Sitting of 26 April 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
WOLVERHAMPTON, ESS1NGTON, AND CANNOCK CHASE JUNCTION HALLWAY BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITAL- EIELDS MARKET) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
    ST DVVID'S RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

CHURCH'S PATENT BILL [Lords].
  CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.

    METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
    PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY).
    Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cohen and Mr. James Stuart.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    DR. AMBROSE: I have to oppose this motion, and in doing so I think I shall be able to show why Bills passed in this House are so unpopular in Ireland. Parliament spent a good deal of the session of 1898 in passing the Local Government Act, which took out of the hands of old fossilised grand juries in Ireland the management of local affairs in counties, and placed it under the control of duly elected representatives of the people. But what has actually occurred? The management of these affairs has been handed over to the Local Government Board, which resides in some cupboard in Dublin Castle, a habitation only known possibly to the postmen of Dublin; and the district and county councils, after being allowed to go through an expensive election, have to sit round a table while the Local Government Board retains the actual power and fixes the salaries of the officials. In the case of

    3
    Westport, which is dealt with in this Provisional Order, the Local Government Board says, "We will deprive the town of Westport of the district council, and constitute it an urban sanitary authority, notwithstanding the fact that the officials of the district council have already been appointed at salaries which cannot be reduced by any means." No wonder, then, that the laws passed by this House are so unpopular in Ireland; for while you claim to transfer the management of local affairs to the people you actually place them under the control of a more conservative body than ever— a body nominated and not elected. And when this district council in County Mayo instructed their solicitor to appoint a Parliamentary agent to oppose this in Parliament, the Local Government Board wrote threatening to surcharge them with the costs of the opposition, on the ground that the district council could "not legally expend any portion of the district funds in opposing the confirmation by Parliament of the Provisional Order." I rather think that in this the Local Government Board of Ireland is itself acting illegally, for according to the Public Health Act 41 and 42 Vic. Chap. 52, such expenditure is authorised. As a fact the district council complied with the legal requirements which were necessary to place it in a position to oppose this Provisional Order. It petitioned the Local Government Board within the prescribed time, and I therefore say the Local Government Board acted illegally in threatening to surcharge the district council with the expenses incurred in opposing the confirmation of the Order. As I have said before, the officers of the district council had already been appointed and their salaries fixed. In fixing them the Local Government Board did not consult the district council as to the amounts which ought to be paid, although that body best knew what were the duties to be performed. If Westport is to be taken out of the area of the district council, the duties of the officials will be lessened, but their salaries cannot be reduced. New officials will have to be appointed for the freshly constituted urban sanitary authority, whose salaries will have to be paid by the township of Westport, and the existing salaries will have to continue to be paid by the district council. Could anything be
    4
    more unfair? On these grounds I ask the House to reject this Bill.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Dr. Ambrose.)
    Question proposed—"That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I did not know that the hon. Gentleman intended to oppose this Bill, but it occurred to me while he was speaking that he was delivering a speech intended for another Bill and another occasion. What he has said has scarcely anything whatever to do with the Bill now before the House. What are the facts of the case? Under Section 42 of the Local Government Act, 1898, which amended the seventh section of the Public Health Act, 1870, it is competent for any town commissioners to petition the Local Government Board of Ireland to be constituted an urban sanitary authority. Of the functions of the Local Government Board the hon. Member appears to be quite ignorant. They have not any habitation in Dublin Castle at all. Now the town commissioners of Westport did petition the Local Government Board to have their town constituted an urban sanitary authority. Westport has an area of 3,038 acres, a population of 4,070, and a valuation of £6,141, and the petitioners asked to have charge of their own roads, and for power to possess their own waterworks, etc.
    Dn. AMBROSE: Was it a unanimous petition?
    MR. ATKTNSON: I understand it was.
    DR. AMBROSE: No: it was about half and half.
    MR. ATKINSON: At any rate, the petition was presented, and the Local Government Board held the usual inquiry after due notice. No opposition whatever was offered, and the Board, as it was bound to do, made the Order constituting Westport a self-governing community; and why? Because under the existing condition of affairs the cleansing and lighting of the town

    5
    was most imperfect, the water supply was most shocking and scandalous, there being only a few private wells from which good water could be obtained, the housing of the artisan classes was bad, and there were no labourers' cottages in the town. The chairman of the town commissioners declared that this deplorable state of things could not be remedied unless the town had control over its own affairs, and on that statement the Order was made. The rural district council the hon. Member represents, which extends forty miles from the town, has certainly presented a petition to the Local Government Board to prevent this community of 4,000 persons governing themselves and asking that it should continue to be governed by councillors, some of whom live fifty miles away. He wishes, apparently, that the present disgraceful state of affairs should continue. The presentation of the petition has rendered it necessary that the Order should be confirmed by Parliament. The hon. Member has passed some absolutely undeserved and ill-informed criticism on the Local Government Board; but, after all, his only ground of opposition appears to be in connection with the salaries of the officials. If he had only read the section of the Act governing this matter he would have seen that all these matters have to be adjusted between the new urban authority and the district council, so that none of the evils which he apprehends may follow from the confirmation of this Order can arise. It seems strange to me that gentlemen who are supposed to favour popular rights should be found willing to oppose the grant to a community of 4,000 people, with an area of 3,000 acres, of self-governing powers to remedy a state of things which is scandalous and injurious as regards water supply, sanitation, and the housing of the poorer classes. It is amazing to me that the hon. Gentleman should oppose the confirmation of this Order.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL (No. 2) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Petition of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Ayr; and Bothwell; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (NEW CODE).
  Petition from Edmonton, against adoption; to lie upon the Table.
  ILLICIT COMMISSIONS.
  Petition from Dewsbury, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bothwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
  Petition from Norwich, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Bothwell, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petition from St. Olaves, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Norwich, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Heathfield; Whitchurch; Lowestoft; Coleford: Portsmouth; and Morley: to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Deptford; West London; Tudhoe; Ashton under Lyne; Colne; South Tottenham; Sheffield; Bermondsey; Largs; Hulme; Loddon; Coventry; and Halifax; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Anstruther, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Bridport; Dronfield (two); Hayling; Jarrow-on-Tyne; Shipley; Wallasey; Lamington-on-Tyne; Nelson; Walbottle; Rhymney; Throckley; Mewburn; Scotswood; Darlington; Bishop Auckland; Sheffield (thirty-five); Durham Road; Gateshead (two); Birkenhead; Carbrook; and Stocksbridge, to lie upon the Table.
  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Hawick and Glasgow, to lie upon the Table.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petitions for legislation, from Blean; Depwade; Faversham; Gateshead; and North Bierley, to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
  Two Petitions from Bristol, for cessation, and for recognition of the independence of the Transvaal and Orange Free State; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Abertillery; Colne; Wallasey; Rhymney Plymouth; Bridport; Loddon; and Batley; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM THREEFOLD OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
  The following Papers, presented by command of Her Majesty during the Easter Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896:—

  1. Trade Reports (Annual Series).—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Nos. 2397 to 2402.

  2. Trade Reports (Miscellaneous Series).—Copy of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, No. 524.

  3. National Gallery, etc. (Scotland).—Copy of Sixth Annual Report to the
  8
  Secretary for Scotland by the Commissioners and Trustees of the Board of Manufacturers in Scotland, being for the year ending 30th September, 1899.

  4. Prisons (Scotland). — Copy of Twenty-second Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixty-first Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland, 1899.

  5. Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Acts. —Copy of Report of the Crofters' Commission, being for the year 1899.

  6. Workmen's Compensation (Proceedings in Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland and in County Courts in Ireland).—Copy of Statistics of the proceedings in Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland and in County Courts in Ireland, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1898.

  7. Indian Plague Commission, 1898–9. —Copy of Minutes of Evidence taken by the Indian Plague Commission, with Appendices, Vol. 1.

  Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report on Agriculture, for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule and Time Table of Examinations for 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Western Division of Scotland for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th October, 1899; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copies presented, of Four Orders, three (dated respectively the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th April, 1900), Nos. 6047, 6048, and

  9
  6049 relating to the landing of Animals from the Argentine Republic or from Uruguay, and one (dated the 17th April, 1900) entitled the Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf Order of 1900 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 3rd April; Mr. Price]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF WALSALL).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Walsall re-dividing the Borough into convenient Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Copy presented, of Revised Regulations of 23rd April, 1900, as to Certificates of Age, Proficiency, and School Attendance [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the Subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act for the County Borough of Limerick (eighth Minute), dated 29th March, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SERVICE (CERTIFICATES OF MASTERS, MATES, SKIPPERS, AND SECOND HANDS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th March; Captain Sinclair]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2403 to 2406 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Public Records (Admiralty).—Copy of Sixth Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents which have been removed from the Office of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of
  10
  sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
  2. Public Records (South Eastern Circuit).—Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or in ordinary course about to exist in the office of the Clerk of Assize of the Home Division of the South Eastern Circuit, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
  3. Union of Benefices Act (Saint Giles, Cripplegate, and Saint Bartholomew, Little Moorfields).—Copy of Scheme for effecting an union of the Benefices of Saint Giles, Cripplegate, and Saint Bartholomew, Little Moorfields [by Act].
  4. Local Loans Fund.—Accounts of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the Capital and Income of the Local Loans Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1899; with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 138.]
  5. Thames Conservancy.— Genera Report and Accounts of the Conservators for 1899 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 139.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 141.]

  HARBOUR, ETC., BILLS.
  Copy ordered, "of the Report of the Board of Trade on the Margate Corporation Bill [Lords]."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 142.]

Oral Answers to Questions

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised gas undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those of local authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 338, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 143.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised gas undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to local authorities for the year ended the 25th day of March. 1900 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 339, of Session 1899)."— (Mr. Bitchie.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 144.]

  CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOL BOARDS (WAGES).
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of each School Board District in England and Wales, whether the contracts entered into by the School Board for the execution of works specify any conditions as to the wages to be paid by the contractor, or other conditions with regard to persons employed by him; and, if so, what are the conditions so specified."— (Sir Charles Dilke.)
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—MEASURES FOR RELIEF OF MAFEKING.
    SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether, with reference to the distressing telegrams published to-day, any assurance can be given that anything is being done in addition to Colonel Plumer's operations for the relief of Mafeking.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I think the hon. Member will realise that the speedy relief of Mafeking, which he and we all have at heart, would not be aided were I to give any indication of the immediate objective of
    12
    any part of the forces under the command of Field Marshal Lord Roberts.

    MAGERSFONTEIN ENGAGEMENT —LORD ROBERTS'S AND LORD METHUEN'S DESPATCHES.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether Lord Roberts has made any comments on the operations at the battle of Magersfontein, or offered any criticism on the judgment, system, and administrative capacity of Lord Methuen in the disposition and handling of the troops in that engagement.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. No comment whatever was made by Lord, Roberts on the Magersfontein operations.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the answer he gave on March 22nd,† that the Magersfontein despatches had been before Lord. Roberts, and that he had revised them?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled thus to refer to a previous answer.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Not when, it is contradictory?
    MR. SPEAKER: No; it is out of order to refer, for purposes of contrast, to a previous question and answer.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Very well. Then the hon. Gentleman need not answer me.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If I have ever said in this House anything that can be taken to mean that Lord Roberts revised Lord Methuen's despatches, I must have misled the House, but I am not conscious-of having done anything of the sort. The hon. Member may be confusing the fact that I have stated to this House that the first communication from Lord Methuen, forwarded without comment by General Buller, was returned in order that it might be put in the form of a despatch. In the interval when it had been returned. Lord Roberts became Commander-in-Chief, and the amended communication in the form of a despatch was sent without comment by Lord Roberts.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Quite right. Now I will ask another question, and
    † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi., page 29.

    13
    that is, why the precedent set in the cases of Generals Buller and Gatacre has not been followed in the case of Lord Methuen.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It has been followed exactly.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No.

    REMOUNTS AND MILITARY TRANSPORT.
    SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the movements of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa have been retarded by the omission of the War Office to provide in advance not only remounts necessary to meet ordinary waste, but the spare remounts necessary to allow horses overworked to be recruited; whether the War Office have in advance provided rolling stock necessary for the rapid conveyance from the Cape of horses, mules, guns, ammunition, and winter clothing, and other stores essential for the successful prosecution of the campaign; and will he inform the House how far and in what manner the alleged deficiencies have been met, and how they are to be avoided in the future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Nothing in the frequent communications which pass between Lord Roberts and the War Office goes to prove that his strategical movements have so far been retarded or modified owing to a scarcity of either remounts or rolling stock in South Africa. It is true, however, that the general officer commanding line of communications cabled on 13th March that the expenditure of horses had exceeded all estimates. Up to that date the War Office had in variably exceeded the requisitions forwarded from South Africa, and since that date no effort has been spared to secure horse ships—and that is the factor which governs the problem—from every available source of supply. In the first four months of this year —the figures which I have for April being partly an estimate—we shall have shipped as remounts, in addition to horses and mules sent with troops, 27,041 horses and 17,143 mules. Between the 1st and the 25th May we expect to embark another 7,500 horses and 4,500 mules, and we have 7,300 horses and 2,000 mules on order, for which no date of embarkation has yet been
    14
    fixed. So that the total of remounts bought since the beginning of the year is about 42,000 horses and about 23,000 mules. On the 20th March Lord Roberts telegraphed that the railways of South Africa were in urgent need of rolling stock, the want of which would be prejudicial to the country after the cessation of hostilities. After a short correspondence the necessary expenditure was sanctioned on military grounds, and steps are being taken to procure the stock. The gauge of South African railways is 3ft. 6in., and must, therefore, be made expressly. I do not wish to put the case too high, but, so far as we know, the problem has not turned chiefly either on the number of remounts or on rolling stock, but on the fact that Lord Roberts seized the capital of the Free State by marching and fighting for a month away from the railway, and that since then he has been engaged (1) in capturing the railway, (2) in repairing it, (3) in shifting his base from Cape Town to Bloemfontein—a distance of 750 miles by a single line of rail with a rise of 4,500 feet, (4) in defeating detached forces of the enemy which threatened his communications from Cape Town and Port Elizabeth and blocked them from Hast London. The first three of these necessary preliminaries to an advance are now, I believe, completed, and the fourth appears to be proceeding satisfactorily.
    Mr. WARNER: Are the horses supplied to the Imperial Yeomanry, who took none with them, included under the term remounts?
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir: remounts mean horses to make good wear and tear.

    REGIMENTAL TITLES—BEDFORDSHIRE REGIMENT.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a feeling exists in Hertfordshire that the Bedfordshire Regiment should in future be designated as the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment, as many recruits from the Herts Militia are annually drafted into that regiment; and that the badge and motto of the regiment at the present time is that of the county of Hertford; and whether the War Office will grant this alteration for the future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This concession would give rise to a somewhat cumbrous title, and would doubtless lead to other applications of a similar character; but should it be proved that the Line battalions draw recruits in fairly equal proportions from both counties, and that a strong county feeling exists in favour of the change, the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider its advisability.

    INDIAN FAMINE—PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY GRANT.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having in view the increased and unparalleled intensity of the famine in India and the inadequate response made in this country to the Lord Mayor's appeal to public charity, Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their determination not to make a national grant to India.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA SUHY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The famine in India is, as my hon. friend has justly observed, of a very serious character, but ray noble friend the Secretary of State for India is most carefully watching the progress of events, and if it be needful to apply to the Imperial Parliament for assistance, that appeal will be made without hesitation. I ought to add that the Government of India do not anticipate any difficulty at present in providing needful relief.

    SEA FISHERIES BILL.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of the Sea Fisheries Bill being read a second time, he is prepared to refer it to a Select Committee of this House, having power to call evidence; and whether he is prepared to treat assent to the Second Reading as in no way prejudging the question whether the prohibition of landing and selling undersized fish in the United Kingdom will prevent their destruction.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): Yes, Sir; I propose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in the event of the House reading it a second time. The matter will in no way be prejudged by the Bill being read a second time.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: When is the Bill to be taken?
    16
    Will the right hon. Gentleman give due notice?
    MR. RITCHIE: I think my right hon. friend stated before the holidays that it would be taken on Monday.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is this Bill identical with the one known last year as the Undersized Fish Bill?
    MR. RITCHIE: My hon. friend can satisfy himself on that point by comparing the two Bills.

    VACCINATION OK CHILDREN IN ST. PANCRAS WORKHOUSE.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the action of the medical officer of St. Pancras Workhouse in insisting on re-vaccinating children or young persons between ten and fourteen years of age without any application by them or their parents to the medical officer to re-vaccinate; and whether this procedure is in accordance with the Vaccination Order of October, 1898, having regard to the language of Section 3 of Schedule 2 of that Order.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): I understand from the medical officer of the workhouse that in the great majority of cases the consent of the parent is obtained; but there are some instances where this consent is not obtainable, as, for example, when the parents are dead, or are insane, or have deserted their children. I am not, however, fully informed of the practice of the medical officer in the matter referred to: but I find that the visiting committee of the workhouse have appointed a sub- committee to inquire generally into the practice of the medical officer as regards vaccination and re-vaccination, and I have requested that a copy of the report of this sub-committee may be forwarded to me. On receipt of it I will consider whether any action on my part is necessary.
    MR. CHANNING: May I take it that that conveys the answer to the second part of the question?
    MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, Sir; you may take it as covering the whole.

    VACCINATION EXPENDITURE.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consent to a Return showing the expenditure out of the rates of the board of guardians in each union of England and Wales in respect of vaccination in the year preceding the commencement of the Vaccination Act and in the year succeeding the commencement of that Act.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Particulars as to the expenditure out of the rates in respect of vaccination in each financial year are given in the Local Taxation Returns relating to that year, and under these circumstances it does not seem necessary that a special return such us that suggested should be given.

    RURAL POSTMEN AND BANK HOLIDAYS.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if arrangements can be made to curtail on Bank Holidays the period during which rural postmen usually have to wait at the end of their outward journey before making the afternoon collections and returning home, the collection being expedited without being altogether abandoned, so that the men might thus gain some small share of the public holiday.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): On Bank holidays rural postmen are, as a rule, allowed to return from the end of their walks early in the day. If the hon. Member can quote any case in which this rule is not observed the Postmaster General will be glad to consider whether the hours of duty can be curtailed. He fears, however, that public complaint would arise if rural postmen were permitted to return on Hank Holidays, as on Good Friday, immediately after completing the delivery. On Good Friday and Christmas Day the rural postmen return at once from the end of their walks when they have completed their delivery, clearing the boxes of any letters that may have been posted. On Sundays they return after waiting not less than one hour. On Bank Holidays they may return as on Sundays.

    THE RIVER LEE.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the state of the river Lee, and the complaints which have been made with regard thereto by the various local authorities through whose districts the river runs, he is prepared to take the necessary steps for obtaining the re-appointment of the Select Committee on the Rivers Pollution (River Lee) which sat in 1886, and recommended that, in consequence of the dissolution of Parliament in that year, they should be appointed on the assembling of the next Parliament to consider their Report on the evidence already taken, and, if desirable, to take further evidence.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the view of the Local Government Board is that as there is a Bill now before Parliament, which has passed the Committee: stage of this House, to re-constitute the Lee Conservancy Board, the time does not seem opportune for appointing a Select Committee on the subject referred to in the hon. Gentleman's question.

