the enjoyment of these advantages. They felt this the more, because when. Mr. Raikes was Postmaster General he laid down the rule that no postman should be employed at a lower wage than 6d. per hour, whereas by the creation of the new Department these men had their rate of wages brought down to about 5d. per hour. He came now to the secondclass auxiliaries, who worked three hours per day. These men were begrudged a uniform, whose expense would be infinitesimal, whereas its value to the men would be very great. The non-granting of a uniform to men who were practically postmen was a menace to the position of postmen generally; and, moreover, it debarred the public from a certain amount of protection. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished to say a word as to the stripe system. The stripe system was denied
  330
  to the auxiliaries, although it was extended to the supernumeraries; in fact, the auxiliaries were debarred from all advantages of every kind. The Controller for London, who ought to be the first authority upon this matter, acknowledged that it was desirable that they should not have all the advantages they claimed, but a number of them, and specially this advantage of the stripe, because he was of opinion—and rightly so —that it was essential that rectitude and honesty should be encouraged in one class of public officials as in another. ["Hear, hear!"] He was not asking the Department to do anything out of reason. He was aware that they had done something; but his contention was that they had done it in the wrong direction—that they had treated the lowest class in the service, these auxiliary postmen with very scant consideration.
  SIR W. CAMERON GULL (Devon, Barnstaple), as the representative of an agricultural constituency, thanked the Postmaster General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the promised increased postal facilities in rural districts, and urged the desirability of putting the contemplated reforms into operation at the earliest possible moment. With regard to the system of Christmas boxes he beneved that both Parliament and the postmen would agree that the present system was by no means a desiráble one. The postmen were quite ready to see it abolished provided they were given compensation in the form of increased wages for gifts which had always been recognised by the Department as emoluments of the office. In country districts the value of the Christmas boxes amounted to between 3s. and 5s. a week for each man. According to the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee it would be well if postmen could be prohibited from receiving these gifts. The Department might have taken one of two courses— it might have prohibited Christmas boxes altogether or it might have left things where they were. Neither of these courses had been followed. The Report of the Committee, however, seemed to suggest that a certain increase of pay had been given in respect of

  331
  Christmas gifts foregone, for on page 19 of the Report he found this,—
  "The payment which we have proposed is, we believe, in itself, under the conditions contemplated in the Report, an adequate remuneration for a postman's labour."
  But in provincial towns the maximum, with one exception, had not been increased at all under the new scale, and in some cases the maximum had been diminished. He trusted that the decision of the Post Office on this subject was not one which the Committee would consider acceptable. He wished next to draw attention to the different wages paid respectively to rural and provincial postmen and sorters. He thought it would be agreed that in respect of responsibility the duties of these two classes of employés were nearly equal. The difference in their pay was, however, very great. Mr. Arnold Morley, speaking on the subject of the wages paid in the Postal service, had said,—
  "Before the date of the revision by Mr. Fawcett in 1881, the maximum salary of London sorters (first class) was 45s. a week; it has been raised to 56s. The maximum salary of the second class was 25s., and it has been raised to 40s. The postmen have had a corresponding increase."
  He found that the wages of postmen in the first class had only risen from 30s. to 34s., and of the suburban postmen from 28s. to 32s. The increase granted to the sorters was, it would be seen, much greater. In a Devonshire town a youth on the indoor staff received 14s. at the age of 16; on the outdoor staff an employé got 16s. at the age of 18. After five years' service the indoor staff got 24s., after 10 years 34s., and after 15 years 44s. But the outdoor staff after five years only got 23s., after 10 years 24s., and after 15 years 25s. When a man had worked for 30 years he only received 28s. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would take these facts into consideration and do something to improve the pecuniary position of the postmen in provincial towns. But if the present position of these men was unsatisfactory, the position of rural postmen was in many cases still worse. There was no recognised scale of pay applicable all over the country. He would give a case in which
  332
  the payment was certainly not commensurate with the duties. The man in question had to walk 14½ miles every week-day and 4½ miles on Sunday. He received 12s. a week with clothes and boots found, which, would mean about 1s. 6d. a week in addition. Another man delivered letters every other day, walking eight miles, and he only got 3s. 3d. per week without clothes or boots. Surely that was not an adequate wage. The Committee in their Report said that the pay of this class of postmen—
  "must largely be left to the Department to fix according to the work performed and the rate of wages current in the district, the large element of trust which enters into the conditions of the employment of postmen, and differentiates it from ordinary unskilled labour, being also borne in mind. After taking due account of the various indirect advantages enjoyed by established postmen, we think that the maximum pay for rural postmen should not fall below 16s. a week in Great Britain, and 15s. a week in Ireland."
  Another demand which he thought could be reasonably made on behalf of rural postmen was that some small allowance should be made to them for medical attendance. In their Report on the posiof sub-postmasters the Committee said—
  "We do think that the Post Office should fully consider the various items on which a sub-postmaster's salary is based, to insure the sufficiency of their emoluments at every point, especially for the labour and knowledge involved in making up dispatches for different offices, including travelling Post offices, for preparing lists in connection with the Parcel Post, and for the provision of postmen's rooms, and we think that some addition to the salary should be granted for Sunday work."
  He trusted that this recommendation would be carefully considered. Though the Committee thought it reasonable that sub-postmasters should have holidays, the Department had not as yet been able to give them any holidays except Bank holidays. They had no medical attendance, and the expenses of fitting up their offices, were in most cases borne by these people themselves. These points ought to have attention. He also thought that sub-postmasters ought to be supplied with small iron safes in which to keep securities, postal orders, stamps, etc. There were cases in which these valuable papers were kept in keyless work-boxes, and in many offices postal orders for 10s.

  333
  and 20s. were hardly ever found in consequence of the want of facilities for taking proper care of papers of that value. The interests of the public naturally suffered. In conclusion, he re minded the right hon. Gentleman that the Post Office made a. profit of £3,000,000, and urged that it was only reasonable that so successful a Department should treat its servants and the public reasonably and fairly.
  *SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)said that when the Budget was under consideration, he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had set aside money for the purpose of meeting the cost of the additional postal facilities which were to be given to rural districts. He understood the right hon Gentleman to reply in the affirmative, but as yet very little, it appeared, had been done. He did not agree with the hon. Member for South Islington, who proposed that a Committee or Royal Commission should be appointed to review all that had just been done by the Tweedmouth Committee. The truth was that all the facts of the case were known already, and the appointment of another Committee could only be desired by hon. Members in order to gain time and to fulfil election pledges He was convinced that the Secretary to the Treasury was animated by the humane desire that the Government should be a fair employer of labour. A fresh committee was not really asked for in order to ascertain the facts; it was desired to have a committee which should be less of a Treasury Committee, in order that they might arrive at a fair solution. Such a solution a might be reached by the Secretary to the Treasury meeting Members of the House. He contended that the facts in regard to the rural auxiliaries employed by the Post Office were a disgrace to the country. This was the more important because they knew that the postal service, whose ramifications were in every parish in the country, had even more to to do with the setting of the scale of wages, in the country than had the railways. These rural auxiliaries were not supposed to be the servants of the Post Office at all; the theory was that they were the servants of the local postmaster, although they were not allowed to be "sweated" in the worst sense of the
  334
  word, as they once had been. He believed their rate of wages varied from 2s. to 7s. a week, and the average was something under 5s. a week. The theory was that they were people who had other work, and they were employed between the hours of half-past five and half-past ten in the morning; but in the greater number of cases these people had nothing else to do, and only accepted this employment until they could get a decent job. These young men were exposed to the same temptations to which any town postman was exposed, and he was sure his right hon. Friend was desirous that their position should be improved as soon as possible. He believed that a rule had been made that these men were not to work more than five hours in future, and that when they did they should become assistant postmen. But their work was calculated on what they ought to be able to do rather than on what they always did do. He took it that their ordinary week was calculated to be a week which on the average would give them five hours' work a, day, but if they were to take the bad times of the year, such as winter time and Christmas, into consideration, he believed it would be considerably over that amount. He did not think there was much in the contention that the Post Office should not be represented by the Secretary to the Treasury. At all events on this question they had the right man there who really had the power to carry out these reforms which were desired, for the Postmaster General himself would have less power of dealing with these particular cases than his right hon. Friend.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid he was afraid if the Christmas-box system were abolished there would be great discontent among a large number of postmen. He believed these Christmas-boxes were given cheerfully and spontaneously by the great majority of people, and it would be in the power of the Post Office to prevent postmen from putting the screw on really poor people. In connection with the position of telegraph clerks it was felt as a grievance that a senior telegraphist and expert could never hope to get more than £135 per annum. He had a

  335
  letter that morning from his own constituency referring to this grievance. It was pointed out that some of the senior telegraphists were performing a high class of work, and yet that special appointments were made over their heads of men who received £140 or £150 a year. If that were correct it showed that without imposing any further burden it would be just and fair that the senior men should at all events have the first claim to an appointment with a higher scale of pay, the duties in regard to which they were able to fulfil. He entirely endorsed what had been said as to the conscientious manner in which the present Postmaster General endeavoured to discharge his duty, and he believed the employés of the Post Office would receive all the consideration which the exigencies of the service would permit.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEYcalled attention to the great delay which had taken place in connection with a country telegraph office in which he was interested, and hoped that steps would be taken to avoid any further, delay than was necessary. The facts were so well ascertained that he did not think the new commission of inquiry asked for by the postal employés would further strengthen their case. He thought that if the Secretary to the Treasury met a few Members of the House and discussed the points with them a satisfactory solution would be arrived at. Of course it would be perfectly impossible to satisfy all the demands of the postal employés, but it was generally admitted that the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee were not satisfactory, though he should say the country owed a debt of gratitude to Lord Tweedmouth for the time and labour he had given to the inquiry. He would content himself with putting the case of the employés in his own constituency. In Devonport there were two classes of postmen, rural and provincial, and their pay was in the one case 17s. a week, and in the other 26s. a week. The majority of the post, men received the lower pay, which it would be admitted was altogether inadequate in a town in which rents were so high as in Devonport. Again the difference in pay between the telegraph clerks' and the sorting clerks at Devonport and in Plymouth was very curious. Plymouth and Devonport as Members were aware
  336
  formed practically one town, but in Devonport the maximum pay of third class telegraph clerks and sorting clerks was only 44s. a week, whereas in Plymouth the maximum pay was 52s. per week. He did not hesitate to say that the rents were higher in Devonport than in Plymouth, for while Plymouth was a freehold town, Devonport was owned by a landlord who let his land only at the highest prices. Further than that Devonport was a great naval and military centre and the duties of the postal employés were therefore far more responsible in Devonport than in Plymouth. The correspondence in connection with the Navy and Military which passed through Devonport was enormous, and while he had no desire to depreciate the responsibility of the Plymouth postal employés it must be evident that their work was not so important as the work the Devonport postal employés, were called upon to perform. He hoped therefore that the Devonport postal employés would be placed on the same standing in regard to pay as the Plymouth postal employés
  *MR. F. W. FISON (York, W.R., Doncaster)congratulated the postal employés on the full and able way in, which their case had been stated to the House. It had been said in the course of the Debate that the representatives of the agricultural constituencies owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Postmaster General and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the benefits they had received from them. In addition to that he should like to thank the Postmaster General for the courteous and business-like way in which he responded to all requests addressed to him regarding the many questions arising in the constituencies. As to the question of Christmas boxes he admitted that the whole system was undoubtedly bad, but the Tweedmouth Committee had neither continued it nor abolished it, but had proposed a system which in his opinion was quite unworkable. He ventured to differ from the opinion which had been expressed that it would be very difficult to do away with the Christmas box system. He was informed that in the town of Doncaster there were say a dozen districts, some rich and some poor, and the men took it in turn to go through those districts at Christmas and they pooled the total. He would point out the extreme injustice of

  337
  throwing upon the postmen work of this character, for the work of collecting the Christmas boxes was practically imposed on them by the Department. It was all very well in the rich districts, but it was monstrous that in the poorer districts a labourer whose weekly wages might be lower than those of the postman should be expected to give a Christmas box. It was a. great misfortune that the postmen—servants of the State—should be actually compelled—for they were compelled because of their insufficient wages—to make this collection of Christians boxes. If the Post Office authorities were to make a small increase in the wages of the men—say 2s. a. week in lieu of Christmas boxes, he thought it would be accepted. With regard to the stripes for good conduct each stripe represented five years. It brought, an extra shilling a week, and there were six stripes all. Therefore before a man obtained the maximum remuneration for good conduct he must have served the Post Office for 30 years. He thought that was altogether too long a period, and that it would be well if some modification were introduced. It would be more satisfactory if there were four stripes, and if a stripe was given after every three years' service.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he had listened with great pleasure to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, on the question of the representation of the Post Office in the House of Commons. But he disagreed with both right hon. Gentlemen for this reason—that both had missed the important point that the Post Office was a non-political Department, and that therefore it should be carried on by a Board like the Customs and Inland Revenue, having in the House a Secretary responsible for that Board. Coming to the question of the shabby miserable payments given to the postal employés he should say that in all the departments of labour that had conic under his purview he knew no department so badly treated as the Post Office. When the men were called upon to do Sunday work they only got time and a half. That was contrary to all working class opinion in this country. Whenever he worked his men on a Sunday—which was very
  338
  rarely—he gave them double time. The Post Office had an absolute balance of three-and-a-quarter millions last year, and yet the only advance given to letter-carriers after the Tweedmouth Committee was 6d. a week, while the telegraph clerks got nothing. The Eastern Telegraph Company paid their homeservice clerks £204 a year, where the Post Office paid £140. It would only require an administrative Act to raise the wages of these men and make them contented. They ought not to be paid such a miserable pittance.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)mentioned the case of a business house which lately sent a telegram to a gentleman whose address was 3, Whitehall Place. They received next day a form saying that the telegram had not been delivered as the gentleman had changed his address to Broad Sanctuary Chambers, Westminster. No business firm would deal with their clients in that way. ["Hear, hear!"] The Post Office knew the new address, but deliberately refused to deliver the telegram, and this wanton piece of red-tapeism caused the greatest possible inconvenience. On the 1st of January, 1895, by the Chilian Currency Conversion Law, the value of the dollar in Chile was fixed at 1s. 6d. sterling. The postage from Chile to England was 10c. per half ounce, or a penny and eight-tenths. Where the postage of letters had not been prepaid it was the rule to charge double; therefore, the charge for an unpaid letter from Chile ought to be, at the most, 4d., or 5d. if the outward postage (2½d.) were taken. But the Post Office charged 10d., because they chose to calculate 10c. as a tenth part of the United States dollar, not of a Chilian dollar. They insisted that every coin which was called a dollar should be reckoned as worth 4s. 2d. On one letter recently received by a business firm, of which the postage had not been prepaid, the Post Office charged £1 10s. 10d., when the proper charge was only 5s. 7d. How could that be justified?
  *MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLcalled attention to certain grievances of the rural postmen. There were two kinds of rural postmen, those who started from a head office, and those who started from a sub-office. The former generally lived in the

