in asking the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the land claims in Bechuanaland, the title of the Boers to land in Zululand, and the sale of intoxicating drinks in the Transkeian territory? said, he thought that, even though they might not go so far in opinion upon the drink question as Sir Wilfrid Lawson, they would all acknowledge that the drink traffic among uncivilized races led to great abominations.

asked for an explanation of the meaning of the Suzerain rights which Her Majesty exercised over Bechuanaland; and for some information as to the commercial relations with the Transvaal?

in reply, said, that on the 7th of October a Land Commission was appointed in Bechuanaland, of which Mr. Justice Shippard was President, supported by two other Commissioners. The object of the Commission was to inquire into and report on the validity of land claims, and to ascertain what persons had good and valid titles to land. The Commission had been at work for about three months, and had apparently given satisfaction. The Instructions given by Sir Hercules Robinson to the Commissioners were in print, and would shortly be issued to the House. Those Instructions made special provision for marking off a sufficient amount of grazing and garden land for the support of the Native tribes; and the Commission were also to report upon the validity of European claims. Affairs in Zululand would not be allowed by the present Heads of the Colonial Office to pass as matters of indifference to this country. He would admit that the country was not in a satisfactory condition; but he did not think it could be termed lawless. During the last three years, subsequent to the death of Cetewayo, numerous intertribal disputes had taken place, in the course of which, the Usutus having called in the Boers to assist them against the Chief Usibepu, the Boers had since remained in the country, and established themselves on land which they had appropriated to their own use; and, therefore, a telegram, dated the 4th of January last, had been despatched to Sir Charles Mitchell by the late Colonial Secretary, which he read to the House, and which marked out generally the policy which the present Government were prepared to follow in regard to the Boers in Zululand. With reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors in the Transkeian territory, he was not able at present to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, having been so short a time—only a week—in Office, and he thought he was entitled to fuller Notice; but if the Question were repeated next week, he would endeavour to give the fullest information which might then be at his disposal. He believed, however, there was a prohibitory Proclamation of the nature referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler) in force throughout the country.

said, he desired to express his satisfaction at what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Osborne Morgan) with reference to the question of policy in Zululand, although he had not been able to hear his observations regarding Bechuanaland. He (Sir Frederick Stanley) was glad to find that Her Majesty's Advisers, like Her late ones, were not prepared to allow matters in Zululand to be viewed with indifference in this country. He must frankly take upon himself any blame there might be for any want of action during the past six months with regard to Zululand. When Dinizulu, the son of Cetewayo, had invited some of the Boers in the Transvaal to assist him in the intertribal war beyond the Reserve, certain of the Boers took advantage of the Treaty that was made, being vague in its terms as to the extent of the land and the number of persons to whom it applied. He wished that he could think that both the Boers and the Zulus had been otherwise than willing to leave the Treaty in a condition that was as indefinite as possible. In fact, he fully believed that the terms, which were unnecessarily vague, were purposely left so with the knowledge of many persons upon both sides. A very much larger number of Boers, in consequence, than those with whom the Zulus had been in correspondence flocked in, and on the strength of the agreement began to settle down and surveyor "ride out" part of the country. They had done this in the name of a body which was set up calling itself the "New Republic." Mr. Essellon, the so-called Secretary of State of that body, a gentleman of very great ability, came over to England to see him, and to ask for recognition from Her Majesty's late Government. On the advice of his Colleagues, he (Sir Frederick Stanley) was compelled to reply that recognition could not be accorded; and up to the present time the "New Republic" had not been recognized, except as a certain number of individuals acting together with no authority as a State. The "New Republic," however, or persons acting on its behalf, began to mark out farms right down to St. Lucia Bay, where, whatever might be the value of the territory as regarded the future, the Protectorate of this country had been declared. That was known to the Boers, and it was clear that Her Majesty's Government could not allow any interference with the territory. Perhaps he might say that having regard to the state of political affairs, and of the possibility of that which had since come to pass, he did not wish to lead the Zulus, or any persons, to believe that Her Majesty's Government were going to take a course of action distinctly in favour of the Zulus, or one distinctly against their claims; because, having in view—and he said this without meaning to be offensive—what had occurred in the case of a reversal before, he considered it would be wrong to lead them to believe that this country would give them such active support as would induce them to take up a position which the predecisions of the late Government might not sustain. He had had an opportunity of consulting Sir Henry Bulwer upon this question; and his views as to what action with regard to Zululand would be practicable and expedient had been embodied in certain Papers. The policy which he (Sir Frederick Stanley) was prepared to recommend to his Colleagues, but which circumstances had prevented him doing, was embodied in a Memorandum which he frankly placed at the disposal of his noble Friend who had succeeded him in Office. His own view was this—he believed that the Boers, whether they called them the "New Republic" or not, had acquired moral rights to some extent by lapse of time, by tacit recognition on the part of the late Government and their Predecessors, and by right of Treaty, although the latter had been unduly strained. They could not, therefore, be treated as interlopers, and certainly ought not to be dispossessed by any force without full inquiry. On the other hand, as he had stated, there could be no moral doubt that the Treaty had been strained much too far; for some who certainly had taken no part in the war now claimed under the agreement. The Zulus had, for the first time, submitted the state of affairs to us, in order to effect an arrangement, so that now there were three parties concerned in these matters. There were the Boers who claimed the farms they occupied, there were the Zulus who asked to be defended, and there was Natal whose interests were the most important of all. He was not without hope that the services of some person possessed of influence like Mr. Eandolph—a gentleman who had the rare merit of combining in his own person the confidence both of the Dutch and the English Colonists, and who, from his knowledge of the locality, was well qualified for advising what the Government should and should not allow—might be made use of in arranging a fair boundary. What he had seen in the newspapers that morning encouraged him in thinking that that might be done. He did not believe that the New Republic of the Boers would be dissatisfied if, whilst refusing to treat with them as a separate body, we advised that recognition by the Zulus of certain terms to be prepared. He believed it would be perfectly consistent with the interests of this country, of the Zulus, and of the Transvaal, that a delimitation should be made by amicable arrangement, though, judging from the past, he did not suppose it would be altogether free from danger or difficulty. He thought he was doing the best in his power by bringing all these matters as far as possible upon a road which would be common to the late Government and their Successors. He was simply speaking for himself, and he was glad, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that Lord Granville saw no reason to depart from the course hitherto pursued; and he might possibly bring these matters, without the interposition of an armed force, to an amicable settlement. Up to the time he (Sir Frederick Stanley) left Office the latest information with respect to Bechuanaland was satisfactory. The Land Commission was either sitting or about to sit; and nothing could have exceeded the satisfactory nature of the general Reports that the Colonial Office had received on the subject. As those who took an interest in the matter were aware, the late Government departed, to some extent, from the general Protectorate which their Predecessors had assumed in respect of carrying the Protectorate up to, he believed, Parallel 22. They did not think, with regard to the territory immediately adjacent to the Cape Colony, that it was sufficient, on the one hand, to extend it, or, on the other, to annex it, to the Cape Colony. Therefore, they advised Her Majesty to extend her dominion, to take in Stella-land, and that over that territory British law might be administered in the same way as in other parts of Her Majesty's territories. In connection with this matter he must mention the name of Mr. Shippard, a gentleman who commanded the confidence of every place to which he had gone. Sir Hercules Robinson had visited Bechuanaland, and had seen how Mr. Shippard's work had proceeded; and he believed that the country might soon settle down and become quiet by means of the police which had been established. Those who knew the country said that the police were better, for all practical purposes, than a military force. A certain attempt which might have turned to filibustering had been made soon after the establishment of the police; and it was necessary to take the precautionary step of arresting certain persons engaged in it. If filibustering was promptly dealt with in that way, a great deal would be done for the pacification of the country. The reports from Basutoland, also, were highly satisfactory. Too much could not be said in praise of the Resident, Colonel Clarke, who exercised a remarkable degree of influence over those with whom he came in contact. The Chiefs appeared to have come under his sway; and certainly the pacification of Basutoland was greatly due to the personal influence of that officer. He begged to apologize for intruding on the House; but as his own action had been alluded to he thought it right to state what had taken place when he was at the Colonial Office.

said, that he congratulated the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) on being nominated to the important Office of Chairman of Committees, and felt confident that the House and country would be well pleased to have the benefit of that hon. Gentleman's knowledge and experience in that Office. He (Sir George Balfour) would also add that as in the new Parliament there were a very large number of new Members, he presumed all of them were anxious, while securing the efficiency of the Public Service, to bring about a more thorough condition of economy in the Public Expenditure than had existed hitherto. He trusted greater attention to the Estimates would be given than in past years. He regretted, therefore, to have to point out to new Members that there was no information contained in the Estimates now submitted to Parliament which could possibly afford any guide to them upon points of that nature. In point of fact, under such circumstances, it was almost a waste of time to enter into a discussion of the Estimates at all. It would be better to pass the whole of the present demand of £250,000 without discussion. It was only 1 per cent of increase in the Civil Estimates, and the amount annually added had been nearly £1,000,000 a-year.

asked for some explanation of this Vote, which, upon the face of it, was intended to be applied in providing better accommodation for the Wands worth Police Court. That was a question which had been before the House for some years, and invariably objected to both by Members and by the Government, the plea being that until the Municipality of London was settled the reform of the Wands worth office could not be entertained. Now, without any warning the money was asked for, and he wished to know how the matter had been settled?

I wish to explain that the Vote is due to the necessity of providing better accommodation in the way of Police Courts in London. As the hon. and gallant Member has said, the case of the Wands worth Police Court has been before this House for 10 years, and it has very frequently been a matter of discussion. Last year the House expressed a strong opinion that the Court ought to be improved, but that the charges ought to be thrown upon the Metropolis. Pending the passing of a measure for reforming Municipal Government in the Metropolis, it was deemed necessary, in order to secure the proper administration of justice, that something should be done with regard to the Wands worth Police Court. It was suggested that a sum of £1,500 should be spent; but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Home Secretary, would not sanction, in the first instance, any expenditure beyond £1,000. I am glad to say that the total cost of the alterations which have been made, including the hiring of the Town Hall at Wands worth for police purposes, has not exceeded £800. Under the circumstances, I think that a very satisfactory settlement has been made in a matter in regard to which there has certainly been a considerable amount of public inconvenience.

I think that the Committee ought not to be called upon to pass this Vote, unless some assurance is given by the Government in regard to the nature of the works which are intended to be undertaken in the future. I am afraid that the unwise step already taken of building barracks for convicts before the House has had a full and clear detail of the kind of harbour works and cost thereof will be pleaded in urging on this costly harbour; and if this item is agreed to it will only be used to strengthen the cry of Parties for the commencement of a very large expenditure indeed, as to the propriety and utility of which there are very considerable doubts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will recollect that Votes have already been taken for the erection of a convict prison at Dover, as it was intended to construct the works in connection with the harbour by means of convict labour. But although I have repeatedly asked to have Estimates submitted to the House, I have invariably been told that these expenses were only preliminary. More than once a distinct promise has been given that before any permanent expenditure was undertaken a full explanation as to the nature and extent of the works, as well as their cost, and saving from the use of canals, would be given to the House. I think I am entitled to complain of the manner in which the subject has hitherto been dealt with; and, so far as Dover Harbour is concerned, I am of opinion that the money proposed to be spent would be better used for improving the fishery harbours; but if, on the respon- sibility of the Government, a harbour is deemed essential for the safety of the country, then we ought to have a thoroughly efficient harbour of a much larger area, with deeper water for our big vessels, so that the expenditure made upon it may really prove useful.

I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that Parliament ought not to abandon the works which have already been commenced at Dover, and that hon. Members are entitled to know exactly what the nature of the step is which we are about to take. The House, however, has already decided that there shall be a harbour at Dover, and that that harbour shall be constructed by convict labour. Considerable works have already been carried out there in connection with the erection of a convict prison. The sum of £300 in the present Vote is incurred entirely in preliminary expenses for providing plans of the proposed works; and there will be in the Estimates of the coming year a Vote of £1,000 for surveying the site and taking bearings. After that has been done the House will be supplied with a proper Estimate of the cost of the works; but it is absolutely impossible, in the present position of the matter, to submit full plans and Estimates.

I must confess that the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is very unsatisfactory. Here we are involving the country in an admitted expenditure of upwards of £1,000,000, and we are not yet in possession of plans to show what the nature of the work is to be, or what cost will be ultimately entailed upon the country. But, like most engineering works, it may be safely calculated to be three or four times this sum. No doubt, the steps already taken, and the money spent on barracks for convicts, will be pleas for involving the country in a large expenditure in connection with the employment of convict labour. But these works and the outlay were incurred in the face of strong opposition from me. I am sorry that the Committee has not received a fuller explanation, and I feel bound to raise my voice against the Vote by way of protest.

As I understand, the money is required for the pur- pose of making plans and ascertaining what ought to be the proper site.

Yes.

It is quite clear that plans are absolutely necessary before anything can be decided upon as to the future works, and before that estimate of the work can be made which the hon. and gallant Member desires, and which the House will, of course, require to see before any Vote for the actual work is taken.

What I contend is, that before Government decided upon putting the country to this very large expenditure they ought to have made all the inquiries and prepared the plans and detailed Estimates which they say, by this £300 grant, they are only now beginning to make. But full inquiries have been already made, as hon. Members can find out by referring to a volume of harbour plans laid before Parliament in 1847–8. The Admiralty of that day, moved thereto by Sir Robert Peel, had Dover Bay carefully examined, and nine of the most eminent engineers were invited to prepare plans for a harbour, and the engineer estimated the cost at £4,000,000; and less than this sum, to form an efficient harbour, cannot be expected to be incurred. I believe that I speak the opinion of many hon. Members when I say that the large sum of money which will be laid out in constructing this great harbour may be used for far more useful purposes in other directions — 40 or 50 fishery harbours being possible. I believe I am fully justified in saying that the late Earl of Beaconsfield strongly opposed the construction of this harbour, and that Sir Stafford North cote took a similar course. Indeed, in the House of Lords one of the most convincing speeches against the harbour was made by Lord Beaconsfield, against the advocacy of Lord Granville in favour of a harbour at Dover. A Liberal Government has been generally understood to be anxious to reform the Public Expenditure; but I cannot say that they have been very successful in the present instance. I do not propose to offer any further remarks to the Committee in reference to this Vote; but I wish to enter a strong protest against the course now taken.

I am glad that the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury has been called to this Vote; and I wish to know whether, after what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, we are to understand that by passing this Vote of £300 we are pledging the House of Commons to the future expenditure either of a sum of £750,000, or of £1,000,000—the sum at which the works are, I believe, estimated?

No.

Then I am clearly to understand that we are not pledging the country to such an expenditure?

This expenditure of £300 commits the House of Commons to no pledge whatever. It is simply for the purpose of obtaining plans for ascertaining what the works will cost. No doubt, works have been going on for some time in connection with the erection of a large convict establishment for the purpose of carrying out works for the extension of Dover Harbour. Some pressure has been put upon the Government to accelerate the works in reference to that harbour; and my Predecessor in Office (Sir Henry Holland) has stated that it is absolutely impossible to ascertain what the cost of the works will be unless this preliminary inquiry is made. The sole object of the Vote is to ascertain what the works will cost.

I wish to point out to the Committee and the country that we are now about to embark in works which will cost the country, according to an Estimate which has been already given, a sum of £750,000, or probably double that sum, before they are completed. Successive Ministries have, over and over again, refused to sanction that expenditure; and, therefore, I feel bound to enter my protest against the course which is now being taken. I think it would be a very injudicious thing even to vote this sum of £300, when it is more than probable that when the Estimate for the cost of the works comes before the Committee we shall be told that we have, by our vote on this small sum, already sanctioned the work. I entirely join in the protest which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) against this ship-shod way of conducting business. If this large harbour is required at Dover—and it has been held not to be required by former Governments—let the Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Member of the Government, state the reasons which have induced the Government to change their opinion, and why they now consider it desirable to ask Parliament to undertake the work.

The right hon. Gentleman may accept, without any doubt, the assurance of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that this is not a Vote which alters or changes in any respect the position of the House in regard to Dover Harbour beyond what is expressed on the face of the Vote—namely, that it is intended to procure certain plans for the purpose of enabling the House to form a judgment as to the nature of the work. I am not myself distinctly acquainted with all the details of this question; but I believe that the works at Dover Harbour are very much needed, in consequence of the absolute necessity of finding employment in some shape or other for the convicts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Home Secretary last year, will be able to say in what state he left the matter when he gave up the Office of Home Secretary; and, no doubt, some Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite will be able to explain what took place with regard to it when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Office. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing has been done which is in the slightest degree irregular.

I rise for the purpose of asking for information. I have been given to understand that this is simply a question of preparing plans which may or may not subsequently be carried out. If hon. Members will look a little lower down page 7, where a statement is made in reference to the Expenditure, it will be found that the details of these preliminary expenses include hire of labour, rent of offices, and the salary of a foreman of works. Those who are at all acquainted with the building trade will be aware that the last thing you do before you commence the erection of works is to employ a foreman of works. I never heard of a foreman of works being employed before the plans were regularly formulated; and, therefore, the explanation which has just been given in regard to this Vote is not one which is worthy of the attention of the Committee. As one of the new Members of the present Parliament, I must apologize for intruding upon the attention of the Committee; but I wish to point out to the Committee how impossible it is for those who are desirous of assisting in any way in obtaining the retrenchment of the Expenditure of the country to do so with justice to themselves, considering that the document containing these Estimates was only given to hon. Members this morning. I would submit that it is most desirable these Votes, whether only supplementary or on account, should be placed in the hands of hon. Members some time before it is possible for them to be brought forward.