    SCOTTISH FISHERY INDUSTRY—ILLEGAL TRAWLTNG HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a Return recently published shows that while in England and Wales and Ireland there has been no falling off in the number of persons employed in prosecuting the fishing industry during the year 1898 as compared with 1894, the figures for Scotland show the number of persons so employed to have fallen 25 per cent. in the font-years; and, in view of these figures, will he consider the expediency of having some inquiry instituted for the purpose of ascertaining whether the diminution in the number of persons employed is attributable to the fishing industry in Scotland having been injured through the action of illegal trawling and the want of suitable harbours.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The official Returns show a decline in the number of persons employed in Scotland in connection with the fishing industry between 1894 and 1898. A large portion of the

    19
    apparent decrease is accounted for by the greater care in compiling the statistics and avoiding duplication. In the course of the same period there has been a considerable increase in the quantity of fish landed in Scotland; and any real falling off in the number of persons employed is to be ascribed in great measure to the increased use of steam machinery and other labour-saving appliances. There seems to be no recent connection between the diminution in numbers and illegal trawling, as the regulations on this subject are more stringent in Scotland than they are in England or Ireland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Will the First Lord state what will be the business next Monday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gave notice before we separated for the holidays of the Bills which I hope to take on Monday, the 30th of this month. The first Order will be the Uganda Railway. I informed the House that a fresh Bill is necessary in order to supply the funds requisite for completing this railway. The Bill will have to be brought in in Committee of Ways and Means, and it will be open to the House to discuss the principle of the measure, either upon the first stage or upon the Second Reading of the Bill. So far as the Government are concerned, it is immaterial what course the House adopts, but it would be, I think, to a certain extent a convenience if some decision could be arrived at on the point, with a view to the general arrangement of business. I throw out that observation to prevent disappointment. I will state on Monday next what business is to be taken on Thursday, but I shall not be able to answer that question until I know what is to take place on Monday itself. The notice which I gave was to this effect —first Order, Uganda Railway Bill; second, Burials Bill; third, Sea Fisheries Bill; fourth, Money Lending Bill; fifth, Lunacy Bill.

NEW WRIT.
For the borough of Portsmouth, in the room of Walter Owen Clough, esquire (Manor of Northstead).—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

SUPPLY [5TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  CLASS III.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £34, 694, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, Queen's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions; the costs of prosecutions, of other legal proceedings, and of Parliamentary agency."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask a very important question on a point of order. It is with regard to appropriations-in-aid. I believe the matter has already been under your consideration. As you are aware, what the Committee vote is the net amount after deduction of the appropriations-in-aid. What I wish to know is whether the appropriations-in-aid are granted by the Committee; whether the Committee can reduce the amount of those appropriations or any of them; whether it can alter them in any way or has any control over them whatever. These appropriations amount to, I believe, more than ten millions a year altogether, and I am anxious to know what power, if any, the Committee has over them. If the ruling of the Chair is that the Committee cannot reduce the appropriations in Committee or in any way touch them, I will ask if that applies to the particular appropriation-in-aid which represents the contribution of India to the military service, amounting altogether to some £1,500,000. My right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury once raised a discussion on this subject on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, and it was ruled that he could do so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member for King's Lynn has been good enough to give me notice of the question,

  21
  I have prepared a considered answer, which perhaps he will allow me to read. When a Vote is submitted to the Committee of Supply the net sum required is named. This net sum is arrived at by deducting the appropriation-in-aid from the gross sum required to be voted for the particular service, but the Committee, in voting the net sum, sanctions the expenditure of the gross sum. Appropriations-in-aid are regulated by the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, Section 2, which provides that sums directed by statute or directed by the Treasury to be applied as appropriations-in-aid of money provided by Parliament for a particular service shall be deemed to be applied by Parliament for that service. The estimates submitted to Parliament are estimates for services which would not be performed if the Committee of Supply struck out or reduced the Vote. A similar result, however, would not follow if a reduction of an appropriation-in-aid were to be carried. The reduction of the appropriation-in-aid would not diminish the amount to be paid. Such amount would still be paid, and would still be payable, and would, under the Public Accounts and Charges Act, still be applicable in reduction of the gross amount to be voted. To give effect to such a reduction of an appropriation-in-aid would in fact be to repeal Section 2 of the Public Accounts and Charges Act. To put the matter as generally as possible —and I think this will answer the question the hon. Member put to me—the estimates of expenditure can be reduced by the Committee of Supply, but appropriations-in-aid which are estimates of receipts cannot. That will also apply to the question which the hon. Member put with regard to the appropriations-in-aid for India.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am extremely obliged for the answer. In order to make it quite clear, may I further ask if the appropriations-in-aid are granted by the Public Accounts and Charges Act?
  THE CHAIRMAN: They are so granted either by that Act or by powers which are given to the Treasury under that Act.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he rose to move a reduction in the Vote for the Salary of the Attorney General by £1,000. First, as a personal
  22
  matter, let him say that the relations between himself and the First Lord of the Treasury must henceforth be strained;. he could not continue to regard the right hon. Gentleman in that spirit of friendliness which one wished to prevail. The right hon. Gentleman made a promise that no question affecting Irish Members should be taken for at least a week after the Recess, and hitherto they had been able to rely on his promise; but the other day, prompted by an inquiring mind, he was induced to look at the business fixed for the House when it reassembled, and the first thing he saw was a Vote as to which he had given notice of motion. It might be suggested that the Attorney General's salary was not an Irish question; but could auld acquaintance be forgot? They could not but recollect the Pigott Commission, and he therefore had to leave his humble home in Ireland sooner than he had anticipated, in order to move a reduction of the hon. and learned Gentleman's salary, in consequence of his action in a case of contempt of court. A case recently occurred in which a journalist was fined for contempt of court, and he accused the Attorney General of setting in motion an ancient, rusty, and antiquated procedure scarcely known since the time of the Stuarts. He was not now referring either to the action of the Judges who inflicted the fine or to the conduct of Mr. Justice Darling, but he was complaining of the action of the Attorney General in moving the Judges to action.. The Judges having been moved were bound to act, but he maintained that the Attorney General in moving them strained the law. Justice Darling himself had a complete-remedy: he could have proceeded by an action for libel or by a criminal information. During the last thirty years there had been no analogous case. But before dealing with the facts he would like to refer to the enormous power vested in the Judges with regard to contempt of court, and in view of that power surely it was wrong and unconstitutional to ask the Judges still further to expand the law. Time after time he had adverted to the solemn promise made by Mr. Gladstone in October, 1882*—a promise cheered on
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. cilxxiv., page 30. (Debate on Motion for a Select Committee on the commitment of Mr. Edmond Dwyer (hay, M.P., for contempt of court.)

  23
  both sides of the House—that immediate steps should be taken to limit the powers of committal for contempt of court. Unfortunately, that promise had not been fulfilled; on the contrary, it was stated by Lord Chief Justice Russell in 1896 that the power had been extended during recent years both in England and in Ireland. He had in his hand a Return moved for in that House in which it was shown that during the last five years some hundreds of people had been committed for contempt of court in Ireland, and that one man had actually been in prison 743 days for that offence.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be in order to discuss generally the question of committal for contempt of court. That is a matter over which the House has no control. The law can only be altered by legislation, and that is not a matter which can be discussed in Committee of Supply.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was aware of that; he only mentioned the matter by way of illustration. What he was doing was to accuse the Attorney General of straining a common law right which had already, in its ordinary exercise, been overstrained. Now, what occurred? On the 15th March last Mr. Justice Darling was sitting as a Judge of Assize at Birmingham. He was to have before him a case of an unpleasant character, and he took the opportunity to warn the press that if they reported it strong proceedings would be adopted against them. The case was tried and disposed of. The next morning every paper in Birmingham commented on the action of the Judge, the Birmingham Post stating that his remarks were extremely impertinent. The Argus, an evening paper, however, indulged in personal references to the Judge which were altogether unseemly. Now, cases of contempt of court ought to be brought before the Court immediately, but, in the case of the Birmingham Argus, the Attorney General moved the High Court in London after ten days incubation under an old and obsolete procedure, reviving thereby the practice of the Judges in the times of the Stuarts. He wanted to know who instructed the hon. and learned Gentleman to do that. Did he move proprio motu, or was he inspired from other and higher sources?
  24
  By whom was he moved? Probably he never saw the Birmingham Argus, and neither would Justice Darling have done so under ordinary circumstances. Even if the learned Judge had seen it he would probably have taken no notice. But for some reason the Attorney General did take action ten days after the publication of the article, and sought to bring the writer and the publisher before three Judges, with the result that the gentleman who was actually responsible—the publisher being abroad at the time— surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the Court, and was fined £100, with £25 costs—a most disproportionate fine in view of the nature of the libel. It only showed that the Judges of the High Court, having regard to the respect due to the Bench, felt bound to inflict some penalty, although they did not approve of the action taken in bringing the matter before them. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice said as much. He said it was not the intention of the Judge to insult the press. But then, as they knew, the way to a certain place was paved with good intentions, and the mere fact of his giving unnecessary warning caused irritation and led to the use of strong language. Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman leave Mr. Justice Darling to his remedy under the law of libel? It should be remembered, too, that when Justice Darling delivered the observations of which complaint was made he was not vested with any official capacity; the case was not before him at the moment. The Attorney General was usually a wise man; but in this instance he had badly served the administration of justice, and unwittingly and unknowingly he had tended to bring it into contempt. Again, he asked by whom and how the hon. and learned Gentleman had been inspired. The highest Court of Appeal had declared that the power to commit for contempt of court was necessary for the administration of justice, but was not to be used for the vindication of a Judge as a person. The Judge must resort to action for libel or a criminal information. Committal for contempt was a weapon to be used sparingly, always with reference to the administration of justice. Once a trial had taken place, both judge and jury were liable to be handed over to public criticism, ignorant and prejudiced though it sometimes might be. The offence committed in this case was nothing more or

  25
  less than a scandalising of the Court itself. In the Law Times, an authoritative organ of legal opinion, edited by the late Mr. Crump, they were told that trials for contempt of court by scandalising the Court had become obsolete in this country and were not to be used for the vindication of the Judge in person. Further, it was laid down by the writer of the article—
  "It was undesirable that obsolete remedies, out of harmony with modern thought, should be galvanised into life to repress offensive public criticism."
  But by these proceedings the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made the Judge the subject of gossip, had sot every tongue wagging as to how these appointments were made, and had brought the administration of justice into contempt. Even The Times was against him, and had lectured the hon. and learned Gentleman. In a leading article in that newspaper, on March 29th, hon. Members would see that, in the opinion of the leader writer, the Attorney General was a very good man gone extremely! wrong. No doubt, Justice Darling, in a speech on the preceding night, said he; liked the Attorney General. What a happy man the hon. and learned Gentleman must be, therefore! Again he asked who moved him in this matter. He appealed to him not again to place the Lord Chief Justice in an unpleasant and awkward position, and not to make a Judge the talk of the world at large. He begged to move the reduction of the salary of the Attorney General by £1,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can move to reduce this salary, because it relates only to non-contentious cases; but I will put the reduction upon the whole Vote.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsuggested that the reduction should be moved on the second item of the Vote, as there might be other queries.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The motion will be to reduce the Vote by £1,000, in respect of criminal prosecutions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B be reduced by £1,000, in respect of Criminal Prosecutions."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
  MR. CALDWELLwished to know the amount paid to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in respect of contentious business during the year. This matter was discussed last year. Under a former-Government the Attorney General was paid £9,000 and the Solicitor General £8,000 a year.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of Wight): £10,000 and £9,000 respectively.
  MR. CALDWELL: Yes; but under the present arrangement the salaries had been reduced to £7,000 and £6,000, with fees for business of a contentious character. He wanted to know what fees had actually been paid, and how it was that they did not appear on the Estimates. He did not propose to discuss whether the principle was right or wrong; all he wanted was the information as to the amount paid for contentious business.
  MR. WARNERsaid the point was one of considerable interest, as most hon. Members would like to know whether the new arrangement, by which contentious business was paid by fees, and the salaries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were reduced by £3,000 a year, had benefited in the long run the Crown or the officers of the Crown.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I will first deal with the last question raised. There is a little misunderstanding in the way in which the matter has been stated. The payment of contentious business by fees is not a new system; it is a return to an old system. More than once I have pointed out in this House that the payment of contentious business by salary has many disadvantages, and I believe nobody who has watched the working of the two systems would wish to revert to it. The Estimates are framed now as hitherto. Every two years a Return is made of the amount of contentious business, in continuation of previous Parliamentary Papers. The figures for the last two years are very large, owing to the Venezuelan Arbitration. I will take my own case first. My fixed salary is £7,000 a year. For contentious business I received in 1895–96, £3,916; in 1896–97, £6,030; in 1897–98, £7,563;

  27
  and in 1898–99, £10,264. The Solicitor General received for contentious business in 1895–96, £691; in 1896–97, £3,365; an 1897–98, £4,946; and in 1898–99, £5,844. I am prepared to lay these figures on the Table if any hon. Member cares to move for them. Of course the figures for 1899–1900 cannot yet be given complete. I now come to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal. He did not give me notice he intended to raise it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, yes; I put down the notice on the evening of the day the case was heard.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I do not make it any ground of complaint, as the circumstances are entirely fresh within my knowledge. The hon. Gentleman used some very strong expressions, such as we are accustomed to hear from those benches. He spoke of my conduct as straining the law; he said I had adopted a course not known since the days of the Stuarts, and he indulged in other flowers of oratory which sounded very well. But, unfortunately for him, the facts are not quite in accordance with the expressions he used. The jurisdiction of the Court to deal with these matters in the way in which the writer in this particular case has been dealt with has been recognised repeatedly during the last twenty-five years, and I may cite a case from the Bahamas and a decision of the Privy Council. The hon. Member, too, seems to have forgotten that the defendant, Mr. Gray, was represented by one of the ablest Queen's Counsel on the Midland circuit, Mr. Hugo Young, who is as competent as anyone to successfully maintain any question of legal objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, and he stated in Court that he was not prepared to raise any question as to the legality or the propriety of the proceedings. The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked why I did not leave Mr. Justice Darling to deal with this case in his own Court. If there is one thing which I object to it is to a Judge being the Judge in a case in which an attack has been made upon himself. If there is one thing we ought to avoid it is encouraging the idea that a Judge who may possibly be labouring under a feeling of irritation because of something which may have been said about him or his Court should constitute himself the
  28
  tribunal for trying the persons alleged to be guilty of the contempt. I should never endeavour to induce the Judges to act on the idea that they are competent to deal with such cases. On the day on which the libel was published it was sent to me by a perfectly friendly person, a County Court Judge, well acquainted with the facts. Representations were also made by solicitors, by members of the Bar, by the local civil authorities of Birmingham, that there was a very strong feeling that the licence of the press had been in this case wholly exceeded; and that it would be wrong if it were permitted to pass unnoticed. I do not say that Judges are not as open to criticism as any other men, but the question was, whether the judicial office had been held up to contempt, and spoken of in language which was not only in the worst possible taste, but went beyond anything that could be called fair criticism. Neither the defendant himself nor his counsel attempted for a single moment to justify what he had said.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I did not justify it; I thought it exceedingly reprehensible.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member attempted to palliate the conduct of the gentleman. Under the circumstances I considered that this was a matter which should be brought before the Court, and which ought to be properly treated. I need scarcely say that that Court, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England, is not likely to lay down any rule which will press with undue hardship or severity upon any single member or organ of the press. The hon. and learned Member for South Donegal asked why the learned Judge was not left to a criminal information fur a libel, but the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that if we are going to stop unlicensed and unbridled abuse of this kind, action should not be, taken three or four months after the publication of the libel. The only procedure of value is that which is prompt and expeditious, and brings before the mind of the same public which reads such articles as are here complained of the fact that such writings cannot be allowed. In spite of the criticism addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member, I will only say that if the same

  29
  state of affairs were to occur again. I; should certainly adopt exactly the same course of procedure.
  MR. SWIFT MAUNEILL: "He that is guilty let him be guilty still." The hon. Gentleman the Attorney General has not answered my question or given me a single precedent during the last thirty years for his procedure in this matter. The Courts, it is true, have recognised the principle of the Attorney General's procedure, just as it is admitted that the Mouse of Lords can throw out a Money Bill. The only case that could be quoted was "Regina v. Castro "(Q. B. D.); but in that case when the libel was published the Court was at the time sitting trying criminal cases. In this case the procedure did not take place till ten days afterwards. Was the Lord Chancellor consulted, or did Mr. Justice Darling himself take action? I maintain that the hon. and learned Gentleman has misused his position, and has converted himself into a Judge, or made himself the puppet of a Judge. The power of committal for contempt of court was declared by Lord Morris to be obsolete, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has re-galvanised that obsolete power, and tried as far as he could to revive judicial prosecutions. It has been said that I have attacked the Queen's Bench Judges. I have done nothing of the kind. I absolutely approve of the action of the Lord Chief Justice, but I object to the revival of an obsolete procedure for the purpose of vindicating anyone's lost self-love.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WEIRpointed out that, in regard to this Vote, there were several items which required some explanation. He noticed the item "three assistants" for which a sum of £1,000 is provided. One of those gentlemen is in receipt of a salary of £800, which appears to be a large amount; some explanation ought to be given us to how long that salary had been paid, and the age of the assistant. Another item to which he called attention was £450 for solicitor's clerks, an increase of £350 over the estimate of the previous year. He begged to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,694, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Weir.)
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he could give a very satisfactory explanation with regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Although there appeared to be some small increase in these items, there was really a decrease on the whole. A great part of the work of the Treasury Solicitor had formerly to be done on agency terms, a very well-known firm having done work of that character for many years; but a small Departmental Committee sat upon the question a few years ago, with the result that a Law Courts branch of the Treasury Solicitor's Offices was opened, which had resulted in a salving to the country of between,£3,000 and £4,000 a year. That was the explanation of the second item to which the attention of the Committee had been called. With regard to the first item, as to one of the assistants of the Queen's Proctor, that amount had appeared in the Estimates for many years; but it would be probably within the recollection of the Committee that there ceased to be a separate office for the Queen's Proctor some years ago. The office was abolished for the purposes of economy, and the work of the Queen's Proctor was undertaken by the Public Prosecutor, who took over certain officials from the office of the Queen's Proctor, among whom was the gentlemen whose salary had been called into question. When a vacancy arose the question of that salary would be considered. The work which had to be performed required some skill, and could not be done by an ordinary clerk. During the term of the present Government some, thousands a year had been saved for the country by the process of centralisation which had been adopted.
  MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.): I should like to ask one question. Is it proposed to extend the principle of centralisation? I noticed that when a vacancy occurred by the retirement of the solicitor to the Board of Trade another appointment was made.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid that this was a very important question, and there was no doubt that in matters of this