  339
  town, the latter in the country. Those of them who started from the head offices, lived in the towns, but received 2s. a week less than the urban postmen. They had harder work, having greater distances to cover and longer hours than the urban men, and there was no reason why they should not receive the same wages. Others of the rural postmen, who started from sub-offices, did not live in the towns; but often, at the end of their long beats, they had to pay for shelter while waiting for the return journey. This shelter ought to be provided either in fact or in its money equivalent. These men should also receive the same scale of wages as the men in the towns; and they also complained that they did not receive the same clothing as the postmen in the towns. In the matter of medical treatment the lot of the country postmen had been to a certain extent assimilated to that of the town postman—that was to say, he was allowed to go to the large towns and get advice there; but what was the country postman to do who lived, perhaps, 12 miles away. In such cases he submitted that some money might be given to the countryman to help him to visit the doctor. Or, better still, the doctor should be sent to the postman, instead of the postman to the doctor. There need be no great difficulty in this, for in every part of the country there were medical officers of health under the local authorities, and of these the Post Office might avail themselves. Another disadvantage for the postman was that he had to pay for medical examination twice over — first, when he was appointed on probation and again twelve months afterwards, when he got his appointment. Again, it had been the custom to give extra pay to postmen in towns on bank holidays, and it was supposed the country postman would get the same advantage in that respect. There was a difference between town and country postmen here. Town men had for years been paid at the rate of 2½d. extra, and it was supposed that rural men were intended to get the same advantage. This was the way in which the Department interpreted the Report of the Commission, for they actually paid men at this rate for work done last Good Friday, but a few weeks ago called on them to refund a portion of
  340
  this—making it only at the rate of 1½d., instead of 2½d. He contended that the same scale should obtain for rural as for town men in this respect. Then as to dress there was a difference in favour of the townsmen. The rural postman got no waistcoat while the town men did. Why? A rural postman required a waistcoat just as much, as, perhaps more than, a town man. There were complaints, too, as to the issue of clothing; he knew of a man who had to wait years before he got a greatcoat. He hoped the Postmaster General would take this question of difference as regards clothing into consideration, and see that the rural postman obtained equal treatment with the town man in this respect. As regarded money orders, there had been great improvements, but they had been made at the higher end of the scale instead of at the lower. The effect of the change from 2d. to 3d. for orders not exceeding £1 was to make it harder for the poor man who only sends off his £1, while they relieved the rich man who sends off his £10. They ought to put on the extra 1d. for the £10 and restore the old rate for £1. The same remark applied to the changes in the Parcel Post; the improvements were much more marked for the larger parcels than for the smaller Ones. It would be a great advantage to allow lower rates for the smaller parcels. From his own district there was an immense amount of Devonshire cream sent up to London—he had some sent up himself in small parcels, and the question of ½d. in the postal rate often made all the difference whether the farmers could sell it or not.
  MR. ROBERT ASCROFTsaid every business man who considered the position of the Post Office must share the opinion expressed by the late Mr. W. H. Smith, when he said that the whole Department was wrong and that it should be controlled by a Board like the customs and inland revenue. He called attention especially to the position of the sub-postmasters, whose treatment he denounced as amounting to a scandal. There were, he said, 19,500 sub-postmasters in the country. Why were they treated differently from anybody else? He had made calculations and found that they were paid the immense salary of 2d. per hour. They had no pension, no medical attendance, no holiday, they

  341
  worked from morning till night; if they went away they had to find a substitute; before they could sleep away from home they had to get the permission of the head postmaster. He called attention to one particular case in his own constituency which he had personally investigated. In this case £5,292 passed through the postmaster's hands in twelve months; he had 1,909 cases of savings bank deposits to enter up; 367 money orders, 4,348 postal orders, postage stamps, and inland revenue licences to deal with; he had to attend to the dispatches, and all the rest of it, and the salary he was allowed was £29 16s. Out of this he had to pay office rent, to supply wax, string, gas, pens, ink, and paper; so that the net salary he received was £6 1s. He called that a scandal, and it ought to be thoroughly investigated, and he believed it would be in the hands of the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Oldham objected to be paid at a less rate than such towns as Wolverhampton, Huddersfield, and Halifax. His constituents considered that they had a cause of grievance, and that they had a right to be remunerated at the same rate as other officials elsewhere. When he entered the House he was able to get a telegram from Oldham in two hours. But so great had been the improvement since then that to-day he hid received a telegram which only took 45 initiates to come from Oldham. In this connection he could not refrain from calling attention to the illustration of quick dispatch which wits shown recently in one of the Committee Rooms in the chess match between the House of Commons and the United States Congress. Messages were dispatched over 4,000 miles of wire at the rate of 12 seconds for the whole distance; and since the Secretary to the Treasury had been witness of that feat he had not been happy since. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman knew that it must. be dangerous to send a telegram so quick, or that there was fear of it falling off the wire; but the right hon. Gentleman might rest assured that the constituents of Oldham would not give hint any peace until their telegrams received as much attention as those which passed. in the Parliamentary Chess match.
  *MR. CHARLES SHAWsaid that while he agreed with a. great' deal
  342
  that the last speaker had said, he must acknowledge that, in his desire to obtain justice for his constituents, he had invariably been received with kindly courtesy by the Postmaster General, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the other officials of the Department. He agreed with the hon. Member, however, in reference to the Postmaster Generalship. While we in this country prided ourselves that we were distinct from the United States in not removing Civil Servants from their posts at the close of every General Election, he could not refrain from saying that the appointment of the Postmaster General tended somewhat in that direction. He thought it would be far better from a political and practical point of view if the office of the Postmaster General were abolished, because it introduced into the Department of the Post Office a certain amount of political bias which he was sure they all felt. He was of opinion that the Tweedmouth Commission had their eyes fixed too much on one paragraph of the terms of Reference put before them by the late Postmaster General. It was to this effect, that the Department was "most likely to be continued to be conducted satisfactorily if it should also be conducted with a view to profit." He maintained, however, that profit ought not to be the first consideration. If the increased increment which the Tweedmouth Commission had advised should be given to certain employés of the Post Office they had in a certain measure robbed Peter to pay Paul. On the subject of Christmas boxes, for example, he had gone into the question thoroughly, and he found that postmen were apt to be shifted at a moment's notice from their beat, and that on Christmas Day a new face might often be brought to the notice of the householders. He pointed out that in his constituency it was the custom for two men to go round on Christmas Day and to call on the householders. One man took a book to receive the subscriptions, and the other man delivered the letters. The amounts received as Christmas boxes were entered in the book, and they were dealt with as a whole told distributed among, all the employés. If he read the Report of the Tweedmouth Commission rightly it meant that this book would be abolished. But it was not to the public benefit that

  343
  they should abolish the system which did not in any way bear hardly on the householder, and which he thought was greatly to the advantage of the Post Office employés as a whole. In his constituency the abolition of the Christmas box system meant the loss of £5 per man per annum. He endorsed many of the remarks which had been made by a previous speaker with reference to the rural postmen, and he could see no reason why these men should be paid 4s. less than the town postmen. He was convinced that these men were' put to more trouble and inconvenience, that they had more out of pocket expenses, than the town postmen, because the rural postman had to put up in country places between the time of delivery and of clearing. Stafford was a great railway centre, and it was a kind of Clearing House in postal matters. Most mails stopped there, and although the amount of dispatch was comparatively small at Stafford the work of the sorting clerk consisted in receiving the mails from all parts of the kingdom. If trains were late at night it was only by individual effort and untiring diligence on the part of the sorters at Stafford that the loss of time could possibly be made up. At Birmingham and Wolverhampton the night duty was only one week in every three or four weeks; but at Stafford many men were on continual night duty year in and year out. This fact ought to be taken into consideration in order to see whether these men ought not to have the maximum, scale of pay. The Tweedmouth Report recommended that the night duty hours should be from 10 to 6. Previous to April the night duty counted from 10 to 5; but the employés at the great sorting centres were of opinion that the hours should count as from 8 to 7. Men came on duty at 8 p.m., and he contended that from 8 to 10 should count as night duty and be paid for as such—namely, 137 minutes, not merely 120 minutes. At Stafford, where night work was the rule and not the exception, it was strongly urged that pensions should begin earlier and should be made more readily obtainable, because the strain on the men year in and year out while on night duty was so great that they were more liable to break down; and hence there was a greater claim on the Government to provide pensions for them.
  344
  There was another point of importance, and that was the question of punishment. It was a fair contention on the part of the postmen throughout the country that where a postmaster reported on a case, and the report was sent to the Central Office for review, it should be at the disposal of the man concerned. That was not so at present. If the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee were carried into effect, it meant that a man for a small series of offences—perhaps for only one or two—might forfeit for a term of years 1s. per week of his salary, which might mean all the difference between comfort and discomfort for himself and his family. Therefore it was all the more necessary that the man should have an opportunity of seeing the report which touched him so seriously, so that he might be able to found his defence upon it. With regard to the abolition of classification, the sorting clerks seemed to be satisfied with it; but they deeply regretted that there was no recommendation to increase the maximum pay, or to give any compensation —and it was a very sore point—to the men who were approaching the head of the present second class. That brought him to a point on which he would like to ask a definite question on behalf of the postmen of this country, and receive a definite answer to it from the Secretary to the Treasury, viz., what did the term "efficient barrier" mean? There seemed to be an impression throughout the service that it was something new, and that a sinister meaning lay hidden behind it. He would tell the House candidly what was the opinion of many of the employés. If he read the Report aright, it meant that a, sorter, before he could get the "efficiency" pay, must pass this "efficiency barrier," which meant efficiency in both the telegraph and the postal Departments. It meant that many of the employés believed that the Post Office were preparing themselves, so that there never should be a successful strike; they were doing this in order that if the sorters struck the telegraphists might be put on sorting, while on the other hand, if the telegraphists struck the sorters might be put on to do their telegraphic work. He wished to know, therefore, whether this was a new qualification that was created by the Tweedmouth Committee, and, if not, what the

  345
  qualification really was? With regard to the Stafford Office, it meant that out of 100 employés only 16 per cent. would be able to avail themselves of the "efficiency barrier" so as to obtain an increase of pay; while the 84 per cent. would not only not be able to obtain it, but they would have no earthly chance of obtaining it, because the telegraph facilities at the Stafford Office were such that their room was better than their company, and they would not, under any circumstances, be admitted to the telegraph department, so that if any of the employés wished to get increased pay by becoming expert telegraphists they would have to devote their leisure and sleep time to obtaining increased knowledge and experience in some outside office. He wanted to say one word with regard to the maximum at Stafford. The maximum at Stafford to-day was only 50s.; whereas in some post offices where the work was no heavier, it was 56s. He wished to bring the Stafford case very strongly under the notice of the Secretary to the Treasury, because he did honestly consider, and that not merely because he happened to represent the borough, that at Stafford they had as hard work to do as at any post office in the Kingdom. At many places, such as at Crewe and Shrewsbury, where the men dispatched a mail, they received a mail allowance; but at Stafford, simply because no mail started thence, they got no special allowance, yet the work seemed to be as hard, if not harder, than at many other towns; and lie thought that a good claim existed for an increase of salaries, or rather for an increase of the maximum. A word with regard to the abolition of allowances. It appeared to him that the Tweedmouth Commission, in making their Report, had looked too much to the recommendation of the late Postmaster General, viz. that this great Department should remain a great revenue-yielding Department, and that had been the premier consideration with them rather than the interests of the employés. The allowances which had been swept away by the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee—or which would be swept away if the Report were carried into effect—would amount to this. Take the case of one man. He had worked it out, and he would show what would be saved by the Department in the event
  346
  of a vacancy occurring on one of the duties at present carrying an allowance; and here it should be borne in mind that out of a total of 31 duties for postmen at Stafford, 16 carried allowances:—

  £

  20 years at 3s. per week

  156

  5 years at 2s. per week

  26

  5 years at 1s. per week

  13

  Total saved in 30 years' service=

  £195

  Against that, as a set off, he calculated that the officer would receive £41 12s. extra, by the new scale, 17s. by 1s. 6d. increment to 24s. maximum. Therefore, deducting the one from the other, it would mean a total net gain in such case to the Department of £153 8s. Such figures taken throughout the Service meant an enormous total aggregate gain to the Department. Let him add one word with regard to the stripes. The Post Office officials seemed to wish to have the system of stripes swept away altogether. On the contrary, the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that the three stripes should be increased to six. That had its advantages; but there was one grave disadvantage. If he read the Report aright, it meant that these stripes were to be earned at the rate of one in five years; in other words, it took 30 years to earn the six stripes. If in the early portion of a man's career he should be late for duty half-a-dozen times, and be reported to London, most likely he would not have the stripe given him, and would have to wait another year. The point was this, and he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for a clear statement. If a man lost a stripe through sonic slight dereliction of duty in the early part of his service, could he ever gain that stripe again, or did it mean that for the whole 30 years, or possibly for life, he would be mulcted 1s. per week for that slight offence? He certainly thought the man should have a chance of recevering his position, because he was quite sure, after looking into the wages given by the Department, that a postman could but ill spare that shilling a week for so long a period. He did not wish to take up the time of the House any longer with regard to one or two other matters, which he believed had been already referred to, although

  347
  he was not in the House at the moment; but he did most earnestly commend to the Secretary to the Treasury, and through him the Postmaster General, the case of the Stafford men from the sorting-centre point of view, and also because of the fact that there were many of them—thirty or more—who in the last four or five years had never had any day work, but had been engaged on night service the whole of that long term.
  MR. PERCY THORNTONwished to bring before the House the case of the District Messenger Company, who, he contended, were paying an excessive royalty. He might say that his interest in the matter was simply that of a London Member anxious to retain the advantages of the service for the metropolis. Perhaps the House would allow him to explain the history of this District Messenger Company. The Post Office saw that it was necessary to come to some terms with the company, which was entering into some sort of competition with them. They then placed upon them a royalty of a crushing character—namely, 2s. 6d. upon every call-box, and 1d. upon every message. It was found that the business could not be continued with this royalty, and it was reduced eventually to 6d. for every call-box, which the company did not object to, and upon every message. The company found that the 3/4d., taken with the 6d., represented a total of £1,500, which they said was the royalty which they had to pay to the Post Office. They urged that this prevented them carrying on their business with profit, and, unless some relief was given, London was in danger of losing the services of the company. He thought the Committee would agree that if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to remit at least some part of this royalty he would be doing a great service to the metropolis. It might be said that the Post Office were going to inaugurate a similar service, but he would point out that although there were to be messengers there were to be no call-boxes provided by the Department; and, therefore, if they lost the services of this company they would lose the advantages which they had enjoyed during the last seven years. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accede to what he felt were the wishes of a vast
  348
  number of people in the metropolis. This was no Party matter, for he found himself supported by the Press of both parties almost with unanimity.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he agreed with the general view which the hon. Member had laid before the Committee with regard to the District Messengers' service. He thought everyone would agree that it would be a very serious disadvantage to the metropolis if that service came to an end. It had not received very great consideration at the hands of the Post Office or the Treasury hitherto, and if they could see their way to do something to prevent its untimely decease it would certainly be a great advantage to a very large number of people in London. The discussion had covered two points—first, the question of principle involved in the representation in that House of the Postmaster General, and, secondly, the details of the Tweedmouth Commission. On the first question he desired to dissent from the view that the Post Office as a Department should not have a political head. He thought it was a great advantage to a great Department like that that they should have a political head. He brought outside political and Parliamentary views to bear upon the permanent officials, and he had no doubt that it was this system which had contributed to the success of their administration. In regard to the question of the representation of the Postmaster General in that House, he was sure the Secretary to the Treasury would understand that there was no reflection upon him when they said it was right and proper, when they had both detailed and important questions to discuss, that they should have some one representing the Post Office who could really give the Committee and the House sufficient answers to the points raised. The right hon. Gentleman, able as he was, was unable, because he was, not familiar with the Department, to give them satisfactory answers in regard to many matters. They had no real administrative control over this great Department at the present moment. As to the questions which had arisen out of the Report of the Tweedmouth Departmental Committee, he thought every one would agree that, whatever they might think as to its different conclusions, they owed a debt of

  349
  gratitude to Lord Tweedmouth and his colleagues for the great amount of time and trouble they had devoted to the elucidation of many most difficult matters. The view he took upon the general position was this—that the Departmental Committee having reported, and with the views that had been expressed that afternoon, it was not a case for any further inquiry. He thought the responsibility rested not upon the House of Commons at the present moment, but on the Government and on the Postmaster General to consider these claims and the views which had been laid before the Committee. He should be very sorry, in regard to the points raised and the special grievances, if anything in the nature of a further inquiry should be pressed, because he believed it would not tend to the greater advantage of the men themselves, or be likely to lead to the attainment of what they legitimately desired. He should be quite prepared to leave it in the hands of the Government with the full information they had before them. He hoped they would keep in mind what the House and the country desired should be kept in mind with regard to all the Government Departments, and especially with regard to the Post Office, which was far the largest employer of labour in the kingdom; that was, that the Government as such, and the Post Office as such, should set a good example to every employer of labour, and deal fairly and justly—and he would even go so far as to say generously—with those in their service.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETTsaid he desired to draw attention to the administration of the Savings Banks Department. Ireland was very much interested in that department, because she used the savings banks for the purposes of investment out of all proportion to the wealth of the country. He supposed the reason was that the country did not offer as many other opportunities for safe investments as other parts of the United Kingdom. Not only were the deposits in Ireland more than those made in Scotland, but the rate of increase of depositors in Ireland in the last ten years had been 91 per cent. as against 72 per cent. in England and 88 per cent. in Scotland. And this was in spite of the
  350
  fact that the population had been rapidly declining in that period. All the work connected with this Department was done in London, considerable inconvenience being thereby caused to Irish depositors. Whenever a depositor in Ireland wished to withdraw an amount, however small, from his account, the application for withdrawal had to come to London and then to be sent back to Ireland. The Post Office authorities might say in reply, that as depositors were allowed to withdraw their deposits at any post office in the United Kingdom, it was necessary to have one central Department to manage the accounts. About one-third of the transactions in the savings banks were cross entries, or transactions by depositors at post offices where they did not originally open accounts. But he had a very strong impression that a very small proportion of these transactions were transactions by such depositors doing business in England, or English depositors doing business in Ireland. If he were correct in that surmise the change that he advocated would cause but little complication, and could be easily dealt with by a system of cross accounts between Dublin and London. The present system must be costly as well as dilatory. Then office rent in London was very much higher than in Ireland. He was not, however, speaking in the interests of the Post Office; he looked at the matter from the Irish point of view. Unless there were some practical objection in the way he would like Irishmen to get their fair share of this employment. He therefore asked the Secretary to the Treasury to institute a Departmental inquiry with a view to ascertaining whether it would be possible to make a change in the present system.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston)said that throughout the discussion some facts had been more or less left out of sight. Hon. Members ought to recollect, in the first place, that the Tweedmouth Committee gave universal satisfaction when it was appointed. It was then agreed that it was the right kind of Committee, and that the right kind of men were appointed to serve upon it. There was no preponderance of Treasury opinion upon the Committee. In fact, the only Treasury official sitting upon it was Sir Francis Mowatt. There was on