I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks as to the time at which the Estimates have been laid upon the Table; but the Government are really not responsible for what has taken place. To-night is the very earliest night on which it has been possible to go into Supply; and my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government said last night that there were really very few days at the disposal of the Government before the close of the financial year on which it would be possible to deal with these questions. No doubt, it is inconvenient; but that inconvenience is inevitable. With regard to Dover Harbour, it is now two years since the matter was discussed in the House; and I stated then, with, I think, the acquiescence of both sides of the House, how the matter stood. I then occupied the position of Home Secretary; and I had to consider, as hon. Gentlemen who preceded and succeeded me know very well, that one of the questions which pressed for settlement when the Government came into Office in 1880 was what was to be done with the convicts who were likely to be set free by the approaching completion of the works at Portland, Chatham, and elsewhere. It is a most important part of our penal system that there should be some public works on which convicts may be employed. That is absolutely essential. We could not carry on our penal system with any advantage unless we had some public work on which convict labour could be employed. Then we had to consider what were the works which could be carried on to the best advantage under these circumstances; and a Committee was appointed to consider the rival claims of Dover and Filey as suitable stations for a harbour of refuge. In this House there has always been, as any hon. Gentleman who has taken an interest in the question knows, a sort of rivalry in regard to the construction of a harbour of refuge between Filey and Dover. It must be remembered that we had to deal with the roughest kind of labour, and not with persons who could be employed to do work here, there, and everywhere. Convict labour can only be employed under very strict and limited conditions. The work provided should be such as to employ a large number of men in the same place for a long time, as otherwise we could not afford to build a prison for them, and to make arrangements that would be necessary for them. Therefore, on completing the large works at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Chatham, where you have been in the habit of employing convict labour, it became essential that, in continuing to employ that labour, you should provide works of a similar character, upon which you would be able to employ labour of the roughest kind, and which works themselves would last for a considerable period. All these circumstances were carefully considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, who had in their deliberations the assistance of eminent naval and military men. The question was fully considered by all parties interested in the matter; and we came to the conclusion, which was announced to the House, that, on the whole, it was desirable to continue and complete the extension of Dover Habour by constructing another breakwater which should go out at right angles from the Admiralty Pier. The Committee were of opinion that that was the best work which could be undertaken. It was a matter which was under consideration for several years; and there have been plans made—some larger and some smaller—by the Dover Harbour Commissioners and so forth in connection with the proposed works. But we determined that, on the whole, before entering upon the works themselves, it was necessary to build a prison for the convicts; and the way in which a prison is built for convicts is this. In the first instance, the custom is to erect a small prison by contract, capable of holding a few men, and when that has been done the convicts themselves are employed in building a larger prison. It is proposed that we should employ something like 1,000 men at Dover; but, in the first instance, there will be built by contract a prison—I speak from memory—capable of accommodating 200 men. When that is completed and the convicts are sent there, they will be employed in building the larger prison; and I believe that that work is now going on—I mean the building of this larger prison. That is my recollection of the facts of the case. The larger question of the character of the works in connection with the harbour itself has been left unsettled; but it is to be settled within the very few years which it is estimated the building of the prison will occupy. The Prison Vote, according to my recollection of the matter, is not in any way concerned with the construction of the harbour itself. I believe that the Admiralty have not yet settled that question.

No.

My hon. Friend says that that has not been settled; and, therefore, the character of the harbour works itself is still undecided, and all questions as to the actual dimensions. The position and the cost of the harbour works must be brought under the consideration of the House at a future time. According to my recollection, the Estimate formed of the expenditure involved in building the prison itself amounts to the sum of between £50,000 and £60,000. That expenditure is not yet completed. Indeed, I think that it is not half completed. The work is still going on, and all other matters are still in abeyance and under the control of the Treasury.

I think the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in conjunction with that which has been made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary to the Treasury, requires some further explanation from the Government. The late Home Secretary says that an arrangement has been made for the establishment of a harbour at Dover; and in the position he now occupies as Chancellor of the Exchequer he informs the Committee that we are about to establish a convict prison at Dover, at an expense of from £50,000 to £60,000, for the purpose of undertaking works which every successive Government has condemned up to the present hour. That is a fact within my own knowledge. I recollect, years ago, expenditure of a similar character being incurred in connection with Alderney Harbour. Thousands and tens of thousands of pounds, amounting, in the whole, to more than £1,000,000, were thrown away upon those worthless works, which were supposed, at the time, to be of some advantage to us in protecting us from an invasion from France, but which have since been proved to be utterly valueless. The harbour of Dover is acknowledged to be valueless as a harbour of refuge; and yet it is stated that convict labour is to be employed there for the purpose of constructing a harbour of refuge. I think it is most important that the new Parliament, now assembled here, should have these subjects thoroughly threshed out, in order that they may understand what it is, in these days of economical professions, they are pledging the country to. I see before me my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who has always taken great interest in these Estimates; and, although I am sorry to see that he is not a Member of the Government, I hope that he will still observe some of that independence of character which has always characterized him. I would ask him now to get up in his place and make a statement in confirmation of what I have stated. In the few remarks addressed to the Committee by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the necessity of finding employment for convicts; but what I wish to know is, whether the Government have, in any way, sanctioned the expenditure of £50,000 or £60,000 on a convict establishment at Dover, with the view of constructing harbour works, which are to cost at least £700,000, and probably £1,400,000 before they are finished? Is this the object for which a convict prison is being provided at Dover for the employment of the convicts who have been released from the construction of public works at Portsmouth and Plymouth? In my opinion, that is not the way in which the expenditure of the public money should be carried on. If you want to employ convicts, do it in some other way, and not in the construction of works which everyone knows will be of no value at all as a harbour of refuge. In my humble judgment we, in this House, should set our faces at once against a Vote of this kind, unless we have a distinct understanding that we shall not find ourselves pledged, in the course of a few years, to a much larger expenditure.

The House has already expressed an opinion on this subject.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

The House expressed a deliberate opinion upon it two years ago at my invitation. The proposition was that there should be a harbour of refuge established at Dover. I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet was present when the subject was brought forward. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I was.] Then the right hon. Baronet must know that the whole matter was considered, and that the House came to a deliberate opinion that the works should be done, and authorized the commencement of the convict prison. That was distinctly the case; and if the right hon. Baronet will refer back to the report of the debate, he will see that the whole matter was fairly placed before the House, and that all that was left unsettled then was the exact plans of the breakwater, which were to be subject to a revision and consideration afterwards. The House was distinctly asked to pledge itself to the proposition that a breakwater should be constructed at Dover, and that a convict prison should be built for the purpose of making provision for the convicts who were to be employed in making the breakwater. That proposition was deliberately affirmed by the House; and what is now left for the House of Commons to do is, to say what sum they propose to spend upon that breakwater. That is the only question now left; but that subject cannot be raised on the Vote now before the Committee. It can only be raised when the Committee are asked for a Vote to defray the cost of the harbour, and the present Vote is only for the purpose of having plans prepared.

The adoption of the Vote would pledge the House to more than that.

Not as I understand it; but I did not prepare the Estimate. As I understand the matter, it has been proposed simply for the purpose of making provision for plans in reference to the construction of harbour works. I am sure that the plans have not yet been prepared; of that I feel perfectly convinced; and there must be a further application to the House before anything can be done in the matter. When the House is asked to vote a sum of money for the harbour works the whole question of the construction of a harbour of refuge will arise, and it will then be open for the House to say what should be done. So far the details of the harbour works have not yet been laid before Parliament; but the House, in a former Session, on the distinct statement that a harbour was to be made, was committed by its action to the construction of the convict prison.

I am quite prepared to confirm the general statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I recollect perfectly well that there was a proposition made by the Government that money should be voted for the purpose of building a prison, with the ultimate view of proceeding with those harbour works. To that extent the House went. I am bound to tell my right hon. Friend opposite the Member for Blackburn (Sir Robert Peel) that I look back upon the House of Commons in the last Parliament as being a House as little disposed to regard questions of economy as any House which ever existed. I am quite sure of this—and in this respect I confirm the right hon. Baronet's opinion—that the House has never yet been placed in possession of any Estimate of the probable expenditure on these works in such a manner as would justify the House in voting a large sum of money for carrying on works the expediency of which is more or less doubtful. Of course, we are committed to the construction of this prison; but, as I understand the present Vote, it is a Vote of £300 on account of Dover Harbour; and what I am afraid is that we shall be told, if we pass this Vote of £300, that we have committed ourselves to a much greater expenditure for future works. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a pledge, which I imagine the Government will not wish to depart from, that before the House is absolutely committed to any enormous expenditure for works which have been shown in other cases to be useless, the House will be put in possession of all the information that is necessary to confirm their judgment. I must, however, remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government that a custom has grown up in Committee of Supply, which may, perhaps, not be known to new Members of the House, by which a Member of the Government comes down here with a first Vote, and having obtained that Vote has subsequently contended that the House had been committed to an expenditure for a special object. I, therefore, think that when the Government ask for a preliminary Vote they are bound to place on the Estimates the total sum which they expect to expend hereafter. I recollect, some years ago, a proposal being made in connection with a scheme for the erection of buildings on a plot of land in close contiguity with the Houses of Parliament. Upon that occasion the First Commissioner of Works came down to the House and proposed that we should vote a small sum of money—some £5,000—for preliminary expenses. That Vote was not accompanied with any statement of the entire expenditure contemplated, and on that ground I was successful in opposing it; and in consequence a very large expenditure for an unnecessary object was prevented. In this case, if we pass this Vote without a distinct understanding from the Government we may find ourselves committed to a very large expenditure indeed for a useless purpose. I know it is a thankless duty to oppose the expenditure of public money. I know that men who oppose the expenditure of public money get far more abuse than credit. I am glad that the hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somersetshire (Mr. Baker) has raised his voice on this occasion in favour of economy, seeing that he is one of the new Members on this side of the House who have been returned to this Parliament. I am confident that they, as a body, will not allow the fact that we have in Office a Government which belongs to their own Party to form any ground for supporting the Government in the extravagant expenditure of public money. During the last Parliament, when a Liberal Government was in power, I constantly endeavoured to check their extravagance; but I do not know that I did much good. I received so little support that I found it was hopeless to attempt to make any impression upon the Estimates, which have gone on increasing from year to year, until they are now a perfect scandal. With regard to this Vote of £300, and seeing that we are bound to build a convict prison, it is only reasonable to ask that we should have some statement as to what is the contemplated amount of expenditure which will hereafter be incurred. We certainly ought to know the cost of the work contemplated within £10,000, £20,000, or £30,000, and I should be very glad to see in this Estimate some such statement. At all events, we have the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in voting this sum of £300 for some purpose which I do not exactly understand we are not committing ourselves to an approval of any scheme of a large character, involving ultimately a very considerable amount of expenditure. If I am to understand that no Estimate will be taken which will in any way commit the House of Commons I do not know that I should object to this small Vote.

The Department with which I was connected in the last Government (the Admiralty), although it had really no control over the expenditure, was, nevertheless, the Department which was charged with carrying out the engineering works in connection with this scheme. I may say that nothing in the shape of harbour work has been executed by the late Government, and this expenditure of £300 is intended to be purely preliminary. As some questions have been asked in reference to what is thought to be the contemplated and probable cost of the works in connection with this harbour, I will tell the Committee what I understand to be the position of matters. The question of Dover Harbour, as most hon. Members are aware, has been considered by the House on more than one occasion, and on more than one occasion has been referred both to Select and Departmental Committees. I believe that the conclusion arrived at by the various Committees was that a harbour at Dover would be an extremely useful and a very desirable thing. Various schemes for that purpose have been under consideration, and on various occasions schemes have been adopted; and I think that the contemplated expenditure upon them has varied from a minimum of about £750,000 to a maximum of £2,500,000.

The last scheme was estimated to cost about £1,000,000.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman may possess information which I do not; but my information is that the scheme involving the minimum of expenditure would cost about £750,000, while the scheme occasioning the maximum outlay would involve an expenditure of £2,500,000. Ultimately the question came to be one between two different schemes — one costing something like £1,000,000, and another costing something like £750,000; and I may say that the more expensive scheme gave deep-water accommodation in the harbour to an extent considerably greater than would be provided by the less costly plan involving an expenditure of £750,000. It was ultimately resolved by Her Majesty's Government in 1883, as I understand, to adopt the larger of these two schemes; and they, therefore, assented to a proposal which was made to them to construct a harbour at Dover, with a very large amount of deep-water accommodation, the cost of which was to be something like £1,100,000. It is, as far as I understand, upon the basis of that assent in 1883 that the works have since been proceeded with; and the works have consisted up to the present, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) has stated, of a convict prison, which was necessary for the purpose of housing the convicts to be employed. Committees have reported, on several occasions, that a harbour at Dover would be of great benefit both to the Navy and the Mercantile Marine; and when the harbour was decided upon it was thought desirable that convicts should be employed upon the works. Up to the present time the only expenditure incurred upon the works has been the expenditure incurred for the convict prison. It follows, of course, that having gone to a large expense in building a convict prison, and it having been so frequently decided that a harbour should be constructed, that the House will be asked, and will probably consent, to the construction of a harbour. I may point out that it is contemplated that when the harbour is completed, which I understand will not be for 16 or 20 years, it is to be handed over to a Dover Harbour Commission; and it is believed that the dues received by that Commission for the use of the harbour would pay a fair interest upon about one-half of the total expenditure.

I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just down into the statistics with which he has favoured the Committee; but I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to one aspect of the question which, up to the present moment, appears to have been lost sight of. It is proposed to enter into a large expenditure of public money; but in regard to this particular service it is proposed to expend the whole of that money in Great Britain. We have it upon the authority of one of the chief officials of the Board of Trade, within the last few weeks, that a very much larger sum is raised in Ireland by Imperial taxation than is spent in that country. We have for years been contending that the distribution of public money is most inequitable as regards Ireland, and this is an illustration of what we complained of. We have convicts in Ireland as well as in England, and coasts which require harbour accommodation in Ireland as well as in this country; and we contribute according to our resources quite as much, as taxpayers, as those of England to the Public Expenditure. I would therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do in regard to the distribution of the public money? What is Ireland to get for the purpose of constructing harbours?

I must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Question now before the Committee is the Question of Dover Harbour, and that it is not competent for him, upon that limited Question, to enter into the question of the distribution of public money as between the Three Kingdoms.

Quite so. I completely apprehend that point. But we are asked to vote, out of the common funds of the Empire, money which is to go exclusively for services in connection with England, whereas nothing whatever is to be done for Ireland. I object to the inequality. We have a number of convicts in Ireland who used to be employed in the Cove of Cork. They might be employed in the performance of precisely similar services at Gal way and in other parts of Ireland; and I think it was in the contemplation of the late Government to institute some such services. Perhaps I may be allowed to call the attention of the Committee, for a moment, to the fact that on the coast of the county of which I am one of the Representatives — the county of Donegal—not long ago one of Her Majesty's gun-boats was lost, because there was no accommodation along that coast such as that which it is now proposed to provide on the Southern Coast of England. I would ask that hon. Members, before the assent of the Irish Representatives is given or even asked for to this particular Vote, may be informed of the intentions of the Government, not only in regard to the employment of convicts in England, but in regard to the public works of this description which are to be undertaken in Ireland as well, and also what proportion of the Public Expenditure is to be devoted to Ireland for this kind of service?

I admit the reasonableness of the request of the hon. Member. It is only a reasonable request that the employment of convicts in useful public works should not be confined to England, but that employment should also be found for them in other parts of the Kingdom. I cannot, of course, say, off-hand, to what extent, or in what manner, employment on useful public works can at the present time be found for convicts in Ireland. A demand was made some time ago in reference to Scotland, and it was carefully considered. The Government were asked that convict labour should be employed in connection with certain public works in Scotland. I do not know in what state the matter is now; but we did consider that the application, so far as the harbour of Peterhead was concerned, might be assented to, and I believe that works there are actually going on now. I shall be quite prepared to consider the reasonableness of employing convict labour in useful works of a similar character in Ireland.

I would like to offer one word to the Committee on this question before it is disposed of. I trust that no further opposition will be offered by the Committee to this Vote. I speak as a naval man, and I can say that all naval men warmly support the Vote. The hon. Member who has just sat down complained that similar convict labour is not employed in Ireland. Now, I know the whole of the coast all round Ireland, and I must congratulate the Irish people on possessing already magnificent harbours on their coast. [Colonel NOLAN: Where?] I decline to answer questions that may be put to me while I am addressing the Chairman of Committees. The case is entirely different with regard to the coast of England. At the present time there is no harbour suitable for men-of-war to call at between Portsmouth and Hull; and it is of the utmost importance not only that this harbour at Dover should be completed, but that other harbours of refuge should be constructed. Naval men have been anxious to see the harbour at Dover completed; and so long as you delay its completion you can have very little regard for your first line of defence. I am sorry to see hon. Members quibbling and carping in this House at expenses of this kind. I should have thought that the first maritime country in the world would have been most anxious to spend money and do all that is necessary in providing harbours and coaling stations for its Navy and for its extensive Commercial Marine. Foreigners have been astounded at the apathy of this country in regard to the safety of the lives of those who carry on their commerce upon the high seas. We are a wealthy country, and it is ridiculous for us to carp about the expenditure of a few thousand pounds upon a harbour which would be of the greatest service both to ships of the Royal Navy and of the Mercantile Marine. I am afraid that if a great naval war were to break out this country would be in a state of great alarm in regard to its naval stations; and I submit that it is of the utmost importance to provide useful coaling stations in the event of war. Some day the country will wake up to a true sense of its position; and I am sorry to see the opposition which has been raised to the Vote. I sincerely hope that it will not be pursued further.

