I desire to be permitted to acquaint the House that the University of Oxford has done me the honour to propose to confer upon me the degree of D.C.L. For the purpose of receiving that degree it will be necessary, I am informed, that I should attend at Oxford on Wednesday next. But it would be impossible for me to be present at Oxford and to absent myself from my duties unless by the leave and indulgence of the House. For that indulgence I now respectfully ask the House.

In consequence of the communication which you, Sir, have just made to the House, I beg to move—

"That during Mr. Speaker's temporary absence at Oxford on Wednesday next, Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, do take the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order."

I hope I may be permitted, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), to second the Motion, and most heartily to congratulate you, Sir, upon the honour which is about to be conferred upon you.

Motion made, and Question,

"That during Mr. Speaker's temporary absence at Oxford on Wednesday next, Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, do take the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order,"—( Mr. W. H. Smith, )

—put, and

The following is the Entry in the Votes:—

Mr. Speaker acquainted the House that he had been honoured by an invitation from the Chancellor of the University of Oxford to attend at Oxford on Wednesday next, in order that the Degree of Doctor of Civil Law should be conferred upon him by that University; but that it was only by the indulgence of the House that he could absent himself from its sitting that day.

Ordered, That during Mr. Speaker's temporary absence at Oxford, on Wednesday next, Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, do take the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.—( Mr. William Henry Smith. )

It now becomes my duty to ask the House to consider the Report of the Committee appointed to examine into the character of the Petitions presented for and against the continuance of the Coal and Wine Duties. The Committee have gone fully through those Petitions, and as the result of a protracted inquiry they have found that there has been undoubtedly a Breach of the Privileges of this House. The Committee have not been able to come to the conclusion that direct charges of participation in fraud against the Corporation of the City of London have been established, but the Corporation cannot be acquitted of gross negligence. As regards Mr. Reginald Bidmead, the Committee are of opinion that the case is complete. Although I have a natural disinclination to strike at the minor criminal while the greater criminals escape, yet the House must deal with facts as they find them, and unless the right of petitioning is to degenerate into a farce and the Privileges of this House are to exist only in name, I cannot see how it is possible to pass over so clear and flagrant a case as that of Mr. Reginald Bidmead without serious notice. It will be for the House to consider whether the indulgence which it usually extends to culprits who purge their contempt may not properly be extended to the offender in the present case. In the meanwhile, I feel there is no other course open to me than to move a Resolution similar to that which I made in 1865 when I was first called to the Chair of the Committee on Public Petitions—now, unhappily, 22 years ago—when certain persons were committed to Newgate under circumstances detailed in the Report. In the concluding paragraph of the Report, the Committee call special attention to three points which they have considered it necessary to condemn—namely, the placing of Petitions on tables in the open air, at which the signatures of passers by are obtained, which are not capable of identification; the piecing together of sheets of signatures without reference to the quarter from which they are obtained, and the headings ultimately affixed to them; and the practice of presenting Petitions without any kind of voucher for their genuineness. The right of petition is a valuable right; and I apprehend that the House, as the guardian of Constitutional rights, will not lightly agree to part with a privilege which has been handed down to them for generations, and which has always been regarded as a necessary safety-valve. If however, the right is to be preserved, it must be guarded jealously. Let us not abolish the right, but introduce such changes into the Rules which regulate it as experience show to be necessary. In order to vindicate the Privileges of the House, I beg to move—

"That Reginald Bidmead, having fabricated signatures to certain Petitions presented to this House, has been guilty of Contempt and a Breach of the Privileges of this House."

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Reginald Bidmead, having fabricated signatures to certain Petitions presented to this House, has been guilty of Contempt and a Breach of the Privileges of this House."—( Sir Charles Forster. )

Sir, I do not intend to oppose the Motion which you have just put from the Chair. But I claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I make a statement on this Motion which may materially influence the decision of the House upon the Resolution with which I understood the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions to intimate that he intends to follow up the Motion now before the House. I will venture to make an appeal to the hon. Baronet and to the House in relation to that consequential Motion. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) has already said that he feels considerable reluctance in striking at a minor criminal while greater criminals are allowed to escape. It will be in the recollection of the House that when the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions first reported the matter, he moved that the Order directing that the Petitions should lie on the Table of the House should be discharged. I ventured at the time to oppose that Motion, and I moved the adjournment of the debate in order to give time for further consideration. Since then the Committee on Petitions have not only considered the matter, but they have made a full inquiry into some of the statements which I felt it my duty to make to the House, and which, as it appeared to me, were of sufficient gravity to warrant a full and searching inquiry. The result of the investigations of the Committee, and of the evidence laid before them, is now in our hands, and I think I have a right to say that the course which I then took has been fully justified by the Report of the Committee. Every statement I made as to the particular character of the forgeries which took place has been more than borne out by the evidence. In the course I intend to take to-day, I do not propose in any way to put a slight upon the Committee who have reported to the House; but I feel it my duty to suggest a different course from that which they intend to recommend, and I trust that my suggestion will not only receive the concurrence of the House, but even of the Committee themselves. Now, who are the real criminals in this matter? The Committee state in their Report—

"The Petitions for the Bill were initiated by the City Solicitor, who instructed Mr. Robert Thomas Wragg, who in turn engaged the services of Mr. Carlton Roberts. Mr. John Walter Hallett, and a number of other sub-agents, were employed by Mr. Carlton Roberts."

Now, I contend that the Corporation of the City of London are the real criminals in this matter. There is overwhelming evidence that the gross negligence referred to by the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions was gross negligence, to which every active member of the Corporation has been a party. Gross negligence may be once blameworthy as gross negligence; but when it is repeated over a series of years, in relation to the same matters, and after deliberate warning, and when more than once there has been gross negligence in regard to Petitions presented to this House, and when the people who have been grossly negligent are the people who found the money for the use of the forgers, then, if you cannot bring home the gross negligence to individual members of the Corporation, there is enough to warrant the House in classing them among the greater criminals. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] I have sworn evidence here in support of what I say, and I ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, who contradicts me, to make himself acquainted with the facts. Personally, I am not in the habit of interrupting Members of this House, either by sign or by word, and I have not yet said a word which entitles any hon. Member to stand up on behalf of these forged Petitions, and contradict me at this stage of my remarks. I was going to say that gross negligence, more than once repeated, warrants the strictest censure of the House. The persons reported by name in the Report of the Committee are Mr. Robert Thomas Wragg and Mr. Carlton Roberts. In an investigation, in which it was my duty to take some part, and I hope not uselessly, I had to bring forward this very question of Petitions, and I will read a passage from the Report of the Committee. On page 25 of the Report of the Committee on the London Corporation Trusts, and the charges of malversation against the Corporation, it will be seen that, in 1884, it was brought to the knowledge of the members of the Corporation, including the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Fowler), that in several cases Petitions presented to this House had been signed two, three, and even four times over, by the same person. On the 19th of June, 1884, Mr. Wragg applied to the Committee of the Corporation of London for the sum of £1,000 to enable him to get up Petitions for Lambeth, Southwark, Hackney, Finsbury, Marylebone, and the Tower Hamlets; and I say that the Corporation had notice more than once that the person to whom they, by their warrant, were issuing large sums of money, either by negligence, or carelessness, or intention, permitted Petitions to reach this House which were fraudulent Petitions. They had, consequently, no right to continue to be negligent, and if they were Members of this House they ought to have taken some care of the honour and dignity of this Assembly; and, as members of the Corporation, they had no right to permit to be so misused the money which did not belong to them, but which belonged to the entire body of the citizens of London. The City Remembrancer was examined by myself, and was asked whether he had felt it his duty as Remembrancer of the City of London to report to the Special Committee of the Corporation, or to any other body connected with the Corporation, that Petitions to Parliament were being paid for out of the City funds? His answer was that he had made no such report; but, nevertheless, in the evidence as to Mr. Wragg, it was asserted that he had attended the meetings of the Special Committee who bad charge of the matter of getting up Petitions for presentation to this House, and that he received his directions specially from the Committee. I do not think that he received them from the hon. Baronet opposite, nor do I know what was the exact nature of the communications of Mr. Wragg with the Committee. But I do know that the hon. Baronet was present during the whole of the time when Mr. Wragg made his reports to the Committee, and there must have been gross negligence on his part if he had not listened to the communications made by that gentleman, as he was one of the Committee by whose authority the money was paid. It became my duty, in the course of the inquiry, to examine one of the Aldermen of the City, and I will refer the House to page 170 of the evidence—Question 2,527. A question was asked as to whether something was not being done in the direction of concocting Petitions in favour of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues, and it may be interesting to the House to know the answer which an Alderman of the City of London thought it right to make to me. I asked him, in the first place, whether he had heard that one person had received some £400 odd in one year for collecting Petitions? And his reply was that he had heard a City official say so. I then asked if he thought it was a right thing to do, and being pressed to state whether the same thing was being done now in reference to Petitions relating to the Coal and Wine Dues, this gentleman absolutely said that he thought the City officials would be neglecting their duty if they acted otherwise. Among other things I found that the Committee of the Corporation of London paid a sum of £2,950 to a certain individual named Johnson, who told us that he spent part of the money in paying people to collect signatures to Petitions. In answer to a further question, Johnson admitted that he had reason to believe that the signatures to some of the Petitions were forgeries. Now, I do not want to burden this matter with a number of statements; it is enough for me to say that in 1883 and 1884 Wragg spent large sums of money in concocting bogus Petitions to this House, and it is clear that in addition to the sums which he paid he received the heavy fee of 500 guineas for his own labours in reference to the measure then before the House, not in the way of legitimate, but the illegitimate opposition he was officially employed to get up. Mr. Carlton Roberts is the next person named by the Committee on Petitions. This gentleman was specially employed in concocting illegitimate opposition to measures before this House calculated, according to the Report of the Committee on Public Petitions, to deceive the mind of Parliament into the notion that it was independent action. Mr. Carlton Roberts was shown also to have been connected with the hiring of roughs to break up certain meetings in the West End of London. Now, I agree with the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions that the practice of petitioning to this House has been degraded, and that every person who has taken part in it, in this particular instance, has been dishonest. The right of petitioning this House is a right which every person should value, and for a great and wealthy Corporation to concoct Petitions, instead of exercising its influence to promote the morality of its citizens, is a course which, I think, every right-minded man will condemn. I be- lieve that the Resolution which will follow upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Walsall will be that Bidmead be committed to gaol. Now, I appeal to the House not to send this unfortunate man to gaol. So long as we may possibly be able to reach the heads and the hands of those who have committed this serious offence, I am prepared to make an appeal for leniency, rather than the infliction of too severe a punishment. Therefore, I would venture to ask the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions not to follow up the present Motion by another for the committal of this man to Newgate, and I would express a hope that he will accept the Amendment which I suggest. The extreme course about to be proposed would be most unsatisfactory, and it would enable the greater criminals to go scot-free. I would suggest that instead of sending this poor tool to Newgate, Mr. Speaker should be directed to order Reginald Bidmead to attend at the Bar of this House on Thursday next, in order that he may be reprimanded. The reprimand in that case would attach to the offence. Bidmead confessed before the Committee, and there is no reason for believing his statement to be untrue, that he had collected thousands of signatures without the slightest regard to the source from whence they came, and with full knowledge that many of them were forged. Under the circumstances, I trust that the House will not send this poor, wretched, miserable man to gaol, but that by the mouth of Mr. Speaker they will make it understood that this degrading practice of concocting forged Petitions is not to be permitted, and by this means the House will solemnly express its condemnation of the degrading practice of foisting bogus Petitions upon the House. I will not detain the House further. I thought I had the right to make these remarks, having been the first to raise the question whether the Order for allowing the Petition to lie on the Table, instead of being discharged, should not be followed up by the inquiry which has since taken place? I am quite satisfied the result has shown that the course I suggested was the most dignified for the House to take.

