said, that he had placed upon the Paper a Notice for the rejection of this Bill; but he was always very reluctant to oppose the second reading of a Private Bill. The circumstances of this case, however, were very exceptional; and if the Bill had remained in its original position, it would have been most desirable that the House, as a whole, should have pronounced an opinion upon it. The Bill, as presented to Parliament, proposed to go on a high embankment very near Stonehenge, cutting diagonally across both the Avenue and the Cursus. He need hardly say that these ancient remains were of a peculiar character and quite unique. Stonehenge and Avebury were the two grandest monuments of their kind in the world. He was not sure that the vibration of the trains might not have shaken down the trilithons; but, at any rate, the Avenue and the Cursus would be destroyed, and the whole aspect of this solemn and mysterious scene irreparably destroyed. Moreover, it was quite unnecessary. It was quite as easy to carry the line a little to the north. It would be as direct, and presented no engineering or other difficulties. The fact was that the engineers had not given a thought to the matter. When one of the promoters was remonstrated with on this act of Vandalism, he replied that they did not propose to take down Stonehenge itself; that the Avenue was merely a bank and a ditch; and, as for the Cursus, that "though it might once have served as an ancient British racecourse, all he could say was that it was quite out of repair, and of no use whatever now." However, the promoters had now agreed to abandon that particular piece of their line, and to go a little further to the north. They therefore proposed to ask Parliament to sanction another line, which, while it would be quite as direct, and would present no engineering difficulties, would spare both the Avenue and the Cursus. It would be a mile from Stonehenge, and only visible at one point which the Company had agreed to plant, so that it would interfere as little as might be with the general features of the spot. Under these circumstances, he did not feel justified in opposing the second reading, although he confessed that he could not but regret the construction of a line through that particular district. He was assured that the vibration could not, at the distance now proposed, endanger Stonehenge; but he hoped that the Committee would satisfy themselves on that point. He had no doubt that the promoters would honourably carry out the undertaking which they had given him; but, of course, if there should be any objection to the Bill when it came back from Committee, although he did not for a moment anticipate that there would be, he trusted the House would permit him to call its attention to the matter again, and to oppose the Bill on the third reading.

said, that, as his name also appeared on the Paper in opposition to the Bill, he desired to say that his sole motive in the course he had taken was that which had been stated by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). But after the undertaking which had been given to the hon. Member that the line would be so deviated as to preserve the integrity of these ancient monuments, he did not feel inclined to ask the House to dissent from the second reading of the Bill, and he would therefore withdraw his opposition.

said, he had given Notice of opposition to this Bill, because it appeared to him not only an unnecessary Bill, but also a highly objectionable Bill. It was brought in by the Hull Docks Company for the purpose of cancelling powers that had been given to the Corporation of Hull to take the Docks upon trust. It was also intended to give power to the Hull Docks Company to enclose the Dock Quays, to build and employ steamers, tugs, and lighters; and it contained further powers of a most important character. The Corporation of Hull had petitioned against the Bill. The merchants, shipowners, lighter-owners, and others, had also petitioned against it. He knew that in dividing the House against the second reading of the Bill an objection would be raised that he was taking a somewhat unusual course; but his objections to the Bill were of the strongest possible character. The Bill proposed, as he said, to enable the Dock Company to fence off and enclose the Dock Quays situate in the very heart of the densely populated town, and it would deprive the public of their rights of way over the same. He objected to the Bill not only from a commercial, but from a sanitary point of view. But he was told by his friends that these and other matters were points which ought to be left for the decision of a Committee upstairs, who would take into consideration all the allegations contained in the Petitions which had been lodged against the Bill. Therefore, under the circumstances, and acting by the advice of his friends, he did not think that, at the present stage of the Bill, he should be warranted in carrying his opposition to it to a division. He would content himself with having stated some of the objections to the Bill without moving that the Bill be rejected.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will afford him an opportunity of bringing on the Motion, of which Notice has been given, for a Select Committee to inquire into all the negotiations and circumstances connected with the release of Mr. Parnell, M.P., Mr. Dillon, M.P., and Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., from Kilmainham Prison in the spring of 1882?

Sir, I think that the House generally will probably anticipate the answer that I am about to make to this inquiry. It is that the Government adhere to the decision which on their own part they have already announced by the mouth of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. It would be idle, Sir, and I think an abuse of my privilege, were I to attempt to recount all the considerations that have weighed upon their minds in leading them to that conclusion; but I will just mention two of the most important. One of those considerations is that we conceive that the question whether censure was due to the Government in respect of these transactions has, upon a recent occasion, been very fully debated and decided by a vote of this House. And the second consideration is that, in our opinion, the repetition or continuance of those debates would not be favourable to the impartial administration of justice, under very trying circumstances, in Ireland, nor to the general cause of good government and contentment in that country.

Sir, the Government have now, for the third time, declined to give any assistance to those who desire to bring forward a Motion which had its origin in a suggestion and challenge made by the Prime Minister. Under these circumstances, I have only to say that I feel it both useless and unnecessary for me to persevere in the Motion—useless because, without the assistance of the Government, I have no real chance of being able to bring the matter forward, and unnecessary because I think the inferences that will be drawn from the answer of the Government are quite obvious, and need no emphasizing on my part.

said, that a gross miscalculation seemed to have been made with regard to this Estimate, inasmuch as the sum now asked for was 70 per cent is addition to the original Estimate of £500. He thought some explanation ought to be given of this large discrepancy.

said, the additional sum was required in order to meet the expenses necessary to pay for the preparation of independant and fuller actuarial Returns than had been previously given, in order to guide Friendly Societies in their future operations. The preparation of these Returns involved a great amount of extra work, and hence the additional charge for an increase in the actuarial staff.

moved to reduce the Vote by £500, on account of the cost of distributing Parliamentary Papers to Members of the House. The hon. Member said, he thought he need not apologize for taking up the time of the Committee with regard to this question, seeing that the Secretary to the Treasury, in answer to a question which he (Mr. Buxton) had put to him on the subject, had stated his opinion that the matter in question was one which had better be settled by debate in the House rather than by means of a simple answer to an interrogation. He had therefore raised the question, because, while they were all anxious to see economy promoted in every branch of the Public Service by the introduction of all possible savings and reforms that might be found feasible, both sides of the House found it somewhat difficult to to select a place at which such reforms should begin. On this occasion he thought he had found a point on which the Committee could put its finger in order to effect some economy. He thought he had good authority for believing that economy might be effected in reference to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers to private Members and also to the Public Offices. Two years ago—in 1881—a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed to consider the whole subject. The Committee sat and took evidence, more especially that of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Department. They presented a Report, in which they submitted various recommendations, particularly as to three of the points referred to them—namely, the storage of Papers, the printing for the two Houses of Parliament, and the distribution of Papers to Members. As to the recommendations in reference to storage and printing, he thought the Committee might fairly congratulate the present Secretary to the Treasury and his Predecessor upon the satisfactory re suits which were found to result from putting in force the recommendations of the Committee. He believed that a very large saving had already been made in regard to the waste Parliamentary-Papers—of which an enormous store was found—large numbers of which had never been, and were never likely to be, required. But he would venture to call the attention of the Committee to the third point—namely, that as to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers to Members. He could not go very fully into the matter, because he had not had much notice of this Vote coming on; but he thought that all Members would agree with him that the present mode of delivering these Papers was not only wasteful and uneconomical in the extreme, but that at times it entailed a very great amount of trouble upon Members who were in search of some particular information embodied in Parliamentary Papers, a vast mass of which filled up their houses. In searching for information on particular subjects a doubt and difficulty, which most hon. Members must have experienced, was as to whether a particular Paper had been issued generally, or whether it was included only in what was called, the "short list" of Papers, which the authorities of the House, having made a selection, did not think it necessary to send to Members generally. He thought he was right in saying that a very large and constantly-increasing number of Papers were included in this "short list." It was hoped that the House would see its way to adopting the suggestions made by the Controller of the Stationery Office in the course of his evidence before the Joint Committee, to which he had referred. Those suggestions were as follows:—

"1. The present system of general delivery of all Papers, as a matter of course, to cease.