There have been two or three points raised in the course of the discussion upon which I should like to say a word. I have noticed how difficult it seems to be in this House to check Expenditure; and I would ask hon. Members who have made their first appearance in the House to assist by every means in their power in checking the Public Expenditure. I think there is no duty we owe to the country which is more incumbent upon us than that of securing economy in the Expenditure of the country; and that duty falls upon us with greater force on the present occasion on account of the commercial depression from which the country is suffering. This is not a time for naval Gentlemen to press upon Parliament the necessity of increasing its Expenditure. Naval men are only influenced by the fact that they receive a great deal more money than they pay; but those who represent the commerce and industry of the country pay much more than they receive. I, therefore, hope that the new Members of this House will back up the Government, or any other Party which tries to check the Expenditure; and I am glad to welcome assistance from the other side of the House in keeping down Expenditure for purposes of doubtful utility. Assistance from that side was not expected or looked for; and although the conversion of hon. Members opposite has been brought about late I am sure it will be hailed with satisfaction, and I trust that in future they will continue their assistance in the same direction in lessening the Expenditure of the country, and in making it more in accordance with the position in which we stand in regard to agriculture and commerce. I would seriously urge upon the House the duty of exercising great care in future in regard to the Expenditure of the country.

I may be very obtuse, but I must confess that I do not understand the purpose for which this Vote is asked. We were originally told that the Vote was only for a preliminary survey before we were asked to enter into a large expenditure for the purpose of carrying out plans in connection with the construction of harbour works, which plans were to be laid before the House before the expenditure was entered into. As I gather from the speeches which have been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and others, Parliament has already sanctioned a considerable amount of expenditure in connection with these works. According to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets there have been two schemes, one of which is to cost £750,000, and the other £1,000,000; but I am certainly at a loss to understand whether or not either of those schemes has yet received the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that some £50,000 or £60,000 have already been voted for the purpose of constructing a convict prison at Dover for the accommodation of 1,000 convicts, who are to be employed in the erection of these works. We are told that we have already, to a considerable extent, by assenting to that expenditure, committed ourselves to the works which are to be ultimately undertaken in connection with the construction of a harbour. Under these circumstances, I think it is as well that we should understand clearly what it is we are asked to do. It is true that this is a small sum; but it may form part of a much larger sum, and what I want to know is, whether it does form part of a larger sum or not? I do not think that the Government have as yet given us full information upon that point. No doubt right hon. Gentlemen opposite have only been for a short time in Office, and they may have had very little opportunity for examining the Estimate and the services for which it is required; but I think it would have been well if it had been explained that the sum asked for is part of a larger sum, and if it had been indicated what that larger sum is to be. It ought certainly to be explained whether, by passing this Vote, we are sanctioning a larger expenditure or not. Until this is done, and we have some assurance from the Government as to how this Estimate is formed, and to what account the money is to be placed, I do not think we ought to assent to it.

I have already explained how the matter stands. I have stated that the erection of the prison was sanctioned in a previous Session, with a view to the ultimate construction of a breakwater in Dover Harbour. The prison itself will probably take three or four years to build, and after it is completed and occupied the harbour works would be commenced by the convicts.

What is to be the cost of the harbour works?

At the express wish of the Treasury, the engineering works in connection with the harbour have been, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) has stated, intrusted to the Admiralty; but, of course, what the House ought to have, before it sanctions the final amount of expenditure, is accurate plans of the breakwater, and au estimate of what it will cost. As the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ritchie) has stated, there have been two schemes submitted, one of which will cost £750,000 to carry out, and the other £1,000,000, which will give much better deep-water accommodation. Between those two schemes the House will, practically, have to decide; but in order to make the plans it is necessary to take soundings, to make surveys, and to incur a certain amount of expenditure in making them. Certain preliminary inquiries have to be made by the Admiralty as to the physical difficulties to be overcome, the nature of the bottom, and so forth. Pending the acquisition of this necessary preliminary information, no plans or estimates of the harbour have been prepared or can be made, or, indeed, will be required for something like three years. That is my answer to the question of the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory), what the money included in the Vote is asked for. The object is to enable the necessary plans and estimates to be framed.

I must object to the statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a Memorandum which has not been laid upon the Table of the House.

The hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has asked what this Vote is for. I am, to a large extent, responsible for the estimated sum of money which appears in the Vote; and I am bound to confirm what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the money is necessary for the purpose of preparing plans and making estimates as to the cost of the works before undertaking the construction of the harbour. Whether the House is committed to the principle of constructing a breakwater or not I cannot say. My hon. Friend has said that the present Government have not been long in Office; but he has himself been for a long period a Member of this House, and he must be aware that the House has already sanctioned the expenditure required for the building of the convict prison at Dover, and he must also know what the purpose is for which it has been decided to remove the convicts there—namely, to find them employment in the construction of the proposed harbour works. It has certainly never been the intention of the House to sanction the large expenditure which has already been incurred in connection with the building of a convict prison, unless it was also intended to use the labour which it is proposed to transfer. I can assure my hon. Friend that this expenditure is necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the Treasury that there should be an estimate of the total cost of the harbour.

This is one of the Estimates which I think the Committee ought to regard with a certain amount of suspicion. Whenever the two Front Benches agree upon an Estimate I think it becomes the duty of every independent Member to oppose it. But when with that union between the two Front Benches we have the Naval Members of the House getting up and pressing us to spend a little more money there is additional reason for opposing the Vote. I have listened attentively to the discussion which has taken place, and I think that it explains, to some extent, the manner in which the public money is wasted and squandered in this country. It appears to have occurred to someone that it would be a good thing, in a general sort of way, to construct a harbour at Dover, or to extend the existing harbour by building a breakwater. A practical man might be supposed to consider, in the first instance, what the cost would be; but I now gather from the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) that this is a Conservative Vote, and that we are asked, in the first instance, to pass the Vote, and then ascertain what the expense of the works will be. [Mr. JACKSON: No.] Well, I do not know that there is much to choose, in these matters, between one side of the House and another. Each is just as bad as the other. At any rate, some Gentlemen sitting on the Front Benches have come to the conclusion that there ought to be an extension of Dover Harbour. In such a case, what course would business men have taken? They would have ascertained, in the first instance, what the harbour would cost.

We had a Committee.

They had a Committee. We know very well what that means. The Committee said—"Let us first build a prison in which to lodge the convicts who are to build the harbour." They spend a good deal of money—I do not know how many thousands of pounds—in building this prison, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us the Admiralty and the Treasury indulge in a little correspondence. Two plans were submitted, one of which is to cost £750,000, and the other £1,000,000. How were these plans made? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us we must expend a certain amount of money in order to make a plan; but it appears that there was a plan made which was considered both by the Treasury and the Admiralty.

A year ago.

A year ago, and yet it is necessary now to make surveys and soundings and borings, in order to decide how to make this harbour. I suppose the Committee, before they arrived at a decision, had some sort of evidence before them, and there must have been plans before the Admiralty and Treasury without these borings which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us must now be made. I suppose that these plans have been put away in some pigeon-hole and forgotten; and now we are to begin all over again in order to prepare soundings and plans. We are told that some labourers have been hired, some offices obtained, and we are asked to pass the salary of a foreman of works. But, at present, we do not know what the plans are to cost. Let us have something clearly before us in order to show us what we are pledged to before we pass this Vote. Let us have some sufficient data as to the soundings and borings in order that we may ascertain approximately what the harbour will cost. As this is almost the first Vote proposed in the new Parliament, I think that we ought to inaugurate our opinion of officialdom by at once voting against it.

I want to point out one thing in regard to which the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer appear to be agreed. What I complain of is the way in which the Estimates are presented to Parliament. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have told us that this Estimate is not for the harbour; and yet we are asked to vote an Estimate "of the amount required in the year 1886 towards the expense of constructing a new harbour at Dover." A Vote of £300 is hardly worth discussing if it were not for the fact that it may be taken to have pledged the country to the construction of a harbour. I was one of the Committee which sat to inquire into the question of constructing harbours of refuge; and it was clearly pointed out that several harbours of refuge are required, not only at Dover, useful as a harbour may be there, not only as a naval station, but as a harbour of refuge, and also in other situations along the coasts of the Three Kingdoms. I am not going to propose that Parliament should spend the money of the country in constructing the harbours of refuge recommended by the Committee; but the point I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to is that point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Eastern Division of Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) that the Committee proposed several harbours for Ireland as well as for England. But what happened? I suppose that the late Government are responsible for it; but the late Government last year proposed an Estimate for a harbour at Peterhead, in Scotland, and the late Government adopted it, and passed it. The new Government have now intro- duced another Estimate, and the late Government are going to support it. Both Parties adopt the same course. One Party submits an Estimate, and the other passes it. Already a sum of £600,000 or £700,000 has, I believe, been voted for the harbour works at Peterhead. I do not at all object to that, because I believe that it will be a very useful work. These harbour works at Dover are to cost £1,000,000. But the harbours of Ireland have had no attention paid to them at all; and when we put a Question upon the subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he told us that he had not yet made up his mind about it. I allude to the proposal which has been made for employing convicts at Galway, in regard to which a Question was put to the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor). I maintain that the Government ought to make up their minds upon the matter. The position of Galway Harbour is, I apprehend, very similar to that of Peterhead; but Her Majesty's Government have already gone to a large expenditure in Scotland, while they have entirely neglected the interests of Ireland. I am not against the principle of providing Scotland with harbours of refuge; but I think that the Government, having put down £750,000 for Peterhead, should putdown £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 for Dover, instead of this miserable sum of £300, and should then make provision for the construction of similar works at Galway. The hon. and gallant Member for South Sussex (Captain Field) told the Committee that there are plenty of harbours on the West Coast of Ireland; but when I challenged him he was unable to point out one really good harbour. If he will study the Report of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge, he will see that although there may be plenty of good roads and bays there is not one really adequate harbour.

This question of harbour accommodation upon the Coast of England has been discussed repeatedly in this House, not only in connection with Dover, but with other parts of the Kingdom. It has been contended that the establishment of new harbours, instead of being of advantage to the commercial interests of the country, would simply be a source of ex- pense, involving the outlay of a sum of money variously estimated from £750,000 to £1,000,000, and also lead the Railway Companies in connection with such harbours to damage existing interests by endeavouring to divert existing trades to a harbour made by public money. It is proposed to expend this money upon harbour works, which are considered to be altogether unnecessary, instead of giving relief to the taxes upon shipping. One demand has continually been made upon the Government by those who are engaged in carrying on the commerce of the country, and that is to relieve them from the payment of light dues. I would throw out that as a suggestion, and I shall certainly vote against any expenditure in extending the harbour at Dover. It appears to me to be a work that is uncalled for, and not required by the commerce of the country.

I have listened attentively to the different explanations which have been made in regard to this Vote; and I want now to understand distinctly what I am voting for. According to the explanation which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie), the Vote is required for preliminary expenses—or for a portion only of the preliminary expenses. I think the Committee ought to know, before they vote this money, what is the total preliminary expense to be voted.

I think that, at any rate, this discussion will prove to be serviceable in one respect. If it is said that we are to vote this sum of £300 without an Estimate of the total cost of the works, and simply as a preliminary step towards an inquiry which may enable the country to determine whether the enormous expenditure of money which is contemplated in connection with Dover Harbour shall take place, I think there is great force in what was said by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the whole proceeding in regard to this Vote is of a most unbusiness like character. The main question, what expenditure is to be incurred at Dover, is not before us; and certainly that is a point which ought to be considered, as well as this preliminary outlay involving soundings, borings, and the preparation of plans. We are told that when these plans have been prepared and are submitted to Parliament, with an Estimate based on them, that then the question will arise whether a harbour at Dover shall be constructed or not, and that the erection of the convict prison is a secondary matter. Now, it seems to me that the House and the Committee have already been committed to this scheme by the course which has been taken with regard to it, and that they are self-condemned for an act of folly in having expended more than £50,000 in the shape of preliminary expenditure in connection with a harbour at Dover by the building of the convict prison. At any rate, the country is committed to the expenditure of this £50,000; but let it be clearly understood, from the Front Bench, that it is committed to nothing beyond that sum, and that we shall hereafter be able to go into the whole of this question, without reference to this paltry Vote, as to whether the harbour is to be built or not. I do not think it would be wise to object to a Vote of this character, which I take to be absolutely necessary before an Estimate of the total expense, worthy of the consideration of the House, can be prepared. There must be a preliminary investigation by taking the necessary soundings and borings; and I would remind the Committee that only in too many cases the country has been involved in double the outlay suggested when the original Estimates were given.

I am sorry to find myself obliged to differ from several of the hon. Members who have spoken on this—the Liberal—side of the House. It seems to me that, as the two Front Benches have agreed, that fact has rendered it more necessary that the work should be proceeded with. It appears also to have been agreed many years ago that this harbour ought to be constructed. ["No!"] Pardon me for saying so; but if that were not the fact the erection of a convict prison in this position would have been an absurdity. I maintain that no Government would ever have thought of placing a convict prison at Dover, unless it was for the purpose which has been described from the two Front Benches—namely, the employment of the convicts upon the construction of these great works. Although we may appear to be very economical in the face of the country, I am afraid that we are certainly very wasteful of the time of the House, and that hon. Members have been occupying the valuable time of the House in an unreasonable manner this evening. As a practical man I have had much to do with the expenditure of money upon public works; and I say that it is impossible for anybody to know even what the preliminary expenses of a work of this description will amount to. You must go on piece by piece, and it is only as you discover what the soundings and what the borings and the physical difficulties are that you can, for a moment, arrive at anything like what your permanent Estimate is to be. And I may tell the Committee, further, that after a permanent Estimate has been arrived at it is certain that it will be exceeded in the natural course of events. No engineer, however eminent he may be, has ever executed a large work of this character within his estimates. Ho cannot do it. He can only do the best possible; and as the two Front Benches have agreed that this work ought to be done, it follows that the money required for the preparation of plans should be voted without any more discussion. I do not agree with the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that as the two Front Benches are agreed upon this matter we ought to disagree and reject the Vote. If that is to be the case, we had better do away with the two Front Benches altogether, and leave the independent Members of the House to conduct the whole of the Business of the country. I trust that the Vote will be agreed to at once, as it affords the only possible and practical mode of dealing with the question.

I should like to say a word or two before this discussion closes. As to the question whether the House of Commons have agreed to the policy of constructing a harbour of refuge at Dover, I believe that that question was settled by the last Parliament, and that that decision was only come to after very careful consideration had been given to the subject by a Committee of this House. After that consideration it was decided, not only by the Home Office, but by the Admiralty and Treasury, that a commencement might be made at Dover in the arrangements that were necessary for carrying out this great work. With respect to that portion of the expenditure which relates to making provision for the accommodation of the convicts, that has already, I believe, been passed by the House of Commons; and the policy involved in the erection of the convict prison has been agreed to by the House. I myself remember a discussion upon this question when it was decided that, owing to the fact that the works carried on by the convicts at Chatham and Portsmouth being likely to come to an end in the course of two or three years, it was desirable to find other work for the convicts in some other place. Upon that occasion it was decided that the convict establishments ought to be transferred from Chatham and Portsmouth to Dover, for the purpose of being employed upon the proposed harbour works. The expenditure of the £300 now before the Committee—and probably a further sum may be asked for in the Estimates of next year—is really an economical proceeding. It is meant to obtain information before you decide upon spending your money; and I think, upon this ground, that it is a very proper thing to vote this £300, and also any further expenditure that may be asked for in order to obtain proper and full information. If the Government were to begin with any proposal for expenditure upon a work of this kind without taking borings and soundings, and deciding what the nature of the works for the harbour of refuge was to be, they might be open to blame for making such a proposal. But what is proposed to be done is simply to obtain information in order to enable the Admiralty to prepare plans, and to have an Estimate made as to what the cost of the works will be. When those plans shall have been prepared, and the Estimate laid upon the Table of the House, the time will have come when the House will have to decide whether they will carry out such plans or not. I believe that the proceeding involved in the present Vote is really an economical one, and one which the House ought to assent to.