I rise to support the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions. The defence of the Corpora- tion of London to the charge made against them is that they employed this man to collect signatures bonâ fide. He was employed to do what was perfectly legitimate, but he betrayed the confidence which was reposed in him by those who employed him. As regards the charges made against myself, by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I shall take no notice of them, seeing that some days ago, according to a paragraph in The Echo, the hon. Member stated that he proposed to charge me with perjury on some future occasion.

I have made no such statement.

After such a statement on the part of the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it would become me to enter into any controversy with him.

I ask for the indulgence of the House in order that I may say that I said nothing of the kind, that I meant nothing of the kind, and that the statement just made by the hon. Baronet is not warranted by anything I ever said.

The House will see the paragraph to which I have referred in The Echo.

I quite concur with the remarks which fell from the lips of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), that Bidmead was by no means the only culprit in this matter; and, in order to prove the truth of my assertion, I will quote the evidence given before the Committee on Public Petitions to show that a Mr. Hallett, who employed Bidmead, is also deserving of the severe censure of this House. The evidence which the Committee had from Reginald Bidmead was in the nature of a confession, and at first the Members of the Committee were inclined to treat it with some suspicion. Bidmead stated, and I wish the House carefully to take notice of the fact, that Hallett had fetched him from his lodgings and taken him to Wragg's office, and that on the way he confessed to Hallett that he had forged signatures to other Petitions, and that this knowledge was conveyed to Hallett before the Speaker was written to. In the letter sent to the Speaker no allusion was made to the forgery of signatures to any other Petitions. We have it in evidence that Mr. Hallett told Mr. Carlton Roberts that Bidmead's forgeries were confined to the Haggerston Petition. A Member of the Committee asked Mr. Roberts this question—

"Was he taxed with the other Petitions, and did he admit anything with respect to them?"

The answer was—

"No, he was not taxed with any of the other Petitions. In fact, I made this remark to Mr. Hallett at the time, 'Has Bidmead supplied us with more signatures?' and Mr. Hallett's reply was, 'No; it is really confined to the Haggerston Petition.'"

Hon. Members have doubtless acquainted themselves with the nature of the evidence; but if they have not done so they will find (1) that Hallett, after first denying, was at last obliged to endorse Bidmead's evidence that there had been this conversation between him and Bidmead in the train, in which Bidmead gave him to understand that he had forged other Petitions, and (2) that Hallett had purposely concealed this from his employers, to screen his own negligence, and been instrumental in causing a letter to be written to the Speaker, which should quash all further inquiry, to the cost of the whole truth. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that the House cannot entirely overlook the conduct of Hallett. It does not appear from the evidence, and that is what we have to consider in the matter, that Mr. Carlton Roberts or Mr. Wragg can be connected with any knowledge of the forgeries of Bidmead. Bidmead, however, confessed that he did forge signatures to other Petitions, and it appears clearly from the evidence that he acquainted Hallett with the fact, and that before the letter to the Speaker was written Hallett knew that Bidmead had forged signatures to other Petitions. Then I would venture to hope that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions would so far accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton as to substitute a reprimand for the course which I understand he is about to take when the present Motion has been adopted. I do not wish that it should come from me directly as a Member of the Committee, but I hope the House, after taking into consideration the conduct of Hallett in this matter, will be of opinion that he also ought to be reprimanded at the same time as Bidmead. There is only one other remark I desire to make, and it has reference to Sub-section C of the last paragraph of the Report of the Committee, in which they condemn—

"The practice of presenting Petitions without any voucher for their genuineness."

It seems to me that it is almost impossible for any hon. Member of this House to be able to get vouchers for the genuineness of any Petition he may be called on to present. He may be able to do so in regard to small Petitions signed by the Chairman of some Local Board, or by gentlemen with whom he is personally acquainted; but it is perfectly impossible for any Member of this House to guarantee the genuineness of the signatures to large Petitions. He is bound to trust, more or less, to the character of the persons by whom the Petitions are got up, and I believe the root and bottom of the whole evil is the system of payment. Unless a Petition is really got up spontaneously, unless it is got up by the energy and enterprise of the men who are interested in the question with which it deals, and entirely without payment, there cannot be any guarantee that the signatures are genuine. I am afraid, judging from the nature of the evidence given before the Committee, that this system of paying for signatures has been largely adopted by the Corporation of London, and has existed in other towns also. I trust that the House in its wisdom will be able to devise some means whereby the evil may be remedied, and that a stop will be put to the system of payment for signatures to Petitions.

I think it is clear that the House with regard to this matter would, in any case, wish to express its opinion that this class of conduct is deserving of the strongest reprobation, not only because a particular individual who, like this unfortunate man, has been guilty of forging signatures to Petitions deserves censure, but because the greatest caution should be exercised by those who undertake the responsibility of getting up Petitions of this kind. Carelessness in such a matter is very much indeed to be reprehended. I am certain that no Member of this House desires to countenance or encourage practices that are likely to lead to such gross irregularities as have undoubtedly taken place in this case. I understood the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles Forster) to suggest that he would move with regard to Bidmead, that he should be committed to Newgate, and that he proposes to make a Motion similar to that which was made in 1865. I would rather suggest to the House that they should fall in with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and that Bidmead should be ordered to attend the House to receive a reprimand from you, Mr. Speaker. I do not for a moment desire to express the slightest doubt as to the right of the House to take the more severe course, under the circumstances of the case; but, on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the Report of the evidence before the Committee has only been presented to-day, and Members of the House have not had much opportunity of considering it. It is undoubtedly the fact that this man was, to a certain extent, employed by others, who do not seem to have exercised as much care in the matter as they ought to have done. At the same time, I cannot say that I agree with the suggestion of the noble Viscount the Member for South Molton (Viscount Lymington) that any other names should be included.

I only suggested that Hallett deserved reprimanding as well as Bidmead. I said nothing about Wragg and Roberts.

The suggestion of the noble Viscount was that the conduct of certain other persons was equally as bad as that of Bidmead, and that their names should also be included.

Only Hallett.

Having regard to the Report of the Committee, I do not think it will be wise on the part of the House to include any other names than that suggested by the hon. Baronet opposite. I trust that the hon. Baronet will see his way not to make a more extreme Motion, but to acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that this man, Bidmead, be called to the Bar of the House on Thursday and reprimanded. Although it is undoubtedly open to the House to take the more severe step, and although I quite admit that the House has always been jealous of its privileges, yet, on the other hand, it is undoubtedly a very severe step to commit Bidmead to Newgate at once, and by casting upon one individual the whole censure of the House, possibly to tie the hands of the House with reference to any further action. I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that, as far as this particular individual is concerned, the punishment inflicted on him by being reprimanded by Mr. Speaker will be sufficiently severe; but if the House desires to take any further step it will be open for it to do so, seeing that a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House has been committed. There are three courses open to the House—namely, to order Bidmead into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, to commit him, by Mr. Speaker's Warrant, to Newgate, or to order him to attend at the Bar and be reprimanded; but I think it is the general sense of the House that the latter course should be taken, and that Bidmead should be ordered to attend at the Bar on Thursday.