"2. A Schedule to be circulated daily, weekly, or otherwise, as might be thought most convenient, giving reference, number, short title, and short note of contents of all Papers presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, or printed by order of either House since the date of the Schedule last issued.

"3. A full subject index to be issued at the close of each Session, to be, if required, bound up with the Schedule, which would thus become simple and convenient books of reference to all Parliamentary Papers issued.

"4.Members of both Houses to be supplied with small books on demand; each demand being addressed at the back to the authority to whom application for Papers should be made. Any Member, on filling in and signing a demand, or making otherwise written application, to be supplied with any Paper in the Schedule, whe- ther or not presented to or printed by the House to which he may belong.

"5. Any Member wishing it to receive, as at present, all Papers issued to the House to which he may belong, on making a general application in writing to that effect.

"6. In cases of Papers of special interest a full delivery to be made to Members of either House on an order to this effect being given in writing; if a Command Paper by a Cabinet Minister; if a Paper printed by the House of Lords by the Clerk of the Parliaments; if printed by order of the House of Commons by the Speaker."

This was the scheme of suggestions made by the Controller of the Stationery Department, and the Joint Committee to which he had referred, having considered the scheme on its merits, as to its feasibility and its convenience to hon. Members of the House, decided that such a scheme was not "unworthy the adoption of the House." The Committee used the word "adoption," though in the draft Report hon. Members would find the word "consideration" in place of "adoption." This discrepancy was explained by the fact that after the draft Report was prepared the Committee reconsidered the matter at some length, and in the end, by a very large majority—in fact, he believed there was no division—decided upon using the word "adoption" instead of "consideration." The Secretary to the Treasury was himself a Member of the Joint Committee, and it was satisfactory that he had now become responsible for the statement contained in the Report, that the scheme suggested by the Controller of the Stationery Department was "not unworthy the adoption of the House." They had very good authority for believing that the introduction and adoption of such a scheme would be attended with great convenience to Members, and would involve in a short time—he did not say in the first or the second year, but certainly at no distant date—a very large saving in public expense. The present expenditure of the Department was a very large sum—not less than £560,000 or £570,000 a-year—and it was not only a very large, but it was a constantly increasing sum; and if this expenditure could be decreased without interfering with the facilities which hon. Members have for obtaining information, he thought the House would agree with him that such a reform would be very advantageous. The present system was not altogether a satisfactory one, inasmuch as it was not easy to trace what Papers were and were not distributed; but, by the scheme of the Controller, information would be given to Members each morning as to the Papers issued, and they could at once notify to the proper authority those which they wished to have supplied to them. Another difficulty, under the present system, was that there were two modes of distribution—one distribution at the private residences of Members, and another distribution at the Public Offices to Ministers. He thought it would be well for Ministers to get their Papers at their private houses, by which means they would receive them several hours earlier than at their Offices. Another advantage would be that Members who were temporarily absent from town would be able to have such Papers as they required delivered to them in the country. There were many other respects in which the Controller's scheme would be advantageous, and he therefore commended it to the favourable consideration of the House. In conclusion, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.

said, he thought the present was scarcely the most appropriate occasion to discuss the whole of the scheme which had been unfolded by the hon. Member for Andover. It would, he thought, come much more properly in the debate on the main Estimate than in the consideration of a Supplementary Estimate to a sum already voted and spent. If the hon. Member would favour the House by bringing forward his proposal again on the Estimate for the coming year, he felt sure that the Committee would give to the subject all the consideration and attention which it deserved. What he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wanted from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was an explanation of the very great increase in the Vote. He should like to know whether it was caused by the Autumn Session; and, if so, whether that was thought to be a prudent way of spending the nation's money? He should also like to know how it came about that so large a sum as £6,000 was put down for paper. This seemed to him to be an enormous sum as compared with £5,500 for printing. There were several other points which would, no doubt, suggest themselves to his hon. Friend, and for which he should have asked for fuller explanation than appeared on the face of the Estimate had there been more time to consider them.

said, he also wished to ask for some explanation as to the increase in the cost of Parliamentary records. The original Estimate was for £5,100, and now an additional £1,250 was asked. Perhaps the addition was due—as in the case of the additional grant of £i,000 to Messrs. Hansard, without doubt, it was—to the holding of an Autumn Session; but, in any case, the matter was one calling for fuller explanation.

also desired to put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In the first place, however, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the enormous amount of the Supplementary Estimates for this Department. No less than £20,000 for this year, 1882–83; and £19,600 for last year, 1881–82. Now, it was a bad thing to over-estimate the probable expenditure of a Department, because, if a larger grant was made than was really necessary, it led to extravagance; but he was not at all sure that a large under-estimate was not worse, for it led to large Supplementary Estimates, and lessened the control of Parliament over expenditure. In February, 1882, the then Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) deplored the steady and most unsatisfactory increase of expense in this Department; and the House, upon his Motion, passed last year certain Resolutions affecting this Department. The question which he desired to put to the Financial Secretary was, whether he could inform the Committee what had been the practical effect, if any, of the working of these Resolutions. He desired also to know if the expense of Foreign Office printing, which was commented upon last year, had received consideration? He could not conclude without saying that he did not hold the Controller of the Department responsible for this great increase of expense. On the contrary, he believed that that officer had acted with great vigour and efficiency, and had saved the country considerable expense. But, in fact, that officer was the servant of other Departments, and had no power to check the Papers or demands of those Departments. He was inclined to think that a Committee should be again appointed to investigate and report upon the working of this Department.

said, he thought there should be some explanation of the discrepancy between the main Vote and the Supplementary Estimate. The main Vote was one of £388,944, but the foot note put it down at £530,000, and he wished to know the reason of this very large increase. The Department ought to have estimated more closely, and not to have found it necessary to come to the Committee for so large a Supplementary Estimate as was now asked to be voted. He could see no very great reason for the large additional sum demanded. Some increase was due to the holding of an Autumn Session. It could not, however, be all due to that cause; and he hoped the Committee would have afforded to them a full explanation of the reasons which had led to this great excess over the original Estimate.