I wish to call the attention of the Committee to an item in this Vote, which, I think, is one that requires careful explanation and elucidation. For several years past the expenditure of the Foreign Office for telegrams has been very large indeed; and when complaints have been made in Committee of Supply, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has, on several occasions, given a distinct undertaking that the Foreign Office would make a careful examination into this expenditure with, a view of ascertaining whether there was any possibility of reducing it. Now, the expenditure under this head in the present Vote includes an additional sum of nearly £3,000, the original Estimate of the Foreign Office telegraphic expenses having been £10,000—thus making £13,000 altogether. I do not know whether hon. Members, who have only recently had an opportunity of reading the Blue Books laid on the Table of the House since the new Parliament assembled, have read the Blue Book upon Foreign Affairs. It is important that they should do so; and they will find that a number of despatches are stated to have been received by telegram. Of course, it is necessary that the House of Commons should vote the money required to pay for the telegraphic charges of the Foreign Office. But our complaint, year after year, against the Foreign Office is that they have encouraged our Ministers abroad, and that they themselves at the Foreign Office have adopted the same plan, in sending despatches by telegraph when there is no absolute necessity for telegraphing. I have no wish to occupy the attention of the Committee by giving special instances; but I certainly wish to press upon hon. Members that a perusal of some of the telegrams which appear in the Blue Book recently laid on the Table of the House justify my assertion that they are such as no business man would ever have dreamt of incurring the cost of sending by telegraph wire. Nearly the whole of them might just as easily have been sent by the Foreign Office through the post, and the expense of sending them by telegraph wire saved to the country. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce) will, I am quite sure, bring his mind to bear upon this point when he has had more experience of the duties of the Office to which he has recently been appointed. His Predecessors—the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Lord E. Fitzmaurice—promised me that they would do so. My hon. Friend is fresh to the Office; and I hope he will bring new zeal and energy to the discharge of its duties. I ask him to look at the number of telegraphic despatches which have been sent to the Foreign Office from Constantinople, and which are contained in the Blue Book laid upon the Table in connection with the Mission to the East of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. I am ready to stake my character, as a business man, when I say that a great number of the despatches to which I refer are of a nature which renders it utterly absurd that the country should be called upon to pay heavy charges for telegraphing from Constantinople and elsewhere. If they had been sent by post it would equally have answered every good purpose. Of course, in commenting upon the matter, I do not include messages of such importance as to render it necessary that with the quickness of a flash of lightning they should be made known to the Marquess of Salisbury. What I complain of, as an evidence of want of care on the part of the Foreign Office, is that no attempt appears to have been made by the Representatives of that Department to bring sufficient pressure to bear upon our Ministers abroad to send their despatches by post in writing instead of sending them by telegraphic wire. Hon. Members will see that the total sum charged for the Foreign Office telegraphic despatches has been increasing from year to year; and I think it is high time that some attention should be directed to the subject with a view to the correction of the evil. It is plain that we carry on the business of the Foreign Office in a most extravagant manner. We have not only, in this Vote, charges for additional messengers, but also an enormous increase in the payments for telegrams. I would press strongly upon the Committee that this additional sum of £2,910 for telegrams ought not to be granted without some explanation from Her Majesty's Government.

This Vote is one which appears to require serious explanation from those in charge of it; and I think it must be read in connection with the Vote for the Diplomatic Service, which appears on page 26 of the present Supplementary Estimates. I think the Committee ought to know, before they are called upon to agree to this Vote, how much of this charge of £2,910 for additional telegraphic charges is connected with the item of £12,500 for telegraphic expenditure on page 26. It appears to me that, although the total sum taken in the Estimates for the year for these telegraphic expenses was £10,000, the Foreign Office have managed, in the course of six months, to add to that sum a total increase of £15,410, being £2,910 which appears in the present Vote on page 9, and £12,500 which appears on page 26 in connection with the Diplomatic Service. The wording of the two items gives no information to the House or to the Committee, because the entry is simply "telegraph expenses consequent on the state of affairs abroad." Both items are similarly worded, and I think that before we vote these sums we ought to be told how much of each Vote is for telegrams in connection with the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. We certainly ought to have some information to show the Committee how this enormous increase has arisen, and how it has been found necessary to exceed the charge of £10,000 already provided for by the tremendous sum of £12,500 in one Vote, and £2,910 in another, in the course of six months. Unless some explanation is given, I shall feel it my duty to move the rejection of the Vote.

I entirely concur in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) as to the necessity of carefully watching the expenditure of the Public Departments of the country. No doubt it is most important that, as far as possible, economy should be observed in all these matters; and I believe it is the desire of those who represent Her Majesty abroad to observe due economy in all their transactions. This is a Supplementary Vote for the Foreign Office, and relates only to telegrams which have been sent abroad. If hon. Members will examine it, they will see that the charges which appear in the Vote are entirely for telegrams sent by the Foreign Office abroad; and I can assure them, from my own experience, short as it is, that in the Foreign Office itself very great pains are taken to keep down the expenditure on telegraphing. Of course, it is impossible for the Department at home altogether to control the discretion of our Ministers abroad; and it must be recollected that circumstances have recently occurred in the South and South-East of Europe which have, to a certain extent, led to increased expenditure in this respect—I mean the war between Servia and Bulgaria, and the delicate position which this country has been placed in with regard to Servia and Bulgaria and Greece. In addition, there has been frequent necessity for telegrams to and from other parts of the world—as, for instance, to China. But most of the increase, no doubt, has been due to the Servo-Bulgarian and Greek Questions. In regard to the charge for messengers, I may inform the Committee that the service of messengers to Constantinople was reduced from a weekly to a fortnightly service in 1883; but it was deemed necessary, in the time of the late Government, to increase the service to a weekly one. It has now, however, been again reduced to a fortnightly despatch. I hope the Committee will see that whatever criticisms are necessary upon this question, and especially upon the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, to which I understand the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) desires to call attention, had better be reserved until we reach the Vote for the Diplomatic Service on page 26. I am afraid that it is impossible for me, at this moment, to tell him how much of these telegraphic charges is due to the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. I cannot say, without further inquiry, what data exist at the Foreign Office upon which we could distinguish these charges from those for other telegrams. The hon. Member will also bear in mind that there have been many telegrams sent to Constantinople and Egypt, some of which come under the head of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission, while others do not.

Would it not be better that in future the telegrams to and from the Foreign Office should be given separately? Why should we not specify what the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has cost us for telegrams? It appears to me that to have two items, one for the Foreign Office and the other for the Diplomatic Service; to tell us that we are to look to the Foreign Office Vote for the cost of telegrams from Ministers and to another Vote for the cost of telegrams to Ministers is only confusing. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce) will, no doubt, find many reforms to make in the Office; and I venture to suggest that this is one of those to which he should direct his attention. Another reform I would suggest is with regard to messengers' travelling expenses, the total amount of which for the year is £9,320. The greater number of letters sent to Constantinople might just as well be sent by post as by messengers; and I say you ought not to have a messenger sent there every fortnight; you ought to have a messenger sent only when you have matter to communicate which it is absolutely necessary should be kept secret. I say this from practical experience at Constantinople, because I have served there, and I know that Ministers abroad often write something in order that it should be sent by Queen's Messenger. I remember that when I was in Constantinople Sir Henry Bulwer thought he wanted some pills—he was always taking medicine—and he sent home a despatch for the purpose of getting them; we counted up exactly what was the cost of sending the messenger to England and back; and we found that the cost to the country for this box of pills amounted to a little above £300. If the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will establish a rule that instead of having messengers going out at fixed times they should only go when there is something to send by them which cannot be entrusted to the post, I am certain that this charge, which amounts to £9,000 a-year, would be reduced to £3,000 or £4,000.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does not do justice to his Department. The hon. Gentleman asks me to reserve my criticism until we come to the Vote for the Diplomatic Service on page 26; but I shall be unable to do that unless he is prepared to tell me, with some degree of precision when that Vote is reached, what is the cost of the telegrams from Constantinople and London in connection with Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission. Unless the hon. Gentleman gives me that pledge I shall feel it my duty to oppose the Vote.

I must inform the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that I am not at this moment able to state what proportion of the charge for telegrams is due to the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. I can, of course, make inquiries, and will do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes it, although it may possibly turn out that there would be some difficulty in ascertaining, because many telegrams may have been sent to Egypt respecting which it would be hard to say whether they ought to be deemed to belong to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission or not.

I wish to make one remark on what fell a short time ago from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who for three or four years has constantly brought up his service under Sir Henry Bulwer and the story of his pills. Now, I served under Sir Henry Bulwer, and I say it is a libel upon him to refer to him in this way. Poor fellow! he has gone now; and, speaking from personal knowledge, I say that no public servant ever served his country better than Sir Henry Bulwer. I protest against the hon. Member's constantly bringing up this subject of the pills because he was in the Diplomatic Service at Constantinople. I was there at the same time, and I entirely dissent from the remarks of the hon. Member. But, with regard to this Vote, I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs one question. There are two distinct Votes for telegrams in these Estimates—one for the Foreign Office and the other for the Diplomatic Service—and I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can tell us whether out of this Vote a considerable sum of money has been expended in connection with the special Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to Constantinople or Egypt? It will clear the ground if he will tell us that; and I would point out to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as well as to the hon. Gentleman, that it would be far better, instead of having two Votes as there are here, that the Votes for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service should be amalgamated; because then the House would know exactly the vast sum of money expended on the telegraphic service of the country, which amounts to more than £100,000 a-year. I think if the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that this will be done, it will go a long way to remove the confusion which exists.

The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs misunderstands me. I assume that every telegram sent to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is recorded, and that the cost of every telegram to and from Constantinople and Egypt is also recorded for the purpose of making up the total we are asked to vote. It seems to me, therefore, that there can be no difficulty in furnishing the information desired, and, consequently, that there is no reason why the Government should not give it. I beg to move that the debate on this Vote be adjourned.

I wish to state to the Committee what I know about this Vote, and to say, with respect to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that I think it a very reasonable one in view of the form in which the Vote is given to the Committee. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member will give Notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he will be able to obtain the detailed information which he desires. It is a fact, which, of course, everyone connected with the Foreign Office knows, that every telegram is noted at the Foreign Office; and it is, therefore, perfectly easy to make out a list of the different telegrams sent to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. There may possibly, however, be a little confusion, owing to the fact that while Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has been in Egypt he has performed functions connected not only with his particular Mission, but with his general business in Egypt. Nevertheless, as I have said, the desired information can easily be obtained at the Foreign Office. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not persevere in his opposition to the Vote. I am certain that if he asks the Question of my hon. Friend on another day he will get the information which he desires. With reference to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn (Sir Robert Peel) that it would conduce to the clearer understanding of the Vote if the two Estimates were put together, I am afraid that it would not have that effect. The object of keeping the Votes separate is simply to show the expense incurred for telegrams in England and the expense incurred abroad; and of course if they were mixed it would lead to great difficulty.

Mr. Courtney, I move the adjournment of the debate on this Vote, and shall persist in that course unless I get an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the details of these items will be furnished.

It is not competent to the hon. Member to move the adjournment of the debate in Committee. The course of the hon. Gentleman is to move that Progress be reported.

I ask pardon for proceeding in ignorance of the Forms of the House. I repeat that unless the promise is given I shall have to move that Progress be reported.

If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper asking for the information he desires I will do my best to got that information.

There is one point in connection with this Estimate to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. C. T. D. Acland). I see that by this Supplementary Estimate there is a charge under B for Chief Official Receiver's Office to meet possible necessity for increased staff, amounting to £2,101, and under C for Country Receivers paid by Fees and Commission, to meet possible increase of remuneration amounting to £5,780, making a total additional sum required of £7,881 over the Estimate of 1885–6. Now, I presume that although this is put down as possible increased expenditure, there is reason to suppose that it is an expenditure which has been actually incurred, and that it comes within the present financial year. It is quite clear that it would not be correct to include here the possible expenditure of next year, which should, of course, come forward in the Estimates of 1886–7. I understand, however, that the fees will meet the expenditure in question. The hon. Gentleman will probably be able to give some information on this subject.

The reason for bringing this Vote before Parliament in this form is that it shows the total expenditure for 1885. The sum of £1,164 originally voted by Parliament, it was believed, would have been sufficient for the expenses of the year. With regard to the additional sum required, there is no doubt that the whole of the amount will be received and handed over to the Exchequer in the ordinary course. The Treasury is authorized, under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, Section 77, to pay over to the Board of Trade, in aid of the Vote of Parliament, out of receipts from fees and dividends on investments, any sum which may be necessary to meet the charges incurred by the Board of Trade for salaries and expenses; and, as I have said, there is no reason whatever to doubt that the whole of this sum will be received and paid into the Exchequer during the year. The present Supplementary Estimate of £31 has been presented for the purpose of bringing the facts clearly before Parliament.

I should like to say one or two words on this Estimate. The Vote before the Committee is a new one. It is the first time that we have been called upon to pay for the expenses of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. I believe the amount asked for is only a very small part of the expenditure, and that when we come to have the full amount to be expended next year it will very considerably exceed the moderate sum now upon the Estimates. I suppose hon. Gentlemen from Scotland consider it necessary to have a Central Department for Scottish Business; but, for myself, I am bound to say that I greatly doubt whether it is desirable to take that Business from the Home Office, and in a way that must lead to a very large expenditure. But what I wish to draw attention to is the fact that we are constantly putting new officials in every Department of the State; we create new Departments or we enlarge existing Departments; and we bring new men into the Service, but we never seem to take any steps to utilize supernumeraries—that is to say, we are constantly pensioning the officials of various Departments, and we never consider whether these persons can be made available for the Public Service. The item of pensions is increasing so largely that I hope Her Majesty's Government will see that steps are taken, in connection with the retirement of public officials, to secure their services when they are required. I do not speak of the retirement of men past the age of service, but of those who are retired at an age when they have work in them. There are many who, having been, retired, cannot get back into the Service, because all the vacancies are filled up with new men, who originate a new charge for salaries, and, in course of time, have to be pensioned in their turn. I dare say the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) can, with regard to this Vote for the Office of Secretary for Scotland, give us some little information as to what the expenditure is likely to be for carrying on this Department.

I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) in his remarks with reference to the unsatisfactory working of the pension system. I entertained the view when I sat below the Gangway, and I say now, that when a man is employed by the State, and is paid by the State, the State has the right to fix the work he shall do; and if the State has the right to discharge him, it has the right to appoint him to such other duties as he can perform. I say that it is not right that a man should be pensioned off at once simply on account of the abolition of his office. That is my view, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley that I shall endeavour to uphold it to the best of my power. The principle which my hon. Friend advances has been carried out in connection with this Office. That was exactly what the late Government did when they appointed Sir Francis Sandford to be Under Secretary for Scotland. His pension amounted to £1,333 6s. 8d., and he is now only drawing £500 on account of that pension, so that there is a saving of £833 6s. 8d. of salary by that appointment. With reference to the staff of the Department, that was settled before the present Government came into Office; but we shall do our best rightly to estimate what the cost will be. The Vote may have a tendency to increase; and, no doubt, it will become a question for the House to consider ultimately what is the entire amount necessary to carry on the Scottish Business. There is one item which does not appear on the Vote, and to which I think the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley ought to be called, and that is the rent of the office. I believe that a very valuable building, which would earn a large amount of rent, has been devoted already for the Secretary of Scotland Office. When the Estimates come forward later in the Session with reference to Public Buildings my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising and discussing that question; but the Vote now before the Committee is simply to provide for the working of the Office since October last.

The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has referred to the question of rent as an expense which should be put against the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. The house referred to is known as Dover House, and it is one which I took a great deal of trouble to obtain as an office for the Secretary for Scotland, and also as an office for myself and my Successor in the position of Lord Advocate. I carefully examined that house for the purpose of seeing whether it was fit for use as an office; and I came decidedly to the opinion that no sane man would take it for what it was then intended—namely, a residence—without an expenditure vastly in excess of what the rent of the house would be in the next 10 or 14 years. The sanitary condition of the house was such as to make it quite unfit for a person who would use such a house as a residence, although it might be quite fit for a Government Office.

I trust the Committee will not, in any degree, be influenced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in regard to Scottish Business. Considering how large a Revenue Scotland yields, how loyal and peaceful are its inhabitants, and how little Government money is spent across the Border, I think this money should be voted without one dissentient voice. As to the building in which Scottish Business is now conducted, I visited the place the other day, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) in having secured such an excellent office. I remember when the Scottish Business was relegated to the third or fourth storey of one of the Home Office buildings—to a very small and dingy room, little else than a slum, and in which it was a perfect disgrace for any important official of the British Empire to transact business. But it was still more disgraceful for Scottish Business to be centralized in such an insignificant place. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has questioned whether Scottish Business would be done more efficiently under the new régime than under the old. My experience of only a few days is that it is very much more efficiently done than before; and I have not the slightest doubt that my Friends from Scotland, when they see the fine building in which the Scottish Secretary's and Lord Advocate's Departments are now located, will be well pleased in the way in which the Business is now being done there. Although I always raise my voice for economy, I think this is a very proper expenditure; and I hope, therefore, that the Vote will be passed unanimously.

I should be the last Member of this House to oppose the wishes of Scotch Members. I have the greatest regard for them and their Business in the House of Commons, and I can assure the hon. Member that I could not for one moment desire that Scotchmen should not have the best oppor- tunity for carrying on their Business, I am not an authority competent to form a confident opinion as to whether the Scottish Business will be more efficiently performed under the new system; but it is by no means necessary to show one's attention to Scotland by spending money which is not required to be spent. The point is, whether or not it is necessary to do so; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) has not shown any very great regard for the Scottish officials, because he has told the Committee that they had been placed in a house under such sanitary arrangements that no private individual would live there, because he would probably be carried off by typhoid fever or diphtheria. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the exact facts with regard to the sanitary condition of the house; but I can tell hon. Members that our experience in the House of Commons is that when we begin to spend money on the sanitary improvement of Public Offices, we often go on to a very much larger expenditure than we at first imagine, or is justifiable. However, that will come on when we reach the Vote for Dover House. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has touched on what I wished to call attention to—namely, that a large establishment is growing up. It is all very well to say that this money should be voted unanimously; but it is not necessary to show our affection for Scotland by spending £20,000 or £30,000, when probably £5,000 would be sufficient.