  31
  kind centralisation could be overdone if move work was attempted to be put on to a Department than it could compass. It was true there was a separate solicitor for the Board of Trade, the Office of Woods and Forests, the Customs, and the Post Office, and it was not certain that centralisation had not been carried too far in connection with the War Office. There were certain offices under the Homo Office the work of which ought to be carried out by the Treasury solicitor, and a good deal in a small way had been done to bring about that result. At one time there was a separate solicitor for the Attorney General, but on the death of the late solicitor a few years ago a small Departmental Committee sat and transferred those duties to the Law Courts branch of the Treasury solicitors. So far as the Government could, they had adopted the idea of centralisation, but it would be a very great mistake to carry the principle too far.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,689, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, including Grants in aid of the Expenses of the Incorporated Law Societies of England and Ireland."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to call attention to the amount of the item set down as a grant-in-aid to the Incorporated Law Societies of England and Ireland—£3,000. The Vote was first invented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but when it was first proposed it was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, then the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) also raised some arguments against it, and it was immediately withdrawn. But then a great lawyer's whip was issued, and a Wednesday resolution was passed, and in the next Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the item re-appeared, as at the suggestion of the House. He did not know whether there was any Incorporated Law Society of Scotland.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has Scotland got her £500?
  MR. CALDWELL: No.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (continuing)said the grant was a grant-in-aid for the purpose of enabling the Incorporated Law Societies, who were the greatest trades unions in the country, to strike solicitors off the rolls in case of misconduct. No-doubt the more there were struck off the fewer would remain to divide whatever fees there were to earn. But the pretext was that £2,500—which was the amount the English Incorporated Society received— was furnished to that body because, representing the solicitors, it took charge of the morals of the flock. It was constantly inquiring into the deeds, good and bad, of the flock, and whenever it found a black sheep it brought it before the council, and then before the Court, to be struck off the rolls, that power not being given to the Incorporated Law Society but to the Judges of the High Court. It was outrageous for the governing body of any society to-come to the nation and to profess to require from the nation payment in order to keep its own house clean, because that was what it amounted to. The barristers did not got a halfpenny. Was the Attorney General coming to Parliament to get another £2,000 (or what would be the relative proportion — £20,000?) to keep their house clean, for barristers? They did this without making any demand upon the nation at all, and so it always was with the solicitors up to a few years ago, when the proposal to give them a grant was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was outrageous that a body like this, professing to be animated by the highest principles of virtue and propriety, should come and ask for money to keep their house clean. Surely it was worth while to do this for themselves. The Committee would observe that there was a note to the grant setting forth that the expenditure would not be subject to audit. That meant that they were to pay £2,500 to the English society and £500 to the Irish society, and they were to have no knowledge whatever what was done with the money. They never had had any knowledge how the £2,500 was arrived at, and could not tell whether this was not a mon-

  33
  strously overrated sum to give to these societies for the purpose set forth. Let them assume for a moment that the purpose was a proper one, and that the nation should pay the solicitors for weeding out their evil brethren, what was there to show that this was the proper sum to pay for it? He had private and accurate information, which he did not feel at liberty to indicate in detail to the House, to the effect that £2,500 was largely in excess of anything that could properly be charged as the cost of the process of striking members off the roll and discovering their misdeeds. One of he most important questions he had to put was, how do you arrive at this £2,500 for the English society and £500 for the Irish society? Did the £2,500 include the rent of the buildings in which the society met? Did it include any proportion of their luncheons and other expenses of a purely personal nature? What were the items of which it was composed? Then again, why was this sum to be withdrawn from the Auditor and Comptroller General? That officer did not know how it was composed, he was not to be allowed to audit it, not a penny of any unexpended balance was to be refunded, and, there being thus no account, no audit, and no return, for aught the Committee could tell every halfpenny of it might be embezzled, or be applied to an entirely different purpose to that for which it was supposed to be voted. He had, of course, the highest opinion of lawyers, though he never dared to approach them until he was absolutely forced to do it. But he would entrust no man with £2,500 where luncheons, meetings, and rents of buildings were in the way unless he had a proper account at the end of each year. Here the proper method of audit contemplated by Parliament by an officer of the House was entirely thrown over. The Auditor and Comptroller General was the great and only check they had really upon the handling of the money after it left the hands of the House. The grants were appropriated by the Appropriation Act, but the House had always recognised that that of itself was not sufficient in order to the complete and proper security that the money had been applied to its proper destination. An officer was required. That officer was not an officer of the Ministry or the Crown; he was an officer of that House.
  34
  Without his fiat not a halfpenny could be drawn from the Bank of England, and when it was drawn out he had in every other case the absolute power to go into every single item and ask questions of the most minute kind. Then he made his report to the Public Accounts Committee, and again the whole thing was brought under review. Now, forsooth, they were called upon to vote this sum and not to know where a single halfpenny of it went! It was monstrous to ask them to continue the grant without the slightest information. It was conceivable that a wave of virtue might flow over the solicitors this year, and that no one of them would embezzle any of his client's money, or commit any of those acts which would render him liable to be struck off the roll. He did not expect it himself, but even if not a farthing of the £3,000 was expended for the purpose for which it was voted, they would never see a single farthing of it back. Under those circumstances, and also because this Vote had never been defensible, he moved the reduction of the Vote to the extent of £3,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item L (Grants-in-aid to Incorporated Law Societies of England and Ireland) be omitted from the Vote."— (Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that in Scotland the system had been to include in the salaries the expenses of Judges who went on circuit. They provided the expenses of their own lodgings. In England there was no control over the expenses of the Judges, and they did not know how much the charges came to in the case of one Judge or another. Perhaps the Attorney General would be able to say how many Judges went on circuit, and how much the expenses amounted to per head. The sum in the Estimates seemed a very large one. There was no need now for the paraphernalia and ceremony which formerly took place when Judges visited particular districts on circuit, and the sum of £21,300 seemed rather inordinate. It seemed also liable to abuse, because they had not got particulars regarding the expenditure of every item. The amount for revising barristers in the case of England was £25,463 (page 215), and then, on the

  35
  next page, they found that the local authorities repaid £12,731, or practically one half. He did not understand why it was that in the case of England revising; barristers should be paid out of the Imperial funds. In Scotland they had to pay nothing whatever. The charges were provided for out of the local rates entirely, and he failed to observe any principle for dividing it in the case of England between the Imperial Government and the local ratepayers. If there was any charge at all, why should it not be upon the local rates in England, the same as in Scotland? It was always advisable and necessary to call attention to these discrepancies between the two kingdoms, because it was certainly found that England got a large amount of subsidy out of the Imperial funds for which there was no corresponding payment to Scotland. With regard to the matter to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn had called attention, he said that in Scotland there was an Incorporated Law Society, on all fours with the Incorporated Law Societies of England and Ireland, and there was nothing in the Estimates going to that society. Possibly the Attorney General would tell them that the lawyers in Scotland were so virtuous that they did not require this supervision at all. He failed to see upon what principle the sum of £2,500 was given, but, if such a payment was to be made to private individuals—for that was what it came to—a regular detailed statement should be submitted and the money accounted for in the usual way. If the purging of the Roll of Solicitors was a public duty, which ought to be paid for by the country, let the amount actually spent be paid out of public funds under the usual supervision. The hon. Member had that morning received an invitation to a dinner of the Law Society, and he would be extremely interested to know, before accepting, whether any part of this money went to defray the cost of such functions. The system was altogether a wrong one, and he should support the reduction.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I was not aware until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that this subject would be raised this afternoon; but, as a member of the council of the society, though not of the discipline committee, I think it right
  36
  and due to my colleagues, I should say a word on the question. My hon. friend can scarcely be serious in suggesting that money given for this specific purpose is used for what he called lunches (which is immediately magnified by the hon. Gentleman opposite into dinners, and so on), and still less in suggesting the misappropriation of public money, which any acts such as those imputed would undoubtedly be.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I correct the hon. Member? What I said was that there was no security against it.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: My hon. friend will excuse me, but I do not think it is for any gentleman to impute fraud in dealing with matters of this sort. I thought it was part of his passing humour, but apparently he means it somewhat seriously. It is an easy part to play— that of evoking feeling against a particular class—but I cannot help thinking that the feeling which animated the hon. Gentleman is as old as the fifteenth century, when Jack Cade, another demagogue, said, "The first thing we do, let us kill all the lawyers." The history of this matter has been entirely forgotten. This is a payment of public money for a public service—a service imposed upon the Incorporated Law Society by statute. In pursuance of that statute the council of the society appoints a discipline committee, which acts judicially, and the findings of which may have to be approved by the court. In every sense of the term this is public work, performed, as I venture to suggest, in the public interest. It is contended that the payment is very excessive. I have no personal knowledge of the exact time demanded by the actual duties of the discipline committee, but I know that the committee has, unfortunately perhaps, to sit frequently, and I remember one case— that of a person named Beall, who was ultimately convicted—upon which the discipline committee sat for some twenty-eight or thirty days at intervals. Counsel were employed; the man was afterwards heard before the court itself, and counsel had to be again instructed. The fees for all these purposes had to be paid, and to say that there should be a detailed accounting for this money—not, after all, a large sum in itself, and there are lump sums quite as large in the Estimates

  37
  which are similarly dealt with—every year is, I think, under the circumstances, putting a somewhat small matter rather too high. The fact is that the question was considered very carefully by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this amount was agreed, upon an average based on previous work and experience, as a fair remuneration for the service to be rendered by the society. I am told that, so far from there being any surplus, quite the reverse is the case. When my hon. friend asks whether there is any payment for rent of premises—of course there is, or ought to be, in one sense though perhaps not in terms. The investigations are held at the Law Institution.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERwas understood to dissent from the statement that there was a payment for rent.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: There is no payment of a specific item for rent, but the agreed sum covers the use of the hall for the purpose of hearing the investigations. The discipline committee sits there as a tribunal. To suggest, as did the hon. Member opposite, that the money is paid to private individuals is altogether wrong. On the contrary, this is the administration of a public duty in the public, no less than a professional interest. If my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, instead of saying his information is from a private and accurate source, would tell us whence it comes, I venture to say it would be found that though private it is altogether inaccurate —so inaccurate that when similar representations were made through the same channels which are well known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the society was at once most properly called upon to vindicate its position, an admittedly and absolutely conclusive answer was made to the allegations. I cannot help thinking that it is going much too far to make against a public institution charges such as have been suggested this afternoon without the slightest foundation, and that such a course of action is a very poor return for the performance of a compulsory public service.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: In regard to this matter I can put the House in possession of certain facts which will show my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn that he is really quite mis-
  38
  informed. I will not say anything with regard to the tone of his speech except that I regret the hon. Gentleman should have thought fit to speak of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society in the way he has, and to say that they were receiving an outrageously larger sum than is ever expended.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Those are the words used.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No; pardon me. I said, "For all we know."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: To use even hypothetically such words as "embezzlement" and "spending the money on luncheons, rent, and other unlawful purposes" certainly does not conduce to the fair investigation of the matter. The hon. Member below the gangway has stated quite accurately a certain part of the story, but he has omitted one or two rather important points which I would venture to supply so that the House may understand the position. Prior to the Act of 51 and 52 Vic.—that is, prior to the year 1888—the work of investigating the conduct of solicitors against whom complaints were made was done by an officer of the High Court. The Masters had to investigate the charges in Chambers. Having in days gone by appeared for and against solicitors in such proceedings, I can say that the inquiries were long and tedious, and were not, perhaps, carried out under the most satisfactory circumstances, because, skilled though the Masters were, they had not the mass of knowledge that the leading members of the legal profession would have of such matters. I have known cases to last forty or fifty days, so that the charge on the public time was very considerable. A most careful investigation was made into the matter, and it was found in the year 1888 that the average cost of the disciplinary duties was no less than £4,500 per annum. I say, so that there may be no misunderstanding, that not one farthing was included in that for luncheons, dinners, or other corrupt payments, or even for any rent properly so called. Nothing was paid to the Incorporated Law Society for rent. It is perfectly true that the society placed their premises at the disposal of the discipline committee, but the hon. Member con-

  39
  veyed an erroneous impression if he was understood to say they made any charge for the premises. No charge of any sort or kind was made. The amount having been fixed at £4,500, an application was made to the Treasury, and, so far from taking a figure largely in excess of the sum expended, the Incorporated Law Society receives, after a resolution of the House of Commons recognising the principle that a portion of the expense should be borne by public funds, a payment of £2,500 a year. I have not got the actual figures for the present year. I do not know who saw fit to instruct the hon. Member for King's Lynn to bring these charges.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Nothing of the kind.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The expenses every year have exceeded the £2,500, and not one single farthing has been made by the Incorporated Law Society on this account. I do not complain of the principle of the hon. Member, for he is perfectly entitled to say that the Incorporated Law Society ought to do this work for nothing. I had something to do with representing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the position of matters was, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolver-hampton was good enough to assist me in investigating this matter to see what would be a fair contribution to the Incorporated Law Society for taking upon themselves this work. With regard to the way in which the work is done, I believe that the actual investigation by the Incorporated Law Society is much more satisfactory than any inquiry before the Master. I am perfectly satisfied that there is no real and substantial ground for the objection which the hon. Member has raised with respect to this work. With regard to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, I am quite willing to give the information he asks for. The figure quoted by him has nothing whatever to do with the payments made to the Judges. The sheriff's have to find the Judges' lodgings, and a number of other expenses have to be incurred by them when Judges are on circuit, and of late years we have found very considerable difficulty in getting men to serve in this capacity. In Lancashire there are now ten assizes where there used to be
  40
  only two; in Yorkshire there are six where there used to be only two; and in Bristol and many other towns there are now four where there used to be only two. Some years ago a contribution was made in the shape of an allowance to the sheriff for these expenses, and I am informed that these allowances have been revised by the Treasury, and that the sheriffs are paid upon a fixed scale. These expenses have increased from £13,000 in 1890 to £21,000 in 1899, and they have been paid according to the scale.
  MR. CALDWELL: That was not my point. My point is that in Scotland these expenses are included in the salaries.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: In Great Britain the sheriffs have no salary; not-only this, but they are actually out of pocket.
  MR. CALDWELL: When a Judge goes on circuit in Scotland there are no such allowances, for he pays these expenses himself, and it is all included in his salary.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The High Sheriff is the gentleman in respect of whom the expenses are paid, and I think it is a proper contribution, and it is authorised by law. With regard to the revising barristers, they have previously had to deal with Parliamentary elections only, but when county elections were included in their work an arrangement was made by which half of the increase in their salaries should be paid by the county.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not think the Attorney General has been very successful in the answers he has given. He professes to be in a good temper, but he has an amiable and oleaginous manner of insinuating most irrelevant things. He says I have been instructed to bring these charges, but I have not been instructed by anybody. I bring forward matters which are worthy of the attention of this Committee without any instructions at all, and I have taken no fee. I am not an Attorney General or a barrister, and as a Member of this House I act upon nobody's instructions. The Attorney General in his reply is as irrelevant as he is offensive. What I want is an account. What I said at the beginning is that we are asked to vote £3,000 and we have never been

  41
  told how it is made up. Let us have some figures as to how this sum is composed. The Attorney General makes his very long, very righteous, and very slippery speech, and he never gives a single figure of this operation by which one solicitor is allowed to assassinate another. I want to know how this sum is made up. I believe the hon. Member for South Islington is a member of this virtuous Star Chamber.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: The Council have nothing to do with it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My hon. friend is a member of this superior council, and he told us that this item includes an agreed sum of £2,500, which covers the rent of the hall; but the Attorney General says it does not.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I am sure that my hon. friend does not intend to misrepresent what I said. I said that of course the item included some consideration for the use of the place in which the
  tribunal sat, but not as any part of an agreed sum.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The words used by the hon. Member were that the agreed sum covered the rent of the hall, and the Attorney General says it does not. There is an easy way of settling this question, and it is by giving us an account. Surely the Attorney General can tell us how this £3,000 is composed. I shall be quite satisfied if this is done, but it is perfectly absurd for the hon. Gentleman to try and throw odium upon me because I claim no more than a proper audit. Will he give us the items or allow a proper audit? If he will do this I will at once withdraw my motion. As he has made no attempt to meet me in this matter except by insinuations as baseless as they are ridiculous, I shall divide on the motion for reduction.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 45; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 102.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  Runciman, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Burns, John

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Caldwell, James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Holland, William Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Colville, John

  Langley, Batty

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Dilke, Lit. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duckworth, James

  Maddison, Fred

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Woods, Samuel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. E. J. C. Morton.

  Gold, Charles

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Price, Robert John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt Sir. Alex F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Butcher, John George

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, K.)

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Flower, Ernest

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A H Smith-(Hunts)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Un.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fowler, Right Hon. Sir Henry

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gartit, William

  Bethell, Commander

  Cornwallis, F'iennes Stanley, W.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Billson, Alfred

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Blake, Edward

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Bond, Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Boulnois, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edward

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Gunter, Colonel

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  M'Killop, James

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Hanbury, Kt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Heath, James

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert E.

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Hoare, Edward B. (Hampstead)

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Mil ward, Colonel Victor

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Spencer, Ernest

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Monk, Charles James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Kimber, Henry

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kitson, Sir James

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Ure, Alexander

  Knowles, Lees

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.(Kent)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Crn.)

  Pender, Sir James

  Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Percy, Earl

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Leng, Sir John

  Plunkett, lit. Hon. Horace C.

  Wyndham, George

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Robinson, Brooke

  Resolution agreed to.