said, the officials nominally responsible for this Vote were those at the Treasury; but, practically, they had no control over it. The Heads of the Departments were men of great power, and they demanded just whatever supplies they pleased, the Stationery Office being bound to comply with their demands. If the Committee wished to effect any economical reform in this Department they must go back upon the Treasury, which could alone do what was necessary. In the present instance, the Committee had no help but to pass the Vote, inasmuch as it was a Supplementary Estimate for money which had already been spent. Hence it was that he deprecated, in the strongest possible manner, the sending up of Supplementary Esti- mates over which the Committee could exercise no check or control. He had on many occasions tried to get the accounts sent up in some intelligible form, so that any Member of the House could understand them, but hitherto without success. The Offices adhered to the old-fashioned form of putting down lump sums, which it was next to impossible to analyze; and, therefore, they could not get at the root of the evil. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would pay particular attention to this point, and see to it that reforms were effected.

agreed with hon. Members in thinking that the matter was one requiring very careful consideration at the hands of the Committee, for the reason mainly that the increases had not been in particular items, but had pervaded the whole Estimate. It was quite easy to understand that some sudden pressure might come upon a particular Department, and that a Supplementary Estimate might be necessary to meet such pressure; but he could not understand how it came about that mistaken Estimates had been made in the first instance with regard to nine-tenths of the items. The amount of the excess they were asked to vote was £20,000 over the original Estimate; and he should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether this was a proportion of excess which might be expected in another year, or whether it was a special circumstance attaching only to this particular financial period? He asked this because, as the Committee would see, the original Estimate upon which this excess Vote was asked amounted to £530,000, while the Estimates for the current year, 1882–3, recently presented, amounted to £540,000. How could this be explained? Had there been any especial expenses incurred, or was the sum of £540,000 mere matter of guess work, with the possibility of a still larger Supplementary Estimate next year? The Committee had, in his view, a right to some fuller explanation on this point than had yet been afforded them by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

said, there was another point to which he should like to draw the attention of the Committee. It was certain that in many directions there was room for economy; but, on the other hand, he thought that at a comparatively small increase of expense many of the Returns issued from Public Offices might be very much further utilized. It had often struck him as being surprising that many of the Returns—for instance, relating to the doings of local authorities in various parts of the country—were not sent down to the local authorities themselves, for the purpose of conveying what was, in very many instances, most valuable information. Then, again, there were Returns being constantly moved for by the President of the Local Government Board and by private Members on matters relating to pauperism, which Returns would, in many cases, be very useful to Boards of Guardians, to whom, in his view, they ought to be sent officially, in order to assist in reforming the administration of the Poor Law.

said, he thought there was not much use in moving the reduction of a Supplementary Estimate except by way of protest. The money had already been spent, and unless the Committee could protest in a practical way by reducing expenditure, he did not see that much good was gained. In regard to the observations in which the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) commended his Amendment to the Committee, he would only make one or two remarks which occurred to him at the moment. He understood the hon. Member to suggest that a list of the printed Parliamentary Papers should be sent to Members of the House each morning, and that they should choose from that list the Papers which they wished to have sent to them. There appeared to his mind to be several difficulties in the way of carrying out this suggestion. It very often, or at any rate not unfrequently, happened that at critical periods Papers were laid on the Table late at night, which it was of the utmost importance should be in the hands of Members at the earliest moment on the following morning. This would not be possible if hon. Members were only to be supplied on each morning with lists of the Papers, and not with copies of the Papers themselves. Another difficulty that suggested itself to his mind was as to the number of copies of each Paper that would have to be printed. The issuing Departments would be left in great doubt as to the number of copies that might be wanted; and while in some cases they might cause to be printed a large number of copies where few were needed, in others the supply might fall very far short of what was requisite. He would wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give the Committee an assurance that before the debate on the regular Estimate for 1882–3 came on in the Spring in ordinary course, he would consider the matter, and tell the House whether he would or would not be prepared with some scheme of reform in this Department. The hon. Member might, on mature consideration and further examination, find the present system the best on the whole; but if, on the other hand, he found it within his power to propose some efficient plan of economy, he would find that he had the very hearty co-operation of both sides of the House. He should also like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why details of an excess of expenditure largely exceeding the original Estimate and pervading the whole of its items were not given to the House at the commencement of the Autumn Session? He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would consider this matter, and afford some satisfactory explanation with regard to this increase of £20,000.

said, he was unable to support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton), which seemed to him, in the first place, altogether to depart from the gravamen of the charge against the Estimate; and, so far as the small change his hon. Friend had suggested went, he was disposed to agree very much with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Salt) that it would be a matter of inconvenience to carry out the proposal to the extent contemplated. There were a number of Papers kept back from Members, because they were not applied for, which would be much better circulated amongst them. There was, for instance, the Report of the Royal Mint, in connection with which there were matters of very great public interest, and he believed that attention to the Report would lead to a considerable saving in that Department. The hon. Member asked what was the use of issuing a large mass of Papers which were only read, perhaps, by 10 or 20. But that was not the point—the knowledge of their being in the hands of Members was considered to be a useful and necessary check. Again, there were the Reports sent from the Consulates abroad to the British Government. These were not distributed until they were asked for; and how many Members applied for them? [Mr. COURTNEY: The Consular Reports are distributed.] He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the Consular Reports of Siam and Japan were in the list of "Command" Papers, which were only given to hon. Members on being applied for; and his hon. Friend had entirely overlooked the fact that this list was handed to Members every day. That, however, was a small matter. They had before them the fact that this Vote was increasing by leaps and bounds; and although he was quite willing to admit that the present Controller of the Stationery Department was a very able and efficient officer, that he had introduced some reforms and carried out certain suggestions, he was bound to say that he entertained a strong opinion that, whenever there was a large increase in any of the spending Departments, the way to meet it was by the appointment of a Select Committee, for the purpose of investigating the matter. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) that this was just one of those cases in which the appointment of a Committee would probably lead to a very considerable saving. He considered that the very fact that there was a large increased expenditure in connection with the Department was a reason why that expenditure should be looked upon with suspicion. He could not agree with all that had been said with regard to the Supplementary Estimates; but the demand for £20,000 in the present Vote was so extraordinary that the Committee were bound to ask from the Government a full explanation as to the increased expenditure, and the exact nature of the work in connection with which it had been incurred. The Committee wished to know why this increased expenditure had been incurred; and whether it had been incurred because the Departments were so ignorant of what they were likely to require that they did not bring in their Estimates at the proper time, but came forward at the end of the Ses- sion with a Supplementary Estimate for £20,000. He was now able, having referred to the list, to satisfy his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that some of the Consular Reports were only distributed to hon. Members when applied for. It happened that there were only five Papers on the list this year, and under the terms of distribution which he had described, there was the Report of the Consul in the Corea, a Memorandum on the trade between Japan and the Corea, Reports from the Consuls in China, and the Consular Report from Siam. So that out of the five Papers presented up to that time for the year 1883, four of them were Consular Reports, which were only given to Members on being applied for. If his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion to reduce the Vote by £500, which he (Mr. Rylands) and his hon. Friends could not support, and if the Secretary to the Treasury did not give satisfactory replies to the questions he had urged, hon. Gentlemen on those Benches would feel it their duty to support a Motion for the specific reduction of the Vote, and to ascertain the opinion of the Committee as to whether that reduction should or should not take place.