I was very much, moved by the logical and patriotic appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson); but the matter to which he referred was not one which touched on the economy of the house in question. It touched upon the conduct of Scottish Business; and I much regret that the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) is not in his place to give the Committee some information on the subject. The Secretary to the Treasury has referred to the experience of Sir Francis Sandford in another Department—that is to say, the Education Department. The Scottish Secretary is now the President of the Education Department for Scotland. In the Education Department, as formerly constituted, Sir Francis Sandford was for a long time chief; and that Office was organized in accordance with certain rules, amongst which there was one against the functionaries of the Department interfering with public affairs. I believe there was a Circular signed by Sir Francis Sandford to the effect that no person connected with the Office should mix up in any political matters, or interfere in any public meeting; and so rigidly was that rule enforced that on one occasion an official who was present at a public meeting, having ventured to second a vote of thanks to a Member of a former Liberal Administration, was hauled over the coals for infringement of that Circular. During the last Election the question of free education was before the whole Empire, and prominently before the people of Scotland; and in the heat of that Election Sir Francis Sandford came down to Glasgow, and in connection with the opening of some schools he made a startling speech upon free education—not only upon the subject generally, but he took up a speech in which the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella), then the Vice President of the Council, had expressed his adhesion to free education. Sir Francis Sandford criticized the speech of the right hon. Gentleman most minutely, and went very strongly in the opposite direction. Of course, I am not going to discuss free education upon this Vote; but I think I may be permitted to point out that if it was wrong in an official in the Education Department, as administered by Sir Francis Sandford, to mix himself up in public affairs, it was doubly wrong for the most important official in the new Ministry to transgress the rule he had laid down elsewhere. I think the Committee are entitled to some expression of opinion upon the subject from the Government. There are various matters of interest to servants in Public Departments which those servants very naturally desire to bring to the notice of candidates for seats in this House. For example, there is a very vital question affecting the police—namely, that of superannuation; but the police had been laid under such stringent orders that none of them ventured to put a question to any candidate at any public meeting; and anything they did ask regarding the views of candidates on that subject was asked privately, or in accordance with the stringent rule laid down for their guidance that they should not interfere in public matters. The same thing occurred in connection with the Postal Department. The Post Office servants had their grievances, and they desired to obtain the opinion of candidates regarding their grievances; but they, also, had been laid under such stringent orders that they were afraid to put questions in public. What I maintain is, that a Democratic House of Commons should insist upon one law being applied to public servants in whatever capacity they serve the Crown. If to do a given thing is not proper for a policeman, it is not proper for an Assistant Secretary; and if it is not proper for a telegraph clerk, it is not proper for Sir Francis Sandford; if it is not proper for an official of the Education Department to take part in political discussion or in public meetings, it is doubly improper for the man who laid down the rule to transgress it himself. I think we are entitled to an expression of opinion on the part of the Government on this point. A rather important question is involved, and I see no better opportunity of raising it than that afforded by this Vote.

I should like to make an explanation, as I was rather misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). I do not wish it for a moment to be supposed by Members of this House that those who are now in office in Dover House are being subjected to any danger from unsanitary arrangements. It was not likely I should have spent a few months in the Office if I had the least suspicion it was in any such condition; but what I wished to lay before the Committee with regard to that establishment was this—that it was in such a state when I first saw it that while it could be very easily turned into a Government house by removing the bad sanitary appliances in different parts of the house, it was quite unfit for a residence for any person, nobleman or noble lady, as it was formerly, who might have wished to take the house at a rent from the Government. I believe that one reason why it stood tenantless until we got into it was that people were very suspicious as to the state in which it was; and I am not the least surprised, judging from what I saw, that that was so. In reference to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), I think I am justified in saying a word for my right hon. Friend Sir Francis Sandford. I am sorry that this Vote should have been made a peg on which to hang an attack on that right hon. Gentleman. I understand that what the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Cameron) wishes to impute to my right hon. Friend is that while he was an official in a Public Department he took part in what was really a political discussion, and expressed views contrary to those which had been expressed when he was Secretary to the Education Department. Well, Sir, if that were true, it would be a serious charge; but I think the hon. Member will see in a moment that his observation is hardly a correct one to make in regard to my right hon. Friend. The question which was under discussion by Sir Francis Sandford, at the meeting at which he spoke, was that of free education. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that——

I said that Sir Francis Sandford went down to Glasgow, made a long speech on free education, criticizing and attacking the speech made a few days ago by his former Chief.

That is exactly what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say. No doubt, there are some questions which become, to a certain extent, political, because they can only be worked out by the finances required being obtained by Votes in this House; but it would be a lamentable thing if questions in regard to education were not to be discussed by everybody merely because something had occurred to bring education into the political field. I think the question of free education is one which all men ought to be able to discuss quite freely everywhere. The only reason assigned for maintaining that the question was in any sense a political one was that if the result which some people desired was to be attained it could only be by Act of Parliament. I have yet to learn that that makes any question connected with education a political one, in the sense that it is not to be freely discussed by public servants. Certainly, I should regard it as a very great misfortune if upon educational subjects the voice of such a man as Sir Francis Sandford was to be silenced.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald's) observations appear to me to be singularly unfortunate, when all our recollections of the character of the recent political contest are quite fresh. There was no more dangerous question than education in most of the constituencies of the country; and I can corroborate what has been said by my hon. Friend and Colleague (Dr. Cameron) in respect to Sir Francis Sandford's speech in Glasgow. That speech did produce an unfortunate effect; it was very generally regarded as an intrusion of which a gentleman in his position should not have been guilty; and I think, also, it was an inconvenience to which Gentlemen who were standing for seats in Parliament ought not to have been subjected from anyone in the position of a permanent official. As the conduct of Sir Francis Sandford has been referred to, I will venture to say now what I should have said some time ago had not my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) risen before me—namely, that it does appear to me not desirable that the arrangement of offices in a new Department such as this of the Secretary for Scotland should be prompted solely by considerations of economy. The Under Secretary for Scotland has had, as we all know, a very brilliant career in the Civil Service. He holds a very distinguished position; but I imagine that he received his pension because his services had reached a point at which they might be suspended. If it was desirable that Sir Francis Sandford should be brought into the service of the country again, I should have thought he might have been employed with much greater advantage in an Office of less novelty, in an Office of less importance, in an Office in which it was of less consequence that good and firm traditions should be established by some permanent official likely to occupy his position for a long series of years. These seem to me to be considerations of much greater importance than the saving of £500 which is derived from the pension which Sir Francis Sandford enjoys. At any rate, I rejoice very much that my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) has entered this protest against an incident which, I repeat, was regarded with just reprobation when it occurred, and which, I venture to say, was not merely a deviation from the ordinary punctilio, but an act liable to produce the greatest inconvenience, because candidates for seats in Parliament ought to be free to discuss political questions and educational questions at an election time without intrusion from those whoso position may give them exceptional advantages in the discussion of such matters.

I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson) in any such notion as that of giving effect to Liberal views when they affect any part of a constituency or of the country. I think we ought to practise economy all round, and unless we do that we shall have no success whatever. I shall not go into the question—the rather heated question—which has been raised in regard to an important official connected with this Department; but I do maintain that it is very much to be desired that there should be some uniformity in respect to the action allowed to public officials. There is no doubt that a certain portion of our public officials are put under the most severe restrictions with regard to any expression of public opinion; while others, enjoying positions which from their very nature ought to cause them all the more to observe neutrality upon public questions, seem to take advantage of those very positions to ventilate their political views. The attention of the Government should be directed to this matter, so that there should be no difference in respect to the expression of public opinion between those who receive £1 a-week and those who receive £1,000 a-year; it is strictly unfair that the one should have his mouth closed, while the other should be allowed to speak as much as he liked. In this respect an impartiality should be shown which is not now shown. Nothing was more conspicuous during the recent Election than that certain State-paid persons acted as prominent agents for their own political Parties; while others were not allowed to give a vote, or even to speak upon public questions. My chief intention in rising, however, was to express the opinion that the Treasury's attention should be directing to economizing, by means of centralizing the Office of Secretary for Scotland as much as possible, the expenditure of money on the transaction of Scottish Business. I hope that by means of centralization we may have a more efficient system of business introduced in Scotland without, necessarily, the expenditure of any more money. The discussion we have had will do good; but, in the circumstances, I think we ought now to allow the Vote to pass.

It appears to mo that the advancement of Scottish Business would be much better promoted by the appearance on the Front Bench, during the discussion of Scottish Business, of some official connected with the Scottish Department than the establishment of offices. I asked for some expression of opinion on the part of the Government on this very point—whether what is law for a policeman or a telegraph clerk shall be regarded as law for a permanent official in a higher capacity? I maintain that all classes of public servants should, in the eyes of this House, be treated in one and the same manner. If Sir Francis Sandford is well qualified to give an opinion upon an educational question, I do not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) can deny that policemen and telegraph clerks and Post Office employés are equally well qualified to give intelligent opinions on questions affecting themselves. I contend that the same rule applies to public servants in all capacities. When Sir Francis Sandford laid down this rule for his subordinates he was bound to attend to it himself; and unless I get some explanation I shall regard it as my duty to divide the Committee. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.

Mr. Courtney, there is one remark I desire to make, and it arises from the note at the foot of this Vote. The sum asked for additional salaries of the officers of the County Courts is £6,383; and the note at the bottom of the Vote is as follows:—

"The salaries of the officers of the Courts vary with the business. The number of actions brought in the Courts has exceeded anticipations. The extra receipts will, from the same cause, exceed the Estimate by about £23,000."

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) that the additional charge of £6,383 for County Court justice is a somewhat remarkable one. In Ireland we have not one-third or one-fourth the County Court business which you have in England, and yet there is an amount of increase in the Irish Courts far greater than that in the English Courts. I hope we shall have some explanation of the difference between the two countries.

I quite agree with the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) that Courts of Justice should pay their own way as far as possible. Whatever may be the case in regard to the Superior Courts, the County Courts of the country have, to a great extent, been self-supporting institutions. The reason why it is necessary to ask for this additional sum of £6,383 is this. The Estimate made at the commencement of the financial year contemplated the County Court business being very much at the same ratio as it was in the preceding year, and the business had been decreasing rather than increasing. The amount of litigation or the amount of money spent in the recovering of debts it is impossible to estimate with anything like accuracy. During the present financial year there has been a large increase in County Court litigation in this country, and the result of that litigation is that the extra fees—ordinary fees—which will accrue to the Treasury will amount to something like £23,000; while, as stated at the foot of the Vote, the extra expenses, in the shape of the salaries of the officers of the Court, will only be about £6,000. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Tomlinson) that there has not been much profit on the year. I find that the entire amount paid into the Treasury in 1883–4–1 have not got the Return for 1884–5— was only £404,000, while this year it is £440,000. There will be an amount added to the £404,000 which may bring it to the other amount. I may suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that this question might be raised with greater advantage when we shall have all the facts more correctly before us, when, for instance, the whole of the County Court expenditure is brought under the notice of the House. This sum has been paid; but, practically, it imposes no burden on the taxpayers. There can be no loss to the public Exchequer, because fees will come in which, will more than cover the amount. Of course, it will be for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. J. Morley) to answer the question of the lion, and learned Gentleman the Member for South Derry (Mr. Healy) in reference to the County Courts of Ireland, in regard to which Courts I am in entire ignorance. The English County Courts pay their own way, and I wish the Superior Courts did the same. I am sorry to say they do not.

What is the meaning of the words at the foot of the Vote—"The salaries of the officers of the Courts vary with the business?" The complaint which has been frequently made in the House is, that this payment of the officers by way of a kind of commission upon the business done in the Courts has been the cause of a large increase of litigation, amongst the poorer litigants, in cases which might be settled under very easy circumstances. When officers of a Court receive commission upon the business done in their Court there is a distinct inducement held out to them to cause a prolongation of litigation either by the advice they gave or by the action they took, say in adjourning a case, or arranging that there should be something in the way of an appeal. We have had several discussions during preceding Sessions upon this question; and the opinion generally expressed has been that the officers of these Courts should not be paid by way of commission upon the business done, but that they should be paid fixed salaries like the officers of other Courts. I must confess that I am not very well instructed in this subject; but, as far as I remember, nearly all the officers of the Superior Courts are paid fixed salaries, while in the County Courts the system of which I and others complain still obtains. It is easy to see, not to use too polite language, that these officers do induce business, not for the benefit of the litigants, but for the benefit of their own pockets. I cannot expect the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to say that he will introduce a Bill on the subject; but I would like to get from him some expression of opinion which would strengthen the hands of those who, like myself, have Session after Session drawn attention to the point, and asked that some reform take place in this very unsatisfactory County Court system.

I quite admit that the principle of payment by fees is radically unsound, and ought to be altered. It has been in process of discontinuance in County Courts now for a great many years. When County Courts were originally established—in 1846—most of the principal officers were paid entirely by fees levied on the suitors; but that system was abolished in 1855, when a Royal Commission, which sat on the question, recommended in substitution of that mode of payment the system of payment by salaries. But the salaries were fixed according to the amount of business done; and my hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) will see exactly how the amount of salary may vary even if an officer is not paid by fees, but by the amount of business. The scale fixed in a large number of Courts is that a Registrar is paid £120 for the first 200 plaints entered in the year; £5 for every 25 plaints beyond that number, and up to 1,000; £4 for every 25 plaints from 1,000 to 6,000; and then, if the plaints exceed 6,000, a net salary is paid to him of £650. If the plaints exceed 8,000 a net salary of £700 is paid, and so on. So there is a graduated scale, although officers are paid by salary. Of course, it would be impossible to have a uniform scale of payment, because there are some Courts in which there are not more than 2,000 plaints entered in the course of a year, while there are other Courts in which there are as many as 12,000 plaints entered annually. And so there is a sliding scale, regulating the salaries according to the business done.

I am not sure that I put my point as distinctly as I ought to have done. My point is that the excess of stamps in one Court is made to pay the deficiency in another Court. For instance, I believe it was almost demonstrated two years ago that the Chancery Division pays a large proportion of the costs of the criminal business of the country; and I would ask my hon. Friend that] attention may be given to this point.

I should like to ask for some information in regard to the larger item in this Estimate. I regret the absence from the House of the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) and the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour); but in their absence perhaps one of the Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench will be able to give us some information. There is a suspicion that legal expenses in connection with Crown business in Scotland are very often heaped up; and it appears to me that it would be more satisfactory to know something of the cause of our having to vote this rather large sum in connection with a matter which, perhaps, may not be deemed of great importance in a Democratic House of Commons.

As there is no Scotch official Representative here, perhaps I may be allowed to say that, with reference to this Supplementary Vote, the increase in the expenses under Sub-head B is entirely due to the accounts of the agents for services in connection with the Lauderdale and Lovat Peerage cases. I know that this account was most carefully criticized by the Treasury; and I believe that every item has been most carefully taxed by those whose experience justifies them in expressing an opinion as to what amount ought to be paid. The account has received the most careful attention, and each item has been vouched for. The expenses incurred are expenses which ought to have been incurred, and they were not in excess of the services rendered.

I have no doubt that the items were carefully taxed; but it seems to me that there is a higher question than that, which is this—What possible interest could it be to the people of Scotland how this process was carried on? I may say that unless I have some proper explanation as to how the money of the community is being paid, in a cause in which the people of Scotland have no interest whatever, I shall most certainly oppose the Vote; and if it is not against the Rules and custom of the House I will ask to report Progress.

There were Crown interests raised in regard to these two Peerages, and these items are the expenses of the agents attending to the interests of the Crown. What the Treasury have to do, and what they have done, is to see that this expenditure is reduced to the lowest possible amount, and that has been carried out. The account has been passed by the Treasury.

After the extremely lucid explanation which has been given to the Committee, and the evident sincerity with which hon. Gentlemen on both Benches had avowed their personal conviction that not a halfpenny has been uselessly spent in this case, I have only to say that, of course, there is "a divinity that doth hedge a King;" and it would, perhaps, not do for a private Member to inquire too minutely into what really are the rights of the Crown and what are the interests of the people in this particular case. But it does seem to me to be rather hard that if two or more claimants to any particular Peerage crop up and tell us that so many hundred years ago, in consequence of their ancestors having committed some murder or other, they were obliged to fly and work as colliers, or some cock-and-bull story of that kind, the community should find themselves taxed to the extent of £1,000 or so for defending the interests of the Crown, and not get some less unintelligible, though possibly not less satisfactory, explanation of the account than we have now.

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that the taxpayers of the country should not be asked to vote £1,200 in the interest of the Crown, in a case of this sort, without a single word of explanation as to what the interest of the Crown or the interest of the people is. Without wishing to divide the Committee, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) will give some explanation as to what the interest of the Crown is in these Peerages.