I quite agree with the statements which have been made on this occasion that this is a question of serious importance; but, on the whole, I concur with the recommendation which has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and for two reasons which appear to me to be clear and sufficient. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who has addressed himself with great ability to this question, recommends a course which may be called the minor course, and from the hon. Member's position as quasi -prosecutor on public grounds, that minor recommendation, coming from him, is entitled to great weight. But, in the second place, as has been said by the Attorney General, and also by my noble Friend behind (Viscount Lymington), it is plain that we are on the threshold of a very serious question, and it is necessary to hear a good deal more of the matter, of which the Motion now before us touches only one part, and that comparatively a very small part. It is confessed on all hands that the person proposed to be dealt with has been only an inferior instrument; and, therefore, it is desirable that we should take a step which will commit us as little as possible in regard to what we may find it necessary to do hereafter. We should, as far as possible, reserve the matter, without prejudice to our power to deal with all parties concerned when the matter may come before us for more full decision. I think, therefore, that upon that ground it would be a safer course to reprimand this person Bidmead at the Bar, than to apply the extreme measure of committing him to prison, although, for my own part, I cannot deny that his conduct deserves it. I think, however, that it would be more prudent not to apply to him that extreme measure, because we might find ourselves in this predicament, that when we have inflicted on him the highest punishment it is in our power to award we may find others brought before us who deserve a great deal more; therefore I feel that it would be safer to err on the side of mercy than on the side of severity. But in connection with the recommendation made that we should pursue a course which would, undoubtedly, be more lenient than that recommended by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee, I am very far from intending to intimate that my hon. Friend has done anything less or anything more than his duty. The Committee, in fact, have absolutely fulfilled their duty, and I cannot see how they could have taken any other course than that which my hon. Friend has recommended. It appears to me, as far as I am able to judge, that we are under very great obligations to the Chairman and the Members of the Committee for the manner in which they discharge functions of great importance, requiring the exercise of much patience, care, tact, and judgment, and that they have recommended the right thing for them to recommend. But it appears to me, as far as I know the matter, that it is not one so much for the Committee as it is for the House to take into view the whole question relating to the participation of others in the transaction now before the House. I think my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee will see that the House is empowered to deal not only with the delinquencies of a particular individual, but with the whole matter. I would, therefore, recommend—without in the slightest degree implying that the Committee have gone beyond their duty, because I do not think that they have gone beyond their duty—I would recom- mend the House to accept the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and supported by the hon. and learned Attorney General. I believe that that would be the wisest course on the whole, and the one most conducive to the satisfactory discharge of whatever duties may be found to be incumbent upon the House hereafter.

When the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) asked for a Select Committee to inquire into the character of these Public Petitions, it will be remembered that I asked for an all-round inquiry, not only into the Petitions in favour of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues, but also into those which have been presented against those dues. In making one or two comments upon the Report of the Committee, perhaps the House will allow me to thank the Committee for the great pains they have taken in inquiring into the matter, and to assure them that I have no desire to criticize their conduct in any hostile spirit. In regard to Clause 2 of the Report which they have presented, I find that it contains this statement—

"With regard to the Petitions against the Bill, we find that, whilst irregularities have been proved in the manner in which signatures there obtained, the signatures are, in the main, genuine, and free from suspicion of fraud."

Now, I venture to think that that statement is not altogether in accordance with the evidence in the Blue Book. Two Petitions were sent to me to present; one of them from King's Cross—a Petition against the Coal and Wine Dues—contained 72 signatures, 10 of which were found to be improper signatures. A second Petition which I presented came from East St. Pancras, the district which I have the honour to represent. That Petition contained between 70 and 80 signatures, only 39 of which came from the borough of St. Pancras, a constituency comprising 250,000 inhabitants. Eighteen of these signatures proved to be fictitious, a great number representing individuals who could not be discovered, and two or three persons whose names were attached to the Petition stated that they had not signed it. In this case I volunteered the evidence of an expert in handwriting, Mr. Inglis, who could have given evi- dence before the Committee quite as conclusive as that which was given by Mr. Nethercliff; but the Committee stated that they regarded the evidence of Mr. Nethercliff as conclusive, altogether ignoring the fact that, on two occasions, Mr. Nethercliff's testimony has not been found to be altogether reliable by Courts of Law. Therefore, in my opinion, the evidence of that Gentleman ought to have been very carefully considered. But what was the whole object and aim of the inquiry? Why was it, let me ask, that the hon. Member for Northampton called for an inquiry? I am perfectly cognizant of the fact that he called for it with a view of casting any obloquy he could on the Corporation of the City of London.

I rise to Order. I have to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and learned Member is entitled to say that I asked for the adjournment of the original debate from any other motive than that which I stated to the House at the time.

I only suggested, Sir—

Order, order! The hon. and learned Member must be aware that the imputation of motives is un-parliamentary, and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman, on reflection, will not desire to impute anything in the shape of an unworthy motive.

Oh, I quite withdraw that. Let me now turn to the statement which the hon. Member made in regard to these Petitions. He said that there are other persons very much more guilty, including gentlemen who are intimately connected with the Corporation of London.

My statement was that the persons who employed these men, and continued to employ similar men, after they had received full notice of the improper practices which had been resorted to, were quite as criminal as the men themselves.

I quite follow the hon. Member's remarks; but, perhaps, he will allow me to state that we have been placed in a difficulty, in consequence of having only received the evidence given before the Committee today. I have run hurriedly through the evidence given by Bidmead himself, and I find that, although it is asserted that he was a poor man, unable to obtain employment, and was tempted to do what he did, owing to the prospect of securing the patronage of a wealthy Corporation, that, as a matter of fact, he made very little attempt to secure employment at all, and, although be was an individual who could have earned a livelihood in a proper way, he decided not to do so. It has been asserted that it is wrong for the Corporation of the City of London to endeavour to obtain Petitions in favour of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues in this way; but when a deputation from the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board of Works waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were told that he was anxious to ascertain what the feelings of the people of London were upon the subject. Then I would ask any reasonable man to say how that opinion was to find expression. Not one in 1,000 knew anything about the matter, and it was only possible to obtain an expression of opinion by some organized effort. You have had an expression of public opinion against the continuance of these dues; but has not that been the result of organized effort? Mr. Lloyd, in his evidence, states that £123 were spent in employing men to sit at street corners and collect signatures to Petitions. This fact is mentioned in the Report of the Committee, and in the last paragraph of the Report special attention is called to the practice of collecting signatures to Petitions at street corners. It does not say that this occurred in the case of Petitions against the Coal and Wine Dues, and I venture to suggest that the Report of the Committee would have been more explicit if that fact had been recorded. Undoubtedly individuals did sit at the street corners to collect Petitions, and Mr. Isaacs, a Member of this House—[ Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. and learned Member must designate another hon. Member by his Parliamentary title.

I was referring to the evidence given by a particular Gentleman before a Select Committee of this House, and I understood that I was in Order in referring to that Gentleman by name. As, however, you have corrected me, I will say that the hon. Member who represents one of the Divisions of Walworth appeared before the Committee and gave evidence. And what did he state? He said that, looking out from a window near Holborn Town Hall, he saw scores of boys and girls under 13 busily engaged in signing Petitions against the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues, and the evidence of the hon. Member was corroborated by that of another gentleman who said he had seen the same thing going on for weeks. Yet this is a question greatly affecting the interests of the ratepayers of London who are called upon to pay £500,000 in some form or other; and the sole question is, whether it shall be contributed towards Metropolitan improvements or not. I quite follow the Report of the Committee, when they say that there ought to be a thorough inquiry into the way in which public opinion is presented to this House by the medium of Petitions; but I think that such an inquiry should also be directed towards ascertaining how it was that out of 138 Petitions presented to this House by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) against the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill 108 were reported to contain fictitious signatures. I cannot find that in consequence of that Report the burning indignation of the hon. Member for Northampton has been directed towards the Petitioners. No; he leaves all his fiery rhetoric and indignation for those who endeavour to do their duty by the citizens of the Metropolis.

May I point out that there is not a solitary word in the Report of the Committee about any Petition presented by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool?

No; but there is in the Report a recommendation that there should be an inquiry into all Petitions; and I think I am in Order in supporting that idea by referring to some of them. Mr. Lloyd appeared before the Committee, who almost received him with open arms, because he was the Secretary to an Anti-Something. Mr. Lloyd described himself as Secretary to the Anti-Coal and Wine Dues Committee; but no inquiry was made as to what the Committee was composed of, although it is well known who compose the Committees of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of the City of London. As a matter of fact, not 1 s. has been spent by the Metropolitan Board of Works either in the promotion of these Petitions or in any other manner that the House could, in the smallest degree, deprecate. When this gentleman—Mr. Lloyd—appeared before the Committee, he said—

"I am the Secretary of the Anti-Coal and Wine Dues Association. I am associated also with the London Municipal Reform League;"

and the Committee put no further questions to him. He stated that, although there were 25,000 signatures appended to the Petitions presented against the Dues, he was able to identify every one of them, although a little later on in his evidence he drew in his horns. I will read you what he said in Question 1,003—

"How do you know that they were bonâ fide signatures?"

His answer was—

"The Petitions appeared to be authentic, and the signatures appeared to be bonâ fide; and I know the handwriting of a good many of the persons whose signatures are attached."

Probably this gentleman was able to verify all the signatures of the children whom the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Isaacs) referred to. Subsequently, Mr. Lloyd was asked—

"You say that you saw the Petitions properly obtained, and properly signed—How do you know this?"

The reply was—

"We take proper steps."

What are the proper steps?"

was the next question; and Mr. Lloyd said—

"Well, we employ proper persons to do the duty."

Then it would seem that if you work for a Municipality you are a wicked individual; but if you have joined an Association with the word "Anti" before it which is agitating against it, you are elevated at once to the highest pedestal of moral virtue. I intend to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton; but if it is intended to include in the reprimand the names of Mr. Wragg and Mr. Carlton Roberts, I shall certainly move to include the name of Mr. Lloyd.