said, the Committee had a right to know why, in the face of the Vote of £530,000 taken last year, the Department which had spent so much money should now come to the Committee with a Supplementary Estimate for £20,280. There had been, as hon. Members would see by the detailed account of the Vote, an increase upon almost every item of expenditure; and he said they had a right to ask for information as to the excess of £3,000 over the original Estimate of £18,000 for Printing, &c., for Stationery Office Publications, and the excess of £1,250 under letter for Parliamentary Records on the original Estimate of £5,100, which was equal to more than 20 per cent. These were matters upon which they were entitled to detailed information, in order that they might be assured that the money had been rightly spent, and that the causes of the present Vote could not have been foreseen. The fact must not be lost sight of that the practice of putting forward Supplementary Estimates tended very much to withdraw from public notice the actual expenditure in the various Departments, which would doubtless receive more complete examination at the hands of Members were the whole amount placed before them when the Estimates for the year were brought forward. The Committee having been brought face to face with such an exceptional increase of cost in respect of the Stationery Office, he trusted that the fullest explanation would be afforded by the Government upon the items to which he had called attention.

said, he had not quite so voracious an appetite for Blue Books as his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands); those he received were almost sufficient for him. At the same time, he did not think the Committee agreed with the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) in thinking that his proposal was a desirable one; or, at all events, he believed there was a concurrence of opinion that the point raised by the Motion before the Committee might be discussed with more advantage on the general Estimates than on the present occasion. He believed some hon. Members near him wished to take the sense of the Committee on a reduction of the Vote to the extent of £5,000. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Andover, however, stood in the way of this; and, therefore, with all respect to him, they would be exceedingly glad if he would withdraw it. Now, he had this complaint to make—that the printing was very badly done. He had, on two or three occasions, asked Questions of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench with reference to Bills which had not been presented to the House within a reasonable time; but he had not been able to get any answers to them. The reason of this was that no person was specifically responsible in the matter. For example, a few days ago the Bankruptcy Bill was laid on the Table of the House, and one or two printed copies were placed in the Library. This Bill was wanted not only for the information of Members themselves, but the Members connected with commercial towns were exceedingly anxious to get copies of it for their constituents. Nevertheless, they were only able to send the Bill down that day. Now, having some technical knowledge of printing, he was in a position to state that if they once set up a Bill it was absurd to say they could not strike off any number of copies. That was one incident. Another was that an hon. Friend sitting near him, who wished to make certain remarks on one of the Votes in Class VII., which related to special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons across the Channel, had asked for a Return of the names of those gentlemen. The Return was agreed to, and he believed it had been laid on the Table of the House. But it had not been distributed, although it was Thursday, and the Return had been ordered to be printed on Monday last. They were exceedingly anxious to know who the distinguished persons were, before voting the money required for carrying them from this country. He hoped that an explanation of these matters would now be given by someone on the Treasury Bench. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury represented the Stationery Department; and, as he had said before, he had never yet discovered by whom it was represented. But it must be understood that they could not go on voting vast sums of money for the Department when they were always being put off with old excuses on the part of Ministers, who did not want Returns to be in the hands of Members. The usual answerwasthat—"They were very sorry, but the printer was not ready with the Papers." All that was plainly nonsense and sham; but even if it were true, then by all means let them have some other printer who could do the work. Their specific complaint was that they did not get the Returns promised to the House within a reasonable time of the first copies being presented. Speaking technically, there was not the slightest necessity for this delay, and a better arrangement ought to exist, seeing that they paid something like the sum of £500,000 annually for the Office.

said, the last three years, as he understood it, had been years of Liberal economy; but during that time the public had been startled, and were now not a little perplexed, by a continued increase in the Civil Service Estimates. He thought hon. Members would perform a good service if, under the circumstances, they could help the public to understand why that increase had taken place, and under what heads. He supposed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would tell him that among the principal heads of increase was to be included that on account of the Post Office Vote, for which no Member of that House was more responsible than himself (Mr. Schreiber). But he anticipated that reply of the hon. Gentleman by saying that he accepted the responsibility, and that all the money spent in connection with the Post Office had been well spent. If this year was to be regarded as a year of Liberal economy, and 1880 as a year of Conservative extravagance, he thought it would be only fair to compare the expenditure which had taken place in respect of the Stationery Office in those two years. In 1880 there was spent £460,000, and for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1883, there would have been spent no less a sum than £550,280, the difference being £90,000, and equivalent to an annual increase of £30,000 for this Vote alone. He thought it would be a profitable exercise for the Financial Secretary to explain to the Committee and the country the causes of that increase of expenditure. So far as that increase resulted from the Autumn Session, which was held for the purpose of passing the New Rules of Procedure, he would like to have it precisely stated what the Autumn Session had cost. He could make a pretty shrewd guess as to the value of the New Rules; but what the country and the House wanted to know was the amount of money they had cost. He apprehended that the greater part of the £20,000 now asked for was to be placed to that account; and, if he was not mistaken, the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) pointed in the same direction. Therefore, he trusted the Committee would receive from the Financial Secretary an explanatory statement, setting forth the causes which had led to this large increase in the expenditure of the Stationery Office.

begged leave to remind the Committee that the Stationery Department was three or four years ago re-organized. Now, re-organization was a process which went on every now and then in the Civil Service, and with the invariable result of increasing the charge on the public. The Controller of the Stationery Department, about two years and a-half ago, was ordered to render an account, which was, indeed, the first Report rendered by the Controller. The interesting document went to show that re-organization would secure a considerable reduction in the Stationery Vote. Among other things, the Controller reported that in the item of salaries alone a saving of £4,000 a-year could be effected. But, notwithstanding this, the charge for salaries, instead of decreasing, had shown a regular increase. Again, the item for printing had gone up since the re-organization took place from £136,000 to £160,000. The charge for paper had also risen from £95,000 to £120,000, and so on through the great majority of the items in the Vote. He thought, however, that some of the criticism which they had heard that evening with reference to the Department was very unfair. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), for instance, did not hesitate to attribute to the Stationery Office the delay which often took place in furnishing Government Reports and Papers; but everyone acquainted with the facts would know that no blame attached to the Stationery Office at all. It was the Departments concerned in those Papers that were alone responsible; and if there was one Department more to blame than another for the delay of which the hon. Member complained, it was that of the Board of Trade, whose Reports were invariably in arrear. Therefore, he said that to fix the blame on the Stationery Office was extremely unjust. But, during the last three years, the Vote had increased from £469,000 to £530,000; and, according to the Estimate for 1883–4, they were to be asked to grant a still larger sum. Now, he had no doubt that the money was really required. He believed the Stationery Office was administered as well as any Department in the Civil Service; but he wished to urge on the Secretary to the Treasury the desirability of securing an annual Report from the Controller, in order that ample and detailed information might be afforded to the House with regard to the regular increase which took place in the expenditure of the Department. If that Report were supplied, he was satisfied the House would see that there was reason for the expenditure; but, in the absence of it, he was equally sure that the continued increase under this head would be challenged.