I regret exceedingly that I was not here when this matter was first brought up; but I do not know whether my presence on that occasion would have been of any benefit to the Committee or not. The entire Business of Scotland — the administrative Business — has been handed over to the Scottish Office; but the only Department which has been retained in the hands of the Home Office is that of law and justice. The Vote that is now before us undoubtedly concerns law, and possibly concerns justice; and I am unable, therefore, to contribute anything to the deliberations of the Committee on this matter. I am bound to say that I think those Votes should be examined extremely carefully. We have been in Office only a fortnight, and I take it that the Home Office, which is concerned with law and justice, is responsible in a very small degree for the Vote now before us. This is one of those occasions on which every hon. Member must make up his own mind, and I cannot contribute to the mode in which ho will make it up. If hon. Gentlemen think that by voting for this Estimate they are voting public money for an object upon which public money should be expended, I should strongly advise them to vote for it. The money has undoubtedly been paid, and therefore that is a very strong reason for voting it. I am bound to say, however, that from my knowledge of what took place on a previous occasion I do not blame hon. Members who make a protest of this kind.

I can scarcely allow this Vote to pass without entering my most earnest protest against any such expenditure of public money. It is of no interest to the people of Scotland which particular member of a family comes into a Peerage, and I cannot see what are the interests of the Crown. I think we should have some assurance from the Front Bench that such an expenditure shall not be entered into again. If that assurance is not given I shall certainly vote against the item in question.

I certainly fail to see any justice in saddling the people of Scotland with £1,300 in order to decide which of the aristocracy is to enter into the possession of a certain portion of land; and, therefore, I beg to move that the Vote be refused.

I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the result of our carrying the Vote against him on this occasion? What would be the result to the country, and what would be the result to the Secretary for Scotland?

I do not know whether the money would be paid by the Secretary for Scotland; but I think the Committee ought to know really what the Vote is. I think there seems to be some idea that it is for the purpose of promoting the claims of people for Peerages in Scotland; but that is not so. On the contrary, it is the reverse. There were certain Peerages which were in abeyance or in doubt, and people put forth claims to these Peerages. Of course, if they had it all their own way, the public would very likely believe that they had a good claim. The view of the Constitution, however, has been that when a man claims a seat in the House of Lords there ought to be a judicial investigation as to whether or not he is entitled to it; and for that purpose it is necessary that there should be a Queen's Proctor to examine whether or not it is a well-founded claim, and it is necessary that counsel should be instructed and agents employed by the Crown to examine such claims. That really is the character of the Vote now before the Committee. Of course, the Committee may decide that they will have no such charge; but, in that case, some claimants to Peerages will not be opposed at all.

If this was a question on which our Scotch Friends were exclusively interested I would have apologized for interfering. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put the case as well as it can be put; but it is none the less very lame. I wish to relieve the mind of the hon. Member from Scotland—

North-East Warwickshire.

The hon. Member for Warwickshire. I beg his pardon; I thought he came from Scotland. I wish to relieve the mind of the hon. Member who had some doubts as to what would happen if this Vote was not passed. It would make these proceedings in Committee a perfect farce if it were to be said that because the money had been spent the Committee was bound to vote it. The explanations which we have received have been very lame indeed. Clearly the public may very naturally say that these gentlemen, who apply to be admitted into the ranks of the Peerage, should defray the expenses, or that the costs of litigation should be charged to the parties in the ease. Because my Lord Lovat, or some other worthy, excellent gentleman, thinks that he is entitled to a particular Peerage and goes to law about it, then we, who have no interest in the matter at all, have to pay the costs. We have nothing to do with it; and I can tell the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Johns) that if we refuse this money my impression is that we shall never have such a Supplementary Estimate again. Do not be alarmed as to where the money has to come from. I can promise the Committee that neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to pay. I will guarantee the Secretary for Scotland that he shall not have to pay it, and I will guarantee the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not be called upon to pay it; and I think we might put a stop to what is a most objectionable Vote by rejecting it. If we do refuse to vote this money I really think we shall have made a step in the right direction.

What has been said by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) hardly satisfies me. What I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this—What will happen if we refuse this Vote? It appears to me to be a debt incurred while hon. Members opposite were in power. ["No, no!"] Then it must have been paid very recently—within the last fortnight in fact. If it was not paid within the last fortnight, then it is quite clear that it must fall upon the shoulders of the Front Bench opposite. What I want to know is, what will be the result? If the hon. Member who spoke last is right, the result of our refusing to pass the Vote will be a very happy one.

After the statement of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who appears to have guaranteed everybody, the hon. Member need not have any fears of the result, for the hon. Member for Burnley had clearly backed the bill. I am sorry, however, that I cannot say when the money was paid, or what would happen if the Vote were not passed; but I should recommend hon. Members to be satisfied with what might be called the moral lesson read to-night, and which I venture to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and everybody else connected with finance on this Bench, will bear in mind. I regard the hon. Member for Burnley as a very valuable ally of the Treasury Bench in the matter of economy; and no amount of invective which he may hurl at the Treasury Bench on that score will be taken ill by me. The more these Votes are criticized the better I shall be pleased. However, it is no use crying over spilt milk, and I think we might pass the Vote.

I do not think that the statements we have received on this subject have been at all satisfactory, considering that this is a matter in which we are taking money out of the pockets of the poor people. I would ask whether the claimants to these two Peerages were successful in their suits? [Mr. JOHNS: One was.] If one was, it is clear that he would have money enough to pay the costs of the case. If one was not successful, then, by the ordinary rule which renders unsuccessful litigants liable, he ought to be condemned in costs. Now, few of us on this side of the House wish to see additions made to the Peerage in an authorized manner, much less in an unauthorized manner; and, therefore, we are opposed to seeing anyone go into the Gilded Chamber at the expense of the taxpayers. The sum of £1,286 is a large sum; and when it is known that the greatest distress exists amongst the poor, who are already overburdened with taxes, we have a right to insist that those who like the amusement of trying to get Peerages should pay for it.

If the Committee is going to vote on this matter it is as well that I should state what are the facts of the case. These Estimates were certainly prepared by the late Administration; but the costs in question were not incurred during their tenure of Office. I would qualify that statement, however, by saying that the proceedings in one of the disputed Peerages did not conclude until after the Marquess of Salisbury came into power; but in each case the proceedings were initiated under the auspices of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). I do not say that with any idea of throwing discredit upon the proceedings now under discussion and supported by the Government, but rather in order that the Committee may be informed as regards the fact. As to the ground upon which the Crown appeared, I would explain that the grant of Peerages flows from the Crown; and they confer not merely privileges, but a share in public duties. It has been the invariable and necessary practice of the Crown that whenever a Peerage is in dispute the Crown should interpose in an impartial character, in order to see that the Peerage does not get into the hands of some person unauthorized to assume it. The proceedings in which the Crown takes part are before the Committee of Privileges, and the part the Law Officer plays before that Committee is to watch the proceedings, and at the close to give such assistance to the Committee as may enable them to decide according to the rights of the case. These are not merely duties which relate to one of the important Prerogatives of the Crown, but they are absolutely necessary so long as the right to a Peerage confers not merely privileges, but public duties, which ought to be secured to those alone who ought to exercise them. Accordingly, I venture to think that the expenditure which has been incurred is a very necessary portion of the due administration of a by no means unimportant part of the right and duty of the Crown. I regret the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) and the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher); and I have only risen, as one of the late Law Officers, to furnish the Committee with an explanation of the ground on which the Crown appears in such cases.

We have heard from the Treasury Bench that this discussion will act as a moral lesson to the Government. Well, I do not believe in Platonic moral lessons, and I think the proper way to teach the Government a lesson is by recording our votes for the Amendment.

I will put it to the Committee what this Vote really amounts to. As a matter of fact, the sum is for fees for the two legal Gentlemen who represent Scotland in this House. ["No, no!"] If hon. Gentlemen deny it I will ask the Government, does not this sum represent the fees paid to the two legal Gentlemen in the Government who act as Attorney and Solicitor General in the Scotch Department?

There is one point of view from which this matter can be regarded that has been lost sight of up to this. I would ask where are the Gentlemen holding these Peerages at the present time? Are they not able to defend themselves against other claimants; and is it necessary to ask the people to pay the expense of such measures as are necessary to enable them to keep their titles? It seems to me it is the business of those who hold the titles to defend them.

The Committee should not lose sight of the question of justice in this matter. I hold as strongly as any Gentleman sitting below the Gangway the feeling that we should not defend the hereditary right of Gentlemen to these hereditary Peerages; but so long as we have, as part of our Constitution, to uphold the hereditary principle, then I must admit that is the duty of the Government to see that litigation on the subject of a Peerage goes in the right direction. So long as we are to uphold hereditary Peerages, I hold that the Government have been right in the expenditure of this money. Though I hold a strong opinion on the subject of these Peerages, I shall feel bound to vote for the Government.

I have asked a question of the Government, and I mean to get an answer to it, as it is a very reasonable one., There is a sum of £1,200 that has been paid for Government agents to attend the examinations into these Peerage questions. I have stated that the money has gone in fees to the Crown counsel or their representatives. We know that in English cases the Attorney General does not always attend the inquiries himself; but I think he ought to do so for his salary—and the Irish Law Officers in Irish cases as well. I maintain that this money is paid to the Law Officers in fees. It has been denied in a general sort of way from this side; but before we go to a division I intend to get an answer to my question. I wish to know whether this money has or has not been paid in the nature of fees to Crown counsel?

I am not quite in a position to answer the question put by the hon. Member; but certainly, judging from my own experience, nothing like such a sum as is here putdown as having been paid to the agents of the Crown for services in connection with the Lauderdale and Lovat Peerage cases has reached the hands of those who were at the time the Officers of the Crown in Scotland. When the Lauderdale Peerage case was before the House of Lords, it so happened that during its course there came a change of Government; and as my right hon. and learned Friend the present Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was unable any longer to appear on behalf of the Crown, according to the usages of the State and Parliament it was necessary that the new Lord Advocate and other counsel should take his place. I am not here for one moment to defend the ordinary practice which takes place in these cases, the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General for Scotland being employed, as distinguished from other Crown officials. If the Lord Advocate is instructed to appear in such a case he has to do the work; and as long as it is the practice that the Lord Advocate should appear and attend these cases for the Crown I think everyone who knows what the salary of that functionary is for the duties he has to do—everyone who remembers that he is the Public Prosecutor, having to take charge of the public prosecutions in Scotland, and that he is expected, as part of his duties, to find a seat in this House, and to be in London for a considerable part of the year—will agree that he is not a highly-paid official. I think that even the most economical of my Friends the Scotch Members will not deny that. But as regards the fees that were paid to the Lord Advocate—or rather the Gentleman who was the late Lord Advocate until about three weeks ago—I am not in a position to speak. I can speak for myself, however; and I say this with perfect certainty from my recollection— that not more than one tithe of this sum reached the Lord Advocate of the late Government.

It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) have taken a very un-Radical view of this Vote, because, I understand, these Gentlemen object to a genuine House of Lords, and much more to a bogus one. As I understand it, they would be anxious to prevent any fraudulent person going to the House of Lords—any person who had no business there. For myself, I object to the House of Lords in toto as a real institution, and much more as a sham one. I would call attention to the fact that in the Corrupt Practices Act there was inserted a clause requiring the Attorney General or his representative to attend inquiries under that measure to see who are the individuals properly elected, and, if necessary, to prosecute anyone acting illegally. It appears to me that the same duty devolves upon the Law Officers of the Crown in regard to the House of Lords. It is necessary that they should see that that House is not filled by persons who have no claim to be there. At the same time, I think the amount of the charge on the Votes is extremely excessive. I would recall to the mind of the Committee the fact that this is a Scotch Peerage case; and that in an Irish case, when Mr. Villiers Stuart prosecuted a claim to the de Vesei Peerage, which was rejected on the ground of bastardy, there was no charge made for the attendance of the Irish Solicitor or Attorney General. I do not see why it should be costlier for Scotch gentlemen to appear in London in connection with legal matters than for Irish gentlemen to cross the Channel and come to London for the same purpose. I think it would be reasonable to object to the extreme charge proposed in the Vote, and to oppose the Vote if a reduction in the amount were proposed.

I desire to call attention to a point which, I think, has escaped notice. It is now proposed that this Vote be rejected as a whole; but there is a portion of it to which no one has offered any objection, and that is the expenditure in regard to Eection Petitions. By refusing this Vote we shall be rejecting not only the sum for the Peerage cases re- ferred to, but also that which has reference to Election Petitions. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite really intend to do that. It is hardly worth while to go to a division unless the point at issue is put properly before the Committee.

I omitted in my observations the point the hon. Member who has just sat down referred to. As I read the matter, it would be sufficient to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of £1,286. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan—["No no!"] — I bog the hon. and learned Member's pardon—he has a choice of so many seats that one cannot always remember the place he represents—the hon. and learned Member for South Derry (Mr. Healy) says he does not know why there should be a heavy charge in connection with a Scotch case, when there is none at all in regard to Irish cases. He evidently could not have listened to the arguments of the ex-Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) just now, because he told the Committee most distinctly that it is expected that the Lord Advocate for Scotland shall find a seat in this House; and the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that no such thing is expected or necessary in the case of the Irish Attorney General. It is as well to disabuse the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind on this subject. If that had been put forward as a reason why we should vote this sum I should not have objected to it. The hon. Members who have argued the question have not obtained a satisfactory answer from either side of the House. The late Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) said the expense incurred was necessary for the due administration of the law in Peerage cases; then his Colleague gets up and says he does not know where nine-tenths of the money went, as it did not go into his pocket. The Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) told us, in his most candid speech, that he had once been of opinion that such sums should not be voted; but since he has taken his present place in the Government it seems that his views on the matter have undergone a modification. Ho admitted that those who object to the Vote are justified in voting against it; and, that being so, I think the best way of marking our objection to this extravagance is to vote for the reduction.

I think what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) has said is very fair. He said that so long as you have a House of Lords it is proper to take pains that it should be kept for persons who are entitled to sit there; and that, therefore, we should not object to proper precautions being taken for that purpose. I understood him, however, to say that the charge in this Vote might be excessive. With regard to the employment of the Irish Attorney General in cases of this kind, I am not able to state any particular instance; but I should say that, as a matter of principle, a man claiming an Irish Peerage may be on a different footing to one claiming a Scotch Peerage. There may have been something peculiar in the cases under discussion. I do not know how that is; but, as a general principle, you ought to have someone to see that improper persons do not sit in the House of Lords. You ought to have a proper tribunal and Law Advisers to take care of that, just as you have to see that improper persons do not sit in this House. That must be provided for, and any charge it necessarily involves is, in my opinion, a proper one to throw on the public funds. No one will deny that proposition, I think. It would be improper, it seems to me, to argue the question of the desirability of having a second Chamber on the Vote for Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland. Whenever that question is raised it should be raised directly. If you are to have a House of Lords, you ought to have some properly constituted public tribunal fittingly furnished with advice to determine whether a claimant of it is legally a Member of it or not. That is a reasonable and a fair way of looking at the matter; and no prejudice against the House of Lords as an institution ought to be al- lowed to influence our minds in arriving at a decision. If you want to abolish the House of Lords raise the question directly, and let it be discussed by people according to their opinions, and do not express your objection to it by throwing overboard charges for the services of persons who have been employed to see whether certain individuals legally are, or are not, Members of that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Healy) fairly admitted the force of this argument, and then said that the charges made in the Vote, though sound in principle, were excessive in amount. I cannot express an opinion on that matter. It has not been my practice to examine into these matters, though, no doubt, they have been inquired into by the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). It was the duty of those who were at the Treasury at the time these Estimates were prepared to see that they were properly prepared. I do not think we can come to the conclusion, without more information on the point than we have yet received, that these charges are unreasonable and unfair; and to strike out a large part of them, according to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron), would not, I think, for the reasons I have stated, be a business-like proceeding on the part of the House of Commons. Therefore I again would say that I think the Committee might very well remain satisfied with the appeal which has been made to allow this Vote to pass. I would, at any rate, make that suggestion. I trust hon. Members will remain satisfied with the strong expression of opinion they have given, and allow the Vote to pass.

There is at least one reason, if there were no other, which would induce me to support the Vote. I am under the impression that if a Peerage is once vested it cannot be devested; and, therefore, if it were the practice of the Crown to allow claims like that to the Lovat Peerage to go uncontested the result would be that there would be two Lovat Peerages instead of the one there was before. ["No, no!"] Well, at any rate, that is my impression as to the state of the law. If I am right, I appeal to the collective sympathy and collective wisdom of those who sit on this side of the House, whose feeling has been so great on this subject, and whose desire I do not doubt is to allow the matter to go, not as a question of principle, but as one of detail.

I took part in the debate rather hurriedly, having only just entered the House, and not having heard all that had been said. I gathered, however, that part of the objection to the Vote on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow is with regard to the largeness of the amount. Is that so? ["No, no!"] I heard the word "extravagant," which [implies an over-charge. It should be understood that in this case the charge was higher than it would have been under ordinary circumstances for the reason I explained before — namely, that owing to the change of Government it was necessary that new officials should be instructed. It was hardly to be expected that new officials would go through the work of getting up a case for which other gentlemen had been paid without receiving remuneration for their services. I understand the Motion of the hon. Member goes to the cutting down of the whole of this Vote. Well, I think we are bound, in justice to a public official like Sir Theodore Martin, to say that such a course would be in every sense extravagant and unjust. Unless Sir Theodore had refused to do the business he was entrusted with, the outlay must have been made by him. He could not possibly have performed his duty without a considerable expenditure of money. As he was bound to do it and incur some outlay, I say it would be an outrage upon justice if the whole of the amount of the charges he had to meet were struck out of the Estimates.