I feel that this case ought scarcely to remain where it is. I cannot say that I agree altogether with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) in this particular instance, although he has been backed up to-night by the two Front Benches. In my view this is a very serious case; and I am afraid that many hon. Members have not had time to look into the evidence, owing to the fact that it was only presented to-day. But with regard to the case of this man Bidmead, it is undoubtedly a gross one, especially when we take into consideration the facts admitted in evidence with regard to Roberts, Wragg, and Hallett. On looking through the evidence given by these gentlemen, one is struck by the fact that almost the whole of it, from beginning to end, shows plainly that it was made purposely to be brought before the Committee. There is one singular thing in connection with these Petitions, and the charge of malversation against the Corporation of London, which recently came before a Committee, and that is that everybody connected with the Corporation of London who has been engaged in these practices has an exceedingly bad memory. All of the witnesses seem to have been utterly unable to remember what took place last night, or the day before; but what the reason is it is very difficult indeed to say. The hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) has endeavoured to throw dust in the eyes of the House over the matter by referring to what may have been done on the other side. If I remember rightly, the hon. and learned Member engaged to prove, when he addressed the House on the question some days ago, that if these bad things had been done by the Corporation of the City of London, very much worse things had been done by the Municipal Reform League. As hon. Gentlemen have not had much time to consider the evidence, I will call their attention to paragraph 2 of the Report of the Committee. It is a very short one. The Committee who investigated the matter most carefully say—

"With regard to the Petitions against the Bill, they find that, whilst irregularities have been proved in the manner in which signatures were obtained, the signatures are, in the main, genuine, and free from suspicion of fraud."

I rise to a point of Order. I did criticize that paragraph in the remarks I made.

That is not a point of Order at all.

I call attention to this matter because the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras called in question the good faith of the Committee. Now, the Committee sat with exemplary patience to investigate the whole matter, and they come to the conclusion that the signatures appended to the Petitions against the Coal and Wine Dues were in the main genuine and free from suspicion of fraud. Now, what is the charge against the men who have been concerned in getting up the Petitions in favour of the Bill? It is that the Petitions have been wholesale forgeries from beginning to end; and, therefore, I say to this House that if you have any respect for your own dignity you ought to punish the men who have been shown to be instrumental in carrying out these frauds. I do not think it is a sufficient justification for allowing this unfortunate man Bidmead to escape to assert that you may not be able to get hold of others who are more culpable. Such a plea would not be allowed in any Criminal Court of Law, and you are asked to act in direct violation of the principles of the Constitution and of the Rules of this House. If you cannot get hold of the greater criminals, at any rate punish the men who, on their own admission, committed this fraud. The frauds have been going on for a considerable time, and I ventured when I brought the matter before the House to intimate that frauds had been committed with regard to Petitions in favour of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues; and the Public Petitions Committee have reported that among those who got up the Petitions in favour of the continuance of those dues were Wragg, Roberts, and Hallett. In fact, they have been doing it for a considerable time; but this is the first time that a Committee of this House has been able to put their hands upon the actual criminals in the case. No doubt, there is some difficulty in regard to the getting up of Petitions. I own that there is some difficulty. I may, however, mention to the House that for a period extending over 30 years I have had a great deal to do with the getting up of Petitions. Perhaps no single Member of this House ever had to do with a larger number; but in no single instance, save one, has any Petition which passed through my hands been called in question by a Committee of this House, and in no case have the signatures been called in question. The single exception happened only this year, and it had reference to a Petition presented by myself. I saw that the Petition was faulty, but there were circumstances connected with it which led me to think that it had better go before the Committee. Perhaps the House will not be surprised when I say that that Petition came to me from this very Mr. Carlton Roberts, who has had so much to do with the getting up of these bogus Petitions. I think that every hon. Member ought, under ordinary circumstances, to take care to see that the Petitions which he presents to this House are genuine, and I have invariably endeavoured to do so; but there can be no doubt that in this case no care whatever was taken to ascertain their genuineness, or it would have been discovered at once that they were fictitious. I am afraid that those who have had this matter in hand have cared very little whether the Petitions were genuine or not. What they wanted to show to the House and to the country was, as some hon. Gentlemen had declared, that the people of London were in favour of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues, and they were determined also to throw blame upon the Petitions presented upon the other side. There is no proof whatever of the assertion that the Petitions presented on the other side were fraudulently obtained, and paid for in the same way as the Petitions got up in favour of the Continuance Bill. The fact is that payment for getting up Petitions to this House is radically wrong, and some steps ought to be taken to prevent it in future. This House, however, must not be deluded by statements of hon. Members as to what has been done by somebody on behalf of the other side. What the Committee had to do was to inquire into the Petitions referred to them, and having done so they state that Bidmead, on his own confession, had forged 1,600 or 1,700 names. Although, I am sorry to go against what appears to be the general view of the House, I do not think the lesser criminal should be allowed to escape because you cannot get hold of and punish the aiders and abettors who employed him. I feel that this man ought to be punished for having committed fraud and forgery, and the House might then adopt the suggestion of the noble Viscount the Member for South Molton (Viscount Lymington), and call before the House at least one of the persons reported by the Committee — namely, Hallett, who paid for the getting up of the Petitions. I trust that the question of these Petitions will be further considered at no very distant date, and that in future care will be taken on both sides that none but bonâ fide Petitions are presented to this House.

In the Motion before the House we are asked to declare that Mr. Bidmead has been guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of this House. To that proposition, in itself, I readily assent; but I am unwilling to vote upon it at the present time, because I am afraid that if that course be taken we may be precluded from declaring, at some future period, that the persons with whom Bidmead has been associated have also been guilty of a Breach of Privilege. Moreover, if this proposition is carried, we shall then be face to face with graver issues. It is intended to be proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), as a consequential Motion, that we should commit Bidmead to Newgate, and that proposition has been supported by my hon. Colleague behind me (Mr. Howell). On the other hand, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) proposes that we shall adopt a less drastic course. With this difference of opinion in influential quarters I rise to plead for delay. A Blue Book containing 150 pages has been placed in our hands only a few hours ago, and it is impossible for hon. Members to have read, much less to have weighed and digested, the evidence which it contains. I should like the House to bear in mind that we must not only be careful not to visit Bidmead with too severe a punishment, but there is also a still more important aspect of the question; and that is that we should not, by taking a too precipitate course of action, prevent ourselves from punishing the persons with whom Bidmead has been in negotiation, if it is possible to punish them. There is one remark which arises, even upon a superficial reading of the Report—namely, the manner in which the censure of the Committee has been apportioned. It seems to have been apportioned inversely to the social position of the offender. There are five persons implicated. The man at the apex of the structure is the City Solicitor, who employed Wragg, a respectable Conservative agent. Wragg employed Carlton Roberts; below Roberts comes John Hallett, and below Hallett is this man Reginald Bidmead. But how are these five persons dealt with in this Report? The City Solicitor escapes without a single animadversion whatever upon his conduct. Then we come to the second degree—Mr. Wragg. It may be said that his conduct is condemned by implication in this Report, but he is not blamed by name; and it is only when we reach the third degree in the descending scale that the Committee, by name, censure any individual at all. They say that the neglect of Mr. Carlton Roberts to exercise proper supervision over the work of his sub-agents led directly to the irregularities that followed. And so the scale descends until we reach this unlucky man—Bidmead. I object altogether to the mode in which the punishment has been apportioned by the Committee. To strike with a heavy hand a poor half-starving fellow who yielded to the temptation held out to him, and to pass over the sleek, well-fed gentlemen in broad cloth who held out the temptation, is, in my opinion, to offer a direct encouragement to corruption, because it increases, in the highest quarters, the sense of immunity. I am afraid that we shall never get rid of these grave scandals so long as we pounce down upon the small fry, and let the large fish escape. The Members of this House, the vast majority of them for the first time, are asked to exercise the powers of penal jurisdiction. That is, I maintain, a very grave responsibility for the House to take upon itself; and if such a power is to be exercised at all, it ought to be exercised with due deliberation, and with full knowledge of the facts. It is impossible, at the present time, for the House to be fully informed of the facts on which its judgment ought alone to be based, and I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Does any hon. Member second the Motion?

I will second the Motion?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—( Mr. Pickersgill. )

I see no reason whatever for the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member who moved it says that no opportunity has been afforded for studying the Report of the Committee, and he says that the Committee have dealt with the persons accused before them in accordance with their social status. I will not characterize as it deserves such a statement. The Committee had all the cases fully before them, and they considered each upon its merits alone. As a matter of fact, if the House were to consider the evidence for a month, they could not have put before them, in a more summary form, the result of that evidence. I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) in considering the case of Bidmead as a special one. The House, although naturally leaning to an indulgent view of his case, will no doubt remember that, whatever may have been the neglect of duty on the part of the more important persons concerned, Bidmead did, by his own confession, forge an enormous number of these signatures, and it is not suggested that the City Solicitor, or the other persons whose names are mentioned in the Report, desired that. The Committee do not suggest what the punishment of Bidmead should be, but they point out that this case is exceptional, and that the offence of which he has been guilty is a very grave one. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster), who has reflected on the Committee and the reception which they gave to the evidence of Mr. Lloyd, I will only say that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had the fullest opportunity of bringing all his cases before the Committee; and the Committee, after giving full attention to his statement, made the Report they did as to the Petitions on the other side. I think, also, that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was somewhat misled by the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) as to the relation in which the hon. Member stood to the Committee. The hon. Member did not, in any degree, appear in the character of a public prosecutor. Having said that, may I be allowed to state that the hon. Member rendered very great assistance to the Committee.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.

Then I will not detain the House longer.

I would appeal to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) not to press the Motion for Adjournment. The Question now before the House is whether the Breach of Privilege has been committed. After that a Motion may be made that the persons implicated should be brought to the Bar of the House on a future day, and upon that Motion it will be competent for the hon. Member to make any observations he may think fit. No Member of the House will be, in the slightest degree, compromised if this Motion is agreed to.