expressed the hope that the Motion of the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) would not be further proceeded with. He did not think that the proposal of the hon. Member would conduce to the saving of a single sixpence; whereas, on the other hand, it would, undoubtedly, cause great inconvenience to hon. Members, by depriving them of a large amount of information which ought to be placed in their hands. Any Gentleman having a knowledge of printing would be aware that the expense did not consist in the distribution of copies which were in existence, or in the multiplication of copies within a reasonable limit. There would, therefore, be no saving to the public if the suggestion of the hon. Member were adopted. There was, however, a method by which a considerable saving both of public time and money could be effected—namely, by the condensation of some of the voluminous documents presented to Parliament. He was sure hon. Members would agree that the exceeding detail in which public Papers were given constituted a public misfortune, and that much of the documentary matter put into their hands might, by the exercise of a little labour on the part of gentlemen engaged in Public Departments, be decreased in bulk, and, at the same time, increased in value. It must be borne in mind that for many years past this Vote had continued to increase; and, although efforts had been made to check that increase, they had failed in their object, because the Stationery Department was the servant, so to speak, of a great number of Public Offices, and it was out of the power of the Controller of the Department, unless backed up by some superior authority, to resist the demands made upon him by the other Offices. However convenient it might be to have an Office charged with supplying the various Public Departments with the stationery and printing required, there was this to be said—that it was very difficult to bring home to the Heads of Departments a sense of responsibility for expenditure, when the amount did not appear upon their Estimates in any way as a charge against themselves. Under the system which existed at present, whatever work was required to be done would be at once ordered, without consideration of cost, because the Departments did not pay for it; but if, by any means, the cost of stationery and printing could be brought home as a charge against them, he thought there would be a little more economy under that head. So long as the world lasted, if a man had not to pay for the expenditure he incurred, he would not be so economical as the man who had to account for it.

said, he was afraid the proposal of the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) had not given very great satisfaction, although he could not see that any Gentleman who had followed him had greatly improved upon his suggestion. Tie trusted, however, that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and withdraw his Amendment. Two suggestions had been made with regard to the delivery of Papers, both of which would tend greatly to increase the amount of this Vote. One of these, made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. J. Hollond), was that all Papers of general interest should be distributed, not only amongst Members of the House, but that they should be sent broad-cast about the country. That was a proposal which the Treasury, having the fear of the Committee before them, could not look upon with approval. Then the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had complained that the Papers were not delivered as rapidly as they ought to be. No doubt there might be a more rapid delivery if unlimited funds were allowed to the Department. It must be remembered that the Department was subjected to great pressure by the demands made upon it for the production of many Reports, long and complicated accounts, Appropriation Accounts, Estimates, and Bills—all these were required and ordered to be printed at the beginning of the Session, and there was in consequence a great crush and hurry amongst the printers in order to get them out. One question raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber) was, in his opinion, inappropriate to these Estimates, and the discussion of it would be more fitting when the year's Estimates were brought forward. The hon. Member had inquired, half-jestingly, whether the Autumn Session had anything to do with the increase of expenditure? Undoubtedly that was the case to a certain extent; but he submitted to the Committee that it was largely attributable to the increased activity in many Departments, consequent upon the state of public affairs. The Autumn Session was responsible for the increase in the cost of public records under Sub-head O; but, as an instance of the demands upon the Stationery Office, the War Office alone had increased the cost of the Department by no less a sum than £4,000. The printing for the Irish Government, as the Committee would understand, had been exceedingly heavy; and, as a matter of fact, whatever Department was in a state of excitement, that Department must make extraordinary demands upon the Stationery Office, and cause a corresponding increase in this Vote. A question had been asked by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with regard to the increased charge of £6,000 for paper, as compared with the cost of printing. The answer to this was that, under the new contract made for printing, the supply of paper was made by the Department itself; and, that being so, the cost was included in these Estimates, which, had it been met by the contractor, would not have been due until after quarter day. The business of the Stationery Office had also been increased by the taking over of the Customs Bills of Entry, which had necessitated the appointment of a special staff in order to conduct those publications. Before concluding, he wished to offer his tribute of respect to the present Controller of the Stationery Office. A better public servant did not exist, and the exertions made by him, in order to effect reductions of expenditure, were beyond all praise.

said, one of the remarks made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had raised in his mind a great doubt as to the sufficiency of his replies on other questions which had been raised in connection with the Vote. The charge made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was that the Bankruptcy Bill, which most hon. Members were interested in, no matter what might have been the pressure from the various Departments for printing, was on the Table of the House a fortnight ago, notwithstanding which the supply of Bills, on which hon. Members depended for sending copies to their constituents, was not ready until last night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated that when once a Bill was set up in type any number of copies could be furnished without additional cost to the public. The hon. Gentleman, however, had not touched that point in his reply. A Return of one page ordered to be printed on Monday last was not in the hands of Members until long afterwards, and the Committee were told that the delay was owing to the enormous pressure put by the various Departments of the Civil Service upon the Stationery Office. That reply appeared to him quite insufficient; and he was bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it would promote a very considerable amount of discussion, when the Estimate for the Department for 1883–4 was brought forward, if the Committee were not placed in possession of the details now asked for. The country had spent £500,000 already upon printing and stationery, and at the end of the financial year the Government came forward with a further Estimate of £20,000. The Committee was powerless to go through all the details of the Department and say where a reduction ought to be made. When complaints were made, replies were given by the Heads of Departments exactly similar to that just given by the Secretary to the Treasury; and the only way to deal with the matter was for the House to say—"We will not go beyond a certain amount on account of this Office." If that step were taken, he had no doubt the Controller would see his way to keeping the amount of expenditure within the prescribed limit. He appealed to the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton), whose proposal it had been shown would not effect any saving of cost, to withdraw his Amendment, and he would then move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.

said, he trusted hon. Members would bear him out when he said that his wish, in bringing forward this subject, was to effect economy in the Public Printing Department. He hoped, also, before the Estimates for next year came forward, that hon. Members would consider whether such a scheme as he had suggested would not be very useful, and effect the saving which, on high authority, he believed would result from its adoption? At that time he should move, and carry to a division, an Amendment to the Stationery Vote of the same kind as that now before the Committee, which, having come to the conclusion that the present was not the best occasion for pressing it, he now asked leave to withdraw.

said, he would now move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000. As a Member of the Liberal Party, who went into Office on the ground that the Conservative Party had been extravagant, he thought it was high time that some consistency should be shown to exist in the matter of expenditure.

said, he rose to remind the Secretary to the Treasury of the very simple inquiry he had ventured to address to him with regard to the proposal that the House should be furnished by the Controller of the Stationery Office, or by the Treasury, with an annual Statement in continuation of the Statement made on a former occasion. His reason for asking this was that, although a re-organization had taken place which the House was assured would effect a considerable saving in the expenditure of the Department, there had been a considerable increase of charge, respecting which there was absolutely no information. With all respect to the Secretary to the Treasury, he was sure the hon. Gentleman must feel that the explanation given to the Committee had been wholly inadequate. Moreover, it would be impossible for any official of the Government, having multifarious duties to perform, to furnish such an explanation in detail as the Committee had a right to expect. It could only be supplied by the Controller of the Department; and it was on that ground that he asked that the arrangement he had indicated might be made.

said, he must apologize for having, through inadvertence, omitted to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County. He admitted the desirability of the scheme; but he was bound to point out that it involved a further increase in the cost of printing.