  351
  it a high representative of the Post Office, and the officials of a Department were not as a rule anxious to cut down the salaries of their subordinates. Their tendency would rather be to recommend an increase in salaries. There was also on the Committee a representative of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, who was particularly well qualified to give an opinion as to the proportion which the wages of Post Office and telegraph employés bore to the wages of persons doing corresponding work outside the Post Office. Therefore the Committee was a very efficient body, and through its recommendations the salaries of the officials had already been increased by £140,000 a year, and the increase would amount to something like a quarter of a million in the next few years. The Treasury had accepted every recommendation of the Committee, whose suggestions had been adopted wholesale. There was no ground for complaint, therefore, in that direction. Another fact which Members ought not to overlook was the political pressure which was far too frequently exercised by Civil Servants upon those who represented them. ["Hear, hear!"] That was a great and growing danger. It was chiefly in London that this pressure was brought to bear. He did not believe for a moment that the hon. Member for South Islington had been actuated by mere political considerations; and whenever this subject was considered by the Treasury the Department would not be influenced by any such considerations, but would deal with the matter impartially and fairly. ["Hear, hear!"] He would give an instance of the way in which these Civil Servants spoke of the expediency of political pressure. At one of the great meetings which had been held, a speaker said that there were 8,000 postmen in London, and that he hoped every one of them would have his name put on the register so that at election times they could exercise their influence upon candidates and advocate the cause of higher wages. He was of opinion that political pressure ought not to be brought to bear in that way. ["Hear, hear!"] Ordinary workmen could not exercise the same power, but Civil Servants could, and, whether their agitation succeeded or not, their position was secure, so that it was a case of "Heads, I win; tails, I don't lose."
  352
  An ordinary workman who demanded an increase of wages knew that he jeopardised the wages that he already earned; therefore there was a broad distinction between the case of Civil Servants and the case of ordinary workmen. Before the Royal Commission, which had inquired into the Civil Service establishments, evidence was given with regard to the way in which pressure was brought to bear in certain constituencies upon Members, and he thought that the almost unanimous feeling of the Commission was that, if this state of things continued, it would be necessary to disfranchise the Civil Service. ["Hear, hear!"] Reverting to the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee, he admitted that it was quite possible that in some respects those recommendations might be capable of improvement, and said that if a fair case could be made out for some alteration in the present rates of pay the Treasury would be quite ready to consider it with a desire to do what was just. The hon. Member for South Islington had drawn attention to the case of the telegraphists. In their case the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that the better course would be to give them an increase of pay when they reached the age of 24, which, speaking roughly, was the marriageable age. The same principle had been adopted by the Ridley Commission on the ground that the wiser course was to give lower wages during the initial stages of a man's service so that higher wages might be given him later on when he probably had a family growing up around him. That system had to be weighed in the balance as against the system proposed by his hon. Friend. The hon. Member had maintained that the ordinary telegraphist had a right to rise beyond £160 and up to a maximum of £190. That he could not admit. The men between £160 and £190, who were called the senior class, undoubtedly did superior work. They had certain supervising and technical duties, they performed a good deal of foreign telegraph work, and generally their work was a great deal higher than anything that should be done by a first-class telegraphist. But there were in that class certain men who, owing to the fact that they had been promoted by seniority without passing any examination,

  353
  were not quite up to the normal average of the senior class. He could not admit that as regarded this point any injustice had been done to the men. There were some general questions with which it was right he should deal. There was, for instance, the question of pension. He understood that the sorters and postmen wanted to be pensioned on a totally different system from that which prevailed generally in the Civil Service. Practically they asked that if they died certain payments should be made to their relations, and that whenever they left the service they should be able to draw a certain amount of pension. That certainly was not the system which applied to the rest of the Civil Service, and it would be impossible to draw a distinction between one branch of the service and another. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Clapham had spoken of the district messengers, and he only did the Treasury justice in saying that even within the last year they had considerably reduced the royalties paid by the District Messenger Company. The royalty on the call boxes was at first 2s.6d.; it had now been reduced to 6d. In addition, they had reduced the royalty on letters from 1d. to ¾d. It was asked that they should make a still further reduction. He believed the District Messengers directors asked that the royalty should now be reduced from ¾d. to ¼d. The directors said, "If you do not reduce the royalty you will kill the District Messenger service." The, difference of royalty under this proposal was only £600, and he could hardly believe the company was in such a condition that the payment of such a sum would kill it. The District Messenger Company did a great deal of work which was in no sense Post Office work. They sold theatre tickets, and performed other services which were no doubt great social conveniences, but which were certainly not work the Post Office could undertake. Therefore, the Treasury had a right to ask the company whether their loss was not on their work as a whole, and not on purely Post Office work. If the company could prove that it was on Post Office work in respect of which they paid royalty that the loss was caused, then it would be fair the Treasury should consider the advisability of a reduction of the royalty. The evidence was fairly
  354
  strong that the company were not losing very heavily on Post Office work. The Post Office had a messenger service of its own; it charged lower rates than the company, it covered the whole of London, whereas the company only served the thickly-populated and richer parts of the metropolis, and yet it made a fairly considerable profit on the service. It was only fair to say, however, that if it had to pay a royalty of ¾d., which was being paid by the company, they would do little more than pay their way. He admitted that the District Messenger Company performed services which were not rendered by the Post Office. In the first place, the company's offices were open all night, whereas only one or two of the Post Office's offices were so open. Again, the company had a system of call boxes, which the Post Office had not. These were great conveniences, and the public might have some right to complain if, without good reason, the Post Office did anything to kill the company's service. On the subject of postmen's Christmas gratuities he was able to give the Committee some information which would be acceptable to it. The recommendation undoubtedly was that the postmen should not be allowed to solicit. He was bound to say the word was rather ambiguous, and he did not think that the recommendation was one that the public generally endorsed. ["Hear, hear!"] The Post master General had come to what he thought was a wise decision—that the postmen should still be allowed to ask for a Christmas-box. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time they must recollect that these men did not always do their duty in rich districts. There were poor districts where a demand for a Christmas-box might not be so easily satisfied and where it might be a heavy burden on poor men. ["Hear, hear!"] The distinction they wished to draw was that, while postmen were allowed to ask civilly for a Christmas-box as an act of grace, the authorities must protect the poor man from anything like importunity. ["Hear, hear!"] As to Savings Bank work in Ireland, he had promised to look into that.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEsaid if Aberdeen was undergoing the disagreeable process of changing the site of its post office, the sum fixed, which they

  355
  understood could not be stretched, was totally inadequate. They ought to have for a city like Aberdeen a post office which would meet its wants for 50 years or longer. An official had been sent down, however, with instructions that a certain limit should not be exceeded, whatever the representations of the local authorities might be. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give this matter his most serious consideration. He thought that, although this was a matter concerning his individual constituency, it was entitled to more consideration.
  MR. JOLLIFFEcalled attention to the post office at Weston-super-Mare. Now for many years this town had outgrown the accommodation, and in 1892 a site was selected at a cost of £5,000. From that day to this no work had been done. The matter was still under consideration. It struck him that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton were extremely applicable in this case of Weston-super-Mare. An intolerable strain was put on the local officers at Weston-super-Mare, and such was the inconvenience to the public that last year the authorities were obliged to hire additional premises, and they were also obliged to tinker up the old condemned post office, while all this time the site remained unused. He thought that this was a waste of public money. Five years had passed, and they were no nearer a conclusion now than they were then. Many of his constituents had been put to the greatest inconvenience.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONcordially approved of what the Secretary to the Treasury had said as to the political pressure brought to bear by Civil Servants. He thought the warning given was much required in the public interest.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLsaid he did not agree with the remarks which they had just heard. [" Hear, hear !"] He thought they should clear their minds of cant. Thirty years ago the House had deliberately given votes to the servants of the Post Office, and now that they were enfranchised they had no right to complain if these men used their political powers for the advancement of their own personal interest. As to Lord Tweedmouth's
  356
  Committee, his recollection was that protests were made against the composition of the Committee. He himself had stated that the Committee was not likely to give satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a large representation of officials on the Tweedmouth Committee, and they would not have a tendency to cut down the salaries of their own department. That depended entirely on whose salaries had to be cut down. ["Hear, hear!"] Hedidnot think highly paid officials took the most generous view of what was the proper remuneration of humbler employés. After what the Secretary to the Treasury had said, those who came to the House to fight the case of the Post Office servants were to a large extent disarmed, because the right hon. Gentleman had said: "Come to the Treasury, lay your case before us and we will fairly consider it." After that statement it was really difficult to pursue the matter, but there was one class whose case seemed to be a very pressing one, namely the telegraphists. They had been treated worse than any other class, and in regard to them he did not find much encouragement in what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He hoped that whether hon. Gentlemen accepted the invitation to the Treasury or not, both the right hon. Gentleman himself and time Postmaster General would apply their minds very promptly to the case of the telegraphists, because he was sure there would be trouble in connection with them unless something were done for them.
  MR. B. L. COHEN: agreed with what had been said as to pressure being put on their representatives by public servants. He did not speak from personal experience because during the five years he had had a seat in the House, he did not recollect that any pressure had been put on him, perhaps because he discountenanced it. The speech of his right hon. Friend was conceived in a spirit which one would have expected from him; but if it were wrong for what he called illegitimate pressure to he exercised by Civil Servants on their representatives, it became all the more important that no ground for entertaining a sense of injustice should be allowed to exist. The House would be grateful for the promise of his right hon. Friend that properly represented

  357
  grievances should be carefully and sympathetically examined into by the Treasury, and he was quite certain that the Post Office Servants would be allowed to present their legitimate grievances in a legitimate way to a sympathetic and impartial tribunal. The previous tribunal had too much of the official element, and it was known beforehand that those who constituted it would approach the inquiry with a certain amount of prejudice. He was quite sure, however, that no misgiving would be felt by any Member of the House, now that his right hon. Friend had said he would examine into any properly represented grievances that came before him.
  MR. W. S. ROBSONsaid he wished to call attention to what he thought was a very substantial grievance, and one winch had a very easy and economical remedy. South Shields was a great port with a population of 90,000, and was much dependent for prosperity on shipping and general mercantile intelligence. It happened that South Shields was not in a direct news circuit with Landon, and the people thought that it had reached the stage when it should be. At present South Shields got its news through Newcastle, which was a circuit town. That would matter little if the transmission of news from circuit towns were prompt, but the telegraphic system had become little better than a farce in this important town. It was no uncommon thing for an item of important news to be sent from London to Newcastle and printed in the evening papers there, which would be sold in South Shields before the item was transmitted. That was very irritating to the gentlemen of the Press in his constituency, and he deemed it a very proper and legitimate grievance to bring before the House. He had with him 75 telegrams which had been collected for him in one day, and each of them had taken on the average I hour and 20 minutes in transmission from London. That meant a very serious disadvantage not merely to the general public, but also to merchants and commercial men. He thought the Post Office might very well spare a little money for this purpose, not as a matter of grace or charity, but of plain justice.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid they had to acknowledge a very sympathetic speech from the Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps if some hon. Members went to the Treasury in regard to this matter, accompanied by one person who might represent practically the views which were entertained by those concerned, the matter might be further gone into. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  *MR. HANBURYsaid there was no objection on the part of the Treasury to hearing communications from Members of Parliament on the subject, but with regard to officials of the Post Office coming to the Treasury he should not like to give any pledge without first consulting with the Postmaster General.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked that the mail service to and from Ballyshannon and Bundoran should be improved. The first postal delivery at Ballyshannon was at 9 o'clock in the morning, which was not early enough, for Ballysliannon was a town of great commercial interests. The evening post at Buthloran left at five minutes to four, and did not reach London till seven o'clock in the evening of the next day. One of the reasons for these inadequate arrangements was the miserable mail car service which was made use of. There was a railway line, but it was not used for the purpose, owing to some financial arrangements between the Post Office and the Great Northern Railway. He spoke as the mouthpiece of his constituents in regard to this matter. He believed that if there were increased postal facilities the postal authorities would be recompensed for them by the increased business. He had been terribly affected by the lecture which they had all received, he hoped with humility, from a young Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench on that side. He should not have noticed his speech if it had not been for his position on that Bench. Did he represent the great Liberal Party in this matter? He believed not, and he trusted that the hon. Member would himself receive a lecture from his superiors.
  MR. T. BAYLEYsaid that a public servant had as

  359
  much right as any other citizen to have a voice in the management of the affairs of the country. It was the duty of the House of Commons to redress the grievances of public servants, and they ought not to leave those grievances to the arbitration of any one except the Members of the House of Commons. In June 1895 the late Postmaster General sent terms of Reference to a Committee on Postal Establishments, and the Chairman of that Committee said that he had decided to comply with the applications which bad been addressed to him on the subject. Those applications were from public servants who had certain well-defined grievances, and were willing to leave those grievances to the arbitration of a Committee of the House of Commons—not a Committee with a Chairman from the House of Lords. Public servants, whether in the Post Office, the Army, or Navy, had a right to have their grievances redressed by that House. If the friction between the Post Office and its permanent officials became extreme he hoped both parties would agree to accept the decision of an independent body of business men.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid that as this question of political influence exerted by postal and telegraph servants had been raised, be wished to say that he had never had the slightest indication of any political threat or ray indication that political consequences would follow if he neglected to put forward the grievances of telegraph or post office employés in his constituency. He represented a commercial constituency in which a very large staff óf telegraph clerks and other post office servants were employed, and had received many communications from them. They were a very large and skilled class of public servants, and they had conducted their negotiations with the greatest discretion and forbearance and without the slightest colour of political pressure. He thought the telegraphists had distinct cause for complaint, and that the right hon. Gentleman had not so fully realised the justice of thse complaints as he might have done. ["Hear, hear!"] Everyone knew that the services of telegraphists
  360
  were of the greatest possible consequence to the work of the nation, and that if commerce were paralysed even for a few moments by the interruption of telegraphic communication, losses would occur which it would take years to recover. Knowing the power which they possessed, and the complete way in which they might organise themselves, time House, instead of criticising them, ought to pay a tribute to them for the great forbearance they had shown in face of the neglect to remedy their grievances. Parliament in its wisdom had given them the Franchise, and it was now too late and futile to expend regrets over the exercise of that constitutional right. If these men did not exercise their right they would be the only exceptions in the whole community. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would only look round the House of Commons he would see numbers of men in the public services, receiving emoluments from the Army and Navy—["hear, hear!"]—not only exercising their Franchise, but actually taking part in the Debates and the Divisions which were affecting their pockets, their incomes, and their interests in many direction. [Opposition cheers.] If the Army and Navy so acted, surely it was straining the complaint of the Government against the telegraphists when they complained of these poor, underpaid, and neglected public servants who ground away at their instruments from early morning until late at night, and often right through the night, exercising the franchise. They were perfectly justified in taking every opportunity the law gave them of seeking redress for their grievances. All hon. Members had great respect for the Secretary to the Treasury. Before he took office he had been a fearless champion for the exposure of job-beries. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman had now had two years of office, and he (Mr. Broadhurst) would give him this fatherly advice—[laughter]—well, brotherly advice—there was no more sure road to ruin than to become an official. [Laughter.] The great talents which were destined to benefit the nation ought not to be surrendered for Party objects only. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a sure indication of a decline in character when a Minister began to lecture. The right hon. Gentleman had