Sir, in deference to what I consider to be the general sense of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

I cannot allow the present occasion to pass without reference to some observations made by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Webster) with regard to some Petitions presented by me. I should not have taken notice of those observations had not they been repeated by the hon. and learned Member amid the cheers of his Party. I protest against this attempt, so to speak, to draw a red herring across the path of Business in this House. What happened is this. I presented a certain number of Petitions to this House; it was discovered that many of these Petitions contained irregularities, a fact which I have never denied. But those irregularities were of a nature very different from those which are now before the House. They were the irregularities of parents signing for their children, and of persons signing for others who, being illiterate, could not sign for themselves. That being so, I think it very unfair for hon. Members to drag those Petitions into the same category with those that rested on fraud and forgery.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), I think, used the words that the Committee had put their hands on the actual criminals. Now, if that were the case, I have no doubt they would have mentioned them in their Report. It may be that the Members of the Committee had their opinion as to who the criminals were; but there was no evidence before them of those persons being the criminals. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of one person as being the tool of several others, which words conveyed the idea that the gentlemen referred to had made use of that person as a tool. But that is not the case at all, as far as we ascertained the fact, because on several occasions Bidmead himself, and other agents, made use of the expression that the signatures they got were to be genuine. Whether they—the agents—had any suspicion that some of the signatures were not genuine I do not know; but, at any rate, they said that the signatures were to be genuine. Again, the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Webster), in a rather excited manner, found fault with the way in which the Committee had reported on this question. He has been good enough to put his opinion against that of 15 Members of the Committee. I think that, on the whole, the Committee came to a very just and a very right conclusion. An hon. Member opposite seems to be rather inclined to send Mr. Bidmead to a place where he would be taken great care of. I have no doubt that every Member of the Committee thinks that Mr. Bidmead deserves very severe censure at your hands, Sir, and my only reason for inclining to the opinion of the hon. Member is that if he were sent to Newgate or any other place for a day, the matter would become much more known, and people would learn that he had been engaged in getting up Petitions which were false.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) in saying that, so far as my recollection goes, a more gross case has never been brought before the House of Commons. We have it here, on Bidmead's own confession, that he has forged 1,700 signatures with the object of being paid for them at the rate of 4 s. per 100. I say that this constitutes such a Breach of Privilege that, were it not for the one circumstance that we are on the eve of the Jubilee, I should be ready to support the proposal that steps should be taken other than that suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster).

Original Question put.

Resolved, That Reginald Bidmead, having fabricated signatures to certain Petitions presented to this House, has been guilty of Contempt and a Breach of the Privileges of this House.

I am bound to say that this is a very bad case, and that the Committee were unanimous as to its being a Breach of the Privileges of this House; but, in deference to the view expressed by the hon. and learned Attorney General and my right hon. Friend, I will take the more merciful course of moving that Reginald Bidmead attend at the Bar of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Reginald Bidmead do attend this House on Thursday next, the 23rd instant, at Four of the clock, to be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker."—( Sir Charles Forster. )

I venture to suggest that we should leave out the last words of the Motion, "to be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker," which will afford hon. Members between this and Thursday time to give due consideration to the arguments advanced on the other side of the House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "to be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker."—[ Mr. Picton. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

As I ventured to point out, there are three courses open to us—one, upon the warrant of Mr. Speaker to order imprisonment in Newgate; the second, to order the individual into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms; and the third, to order his attendance at the Bar of the House to be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, I think it would be anomalous that Bidmead should come to the Bar without knowing whether he is to be reprimanded or not; and, therefore, it would, in my opinion, be better that what is directed to be done should be stated on the face of the Order.

I hope the House will agree to the Motion as originally proposed. In this case Bidmead appears to have acted as the tool of much more important individuals, and the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Baronet would not prevent us from exercising our right with regard to those persons.

After the opinions which have been expressed I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

I would ask whether, if the Resolution be carried, it would be competent to Mr. Bidmead to make any statement in his defence?

I understand the hon. Gentleman opposite to say that he is considering the cases of other individuals, and I ask whether we should be precluded from dealing with the case of Mr. Hallett?

A Member would not be precluded from bringing forward a Motion to deal with that case.

I should like to ask what prospect there is of any further censure being passed in this case, because at present I gather that the sense of the House is that there has been a general miscarriage of justice? It does not appear that any steps are to be taken to bring the real culprits to justice; and to go through the formality of merely reprimanding Bidmead appears to me, having regard to the general aspect of the case, a rather weak course.

The position is that, this man having confessed himself guilty, the House is asked to decide that he should attend at the Bar to be reprimanded by me. I apprehend that the adoption of that course would not pre- vent the case of any other person being dealt with.

I have already placed on the Books of the House another Notice of Motion, which goes much further than the present question, and I have the pledge of the Leader of the House that the Government will afford facilities for bringing that Motion forward.

In this particular case there are three persons named as having been guilty of frauds and forgeries. I ask whether we shall be in Order in reprimanding more than one person?

At present Reginald Bidmead has been adjudged guilty of Contempt and of a Breach of the Privileges of this House; and he is the only person who has been so adjudged.

I want to know whether we are not ourselves a good deal to blame with regard to these Petitions? I must confess myself to having presented a number of Petitions to this House without examination, nor did I think it my duty to do so. I believe, however, that if hon. Members had examined the Petitions which they presented much of what has occurred would have been prevented. In this case, I think that, the man having confessed himself guilty, it is very difficult to pass over the matter; but I should like to express my opinion that some blame attaches to Members who presented the Petitions.

Original Question put.

Ordered, That Reginald Bidmead do attend this House on Thursday next, the 23rd instant, at Four of the clock, to be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Orders that the several Petitions, viz. those from Greenwich and Camberwell; Homerton and Hackney; Ilford; North Hackney; North West Ham; Dalston, Hackney, and Kingsland; South East London; Hackney and Dalston; Southwark; Bromley St. Leonard; Clerkenwell; St. Pancras: Hackney and East London; Haggerston; Bow; Notting Hill; East London; North Hackney; Lower Clapton; South East London; Lambeth; Shoreditch; City of London; West Ham; Dalston; Dulwich and Peckham; Deptford and Greenwich; Brixton and Peckham; Bromley by Bow do lie upon the Table be read and discharged; and that the said Petitions be rejected."—( Sir Charles Forster. )

I presume, Sir, that if the Orders on the Paper be discharged and the Petitions cancelled, they will cease to be within the jurisdiction of this House?

It would not prevent notice being taken of them if further proceedings were ordered with respect to them.

Question put, and agreed to.

On rising to challenge this Vote, I wish to state that I do so with reference to Sub-head I, in the same way as I challenged it last year, and as I intend to do every time the Estimates are presented, until the Government of the day couple with the Estimates, of which this Vote is the first item, a Memorandum showing the total cost of the Royal Family to the State. At the present time the most extraordinary statements are made on the subject, and one hon. Member of this House connected with a paper largely circulating among the Conservative Party, to whom I gave notice of my intention to bring forward this matter, has lately circulated a statement in which the cost of the Royal Family differs from my estimate by the sum of nearly £600,000 a-year. Such a discrepancy as that ought not to be possible. It is clear that either I or the hon. Member is in error. I am quite sure, with regard to the hon. Member, he has circulated a statement which he believes to be true; and I am also of opinion that I have taken reasonable pains to make myself acquainted with the figures. I admit there is considerable difficulty in arriving at the amount; but I suggest that it ought not to be possible for a Member of the Government on one side and an independent Member of the House on the other to differ in their calculations to the extent of £600,000.

I do not think the hon. Member can argue that question upon this Vote.

I contend that on this Vote I am bound to give the Committee my reasons for dividing the Committee against it. My point is that the Government ought, with the Estimates, to present a Memorandum showing the total cost to the State of Her Majesty and the other members of the Royal Family, and when you put the Vote from the Chair it is my intention to divide the Committee against it.

In support of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) I beg to remind the Committee that in the Appropriation Act there is furnished every year the detailed cost of every one of the Services of the country, with the exception of this particular charge. There is no general statement furnished of the total cost connected with the Royal Family.

As I understand that this Vote is going to be challenged rather by way of protest, I do not think it necessary to enter into the matter at great length. All I can say is that it was decided that after a certain date this portion of the Vote should be stated under three heads—first, Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty; second, Palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty; and, third, Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. Since then, the details have been set out at much greater length than before. I am bound to say, therefore, that I do not see what difficulty the hon. Member finds in this item of the Vote, the three heads of figures being added up for him.

I did not say there was any difficulty as to the cost of the Palaces. I said that the first item in the Estimates was connected with the cost of the Royal Family, and I mentioned that on the subject of the total cost the hon. Member for Sheffield differed from me in the sum of £500,000 or more.

I can only assure the hon. Member that the whole expenditure on the Royal Palaces is put down here. It is fully set out, and I am not aware what are the other expenses to which the hon. Member refers.

To explain my meaning with regard to the cost of the Royal Family I will put it in this way—I make it nearly £800,000 per annum—

I again intervene to say that it is quite irregular to enter into that discussion.

Before the Vote is taken on the first item, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say why he includes the charge for the maintenance and repair of the White Lodge, Windsor.

This is one of those residences which are not in the occupation of Her Majesty, but are, by the favour of the Sovereign, allowed to be occupied by others.

That is precisely the point. There are Palaces which are let by Her Majesty to other persons, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us that this is one of them.