  3. £185,490, to complete the sum for Supreme Court of Judicature.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before this Vote is taken I desire, not to move a reduction, but to endeavour to elicit, if possible, some information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the circuit system. The system in vogue at present, by which the country is divided into a number of areas, is provided for by the Judicature Act, 1875, which empowers Her Majesty by Order in Council to make the necessary arrangements. Under such Orders in Council a circuit may be recast and the places and dates for holding assizes may be changed. It is admitted even by so high an authority. as the Lord Chancellor that the attempt to combine the present circuit system with London business has not been altogether satisfactory. A great deal remains to be done to economise the time of Judges, jurors, and witnesses, to accelerate the administration of justice, and to save public money. As between £30,000 and £40,000 is included in this Vote for circuit expenditure, it is an opportune occasion for raising the general question of the intentions of the Government with regard to the circuit system. The dates for holding assizes are now so distributed that at the winter assizes held in January there is only a small accumulation of cases. At the spring or
  44
  summer assizes in May or June there is a larger accumulation because of the longer period which intervenes between the two assizes, and at the autumn assizes, which are held about the middle of November, there is a very large accumulation of cases. The result is that there may be as many as forty cases at an autumn assizes, whereas there may be only half a dozen cases at a winter assizes. This unequal distribution renders it difficult to provide for the anticipated requirements of the circuits, and it also involves an enormous waste of the time of the Judges and of the grand and petty jurors who have to attend the assizes. It involves, further, a very great social mischief, inasmuch as where there is a very heavy list all the parties concerned and all the witnesses have necessarily to wait about the precincts of a criminal court from day to day for perhaps a whole fortnight. But the greatest injustice is not done to the counsel or professional men or witnesses, but too frequently to the prisoners. Many of the prisoners committed after the summer assizes are detained in prison for periods extending from eight to twenty weeks; and yet after all they are found to be perfectly innocent. The arrangements for the circuit are at present dependent on an Order in Council of 1893, supplemented by an Order in Council of last year. The latter Order goes but a very small way towards removing

  45
  the injustice, as it only deals with three counties—Kent, Sussex, and Surrey. In order to get through with their work, the Judges have frequently to sit from ten o'clock in the morning till ten, and eleven, and sometimes twelve o'clock at night. Now, is it fair to expect Judges, counsel and jurors to sit these long hours and do justice to the cases brought before them? Mr. Justice Hawkins stated a short time ago that in three cases of acquittal the prisoners had already suffered more punishment than he would have inflicted had they been found guilty. The cruelty and injustice of the prolonged detention of prisoners is not only admitted but deplored by the Judges on the bench. So much for the strain on the Judges and on the prisoners. The judicial statistics for the last complete year show that of the men who were acquitted, forty-eight had been detained between eight and twelve weeks awaiting trial, twenty-three had been detained between twelve and sixteen weeks awaiting trial, and no fewer than fifteen had been detained for more than sixteen weeks before trial. All these men, be it remembered, were innocent men. On the 18th July last the Home Secretary, in reply to an hon. Member on the other side of the House, said that the question of the long detention of prisoners should not be lost sight of.* On the 4th July last a request was made from this side of the House for the appointment of some kind of tribunal or Royal Commission, or Departmental Committee, to inquire into the matter. The First Lord of the Treasury replied "that there was no reason for such an inquiry, as all the facts were in the hands of the public; some remedy had already been devised, but he understood that that remedy was insufficient; the matter was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, who would have some proposal to make before long of a legislative character."† Now, I have sought in vain for any indication of any legislative proposal either here or elsewhere. I am not aware of any proposal which meets the case of injustice that I have put before the House. The grievance is an old-standing one; the Bar Committee have over and over again condemned the unreasonable length of time which prisoners
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxiv., page 1172.
  † See Ibid., Vol. lxxiii., page 1424.
  46
  are detained awaiting trial. I hope the Government will give some information to the House as to what they propose to do in regard to this matter.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am sure no one who has listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman but must recognise the extreme importance of the question brought before the House. I am quite satisfied that you cannot effect a reform in the circuit system without doing something to delegate some part of the circuit Judges' duties to other officers. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the question is intimately connected with County Court procedure, and includes matters over which I have no personal control, and therefore I can only discuss it in general terms. I believe that County Court procedure has had very careful consideration of the Lord Chancellor and the Judges, although, unfortunately, I am not able to go into details on the matter. Our old circuit system does not adapt itself to modern requirements, and no part of our judicial procedure has more occupied the thought of the Judges, barristers, and solicitors, but it is unfortunate that no change has yet ever been suggested which did not offend some local interest, and excite strong opposition. I believe that if half a dozen or a dozen practising lawyers, independent of party, were to sit down at a table and draw up an ideal circuit system, they would be able to get rid of many of the anomalies to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred; but as soon as the plan was promulgated it would meet with strong opposition from many quarters. One of the grievances referred to is that Judges are frequently taken to towns where they have little or nothing to do; but we know that these matters have to be arranged beforehand, and dates have to be fixed in ignorance of the amount of business that will come on. I agree that the system cannot be adapted readily to the present circumstances, but it is extremely difficult to devise any improvement without inflicting some injury or slight on some person or another. A change in the system is certainly needed, whereby waste of time, expense, and late sittings would be avoided. Since I first came into office in 1885 five of the most hard-working and ablest Judges of the Queen's Bench Division have devised schemes of reform, but they have not met

  47
  with any support. One Judge of the North-Eastern Circuit spent months in devising a scheme, and submitted it to the judgment of Lord Coleridge. But no sooner was the scheme published than it excited the strongest opposition in various parts of the country, simply because it interfered with a long-standing state of things. A good deal has been done in recent years, but I quite admit that much remains to be done when the House of Commons is sufficiently stalwart to resist the pressure of interested constituencies. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the existing circuit system is incompatible with continuous judicial work in London. I think there is a grievance in London in that respect, although it has been exaggerated. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of repeated visits of Judges in one part of England compared with other parts. All I say is that these repeated visits may lead to too much centralisation. Another difficulty is that some Judges say the present system is perfect. I do not agree with them; but at the same time where you have different influences permeating the country and coming from different persons it is very easy to talk of reforms, but very difficult to get them accomplished. So far as I know, it is the intention of the Government to do the best that can be done by cutting down the number of places to which Judges go unnecessarily, and to frame rules to give more elasticity, and avoid those spurts of work which frequently put undue pressure upon the court. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the period prisoners were detained in prison before trial. A few sessions ago the Home Secretary issued instructions, the result of which was to largely reduce the period during which untried prisoners wore detained; and it is the practice of Judges to grant bail unless there are paramount reasons for refusing it. At the same time, I agree that that does not remove all the grievances of delay, and it is possible, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that innocent men have been detained before trial for a period longer than the Judge would have sentenced them to had they been guilty. Personally, I am strongly in favour of minor charges being speedily tried, and the prisoners brought before a Court of Quarter Sessions. That would be a means of relieving the assize courts of many of the trumpery
  48
  charges which are brought before them. The House of Commons has not yet made up its mind to extend the jurisdiction of quarter sessions, and if there were more stipendiary magistrates it would lead to a considerable increase in expenditure. The subject bristles with difficulties, and I cannot hope to give the hon. and learned Gentleman much satisfaction; but I can assure him that the desirability of a satisfactory arrangement being reached is in the minds of Her Majesty's advisers as much as his own.
  4. £19,246, to complete the sum for Land Registry.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 in order to raise a question with regard to the considerable increase in respect to the Vote for the Land Registry. The present Estimate of Expenditure showed an increase of 50 per cent. compared with the fees received for the transactions which took place at the Land Registry. He failed to discover why, for ordinary purposes, the increase was necessary. The Registry, judging from personal experience, took a very considerable time in doing its work. There was no pressure upon it, and he could not see any reason for the increase which appeared on the Estimates. He also noticed that there was a Bill before the House under which it was proposed to take a large sum of money—some £33,000, he thought—in addition to the tem the Committee was now discussing for the purpose of new buildings. He did not propose to raise the whole question of land registration and land transfer in the slightest degree, for there were some differences of opinion about it within, as without, the profession, and he wished for no general controversy, but there did appear to be an enormous increase in the Estimate, and he hoped the Committee would receive a satisfactory assurance that there was not, as there appeared to be on the face of the Estimate, any departure from the arrangement entered into advisedly by the Government, with the knowledge, if not through the direct intermediation, of the Attorney General, under which the Land Transfer Bill was allowed to go through, and by which there was to be a trial of compulsory land registration, limited to one county

  49
  (London) in the first instance, for three years. The system came into operation in part of the county of London in 1899, and the partial experiment therefore would not be concluded until 1902, and the whole trial not until some two years later. And yet there was this new building and this largely-increased sum. Having regard to the arrangement which had been entered into, it would be convenient to the Committee to have the assurances for which he asked. He could not congratulate the Land Registry on the speedy manner in which it had conducted its work, and he thought it would be interesting to hear first of all whether the assurances given at the time the Land Transfer Bill was passed had been, and would be, fully carried out; and secondly, how far land registration had succeeded up to the present time which was a matter not only of professional but of much public interest.
  MR. CALDWELLpointed out that, from the point of view of expense, whilst on the one side there was an increase in the expenditure of £9,000, on the other there was an increase in the receipts of £13,000, so that on that ground there was no deficit. Looking at it from another point of view, it was necessary to see how far the fees were in excess of what was really legitimate, because in questions of registration it was expected that the receipts should balance to a very large extent the expenditure, and if the large expenditure of £13,000 was deducted from the receipts there was a balance of £20,000 to the bad. Having looked at the matter from all points, he came to the conclusion that the increase of £3,000 was due to the extension of the Land Registry Act of 1897. The system of registration in England was far better than that of Scotland, and in his opinion the increase appearing in the Estimates would pay all the expenses of the Land Registry and the expenses of building as well.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITthought the hon. Gentleman was a little mistaken as to the figures when he pointed out that there was a credit balance; for the last three years the receipts had been stationary at £20,000, whilst the expenses had risen from £23,000 in the previous year to £32,000 in the present.
  MR. BILLSONinvited the Attorney General to tell the Committee
  50
  what was really the position. Hon. Gentlemen had spoken mysteriously of changes which had taken place, but very few hon. Members knew anything of the matter. He was very anxious to know how far the system had succeeded in London up to the present. It had been applied by the London County Council, the experience of which was to be the test and guide to indicate to other county councils as to whether or not they would be wise in adopting the system. He thought it would be found that some pressure would have to be brought to bear by the Government on the county councils of the country in order to get them to adopt the measure. What the Committee really wanted to know was what was being done.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he desired to supplement the questions already addressed to the Attorney General by one with regard to possessory titles. He would ask the Government to say to what extent the owners of real estate had availed themselves of the provisions for registering possessory titles, which, in the course of time, would become absolute titles.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERregretted that the information asked for was not at the moment available, but undertook to have inquiries made before the Report stage, and give the House full information of the actual business done. He thought that possibly the information was not forthcoming owing to the fact that the system had been working for so short a period. The statistics asked had not been supplied, those which were supplied being general in their character. With regard to the second point which had been raised, he could not help thinking that a large increase in the receipts must have been anticipated, otherwise there would be no justification for such a large increase appearing in the present Estimates. There was not the slightest intention of departing from the understanding which had been arrived at at the time of the passing of the Land Transfer Act, and no step had been taken to depart from it. In point of fact, in consequence of that understanding, the Act had not been put so fully into force as might otherwise have been the case had no understanding been arrived at. The Act had come into force over the county of London not all at once, but by instalments, which would not otherwise have

  51
  been the case. The increase of expenditure was due to the increase of staff necessitated by the increase of business which had taken place, and also that which it was anticipated would take place. Although one ought not to be too sanguine at such an early stage, the increase in the work had been such that it was confidently anticipated it would continue to increase. The object and usefulness of the Act had been made apparent. He was afraid he could not answer the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire with regard to the actual number of those who had availed themselves of the privilege of registering possessory titles. But there had been a very large increase in the ordinary work of registration. The transactions under the old Registration Title Acts, which were Acts to which the hon. Member referred, wore, in 1897, 934. In 1898 there were 1,120; in 1899 there were no fewer than 5,535. Under that one head alone, therefore, the business in 1899 was five times as great as in the previous year. Unfortunately he was not able to say what proportion of these, figures represented the actual registration of new titles, but there had been very substantial progress and a steady growth of business under the Land Registry Act, because the searches for charges and discharges showed in the last year an increase of 2,000. He did not know that he could at the present moment say more than that. The estimated increase of the expenditure was required by the absolutely necessary increase of staff, having regard not only to the Land Transfer Act but also to the work which was conducted under the Land Charges Act. This increase would be more than met by the estimated receipts, assuming the estimate not to be an unduly sanguine one. Perhaps he ought to add that the increase of the building and accommodation of the Land Registry Office would have to be undertaken quite independently of the Land Charges Act, in consequence of the increase of business and the amalgamation of the offices.
  5. £19,925, to complete the sum for County Courts.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEcalled attention to the points he had raised from time to
  52
  time with regard to the fees of the County Courts. He said he had so often addressed the Government on the subject that it was idle to labour the question at this stage, and he would just ask the Attorney General what he proposed to do.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid it was perfectly true that in some undefended cases the fees in County Courts were higher than they would have been in the High Court. The question of the fees charged in certain cases in the County Court was being investigated by a committee of County Court Judges. They had not yet reported, and he was rather-surprised that their report had not been received.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITpointed out the necessity of an extension of the County Court jurisdiction. Under the present circuit system we were always talking of wanting Judges, and at the same time were continually wasting Judges. Local interests and feeling ought not to be allowed to supersede national interests, which were paramount. The time and possible services of the chief officers of County Courts were also much wasted. When he was a Registrar of a County Court, on one side proofs of debt amounting to £30,000 or £40,000 could be dealt with by him, whilst on the common law side his jurisdiction was limited to the paltry amount of forty shillings. In his opinion no real reform could take place in the County Courts until they were recognised as Courts of First Instance and as branches of the High Court. If that were done a great deal of business would be transacted locally without much expense, and if the present rule that the jurisdiction could only be extended by consent were reversed, and suitors were permitted to enter their causes for any amount, subject to a right of removal above a certain sum, either as of right, the County Courts would be much more used for the local administration of justice. But probably at the present moment all the House could hope for was. some moderated extension of the present very anomalous jurisdictions of the County Courts. He was glad to hear that a committee was investigating the subject, but the natural corollary of that was that no legislation could be expected during the present session. He hoped, however, that something would be done in the matter

  53
  very early next year, and he should give notice to that effect.
  MR. BILLSONsaid he did not think the Attorney General knew how very seriously the question of County Court reform weighed upon the people in the north of England. It was a subject which came before them constantly. There was never a meeting of the local Chamber of Commerce nor a conference of the various tradesmen's societies unless this question was raised. When private Members brought in Bills, other local Members were inundated with applications from their constituents to support the Bill brought in. Constituents did not seem to understand, however, that a measure of this kind could not be passed at the instance of a private Member. He hoped that next session a County Courts Bill would be put into the Queen's Speech and receive the serious consideration of the Government. They knew that these matters were not attended to, because party capital could not be made out of them and no pressure could be put upon the Government with regard to them. He hoped, however, the Attorney General would crown his career by bringing in a Bill of this kind and by making a reform in the law which would be hailed with acclamation in commercial circles.
  THE CHAIRMAN*THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, said it was quite irregular to discuss in Committee of Supply a question of proposed legislation.
  6. £31,778, to complete the sum for Police, England and Wales.
  7. £358,964, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.
  8. £121,623, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
  9. £23,946, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

  CLASS I.
  10. £18,000, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
  11. £176,000, to complete the sum for Revenue Buildings.
  MR. GIBSON" BOWLESasked whether these buildings included any
  54
  building in connection with the new telephone service. Could the Secretary of the Treasury give the Committee any information as to the progress of the telephone service?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston)replied that there was one building in connection with the new telephone service in London. They were hurrying on with the service as rapidly as they could, and they expected to have a considerable portion of London served by the close of the year. He felt the necessity of urging on the work more rapidly than at present, and he would use all the influence he had at the Post Office to get the work done as soon as possible.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the emergency had become rather pressing, and it would be a relief to many in the metropolis to know that they were not to be left without a telephone service.
  12. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £188,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
  MR. WEIRsaid he could not understand why the work in connection with the extensions of the Register House, Edinburgh, was not being pushed forward more energetically. Were the extensions for the purpose of providing a better system of registration and indexing, both of which were very faulty?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir, that is exactly the reason for which this money is asked. The accommodation in the Register House is not sufficient for the work carried on, or for the comfort and convenience of those who go there on business. The hon. Member will remember that, a few years ago, I proposed the acquisition of a property in St. James's Square immediately behind the Register House. That has been acquired, and it is proposed to extend the Register House for the very purpose suggested by the hon. Member, to provide for the

  55
  greater convenience of those engaged there, and those who have to go there on business.
  MR. WEIR: When will the extension be finished?
  MR. HANBURY: I am afraid I cannot give the actual date when the work will be finished, but I can assure the hon. Member that no time will be lost. I am very anxious, personally, to see this matter carried through, and I can give him my assurance that no delay I can prevent shall take place.
  MR. CHANNINGasked what the increase in the Estimate for the National Portrait Gallery was for, and whether it included any provision for increasing the light and making it more effective.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)said the matter of lighting did not rest entirely with himself, but with the managers of the National Portrait Gallery. The suggestion of the hon. Member would receive consideration, and if anything could be done he would be very glad to give effect to it.
  MR. BUTCHER: I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the very excessive number of drinking places which are about the Royal Courts of Justice. I do not for one moment say that it may not be very dry work to listen to some of the discussions which take place in that building, but I do say that the facilities for refreshment by means of intoxicating liquors are far too numerous. Anyone who has ever gone into the courts will recollect that immediately outside some of them are what might be called drinking bars.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question does not arise on this Vote. It is only for ventilation.
  MR. BUTCHER: It is for the buildings of the Royal Courts of Justice. Of course if it is more convenient to raise the question on another Vote, I will do so.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The administration of the Courts does not come under this Vote. The question my hon. and learned friend wishes to raise should have been raised on the Vote for the Lord Chancellor's salary, as the administration
  56
  of the Courts is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. BUTCHER: Inasmuch as this is a Vote for buildings, and inasmuch as the drinking shops are upon the buildings, I conceive that the question may be raised on this Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Minister in charge of the Vote has stated that he has no authority upon the matter.
  MR. BUTCHER: Perhaps the Minister in charge will say who is responsible.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have been explaining to my hon. and learned friend that questions of administration are in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked how the difference was made up on the Vote for the Imperial Institute, and the buildings of the University of London. The original Estimate was £62,000, and the Estimate now was £68,770. He did not object to the expenditure, on the contrary, he hoped the time would soon come when a real teaching university would be adequately supplied. Here again the question of drinking facilities arose. There was a contract for the supply of refreshments at the Imperial Institute which made the University of London a sort of tied house of the contractor. He should be glad to know if the University of London was at liberty to make its own arrangements for its students in connection with facilities of that character.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid the question his hon. friend had asked as to drinking accommodation was one upon which he had no information. He was simply in charge of the Vote for the buildings, and he took it that the authority in charge of the administration would be the authority to ask in connection with the drinking bars. With regard to the future of the house from which the London University had recently removed, he was afraid that was a matter upon which he could give no information. There had been a large number of applications from scientific societies in London that the rooms lately occupied by the London University should be handed over to them, but the Government had not seen their way to do so; they

  57
  were, however, ready to consider any application for the use of the lecture theatre in the same way as it was now used by the Royal Geographical Society. So far as the use of the buildings in other ways went, although no decision had yet been come to, he could say that the buildings would be required entirely for permanent purposes of the Government, and he was afraid he could hold out no hope that any of those scientific societies would receive a permanent home there. The difference between the original and the revised Estimates for the Imperial Institute and the University of London represented the additional cost for additional alterations, a larger scheme of sanitary arrangements, and electric lighting and heating, and also for extra furniture required.
  MR. BUTCHERcalled attention to the Estimate on page 42 for the electric lighting of the Law Courts. He did not object to the electric lighting of the Law Courts, but he objected to the amount expended for the lighting of certain refreshment bars. He proposed to reduce the Vote by £100, because he considered that expenditure of a wholly improper character. He questioned the necessity of having immediately outside the Chancery Courts a large drinking bar, which was attended by witnesses and clerks. If there was to be a drinking place at all which was to be electrically lighted, and on which they were asked to spend money, it should be below stairs, where it could be resorted to if necessary, but where there would not be daily and immediate temptation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself strictly to the lighting.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid the objection he had to the lighting was that they spent so much on it, and if there was any portion of the buildings used for purposes which were wholly unnecessary, then he conceived that they should not be called upon to spend the money on lighting that portion. He submitted that there were portions of the buildings which they were called on to pay for lighting, and which ought not to be lighted, because they were wholly unnecessary. It was a useless, unnecessary, and mischievous expenditure, and the Committee ought not to be asked to sanction it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Maintenance and Repairs) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Butcher.)
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I sympathise with a great deal my hon. and learned friend has said regarding certain portions of the building being too well lighted. It would be well if they were left more in darkness, so that people might not find their way so readily to them. I think I ought to add that the lighting of these parts of the building has not escaped the attention of the Lord Chancellor, who has already caused the lighting of them to be considerably curtailed. If my hon. and learned friend represents to the Lord Chancellor that there is too much illumination of this kind, I have no doubt attention will be paid to his protest.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could only regard this as a veiled attack upon the Lord Chancellor. The argument of his hon. and learned friend was that, ever since 1895, the Lord Chancellor had gone on encouraging exaggerated lighting of places for getting tipsy in the Law Courts. If these bars were wrong they were the last places where they should reduce the lighting. Unless they had them properly lighted people would not be able to tell whether they were drinking sherry or water, and a person wishing to find his way into a Chancery Court might walk into a drinking bar with consequences that might be awful. His hon. and learned friend would surely not grudge to the unfortunate suitor, exhausted by long waiting, the solace which whisky alone sometimes could give.
  MR. WEIRasked for information as to the cost per unit of the electrical current supplied to the Law Courts, and as to who was responsible for the plans of the bars in the Courts.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASwas afraid he could not answer the question with regard to the position of the bars. He was not aware that any regular bars had been designed, and he had not been asked to provide any in recent years. His Department had no control over the sale of refreshments at the Courts, or power to select the actual spots on which bars should be placed. That was entirely in the hands of those responsible for the