said, he rose simply for the purpose of pointing out to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. II. H. Fowler), with whose Motion he concurred, the utter powerlessness of any Member of the Committee to check expenditure. If the Committee were then to divide it would be seen, from the attitude taken up by Members, that the Government must be put in a minority, and that the Vote would be reduced. The Committee was perfectly persuaded of the justice of the Motion to reduce the Vote; but what would happen? When the bell was rung a large number of Gentlemen, who had not heard a single word of the discussion, would come crowding in from the Library, and when the door was shut they would be ordered to go into the Government Lobby. In that way Motions of the kind now before the Committee were rendered perfectly useless; and he thought the country ought to know that they were frequently withdrawn, because Members had not patience to attend to the discussion.

said, it was to be regretted that everyone who had in his mind a crotchet had the power of forcing the Government to furnish special Returns. So long as Members would ask for Returns on every conceivable subject, which involved great cost for paper and printing, there would always be Supplementary Estimates at the end of the year. If any plan could be adopted by which the demands for fresh Returns might be submitted to a Committee he thought that a great saving might be made. The Secretary to the Treasury had just informed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that he had been asked for a special Return this year upon a subject with regard to which a similar Return had been made last year; and it was in this way that thousands of pounds of the public money was annually spent. He thought that a Committee would do a great service to the House of Commons by recommending economy in the matter of Returns.

said, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It was quite natural for the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Head of any Department, to resent the inquisitiveness of Members into the Departmental Estimates; but the country had come to the conclusion that its expenditure needed reduction.

said, a great deal of dissatisfaction had been expressed last year with the enormous cost of the Printing and Stationery Department, and some hopes were then held out that a reduction would be effected. But the Committee now found that, after voting £500,000 for this purpose, they were called upon to meet a deficit of £20,000. He agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that the country was rightly complaining of the enormous expenditure of the Government; and as they came into Office with the cry and complaint that the expenditure of the late Government was excessive, he thought the least they could do was to make a firm stand against further increase of charge. He was most reluctant to vote against the Government on this Motion; but he felt it his duty to do so, on the ground that if no beginning was made there would be no economy. He should support the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and other reformers in their endeavours to reduce the National Expenditure.

said, he was glad to find that the desire for economy was finding expression amongst a great number of Members in all parts of the House. It was, of course, expected, when the Government came into Office, that there would be great economy in the matter of expenditure; but anyone who looked into the Estimates during the time they had been in Office would see that, instead of a diminution, there had been a growing increase of charge in all the Departments. There was one thing which the Prime Minister had insisted upon more than another in reference to the comparison of Estimates—namely, that when they compared the Expenditure of one year with that of a former year, they should compare original with original Estimates. If the Com- mittee looked at the original Estimates of this year, they would see, by comparing them with last year's original Estimates, that there was, on the whole, an increase of £1,100,000. The country, at all events, was not aware of this; and when the Estimates for next year came to be discussed, he, for one, should be prepared to vote for any proper reduction that might be proposed; although, on the present occasion, the money having been spent already, he did not see that any useful result would follow from opposition to the Estimates before the Committee.

said, that, while agreeing with the principle of economical administration, he thought that the energies of economists should be wisely directed. His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), in his opinion, had not taken the right course by proposing a reduction of the present Vote. The Secretary to the Treasury had informed the Committee that there had been increased activity in all the Departments of the Service, and that this activity had found its expression in an increased charge for paper and printing. Now, he thought it was absurd that a man whose business was increasing should object to the increased charges which that increase of business rendered necessary. Besides that, his hon. Friend appeared to have missed his mark, inasmuch as this expenditure had already been incurred, and it was absolutely necessary that these Votes should be agreed to, in order that the House might have sufficient time to enter upon questions of general legislation. He believed, if the item of printing were looked into, it would be found that no great reduction could be made under that head. Committees had frequently sat to consider the expenditure of the Public Offices; and surely, by that time, they had arrived at some satisfactory system with regard to their administration. For his own part, he did not wonder at the cost of the Stationery Department, considering the urgency with which Members insisted upon Returns being printed. At the same time, he believed those Returns were, for the most part, useful, because the country could not have too much information as to its affairs; and it must, therefore, be willing to bear the cost of supplying it. The expenditure of the Department was large; but it did not amount to more than half the cost of a man-of-war. Therefore, while offering his services in support of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and every other reformer who would assail extravagance where it existed, he hoped the Committee would not be led aside into wasting time on the present Supplementary Estimates, and particularly in connection with a Department where such useful expenditure was incurred.

said, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had alluded to a valuable Report made in 1881 by the Controller of the Stationery Office. The Secretary to the Treasury, as he understood, had stated that it would be a desirable thing to have such a Report; and he (Mr. Labouchere) trusted that the House would be furnished with an annual Report of the Department in future.

said, he had not pledged himself to an annual Report. He had said it would be convenient if it could be produced without further adding to the cost of the Printing and Stationery Department.

said, he had a few observations to make, before the Question was put from the Chair, with reference to the publication of Parliamentary debates. He asked whether the Government had under consideration the publication of full reports, instead of the partial and varying reports furnished at the present time? He thought the present system involved the maximum of disadvantage. He would not go into the question of an official report; but would only remark that any one so unfortunate as to be compelled to read through the Parliamentary debates of former years would find it one of the most difficult and embarrassing of operations. They were difficult, and sometimes self-contradictory. He understood that for a portion of the evening the reports were still left to the newspapers; but that the proceedings in Committee, and after a certain hour the debates, were recorded by the reporters supplied by Mr. Hansard. Now, he suggested that this was a most illogical and absurd compromise between two systems, and that to have a complete report would not cost very much more than was now spent. He could not understand why the Government should abstain from adopting the method which, he believed, had been adopted by all the Colonial Legislatures. He would not trouble the Committee with any further observations on the subject; but must express a hope that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would not state that a full report was not furnished because of the expense it would involve.

said, this question had been brought forward in the last Parliament. He was bound to say that the opinion of the House was then entirely against the adoption of any scheme for the production of a full Report.

asked what price had been obtained for the old Law Courts, and why it was not mentioned in the Estimate?

said, the total amount on account of the old Law Courts was £3,300, and he presumed that this would appear in the original Estimates. The present Estimates were only Supplementary.

pointed out that, so far from this being in the nature of a Supplementary Vote to meet the balance of expenses incurred by the Office of Works and Public Buildings, it actually constituted a permanent increase in the cost of the staff of that Department, and that it was for salaries and wages alone that £900 was now asked for in excess of the sum of £43,630 taken in the original Estimates for 1882–3. But that was not all, because it appeared that, though the total original Estimate for 1882–3, as stated at the foot of the Vote, was £46,480, yet that for 1883–4 was £49,144, or an increase of upwards of £3,000 over the amount at first voted. Such an item as an increase of charge for the Departmental salaries had never before been allowed to appear in these Supplementary Estimates; and he was bound to say that if it was necessary to appear at all it should have been brought to the notice of the House on the regular Estimates. With, regard to the item of £900 for salaries and wages, on account of the increase of business arising from the transfer of change of Inland Revenue Buildings, he thought that a transfer in connection with buildings of that nature ought not to have involved the country in so large an increase of annual expenditure. But the point of objection to which he referred was that this increase of salaries had taken place at the middle, instead of the beginning of the year; and he appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to move the Treasury to prevent the recurrence of this in future.