  361
  warned these good public servants that they must not do these naughty things, or possibly grave consequences would follow. He was sure he would not do it again. [Laughter and cheer.] The right hon. Gentleman had dime some good, statesmanlike acts, regardless of precedent, and he hoped he would continue to do so during his official life. Many of these telegraphists, after serving the State for five years, only got 24s. per week. There ought to be promotion in some direction, or consolation in increased wages. In some places women were employed as letter carriers or deliverers at wages less than they would receive in out-door relief from a union. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to allow these poor women, who were scantily clad in winter, some strong boots and gaiters and a serviceable cloak. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the result of the discussion would he to bring satisfaction and peace where there was now dissatisfaction and unrest, and if so this House would have spout three or four serviceable hours in the interests of the community.
  MR. S. SMITHbrought under notice a complaint made by the town of Flint, that the up mail train from Ireland did not stop there to discharge the mails and to take up passengers. He believed the Post Office was quite agreeable to do this, but that the difficulty came from the London and North Western Railway. All that was required was to re-arrange the time table a little, and perhaps to put on a stronger engine. He commended this matter to his right hon. Friend. With regard to the general question, there was no doubt whatever as to the widespread dissatisfaction amongst Post Office officials. Probably there was not a Member of the House who had not had representations made to him in this sense. We paid very well the higher grades in the public service, but the lower grades, whether in the Post Office, the Army, or the Navy, were poorly and inadequately paid. Compared with other countries this was the great defect in our public service.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONdesired to call attention to two small grievances which might be remedied without much expense, and greatly to the advantage of the public.
  362
  The first was with reference to the redirection of letters, a privilege which was denied to that very large and respectable section of the community who lived habitually in lodging-houses. He asked that the same privileges and facilities for the re-direction of letters should be extended to this class as were at present enjoyed by the general public. His second point related to the facilities for the posting of letters in mail trains. There were many express trains to which there were no letter boxes attached. For instance, there was a train which left Glasgow about 10.45. The Post Office could not be expected to send letters by that train, but if a person chose to send to the train he saw no earthly reason for his letters not being taken by it. Such facilities were to be found in many Continental trains, and notably in Germany, where outside every railway station there was a letter box, which was emptied before the departure of the trains. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look favourably upon these suggestions.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNyielded to none in admiration of the Secretary to the Treasury, but after all, he considered that his reply was rather unsatisfactory, and that it had not met the questions raised on behalf of the postmen and telegraphists in the public service. As regards political pressure, he could quite conceive that in constituencies where the margin was narrow, and that the Member held his seat by but a precarious foothold, he might, without conseientiously doing anything unfair, find himself pressed to cater for every vote; still he believed every public spirited man would decline to hold his seat by any such tenure, and, speaking for himself and the great bulk of the Irish Members, he was satisfied that they were entirely removed from any political pressure of the kind. In his opinion, the officials of the Post Office were justified in their complaints as to the constitution of the Committee. No doubt the officials appointed upon it were all men of the highest character and the greatest possible fairness, but it was not unreasonable to suppose that, knowing as they did that the Department was Conducted with a view to profit, they would not be inclined to increase the expanse where it was a question for

  363
  raising salaries in the lower grades. He did not at all demur to the theory that the Post Office should be a profit-making department, but when a case was made out for a moderate increase of salary and an improvement in the status of the lower paid officials they were bound to consider such questions, and could not get rid of them by saying that the Post Office should be a profit-making department. With regard to the general subject, he did think a strong case had been made out for a more generous treatment of the telegraphists. It was not an unreasonable thing to say that men who had been at work for five years in a department, and were then only in receipt of 28s. a week, were deserving of some consideration. The Committee would recognise that telegraphists were men who unquestionably must be possessed of highly trained and technical skill, having to go through a severe and prolonged training. He hoped that this class of public servants would receive more generous treatment from the Treasury. He himself believed that the Post Office so far as was consistent should be conducted as a profit-making department, but he thought it would be seen that this, after all, was not the primary object of the Post Office. The primary object was that the Post Office should conduce to the public convenience, should carry out the business and correspondence of the country, and this should continue to be the primary object of that great Department. It was not because it had assumed such enormous importance as it had done in modern times that that element should be altogether forgotten and the clement of profit making alone considered. Passing from the general subject to local questions connected with Ireland, lie complained that postmasters in charge of offices in small or moderate sized towns did not get their fair share of promotion to higher paid centres. Whenever the postmastership of a larger town was vacant an Englishman or Scotchman was generally brought over and promoted over the head of every man in the locality, though they rarely heard of an Irish postmaster being sent to fill a vacancy in England or Scotland. Promotion should go by merit, and deserving local postmasters ought not to be passed over. Another matter to which attention
  364
  should be directed was that which had been specifically referred to by the Member for Donegal. In Ireland there were instances in which the mails were carried long road distances even where the road ran parallel with a well equipped line of railway. In cases where the trains ran at inconvenient hours it might be desirable that the old mail car or coach should continue to be used, but when the railways would enable the public to receive a better postal service they ought to be availed of. He wished to say that he did not sympathise with any body of public servants who would wish to put a pistol, as it were, to the head of the Post Office or Treasury Department by more or less vague or veiled threats. But he was bound to say he thought it was not in the interest of the public service, and the efficiency of a great Department, that they should have men who were professedly underpaid and rather overworked. The efficiency of the public service would lie better secured by having a properly paid, fairly worked, and therefore a contented and satisfied staff of servants.
  MR. TUDOR HOWELLthought it was only one's duty to refer to a remark by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hanbury) that the Members of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee were much impressed by the fact that political influence was brought to bear in the way of pressure by the Post Office employés.
  *MR. HANBURY: I did not say that. I referred to the Ridley Commission.
  MR. TUDOR HOWELLsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Members of the Committee were impressed by it. He represented four boroughs, which included amongst the electorate both rural and town postmen, who from time to time had communicated to him their grievances in connection with postal matters, but he never heard the smallest suggestion of pressure on the part of any one of them. They had only done what seemed to him to be perfectly legitimate by asking that some attention should be paid to their complaints, and that they should be presented to the Post Office officials by those who were able properly to present them. There was only one other point to which he wished to refer and that waste the Sunday delivery of letters. He felt

  365
  very anxious that the day should come when it should cease throughout the length and breadth of the country, and though he knew the opinion of the House was not ripe upon the question he hoped the Post Office would take the matter into consideration. When a great city like London, with its great commercial interests, could do without Sunday delivery, he thought it was conclusive evidence that small boroughs and towns of ten thousand inhabitants could do so.
  MR. J. COLVILLEcalled attention to the case of t he postmen in the sub-offices in Lanarkshire. Their maximum rate of wages had been 26s. per week, but by a rearrangement the wages had been reduced to 24s. Tin men failed to see any advantage as a result of the Tweedmouth Commission to them. The case of the sub-postmasters, as compared with that of the head postmasters, was also worthy of attention. In many cases the amount of Post Office business in the sub-offices was as great as in the larger offices, but there was deducted from the small salaries of tin sub-postmasters the cost of rent, fuel, lighting and stationery. It was not a sufficient reason to say that the Post Office should not consider these cases because of the large number of trades-people who desired to have a post office connected with their business premises, and that in consequence they should beat down this class of public servants, and exact the uttermost farthing from them because there was competition for the offices. There ought to be some minimum that would permit a fair wage being paid, not the miserable twopence per hour—which would encourage these public servants to discharge their ditties. He acknowledged the great courtesy he had received from the officials of the Department in connection with any communications he had to make to them.
  MR. LOUGHacknowledged the sympathetic way in which the representations of grievances had been received by the Secretary to the Treasury, but suggested that the grievances of the telegraph service should be further discussed by the Committee. (Mr. WEIR: "No; Scotland!")
  "MR. J. G. WEIR, as representing a constituency which covered a vast area of the Highlands, dissociated himself from the
  366
  remarks of the Scottish Liberal Whip (Mr. Munro Ferguson). He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would repeat the statements in Scotland he had made that evening as to disfranchising the postmen. The hon. Member had forgotten the lessons of his boyhood, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn!" [Laughter.] Postmen had to work long hours in the cold of winter and in the heat of summer for the smallest pittance. He hoped that care would be taken by the postmen in Scotland to remind the hon. Member of his remarks about disfranchisement. As to the suggestion that the Post Office should be represented in the House by a gentleman connected with the Treasury, he said that it was a sad spectacle at times to see the Secretary to the Treasury floundering about to find a satisfactory reply to a question. This was not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman who was furnished with information supplied by the permament officials of the Post Office. The Post Office should be directly represented in the house of Commons. As to the discussion upon the position of Post Office employés, he would not enter into it further than to say his sympathy was with the men. The need of postal and telegraph facilities in the Highlands of Scotland had been the occasion of many questions he had felt it his duty to address to the Secretary to the Treasury, and he took this opportunity of impressing the importance of the subject upon the attention of the Department, urging the adoption of more liberal treatment towards that part of the country, on the lines of the policy initiated by Sir Rowland Hill. The officials of the Post Office still clung to the idea that the service must be conducted on strictly commercial principles. Of course it was all very well that the Post Office should be a money-making department, but when the Departments bowed a profit of £3,600,000 it was not creditable to the Government, and was not fair to the community that there should be parts of the country where postal facilities were wholly inadequate and telegraph offices far too few. Such was the condition of the Highlands. In 1840 the Government sacrificed a million of revenue to establish the penny postage, and results had amply justified this policy, for there was at the

  367
  present time a clear profit of £3,600,000. But there were many townships in his constituency and in the Highlands from which persons had to travel from five to ten miles to get the advantage of the postal system. Houses of call there were where letters could be left or called for, dwellings of crofters or cottars, known as "Black Houses," black inside with peat reek in which letters often became so smeared and smudged that the addresses could scarcely be read. Something should be done to amend this state of things. He had asked that boxes should be provided near the townships, but the Post Office had not felt able to afford these, and he was told it was a matter for the people themselves to deal with. This was all very well for people who kept large mansions, and it was not an uncommon thing for these people to do this, but it could not be expected from the poorer population. A township numbering from a hundred to two hundred persons should have facilities provided; it was not fair that the Post Office should tell these poor people that they should provide their own boxes, each of the heads of some 50 families providing a key. The Post Office was established for the benefit of the community and not wholly for the purpose of making profit. He was grateful fur the reforms promised in the mail service, but he would like to know if any decision had been arrived at to meet the special grievances of which his constituents complained, and he referred particularly to the Strome Ferry and Stornoway mails. Stornoway served a population of 30,000 in the island of Lewis. An acceleration of the mail to Strome Ferry would also be of great service to Skye, North and South Uist, Benbecula and Harris. It was not asking too much from the Post Office and the Treasury that a small sum should be provided for a proper postal service. Stornoway in the summer time was one of the most important fishing stations in the North of Scotland. Another point of grievance arose out of the demand of the Department for a guarantee before establishing a postal telegraph office. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people were very poor, and that poor fishermen and crofters were not in a position to provide these guarantees and he did think that the
  368
  Post Office ought not to ask for them in such districts. It was after all only a very small sum that was required, as the Postmaster General admitted. In answer to a Question which he put on the 3rd of May last, the Secretary to the Treasury said:—
  "The Postmaster General is aware that in some parts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland the people have experienced great difficulty in providing guarantees for telegraph extensions, and he hopes that this difficulty will be removed by the alteration in the system of guarantees which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the Budget."
  Seeing that the sum involved was so small from the Post Office point of view, why not stop asking for guarantees in. poor parts of the country? An official return showed that during the year 1895 guarantees were asked for in 20 cases when telegraph extensions were applied for in the Highland comities, but only two had been granted, the poverty of the people making it impossible for them to provide the guarantees. There was a congested District Bill for Scotland before the House. It would no doubt become law; but what would be the use of opening up various parts of the Highlands unless facilities were given for putting the people in direct communication with the markets where they could dispose of their produce? They would be simply expending a lot of money without giving the full benefit of it to the community? The hon. Member quoted statistics showing that in the majority of cases in which telegraphic extensions had been made in the Highlands during the past three years, the offices had soon proved to be paying offices; only in a few cases had the guarantor been called upon and then only for small sums. Continuing, he said it was a paltry thing to ask for guarantees from these places; and if the Congested Districts Board got to work, it would be of the utmost importance that these people—the fishing population especially—should he given facilities for communicating with the markets by telegraph. The right hon. Gentleman told him, on the 29th of April last, that the extension of telegraph' facilities carried with it the extension of other facilities, i.e., money orders. So it ought. But whereas in

  369
  England there were only 4 per cent, of the telegraph offices that were not also money order offices, in Scotland 12 per cent. of the telegraph offices were not money orders, and in the Highland counties 25 per cent. Yet the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said that the extension telegraphic facilities carried other facilities such as money orders. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman did his best. but this was the result of his not being in immediate touch with the Post Office, and being entirely dependent for his information on the permanent officials. The hon. Gentleman went on to complain of delay in answering questions he had put on the Paper. He put it Question three weeks ago, and had repeated it three times, and now he was told that the information would not be ready until the 22nd of this month. That, certainly was anything but satisfactory; and then the House was told, "Oh, the Highlands are so far off it takes time to get the information! "A word on another matter. He had submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Post Office a scheme prepared by Mr. W. H. Lupton, a retired officer of the Secretary's Department of the General Post Office, by which "Savings Bank Postal Orders" for amounts of 10s., 15s., £1, or £2 might be issued to depositors at a charge of 1½d. each order. Although this would be a source of revenue, he assumed that they did not care to be troubled with any new scheme. It was absurd to say that this would affect the bankers' interests. It was only asked in respect of small sums, and as the orders arc not transferable bankers' interests could not be affected. This was a matter of importance to the fishermen, crofters and the rural population in every part of the Kingdom, who are deposit ors in the Post Office Savings Bank, and who may require part of their money on an emergency at a minimum of cost. He hoped the Financial Secretary would give it his consideration. With a view of getting definite information on the subject, he begged to move to reduce the Postmaster General's salary by £100.
  MR. LOWLESprotested most strongly against the suggestion that a large and important body of public servants like the post office employés should be deprived of the right of access to Members of Parliament
  370
  simply because they happened to be Civil Servants. He had a great many in his constituency whom he regarded it as a pleasure to know, and every time they had approached him they had dealt with the matter of their grievances in the most temperate manner. He rose for the purpose of testifying to the courteous treatment he had received not only from the Duke of Norfolk but from the right hon. Gentleman himself, on every occasion when he had approached them in regard to cases of individual hardship or grievance. The Tweedmouth Report had given satisfaction in some departments of the service, and, supplemented as it had been that night by the frank, courteous, and sympathetic statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought the employs, as a body, would recognise the desire of those who were responsible for the Department in that House and outside of it to attend to their grievances when presented in a temperate and legitimate manner.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENdesired to associate himself and those with whole he acted with the reasonable and just, demands made by the Post Office employés, as set out in the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Islington. He was one of those who held that the Post Office should not be worked for profit, but should be worked so as to secure the highest state of efficiency for the public convenience. He was sorry to hear a hint from the Secretary to the Treasury that he thought the Post Office employés should be deprived of the franchise, because they used it as he thought in the most legitimate way for their own protection. He thought they ought to be free to use their votes and influence upon their candidates or Members as all other workers did in order to try and improve their position. He made hold to say that no Government would dare to put before the country any such proposition as to deprive the men of the franchise. He desired to ask the right hon. Gentlemen for information as to the question of overtime. The telegraphists were under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they were free, according to the rules of the service, to refuse to work overtime if they thought they were not receiving proper remuneration for that overtime. They founded their statement upon the answer given by the late Mr. Raikes on this subject, in the course of which he said