  59
  administration of the building. As to the cost per unit of the electric light, he had not the exact figure before him, but he believed the supply was very satisfactory on the whole.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On a point of order, Sir. Is the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else in order in discussing on this Vote the cost of electric light? This is a Vote not for electric light, but for the salaries of attendants.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I will give the hon. Member opposite all the information he desires.
  MR. BUTCHER: After the sympathetic answer of the Attorney General it seems probable that this unnecessary and excessive expenditure in illuminating portions of the Law Courts, to which I will not: further refer, will be diminished in future. I will therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. [Cries of "No."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: After the distinct disclaimer of the Minister in charge of the Vote of all control over the liars to which the hon. Member has taken exception, I do not think I ought to accept this motion for a reduction of the Vote. I said at the commencement of his speech that I thought it was out of order, but he persisted in going on with it.
  DR. TANNER: Then may I ask why this useless discussion was carried on for a considerable time — over half an hour? It seems ridiculous.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Because the right hon. Gentleman has only just stated distinctly for the first time that he was not responsible.
  DR. TANNER: I accept his apology, Mr. Lowther.
  13. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £127,609, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I am sorry to be obliged once more to trouble the Committee with the question of temporary Civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey. I can only hope that my right hon. friend will muzzle me in the only effectual way, which is by promising that justice shall at last be done. It is very well known to all Members who are interested in the temporary Civil assistants that the whole of the trouble and difficulty arose from a mistaken prophecy made in 1870, when the late Sir Henry James, Director General of the Ordnance Survey, stated that the survey would be complete by 1880. This was a most unfortunate prophecy, because the work, instead of stopping in 1880, has enormously increased in bulk and importance, while recent events have proved that there is very much room yet for the development of the work. The result of that unfortunate forecast is that men who expected to be at work on the Ordnance Survey for ten years have now been at the work for thirty years, and they are apparently no nearer getting the pensions they have so absolutely and honestly earned and deserved than they were twenty years ago. But there are still persons who imagine that the staff of the Ordnance Survey will be greatly reduced in the next few years. That is a threat which has been held over these men from time immemorial. But how can the staff of the Ordnance Survey ever be reduced? How can the work of the staff be reduced? It stands to reason that plans must be prepared and maps made, and as this Empire increases in power and magnitude, more and more maps will be required, and the work of the Ordnance Survey, instead of decreasing, must enormously increase. We have only to look at the past to see what must and will happen in the future. In the year in which Sir Henry James prophesied the work would be finished—1880—the staff had increased from 863 to 1,028 in number; in 1891 it had further increased to 1,609; and I believe it has gone on ever since in a like ratio. The Departmental Committee's Report of 1892 says—
  "As the Survey will require continuous revision and republication it will have, to be maintained as a permanent Department."
  I therefore cannot in the least understand how people can imagine that the number of assistants is going to decrease. It is

  61
  also perfectly extraordinary how the sale of maps has increased. I will not trouble the Committee with the yearly increase. In 1893-4 the sale of maps produced.£13,343; in 1896–7 it produced £17,715; and the rate of increase has continued to the present day. But I will now leave the ancient history of 1870, and come to more modern times. Last year I had the honour of introducing a large and important deputation of members of this committee to the Minister for Agriculture, and this grievance of the Ordnance Survey Staff' was laid before the right hon. Gentleman. I need scarcely say we were received with all possible kindness and courtesy. The right hon. Gentleman promised to draw up a scheme which he would submit to the Treasury with a view to at any rate mitigating the difficulty and grievance complained of. That promise having been made, it is perfectly unnecessary that I should say that it was carried out with the greatest punctuality. On the 8th February last I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether a scheme had been laid before the Treasury, and, if so, whether there was any objection to stating what answer the Treasury had made. The question was answered by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and these were his words*—
  "The Board of Agriculture have submitted such a scheme to me semi-officially. There are, of course, serious objections in principle to granting pensions to men whose salaries have been based on the clearly stated fact that they would not be entitled to pensions; and even if these objections did not exist I understand that the Board of Agriculture cannot name the particular Civil assistants whose service will now be permanent. Permanency of employment is, of course, one of the conditions of pension rights.
  I hope my right hon. friend will not for one moment think me discourteous if I say that these salaries were not granted on the absolutely clearly stated fact that the men would not be entitled to pension. The fact may have been stated to some of them, but it was never stated to the individuals seeking employment. In 1894, fifty-seven Civil assistants who had joined the service between September 29th, 1870, and January 4th, 1873, were admitted to the permanent staff because the suspension of the Superannuation Act was not made known to those who joined
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., page 926.
  62
  the Ordnance Survey after September 29th, 1870. But this looks as if the suspension of the Superannuation Act was made known to everybody who joined the service after that date. That was not the case at all. A personal friend of mine who joined in October, 1873— nine months after the mystic date—told me on his word of honour that he was distinctly assured that if he joined the Ordnance Survey as a temporary Civil assistant he would be pensioned.
  MR. HANBURY: Who assured him he would get a pension?
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: That I cannot tell you, but I will discover. When Colonel Leach, who held a very high position in the Ordnance Survey, was asked what steps were taken to give this information to lads who wished to be employed on the Ordnance Survey, he replied that—
  "It was an instruction for the directors, not intended for publication, but having been laid before Parliament, was obtainable by anyone."
  That answer I have seen in Colonel Leach's own handwriting, and a more unsatisfactory reply I cannot imagine. What boy of fourteen is likely to think of getting Parliamentary Papers to see whether at the age of sixty he will have a pension or not? If this was the only publication, it is scarcely correct to say that it was "clearly stated" that these men would not be entitled to pensions when they reached the proper age. Then my right hon. friend says that the Board of Agriculture "cannot name the particular Civil assistants whose service will now be permanent." What does that mean? I cannot understand why the Board of Agriculture should name the particular individuals who would be employed permanently. Why should not the Treasury say they will give pensions to the 100 senior assistants on reaching the age of sixty? No injustice would be done to anyone by such a course, and if my right hon. friend will promise to do that I will promise most faithfully not to worry him any more about the temporary Civil assistants during the life of this Parliament. In his answer the Financial Secretary said that "permanent employment is one of the conditions of pension rights." Of course it is. But what is permanent employment? Is not forty-six years service in

  63
  one place permanent employment? Let me give one instance of how very hardly this system weighs upon these men. I do not blame anyone; I blame only the system. I believe that both the Minister for Agriculture and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury dislike the system as much as I do, but they cannot help themselves. There is a temporary Civil assistant at Southampton who has served in this Department for forty-six years. Thirty-four years ago he was appointed to a position of some consequence in the Department, which involved him in working more hours every day than other employees, and also working on Sundays and bank Holidays. After forty-six years service, without any illness or check of any kind, he is laid by, suffering from an incurable complaint caused by his constant attendance to his work. I brought this man's case before the Financial Secretary, who told me he had made inquiries and found that this man's character was excellent, that he was a hard worker, but he could not have a pension because there was nothing in his case which would give him any claim that was not shared by others of his colleagues. I am quite sure it was painful to the right hon. Gentleman to give that answer, and to me it is simply appalling, because it means that for a man to serve the Department faithfully for forty-six years, to lose his health owing to his hard honest work, and then to be retired with perhaps a small gratuity is not exceptional. It ought to be not exceptional but impossible. I feel perfectly convinced that both the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wish to do all they possibly can in order to do justice to these men, but there is a hitch somewhere. I do not know where that hitch is; it is not in the hearts of my right hon. friends, but I am afraid it is somehow difficult or impossible for the Board of Agriculture and the Treasury to come to a friendly arrangement on the subject. In the hope of finding out where exactly the difficulty is, I beg to move the resolution which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C (Pay, etc., of Civil Assistants) be reduced by £100."—(Sir Barrington Simeon.)
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: This is not the first time I have
  64
  addressed the House on behalf of the temporary Civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey. Six years ago I urged Her Majesty's Government to do something for these servants, and, as in many of these questions which came before us from time to time presenting difficulties of solution, a certain compromise was arrived at. It was recognised that injustice was being done, and a certain number of temporary Civil assistants were brought within the pensionable area, if I may use the term. The suggestion of my hon. friend and colleague that one hundred should be added to the number which I secured in 1894 is a motion I would support on the understanding that it is to be considered as a settlement of the question only during the present Parliament, because I presume that in a few months we should be ready to begin battle again on behalf of these men. I may say at once that I am against any compromise. I consider that the temporary Civil assistants have a just and equitable case, which I hope they will go on pressing upon Members of Parliament until the Government recognise its justice. We are in this difficulty. We are met by very good-tempered and amiable gentlemen, who express themselves in favour of some measure to meet the grievance of these men. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, when a large number of us waited upon him at St. James's Square, at any rate indicated that we had presented a very fair ease, and he led us to hope that something would be done. We have also on many occasions, been to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he has always met us very fairly. He has said, "You certainly have claims, but I cannot see my way out of the difficulty." I would like to show the House what, practically, is the position so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is concerned. On the 9th August, 1898, in the House of Commons, he stated that this service was in effect a permanent service; that he could not say it was a permanent service in respect of the whole of the staff, but he said, "It is a permanent service." * Last session, as my hon. friend has reminded him, he said, "If the service is really permanent I say that we
  * Mr. Hanbury's speech is reported in The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxiv., page 718.

  65
  will favourably consider the staff who form part of that service." The right hon. Gentleman is committed to two things: first, to the fact that it is a permanent service; and, secondly, that he is in favour of pensions for permanent officials. Apparently, the only difficulty which troubles the mind of the right hon. Gentleman is that he cannot select out of a body of 1,600 men 900 who would be in the service some years hence. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right on the part of a Government to pay their staff lower wages than they are entitled to, simply because they cannot find a way out of such a difficulty? Are they to shelter themselves behind such an excuse of non-selection for dealing unfairly with the greater portion of the staff? I say, without fear of contradiction, that the only reason why the whole of the temporary Civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey are not now on the pension list is the false prophecy of successive and succeeding Directors General, who have all prophesied a reduction of the staff. It is impossible to contend that these men are not permanent officials. What is a permanent official? Surely he is a man who devotes the best years of his life to the service. That is what we generally understand. A man who comes on the pension list at Southampton enters at eighteen years of age and retires at sixty —that is, after forty-two years service. Surely when a man has been on the staff for more than twenty-one years he is a permanent official. If he is not, who is? Is it by having the word "permanent" attached to his name that a man becomes a permanent official, or is it by service? Surely it is by length and continuity of service. These men have given their life's work to the country, and are entitled to pensions. Now a word as to this notice to which reference has been made, because it is a rather serious matter. Will it be believed that it took twenty-five years to get a printed statement put before the staff with regard to the cessation of pensions? During the whole of that time men joined the staff here and there without knowing anything about the withdrawal of pensions. Was there ever such a proof of absolute carelessness? Twenty-five years afterwards we have a printed document saying that no assistant or labourer who joined the service after the 4th January, 1873, is entitled to a pension.
  66
  I have frequently brought this matter before the House of Commons; but is it not possible to come to some settlement? My hon. friend suggested that 100 men might be taken. That is no settlement of principle at all. Is it not possible that we might take a longer term and say that these men should serve twenty years? Surely that is a long enough spell to entitle them to consideration as permanent officials. There is such a thing as equity, and it is not right that the Government should use their strength in order to prevent men in their employ getting a fair return for their work. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept this proposal on the basis of a longer term of service I think that would settle this very vexed question in a fair way, and without a chance of its being reopened. I beg to support the motion.
  MR. PYM: I am aware that, upon this question, the same arguments have been repeated many times over, but I do not think that shows any weakness in our case. Our case is of so simple and straightforward a character that it does not require arguments of any depth or ingenuity to bring it before the common sense and fair judgment of this Committee. This Ordnance Survey was considered of so much importance that it was constituted originally a branch of the permanent Civil Service of this country: but by the most absurd forecast that any responsible official ever made in connection with work with which he should have had the most intimate knowledge, many years ago the whole future of this branch of the Civil Service was upset and the status of every man from that date who came into this service was destroyed. Not only by this action was their future destroyed, but the Government of the day, in rearranging this office and the terms upon which those men wore to come in, ignored altogether the leading principle upon which all such arrangements are made in connection with the Civil Service. In estimating the amount which Civil servants receive as pay from the State, the amount of pension which they receive is always taken into consideration. In this case these men have been deprived of their pension although they have been paid exactly the same rates of pay as the men who receive their pensions. I think that in itself is a very great injustice,

  67
  for pensions simply represent a saving which the country would have otherwise had to pay in the shape of increased pay. The result of that has been that these men have nothing to look forward to after so many years service except the miserable bonus which is represented by a few pounds, after having given the best part of their lives in the service of their country. My right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury appears to have been convinced that there was something in the case made out for these men, for I see from a report of his speech in this House on the 9th August, 1898, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that he went so far as to say—
  "Then comes the further argument: they say this service will go on so long that there is every prospect of its becoming permanent, and therefore we ought to retain it on a pensionable basis. Thus we see the whole question is reduced to a very tine point indeed, which is this: Is it going to become a permanent service or not? In one sense it will become so, but the staff at the present moment is 1,600, and I am assured by the Director General that in a dozen years the staff will be reduced to 900. That being so, you will make 900 the pensionable service. I was quite ready to do this, recognising the fact that those men had worked for this number of years."
  But why did not the right hon. Gentleman do it? Then he goes on to say—
  "I was quite ready to meet their views as far as I possibly could, but the answer made to me on my inquiry into the matter was, that even with regard to the 900 men who would probably remain on after ten years their duties were so interchangeable with the remaining 600 or 700 that it would be utterly impossible to put one's band on the 900 now, and for the. Director-General to say, 'These are the men that I shall retain at the end of ten years.'"
  We have seen the processes by which my right hon. friend's mind was convinced that these men had a case. We have seen that those arguments were so strong; that they brought him to the conclusion that it was to be a permanent service, but that it should not be a pensionable service. He is met by a little difficulty which I feel certain could be got over without any very great ingenuity. That difficulty is that you have got to select out of 1,600 men the right and proper people to add to your permanent establishment of 900 men. I believe that, at the present moment, the permanent establishment is about 250, and so you have only got to add another 650. My hon. friend opposite has put it very conclusively to the House that there is
  68
  only one way in which this Can be done, in justice and fairness to the claims of these men who have done such good service, and that way is that you should take the men according to their length of service. There also appears to be a difficulty about the inferiority of the work, and that in selecting these men from that particular class who have served the longest, you would not be able to provide for the inferior duties which had to be done. I understand that there are something like 200 who do inferior work, and these men are practically Labourers. But whatever your arrangements are, if you reduce your staff to 900 you must always engage a certain number of labourers who will have to do the rough work: and consequently I cannot see what very great difficulty there is in dealing with the question on these lines. This question has been before the House for a good many years, and it has been considered that for the last twenty-five years they have Keen suffering under a grievance which has disestablished their position; and consequently as the years go on and they continue their faithful service, this grievance becomes greater every year. Surely if the Treasury goes so far as to say that there is a case for a pension they ought to go one stop further and try to meet those men on fair and just grounds. Although they may not be able at the present moment to create the whole body of 900 permanent servants, they might take, at any rate, 300 or 400 of those who have given the longest service, and by degrees fill up the number to 900. I speak with a good deal of feeling upon this matter, for I have had some knowledge of the work. Many of these men live in my constituency, and I do hope my right hon. friend will see his way by some means or other to get rid of this cause of offence to those men, and to give them some hope that when they leave the service, broken down probably in health, that they will not receive a mere pittance in the shape of a bonus, but that the country will do something better for them by providing a sum upon which they can live in comfort for the remainder of their lives.
  MR. BUTCHER: I think the views which have been so clearly put forward by the hon. Member for Southampton have disclosed a very substantial grievance. There is one thing which everyone will admit, and that is, that the

  69
  Ordnance Survey Department has not come to an end, and will not come to an end for a great many years. It is practically impossible that we shall ever l>e able to dispense with the services of those engaged in this work, because the work has to be continually done and redone. You have, however, this anomaly, that there are a certain class of assistants employed who are called temporary assistants. In a great number of cases these men have been employed for a large number of years, and will probably continue to be employed until they attain the age of sixty. But, however long their period of service may be, by no means can these temporary assistants attain a pension when they quit the service. The remedy suggested by the senior Member for Southampton seems a very fair one, and it ought not to involve any great inconvenience to the Treasury. It is proposed that you should select out of these so-called temporary Civil assistants a certain number and place them upon a pensionable basis. There are those amongst us who desire to see every temporary assistant given a pensionable position. If a pensionable grade is established by which a certain portion of these men would be able to obtain a pension, I think that would meet the requirements of the case. I hope that in this matter we shall not be put off with technicalities. In these matters technicalities are always raised, and I am afraid the Treasury are great offenders in this respect. The Treasury cannot remedy a substantial grievance or answer-it by putting forward technicalities. What we realty want is to meet this real and substantial case fairly and justly, and to give the men who occupy positions of great responsibility, and who are engaged in an extremely important work, encouragement in their profession, and a substantial reward for long and faithful service.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I have listened to the speeches made by hon. Members, and I am indeed surprised to hear that they are defending the granting of pensions in any shape or form. I believe in dispensing with pensions as much as possible. By granting pension you tie men to you, and they feel that they have a lien on the position, and that they cannot leave it because they would lose their
  70
  pension. It is altogether a bad idea, and I am surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite supporting a proposal to further extend the pension system. These men were engaged at a particular wage, and why should you proceed to give them a pension which was no part of their original agreement? The agreement was made that these men should have certain pay, and it has been generally spread about that there would be no pensions in this particular Department. It seems to me, further, an. altogether absurd idea that the hon. Member opposite should suggest giving this pension to a certain number without giving it to all of them. These men knew the conditions at the time of their appointment, and they have known it since the year 1873, when it was clearly stated that there would be no pensions.
  Sir FRANCIS EVANS: They have, known it since 1897 only.
  SIR.J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: The. book says since 1873.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: But the book was not issued until 1897, or twenty-four years after the change was made.
  SIR.J. BLUXDELL MAPLE: I am aware that this book was not issued until 1897, but the rule was clearly set down that there would be no pension after 1873. That has been thoroughly understood, and the people who took these appointments never expected pensions until they sought the advice of their representatives in this House, who promised them that they would do their best to get them these pensions. Personally, I should welcome the doing away with all pensions in every possible way. Pensions are a charge upon generations to come, and they are not right. If a man is worth £500 a year he should be paid that sum, and he should not be given a. salary of £350 a year and a pension worth £150 a year. We are told that this Ordnance Survey Department may be reduced to a much less number, and if that is so how can you make the men permanent officials entitled to a pension I do hope that this question—which is an annual one will not be brought forward after this year, and that these men, who are now in a very good position, will not be encouraged to expect pensions.
  MR. HANBITRV: I think there is a great deal in the caveat of the hon.