This is a Vote to which I think Members who are in favour of economy should always object, and lose no opportunity of protesting against. In making our protests we have had the enormous advantage of the assistance of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). I remember that, when two or three years ago we were discussing the extraordinary and monstrous amount of money spent on the Royal Palaces, the most able speech made on the occasion came from the noble Lord — then Member for Woodstock. The absence of the noble Lord from the Committee is very much to be regretted on the present occasion, because if the noble Lord is consistent in his pursuit of economy he would find this a good opportunity for cutting down extravagance. The Vote, so far from being reduced, shows a large increase for the present year, the total expenditure for last year being £31,943, as against £35,984 for 1887–8, and the increase £4,000. I ask if it is not a sham for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to preach economy in this Committee while this Vote is passed without any other than the energetic protests of my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton? The amount of the expenditure on the Palaces occupied by Her Majesty is not in dispute. If hon. Members will look at the items they will find that the increased expenditure is not in connection with the Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, but upon those with which she has nothing even anonymously to do. There is a decrease on those in the personal occupation of Her Majesty, for in the present year they only cost £12,589, as against £12,936 for 1886–7; and I find also a decrease on account of Palaces only partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, the amount for 1887£8 being only £2,071, as against £2,647 last year. There is, however, a great increase in the item on account of Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, which has risen from £16,360 to £21,322 for the present year. What is the cause of this increase? I have no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will get up and say that the expenditure of the whole of this money is absolutely necessary, and that there is not a plumber or carpenter who receives 6 d. too much, which is what few people in this country can say with regard to their humble dwellings. The reason of this increase is that the occupation of some of these Palaces is given by way of pension to certain persons. Now, the system of pensions is one which is open to many objections, and I think it would be a better plan to pay public servants well, and leave it to them to make provision for old age. What is the case in America? The President of the United States, the moment he steps down from his great position, has to earn his living as everyone else in the land has to do, and that I say is a good example to set the people of the country, both in prudence and citizenship. In this country there is a search by the Government for pensioners, and here, in the item I refer to, there is one of the most flagrant abuses of the principle of economy. There is a charge of £14,507 on account of Hampton Court Palace this year, as against £9,209 last year; and although that expenditure is, no doubt, due to the fire that occurred there, I want to know what right the occupants of the Palace have to be living there at the cost of the taxpayers of the country? No doubt, there are among them persons who have been good public servants; but, at the same time, I think that a large number of them have no more right to be there than they have to receive public pay. Then there is the point to which the senior Member for Northampton has drawn attention, and which I think has not received sufficient attention from the Chief Commissioner of Works—namely, that some of these Palaces are lent to foreigners. That is, I think, a monstrous abuse. I should be sorry that this country should not afford refuge to foreigners; but to give them furniture and housing at the expense of the taxpayers is a thing which the taxpayers, if they knew it, would unanimously condemn. This is not a time when the people can afford to make ducks and drakes of their money, because at no period has there been so great distress, at no time have so many people been knocking at the portals of Parliament for work to enable them to support their families; and if we were to dock from the Estimates, as we ought to do, many thousands of expenditure under such heads as this, I am sure we should be able to get rid of a large proportion of the pauperism which disgraces the country.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 105; Noes 62: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 249.) [7.15 P.M.]

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,020, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Maintenance and Repair of Marlborough House."

In connection with this Vote I wish to ask a question as to the responsibility for sweeping the pathways in the neighbourhood of Marlborough House, and other similar establishments, during the winter months. When the fall of snow occurred last winter, the footpaths in the vicinity of most of the public offices were allowed to remain in the most disgraceful state, although we heard of constant complaints, and even of prosecutions, against shopkeepers for not clearing away the snow. So far as the front of Marlborough House was concerned, the snow was allowed to accumulate, and the footpaths were in a most deplorable condition. As a matter of fact, they are, at all times of the year, persistently kept unswept. If there are not sufficient men employed in the Royal Mews to sweep away the snow, I think it would be well to get the services of some of the poor labourers who are out of employment at such a time, so that the paths may be made passable. The footpaths in front of St. James' Palace, Marlborough House, and the public offices last winter were totally neglected, while tradespeople were being prosecuted in all directions for not keeping the pathways clear. In fact, those who ought to set a good example are those who persistently neglect their duty.

I believe that the circumstance mentioned by the hon. Member arose from the suddenness and heaviness of the fall of snow, the result being that the machinery at our disposal became overtaxed. I will make inquiry into the matter, and will promise the hon. Member that in future years the complaint he has made shall be borne in mind.

I have been studying the Report which has been presented to us in reference to this Vote, and I think it is somewhat extraordinary that the item for the maintenance and repairs of Marlborough House should be a constantly increasing item. I find in the present Vote that the sum asked for maintenance and repairs under Sub-head B. for 1887–8 is £1,455, or £315 in excess of the sum voted last year. The item includes charges for sanitary works and repairs in connection with fittings for the stables at Marlborough House; but I fail to see why we should be asked now, without explanation, to vote £1,455 this year, when last year we were only asked to vote £1,140. I cannot see why, when the country is asked, year after year, to vote these large sums of money for the maintenance of the Royal Establishments, the items themselves should be allowed to go on perpetually increasing. It is said that "a rolling stone gathers no moss;" but certainly this is a rolling stone which goes on rolling year after year, and contrives to pick up a good deal of the money of the taxpayers of the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Vote will be able to give us a satisfactory account of the increase we are asked to provide at the present moment. Of course, I am fully aware that when you have to make improved sanitary arrange- ments in connection with such an important establishment as Marlborough House the money is generally very wisely laid out. All I hope is that in this case the First Commissioner of Works may be able to show that it has been satisfactorily laid out. I am only a young Member of the House; but I must be allowed to say that I have frequently seen money expended in sanitary works which altogether failed to accomplish what was expected from them. Personally, I have had a good deal of practical knowledge of these matters, particularly in times past, and it has been my duty to inquire into the subject. The result has been that I have been able to find out that there are no items which come under the consideration of public bodies in this country which are more uselessly expended than items in connection with sanitary works. I shall await with anxiety the explanation of the First Commissioner of Works, and I hope he will be able to account for the expenditure in a satisfactory manner; otherwise I shall be obliged to feel it my duty, painful although it will be, to divide the Committee against the Vote.

The hon. Member has himself shown that the increase upon the Vote of last year is very trifling indeed. It has been rendered necessary, as is explained on the face of the Vote itself, by the expenditure which has been incurred in connection with the improvement of the drainage of Marlborough House.

I cannot help recollecting the difficulty which arose in regard to the drainage of this House, owing to the absence of any proper plans of the drainage. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in the improvements which are now taking place in connection with the public buildings, plans of all the drains are kept; and whether, if not, he will see that plans are prepared?

I believe that within the last few years plans have been made of all the drains connected with the public offices which are under the control of the First Commissioner of Works. I know, further, that Marlborough House was fairly drained, I think, the year before last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that eight or nine years ago the sum of £8,000 or £9,000 was spent in the recasting of the whole system of drainage at Marlborough House. The drains were then supposed to be put in first rate condition, and yet we are asked now to expend £315 in repairs. Has something faulty been discovered in the drainage? If so, somebody ought to be made responsible.

It did not occur in my time.

I have had a good deal of experience of drains, and I always find that the drain doctors differ in their mode of treatment, one attempting to mend the plans of another, and the result is often blood poisoning. Some of those who deal with the drains have absolutely no knowledge of the matters with which they profess to deal. I am quite certain that defects will be found out in every house after a period of from five or 10 years, and I know that there are many Members who are of opinion that the drainage of this House will have to be all done over again in the course of a few years, although it is much improved by the work done last autumn. This is certainly not a very large sum to spend upon Marlborough House.

I think it is not unreasonable to ask for information in regard to these drains, so that we may be satisfied that the public money is not being wasted. At present the questions which have been put to the First Commissioner have not been satisfactorily answered; and I will, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £315, which represents the excess over the Vote of last year.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £705, be granted for the said Services."—( Mr. O'Hea. )

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the questions which have been addressed to him, nor has he given the Committee the names of the persons who are responsible for the drains. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be in possession of them, or will find it easy to obtain the information from the office of the Department. He ought to be in a position to answer any demand for information in reference to the Votes which may be made to him. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) says that the treatment of drainage is a matter on which drain doctors constantly disagree, and that very often the patient dies in consequence. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman; but I am sorry that, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on that head, he should attempt to endorse the system which is being carried on in reference to Marlborough House. Certainly the money expended in keeping up the residence of the future King of England ought to be judiciously expended, and should be adequate to protect the Heir Apparent from the dangerous influence of malaria contracted from a defective system of drainage. I would advise my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his usually courteous and civil manner, will answer the question which has been put to him and say who the contractor for these drainage works was.

I am quite ready to answer any reasonable question; but, seeing that these drains have been in existence for about 10 years, it is somewhat unreasonable to suppose that I should know the name of the person who was originally in charge of works of this kind.

Who has carried out the works to which the Vote applies?

[No reply.]

I do not wonder at the hesitation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I believe that 10 years ago—in 1877—the right hon. and learned Gentleman was himself in Office as First Commissioner of Works.

No; not First Commissioner of Works.

At any rate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in Office, and he will recollect, I think, that although the Government went in for a special policy in regard to sanitary questions, one of the most disastrous results of bad sewage was brought to light at that time. I am about to join in the appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, because I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, that the drains of Marlborough House have now justified their claim to be looked after, and some additional expenditure incurred upon them.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea) will do whatever is best in reference to his Amendment; but I would point out to the First Commissioner of Works that we have no guarantee that we may not be called upon for expenditure of this kind year after year. This is not the first occasion on which an appeal has been made to Parliament for money since the drainage works at Marlborough House were originally laid down. There was a large item in the Votes last year for a somewhat analogous purpose; and we have no assurance that there will not be a steady and continued demand year after year for further repairs. Indeed, this Department of Works is the most extravagant Department in the whole of the Civil Service, and is guilty of more jobbery and plunder of the public than any other. On every occasion when the work of that Department is brought before the House I shall feel it my duty to protest against the wholesale extravagance and general robbery which take place in connection with it. Having made that protest, I would ask my hon. Friend not to carry the matter further now.