  371
  that "except as regards Sunday duties, the performance of overtime is quite voluntary." With regard to the findings of the Tweedmouth Committee, the Secretary to the Treasury had admitted the justice of the men's claims, but he had promised redress on some points and had agreed to hear what they had to say on some other points. He thought it would have been better to meet the demand for another inqniry into the whole case. The Post Office employés complained that the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee was in many particulars at variance with the evidence given, and they therefore asked, very reasonably, that another inquiry should be held. In the meantime they were trying through their organisation to obtain some redress for their grievances, as they had a perfect right to do. They had decided as a body to decline to work overtime unless they were properly remunerated for it. He had been informed that two prominent members of the Telegraphists' Association, the chairman and secretary, were to appear to-morrow before an official at the Central Telegraph Office, when they were to be asked to apologise for having issued a ballot paper with regard to the question of overtime work, and unless they apologised these men were to be suspended. If the Government allowed such a course to be taken the result, he was told, would be that the whole staff of telegraphists would walk out of the office. He had received a telegram from Liverpool stating that employés there were to be treated in the same way. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would not permit this summary procedure, In conclusion he asked why letters from England were delivered so late at a junction in the Meath line, only 17 miles from Dublin? Trains conveying the mails passed this junction, and carried letters to places further on the line, but for some reason or other there was no delivery at the junction. He had called attention to this matter before, but had never got a satisfactory reply.
  *MR. HANBURY, who rose to reply to the points that had been raised since the dinner hour, said he would make inquiries as to the want of direct telegraphic communication between London and South Shields. With regard to the late arrival of the mails at Bundoran, he regretted that the Post Office had not
  372
  yet been able to arrange with the Rail-Company that the trains should start from Dundalk earlier so as to establish better communication between that place and the rest of Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicester had pleaded the cause of a body of public servants—the women postmen. The hon. Member asked that certain articles of clothing should be supplied to them. They would see what could be done. The hon. Member for Flint had asked that for the convenience of passengers certain mail trains should stop at Flint. That was really a question for the railway company. The Post Office did not object to the stopping of a train at Flint station, so long as delay to the mail service was not occasioned. Complaint had been made of the low salary paid to those at the bottom of the service. Undoubtedly the later policy had been to start young fellows at a lower salary in order to give them a higher salary later on, and he thought that on the whole that had been a satisfactory policy. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had questioned him time after time with regard to the postal facilities for the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, and he spoke at considerable length on the same subject this evening. He had frequently informed the hon. Gentleman that the particular information he required could not be furnished before the 22nd of this month on account of the remoteness of the districts concerned and the detailed nature of the information asked for. The hon. Member complained that the Department had not adopted a liberal policy towards the Islands and Highlands. If there was one district which had no reason to complain of the policy which the Treasury and Post Office had adopted with regard to it, it was that of the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. For some years special grants had been made for telegraphic extension, and now the district was to get the advantage of the postal deliveries promised in the Budget Speech. The hon. Member had spoken of the steamer communication. In spite of the fact that there was no guarantee that the steamers could be ultimately employed for the purpose of developing trade, they were going to appoint a strong Departmental Committee, consisting of representatives of the Scotch Office, the Treasury, and the Post Office, to see how far it would

  373
  be possible to extend to the islands the postal facilities which were being extended to other portions of the United Kingdom. It was not possible that the post offices could act as bankers. They had already got quite sufficient to do. Then all hon. Member, he thought it was the Member for Glasgow, raised a point as to the re-direction of letters, and said that the facilities should be extended, as to the ordinary changes of address, to those persons living at hotels and lodging houses and changing their addresses. He thought that in the case of hotels insuperable difficulty would arise. He should look into the case of the boarding houses. He thought that as to the Tweedmouth Commission considerable concessions had been made. The only other question raised was the question of the hon. Member for Tipperary, and he referred to the threat of the telegraphists at Kilkenny—the refusal to do overtime unless certain concessions were made to them.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid they were simply giving their opinion.
  *MR. HANBURYsaid the inquiry was whether they were obliged to work overtime and the distinction was based upon a speech alleged to have been made by Mr. Raikes, who said that overtime work was voluntary. In a few days Mr. Raikes corrected that speech. The real rule with regard to working overtime was laid down in the Post Office circular issued that very day. In regard to overtime it was the duty of the officers to give such services. If they failed to discharge those services that would be the same as if they failed in the exercise of their ordinary duties. He hoped the officers referred to would not be so ill advised as to carry out their threats. As long as those threats existed it was not part of ins duty to inquire into the grievances.
  MR. EUGENE CREANdid not see what right the hon. Gentleman had to interfere with these officials exercising their undoubted rights. He was convinced that their demands were such that they should receive a hearing. They had not received that hearing from the Tweedmouth Commission.
  *MR. C. T. GILESsaid there was one point to which he wished to call attention in connection with the promise of an extended delivery
  374
  of letters throughout the United Kingdom. His constituency was very materially affected by that promise. An extended delivery must, of course, involve the employment of a considerable number of new men, and a rearrangement of beats. The weight postmen in his district had to carry increased day by day, as did also the distance they had to traverse, and he would suggest that, in rearranging beats and in the employment of new men, the Postmaster General should take into consideration the great probability that in consequence of the new postal regulations the maximum. weight would have to be carried and the maximum distance to be traversed It might also give the Postmaster General an opportunity to revise some of the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Commission, winch, in the opinion, he believed, of both sides of the House, did not err on the side of liberality towards a hard-worked body of men. He also wished to point out that, in the sub-offices in the country, there was at times a considerable sum of money, but there was no place in which to keep it. The sub-postmaster had to find security for £200, and was responsible for the money in his possession; and, having no place in winch to keep it, the tendency was to get rid of the money at once, which sometimes gave rise to a difficulty in paying postal orders. He suggested that cheap safes should be provided, or the means of finding them, in these rural post offices. if so, it would be a great boon to the postmasters, and a great security to the public.
  MR. DILLONthought the Post Office and every great Office of the State ought to be represented in that House. He remembered that some years ago a Bill was introduced into that House, and ardently supported by sonic hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who dreaded their being removed to another place, with the object of giving an option to an hon. Member who was called to the peerage of remaining in the House of Commons. He should not be in favour of absolutely precluding every man who happened to be a Peer from serving ins country as a Minister, but he thought the time had come when no man who was still drawing a salary from the people for serving them, should be allowed to go to another place where he would be entirely removed from the

  375
  criticism of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] While he held that view strongly, he thought it right to say that although they had not got the Postmaster General in that House they had a very good substitute. ["Hear, hear!"] They had no cause to complain of the right hon. Gentleman's administration, or of the reception which he gave to their communications, or in respect of his attention to the details of business, and he had always wondered how he could possibly discharge in that House in his own person the two most laborious of the Ministerial positions. With regard to the claims of the Civil Servants which were under consideration, the Irish Members who represented rural constituencies could approach the subject with an impartial mind, because the Civil Service Vote in such constituencies was a negligeable quantity. If the Civil Servants of the Crown by their organisation pressed their demands beyond what was right, there would be a reaction against those demands among the working classes who constituted an overwhelming majority of the voters of the country. But it could not be denied that these Civil Servants had several strong grievances. It was plain for instance that they did not receive the remuneration that persons in private employment would receive for similar services. The Secretary to the Treasury had however taken up a very fair attitude towards those men and had promised to consider their claims; and he would strongly advise the men, at all events until they had given the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of fulfilling his promise, to abandon all threats of refusing to discharge their duties. There were also one or two matters specially connected with Ireland to which he desired to draw attention. There was first the complaint of the Irish postmasters that when any well paid postmastership fell vacant in Ireland it was given to surveyors' clerks or to other officials of the Post Office, many of them being Englishmen; and that while officals were promoted from England to Ireland, the reverse process of promoting from Ireland to England did not exist. Promotion among postmasters in Ireland was consequently at a standstill, and there was great and growing dissatisfaction among that body. The other matter was the case of a young man named Wyse from
  376
  the city of Waterford, who in 1895 passed an examination as sorter and was appointed to the London office. He was then declared to be medically fit, and after twelve months work, from 11 at night until 6 in the morning—Sunday and Christmas Day included—he had to undergo a second medical examination, when he was rejected and dismissed altogether from the service. The relations of the boy at Waterford appealed to the local doctor who had examined the boy in the first instance. This gentleman again examined the boy and certified that though he had suffered from some slight disease he was entirely recovered and was fit for work. After some correspondence the Department wrote to the boy's father suggesting that he would be taken on as a postman, which would show that the boy was really medically sound. He was sure the Secretary to the Treasury would see that justice was done in the case.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANNjoined in the appeal which had been made on behalf of the secretaries of the Post Office Servants' Association. It would be better not to make scapegoats of these two men. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to inquire into the grievances of the different classes, and having shown that conciliatory spirit, he should not adopt specially severe measures against the two secretaries. The right hon. Gentleman had always shown great common sense and courtesy, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to offer such advice to the Postmaster General as any reasonable man would approve of under the circumstances.
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLYthought it would be very harsh measures if these two men who acted as the secretaries of the associations were to be punished for simply joining with their fellows. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the want of postal facilities in Ids constituency, especially in connection with the fishing stations, of which there were several of importance. The Earl of Bandon had written to the General Post Office in Dublin, complaining that letters which his agent had sent off containing demands for rent had not been delivered. £2,750,000 was according to the Financial Relations Committee unjustly extracted from Ireland, and it

  377
  would only be a small concession that the fishing centres he had spoken of should have better postal facilities and arrangements.
  DR. TANNER,urged the need of better postal communication between Macroom and Cork, and better postal facilities at East Muskerry and Coachford. Mr. Raikes a good many years ago promised to take the matter up, but nothing had been done. With the improved transit he could not see why the Post Office should not take advantage of it for the betterment of the service. In connection with the development of tourist traffic in Ireland, there were great numbers of tourists who travelled during the summer months along the route from Macroom and Glen-gariff, and they complained that there was no such thing as a telegraph office there. The local inhabitants hail again and again urged that a telegraph office might be opened, and he was satisfied that the erection of a telegraph office at Inchageela, would be of great advantage to the locality its well as to the tourists visiting the district. As regarded the case of the rural postmen, he said that they were even worse paid than in England. He could not help being struck by the fact that while the recommendation was that rural postmen in England should receive 16s. a week, those in Ireland were only to get 15s. This appeared to be hardly fair, and he hoped that when this matter was considered, attention would be paid to the scale of wages of Irish postmen, whose duties were quite as arduous as those of the English postmen. Again, the system of paying boot money by instalments hail long been complained of as an injustice.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Donegal, W.), said that as a matter of principle he sympathised with the observations as to the absence of the Postmaster General from the House of Commons, but as a matter of fact, he did not think that the Department suffered. The Post Office was ably represented in the House of Commons by the Secretary to the Treasury, who gave careful attention to all representations. As to the so-called postal reforms, he said that, so far as the City of Dublin was concerned, they had been an absolute and unmitigated failure. No one had derived any advantage from them. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether a later depar-
  378
  ture of the mail trains from Euston on the one side and from Westland Row on the other would not equally well suit the mail service, while promoting the interest of the tourist traffic. It was a discouragement to Irish tourist traffic to find that the mail trains, by winch most tourists would prefer to travel, were started from Dublin and from London at unseasonable and unreasonable hours. With reference to postal matters in general, it was announced to them some time ago, on the part of the Post Office, that a more liberal system of treatment would be adopted in regard to small places throughout Great Britain and Ireland, and greater postal facilities given. As far as he could see, very little had as yet been done in that direction, but he hoped that these promises would be carried out. In Western Donegal and many other places in Ireland great inconvenience had hitherto resulted from the long distance that people had to travel to the existing sub-post offices, in order to post their letters.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYobserved that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken could rest assured that every promise which had been made on behalf of the Department would be scrupulously fulfilled by the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] The Vote had been discussed in an extremely businesslike way all the evening, and he would appeal to the Committee to allow it to be taken now together with the other two Post Office votes, the ground of which was practically covered by the first. If that could be done he would at once move the adjournment of the House, and complete their labours for the night. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. WEIRcomplained that in the Highlands many districts were deprived of postal facilities because of the condition imposed by the Post Office or the Treasury, and which required a substantial guarantee before any Postal Telegraph or Money Order Office could be opened. The right hon. Gentleman had said that for the return of a letter authorising a withdrawal of money from the Post Office Savings Bank two days were required, but only that morning he had received a letter from the island of Lewis which had taken five days to reach London. Yet the Secretary to the Treasury, speaking without knowledge of the geography or

  379
  postal service of the Highlands, said in two days a depositor could get a letter enabling him to withdraw money from the Post Office Savings Bank. Nothing of the kind, a week was more likely to be the time in correspondence before the money could be obtained. He sympathised with the claim of Post Office employés and would allow them every reasonable right to combine and do the best they could for themselves. He had received circulars from Post Office employés in London and elsewhere, and as to their containing anything in the nature of a threat of political pressure, such did not affect him in the least, and he could not conceive that any Member would be alarmed by them. It was the duty of every Member to pay attention to every statement of grievance and to endeavour to obtain redress no matter from which side of politics the complaint arose.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERwanted to get some answer in reference to the two men who had been summoned to appear before the Post Office authorities. Their case was a hard one, and the Post Office authorities should reconsider it. The Debate had been prolonged, in the hope that some concession might be made to the overworked and underpaid postmen throughout the country, but there had been nothing but permission to put their grievances before the right hon. Gentleman and the Postmaster General. If an answer was not forthcoming he hoped a Division would be taken.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENthought he was entitled to apply again to the right hon. Gentleman to supply what was perhaps an accidental omission from the answer given. What, he asked, would be done in regard to the two men who had been warned that they would that day be suspended if they would not apologise for something it had not been proved they had been guilty of? They were members of a large organisation extending over the United Kingdom and Ireland. Human nature was just the same among Post Office employés as outside, and if these men were unfairly treated and turned from their employment, there would be an answer from all the telegraphists in the Kingdom associating with and supporting them. He would also remind the
  380
  right hon. Gentleman that he gave up the case when he said that this day instructions had been given to the men to make clear their position in regard to the overtime question. The document had only that day been issued, and as it was agreed that under Mr. Raikes' administration a declaration was made one day, and the next day it was made in different terms, there was reasonable ground for difference of opinion. If the men acted on the first version was it reasonable to punish two men who had been suspected, not proved guilty, of issuing circulars or ballot papers asking men to declare in their own privacy whether they were willing to strike against overtime? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give satisfactory assurances in the case of these two men. He (the hon. Member) was as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman could be to avert a strike, which would not only inconvenience the public but exasperate the feeling between the employés and the Department. No doubt the gentleman who had suspended these men was a very excellent official, and was doing under his superiors what he had a right to do, but he hoped he would not be allowed to proceed further in the case until the Postmaster General had time to consider the whole question. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped also that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give assurances on the question of the English mail.
  *MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member will see that it is quite irregular and impossible for me to give any assurance to the House at the present moment as to what steps the Postmaster General may think it necessary to take with regard to these two men. It is a question of administration and discipline which he alone of course can decide. I will take care, however, to bring the statements of the hon. Member to his notice. As I understand one point raised by the hon. Member, he says that the men have been somewhat misled by a speech of the late Postmaster General. There is no doubt that the late Postmaster General did make use of an expression which implied that working overtime was voluntary on the part of the men. But it is also a fact that Mr. Raikes afterwards found that he had made a mistake in saying that overtime was voluntary, and he corrected it by saying that as a matter of fact it was volunteered, but the Post

  381
  Office authorities had a perfect right to demand that the men should work overtime. But I will bring before the Postmaster General the fact that the men to some extent have acted under a misapprehension of the meaning of what Mr. Raikes said. No doubt that is an important element in the case, and I am sure that the Postmaster General will give it every consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CREANasked the right hon. Gentleman was it a fact that he was going to deal with the officers of an organisation of the Telegraph employés as the officers of no other labour organisation would be dealt with by any firm or body of employers in the country? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Bill had been introduced in that House to constitute an Arbitration Court, so as to insure that disputes between employers and employed should be fairly settled. He believed that there was no body of organised workmen in the country who would tolerate the dismissal of any of their officers for acting as these men were desired by their fellow employés to act. It was their duty as the officers of an organisation to get the opinions of the workmen whom they were serving, and to victimise these two men for doing purely and simply their duty in an organisation which, had been recognised by the Department was an outrage on the present state of organised labour in this country. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought they would find that they had to encounter the political power not alone of the organised labour of their own Department, but the organised labour of the whole of the United Kingdom. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. TANNERasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would answer the few points he had put before him earlier in the evening?
  *MR. HANBURYsaid he was afraid that would require an amount of local knowledge on his part winch he confessed he did not possess. The hon. Member dealt with a large number of small places around Cork, but if he would communicate with him and tell him again what those places were and what were the precise grievances of winch he complained, he would he glad to inquire into them.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Postmaster General,
  382
  confessed he was ignorant of local affairs in Ireland. It was not right that there should be in that House a Minister who did not understand local affairs in Ireland inconnection with the Post Office. It was absolutely ridiculous that they should have, in another place, a Postmaster General, who was not responsible to that House, and who was not bound to come down there to answer questions that should be addressed to him by representatives from Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was most courteous and painstaking, but he was ignorant—[Ministerial laughter]—on his own confession, of the position of affairs in Ireland. Therefore they should not be called upon to pay a salary to the Postmaster General when he did not earn it. If he wanted a salary, let him come down there and earn it. [Ministerial laughter.] He did not know why Members opposite laughed. Was it at the idea of the Duke of Norfolk earning a salary that he did not earn? [Loud laughter.] In his opinion this was certainly not a laughable matter. [Ministerial cries of "Divide"!] He wished to draw attention to the question of the erection of a new post office at Sligo. [Cries of "Oh!"] Perhaps hon. Members opposite did not know where Sligo was.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the subject before the Committee.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I shall proceed, if I can do so without interruption. I am in no hurry, Gentlemen.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must again ask the hon. Member to discuss the subject which is now before the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Mr. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid that for five years the General Post Office had been sending inspectors and surveyors to Sligo for the purpose of selecting a site for a new post office. Serious expenses had been incurred in this way, and nothing had as yet been done. Last year he asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the building would at last be begun, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "No, because the work is not included in the Estimates." Why was it not included? He did not blame the

  383
  right hon. Gentleman, but he was ignorant. [Laughter.]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is now indulging in irrelevant repetitions, and I must request him to resume his seat. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: Certainly not, Sir. [Cries of" Order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have requested the hon. Member to resume his seat, and I hope he will pay attention to what I have directed him to do. Do I understand that the hon. Member declines to resume his seat?
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: Undoubtedly I do. [Cries of "Order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Then I ask the hon. Member to withdraw during the remainder of the Sitting. [Cheers.]
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I shall not.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to carry out my order.
  The DEPUTY SEBJEANT (Mr. Gosset)went up to the hon. Member, touched him on the shoulder, and asked him to withdraw.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I refuse to budge.
  THE DEPUTY SERJEANTbeckoned to two doorkeepers, who took hold of the hon. Member, and removed him.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to move "That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again." [Nationalist cheers.] Of course, I should be out of order in commenting upon what has happened, but I think that my hon. Friend was confining himself strictly to the Vote under discussion. [Loud cries of "Order !"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member must not make any reflection upon my ruling.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he would not do so. He would simply move to report progress, as it was perfectly evident that the Committee was not in a proper temper—[Cries of "Order!"] to continue the discussion by the way in which they had treated his hon. Friend. [Cries of "Order ! "] The discussion had better be adjourned, as it could no longer be conducted in the way in which it was being conducted before this interruption.
  384
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 17; Noes, 116.—(Division List, No. 304.)
  Question put, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Postmaster General."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 31; Noes, 106.—(Division List, No. 305.)
  Original question again proposed. Debate arising,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 29.—(Division List, No. 306.)
  Original Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 19.—(Division List, No. 307.)
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LAND TRANSFER (MONEY).
  Report thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.
  Committed deferred till Tuesday next.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  POOR LAW BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.

  COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House Adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

SEAHAM HARBOUR.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I ask your Lordships' indulgence while I offer a few words of personal explanation. You will have noticed that in the course of the Debate last night in another place my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies alluded to the fact that I had made proposals to transfer my property in the north of England to a limited company. My Lords, he is quite right in the expressions he made use of, but I think when I have explained to your Lordships the reasons that induced me to take such a course, you will agree with me that there is no connection between the desire to benefit one part of my property, for the benefit of those who belong to that part of my property, and the remarks made by the Colonial Secretary. My Lords, the reason I made this proposal I did was due to the fact that in my property in the north of England I own what is known as the property of Seaham Harbour. Seaham Harbour was constructed 70 years ago for the purpose of benefiting the shipping trade. At that time, you are all probably fully aware, the construction of vessels was very different from what it is at the present time, and the small harbour, suited to the reception of the smaller vessels of 70 years ago, is totally inadequate at the present time for the large vessels used under our more modern conditions of trading along the north-eastern coast. Consequently, on account of the harbour being of small dimensions, the trade of shipping has very naturally declined, and that declension of trade is naturally very damaging to the town. On those grounds, my Lords, I considered it was very important that the shipping trade of that town should be revived in the interests of the inhabitants of this town themselves, from the fact that if a harbour of a certain size were constructed at Seaham, in all probability it might be one of the most important and prosperous ports on the whole of the north-eastern coast. My
266
Lords, you will naturally understand that to construct a harbour of these dimensions would involve a large outlay of capital, and I do not hesitate to say that I am not in the possession, personally, of being able to make any such outlay. Consequently, I decided to sacrifice my own interests as the private owner of town and harbour and to transfer my property to a developing limited liability company. I may say that I decided to do this long before what is known as the Workmen's Compensation Bill was ever introduced into the House of Commons. I did so because I was anxious to meet the wishes and requirements of the inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood, who naturally regretted to see a trade which in past days had been flourishing now languishing for want of a large harbour. My Lords, the reason I published the letter I did in the northern papers was that a number of letters had been published in the local journals, I will not say denouncing me, but, at any rate, complaining that owing to the fact of Seaham Harbour being owned by one individual the shipping trade was languishing. It was to allay these complaints that I published the letter alluded to by the Colonial Secretary. But I repeat I am at a loss to see the connection between my desire to enable a company to develop the resources of Seaham Harbour and the apprehensions I entertained with regard to certain provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Bill as far as it affects the coal interest. I have troubled you with these few remarks because it is my intention on Tuesday next to deal at considerable length with the Workmen's Compensation Bill, which will then be introduced into your Lordships' House. I propose to deal with the Bill from a purely general point of view, and not from a personal point of view any further than that personal point of view is connected with my own personal interests, which have given me practical experience of the working of the coal trade, winch I venture to think will entitle me to trespass on your Lordships' time.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HOWELL'S CHARITY.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move:—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her to withhold her assent to the scheme under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act which relates to the Denbigh share of Howell's Charity for girls' schools in Wales."
He said he wished to call their Lordships' attention to a scheme which was now before the House for the regulation of a certain portion of Howell's Charity. It had rather a remarkable history. Howell's Charity was founded by the will of a gentleman of that name in 1540, and the purpose was to give marriage portions to girls belonging to his own family. The girls were to be admitted to the benefit of this portion of the Charity on producing a certificate from the Bishop of Llandaff, that they had made out to his satisfaction their relationship to the founder. The choice of the Bishop of Llandaff was probably because the Howells belonged to Monmouth, which was in the diocese of Llandaff, and the registers of that diocese would contain all the best evidence to show whether any person claiming to be a relation of the founder really did belong to his family, and he did not know that there was any reason to suppose that there was any other cause which moved the founder to put the charity on that footing. The charity went on under the control of the Drapers' Company, which was constituted by the will as trustees to administer the Trust, and the Drapers' Company appeared to have regularly given marriage portions according thereto. The Charity became much more valuable as time went on, and the Drapers' Company contented themselves with providing marriage portions as required by the will and treated the remainder of the income of the Charity as part of their own funds. The question was raised in 1838 by an information by the Attorney General,
268
which was brought before the Courts, and after some continued litigation the Courts decided that the Drapers' Company was in the wrong, and that the whole money of the Charity was to be given for the purpose for which the will assigned it. The money being a great deal more than could be given in that way the Court ordered that application should be made to Parliament, and Parliament accordingly passed an Act in 1852 enabling the Court of Chancery to extend the provisions of this original will by a scheme which they would frame in their own discretion. The Court of Chancery followed the course which was then, as he supposed it was still, the ordinary rule of Court, and decided that the money should be spent, according to what was called the Cy pré doctrine, in something which they judged should be akin to the nature of the purpose of the original founder. The original founder intended this to be for the benefit of young women belonging to his family on their marriage, and it was considered that if the money was more than enough for that purpose it was a reasonable thing that it should be spent in otherwise preparing children, particularly orphans, for their after life, and, therefore, the Court of Chancery ordered that the money should be applied to the education of girls subject not to an absolute restriction to the kin of the founder, but with a preference to girls belonging to the founder's family. This scheme resulted in the establishment of schools in Wales for this purpose. One was established in North Wales, and it was to this scheme he now asked the attention of their Lordships. The school was opened in 1860. In accordance with the ordinary practice of that day the Court ordered that religious instruction should be part of the education given in the school, and also in accordance with the practice of that day it ordered that the religious instruction should be in accordance with the principles of the Church of England. It had been worked as a Church of England school from 1860 down to the present year. There could be no question about it being a very successful school; it had done its work exceedingly well, and there had been no complaint made against it whatever. It admitted the children of Nonconformists

269
under a conscience clause, and in the administration of this admission of Nonconformists there was no record of fault having been found with this school in any way whatever. A new scheme was now before them. It proposed, in the first place, that the school should be mainly in the hands of the Joint Committee of the county of Denbigh, who had far the larger proportion of the Governors who were to manage the school—17, he thought, of the 24—and they were to control the school in every respect. Instruction in religion was required to be a part of the instruction in the school. But the words were that they should be instructed in the principles of the Christian faith, and it was left entirely to the Governors to decide what these principles were, and it was quite possible that principles which by the vast majority of Christians in thus country would not be considered as really representing the Christian faith, would nevertheless be held by the Governors to be a real fulfilment of the words of the scheme. It stated that subject to the provisions of the scheme, religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith should be given in the school by members of the ordinary teaching staff, under such regulations as should be from time to time framed by the Governors. Further that that, there was no direction at all. They were to make such regulations as they saw fit; the only rule imposed upon them was that no religious catechism or formula should be taught to a scholar attending as a day scholar. Those win attended as boarders were not allowed this exemption of withdrawal from the religious instruction in the school. The same thing also applied to prayer and religious worship. The day scholars were to have the right to be withdrawn by their parents from religious instruction. As regarded those who were to be taken as boarders, there was a provision that if their parents saw fit to claim that exemption the Governors must make special provision to enable them to claim it. It was obvious enough that this would be a scheme it would be difficult indeed to impose. Whether they were boarders or day scholars they were all allowed to attend some place of worship, and to have such reasonable facilities for religious instruction from such religion
270
teachers as their parents might choose for them, and Christian family worship was to be held daily in the house of boarders, this being left to be regulated, of course, simply by the Governors themselves. He thought it very strange, first, that the county of Denbigh, which was not to have the whole benefit of this charity—for the scholarships and exhibitions were to be opened for the whole of North Wales except one county, should have almost the sole control of the school. He could not see how it was consistent with natural justice that there should he this restriction of the management of the school, when the benefit of the school were to go over the whole of Wales. The fact was the school itself was open and always had been open not only to all North Wales but to the whole of England, and in confining scholarships to North Wales it was evident that a step in a retrograde direction had been taken, for the policy of the Legislature for years past had been to widen and not to narrow the area of all such benefits. In all possible manner local restrictions had been abolished. But here instead of throwing things open they were to be made close, those benefits that were open before to all England were to be confined to North Wales. The two things went together, there was confinement of exhibitions and scholarships to North Wales, and in the same way pushing the policy still further the governing body was to be practically confined to the county of Denbigh. There might be special reasons for such a change of policy and such a departure from the ordinary course of legislation, but he confessed he could not see how it could be defended on the broad principles of justice. Whereas there was to be this complete change in the relations of the Charity to all those who were to derive any benefit from it, the relations of the Charity to those who were to control it were also to be changed, and there was no just provision for the different religious bodies who might have children boarding at or attending the school selected by their parents. There was no just provision for the recognition of the claims of those who had had possession of the school ever since it was erected in 1860. Since that date it had been in the hands of the Church of England. There could be no question as to the good condition of the school, that was admitted

271
on all sides; and if, for any general reason, affecting the whole of the country, the position of the school was to be changed, then surely the least that justice demanded was that careful provision should be made for those who hitherto had the benefit of instruction that they should not be put in a worse position than others. There ought to be some very clear and distinct provision that the girls attending the school should, if they belonged to any particular religious body, and especially if they belonged to the Church of England, which had administered the school from the beginning of its existence, have security for instruction in the doctrines and discipline of the Church. But there was no such security whatever, and that alone seemed to him to condemn the scheme and to call upon the House to interfere. But it was not only this, there was besides a very remarkable clause in the scheme, the like of which he did not know of in any other scheme that had ever been before the House. By Clause 68 it was laid down that the governors were to pay to the governing body of the county of Merioneth constituted by the scheme under the Intermediate Education Act for Wales, a yearly sum of £120 for the maintenance of Dr. Williams' girls' school at Dolgelly. One school was selected from all North Wales to which this special grant was to be made, and to a school of this nature £120 a year was a very considerable grant. There was no other school receiving such benefit, and there was no interference with Dr. Williams' trust or with the management of the school, it was all left absolutely untouched. This school at Dolgelly was founded by the trustees under the will of a certain Dr. Williams, a Presbyterian clergyman, in 1711, and it included other things besides. Dr. Williams' charity provided for the instruction of those who were to be ministers of religion, and of course as he was a Presbyterian he meant ministers of that persuasion. It also had to maintain a very valuable library in London for the use of Presbyterian ministers under certain definite conditions. This Presbyterian institution in course of time, like many other Presbyterian institutions in England gradually became Unitarian, and passed into the hands of the Unitarian body. It was no longer
272
what is ordinarily understood as a Presbyterian institution at all, it was a strictly Unitarian institution, and the Act—he did not remember the exact title, the Dissenting Chapels Act he thought it was—enacted that if any religious body had possession of an endowment of a church or chapel for a period of 50 years that body could still retain it, even though they had altogether given up their original work which the founder had imposed on them. Dr. Williams, there could be no doubt, would have protested with all his might against handing over the trust to a Unitarian body. He was not finding fault with the Act at all, but describing the result, and although those who had charge of the Charity were no longer Presbyterians in the same sense that Dr. Williams was, they kept this endowment simply because they had it in possession, they kept up this school and it was strictly a Unitarian school. He did not mean that they had no conscience clause, he did not know enough of it to say that, he thought it almost certain that they had a conscience clause; but, nevertheless, the whole management was in Unitarian hands, and this was strictly a denominational school in the same sense that Church of England schools were denominational. In Church of England schools there was a conscience clause, and others than children of the Church of England had the teaching of the schools. Here there was a parallel case, a school which belonged to the Unitarian body and was as much denominational as any other school that could be named, but the scheme proposed to give money to this school, imposed no conditions, and did not interfere with the governing body or religious instruction, made no rules on the subject whatever, but simply proposed to hand over £120 a year without any conditions whatever. Putting these two things side by side he asked was this just? He did not ask for the Church of England schools anything that he would not ask for Unitarian schools, by all means let Unitarians who had schools have, free power to use their endowments for the purpose of giving instruction in those religious principles in which they believed, but it was a very hard thing that in Denbigh there should be a school in the hands of the Church of England which had been in the hands of the Church of England ever since it

273
had been a school at all, and the whole character of that school was to be altered, it was to be put under the management of those who certainly were not likely to be very favourable to the Church of England. At the same time, side by side, in a neighbouring county, a Unitarian school was to be supported without any conditions whatever. Could it be fairly said that this was a just way of treating these two Foundations? He could not reconcile it to his own notions of justice. If it was necessary on general principles to take away this school from the management of those who had hitherto worked it so successfully and so well, although there was no complaint that they had been unjust in their administration; at any rate there ought to be some careful provision that those who desired instruction in Church of England principles should be able to have it without any hindrance at all, and should at least be in as good a position as those who preferred a school belonging to any other denomination. He did not think it was necessary for him to say more, he had briefly put before the House the exact character of the complaint he made against this scheme, and he asked their Lordships to consider whether it would not be right to reject this scheme now and see whether a better one could not be framed. He moved the Motion for an Address of which he had given notice.
*THE EARL OF POWISsaid that in the absence of the Duke of Westminster, who had intended to second this Motion, he ventured to second it. It had been very fully explained by the most rev. Prelate, and he did not think it was necessary for him to say anything with regard to the Church of England character of the charity. There was one point, however, to which he would like to call their Lordships' attention. This charity was founded for the benefit of orphans, and it was now proposed by this scheme to throw it open practically to any girls whether they were orphans or not. There was a line in the scheme which said that a first preference was to be given to orphans, but, he thought their Lordships would be well aware that a preference of this description was practically valueless, for the governors of the school were told to select girls who· would give a good name to the school—girls who had been well educated before they got to the
274
school. It was the orphans who would not be likely to have the good education fitting them to go into the school, and he thought it was extremely hard that the whole idea of the founder should be done away with. There was also a section in the scheme No. 68, a most remarkable one, by which £120 a year was taken from this Church of England School and given to Unitarian School. He did not wish to harm the Unitarian School, but this was in direct contravention of the founder's wishes. The founder founded a Church of England charity for orphans, the present scheme not only took away the Church character of the charity, but the orphans went to the wall.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)said it appeared to him that nothing could very well be more unsatisfactory than the state of the law, or perhaps he should rather describe it as the procedure under the law, in regard to these educational foundations. A very considerable number of years ago certain Commissioners were appointed to perform certain duties which were now discharged by the Charity Commissioners in regard to the reorganisation of these educational foundations. Under the present law it was the duty of certain bodies which had been established in Wales by the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, called Joint Education Committees, to frame a scheme for the secondary and technical education of the people of their county, and at the same time to indicate the endowments which in their opinion were available for that purpose within the limits of the county. The duty was imposed upon them of submitting the schemes to the Charity Commissioners, upon whom was imposed the duty of holding certain inquiries, and, on the result of these, of framing schemes for the future administration of the educational endowments pointed out tc them. The scheme thus framed went to the Education Department for revision, and if the Department saw nothing in the provisions contrary either to the principles of equity or undesirable front an educational point of view, it was their duty to give their sanction to the scheme proposed. But having thus clearly expressed its intentions and policy on this