  71
  Baronet who has just sat down. The non-effective Votes of this country are growing by leaps and bounds, and the time will come, I am quite sure, when the House will have to consider their proportion to the effective Votes. But that is not the point raised at the present moment. The point now raised is one which has been discussed in several sessions of this Parliament. My two hon. friends the Members for Southampton have brought this question forward time after time in the most gallant fashion, although they have been time after time repulsed with arguments which ought to have had weight with them. But, urged on by their constituents, they have again and again returned to the charge, and tonight they have been reinforced by a valuable ally in the person of my hon. friend the Member for Bedford, who, I believe, has also got a constituency which is pushing him forward in this matter. I agree with the remark of my hon. friend the Member for York that this question ought not to be settled on mere technicalities, but should be settled from an equitable point of view. I think my hon. friend will do me the justice of admitting that this is the view which I have always taken. I have given a very great deal of consideration to this question, and I have been most anxious to do all that was possible. I have had personal interviews with these men, and I have tried to look at their case from every point of view. I think there is a little confusion in the arguments which my hon. friends have brought forward; there is a certain fluctuation of opinion between them, and I notice a tendency to outbid one another. No sooner does my hon. friend the senior Member for Southampton make a definite proposal than it is at once jumped upon by his colleague, who says that it is an absurd proposal. To a certain extent I agree with my hon. friend, and I say, on the authority of his colleague, that I cannot accept it.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: But I supported my hon. friend.
  MR. HANBURY: I want to separate the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. friend. In the first place, there is the argument that these men had not proper notice of the change, and that is the main argument. It is said that these men entered the service as temporary assistants, and were not
  72
  told that they would not receive pensions. But what are the facts of the case? The hon. Gentleman opposite says that they were never told this until the year 1897. That is where I think my hon. friend spoils his case, for it is an argument which is not put forward even by those whom he represents, who have not thrown out anything half so ridiculous. Let us have the facts of the case. What happened was this: In the year 1870 the then Director of Survey came to the conclusion which Directors of Survey have from time to time arrived at, that the work of the Survey would soon be over; that it was merely a temporary service, and that it would not be wise to engage men on pensionable terms. That happened in 1870, and a large number of men joined between the year 1870 and the 4th of January, 1873. The men who joined during that period came forward and said they had not had proper notice, but that was long after the year 1873, and their action must have been known to the other members of the staff. Those men who joined the service between 1860 and the 4th of January, 1873, came to the Treasury and said it was hardly fair that they should not be pensionable, because they had received no proper notice. The Treasury looked carefully into the matter, and although they had a great doubt about it, they gave the men the benefit of that doubt and decided that they should be pensionable. A few years after this we got the rest of the staff coming forward with the same plea after having seen how those had succeeded who joined between 1870 and 1873, and they also said that they had not received proper notice. That is the contention of the hon. Member opposite, who says that these men not only had no notice in 1873, but also that they had received none up to 1897.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: I did not say that. All I said was that no printed notice was issued until the year 1897, and the men were allowed to gather this information as they could.
  MR. HANBURY: The information was distinctly given to them at the time, and it was a matter of notoriety through- out the whole service that pensions would not be given. What would make it more notorious was that it was a service which was not recruited largely from outside, but it was a service in which sons suc-

  73
  ceeded their fathers with great regularity, and in such a close service it is impossible. that the terms of the service were not perfectly well known. The mere name of "temporary assistants" is sufficient to show them this. Therefore the Treasury,: in making this concession to the men who entered under a slight misapprehension between 1870 and 1873, went as far as it could possibly go. Another issue has been raised. It has been said that these men have been a long time in the service, and undoubtedly they have. The inconsistency of the suggestions of my hon. friends appears to me to be this: they do not say that all these men should be made pensionable, and they do not mention even the number of years service. One of my hon. friends suggested that we should take the first hundred, and another hon. Member says we should take 300 or 400.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: That is not my contention. What I urged was that twenty years service should constitute permanent service.
  MR. HANBURY: My hon. friend says that twenty years should constitute permanent service; but would he be willing to apply the same principle to the dockyards? The whole question was dealt with by a Departmental Committee in 1892. Should these men be pensionable? The recommendation of the Committee was exactly to the opposite effect, but if the hon. Member's suggestion were carried out nearly, every one of these men would be put upon the establishment. The hon. Member says that these men are receiving exactly the same pay as men who are pensionable, but that is going back to a somewhat distant date. The point is not whether the men who are entitled to pensions are paid too much, but whether the men not entitled to pensions are paid enough. There again we have the recent and important evidence taken, before the Committee which reported that these men were fully and adequately paid. If they are fully and adequately paid as temporary assistants, what is the justification for adding pensions to that pay? Of course, we have to recollect not only 'the period of service, but also that none' of these men have received Civil Service certificates entitling them to pensions, The hon. Member opposite has apparently not the remotest idea of what the perma-
  74
  nent Civil Service is. According to him, if a man serves twenty years then, for sooth, he is to be regarded as a permanent civil servant and entitled to a pension. That is not the rule which applies to other Departments, and I fail to see why these men should be in a better position than the rest of the Civil Service. That is what the hon. Member is asking for. In the rest of the Civil Service a man who retires before the age of sixty is not entitled to a pension unless he is incapacitated through ill-health; but, forsooth, these men are to be allowed to retire and get pensions whenever they like. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No, no] That is not the suggestion. Is it that these men shall not be pensionable unless they have served until sixty under ordinary conditions? See how that would tie the hands of the Director of Survey. The phrase "permanent staff" has been played upon, I think, with some inconsistency. It is said that these men are permanent servants, and yet we are not willing to pension them as permanent Civil servants. What are the facts of the case? At the present moment there are 1,750 men on the staff, and I am told by the Director of Survey that within the next ten years that number will be reduced to 900, and that there will always be that number. In that sense it is a permanent service as regards the 900, but it is not a permanent service as regards the other 850. I do not say the pension system is a good one, but I say it is a bad thing to have some services permanent and some not. You cannot, however, apply that in this instance. What I said to the Director of Survey was this: "If you have 900 men who you can assure me will be serving the State under the same conditions as men in the ordinary Civil Service, who will remain on until sixty, and who will not be dismissed before that time, let them have pensions.'' But he told me it was impossible for him to say that out of 1,750, these were the 900 men who would be permanently employed in the service. That being so, there is no permanent service in the ordinary sense of the word. Directly my hon. friend the Member for Work shows me a permanent staff, then I will say, "Let them have pensions."
  MR. BUTCHER: Are not a number of permanent assistants at present entitled to pensions?
  MR. HAXBURY: That is perfectly true. There are seventy-six men pensionable at the present moment. But is not that the greatest confirmation of my argument? In every case where the Director can assure us that a man is permanently employed the man is pensionable, and I am obliged to my hon. friend for strengthening my case.
  MR. BUTCHER: Are not the so called permanent assistants doing practically the same work and receiving the same rate of salary as the temporary assistants, although the former are entitled to pensions and the latter are not?
  SIR J. BLUNDELL.MAPLE: Have any names been recently added to the pension list?
  MR. HANBURY: I think it is the old pension list.
  MR. PYM: When a vacancy occurs in the permanent staff, is another man appointed?
  MR. HANBURY: I believe the number remains the same.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANSOh, no: the number is constantly decreasing.
  MR. HANBURY: The number of men entitled to pensions now stands, I think, at seventy-six. These men are doing a higher class of work, and it is impossible to compare it with the work done by the temporary assistants. I think I have answered all the points that have been raised. I can assure the Committee that I have given this matter a great deal of consideration. I think all these services ought to be treated alike, and I have endeavoured to see how far these men really did correspond to other departments of the Civil Service, and I have utterly failed to see that there is any such correspondence, and I therefore think it would be wrong to treat them much more liberally than we treat other departments. These men are getting full wages, with the knowledge before hand that they were not pensionable, and I think it is perfectly ridiculous to con- tend that because they have served twenty years they should be treated differently from dockyard labourers, and the various writers and others in the public service who have also given a long period of
  76
  service. The rule of the services is that pensions are granted only under certain conditions. These conditions have not been fulfilled, and I cannot therefore break through the rule of the service, even to satisfy the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. MADDISON: I have listened with considerable interest to this discussion with respect to the men of the Ordnance Survey who are not now in receipt of pensions. I have at least one qualification for speaking that is, I have no Ordnance Survey men, as far as I am aware, in my constituency. Hon. Members who have that honour have been twitted — and I think not unnaturally —with having their enthusiasm for these men somewhat generated by the votes that are behind them. I do think there is a great danger in this matter, and in fact it is one of the great dangers of their employment. I would go further, and upon the general question of pensions to Civil servants, could we begin again, I would not hesitate to say—
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. HAVE-LOCK "WILSON, Middlesbrough). House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  MR. MADDISON (continuing): Upon the general question of pensions, if we could begin afresh, I think I should agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich. Personally, I think the ordinary pension system—I am not now alluding to superannuation for exceptional services or injuries—in the main works out badly for the country, and I would, if it were in my power, do what the hon. Baronet said he would do, namely, give every man what I consider a fair wage and allow him to provide for himself. I believe that would get the Treasury out of a great deal of difficulty, and that the country would gain both in money and better service. I do not think that pensions cause men to give better service to the State. I believe, on the other hand, that they may seriously hamper those who have to administer these great Departments. While the great mass of the working classes are giving equal services to the State without these pensions, I cannot see why any section of the community should be

  77
  singled out at the expense of the others. The discussion to-night does not touch the general question of pensions, and I should not be in order in pursuing that topic, and, therefore, if a division is taken I want to say my vote does not depend at nil upon the general question of pensions The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, as I take it, puts this case. He says that the Director General of Ordnance Survey must have a certain: amount of margin—he must have power to dismiss and revise members of his Department; that there must be some flexibility; in other words, that it is altogether wrong to say to the Director General, "Yon must have a certain number of men whether you want them or not, leaving him open to a charge of injustice when he discharges or turns a man adrift a few years before his pension becomes due. With that view I largely sympathise. No Department of tile State should be run by one man, be it the Director General or he it the lowest labourer. If the Director General is not wanted, get rid of him; if you only need 100 labourers you have no right to keep 101. That being the case, I have been living to find what is the proper course to pursue, and with all respect to the Secretary of the Treasury (whose knowledge is so much greater than mine), I do not think, having regard to the admission he made, he quite met the case. The first example that came to my mind while listening to this debate was the system pursued in the dockyards, and probably other places, of having established and non-established men. The right hon. Gentleman held up the case of the dockyard men as an example which he thought told somewhat against their argument; but I venture to submit the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Treasury did not quite exhaust his illustration: and his lack of explanation was not through lack of knowledge, because he possesses a great deal of knowledge as a. debater in this House. What is the fact about this system of establishment and non-establishment? As I take it. it was created, and is maintained, in order that tilt; Admiralty, or whatever the Department may be, may have a margin of men to play upon, so that if work falls off they can discharge the non-established men or put them on half-time, mid so let there be some harmony be-
  78
  tween the amount of work and the staff on the pay list. Of course every business man will do that, and for the life of me I do not see why the State should not do the same. But between the established men and the non-established men there is a difference. When a man becomes established he suffers on occasions a reduction in his wages. If this principle of establishment and non-establishment has worked out fairly well—at least, so far as the Admiralty are concerned—in giving this margin to play upon, I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that in this system he has a remedy for at least a great deal of the present trouble which exists with respect to these Ordnance Survey men.
  MR. HANBURY: The case of the Ordnance Survey men is different from what the hon. Member suggests, because they want full pay and a pension afterwards. The men on the establishment do suffer a reduction of wages.
  MR. MADDISON: We are not discussing what they want, but what is just and fair. Obviously they want more than they will get, and they are not exceptional in that matter. The point I want to make is that I think some sort of plan, such as I have indicated as existing in the dockyards between establishment and non-establishment, would go a long way to meet this trouble. It rests with the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a scheme which will meet the case, and I think he can do it on the lines I have suggested. Why should not the Director General, together with the Treasury, create an establishment the same as the Admiralty had to do and have done successfully? Why should not they say that a certain number of men are established and a certain number are not established? In order to meet the case you should have at first a large number of non-established men, and draw on them for your established men as circumstances required. I venture to think if this were done at any rate you would secure pensions for a proportion of the men, and so you would meet their grievance; and if the others, knowing they were not established because the Department could not give them regular employment, demanded to be put on the establishment or to be guaranteed work when there was no work for them, they would be unreasonable, and we need not trouble

  79
  about them. But as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that in ten or twelve years time there will be a permanent staff of at least 900 men, I do certainly think it unfair to refuse pensions to these men, or not to discriminate in the sense I have indicated. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House further except to say that if this is an attempt to guarantee pensions to a great crowd of men who are not wanted, whether they are officers or labourers, I shall oppose it; but. having taken that strong line, I think the right hon. Gentleman should do something that would be methodical and systematical.
  SIR. FRANCIS EVANSsaid the false prophecies of successive Directors General had been the cause of the wrongdoing. How was it possible for temporary Civil servants ever to got on the permanent staff when it was only necessary for a Director General to say that in a few years the work would cease, and then the Secretary for the Treasury ignored the claim? He greatly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to cast such a reflection as he had on the men at Southampton. He stated that these men were carrying out their duties inefficiently, and that they were sheltering themselves under the pensions that they received.
  MR. HANBURY: No, I did not say that. I referred to a particular class.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: Exactly; the right hon. Gentleman referred to the pensioned class, and he ought not to have done so.
  MR. HANBURY: I said nothing of the sort.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid upon this Vote there was a matter which concerned another Minister, and that was with regard to the accuracy of the names in the Ordnance Survey maps. When the late Mr. Thomas Ellis raised the question of the Ordnance Survey in the House some years ago, the matter was referred to a Departmental Committee which sat and considered it in 1892, and last year, in answer to a question, it was stated that the principle upon which the names of the various
  80
  localities were ascertained was that which was suggested in the Report of that Committee. The Report of the Committee stated that the principle upon which the spelling of the names was arrived at was to submit every name to three competent persons, and nothing could be more perfect than such a system if It obtained in practice, but hon. Members had only to look at the maps dealing with parts of the country with which they were familiar to see that that practice was not observed. There was no necessity to call the attention of the House to the importance of this point from an archaeological point of view, and to the false analogies which were suggested by popular misspellings. In some cases the same name was spelt in three different ways within a radius of half a mile. He would not, however, treat of the difficult cases, but of the simple cases which could not occur if the principle laid down were rigidly adhered to. He would give two cases where the case was beyond dispute, for the reason that the places dealt with were Crown forests which had official names. The names of woods and forests were often taken from people who in the past had taken some prominent part in the direction of the office. There was one case where the name of a Crown [forest was given altogether wrong in the maps at present issued by the Ordnance Survey. The name of that wood was Alice Holt. The name of that wood, which was within a few miles of Aldershot, was always incorrectly given. It was always given as Aldersholt. No doubt the name of Aldershot was derived from Aldersholt, but the wood had no connection with Aldershot, and although the name of Aldersholt always appeared on the maps, Alice Holt did not. In the constituency which he represented, which contained the Forest of Dean, he could mention several official names which were incorrectly spelt. "Danby" appeared as "Denby," spelt i in two different ways. He would not labour the point, but thought it was a question upon which some explanation ought to be given.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Ordnance Survey maps were now becoming worthy of the country, and owing to their contouring and colouring were worthy to take the highest place in European cartography,

  81
  but the maps were comparatively little known to the public generally, and the country which had the most need for it was practically unacquainted with the great treasure it possessed. The reason for his intervention in the discussion was that two or three years previously, as representing a large publishing firm, he was asked to give evidence before a Departmental Committee; three other gentlemen similarly circumstanced also gave evidence, and although all four witnesses gave their evidence independently, there was a very marked concurrence of testimony, and similar recommendations were made by all. In reply to a question in the previous year he was informed that many of the recommendations of that Committee had been adopted; how far that might have been so he would not pretend to say, but the principal one had not. At the present time it was almost as difficult for an ordinary person to procure the Crown diamonds as to procure an Ordnance map. The process one had to go through when he required an Ordnance map was not the same as when he required an Ordnance Survey. He might go into every shop in the country and he would not see an Ordnance map. If he wanted a bicycling map or a map to trace the limits of his property, the last map he would be able to obtain would be the Ordnance map. He wished to know if any alteration had been made with regard to one point which he considered was vital, if the maps were to be dealt with commercially. In the days of the Departmental Committee the practice was to supply these maps at a margin of 7⅔ per cent profit to the retailer. That percentage was not sufficient to encourage a man in stocking such an article, who had to make his own profit, provide against bad debts, and have regard to the interest on his outlay. Until the Ordnance maps were dealt with in the same manner as other maps by other publishers were dealt with they would never come before the public. He suggested that further steps should be taken to make these beautiful maps more generally known and more easily accessible to the public.
  LORD BALCARRESdesired to accentuate the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and he hoped that strict instructions would be given and the greatest care taken to prevent the cartographers spelling the names wrong.
  MR. YOXALLexpressed a wish to know whether it was possible to allow the schools of the country to have the Ordnance Survey-maps at a reduced price. In France and other countries such maps were supplied to the schools free of charge, and that undoubtedly ought to be the case here. He, however, did not now suggest that that course should be pursued, but he thought the maps ought to be supplied to the schools direct from the Ordnance Survey Department at something like cost price. It was very desirable that in all schools there should be a knowledge of the geography of their immediate surroundings.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsupported the suggestion put forward by the previous speaker, and pointed out that the knowledge of local geography in this country was extremely slight nine out of every ten persons knew absolutely nothing of the geography of the county in which they lived. He also supported the suggestions of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. The difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to in England were greatly accentuated in Wales, where many of the names were of great length. In the past Ordnance Survey parties in Wales had not been accompanied by any people who had sufficient scholarly knowledge to give the correct spelling of Welsh place; names. He understood that that defect had in later years been largely remedied, and he now asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would be good enough to see that in this respect the Ordnance Survey of Wales was made as perfect as possible.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG, Liverpool, West Derby)thought that those responsible for the preparation of the Survey maps might congratulate them selves on the way in which they had performed their task, as from the criticisms which had been passed it was evident that the complaints against the Department were neither very numerous nor very grave. The procedure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman was not only followed for the purpose of ascertaining the correct spelling of the names, but the utmost possible trouble was taken by the Survey party on the spot to ascertain accurately the names of local places of all kinds. He did not think the right hon.