By the leave of the Committee I will withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £71,430, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

I have placed an Amendment upon the Paper for the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £109 10 s., the salary of the Ranger of Richmond Park. I had placed on the Paper an Amendment for the reduction of the Vote by the items for Battersea Park, Bethnal Green Museum Grounds, Kennington Park, and Victoria Park; but I do not intend to press that Amendment. But with regard to those Parks, a Bill has been prepared to carry out the vote come to by the House some time ago, and as soon as that Bill is passed the Parks themselves will be handed over to the Local Authorities. I, therefore, propose to confine myself to the reduction of the salary of the Ranger of Richmond Park. I think the time has come for putting an end to all absolute sinecures; and I have not the slightest doubt that the Rangership of Richmond Park, of St. James's Park, and the Green Park are sinecures. I find that there is a Deputy Ranger for Richmond Park, who receives a salary of £63 a-year and a Bailiff and other officials, whose salaries amount to £700. In this case the Ranger, who is the Duke of Cambridge, has the right of shooting in Richmond Park; but I think it is perfectly absurd that within nine or 10 miles of London game should be preserved for the benefit of any one in what is practically a public Park. I know perfectly well what the answer will be—namely, that when the Civil List was settled, it was agreed that the game should belong to Her Majesty; but since then London has largely extended in that direction, so that Richmond is now almost part of London. No doubt this is a Royal Park in which Henry VIII. and others were in the habit of hunting wild animals; but at the present moment it is one of the Metropolitan Parks, and game ought not to be preserved there. The public living in the neighbourhood are constantly complaining of what takes place, and especially of the depredations of the large number of rabbits kept there. The rabbits make holes in the ground, which render it dangerous for any person to ride on horseback in the Park. Nor do I see why portions of the Park should be inclosed for the preservation of pheasants and other birds for the sole benefit of the Duke of Cambridge. I object to the right of shooting game and preserving game which is inherent to the position of Ranger, and I object, also, to the office of Ranger as an absolute sinecure. The Ranger has nothing to do, and yet he gets an advantage by being Ranger. There is certainly no reason why he should get £100 a-year when he has officers to do the work of keeping the game there. I therefore beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £109 10 s.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £71,320 10 s., be granted for the said Services."—( Mr. Labouchere. )

As regards the first question to which the hon. Member for Northampton. (Mr. Labouchere) has referred—namely, the transferring of certain of the Metropolitan Parks to the Metropolitan Board of Works, I am glad to assure him that a Bill for that purpose, having passed a second reading, has been referred to a Committee, and that we held the first meeting of that Committee this day. I hope that Bill may pass through all its stages without much change or difficulty this Session, and in anticipation of that Bill being so passed we have framed Estimates, only taking sufficient for three-quarters of a year. Now, as regards the Ranger of Richmond Park, the hon. Gentleman says he knows very well the answer which will be given him. He is quite right; because, as a matter of fact, the answer I have to give is the one which has satisfied Parliament after Parliament, certainly the Parliaments of which I have had any experience. The answer is, that the Ranger is appointed under powers given by statute. The Queen has the undoubted authority to appoint him. The present Ranger was appointed in the usual way. He is Ranger over Richmond Park, Hyde Park, and St. James's Park, and I must say that when I have had occasion to consult with the Ranger with reference to the Parks I have found His Royal Highness's advice of the greatest assistance.

I see from these Estimates that we have a Ranger of Richmond Park, a Deputy Ranger, and a Superintendent under the Ranger. The salaries amount to £373, and there is a note at the foot of the page that in addition one of these gentlemen has a residence rent free, a matter of another £200 or £300 a-year, I suppose. It is also stated that these appointments are given to military officers of high rank. Now, I want to know why they should not be given in turn to naval officers of high rank? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any reply to such a question.

I have not the power to make the appointments.

We pay for them, and therefore I should like to know who makes the appointments?

Her Majesty.

I am rather surprised at the answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—namely, that Her Majesty makes the appointments. Do I understand rightly that she makes the appointments, while we are asked to vote the salaries? I presume that if we are asked to do that, we have a right to reduce the Vote. I admit it is a small sum, but it is part of a great system of waste, and I think these are not the days in which we can afford to lose money in this way. It is a small thing in the eyes of the public, but, after all, it leaves an impression upon the minds of the people that we are paying very largely in connection with Royalty. I am anxious there should not be such an impression, and I think it would be better to remove from the public expenditure some of these sums which it certainly appears cannot be justified by argument.

There is one thing I desire to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) to upon this Vote. As I understand it, the area of Richmond Park is 2,357 acres, and there are 621 acres of that from which the public are entirely excluded. This is really a more important matter than the mere question of the £109 10 s., the Ranger's salary; and if I divide with my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) upon this Vote, it will be as a protest against the enormous reservation of land in the Park. Thirty-five acres have been set aside for residences and gardens, including keepers' houses and lodges; 313 acres are devoted to the deer; and, in addition to that, there are plantations amounting, as I add them up, to 130 acres. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether there is any check kept upon these lands from which the public are excluded, because, according to my information, the amount of land in all the Parks from which the public are excluded is increasing every year, not by very much in individual cases, but by a large amount in the aggregate. It does seem a monstrous thing that out of 2,357 acres, the public should be entirely excluded from 621 acres. There ought, I think, to be some guardianship for the public by the Office of Works against these continued encroachments.

I desire to point out that not only has the Ranger or his men the right to shoot game in Richmond Park, but there is a provision made for the ammunition used; £10 is taken for the purpose. It appears to me to be rather carrying the joke too far, not only to give to private individuals the right of shooting game in public Parks, but also to supply them with ammunition for the purpose. I understand that the chief of these offices are Patent offices; but I apprehend that there would be no special desire to accept a sinecure if there was no salary attached to it. The persons supposed to have the management of these Parks are persons who are in high military command; they are described on page 16 as military officers of high rank. I should like to know if any of the three gentlemen—namely, the Ranger, Deputy Ranger, and Superintendent—at anytime concern themselves with anything connected with Richmond Park but the shooting of game?

There is another point which I think ought to be mentioned. There are inclosures in Richmond Park for deer, and there are at Hampton Court inclosures for what is called the Hampton Court Stud House. I should like to ask what becomes of the foals?

The hon. Gentleman has himself moved a reduction in respect to the Ranger of Richmond Park. I think he had better confine himself to that point.

I will raise the question subsequently.

Besides the Ranger of Richmond Park there is a Deputy Ranger and Superintendent, and I should like to ask who these military officers of high rank are who act as Deputy Ranger and Superintendent? We have been told who the Ranger is, and I think we have a right to ask who the gentlemen are who act as Deputy Ranger and Superintendent. I must add my protest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has said, be- cause I consider it to be our duty to protest, whenever we have an opportunity, against sinecure offices. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket), who represents the Office of Works in this matter, does not quite appreciate the spirit of the day when he says that the answer he has to give upon this Vote has satisfied other Parliaments, and should satisfy, so he appears to think, all succeeding Parliaments. The people of this country will not be satisfied long with these same answers, and they intend to drag these abuses into light on every possible occasion until they are swept away. If we cannot get rid of them in this Parliament, I hope we shall soon have a Parliament which will rid the country of these abuses. The right hon. Gentleman remarked that Her Majesty has the right of appointing the Ranger under statute. We do not contest the statutory right of the Sovereign to make these appointments; but we have a perfect right to argue that if sinecure officers are appointed by the Sovereign of the day, the public should not be called upon to pay for them. Those are not appointments in which the people have the slightest interest, and so long as we are asked to vote money to pay persons who do not work for us, and whose appointments are, as far as I can gather, little pleasant appointments for their own pleasure and not of any public utility, we shall protest. I shall certainly resist this Vote, and shall continue to do so until we get rid of it altogether. There is one other question I wish to raise, and it has reference to the Park constables and gate-keepers. I want to know why there are more of these officers this year than there appears to have been charged for last year? I see that the Vote under this head for these officers has been increased by nearly £200. The area of the Park devoted to the public appears, from what the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has said to have been rather diminished than increased, and it seems to me that if that portion of the Park has been contracted for the benefit of these high officers, these persons ought to pay for the increased staff. I dare say there are other questions which might be raised on this Vote, but I content myself with protesting against the system of voting money for sinecure offices.

Perhaps the First Commissioner of Works will say whether he has taken any pains to ascertain whether any portion of the reserve portions of the Parks has been underlet?

A Return has been moved for showing the extent of the reserve spaces in the Parks. When that is before us, we shall be able to discuss the matter more effectually. I will see that the Return is very carefully prepared. I am not able, off-hand, to say whether any small increase may not have been made to those portions of Richmond Park from which the public are excluded; but I am sure that the only parts which have been separated have been separated for the purpose of protecting the young trees, and, to some extent, the deer. The Committee may come to the conclusion that there ought not to be deer in Richmond Park, but I do not think that would be a very popular change, while the expenditure upon the deer is very small indeed. In regard to the number of Park constables, I may say that a great saving has been effected by making more use of these officers in place of police.

The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether he has been able to ascertain if any portion of the reserve parts of Richmond or any other Park have been underlet.

No, I am not aware of it.