said, this was a permanent increase of the Vote, and it was rendered necessary by an addition to the staff of the Department of a Surveyor, Assistant Surveyor, and Clerk. The increase was not only due to the Inland Revenue Buildings recently thrown upon the Office of Works, but also to the requirements of the Postal Service, which had so increased the duties of the Office that it was impossible to avoid an extension of the staff. He pointed out that had another Surveyor not been appointed the Parcels Post could not have come into operation when it did, but would have been necessarily postponed for several months to come. He begged to assure the Committee that the additional assistance was rendered indispensable by the increased labour thrown upon the Department by the transfers indicated, and that the existing Surveyors were at the time of the fresh appointments thoroughly overworked.

said, he wished it to be clearly understood that he did not grudge the money if that had been well spent. His contention was that the Commissioner of Works, who knew of the overcharged state of the Department, when last year's Estimates were before Parliament, should have laid a statement immediately before the House, and not have made the expenditure, and then ask sanction, when it could not be refused.

asked if the Government had in contemplation any system of assurance in connection with the Post Office?

admitted the importance and interest attaching to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which, however, was one that would more correctly be addressed to his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General.

said, before the Vote passed, he wished to give the Government an opportunity of explaining the grounds upon which Sir Thomas J. Boyd had been appointed Chairman of the Fishery Board. An Act had been passed last year for the re-organization of the Fishery Board in Scotland; and it might have been expected that, in order to make the Board useful, it would be composed of men in the full vigour of life, and possessing some knowledge of fishery and maritime affairs. Sir Thomas J. Boyd was, he believed, a most distinguished and estimable citizen of Edinburgh, and a publisher of books; but he had never heard that he possessed any special experience of the kind he had mentioned. Besides that, the gentleman in question was well advanced in years, and it was not to be expected that he could infuse such vigour as was desirable into the action of the Board. The appointment of Sir Thomas J. Boyd had taken all those who were interested in fishing in Scotland very much by surprise. There was at that moment great agitation in Scotland with regard to fishing; the line fishers and net fishers were greatly exasperated with the system of trawling; and it would be of great advantage if this Board were to collect trustworthy information as to the effect of trawling upon the supply of fish. He had not heard that the Board had taken any active steps in this matter, although it had been hoped that the re-organized Board would prove itself of some use, if not directly, then indirectly, by obtaining the information indicated. He hoped some Member of the Government would be able to explain what the Board was intended to accomplish, the purposes to which it was going to devote its energies, and the circumstances which justified the appointment of Sir Thomas J. Boyd to the Chairmanship of the Board?

said, he might answer the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire by saying generally, in the first place, that Sir Thomas J. Boyd had received his appointment because, after the fullest inquiry into the subject, he was considered the best man who could be obtained for the office of Chairman of the Board. He was a man of great administrative experience; he had been twice Lord Provost of Edinburgh; he had given evidence of his powers of organization by establishing, upon a new basis, the Merchant Company Schools in Edinburgh. What he did in connection with these schools, and in other municipal affairs, showed that he was possessed of administrative powers of a high order. The Fishery Board was to be placed on an improved footing, and undoubtedly it became an important matter to discover who was the best person to give it a good start on its new footing. The fishing interest, as had truly been stated, was a large one, and he might add that it was one in regard to which there were various conflicting interests. There were, as the Committee well knew, as regards herring, the brand and the anti-brand interests; and in the case of salmon the complaint between the upper and lower proprietors, and various other matters in respect of which there were adverse interests. Hence there could be no doubt that it was essential to have the Board presided over by a gentleman of approved ability, I and who had given evidence, in many capacities, of fairness, and moderation of mind, and who had no sort of personal interest in the controverted matters with which the Board would have to deal. In the judgment of those who had the duty of nominating the Board, Sir Thomas J. Boyd possessed these qualities, and seemed to be eminently fitted for the office. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had said something in regard to the ago of Sir Thomas J. Boyd. From the Book of Reference on the Table, it appeared that Sir Thomas J. Boyd was born in 1818, and he did not think any hon. Member would be prepared to say that a gentleman of that age was necessarily disqualified from holding the office by reason of his years.

remarked that he had not said anything of that nature.

said, he thought there was every prospect of Sir Thomas Boyd being able to serve in this capacity for a considerable time to come. With regard to trawling, that was a question which was under careful consideration; but as to the particular steps the Board had taken, or intended to take, in the matter, he would venture to ask his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's Burghs (Mr. Williamson), who was a Member of the Fishery Board, and who would be able to give the Committee more precise and accurate information on the subject than he (the Lord Advocate) could, for an explanation.

said, he would like to supplement the remarks of the Lord Advocate with regard to the Chairman of the Fishery Board, by saying that he was sure that Sir Thomas Boyd was a man of ability and energy, and that he would devote his time and power to the business of the Fishery Board with enthusiasm. He was sorry that any remarks should have been made in that House in any way derogatory to the Chairman of the Board, who made a most admirable President in every respect. He believed that the business of the Fishery Board, under the Chairmanship of Sir Thomas Boyd, would be conducted with great advantage to Scotland. He was able to form this opinion, because he had attended most of the meetings of the Board. With respect to trawling, he had not come down there believing that that question would be discussed under the present Estimate. He wished to point out that the Fishery Board of Scotland were only the administrators of the law. They had not had the law to make, nor could they rescind it. Representation had been made to the Board as well as to the Government, and they were under very careful consideration; and all that it was possible for the Board to do would be done for the fishermen. In the meantime, he could only repeat that they were simply the administrators of the law, and not the makers of it.

said, he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had done good service to the country in raising this question. The hon. Member had a large fishing population among his constituents, as he (Sir George Balfour) also had in Kincardineshire, who were very poor and unprotected, and required to be carefully looked after. His hon. Friend had, by his useful criticisms and remarks, done good service to the public interests, and he hoped he would long remain in the House to continue that service. In reference to the Estimate, he could only repeat what he had stated upon the last Estimate—namely, that the, Committee had not received all the information connected with the expenditure which it was entitled to have. The present demand, though for only £627, was only a portion of the extra cost for the reorganized Fishery Board, because the Estimate for 1883–4 amounted to £17,740, against £16,307 in 1882–3, being an addition of £1,433, and not £627 as now asked for. That was the result of the hurry scurry of last year in forcing through the House the Fishery Board Bill. Personally, he had done all that he could to induce the Government to delay the passing of the Act constituting the new Fishery Board, until they had fuller information. He had no hostility to the Board; but he believed the Government had acted upon imperfect information as to the requirements and duties of the Board. He found that there had been an increased expenditure for salaries and allowances from £6,537 to £8,420, and that the sum of £900 for travelling expenses had been increased to £1,100. Incidental expenses had also been raised from £350 to £400. But, to enable these increases to be made, the extra grant for Fishery Harbours which last year was £3,000, was in 1883–4 put down to £2,300. He did not complain of the money that had been given to make the Fishery Board efficient; but he thought that the Government ought to lay full information before the House at the time the ordinary Estimates were passed, and an Estimate of the extra cost of the new Fishery Board over that for the old Board ought to have been submitted to Parliament before the Bill for the re-organization had been passed. He could not help thinking that, with regard to the financial control of the House, the House of Commons was frequently placed in a false position, and in this case some deception appeared to have been practised, in asking for changes without making known the cost thereof. He had no wish to assert that there had been anything positively wrong; but he was satisfied that deception had existed, and he hoped the House would take steps to guard against it in future. He thought that the Secretary to the Treasury was to blame. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were probably glad to hear him making those remarks about the policy of his Friends; but he hoped he would not be wanting in criticizing their policy if in power just as he criticised that of the Liberal Party.