275
matter, Parliament in its wisdom had introduced another provision into the Endowed Schools Act and the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, with the apparent intention of neutralising as far as possible the effect of the former provisions. ["Hear, hear!"] Under these Acts it was competent to a majority in either House of Parliament, without any inquiry whatever, acting ordinarily, necessarily with a very imperfect knowledge of the question, with no particular sense of responsibility in the matter, by an address to the Crown to reject either the whole or any part of a scheme framed in accordance with the intentions of Parliament. Schemes which had been decided by public bodies, after full investigation and inquiry, might be either mutilated or entirely rejected by a majority of either House of Parliament, for whom it was quite unnecessary to express any opinion of principle whatever, but who might be actuated by a local, political, or religious bias. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not deny that the most rev. Prelate was absolutely within his right, under the somewhat remarkable procedure which in this case had been prescribed by Parliament, in seeking to reverse the decision which had been come to by those bodies and to upset the scheme; but he must point out to him and to the House that in his opinion he would be asking the House to act directly in contravention to the principles which, so far as they could be ascertained, had been laid down by Parliament for the guidance of the Education Department in this way. ["Hear, hear!"] In the present case, so far as he had been able to ascertain, every body or party which had moved in this matter had acted not only within the strict limit of their rights and of the law, but in the only manner in which they were bound to act by the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The Joint Committee of the county of Denbigh was bound by the Act of 1889 to frame a scheme for secondary education, and to point out what endowments in its county were available for that purpose; and the Charity Commissioners were equally bound by the directions of the Act of Parliament to take into consideration that scheme, to revise it in such manner as they thought necessary, and to present the revised scheme to the
276
Education Department for its acceptance; and the Education Department, if it saw nothing in the scheme which was educationally to be condemned, was, in his judgment, equally bound to give it its sanction. ["Hear, hear!"] He would just say a word or two upon the objections which had been stated to the scheme. He did not think the most rev. Prelate said in so many words that Howell's School was a Church of England School for which the Charity Commissioners had no right to make a scheme. He did, however, lay a great deal of stress upon the fact that up to the present time that school had been practically a Church school. He thought that before they voted on this question they should understand whether or not those who were opposed to the scheme challenged the legality of the action of the Charity Commissioners, or whether they only challenged the policy. Of course it was a legal question, and he was not competent to express an opinion upon it, but he was advised that this charity was undoubtedly—within the meaning of the Act—an educational endowment, within the limits of the county of Denbigh, with which the Joint Educational Committee was bound to deal, and with which the Charity Commissioners were also bound to deal. If the most rev. Prelate had any doubt whatever upon the legality of the action taken, he would point out that it would have been perfectly easy to obtain a legal judgment by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The opponents of the scheme, however, had preferred not to challenge the legality of the scheme, but to resort to the easier procedure of challenging the same time both the legality and the policy of the scheme by appealing to their Lordships' House. In that connection he must point out that a precisely similar scheme, dealing with a portion of the endowment in the county of Glamorgan, was initiated by the Joint Education Committee of that county; that a precisely similar scheme was framed by the Charity Commissioners, and was objected to neither by the most rev. Prelate nor anybody else; and that it had received the sanction of the Crown, and was now in force. The most rev. Prelate had also made some comments upon the religious instruction which the scheme directed

277
should be given within the reorganised school. The most rev. Prelate had entirely omitted to point out that the provisions as to religious instruction contained in the scheme were those which were directed to be made by the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. By the 3rd Sub-section of the 4th Section of that Act, it was provided that no religious catechism or religious formula which was distinctive of any particular denomination should be taught to a scholar attending a school established or regulated by a scheme; and if this endowment were one with which the Charity Commissioners were entitled to deal at all, it was one with which they were bound to deal under the terms of the sub-section.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he did not express any disapprobation of the clause.
*THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The most rev. Prelate commented upon it.
THE ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY: I read it; I did not comment upon it.
*THE DUKE of DEVONSHIREsaid he understood the Archbishop to comment upon it from a somewhat unfavourable point of view. [Opposition, cheers.] The most rev. Prelate objected to what he considered the over-representation of the county of Denbigh. Of course, the exact proportion of the representation of the county, is compared with other counties in North Wales, was a matter with which it was almost impossible for them to grapple in that Assembly. But he must again refer to the intentions of Parliament in this matter. Parliament intended that the educational endowments which existed in Wales should be made more applicable for the secondary and technical education of the people of these counties than they had hitherto been, and if this endowment were applicable at all to the secondary education of the county of Denbigh in particular, it was essential that in the administration of the schools the county of Denbigh should have a very considerable influence. The most rev. Prelate also referred to the clause in the scheme relating to a subsidy of £100 or £120 which was to be given to a certain scheme in Merionethshire. He was not able to deal in detail with that objection, but he was informed that in the course of the
278
inquiry which was held by the Charity Commissioners this particular objection was never once mentioned. ["Hear, hear!"] He had had various interviews with a number of people interested in the opposition to the scheme for some months past, and he could not recollect that this particular objection was ever taken before. This provision was not considered by the Charity Commissioners as by any means an essential part of the scheme, and if the most rev. Prelate would be satisfied with the omission of this particular clause, there was no disposition on the part of the Charity Commissioners to insist upon it. Lord Powis had referred to the insufficient provision made for orphans. The difference was between 20 and 25, and was not a matter of sufficient importance to warrant their Lordships in rejecting the scheme. Having regard to the intentions of the Act of Parliament, he did not see that the Charity Commissioners or the Education Department had any alternative except to take the course they had taken. But he fully admitted that there was, perhaps, a great deal to be said on the other side of the question. It was perfectly true that the school as at present constituted and managed was considered to be a very excellent school. Its present management enjoyed the confidence of a very considerable number of parents who took advantage of the endowment, and it was quite possible that many of these parents would put less confidence in the management of the school under the new scheme than they reposed in the present management. The Archbishop asked why, in these circumstances, was it to be disturbed? He must refer him to the intentions of Parliament as expressed in the enactment which Parliament had made. Parliament was of opinion that there were many endowments of this description which, although they might be admirably managed in the interests of a certain class, were not available for as large a class as might be desirable. Therefore the Joint Committee and the Charity Commissioners were instructed to take the matter in hand with the view of providing a more general secondary education for the inhabitants of the counties concerned. The benefits of the school, great as they might be, were confined, he believed, almost entirely to the children of parents

279
in a good position, and the avowed intention of the scheme, and, he believed, of Parliament, was that they should be made available for a larger class. It was also perfectly true that a very large number of persons in Wales, principally those with whom he was politically connected—and he had very little doubt that it was the opinion of Conservatives also—had much greater confidence in the present management of the school than they would have in the management under the proposed scheme. If their Lordships thought that these considerations were a sufficient reason for rejecting the scheme, he did not deny their right; but he could not help expressing his own opinion that in doing so they would be acting in contravention of a policy which had been deliberately adopted by Parliament in a. series of Acts beginning with the Endowed Schools Act 1869, and ending with the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889. He believed that the precedent had now been distinctly established that the Government of the day did not hold itself responsible for the support of the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners in these matters, and therefore he spoke only his own opinion and not the opinion of his colleagues. Seeing the composition of the House, he had very little doubt as to what its decision would be, but he could not hold that the rejection of the scheme would be consistent with the policy that had been laid down by Parliament on more than one occasion.
LORD HARLECHremarked that the noble Duke had not alluded to that very eccentric clause, the 68th.
*THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid he had stated he could not deal with the Merioneth matter in detail, but be could give 'the noble Lord some information. The income of the endowment was divided in the following proportions: The county of Denbigh, 40 per cent.; the county of Glamorgan 36 per cent.; the county of Monmouth 8 per cent.; the county borough of Cardiff 8 per cent.; the county boroughs of Newport 8 per cent. The county of Merioneth was not included in the list, and provision was made for it by this clause.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid he would put this case to their Lordships. Supposing it were a case of the taking by the Church of England of a Noncon-
280
formist school. Did they suppose that there would not be an immediate appeal to Parliament to see that justice was done? As to that particular scheme he asked the House to remember that the school at Denbigh was until 1852 a Church School; but that situation was repealed by Act of Parliament. He asked whether in relation to the present system that scheme was necessary or not. He gave some instances which had occurred in his own cathedral city, in which an appeal had been necessary. This particular Howell's School at Denbigh was established by Act of Parliament, and the scheme which they were asked to pass would repeal that Act of Parliament. The Archbishop of Canterbury had already pointed out that there had been no complaints whatever made as to the administration of the school on the grounds of religious preference. Heretofore it had been open to England and Wales, but henceforth it would be restricted solely to North Wales. The scheme would practically sweep away the provision made for the maintenance of orphans, thirty of whom were at present maintained, clothed, and apprenticed; and, in the cases of females, marriage portions were given. He therefore hoped the House would reject the scheme.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid the question raised that evening was a very serious one, because if the scheme were rejected it would lead to the rejection of any similar scheme, although the scheme was not applicable to what Parliment had declared to be a Church of England institution. In the same Act provisions were inserted to preserve every such scheme as this dealing with what was shown to be "a Church of England institution "—so it was defined by Parliament. Now here was a scheme desired by the locality, adopted after full consideration of the Joint Committee, approved by the Charity Commissioners, approved by the Lord President of the Council, which might be rejected after a debate in that House in which there was no statement of fact, and in which statements were made which were not absolutely accurate. [The BISHOP of ST. ASAPH interjected a remark.] He was perfectly satisfied in his mind as to the facts he was stating. The most rev. Prelate laid great stress on the

281
fact that under the scheme a portion of this endowment would go to a Unitarian institution. Now he was informed that this school was not a Unitarian foundation, that a large portion of it belonged to the Church of England, and that the Governors were selected from the local educational body. The Primate shook his head, and was that to determine facts? Here was an impartial tribunal—after the Charity Commissioners and after the Lord President of the Council had examined all the objections, and they were satisfied that the scheme was a good one, it was to be rejected. What he objected to was the rejection of the scheme, approved in a deliberate way, on ex parte statements. It seemed to him that the ground taken up by the most rev. Prelate was that Parliament was entitled to reject a scheme which followed the principle designedly laid down in the Act of Parliament. That Act was not passed by the Party to which he belonged. It was passed by the Party opposite, without the adulteration of Liberal Unionism. [Laughter.] It seemed to him that, if the course suggested were pursued, it would be a waste of time on the part of local authorities to concede other schemes. The local authorities considered a scheme, it came before the Charity Commissioners, paid public officials spent a good deal of time over it, and then it met the approval of the Lord President of the Council. All these labours were to be thrown away. It was a pity there should be all this waste. It would be much better to avow that it was necessary first to obtain the approval of the Episcopal Bench. [Opposition cheers.] Lay that down, that if the right rev. Bench approve of a scheme, then go on with it; if not, let it be abandoned. Lay it down that all these schemes were at the mercy of the Episcopal Bench. [Opposition cheers.] He believed that it was never intended that the House should have this power. He maintained that the power given to Parliament never was intended to apply to reversing the decision of those bodies who had acted regularly. Of course, if there were objections to particular provisions in a scheme, that would be a different matter, and might well be dealt with, although even in that case it would be much more desirable that the objec-
282
tion should be brought forward at an earlier period. Was it reasonable, when this provision with regard to Merionethshire had been inserted, and the opponents to it had been heard, that it should be dealt with on ex parte statements in the House, the accuracy of which, at all events, was not admitted? ["Hear, hear!"] He ventured to submit that it would be a very serious act on the part of the House, when the Education Department and the Lord President himself had sanctioned this scheme, to set it aside at such a date. ["Hear, hear!"]
*THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My noble Friend near me has pointed out that this is not a matter on which the Government is, as a whole, responsible, and that on different occasions different opinions have been formed. I am in the position of having formed a different judgment from that of my noble Friend. The tone of the two speeches to which we have just listened was remarkably different, and there was a great contrast between the calmness of the one and the fiery character of the other; still both my noble Friend and the noble and learned Lord apposite seem to have based themselves chiefly on the idea that by throwing out this scheme we are contradicting an Act of Parliament. I do not think they have taken a right estimate of what the Act of Parliament really is. The noble and learned Lord said that the Act was passed by a Conservative Government. That is quite true, and if my memory do not mislead me, I think I was the person who induced this House to pass it. But, I urged this Bill on the House as a. whole. I did not regard one part of it as more important than, or as dominating, any other part; and I do not see that if one part has been acted on you can say that by acting on this part you wire despising and rejecting and frustrating all the rest. The real state of the case is this, there has been for the last thirty years a general desire to reform the basis of many of our endowments and to give them a more general and useful application. With that object nobody would have differed, and such Acts of Parliament would have been adopted as would have worked with ease; but there came across its path the shadow of the religious difficulty. There was a fear, and I think it was a well-justified fear,

283
that the desire for reform, that the necessity for reconstruction, would be used as a pretext for the alienation of theological endowments. It was feared, and experience has not belied that fear, that under the appearance of educational reform we might be conducting really a scheme of what I may call theological piracy. The difficulty was in the matter of Welsh intermediate education, how to deal with that obstacle. In that state of business which has distinguished the proceedings of the other House for many years past, it would have been perfectly impossible to go into the minute details necessary to prevent such a misuse of the powers that were given, and it was thought that all fears on the part of the clause could be appeased, that all dangers could be conquered by placing in the hands of the majority of either House of Parliament the power of rejecting on any special grounds any scheme to which in their own judgment they might take exception. That is just as important and operative a part of the Act as any other part. ["Hear, hear!"] It is of no use to tell me that the Act decides what is and what is not the property of the Church, and that if in other clauses property is not marked as belonging to the Church you have no right to treat it as such. That is treating the power given to your Lordships as if it was not part of the Act of Parliament. The same Act which has defined the position of the Church has given unrestricted power to either House of Parliament to veto any scheme made under it. The hon. and noble Lord opposite has taunted a Conservative Government with passing this Act.
LORD HERSCHELL: I neither taunted nor praised them. What I did allude to was the way they were dealing with the Act they passed. [Cheers.]
THE PRIME MINISTER: I only say that we deal with it in the sense in which we passed it. We intended it to be subjected to the enlightenment and free criticism of both Houses of Parliament, subject to which any Measure might be rejected in which it might be seen that the Charity Commissioners or any local body had gone beyond what appeared to be just in dealing with the funds at their disposal. That is my reading of that Act. I think it is important to keep these schemes, as far as
284
possible, clear of the charge of attempting to alienate religious endowments from one body to another. I do not think this scheme is clear of that charge. I entirely demur to the idea that we have any special duty to follow the decision either of the Joint Committee or of the Charity Commissioners. They are acting according to what they deem to be the directions of the Act of Parliament, but we are acting on the principle which dominates the whole, namely, that we have a right to veto a scheme if it appear to us to be unjust. On these grounds it seems to me that the House would do more wisely to send this scheme back to the Charity Commissioners, so that it may be drawn on a more just and equitable basis, and be submitted to Parliament again. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid that on referring to the Act itself he did not find there was that neglect or rather omission that the noble Marquess seemed to assume of any clear definition of what were intended to be considered Church schools. He read the clause of the Act and said it was clearly intended that the provisions to enforce it were to be carried out by an appeal to the Privy Council, which could determine absolutely whether or not a particular scheme followed the law or not. The noble Marquess seemed to attach much more importance to the provisions of the Act which nullified the steps taken under the Act than to those provisions which enabled the Act to be carried into effect. Although undoubtedly the right to set aside a scheme had been reserved to Parliament, Parliament must have intended and expected that that right would be exercised with a view to carrying into effect the Act it had passed. ["Hear, hear!"] It never could have been the intention of Parliament or the intention of the framers of the Act, or those who introduced it, that Parliament should deliberately go in the face as it were of the policy of the Act and seek to nullify it on such grounds as those their Lordships had heard that night. He had the honour a short time to occupy the office now held by the noble Duke, and over and over again he was called upon to defend schemes of the same kind, and he always found there was a right rev. Prelate ready to attack them, not in the interest of education, but in a narrow

285
spirit—[cheers]—seeking to find some possible excuse for restricting the operations of the Act. That was the spirit in which these schemes had been attacked. There might be, and undoubtedly was, a clear right in either House of Parliament to object to the passing of these schemes, but he contended it was an abuse of that right to exercise it in the manner the House was asked to exercise it that night. ["Hear, hear!"]
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the noble Earl had based his arguments on the foundations of the Endowed Schools Act. He ventured to say that the express in tention of that Act was that endowments which were clearly intended to belong to a religious denomination should not be diverted from that body. That was the intention of the Act, and it was perfectly clear that it was not always possible to provide in an Act of Parliament that its intention should be carried out, and it was in order that the intention of this Act should be carried out that their general clause was inserted, so that Parliament might be able in a given case to see that although an exact definition of denominational schools was not in the Act, yet in the case of a school really belonging to the Church, or to Roman Catholic's or Nonconformists, substantial justice was done.
The House divided:—

CONTENTS

72

NOT-CONTENTS

33

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Romney, E.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rosse, E.