  83
  Baronet had been quite fair in his criticism, and despite the care exercised, no doubt mistakes had occurred, some of them pardonable and some of them appearing unpardonable; but even in those cases when further investigation was made it had been found that there was every justification for the names so given; but those who were responsible for the Survey were full sensible that some mistakes had occurred, and every precaution was being taken to prevent their recurrence. He believed that our maps were in all respects better than could be found in any other country in the world; and the department was anxious to correct such errors as had been referred to by previous speakers. In the case of Wales, the present system was to submit the names to a recognised Welsh scholar, and by this means they were enabled to approach a more accurate standard than had formerly been the case. Indeed, it might well be said that no effort was spared by the Department to secure complete accuracy in the spelling of all names. With regard to the suggestions of the hon. Member for West Belfast, the reason for the restricted sale of the maps was not to be found, in his opinion, in the amount of discount allowed to the trade. He had tried to ascertain the reason. He had visited booksellers' shops and had asked for local Ordnance maps; and he found that the question was not so much one of profit as of the individual on the spot who produced a local map bringing out certain local characteristics, and which he knew from his local knowledge would be of special use to the people of the locality. To produce these in the local survey was impossible, but, notwithstanding this, he hoped that by slow degrees the maps were becoming more generally known and more generally taken advantage of. In dealing with a matter of this kind a Government Department was not in the same position as the private trader. The Department could not advertise their maps in the same way as the private trader, nor could it compete on the same terms. Cases were known, however, where the local trader had received the credit for work which really belonged to the Ordnance Survey. The Ordnance Survey map had been taken as a basis and slightly altered for local purposes; it had been put in an ornamental cover, and the gentleman who placed his name on the
  84
  back received all the credit for work which ought to go to the Ordnance Survey. During the recent autumn manœuvres on Salisbury Plain he examined, this question on the spot. He found that although the Department had produced maps which were arranged to suit the requirements of the War Office, yet the local maps which took particular places as their centres were generally more popular. One reason, probably, was because those maps were enclosed in useful covers. In regard to the progress of the sale of maps he said that while they might not be able to otter the maps at the prices at which they were offered by the trade generally, the figures showed a very satisfactory improvement. The gross sale for 1895 "was 22,945, in 1896, 25,320, in 1897, 26,060, and in 1898, 30,330. The net sum realised was.£15,444 in 1895,,£1(5,1)77 in 1896, £19,663 in 1897, £22,877 in 1898. and £23.952 in 1899. The policy of producing Ordnance Survey maps at popular prices had therefore been successful, and he hoped it would be even more successful in the future. The suggestion that local maps should be supplied to our elementary schools at reduced prices seemed a very practical one, and if he could satisfy himself that it was reasonable and desirable so to do, he should be glad to fall in with the suggestion.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the local maps were not taken surreptitiously from the Survey Department, but bore on the face of them the statement that they were taken from the Ordnance maps. When a bookseller had to deal with maps on which he got a larger margin of profit than on the Ordnance maps, it stood to reason and was a matter of common-sense that he would take those on which he got the best profit.
  MR. LONG: I never suggested anything about the maps being surreptitiously taken. What I say is that the whole credit for these local maps goes to the booksellers, and that none is given to the Ordnance Survey, who provide the original map.
  MR. ARXOLD-FORSTEKsaid his point was that the local maps were not produced upon an independent survey, and that if the Ordnance Survey were to take proper advantage of their oppor-

  85
  tunities their maps might take the place of the others. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman were to his mind utterly unsatisfactory.
  MR. WEIR MR. WEIR moved the reduction of the Vote by £50. He had a very serious complaint to make. In the Highlands of Scotland, as soon as the deer stalkers commenced operations, the Survey men had to beat a retreat in order that the sportsmen might enjoy their sport. He was not surprised that £5,000 was put down for travelling expenses. The travelling expenses must be heavy in connection with such work as this. No wonder the expenses were heavy when the men they sent down to the Highlands had to clear off when the deer stalkers arrived. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the accuracy of the maps. The Ordnance maps of the Highlands showed roads and footpaths where there were no roads and footpaths. He wished to know whether care was being taken to show the doer forests on the maps of the Highlands. The Secretary for Scotland had said that he had no means of arriving at the extent of the deer forests. A bookseller from the; Highlands had told him that there was no Ordnance map of Easter Ross less than forty years old. He wished careful inquiry made into this matter, so that the northern part of Great Britain might not be neglected.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a. sum, not exceeding £127,559, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLKSsaid that deer stalking only lasted two months, and that the surveyors could carry on their work all the rest of the year.
  MR. WEIRobserved that deer stalking took place at the most favourable time of the year for the surveyors to carry on their work.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman led them to believe that there were only two months of fine weather in Scotland in the year, but even if that wore true it did not in the least affect his argument, which was that if two-twelfths of the year were taken by sportsmen they could not be expected to believe that in the other ten months of the year it was absolutely impossible to conduct a survey of Scotland. The main
  86
  object the hon. Member had in view was that the new Ordnance Survey should accurately delineate every deer forest in Scotland, but the object of the survey was to show the natural and 'not the adventitious condition of the country. It might be that in consequence of the crusade in which the hon. Gentleman was engaged the deer forests would disappear.
  MR. WEIR: They are increasing.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLKSsaid that, if they were increasing, the Ordnance Survey map of this year would afterwards be inaccurate. No map ever pretended to enshrine and record the purpose for which land was used. A great deal had been said as to the inability of a public Department to compete in the matter of price with private map publishers. He could readily understand it. The Ordnance Surveys cost many millions. The whole of that work was "lifted" by the outside publishers, sometimes with and sometimes without acknowledgment, and according to the hon. Gentleman below the gangway, it was rather a meritorious thing to acknowledge the theft and to say, "This is not my work; I have stolen it from the Ordnance Department, and now I am going to give it to you at a cheaper price than they can sell it for." Did the Department take no steps to protect themselves in the enjoyment of their own copyright of this valuable work? Until they took steps to levy a certain proportion from all those who used their work they must expect to be competed with by other publishers, who took their work, and, having paid nothing for it, could really sell it at a cheaper rate. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them that he intended, if possible, to take some measures whereby the Government would be secured in their copyright, and whereby if anybody used the maps they would not do it without adequate and proper payment to the Department.
  COMMANDR. BETHELLsaid he would not commend his right hon. friend to encourage the Department to alter the system of map-making so as to cater to the popular taste too much; nor did he see any objection to the ordinary map-seller taking the use of the Ordnance Survey maps. What they wanted was accuracy in maps, and

  87
  that was what the Ordnance Survey gave. He did not think it mattered whether the Government lost a certain amount of money by that or not.
  MR. LONGsaid the lion. Member opposite was making a mountain out of a mole-hill if he thought the Ordnance Surveyors only shifted their ground when sportsmen arrived. The only rule by which the work could possibly he carried on was that if at any particular time it should be specially inconvenient for their people to be on any ground, they should move, and they invariably did so. To say that they moved because of the stalkers was simply ridiculous. The printed instructions issued to Ordnance Survey officers were that any communication made to them as to the inconvenience of their presence at a particular time should he at once attended to. They always did the work, as far as they could, in accordance with the convenience of the owners. The hon. Gentleman wished them to believe that there were only six weeks in which the work could be done. As a matter of fact the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that except when snow was on the ground they could do the work. He complained that there were roads shown where there were no roads. That complaint was as old as the mountains themselves. He had no doubt that as long as the survey lasted roads would be shown where there were none, but, on the whole, they had had abundant testimony that night that these maps were better than any other maps in the world both for character and interest. The hon. Gentleman stated that deer forests during the stalking season wore not interfered with, hut, as a matter of fact, last year his life was made a burden to him by people who complained that deer forests were being interfered with. Then; the hon. Gentleman asked that the boundaries of deer forests should be given. That was contrary to the practice, which was to show only the actual geographical characteristics of the country. It was constantly said that the maps of the Department compared badly with maps locally produced; but he would point out that these local maps were reproduced from the Ordnance Survey maps. He did not believe it would be possible for the Department to compete with such maps for local purposes, but they were
  88
  endeavouring now to produce a map which would be popular in its character, and which would be a useful and valuable guide for military or other purposes. There were many reasons why the Government Department could not compete with private publishers of maps, though they recognised that more might be done to bring their maps before the notice of the public. That we should double our sales by going into the market as ordinary sellers of maps, and by putting our maps on a level with maps produced locally, is absolutely impossible. It is said there is no recent map of Easter Ross. If that is so, it is because the revision of that district is not complete. If we adopted the suggestion that the limits of deer forests and all similar landmarks should be included in our ordinary maps, it would moan the postponement of the revision of districts which are not already revised for an indefinitely long period. I think our maps show quite as much as they can reasonably be expected to show; I believe they are accurate and good both for military and other purposes, and, on the whole, I do not think the Ordnance Survey has anything to be ashamed of.
  MR. WEIRexpressed his disappointment at the want of sympathy shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, in consequence of which he would feel bound to go to a division on his Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said that in his profession he had had a great deal to do with disputes in various parts of the Highlands, and had had occasion to use the Ordnance maps very extensively, in so doing he had been greatly impressed by the extreme accuracy of the maps as regards this matter of roads.
  MR. BILLSON: I fully agree that these maps are the best that one can possibly get. I have used them for forty or fifty years, and am always delighted with their accuracy. The only thing I complain of is the difficulty of procuring; them. In small villages and country towns you cannot buy the maps, and if you go to the post office you have to fill up a form, pay the postage, and so on, and wait until they arrive from Southampton. Why should there not be in every town a small selection kept on sale at the post office? As to the local maps which have

  89
  been spoken of, who ever uses a local map when an Ordnance Survey map can be obtained? And why should not terms be made with the bookstalls at the railway stations and the booksellers so that the maps might be procurable? By such means a much larger income would be derived from the sales, and the benefits of this national institution would be more widely distributed.
  Mr. LONG: I have now under consideration a plan to carry out the very suggestion which my hon. friend has just made, so that these maps may be obtainable in various towns and at the bookstalls. I hope to be able to make them much more generally available than at present.
  MR. WEIRhoped that as the matter had been discussed, the points of which he complained would be attended to in the future. He did not wish unnecessarily to detain the House, and therefore asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn
  14. £2,243, to complete the sum for Harbours under the Board of Trade.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): I do not propose to raise any discussion on this Vote, but there are a few questions I desire to put to the President of the Board of Trade. I regret to see that this sum, small as it is, has been rather decreased dining the past year. It is very unfortunate that upon such an important matter the Government will only spend such a very small amount. There has been a good deal of complaint by Members of the House representing divisions of the country on the sea-coast of the insufficient and inadequate accommodation for the fishing boats, more especially on the west coast of England and Wales. The matter was raised a couple of years ago by a Member on the other side of the House, and I believe the President of the Board of Trade gave an undertaking not merely to go into the matter carefully, but to treat applications of this character on the same basis as applications in respect of light railways. The point I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. I do not complain of the sum put down here in respect of Holyhead Harbour; but I do complain that there is absolutely no Vote at all in respect of the maintenance of any harbour
  90
  in Cardigan Bay, for instance. That is a very extensive fishery district, and I think the right hon. Gentleman promised a year or two ago that if an application was made from that district he would consider it favourably, and, if possible, recommend a grant. As a matter of fact, I believe that that coast is much more dangerous than the coast in respect of which a grant is made. There are two ways in which the right hon. Gentleman can assist these fishery harbours. One is the method laid down in this particular Vote—that of a contribution towards the expense of maintenance; while the other is the method adopted in the next Vote—that of a grant towards the cost of the erection of a harbour. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to assist us by either of those two methods in regard to Cardigan Bay. There was an application sent in during the current year from this district. That application was supported by the local councils, who undertook to find about one-third of the expense; while the Cambrian Railway undertook to find a considerable sum towards the cost of erection. All that was asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should recommend that a grant in aid should be made upon similar principles to those laid down in the answer given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple. This application was supported not only by the fishermen of the district, but by the fishermen of Lancashire, and the fishermen of the Isle of Man; the Lancashire Fishery Board sent in a memorial; and, not content with that, a great number of the fishermen themselves signed a petition to the Board of Trade in favour of the application. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to make some sort of concession. That application was refused without any inquiry at all—upon the purely local ground, I believe, that the place was not the best site for a harbour. All I would ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should have a local inquiry as to whether the local conditions are favourable and the application sound financially, and with regard to other conditions as to which the Board of Trade require information before a definite conclusion is come to. There has been no searching inquiry, perhaps because the local authority did not present its case fully before the Board of Trade, and the Board gave their reply before the local

  91
  engineer had sent in his plans. All I would ask the right hon. Gentleman now is, if an application of that character is sent in, will he consent to have a local inquiry into the whole of the circumstances before he arrives at any definite conclusion.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am not quite sure whether this discussion is really relevant to this particular Vote, which is purely confined to the harbour, at Holyhead. The only two harbours with which the Board of Trade is connected are those at Holyhead and Ramsgate.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is what I am complaining of.
  MR. RTTCHIE: Therefore I do not quite see, how the discussion comes under this Vote. But I am quite willing to reply to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman. I very well remember the general undertaking I gave at the time referred to. I think the hon. Member has correctly given its effect, which was that any applications made under the same conditions as those for grants in connection with light railways would be considered in the hope that we should be able to meet the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others. In order to carry out that undertaking I appointed a Departmental Committee composed of certain officials of the Board of Trade, certain gentlemen from the Treasury, and one other official. Several applications were made, all of which were referred to this Committee, with a direction to consider whether the conditions were complied with, that is, to see that there were certain contributions from the locality, and that there was an undertaking on the part of some public authority to maintain the harbour. The hon. Gentleman referred to a particular case, but I do not think he named it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The case of Portmadoc, Cardigan Bay.
  MR. RITCHIE: There was no local inquiry, and the application failed because the financial arrangements did not come within the lines laid down. I was very sorry the financial conditions were not complied with, as I am extremely anxious that where the conditions are anything like complied with the applications should
  92
  be favourably considered. In this case, if the conditions had not been absolutely complied with but oven approached to, I should certainly have endeavoured to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I felt the harbour was one that was really wanted, to stretch a point with a view to meeting the difficulty.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what are the financial conditions which he proposes?
  MR. RITCHIE: I think one of the financial conditions is that, from one source or another outside the Treasury, two-thirds of the money should be provided by loan or contribution from the locality, and then the Treasury will find the other third. That condition was not complied with in regard to this particular harbour. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say there was some informality in the application, and that the decision was arrived at before full particulars had been sent in. If that is so, and the hon. Gentleman will sec that another application is made with fuller particulars, I will take care that the matter is carefully considered.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade to explain how it happened that the particular case of the harbour at Holyhead was charged on the Imperial Estimates. There must be something unusual for such a course, as in Scotland and in England the harbours were charged on local rates. Another point was that the harbour dues seemed not to vary, but to stand at £1,300. The rents collected amounted to another £l,300. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain whether the trade at Holyhead had not been increasing, so as to create some variation at least of the dues and perhaps of the rent; and also why, if only these small sums were received, the rents and dues were not raised to meet the cost.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Before the right hon. Gentleman explains this point, I think I am right in saying that this harbour is vested in the Hoard of Trade by two or three Acts of Parliament, and that is how the Board of Trade gets there. But I should like to know why on earth the Board of Trade stops there. What capacity has the Board of Trade for managing a harbour? They are not seafaring persons, nor are their employees.

  93
  The Board has to hire a harbour-master at an enormous salary, paying £700 for a job which ought to be done for about £200 a year. Apparently the Board does not even know where their harbours are, as the right hon. Gentleman says that his Department manages only two—one at Holyhead and the other at Ramsgate. But the other is at Hull, called Spurn Point. Spurn Point is not at Ramsgate, nor is it a harbour, so there are two mistakes instead of one. What becomes of Ramsgate if the right hon. Gentleman continues to manage it? Has it disappeared? If not, why is it not in the Estimates? But what I really wish to call attention to is this. The right hon. Gentleman has a great deal too much to do. He has so much to do that I once heard an hon. Member rise on these benches and propose that his salary should be increased. That gentleman has since gone out as Viceroy of India. That was his reward. But in heaven's name let not the right hon. Gentleman or his Department undertake things for which they are not fitted. If a harbour has to be managed let it be managed by seafaring persons who are accustomed to the work. There is the Trinity Board—a body admirably suited for the work; or, failing the Trinity Board, there is the Admiralty, who could easily supply officers to manage harbours at a very much cheaper rate than that at present paid by the Board of Trade. This is a very important matter. My conviction is that this harbour is extremely ill-managed. Two thousand and six hundred pounds for keeping up an old wooden pier is outrageous. You might keep up all the wooden piers on the north coast of France for that sum. The extravagances in this Vote are very great indeed. Then for Spurn Point works there is the usual £1,000. The works are always approaching completion, but as fast as you spend £1,000 the sea washes away £2,000 worth. Why go on managing harbours at such a cost for so small a return? I suggest that this work should be handed over to some such body as I have named, so that the right hon. Gentleman should be left free to occupy his mind with those great matters of State for which he is so eminently fitted.
  MR. RITCHIE: On the question of the Board of Trade managing these har-
  94
  bours, I think it hardly necessary that I should trouble the Committee. No doubt the hon. Gentleman who says other people might do the work better would be able himself to manage harbours much more admirably than the Board of Trade, but unfortunately the hon. Member is not mentioned in the Act of Parliament as the managing authority, while the Board of Trade is. The reason why the Board of Trade has to undertake the duty is because that duty is east upon it by Act of Parliament. The reason why the management of Holyhead Harbour is cast upon the Board of Trade is, I presume, that it is a harbour of refuge, and that it is not an ordinary harbour such as is contemplated by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The inner harbour is used almost entirely by the mail steamers between England and Ireland, and therefore the dues are practically stationary. As to the rent, that is also, stationary because it is fixed under a long lease granted to the London and North Western Railway Company at a yearly rent of £1,100, and that is why there is no variation.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he could understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation about the rent, but he could not see why the dues, which were put down at £1,300, should be a constant quantity.
  MR. RITCHIE: That is the estimate.
  MR. CALDWELL: It, always works out the same, but it ought to be based upon any probable increase or diminution.
  MR. RITCHIE: The harbours of refuge in Scotland are harbours for a particular class who use thorn in the fishing trade. Holyhead Harbour is a harbour of refuge on a, very dangerous coast for the general trade of the country. With regard to dues, if the hon. Member will refer to the Appropriation Account he will find that the estimate is kept about the same. My hon. friend alluded to the wooden pier, and I think the hon. Member for King's Lynn was justified in calling attention to it. I think the wooden pier ought to disappear, and a stone or iron pier should take its place. The expense of keeping it up is very great, and I am now in negotiation with the North Western Railway Company, the