I think that what has fallen from—[Cries of "Divide!"] I hope in time to be able to convince hon. Members that I shall not be put down by this means. I think that what has fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) is a special reason why we should not accept this Vote. If we are to have a double expenditure like this every time there is a change of Government it will be a most improper waste of public money. I most certainly shall always oppose such, and I shall go into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Dr. Cameron), and vote for the reduction he has proposed.

From an economical point of view this is a question of some importance. I certainly am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) having taken the course he has to-night; because I would remind the Committee of the fact that it is the constant endeavour of the Treasury, as far as I am able to judge of its proceedings, to cut down the Estimates to the lowest possible point. If the Committee adopts the course of cutting down this Vote, it will certainly be doing something towards weakening the effect of the action of the Treasury—["No, no!"] Yes; you will be doing something towards weakening the action of the Treasury in cutting down these items to the lowest possible amount. I would point out that in such cases as this it would be utterly impossible to make a correct Estimate from year to year. I would appeal to the hon. Member for Burnley, in the interests of economy, not to oppose the Vote.

I think, if any reason were necessary to induce the Committee to refuse to vote this sum, the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be conclusive. What are the statements we receive from both Front Benches? On the one hand, we are told that the Vote has been reduced to the very smallest possible amount. On the other hand, we are told by the late Lord Advocate for Scotland (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) that only about one-tenth of the amount has passed into his pocket; and we have had no explanation of the manner in which the other nine-tenths have been spent. Now, leaving aside the question whether the money ought ever to have been voted—and I am of opinion that it ought not—I would point out that the position of a Peer is a very important one. It is a position which a great number of people desire, and it is one which, if any person wants it, is worth paying for. If anyone, therefore, goes to law to defend his right to such a position—if it is to his interest to go to law either to secure or maintain a Peerage—he ought to be content to pay for it, and ought not to come to this House to put his hands into the pocket of the public for the purpose.

There are two or three subjects in connection with this Vote with regard to which I wish to ask information from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. J. Morley). I desire, in the first place, to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the enormously costly character of the Irish County Courts. There is, first, the original Estimate of £96,316; next, the Supplementary Estimate of £3,000; and then the sum now asked for of £4,069, making a total for the year 1885–6 of £103,385. However, I will not go at length into that point at the present time. I merely draw the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the fact that although the business done in the English County Courts is no less than 20 times as great as that in the Irish Courts, the Estimate for the latter is greatly disproportionate. But, chiefly, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he will object to furnish a Return, and give information as to the amount of business done in the Irish County Courts?

I must point out to the hon. Member that the present Supplementary Estimate consists of three items—the salary of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace, Tipperary; the pension of the late Clerk of the Crown, County and City of Dublin; and the charge for additional Revising Barristers. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to these particular items, and refer to other subjects only so far as they illustrate his remarks upon those items.

There is, under Subhead A, a charge of £721 under the general description—salaries.

The hon. Member will see that in the foot-note this is restricted to one particular item.

Then I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the reason that the salary of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace is taken in a Supplementary Estimate; and, also, what is the reason for the large pension which is entered here of £1,716 for the late Clerk of the Crown for the County and City of Dublin? Why was it granted, and why is it so large?

The amount charged for Revising Barristers is £4,632. Supposing that these gentlemen were paid 100 guineas a-piece, the amount for the 32 counties of Ireland would be £3,360, to which, perhaps, might be added their railway fares. But I complain that gentlemen were selected by the late Tory Government, some of whom were themselves candidates as Tories for seats in this House. I do not want to take up time unnceessarily; but, undoubtedly, in the case of North Tyrone, we had a Revising Barrister who afterwards stood as Tory candidate for South Tyrone; and I think it is a serious thing for a Government in Office only six months to appoint gentlemen to this office who were admittedly and avowedly political partizans. I see in his place the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Holmes), who will not dispute it when I say that Mr. Kisbey is President of the Tory Constitutional Club in Dublin, and that when that gentleman left the justice seat he started as Conservative candidate for North Tyrone. I will not say that his decisions were not, in many cases fair, and reasonable; but in many others the Nationalists considered, whether justly or not I will not say, that they were unreasonable. But I will say that gentlemen should have been appointed who were above suspicion. There are many men in Ireland who do not attach themselves to either political Party; and I think the action of the Government should have been not to give lucrative appointments of a judicial character to their friends. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in the item for the pension for the late Clerk of the Crown for the County and City of Dublin, I think that in that matter the late Government acted handsomely towards the Corporation in paying the salary out of the Consolidated Fund. This, I think, is the first instance in which the English Government have taken a reasonable view of a claim of the kind. With regard to the salary of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace, Tipperary, I do not see why this should become a special item. Again, I observe further on in the Estimates in Vote 6 of Class VII, under the head of Registration of Voters, Ireland, is a total charge, in addition to the charge in the present Vote for additional Revising Barristers, of £17,000 for the remuneration of local officials. The Committee will remember that last year we had a debate as to what ought to be paid for the registration of voters in Ireland; and I am not at all sure that the Government have not been attempting to shunt the payment for additional Revising Barristers, and to divert some portion of the £17,000 which was intended by this House to go in defrayment of local charges in favour of the Revising Barristers. Therefore, I trust we shall have a statement by the Government that the £17,000 voted by this House last year in relief of local taxation will go purely and entirely in relief of poor rates, and that not a single 6d. will go for Revising Barristers, the cost of whose remuneration the House declared should be borne by the Consolidated Fund.

With regard to the inquiry of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), if the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question I will endeavour to satisfy him. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy), I will leave that to be replied to by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler). But one item in the Estimate—namely, that which relates to the Revising Barristers, is explained by the fact that they were paid by the day, and that an under-Estimate was made of the amount of work which they would have to do. The original Estimate was exceeded because the sittings were unexpectedly prolonged. That, at least, is what I understand to be the case.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) has referred to the gentlemen appointed by the late Government as Revising Barristers; and he made, in the course of his statement, one remark which I cannot agree with. The hon. and learned Member asserted that there were gentlemen at the Irish Bar who were not attached to any political Party. I have a pretty full acquaintance with the Irish Bar, and I think that any gentleman belonging to it of sufficient eminence to be appointed as Revising Barrister is generally found to be of one Party or the other; and it would be very difficult to get 20 or 30 gentlemen to perform this duty without going to those whom I may call political partizans. Of one thing I am sure—that the gentlemen whom the late Government appointed, equally as between both political Parties, endeavoured to carry out their duties in a spirit of fairness. It will be found that they selected, numerically speaking at any rate, no gentlemen who were Conservatives in preference to Liberals. The remark has been made that gentlemen appointed to the office of Revising Barrister were themselves candidates. There was only one such case, and that case has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for South Derry. At the time Mr. Kisbey was appointed, he had never been a candidate for any constituency; nor, as far as the late Government were aware, had he any intention of becoming-one. I may say that he had no such intention, for, knowing him as I do, I am quite sure that if he had had any such intention he would never have accepted the office; while I believe that Mr. Kisbey's reputation at the Bar was such as to make him very well fitted to perform the duty of Revising Barrister. I recollect that a decision given by him was commented upon very favourably in a journal which is exceedingly ably conducted, and which belongs to the Nationalist Party—The Freeman's Journal. In that paper it was said that Mr. Kisbey had given a decision in support of the view frequently put forward by it, and which, I believe, had been disputed by some other Revising Barrister. The hon. and learned Member for South Derry has referred to Mr. Kisbey as being the President of a Conservative Society in Dublin. [Mr. T M HEALY: Vice President.] If that is so he must have become so within a few weeks of the present time, as he was not so when he was appointed Revising Barrister. With regard to the salary of the Clerk of the Peace coming upon the Estimates for this year, I presume that the reason is that this is the first time the charge has been voted, the salary previously having been paid by the county out of the local rates. The hon. and learned Member has also referred to the excess of the present over the former Estimate. He has referred to the Act of Parliament; and it is admitted on all hands, I believe, that that Act was intended to relieve the City of Dublin of a charge which it was considered ought to be borne by Imperial funds.

I have a personal interest in the matter of Mr. Kisbey's appointment. It is perfectly notorious why he was sent to revise the lists in North Tyrone; the Tories of that county made a triumph of the fact; and I do not believe there is a man, woman, or child there who does not believe that I was defeated in North Tyrone mainly by Mr. Kisbey. If it be difficult to find men at the Bar in Ireland who are impartial in politics to revise the lists of voters, it is a singular thing that a man who has proved himself to be one of the bitterest partizans to appear before an Irish constituency, and who used language calculated to excite the bitterest feeling, should be selected to revise the list in one of the only three constituencies in Ireland where there was a close contest. It is a fact well known that Mr. Kisbey returned the present Member for North Tyrone. I may mention the circumstance that in Strabane alone 14 minors, some of them being not more than 14 years of age, voted against me.

I wish to point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Holmes) has not touched at all upon the jerrymandering of those constituencies in which there was a close contest. It will be remembered that 20 gentlemen were to be appointed to revise the lists in Ireland. It was quite right that they should be selected from both political Parties—that there should be some Whigs and some Tories; but the point I call attention to is that almost every gentleman supposed to be of Liberal leaning was sent down to revise the lists in the wilds of Cork and Mayo, where the Nationalists were known to be 999 to one of the voters, and that a Tory was sent down to revise the lists where the contest was known to be close. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University is himself responsible for that. I do not think he is; but I know one gentleman who is responsible, and that is Sir William Kaye, a member of most of the Orange Lodges, a gentleman who stood for the City of Armagh against Mr. Beresford, the late Member. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University did not appoint Mr. Kisbey to the post of Revising Barrister in North Tyrone, it was Sir William Kaye—it was he who pricked the list, with the result that men who were supposed to be sympathetic in politics with us were sent to places where we were in an enormous majority, while to places where the Nationalists were in a small minority the men who were sent were Orangemen to the backbone.

In respect to this additional charge of £1,632 for Revising Barristers, I deem it right to say that Mr. Craig, who was sent down to revise the list of voters in Mid Armagh, put a number of Tory youths under 21 years of age on the list, and they voted at the last election. When a Nationalist applied for his vote Mr. Craig suspected he was under 21 years of age, and required a certificate of age, from the Registrar, he being altogether oblivious of the fact that, until the year 1864, there was no register of births kept in Ireland. We have also to complain that Mr. Craig inserted men's names as the occupiers of properties, whereas the properties were occupied by women. Another trick resorted to by the landlords in Mid Armagh was to fill their tenants' receipts "Received from the representatives," so that the total rating divided by the representatives would not give the qualifying quotient required by law. Mr. Craig accepted the landlord's books properly cooked for revision that women and not men were tenants, though the men paid the rent. Mr. Craig winked at this fraud upon the law. I would only be participating in these illegal proceedings if I did not protest against an amount appearing in these Estimates for the payment of services rendered to one particular Party in Mid Armagh—namely, the Tory Party. There is another grievous matter in connection with the Mid Armagh revision of which we have to complain. While Mr. Craig was holding a Revision Court in one part of the division, Mr. Richard Wilson Gamble, Q.C., County Court Judge, was holding a Revision Court in another part of the constituency. While Mr. Gamble was thus engaged, an officer of his Court—a civil bill officer—named Wilson, was giving evidence for the Tory Party of Armagh at Mr. Craig's Court— that is to say, Mr. Gamble allowed his officer to serve objections, and strike off Nationalists from the voters' lists for the Tory Party. I submit that Judges who act in such a manner are altogether unworthy of public confidence. That they have not the confidence of the public I am quite aware. They go about giving long lectures on the state of the country. Instead of sympathizing with the people in consequence of the distress which prevails, they are constantly telling us about the great frauds committed by people who are unable to pay exorbitant rents, and yet many of them connive at fraud themselves. I submit that Mr. Richard Wilson Gamble, Q.C., was privy to the attendance of his civil bill officer at the Revision Session held by Mr. Craig; and, that being so, I would not be doing my duty if I did not challenge this Estimate.

I trust the Committee will allow me to say a few words in reference to the last observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Derry (Mr. Healy). The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a circumstance for which I suppose he believed there was some foundation, that Sir William Kaye, the Assistant Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, was the gentleman who sent the Revising Barristers to the different counties. It would be entirely unworthy of me, as a Member of the Administration, to allow any blame such as that to rest upon a permanent official. It would not be the duty of a permanent official to undertake such a task, and it certainly was not undertaken by Sir William Kaye. The responsible Government of the time, the Chief Secretary, with such assistance as he could get from the Lord Chancellor, sent the various Revising Barristers to the counties. At the same time, it is right the Committee should understand that the Government, and no officer of the Government, no one belonging to the Government of the day, and no permanent official connected with the Government, had anything to do with sending Mr. Kisbey to North Tyrone. By reason of the extent of county Tyrone it was necessary to have in the county four Revising Barristers; and four were selected, two being Liberals and two Conservatives. It then rested with the Chairman of the county to allocate the various divisions amongst the gentlemen selected. So the Government of the day had nothing to do with it—beyond nominating the four gentlemen for the county, they had nothing whatever to do with the sending of Mr. Kisbey to North Tyrone. In reference to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Armagh (Mr. A. Blaine) said with respect to Mr. Craig, I think it right to say that Mr. Craig is a member of the Irish Bar, who has been a well-known Radical for many years. He was sent down to revise in Armagh, being a gentleman very competent to do so, as far as his legal knowledge was concerned, and he was engaged in revising the lists in Mid Armagh, it being supposed at that time that the contest there would be between a Conservative and Liberal?—that it was one of the constituencies? which would not be contested by a Nationalist. I cannot see how a Conservative Government can be responsible for the action taken—assuming that there was anything wrong—by a Radical barrister of position, sent down to revise the lists in a constituency in which it was supposed the contest would take place between a Radical and Conservative. I must add that, from what I know of Mr. Craig's character and legal knowledge, I am sure all the decisions he gave were given conscientiously, and in accordance with law.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) has certainly let the cat out of the bag. What is his confession? His confession is that the Government did take political considerations into account, because in the case of Mid Armagh they, in September and October, considered the political complexion of the constituency, believing that the contest there would lie between a Tory and a Liberal.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is certainly, though unintentionally, misrepresenting what I said. The result was that the contest lay between a Conservative and a Nationalist; but unquestionably the Government did not take the matter into consideration. In the case of Armagh, as in the case of Tyrone, the Government selected the necessary number of Revising Barristers, and the divisions were allocated amongst them by the Chairman of the county.

As I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I did not see how his argument lay unless the Government gauged beforehand what the nature of the contest would be. Anyhow, as he has repudiated my interpretation of his words, I pass the matter by. He has attempted to relieve Sir William Kaye of responsibility. I do not accept his defence of Sir William Kaye; but I will deal with that gentleman in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the appointment of the Revising Barristers was settled by the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Ashbourne, a well-known political partizan, and by the late Chief Secretary (Sir William Hart Dyke), another well-known political partizan— in other words, that these Gentlemen had the power of thimble-rigging as to the gentlemen who should be sent down to revise the voters' lists. I entirely repudiate that view of the matter. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that as between the county and the divisions of the county the Chairman of the county had the power of allocating the divisions in which a particular barrister should sit. That is not at all the provision of the Act of 1885; because that Act provides that the Revising Barristers are to settle the matter between them, each gentleman having just as much power as the other. And with regard to Sir William Kaye, I know of my own knowledge that Revising Barristers who had to go down to counties which it was expected would be closely contested were summoned to the Castle, were met by Sir William Kaye, and were bull-nosed by him as to the divisions of the county they should go to. Of course, if I were to mention the counties it would soon become known who my informant was, and that gentleman would have little chance of any future employment from Sir William Kaye. Upon a future occasion, when a number of gentlemen are picked out as suitable to act as Revising Barristers, they should be sent to the different counties by ballot, or by the casting of lots. If such a system were observed there could be no complaint whatever. I think that is the provision of the Act of 1868 with regard to the Judges who have to try Election Petitions; and surely the revision of voters is a matter of as much importance as the trial of a Petition. I trust that for the future, when the Government select gentlemen who appear to be capable to conduct Revision Sessions, those gentlemen will be sent impartially; and the only way in which they can be so sent is by ballot.