Selborne, E.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry).

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn).

Waldegrave, E.

Wharneliffe, E.

Bath, M.

Salisbury, M.

Halifax, V.

Hardinge, V.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

Knutsford, V.

Chester, L. Bp.

Annesley, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Coventry, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Dartrey, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

de Montalt, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Denbigh, E.

Lincoln, L,. Bp.

Mayo, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Powis, E. [Teller.]

Oxford, L. Bp.

Ravensworth, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

286

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Hillingdon, L.

Truro, L. Bp.

Leconfield, L.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Lovaine, L. (E. Percy.)

Worcester, L. Bp.

[Teller.]

Addington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Aldenham, L.

Morris, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Mostyn, L.

Calthorpe, L.

Norton, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Castletown, L.

Rowton, L.

Churchill, L.

Sherborne, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E.Clanwilliam.)

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Stanmore, L

Clarina, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Clonbrock, L.

(E. Galloway.)

de Ros, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Fermanagh, L.(E. Erne.)

Templemore, L.

Tredegar, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Ventry, L.

Harlech. L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Hatherton, L.

Herries, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Devonshire, D. (L. president.)

Burghclere, L.

Coleridge, L.

Davey, L.

Ripon, M.

Glenesk, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard)

Camperdown, E.

Heneage, L.

Carrington, E.

Herschell, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hobhouse, L.

Cowper, E.

James, L.

Kimberley, E.

Kenry, L.(Earl Dunraven and Mount-Earl)

Northbrook, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamford, E.

Leigh, L.

Strafford, E.

Lingen, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Oxenbridge, V. [Teller.]

Powerscourt, V.

Mendip, L.(V. Clifden.)

Monkswell, L.

Aberdare, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Wantage, L.

Resolved in the affirmative. Ordered accordingly; The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed.—(No. 163): Minutes of evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out; Bill reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next and to be printed as amended.—(No. 162.)

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND).
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to consider and report:

To what extent the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge in Ireland (exclusive of cases where the tithe rent-charge has been purchased for cash) are reasonably entitled to a reduction in the present annual amount of such tithe rent-charge (including the amount of outstanding annuities in cases where the tithe rent-charge has been commuted), having regard (1) to the fall in the amount of the tithe rent-charge in England during recent years; (2) to the fall in the market price in Ireland of the articles on which such tithe rent-charge was originally fixed; (3) to the reductions of lay tithe rent-charge which have been made on this basis in Ireland; and (4) upon any other grounds.

2. Whether, and to what extent, such ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge could be reduced or extinguished at the present time (or at some future date) without material prejudice to the security of the loans at present charged upon the Irish Church Estate.

*THE EARL OF ERNEsaid that on Monday night Lord Belmore entered into the history of the Question somewhat fully, and it was therefore only necessary for him to supplement what he had said by a few remarks on points he left unnoticed or touched upon but briefly. The Act of 1872 was really the origin of the grievance and the cause of this complaint before the House. By that Act the septennial revision of tithe was abolished, the existing scale of prices of wheat and oats on which the charge was fixed was stereotyped; and that scale of prices remained to this day. He could not imagine how it happened that the matter slipped through both Houses without discussion. But in 1872 agricultural prosperity in Ireland had reached its zenith, and there was no idea that the fall in prices which occurred a few years later would come about; and perhaps, therefore, the landlords did not think it
288
worth their while to oppose a Measure which was stated to be necessary on financial and actuarial grounds. How ever that might be, the Bill was passed, the rent-charge was fixed on the scale of prices then prevailing, but rents (out of which the tithe rent-charge had to be paid) were not fixed, but had since been considerably lowered. He wished to bring two salient facts before the House. One was that the average price of wheat had fallen since 1872 45 per cent., or nearly half, while the average price of oats had fallen 22 per cent., or nearly a quarter. The other fact was that four years hence, in 1901, the sum of £328,000 per annum would be set free from the Irish Church Funds by the termination of the Sinking Fund, which was in 1874 created to meet the life interest and claims of the Irish clergy. The Irish Church Act in Section 68 directed that the surplus from the Church Funds should be appropriated mainly to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering in the manner Parliament should thereafter prescribe. In consonance with those directions millions had been expended for the relief of the tenants, Acts had been passed for the relief of distress, for dealing with arrears, for the advancement of fisheries, for the congested districts and for the distressed unions. Was it, therefore, too much to ask that the landlords who had been so hard hit by the series of legislation, of which the Irish Church Act was the beginning, should have some measure of relief granted from the Church Fund in pursuance of the policy of this Act? They were not asking for generosity, but only for mere justice. If they had been tenants, and had been able to resort to those time-honoured methods of redressing grievances, real or imaginary, which had been so prevalent in Ireland, nobody could doubt that this injustice would have been removed long since. But as they were only landlords, very sparsely represented in the House of Commons, with no political influence in the country, they found themselves still asking for a measure of justice, the reasonableness of which was admitted nine years ago by the Minister then responsible for Irish business in that House, who was now the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and yet no steps had been taken in the interval to remedy the complaints then laid before

289
Parliament. He ventured to say that was a state of things which did not do much credit to the much-vaunted British love of justice and fair-play. A Motion was brought before the House by Lord Inchiquin some time ago, in which the noble Lord asked for compensation to Irish landlords for losses they had suffered through the operation of the Land Act. Lord Lansdowne then pointed out that to give direct compensation would be a very difficult, if not almost impossible, matter. He, to a large extent, coincided with that view, but here was a method by which indirect compensation could be granted, and at the same time a glaring and patent wrong remedied. What they asked was that the Act of 1872, which had led to all this trouble, might be repealed. From what Lord Denbigh said the other night, he seemed to think there would be a difficulty from the Treasury point of view in the repealing of this Act. But the noble Lord went on to say that further concessions might be possible in the direction of reducing the number of years' purchase on which the redemption price of the tithe was now calculated, and putting it at a less amount than 22 years' purchase; amid there might possibly, too, be a re-consideration of the interest now charged. He hoped before the Debate closed they might have some more definite assurance that this matter would be dealt with in no grudging way. If the annual repayment of these instalments were lessened so as to correspond with the fall of price in wheat and oats since 1872, the Government would have gone a considerable way towards meeting what they asked for. He hoped they would shako off that Treasury bugbear which seemed to paralyse the well-intentioned efforts of all Governments, be they strong or weak, and nerve themselves for doing some slight justice to a long-suffering and very hardly treated class.
*LORD CLONBROCK, rising to support the Motion, associated himself with the previous Speaker in expressing the hope that Her Majesty's Government had more fully considered the question since it was last before the House, and would be prepared to grant a considerably larger extent of relief to the Irish landlords than that sketched out by Lord Denbigh. This was not a large question. That was
290
one of the objections raised, when the claims of Irish landlords were before the House, and a very remarkable one it was. One would have thought that the greater the injustice, the more interets it affected, the more ramifications into which it extended, the more need there was for examination and redress. There was nothing intricate nor complicated in the matter, and the Government had announced, in fact, that there was no occasion for any commission of inquiry, as they were fully in possession of the facts of the case. It was a mere question of account, and, therefore, could easily be disposed of in one way or another. He would not go over the ground which had already been traversed, but he would like to allude to one point as to which they were promised a very slight modicum of relief. He referred to the price of the number of years' purchase of tithe rent-charge. There was a very remarkable coincidence, indeed, in the figures. It had already been pointed out, on the authority of Mr. Murrough O'Brien —who certainly could not be accused of any peculiar bias in favour of the landowners of Ireland—that before the passing of the Irish Church Act tithe rent charge was only worth 17 years' purchase, and by that Act it was raised to 22½ years. It was a very remarkable coincidence that that was precisely the amount by which landed property in the meantime had fallen. Landed property used to be worth from 22 to 23 years' purchase; it had now fallen to 17 and under. But taking it at 17 years' purchase, the two figures exactly coincided. That was to say that while 25 per cent. had been taken off the value of the fee simple of the land, the rent-charge upon that land had been raised by precisely the same amount. Therefore, when there was a question of buying, the unfortunate landlords had to pay 25 per cent. over the former market price, but when it came to a question of selling, he received 25 per cent. under. That was the effect of Mr. Gladstone's legislation, and yet surprise was expressed that Irish land-lords were dissatisfied with their position and complained that while Political Economy had been banished to Jupiter or Saturn, Justice had been relegated there also, or to some more distant planet. Though this was not

291
a large question—and though any relief that could be given them by Her Majesty's Government would by no means be considered any sort of adequate compensation for their claims—yet it was a question which pressed very hardly on a great many small and struggling people in Ireland, whose cases were most deserving of consideration. He would earnestly implore Her Majesty's Government to pay more attention than they seemed now disposed to do to the claims of Irish landlords, both in this and larger matters. He could not describe the sense of utter discouragement, the absolute gloom of despair, that had settled down over the mind of, he believed, the largest class of their supporters, at finding the implicit faith they had formerly had in Her Majesty's Government so rudely shattered as it was by the legislation of last year; at finding that Government to whose accession to power they had looked forward so long and anxiously, ready to sacrifice them, their interests, and welfare, to the political exigencies of the moment. That feeling would, if possible, be intensified and strengthened if now, on a matter in which the justice of the claims of the Irish landlords was not disputed, when a case had arisen in which, in the opinion of their political opponents, the landlords would be entitled to compensation, they found that the Government confined themselves to barren expressions of sympathy, and were not disposed to lift one finger to help them in their misfortunes.
THE EARL OF ARRANcould not help offering a few remarks, in the hope that the answer they should receive that night would be more satisfactory than that given by Lord Denbigh on the previous occasion. Lord Denbigh asked the Irish landowners to have a little more patience and trust in the sympathy of the Government. He would remind the noble Earl that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick." In 1888 Lord Cadogan made them a promise of looking into the matter. On another occasion Mr. Balfour, in the House of Commons, expressed his sympathy with the Irish landlords, and his sense of the injustice that had been done. But up to this, nothing had been done for them. They were now in the year of 1897, and he trusted
292
they should hear that night that something would at least be attempted in the direction indicated.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)had heard his noble Friends who had spoken upon this question with very great interest and attention, but it could hardly be expected that he should be in a position to go beyond what Lord Denbigh said as lately as Monday night last. The noble Lord spoke then the bonâ fide views of the Government in reference to this most important question, the bearings of which, he thought, they thoroughly realised, and in respect of which Lord Lansdowne spoke so recently in terms of sympathy. The hope had been expressed that there would be no indefinite postponement of the good wishes and intentions of the Government. There was no intention whatever of that kind. There was no intention whatever to recede from what was said by Lord Denbigh on Monday. ["Hear, hear !"] It was obvious, as he then stated, that the matter would have to be dealt with by a Bill, an Act of Parliament would be needed, and in the preparation of an Act of Parliament dealing with questions of finance and account—it was all very well to treat the Treasury as a bugbear—the Treasury had to he considered. He had no doubt that without any loss of time the minds of those who wereemployed in Irishadministration would be directed to these matters with the desire to produce a Bill within a reasonable time. ["Hear, hear!"] It was obvious that this would not be done in the present Session, but he earnestly hoped that the opportunity would be found during the Recess to prepare a Measure which next Session could be presented for the consideration of Parliament. His noble Friend Lord Denbigh, on the last occasion when this subject was under Debate had presented the views of the Government not unreasonably, and although it might be that many of their Lordships would have desired them to go further, it was impossible for him to say more than he had said.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid they were glad to hear the statement of his noble Friend, in fact they were

293
always glad to hear his voice. But the other day when the noble Lord gave his answer, what he said only amounted to what might be done by the Government, and now their Lordships had heard what probably would be done. But they would like to know a little mere about the scope of the Bill to be introduced at some future period. Would it not he possible to introduce the Bill this Session? Time was short, but probable the Bill would be short also. It would contain matter of considerable interest and of considerable use to the landlords of Ireland. He ventured to hope that if the Government felt they were unable to introduce the Bill this Session that when it was introduced next Session some of the clauses would be retrospective. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he understood Lord Denbigh had admitted that the tithe rent-charge was at this moment redeemed at too high a number of years purchase. He believed that under the Purchase Act it was necessary that anyone who wished to sell his property should redeem his tithe, and he desired to point out this. If the Government gave an undertaking that they would next Session introduce a Bill which would have in its effect a reduction of the number of years purchase it would have a very serious disturbing effect, meanwhile, on sales of land. Why were those who had already gone into the Land Court, or contemplated going into the Land Court to pay at the existing rate of 22½ years' purchase to redeem the tithe, when the Government had practically pledged themselves for next Session to reduce this number of years purchase? He would therefore earnestly press upon his noble Friend that he would allow him, if he was not prepared to give an answer now, to put down a notice of a Question which perhaps he would be able to answer, as to how it was proposed to deal with the matter, for he thought the present condition of things would very seriously interfere with the action of purchase. ["Hear, hear!"]
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid, in reply to the Duke of Abercorn, that the authority did not rest with him to introduce a Bill this Session. If he represented not only his own moderate individuality, but also the
294
bugbear referred to, and were at liberty to speak for finance, policy, and everything, then he might be in a position to introduce a Bill without delay, but it would he impossible to introduce a Bill within, what he hoped, were the few remaining days of the Session. He hoped his noble Friends would be satisfied with the bonâ fide desire of the Government to direct their attention to this matter, with a view to introduce a Bill next Session. There was, he assured his noble Friends, no intention to avoid dealing with the question. As to what the Earl of Portsmouth had said, of course he would be very willing to give the best answer he could to a Question put upon the Notice Paper, but he would say this matter had been to some extent dealt with in the Purchase Clauses of the Act of last year. But he would be pleased to give an answer to his noble Friend's Question.
VISCOUNT CLIFDENthought his countrymen were a little sanguine. He had not quite made out that the noble Lord had promised a Bill. He had answered in words that might mean a great deal, but would the Government pledge themselves to bring in a Bill next year to deal with the matters his noble Friend had put before the House? The noble Lord said the other day, and it was with the utmost surprise he heard him say it, in relation to another matter that nothing could be done for the Act of 1881 because that Act was on the Statute Book. He had never heard a more extraordinary thing, and from a lawyer too!
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The noble Lord must not understand me as accepting his paraphrase of my few observations.
VISCOUNT CLIFDENsaid he had heard the statement and coming from a Cabinet Minister most unsatisfactory he found it. Because an Act was on the Statute-book it was not to be touched, not to be altered! Why, what had been the history of the last sixty or seventy years? What did reform mean, but the wiping out and complete alteration of statutes? He desired a positive pledge that the Government next year would bring in a Bill dealing with the

295
points so ably put forward by his noble Friend.
LORD MORRISthought the statement of Lord Ashbourne ought to be accepted as quite satisfactory. He did not know that the noble Lord ought to be addressed categorically and subjected to crossexamination. He conveyed to everybody who heard his statement, it was received with cheers which he accepted, that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill next year to deal with this pressing matter upon which the landlords had shown the patience of Job without the corresponding advantages. It should not be forgotten that if the Motion were carried it would only be for the appointment of a Commission, and he had been really afraid that the Government might have acceded to the demand and granted the Commission, a favourite mode of shelving an application. As he understood, their Lordships were getting something more, an undertaking that a Bill would be brought in dealing with the matter without resorting to a Commission. His Friends from Ireland would do well to accept this, letting the Motion drop.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons and Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Tuesday next: (The Lord Belper).— (No. 164.)
House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.