  95
  result of which, I hope at no distant date, will be the substitution of a stone pier for the present wooden one.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply to the speech of my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon. I am sure that that reply will be received with satisfaction in the district to which it relates. I only wish the Government would recognise the importance of Holyhead Harbour to the shipping trade of the country by blowing up the Platters Rocks, which now diminish very largely indeed the usefulness of this great harbour of refuge. This question has been before the House upon several occasions, and on more than one occasion those interested in the matter have had reason to believe that this work would have been done before. As compared with the total cost of the harbour, the cost of blowing up the Platters Rocks would be comparatively small. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of an outer and an inner harbour, but at Holyhead there are docks besides the inner and the outer harbour. The inner harbour can only be used by vessels at a time when the wind is favourable, and when the wind blows from certain quarters it is impossible for sailing vessels to come into the inner harbour, and that is just the time when there is the greatest danger, because the protection in the outer harbour is very slight indeed compared with the protection afforded by the inner harbour. I had hoped that this great work of destroying the Platters Rocks and converting Holy-head Harbour into the great harbour which it might be made with a small expenditure would have been carried through by this time. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to complete this work before he leaves office. I wish to mention another portion of the North Wales coast—I refer to the River Dee—where, I believe, at a very small expenditure, a most useful harbour of refuge could be made. What is required is something more in the way of lights, and if the Government would regard the River Dee as a harbour of refuge they would very much improve the navigation of that river and the usefulness of the estuary of the Dee as a harbour of refuge. I have not given the right hon. Gentleman notice of my intention to raise this question, and I can only express
  96
  the hope that he will take it into favourable consideration.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I should like to ask whether the works at Peterhead exist for the sake of the convicts only. The difficulty of proceeding with the work at the rate which was expected is very great, because the number of convicts has diminished so much in Scotland of late years. If it is really urgent to get the work completed, then there will have to be a much larger supply of convict labour, and as Scotland is not supplying as many convicts as it used to do, it is necessary, and I hope it may be possible, to get some of the Scotchmen who are convicts in England to go down there and help with the work. A suggestion has been made that ordinary prisoners should be sent there, but I do not think that would work at all, for I do not believe that you can mix convicts with ordinary prisoners.
  MR. CALDWELL: The original cost of this harbour was £972,520, and payments on account have left a balance of £574,514 to finish the work. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to tell us when these works were begun. As regards the rate of progress, it cannot be very great, because the sum of only about £24,000 has been expended during i the last year, and you are only taking | £500 more this year. Therefore, I presume your rate of progress last year is very much the same as what you are estimating for the current year. You are dealing hero with a large harbour, and it must be evident to everyone that to carry on the work at such a rate it is impossible that it can be profitably done. There must necessarily be a washing away by the sea of probably more than you are putting down, and it seems to me that this harbour is evidently looked upon as a place to find the convicts some-

  97
  thing to do, and it is simply a case of throwing this money into the sea. I think we ought to have some little explanation as to what practical benefit has been derived, or is likely to be derived, from carrying on these works at Peter-head. Owing to the reduction in the number of long sentences passed in Scotland, the supply of convict labour is getting very low indeed. The number of convicts who can be employed on this class of work is very small in proportion, because you cannot employ the women on this particular work. I think the matter should be looked at from a practical point of view, and there is no reason why this work should be undertaken merely to find employment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some particulars with regard to this expenditure, and will be able to devise some scheme whereby convict labour, if it is necessary to utilise it, may be utilised in a more profitable manner. I think we should know what is going to be done in the future with regard to finding reasonable employment for the men who, after their sentences are completed, have to go out into the world. Why should they not follow the same sort of trade which they knew before going into prison, instead of being made more useless. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury can tell us the number of convicts employed, the estimate for the future, and the actual amount of work done on the harbour.
  MR. HANBURY: This is not a Treasury Vote, but in the absence of the representative of the Admiralty I will answer some of the questions, although I am not able to supply all the information which has been asked for. I think the hon. Member opposite is under some misapprehension in regard to this question, because, as a matter of fact, although there are a certain number of convicts employed, yet a large proportion of those employed are free labourers. The proportion is about 350 free labourers to about 200 convicts. I think there is some justification for the statement that the work proceeds somewhat slowly, but I understand that is a deliberate policy due, no doubt, to the desire to employ convict labour as much as possible on the work. I hardly think my hon. friend is right in saying that no sooner is the work done than it is washed away by the sea.
  98
  Although the work proceeds slowly, still there is a good deal to show for the money which has been expended upon it. As I have stated, there are only about 200 convicts employed upon this work, and I believe the policy has been to employ fewer convicts every year, partly on the ground stated by the hon. Member opposite, that it is not every convict who can do work of this kind. This is not work which is suitable for all convicts, and consequently the number so employed has been considerably reduced, and a much larger proportion of free labour has been engaged, with the result that in recent years the progress of the work has been considerably increased. The hon. Member has asked a question in regard to the work proposed to be done during the present year. The main work this year will be on the south breakwater, and I believe that will be extended by about 100 feet. This will involve a very large amount of labour, and this extension will certainly be in excess of what has been done in previous years.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: During the last Administration this particular Vote was more discussed than any other in the Estimates. I remember that upon one occasion, during my temporary absence from the House, when this Vote came on it was proposed to move the adjournment of the Committee because the representative of the Admiralty was not present to explain the Vote, and I am not quite sure whether it was not the right hon. Gentleman himself who proposed to take that course. I should have thought that at least one of the representatives of the Admiralty might have been in his place to explain an Estimate in which they took such a keen interest six years ago. It has been said again and again —and this view has been taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn—that it is not good economy to spend so little upon work of this kind. There was one thing, however, which we always had upon those occasions, and that was some account of the work done during the preceding year. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us that account to-night. As the right. hon. Gentleman has already stated, this is a Vote for which the Admiralty is responsible. I know the Admiralty hate it,

  99
  but it is the Department charged with its administration, and they alone possess the information which the House is in the habit of asking for. Under the circumstances, as the Vote is not an important one, and it does not matter whether it is obtained to-night or not, I think it might as well be postponed until the representative of the Admiralty is present.
  MR. HANBURYassented to this course being taken.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: If it is postponed I do hope it will be taken with the Scotch Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £226,403, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc. in respect of Government property, and for rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Powers, and for the salaries and expenses of the rating of Government Property Department, and for a contribution towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to raise here what is really a very important question, although it does not involve a very large amount of money. The question I wish to raise is that of the second contribution by the Government to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, which comes under Item G. For many years the Government successfully resisted the applications made and the desires expressed that it should pay rates, or the equivalent of rates, for its occupancy of buildings; and during those years it was very proper that the Government, while they were not making the ordinary contributions made by ordinary ratepayers, should also make a special contribution to the organisation which afforded them protection from fire. It was perfectly right, then, that the Government should make this contribution of £10,000 per annum to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. But since this amount of £10,000 was settled an entire change has come
  100
  over the views and policy of the Government, a change which I may say is due largely to the Secretary to the Treasury, who has been one of the very foremost in urging that the Government should pay rates in the same way as other people. But he never contemplated that the Government should pay these rates, and at the same time should also pay the £10,000 which had been voted in substitution for those rates. It is absurd for the Government to pay for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in the rates, and also continue the old payment, which was made solely, exclusively, and entirely on the ground that the Government did not pay rates and ought, therefore, to pay something. I do not know upon what ground the Secretary to the Treasury or any other member of the Government can defend this payment. The details are furnished on page 3, and it will be seen that this is a special contribution in addition to a contribution of about £2,000 per annum paid under Subhead C in respect of Government property in London. I do not see how that £2,000 has been arrived at, and I should like some information regarding it. It is suggested that out of the very large sum the Government pay in rates or in lieu of rates £2,000 represents the payment towards the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. I should have thought it would have been very much more than that sum, My point is, at any rate, extremely simple. Before the Government began to pay rates it was right that this £10,000 should be paid as a kind of composition for its wickedness in withdrawing itself from the impositions attaching to other holders of property. After the Government paid rates the whole ground on which this sum was paid entirely disappeared. There is a further reason why this payment should not be continued. It is no longer paid, as it used to be paid, to a sort of syndicate of fire offices who kept up a sort of fire brigade at their own expense. The brigade is now the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and it is attached to the County Council, which has taxing powers of its own, and which can defray the expenses of the maintenance of the brigade. The Fire Brigade is indeed one of the prides of the County Council, and whatever expenses are necessary for it can easily be obtained, and I do not anticipate that the County Council, which now receives this £10,000, would offer any

  101
  opposition to its withdrawal. It is not necessary to labour the point. The reasons why this sum was paid out of the Imperial Exchequer to the Fire Brigade have disappeared, and I fail to see on what grounds this proposal to pay £10,000 to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and also to pay rates, or contributions in lieu of rates, can be defended. I hope the Government will stop this payment, and that my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some information on the subject.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he desired to call attention to a matter which had been already referred to—namely, the recent contributions in lieu of rates in England and Scotland. There was a very considerable increase in the case of England, but there was no increase whatever in the case of either Scotland or Ireland. The amount was £19,000 for Scotland and £41,000 for Ireland, as compared with between £300,000 and £400,000 in the case of England. He quite admitted that the Government had been going hand in hand with the local authorities, not merely in London but also throughout the provinces, in raising the valuation of Government property and giving increased sums in respect of local rates. That went on year by year in the case of England, but the amount remained practically stationary as far as Scotland was concerned. With regard to museums and art galleries in London, he should like to have a statement showing to what extent the National Gallery, the South Kensington Museum, and other places of that kind, which were practically for the benefit of the citizens of London, were valued. It was all very well to say that these galleries and museums were open to people from the provinces— that was perfectly true to a certain extent; but there was no doubt whatever that, being in London, these institutions were of enormous advantage to the citizens of London. They were open in the evenings not for the benefit of visitors, but for the benefit of the citizens of London. They were also open on Sundays, and the Secretary to the Treasury knew very well that Scotch people would not go to museums on Sundays. He wished to point out that museums and similar institutions ought to be dealt with on a separate basis altogether from the manner in which post offices, telegraph offices,
  102
  and dockyards were treated. He quite admitted that if the Government carried on work in a dockyard it was only fair that it should be treated as any other factory; but when they were dealing with institutions which undoubtedly were of great advantage to the community they ought to take into consideration such advantages, and certainly they ought not to be taxed at the same rate as post offices and other places where business was carried on. With regard to the colonies, he noticed an item of £7,843 for the drainage of Malta, and other contributions on account of Government property in the colonies. He should like to have some particulars with regard to that sum. In the first place, it was put into an account which was not exactly germane to the matter. He did not think that a contribution for the drainage of Malta had any connection with rates on Government property. There might be other places abroad where drainage might have to be undertaken, and on the same principle the Government might have to give immense sums. They were starting a new principle which might not be sound, and now was the time to call attention to it. With reference to the sum of £10,000 referred to by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and to which he had also intended to refer, he remembered distinctly that when the question of rates on Government property was first taken up, Sir John Hibbert, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, said that if Government property were to be valued the same as the property of private individuals, the contribution of £10,000 to the Fire Brigade ought to be dropped. That contribution was, perhaps, reasonable at the time it was first given, as a kind of insurance of Government buildings. At that time there was no proper provision against fire, and it was proper that the Government, in the interest of its own property, as well as in the interests of London as a whole, should contribute. But when the Brigade was placed in the hands of the County Council, who had full power to assess, he was sure that the Secretary of the Treasury would see that, as Government property was now fully rated, the Government were paying for the Fire Brigade in the same way as any other property holder, and there was no reason why, under the altered conditions, the Government should continue the contribution.

  103
  He hoped they would have an assurance that it would be stopped, if not this year, certainly in the future. If the item were to be continued, he should certainly proceed to a division as a protest. With regard to the rates payable in respect of the property of foreign Powers, there was a total sum of £4,600, and the representatives of the foreign Powers refunded £1,950. He should like to know whether these houses were revalued in the same way as Government property, and whether the difference between what was contributed by the representatives of foreign Powers and the sum paid by the Government practically represented the increased value. Why should the Government pay any part of those rates? He could quite conceive the Government, as an indication of fraternity towards foreign States, not charging any local rates at all, but if rates were to be charged on these buildings, why should not the Government pay the full amount, and not ask the representatives of the foreign Powers to pay £1,950, leaving the country to pay £2,650. He had no doubt that foreign countries thought that they paid the full rates, and they would give the Government no credit whatever for paying the sum they did. He thought that they should either pay no rates at all for the property of foreign Powers, or else that they should pay them all and get full credit for them. He also would wish to know what was the total amount of rates paid by the occupiers of apartments in the Royal Palaces, and what was the total amount of the rates charged in respect of such apartments. That was another case in which the Treasury was only getting a portion of the rates. He thought the Treasury should pay all the rates or let them be paid by the occupiers. He hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would give them an assurance with regard to the £10,000 paid to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
  MR. WEIRsaid he desired to move a reduction of £50 in respect of Item A, which provided for the salary of the Treasury Valuer and Inspector of Rates, as he considered that that gentleman failed to fulfil his duties satisfactorily. There was an increase of £29,000 in the contributions in lieu of rates in the case of England, but there was no increase as
  104
  regards Scotland, and he did not know whether the Inspector of Rates ever went to Scotland to make inquiries on the spot, as to the increased value of Government property. The contribution to Scotland ought to be very considerably increased, as it was altogether insufficient when compared with the amount giyen to England. With regard to the sum for drainage works in Malta, he did not understand how it came to be included in the Vote. With reference to the £10,000 paid to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade he was of opinion that that contribution should cease, and that the ratepayers of London should pay for their own brigade. The London County Council would take all the money they could get. He did not blame them, but he would blame himself if he did not oppose the Vote especially when there was so much difficulty in getting a few hundred pounds for a harbour or any other useful work in Scotland. There was an increase of £200 for the rates of the houses occupied by the representatives of foreign Powers. A large sum of money was annually spent on the embellishment and extension of these premises. In this connection he should like to know how British representatives were treated in other countries. Were they free from rates?
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  QUARRIES BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Wednesday, 16th May.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT (BOROUGH OF CHELSEA ORDER IN COUNCIL).
  MR. WHITMORE: I express my regret to the House that I am obliged at this hour to move the motion standing in my name. I know very well that no subject is more intensely uninteresting to those who are not concerned in it than that of boundaries, but at the same time it is a subject which excites even excessive interest in those who are. My business to-night is to move a motion with regard

  105
  to the northern boundary of the new metropolitan borough of Chelsea. At the outset I wish to say that I hope very much that nothing I may say will seem to reflect in any way on the general conduct of the Commissioners. I am sure other London Members, besides myself, recognise the skill and impartiality with which they have discharged their duties, but whore there may have been an error the only course open to us in order to rectify it is by a motion such as mine. The case as regards Chelsea is this. We have the great borough of Kensington, with a rateable value of over.£2,000,000, and a population of about 170,000 adjoining the smaller borough of Chelsea with a rateable value of about £700,000 and a population of 75,000. I do not intend to say that because this disparity exists the Commissioners or the House ought to try to rectify and equalise it. The Vestry of Chelsea has sent a Resolution to many hon. Members which asks the House to amend the Draft Order in such a manner as to take away from Kensington a large tract of territory of great value. I sympathise with the feeling of the Vestry, but I do not think that so large a re-distribution came within the scope of the labours of the Commissioners, or that the House intended them to exercise such powers. I do not now ask the House to make any such radical alteration in the Draft Order. But when we have in two neighbouring boroughs so great a disparity in rateable value and population, I think the Commissioners in rectifying the boundaries should take care that that disparity was not added to by taking away rateable value and population from the smaller borough in order to add them to the larger borough. The principle, as I understand it, on which the Commissioners worked in rectifying the boundaries was that the boundaries in future should follow the middle of roadways, and that the roadways should, if possible, be significant and well known. How has that principle been carried out as regards the northern boundary of Chelsea? Many hon. Members know the Brompton Road and Harrod's Stores. The new boundary of Chelsea, as suggested in the Draft Order in Council, will run westwards from Sloane Street by the Brompton Road until it reaches a little court called Hooper's Court, which never can be a roadway, and which no passers-by
  106
  would ever suspect was a thoroughfare. It is entered from the Brompton Road through an archway by a public-house. Yet that is to be the boundary between Kensington and Chelsea. I am bound to say I do not think it is a proper boundary. I should have thought that a boundary should obviously present a natural appearance. The result of making that boundary will be to increase the rateable value of Kensington by some £11,000 and the population by about 1,000. That is a result which ought to be avoided, and which can easily be avoided. If instead of being in Hooper's Court the boundary went a little way to the westward along the Brompton Road to New Street, and then by that street to Basil Street there would be a good boundary in the middle of roadways. This would, it is true, add to Chelsea some three acres of land, and increase the rateable value by £8,000 and the population by 200. But surely that is not an unreasonable request for Chelsea to make. Speaking for the smaller of the two boroughs I ask the House not to sanction what is in itself an unfortunate boundary, and which would further add to the disparity in rateable value and population which now exists. I think I may ask the President of the Local Government Board and House generally to acquit me of any sympathy with megalomania. I have no desire to make any undue invasion on Kensington, but I wish that the new boundaries should be reasonable and natural, and should be such as to give satisfaction in the future. I state without hesitation that the Hooper's Court boundary is unsatisfactory, and I ask the House to substitute for it a much better boundary, which incidentally would have the result— which, when the relative size of Kensington and Chelsea is considered, is in itself desirable —of adding to the rateable value and population of Chelsea. I beg to move, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to withhold Her Assent to the Draft Order in Council of the 27th day of March, 1900, for the establishment of the Metropolitan Borough of Chelsea, unless Amendments are made therein so that the northern boundary of the new Borough shall be the centre of New Street, and the Brompton Road, in lieu of the centre of Basil Street and Hooper's Court.' —(Mr. Whitmore.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): I was very glad to hear the tribute which my hon. friend paid to the work of the Commissioners, but, of course, notwithstanding that, he is perfectly within his right in seeking to modify their proposals. He also stated that he had no desire or intention whatever to invade the rights of Kensington, and perhaps, therefore, I may in a very few words explain the methods by which the Commissioners proceeded. It was found that the present boundary between Kensington and Chelsea was most unsatisfactory, the fact being that almost throughout the whole of its course it runs either through or at the back of buildings. My hon. friend referred to the proposal made by the vestry of Chelsea as to the now boundary they desired, but the effect of that proposal would be to transfer property of a rateable value of no less than £156,000 from Kensington to Chelsea, and that, of course, was a suggestion which very properly could not be entertained for a moment by the Commissioners, and I doubt very much, even if it had been entertained, whether Parliament would have agreed to it. The Commissioners decided that the only alterations in the boundary should be such as would secure, in their opinion, a more satisfactory boundary in the future. My hon. friend says that the effect of the arrangement as it stands at present will be to add £8,000 to the rateable value of Kensington. I think my hon. friend is mistaken. Whether that may be the result as regards the northern boundary alone I am not prepared to say at this moment, but I am advised that the net result of the changes in the boundary will be a gain of £2,000 rateable value to Chelsea.
  MR. WHITMORE: I know perfectly well that if the alterations in the boundary between Chelsea and Westminster are considered, the statement of
  108
  my right hon. friend is perfectly true, but I was only referring to the result of the changes made in the boundary between Kensington and Chelsea.
  MR. CHAPLIN: But if the net result is a gain of £2,000 in the rateable value, I do not think Chelsea has much ground for complaint. I admit my hon. friend's proposal is a great improvement on the original proposal put forward by Chelsea; but the effect even of his proposal would be to transfer blocks of property from Kensington to Chelsea, the rateable value of which is estimated at from £34,000 to £40,000. I cannot think that that is a proposal which would be by any means fair to Kensington, or a proposal which the House ought to agree to, and as far as I am concerned, as representing the Commissioners and the work they have carried out, I will be obliged to oppose it.
  EARL PERCYsaid he did not think the House would accept his hon. friend's scheme, especially when they rejected a far more moderate proposal a few weeks ago. He, however, congratulated his hon. friend on having put forward a far more moderate proposal than the original proposal of the Vestry of Chelsea. He was informed that the prospective value of the property included in Kensington, as a result of the new northern boundary, was only £4,400. His hon. friend's main argument was that Chelsea was a very small borough, and that it was a great crime to further reduce its population; but Kensington had already taken over districts, mainly at the request of Chelsea itself, which were a burden on the locality. He did not think that the arguments of his hon. friend were strong enough to persuade the House to accept his scheme.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.