The distinguishing feature of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Derry (Mr. Healy) has been the use of two extraordinary terms—thimble-rigging and bull-nosing. I confess I do not know what the latter term means. I never heard it before; but I know this—that the hon. and learned Gentleman has recently been admitted into the Profession—the grand Profession—of the Law. He is a barrister; but the whole of his speeches are calculated to leave an impression on the House that there is no such thing as an honourable barrister to be found in Ireland. I appeal to everybody whether this kind of parochial criticism, contemptible and miserable, this saturnalia of opportunity, this casting of imputations upon men as honourable as the hon. and learned Gentleman, is to be tolerated in the House of Commons. There has been introduced the name of Sir William Kaye, a man of the most distinguished eminence, a man whose character stands too high to be blackened by the jeers of hon. Gentlemen opposite. What is the issue which is presented to us? You would suppose that whoever is selected as a Revising Barrister in Ireland must necessarily be a blackguard. A Revising Barrister is called upon to perform a judicial duty; and if his decisions are erroneous—and it does not follow that a Revising Barrister is always correct—there is an appeal from his decision. Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite appeal against the decisions of which they now complain? They prefer to come here to blacken the character of men who stand high in the estimation of all those who know what honour is; and they do not scruple to cast imputations, if only they can be unanswered, upon the Profession to which many of them belong, and to which others of them are aspiring to belong. I trust that the House of Commons, which now comprises a great number of Members who are new to their duties, will understand that the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen who profess to represent a great nation — the Irish nation—are of the most contemptibly parochial character. I hope the new Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley), who is supposed to be peculiarly favourable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, will take note of the kind of criticisms which is resorted to by them. If there has been any wrong done by the Revising Barristers in Ireland, let them appeal to the law, as people in England and in Scotland do. That is the advice I always gave to them when I was the Representative of an Irish constituency. ["Oh!"] Certainly it is; and the reason why I could no longer represent an Irish constituency was this—that by violence and intimidation those who ought to have given their votes freely were not permitted to do so.

Mr. Courtney, I rise to a point of Order, and I ask you to require the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat while I state it. I wish to ask you whether the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry) have any relevance to the Vote now before the Committee?

The last remarks of the hon. Gentleman appeared to me to be divergent.

I quite admit they did diverge; but I will say this—that when I was an Irish Representative I took exactly the same line I take now. I told hon. Members, who were then my Colleagues, that they were simply degrading their own country, and preventing the promotion of their ends, by showing they had no notion of fairness in their criticisms. It is perfectly well known that the Revising Barristers in Ireland were impartially selected. Surely the Nationalists, who have returned 86 Members to this House, might in decency be contented with their success. But they actually grudge the representation in this House of any who differ from them, and they do not care what imputations they cast upon honour, upon truth, upon justice, upon the Profession to which so many of them belong, and to which many others desire to belong in future if only they can pass the examination; they do not care what imputations they cast upon their own Profession if by any chance they can give pain to honourable men who have not an opportunity of reply in this House.

There are two items in this Supplementary Estimate which raise a question of the very utmost importance, and of pressing urgency to the Irish people. The items to which I allude are the additions of £2,400 for the travelling expenses of the Irish Constabulary, and of £1,800 for the Transport Service. In the first place, I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary—I may say the absurd—figures of this additional Estimate for the Transport Service of the Irish Constabulary, compared with the original Estimate. The original Estimate for the Transport Service was £1,500, and the Supplementary Estimate is £1,800. It is a very unusual and extraordinary circumstance that the additional Estimate largely exceeds the original Estimate. It is also noticeable that under the head of travelling expenses the additional Estimate bears a large proportion to the original Estimate. I think that no time should be lost in asking the Committee to consider most earnestly whether it is not high time to put a stop to the monstrous waste of public money in Ireland in transporting large bodies of Constabulary from place to place, sometimes to where they are not wanted at all, and still more frequently to where they are wanted to do infamous wrong. Now, what is going on at the present moment in Ireland? Why, Sir, there is an army of Constabulary moving about Western Donegal at enormous cost. I suppose that in a short time we shall be called upon to vote further sums for the expedition. In my opinion, a more monstrous parody of government was never undertaken in any country which pretends to be civilized. Let anyone take up The Freeman's Journal, or any other newspaper in which accounts of the expedi- tion are given; and he will admit that, if it were not too tragic, a more ludicrous proceeding could hardly be imagined. The accounts read like quotations from Don Quixote. No one could believe that anything so preposterous could go on in real life. Many Members of the Committee may not have read the details of the expedition. What are the facts? A body of 200 Irish Constabulary, many of them transported from a great distance, and at considerable expense, as one sees from this Estimate, are concentrated at Gweedore, a place well known for its natural beauty and as a fishing resort, to assist in the collection of the seed rate, a rate levied with the object of enabling starving tenants to plant their land with potatoes. These men have been marching and countermarching; and up to the present moment I do not believe they have succeeded in levying a couple of pounds, while, I venture to say, they have spent close upon £1,000. We shall be called upon, at a future Sitting of the Committee, to vote for that expedition £1,000 at least. I put it to the common sense of the Committee, is it wise, is it sensible, is it not downright madness, to add to the embarrassments by which this new Administration is beset by the continuance of such proceedings as this? The people are calling upon the charitable English public to contribute funds to relieve them. We are told by everybody who goes into the district, be he English or Irish, that the people are starving. Anything more pitiable or more absurd than the proceedings as detailed in the news papers could not be imagined. There had been no opposition offered to the Constabulary; but the people, acting upon the advice of their priest, had abstained from congregating. In some instances this army of Constabulary seized broken chairs, tables, dressers, plates, iron pots, in which the people had cooked their food, and piled them in the cart following the army. And in one instance, amidst the screams of an unfortunate woman, a widow, and her children, the Constabulary dragged from a remote corner of the cabin and carried off some potatoes, all that the family had to subsist upon. And I am informed that, as soon as the great expedition comes to a close, another expedition is to be organized, and, perhaps, one of larger dimensions, because we are told that they are to be supported by the military, and they are to evict these miserable people from their holdings. Now, I put it to the new Chief Secretary for Ireland—undoubtedly, he has undertaken a most difficult task; and I am bound to say this—that I do not think there ever came to Ireland a man who had a better chance of making a successful Government in Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary. I returned, about a week or two ago, from a journey to a remote part of the county of Mayo, where I found the poor people are expecting something to be done for them, because, as they said to me, they had been told that Mr. John Morley was a good man. Undoubtedly, there is a feeling spread in Ireland that the Government are going to do something for the relief of the people, and, undoubtedly, that feeling will be a strong factor in helping to keep the country quiet; and believing, as I do, that the Government intends to turn over a new leaf, and to deal with the people in a kind spirit while they are maturing their plans, I think it my duty to bring under their notice the pressing danger that attends the employment of the Constabulary in those insane expeditions. Now, I have pointed out these two uses to which the Constabulary are put, and which are not only utterly fruitless and absurd, but swells the cost of the Constabulary to a state which is utterly monstrous and absolutely useless, and, at the same time, constitutes a serious public danger. Now, there is a third way in which the Constabulary transport is increased, and which, I am free to admit, is a subject on which arguments can be advanced on both sides. The two first matters I have spoken of are so plain that no argument can be advanced on one side. I do not think, for instance, that any man with a knowledge of the facts of the case could defend the expedition to Gweedore. The third way I have mentioned is the important question as to whether the armed Forces of the Crown are to be employed as well as the Constabulary in enforcing evictions in Ireland. Without inquiry as to the condition of the people, we have heard the statement made the other night that the Government will not use these armed forces to carry out evictions in the Western Highlands and the Islands of Scotland. We have been ap- pealing in this House for five years—appealing to the Government of Ireland to use some discretion in the use that is made of this police force; and there are many who think that, if our appeal had been listened to, much bloodshed and disorder would have been prevented. Are we to be told, and are we to tell the Irish people, that in Ireland, on the contrary, there is to be no inquiry even, and no expression of opinion on the part of the Executive Government, as to whether the landlords are acting harshly and unjustly, and driving men to absolute desperation? Are the Irish landlords to have the whole force of the Crown at their backs? I make these remarks, as I said before, from a desire to enable the Government to take time to settle the Irish Question. We believe that this Government desire to come to a settlement of this question in a friendly and honest spirit, and it is our desire to do our best to smooth their path. But I am afraid that, whatever may be our desire to smooth the Government's path, it will do but little if these ruthless evictions are to be allowed to continue. In conclusion, on this point I will only say that I have travelled through the western part of Donegal lately, and I can say I have listened to the greatest exaggeration in this House as to the resistance which is given to the payment of rent in that district. There has been absolutely no resistance at all. I can say that, in East Mayo, rents have been better paid than they have in many parts of England; but, unfortunately, there was a large tail of tenants in all those places, who assured me they could not get the rent; and I am perfectly convinced that nothing will allow this armed force to evict them. I wish it were in my power to take the Chief Secretary to see these peasants; and, after having seen them, I believe that on no condition would the right hon. Gentleman sanction the use of the Forces of the Crown to recover rent. There is no combination amongst these people to resist the payment of rent; but, unfortunately, there are a large number of families, who are at this moment with a rent decree in their houses, utterly unable to pay the rent asked of them or to borrow money; and many of them, having paid their rent, are left in a starving condition, and will soon be living on the rates. I therefore feel that I ought not to lose this opportunity of making an earnest appeal to the Chief Secretary not to pursue this ridiculous and senseless course, nor to raise up obstacles which Heaven knows are sufficiently numerous for him already. I do not believe that any Englishman ever undertook a more difficult task than that of ruling the Irish people. I am bound to say that if I thought the right hon. Gentleman came here to rule us for long I should put every obstacle in his way. I believe, however, that the right hon. Gentleman honestly desires to do his best in this respect; and, holding this opinion, I honestly desire to remove every difficulty from his path, because I think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to get out of the country as soon as possible. That is the reason why I have a feeling of friendship for the present Chief Secretary. I would ask the Committee to remember that although hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were loud in their insistance on the maintenance of law and order, and would back its maintenance by the use of public money for employing the armed Forces of the Crown, they sent a Gentleman to Ireland a few months ago, the Earl of Carnarvon, who gave great offence to the landlords, because he recommended them not to press the Irish people too far. I would ask the present Chief Secretary to improve on the example set him by the Tory Government, to go as tep further, and from words proceed to deeds. A Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the government of Ireland in his day won, to a great extent, the affections of the Irish people by an act which brought down upon him the opprobrium of the Tory classes in Ireland; but his name has been handed down with feelings of respect and admiration by the people of Ireland. I refer to Thomas Drummond, who in a time of agitation compared to which the wildest days of the Land League was only child's play, when the people rebelled at the injustice of tithes, refused to use the Irish Constabulary to collect the tithes. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to begin his government of Ireland by sending a message of peace to the Irish people, by showing that he will do all in his power to check the hand of the exterminator in Ireland, and to prevent the people from being driven away from their homes when their refusal to pay rent is on account of their poverty. If he will do so, I, for my part, will do my best, by the exercise of what influence I possess, to smooth the path of the right hon. Gentleman's government in Ireland.

I can very cheerfully respond to the appeal of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), and I do not know that I am concerned to repudiate the motive with which he promises me his sympathy and support. The question how long I or any English Minister shall rule the Irish people is a question to which we are, no doubt, approaching tolerably near to a solution one way or the other. Upon the narrower point of the evictions, the hon. Member is well aware that I have as much sympathy as he has with the unfortunate victims of the social circumstances in which Ireland is placed. The question as to whether or not the Military Forces of the Crown are to be used in carrying out every eviction for which the shadow of legal title or justification can be made out is a question which Executive Ministers must decide for themselves on their own responsibility upon each case as it arises. I, for one, am not prepared to admit that we are justified, in every case in which a shadow of legal title is made out, to bring out the Military Forces to execute decrees which on the ground of public policy seem inadvisable and unnecessary. So far as I have been able to gather information in the very short time that I have been at the Irish Office, I think the hon. Member is justified in saying that at this moment—I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite will differ—rents are being, at this time, very fairly paid indeed. In cases where rents are not being paid they seem to me, as far as I can understand, to be mostly cases where it is as absolutely impossible for the tenants to pay them, as it is for many tenants in England to pay their rents. The hon. Member will not expect me to offer any remarks on the circumstances of the Gweedore evictions, for, in truth, I am not acquainted with them, nor am I responsible for them, and it doe3 not fall within my province to criticize them, nor to offer any defence or justification of them. As for the future, I can only repeat, in another way, what I have al- ready said—that while we shall be very careful to exact respect for law, and very careful to see that every subject of the Queen has all those rights to which he is legally entitled, it will be our duty to look into the cases as they arise; and in no case where it can possibly be avoided shall we be inclined to resort to military force. The particular item for increased military transport, which the hon. Member challenges, I am sorry to say is due to the circumstance, as I am informed, that the Constabulary are unable to procure cars in consequence of pressure; and, therefore, they have been obliged to provide themselves with horses, cars, and harness. The hon. Member spoke, however, rather with a view, as I gather, to express his opinion of the necessity of a policy of conciliation with regard to evictions. I believe that the more the circumstances of Ireland are considered the more urgent will it appear to all those who have a sense of responsibility to use and exercise the power of the Crown with judgment and humanity.

Mr. Courtney, the hon. Gentleman who has brought before your notice his criticisms as to why the House should not pass this Vote has stated, in clear and emphatic terms, the reasons why he objects, and why, on behalf of his constituents and the people of Ireland, he offers his protest against the passing of such a Vote as this. I also represent a constituency which has instructed me on every occasion to offer my protest against the system of organized eviction in Ireland; and in speaking of this Vote I wish to be understood as representing my constituency in the protest I make. I feel that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Morley) will be received in Ireland to-morrow with a thrill of gratification. They will be received, at all events, with this feeling— that, for the first time in the history of the country, a Gentleman occupying a responsible position has spoken of the toiling masses of Ireland in terms of commiseration and sympathy. We regret that large Supplementary Estimates of this sort have to be brought before the House; but we say that they have been necessitated by this system of organized eviction, which has been entered upon by the landlords of the country. I am in a position to say that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has stated nothing but the clearest and most palpable truth when he has told this Committee that there is no indisposition in Ireland to pay a fair rent. We think it a very cruel thing that the Executive powers of the Government should be exercised in support of an organized system of evictions; and we are glad to observe the considerate and sympathetic tone in which the Chief Secretary has approached the subject, and we hope sincerely that the Government will see their way to deal with this question in a kind and equitable spirit. I should like to point out to the Committee that it involves a confiscation of the property of the Irish people when large forces of Constabulary are sent on these eviction campaigns; because it is within the knowledge of all that these evictions are the result of circumstances over which these poor people have no more control than a man has over the elements around him. If carried out by the Constabulary, who are placed at the disposal of the landlords by the Executive, the poor people are thrown out on the roadside frequently for the non-payment of one year's rent. I feel convinced that the people of Ireland, as I have said a minute ago, will read to-morrow with feelings of sincere gratification the wise and generous words that have fallen from the lips of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and I believe that the Government will recognize the protest which has fallen from these Benches, and that we have so protested on behalf of those people who are desirous of meeting their engagements, but who cannot be expected to do so in times such as the present.

What we miss in this discussion is the presence of facts to enable the Committee to judge what foundation there is for the eloquent speeches on the subject of Irish distress which we hear from the other side of the House. I will not yield to any man in my abhorrence of evictions. I have ever raised my voice against them in this House; but there are evictions and evictions. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who introduced this discussion, spoke of evictions, or threatened evictions, for the purpose of recovering seed rate.

Nothing of the sort. They cannot do so. The hon. Member does not understand what he is talking about. They cannot be evicted for the recovery of seed rate.

The hon. Member mixed up evictions with his statements, and said that the Irish Constabulary has been used for the collection of seed rate. Well, it would be more candid of the hon. Member if he told the Committee what the seed rate was. It was the creation of hon. Members opposite. That is the fact, and I can prove it. In 1879, when there was a period of great distress in Ireland, the Conservative Government, at the instigation of an hon. and gallant Member opposite—the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan)—introduced a measure by which they advanced money to a very large amount for seed potatoes, which was to be repaid in a certain number of years by the levying of a rate on every barony which had borrowed the money. Well, I contended at that time, and I now know, that if the hon. and gallant Member had not been in such a hurry to bring forward his measure, the Government of that day would have granted the most reasonable assistance of seed to crop the ground after the famine free, gratis, for nothing. We did so in the case of the French people after the famine. We sent immense quantities of seed of all kinds abroad. [Cries of "Question!"] I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want the truth to be known, and they always take up this attitude when disagreeable facts are being put forward. As I was saying, in the case of the French War we granted —that is to say, the English and Scotch people, and I daresay the Irish people joined with them—to the French peasantry seed potatoes, grain, and other things, for the purpose of cropping the ground for another year; and we did it as a gift. If there is one form of charity more than another which can be defended on economic and philanthropic grounds, it is that form. But the hon. and gallant Member for Galway introduced his Bill, and proposed that the Irish people should repay the amount which was lent to them. The Government, of course, jumped at the proposal at once; and the result has been that a considerable portion of the rate has not been paid; but over and over again application has been made for the postponement of the collection of the tax. Applications of that kind have been acceded to over and over again by the Government; and if I were to tell the Com- mittee of the cheating and fraud that went on in regard to that seed rate—how the common potatoes grown in the district were taken out of a town and brought back as what they called "champion potatoes" from a distance, and re-sold at 10 guineas a ton——

I rise to Order. I want to know what connection there is between the long detailed history of the various incidents connected with the seed rate and the Estimate before the House?

The hon. Member is perfectly in Order in his explanation of the circumstances of the seed rate.

I am never sorry for those interruptions. I am only sorry for those who make them, because the House knows the incurable aversion which hon. Members who represent, or claim to represent, the Irish people have to the elucidation of facts and truth. Well, the seed rate was a great farce. I do not remember how much is outstanding; but I know that, after great difficulty in collecting the rate, a great many years have elapsed without the amount advanced having been repaid—for we are now in 1886, and the Bill was passed in 1879 or 1880. After so many years a large portion of the seed rate still remains uncollected. I believe, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), that his constituents and the people of Donegal, and also the people in that part of Ireland who are almost always at the door of starvation, are unable to pay their contribution.