trusted that he had not said anything derogatory of Sir Thomas Boyd in the business to which he had devoted so much of his time, nor yet of his connection with the organization of schools; but it did seem to him a most extraordinary statement to hear from the Lord Advocate that a gentleman was qualified to be Chairman of the Fishery Board who was 65 years of age, who possessed no knowledge of fishing, so far as the House was aware, and who had passed his life in publishing books. He thought it not only desirable, but that they were entitled to know from the Lord Advocate what progress had been made in the organization of the work of the Fishery Board. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give them some idea of the benefit this Fishery Board was going to confer upon Scotland, and what it had done since its reconstitution? The improvements already pointed out by the Lord Advocate were improvements with which neither the Government nor the State had anything to do, but which were already determined by the law. He thought, before they voted this money, it was desirable they should have some idea of what the Fishery Board had already done; and unless they obtained some explanation they had a right to challenge the Vote.

said, he was of opinion that the demand for answers to these interrogatories was rather absurd, seeing that the Board had only been in operation for three or four months since its re-constitution. It was somewhat preposterous to ask a Member of the Board, after so short a period, to go into all that the Board were going to do in the interests of the fishermen of Scotland. The Board would do the best they could. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: What are they doing? It was impossible to enter into an explanation at that moment.

said, he thought it was as well to emphasize the qualifications of the Chairman of this Fishery Board, as they had been stated by the Lord Advocate. He presumed, however, that it was simply a lawyer's idea of the business qualifications of the President of the Board. The only explanation as yet given of this appoint- ment, and the qualifications of Sir Thomas Boyd, was that Sir Thomas Boyd had been twice Lord Provost. He did not know how far a man occupying the position of Lord Provost indulged in fishing; but it further appeared that Sir Thomas Boyd had also been Chairman of some educational establishment, and that he was a bookseller. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman one single question—had this distinguished gentleman, who was to be an authority upon fishing, ever done as much as publish a single book on fishing?

said, he was unable to answer that question. He had no list of the books which Sir Thomas Boyd had published.

Will he promise to write a book? [Laughter.]

said, he did not think it should be a qualification for the Chairman of the Fishery Board that he should write a book. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Oh! do not take me seriously. He failed to see what possible qualification it would be. It was desirable, if possible, to get a scientific man to preside on the Fishery Board, because it was desirable that the Board should engage in a scientific investigation in regard to the general aspect of the fisheries. But, apart from that, Sir Thomas Boyd was eminently qualified, and had already displayed his skill in the successful carrying out of many useful works connected with the City of Edinburgh; and he thought the Government could not have done bettor than select that gentleman as the President of the Board.

protested against the argument of the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson), that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) should not be entitled to demand some sort of information as to the working of an important Board of this kind. It was unfortunate that a question of this kind should have come up in Committee of Supply. No doubt, there was a very great and growing interest taken in these fishery questions, especially in the North of England and in Scotland. That interest was increasing very much, and the present appointment seemed to him a somewhat lamentable one, when they considered the reasons given for it. The people of Scotland had a right to ask for something more than the suggestion that the Chairman of the Board had displayed ability in other pursuits. They had no guarantee whatever that this gentleman had over had anything to do with fishing. Personally, he could hardly conceive what possible qualification Sir Thomas Boyd possessed for the post, and he could imagine nothing more unfortunate for the fishing on our Northern Coasts than this appointment.

regretted that the Lord Advocate had not risen to give an explanation. The reason was quite clear—namely, that the Lord Advocate found it impossible to give one. His right hon. and learned Friend knew how earnest he had been in trying to obtain information as to the position of the Board, and the nature of its work, before it was decided upon constituting it; but the Lord Advocate said—"No; let the Board be constituted." He (Sir George Balfour) had communicated all the information he possessed as to what the duties of the Fishery Board ought to be, and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) knew how he had endeavoured to obtain an explanation as to the nature of the duties which the Board would officially be ordered to perform. The Lord Advocate, however, refused to listen to him, and he accordingly intimated that he would raise the question on the first occasion the Estimate was brought forward; nevertheless, even now, his right hon. and learned Friend was not prepared to give any information as to what the Board intended to do. He did not ask what they had done, because he thought they had done nothing. But the Committee had every right to ask under what regulations the Board acted apart from the meagre directions contained in the Acts. At present they knew nothing, except that the Board said they intended to do something; but what that something was nobody knew. The Lord Advocate represented the Government, and it was to him that he (Sir George Balfour) appealed, and not to any Member of the Fishery Board. The Lord Advocate was an officer of the Government, and it was his duty to supply the information; and he ought not to depend upon the fact of a Member of the Fishery Board being in the House to father on that Member the duty of giving an answer to the question which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay).

said, he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) should have asserted that the Fishery Board had done nothing, and he would, therefore, take the opportunity of referring to one particular work which they had just arranged. The Board had resolved to make a harbour at Ness, in conjunction with the representatives of Sir James Mathieson. That harbour, which would cost £4,000 or £5,000, would be of the very greatest value to fishermen, and would relieve the distress which now prevailed in the district, by providing labour for men on the spot who were also fishermen. He was sure that it would be a most valuable work, and that it would absorb a large portion of the revenue of the Board for the current year. If the House would grant the Board £250,000, they would be able to construct harbours all round the coast; and he would suggest that their Irish Friends should receive an equal amount for the construction of harbours on their coasts. Then they would see a large amount of valuable work done; but as long as the House stinted the Board in the amount, and asked what they were going to do, it was absolutely impossible to give assurances upon the subject. He could, however, assure hon. Members that the harbour they had decided upon constructing at Ness would be of very great value indeed, as an important point in the interests of Scotch Fisheries.

said, that the duty to which the hon. Member had just referred was part of the duties charged upon the previous Board. When the Fishery Board was re-organized, it was understood that they would take some general interest in the fishing throughout Scotland; and if they had really had on the Board, as Chairman of the Board, some gentleman who took an interest in the question of fishing, either scientific or practical, some stops might by this time have been taken in regard to the question of trawling, which was now occupying so much attention. What the Scotch Members wanted to know, and what they ought to know, was, whether the Fishery Board had made up its mind to see how they were to direct inquiries for the advantage of the fishermen of Scotland? No doubt, if the House voted the Board large sums of money, the Board would give instructions for the erection of harbours of refuge. But what he understood, when the Bill was passing through the House, and the Board was being re-organized, was that the new Board would put itself to some trouble in order to gain some information respecting the sea fisheries, and not merely information to enable them to discriminate between the private rights of the upper and lower proprietors of salmon fisheries, with which he apprehended the country had nothing to do. He hoped the result of this discussion would be to put some vigour into the Fishery Board in the direction he had intimated. And he begged to give Notice that, if the Fishery Board were not prepared to give a clear account of their proceedings, when the regular vote came on for discussion, he should again call attention to the matter.