I support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I cannot help remarking that there is no increase in the pay of this high military officer who discharges the important official functions of Ranger of Richmond Park, and I ask myself, why is it that there is no increase? I see that there is a decrease in the Estimate in cases where poor men are concerned, but when it is the salary of a high official, whose functions have been ridiculed by the House year after year, whose position has been challenged, and is, I maintain, thoroughly indefensible, I cannot help being struck by the fact that the salary has not been increased. Why has there not been an increase? I maintain it is not on account of lack of official favour, of which these gentlemen undoubtedly receive more than their due, but on account of the strict way in which some hon. Gentlemen protest against such positions as this of Ranger of Richmond Park. I sincerely hope that before long all these remnants of a miserable feudal system will be swept off the Statute Book and cleared away from our Estimates. We know that the Ranger of Richmond Park does little or nothing. If he does anything, I ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket), who is here demanding this money from us, what are the official duties of the Ranger? I ask him if the duties which this gentleman is supposed to fulfil are not amply performed by the other men who act under him as Deputy Ranger, Superintendent, &c.? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some account of these duties. I regret that this question turns up year after year. [Mr. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): Hear, hear!] I am certainly very glad indeed that the hon. Member for South Belfast agrees with me on this point; it is not often I find myself in agreement with him, and, therefore, I am very pleased to have his approbation on the present occasion. Looking at the question in the strict sense of regarding it in the light in which it is notably regarded on this side of the Committee as a feudal remnant, I think it would greatly improve the position of the Crown if the office of Ranger of Richmond Park were abolished. If you want to spend the money which is at present paid to this official, spend it in paying better the under-paid minor officials, who have practically to do the work for which this gentleman gets £109 10 s. a-year.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

I have another Amendment to this Vote to propose. I regret that we did not take a Division on my last Amendment; it was quite an oversight that we did not. Now, I wish to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £963, the amount of the Vote for keepers in Bushey Park, Greenwich Park, and Richmond Park. Now, Sir, I have already pointed out the absurdity of having game in these Parks. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works does not lay much stress upon the desirability of retaining the deer. If deer are kept in the Parks, I do not think that any expense in regard to them ought to be entailed upon the public. Deer, from their very nature, go mad once a-year; but the animals in Richmond Park have gone beyond that, and have reached another phase of insanity during which many of them have had to be killed, owing to the danger they formed to the neighbourhood. I do not know whether there are any deer in Bushey Park, or in Hampton Park, or in Greenwich Park. [Mr. PLUNKET: Yes.] Very well, there are deer in all these Parks. Now, I ask the Committee to look at the salaries paid to the keepers. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, may have keepers of their own, and, therefore, they know perfectly what keepers are ordinarily paid. Now, the head-keeper and deer-keeper in Richmond Park is paid £250 per annum, and receives £96 allowance in lieu of fees—and I do not know what that means—and £12 as allowance for ammunition. He thus receives £358 per annum and a residence for being keeper. He has got under him an under-keeper, who, I suppose, would get 25 s. per week if he were in private employment; but as it is he receives £150 a-year with a residence. The state of things in this respect in the other Parks is about the same as in Richmond. You have in Hampton Court Park a keeper who receives £150 a-year and residence, and in Bushey Park a keeper who receives £200 a-year and residence; the whole charge is excessive. No doubt, these offices are relics of the past; in all probability they are good things which are given, I will not say to decayed members of the aristocracy, but to some of the poor sycophants of the aristocracy, and as usual they are attended with excessive salaries. I do not believe in the deer, and still less do I believe in these salaries. I therefore beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the amount I have stated. I have left out of consideration the Park keeper in St. James's Park, because there are ducks and geese and that sort of thing there, which, I believe, are a pleasure to many who visit the Park. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £963.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £70,467, be granted for the said Services."—( Mr. Labouchere. )

I can only again say that these keepers are not employed for the purpose of taking care of the game which is shot by the Ranger, but they are employed for the purpose of attending to the deer, and the ammunition for which an allowance is made is that used at a certain time of the year, when the number of deer has to be reduced. In the allowance for ammunition, too, is included the purchase of guns from time to time. Having made this confession, I am prepared to stand by the items to which the hon. Member has referred. I am very glad to say, however, in my own defence in passing, that these Estimates show a reduction of something like £70,000 or more, so that I do not think the hon. Member has very much cause to complain.

I am very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said, because it is really a justification for our action. If hon. Members on this side of the House had not pegged away year after year, the reduction in the Estimates of which the right hon. Gentleman is so proud would never have taken place. The fact that we have succeeded in getting a reduction of £70,000 encourages the hope that, if we take a Division, as we certainly will do on this Amendment, and take a few Divisions on several other items, next year we shall get a reduction of, perhaps, £140,000, and in the course of time we may have presented not only model Estimates, but perfect Estimates in the sense that no provision is made for any sinecure. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it is only the keepers who shoot the deer, and that the deer are never shot for the purpose of amusement? If that is so, I think it is a reason for getting rid of the deer altogether. I really do not see why we should pay for the maintenance of these deer which do not do any good, and occasionally do a great deal of harm. I may say, in addition, that if these deer are shot, somebody eats them. Venison is supposed to be valuable, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants us to encourage him by our applause, and wishes to present to us model Estimates, he will order that the deer which are shot should be sold, and the proceeds devoted to the expense of the ammunition with which they are shot. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion, By the way, I see that many good people who hold these sinecures also have residences rent free. I should like to know whether these high military officers pay anything for rates and taxes, or whether we pay rates and taxes for them?

I wish to say a word with regard to what fell from the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He said that Gentlemen on this side have keepers. I sincerely hope the hon. Member did not mean more than merely keepers so far as game is concerned. I am certain the hon. Gentleman would be the last person in the world to make an offensive personal allusion like that. Then, in reference to the deer in Richmond Park, I wish to remark that they certainly are not ornamental. They remind one, by their appearance, of a lot of donkeys. Again and again I have heard, and I am certain other Members of the Committee have heard, that parallel drawn between those Richmond Park deer and those other animals I refer to. The deer are distinctly not ornamental, indeed we are told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, that, practically speaking, they are not ornamental. Well, I want a practical answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman answers Questions in a manner that almost disarms hon. Members on this side of the House who are trying to find out where the money voted in Committee of Supply under these Estimates goes to. I wish to find out how many deer are shot in the Park per annum. I feel certain that there are more than a dozen shot, and that they are not killed in the way deer are killed in the Highlands of Scotland, where sportsmen hunt them over crag, and moor and fell, and take long shots at them. In the Highlands a great deal of ammunition is no doubt expended in this way, though, with the arms of precision that are now-a-days placed in the hands of sportsmen, there is not that waste of ammunition which there used to be in the past. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that the killing of the deer in Richmond Park is not a question of sport, so that, probably one of the under keepers, who are ill-paid men—of course not the Ranger, but one of the bailiffs employed in these Royal Parks—goes up to the deer marked out for slaughter, fires a rifle bullet behind its ear, and the animal falls down dead. Well, in this way, if 12 animals only are shot, 12 cartridges are expended, and I must say I think it rather extraordinary that 12 Soneider cartridges should cost £12. That would come to about £1 a shot—a most extravagant sum. This may be a minor detail—a matter of minor importance—but latterly we have heard a great deal about these Estimates, and we have seen how difficult, how almost impossible, it is for us to analyze the expenditure, so that when we find out a small point like this on which the money of the nation is being misspent, I maintain that it is our duty to get an account of even such a sum as this £12. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many deer are killed in Richmond Park—how many were killed last year? If 12 were killed we can fairly well estimate the value of their carcasses. It would amount to a considerable sum, for we know that venison is reckoned a great luxury, and is very expensive. Well, supposing 12 deer are killed and £12 is charged for ammunition, when that £12 is put in the account, and we are asked to pay it, we have a right to demand an account on the other side—an account of the money received for the carcasses. At any rate, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for information on the point—I would ask him to say—first, what was the number of deer killed last year; and next, as their slaying was not a matter of sport, the number of shots that had to be fired into them. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members may laugh, but I imagine that the British public will not laugh, and for the reason that there is such a thing as humanity. If you are going to kill a beast—an ox for instance—you do it at one stroke, and if you are going to kill a tame deer, you do it with one shot, you do not inflict unnecessary torture on it, and riddle it with bullets. Hon. gentleman do not laugh now—I should hope there is not an hon. Member here who would laugh at torturing dumb animals. It may be sport to some strangely constituted people; but it will not be sport to the deer. If these unfortunate deer are systematically riddled with bullets, this Committee has a right to know something about it, and unless we get something substantial in the way of an answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman—whom I feel certain will answer to the best of his ability—I shall have forced upon me the unpleasant duty of moving to reduce this Vote by the insignificant sum of £12.

, &c.): I would direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to a Question addressed to him by my hon. Friend on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the Government pay the taxes of the officials who have residences in Richmond Park but he omitted to reply when he rose a few moments ago.

I believe the taxes on these houses are not placed in the Estimates. I am not aware of any case where taxes are paid by the country. They are invariably paid by the individuals who enjoy the houses. [An hon. MEMBER: Those of Marlborough House?]

Not having received a reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £12.

There is already an Amendment before the Committee.

Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works tell us what becomes of the carcasses of the deer after they have been shot?

I would have answered the hon. Member; but that I have already spoken on that very point. I have already stated that I consider this sum of £10 or £12 a rather large item. The item is for ammunition, and includes the shots by which the deer are killed. It is altogether imaginary, however, to suppose that only 12 shots are fired.

How many deer are shot?

Considerably more than 100. As to what becomes of the carcasses, they are distributed according to a certain plan. Some of them are sent to the War Office—some to the Admiralty, and some of them are taken to my own office, I think. Some of the old fashions of the Royal Forests are still kept up, and no deer can be shot in the Parks unless the First Commissioner signs its death warrant.

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these carcases are distributed among the Government officials?

Yes. These are Royal Parks, and the deer in them belong to the public.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 50; Noes 91: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 250.) [8.55 P.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Vote has said that these Estimates are model Estimates, and he justifies that by pointing out that a reduction of £125,000 has been brought about en bloc. But the economy which is proposed is not so apparent as regards any of the details, and I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the Committee how it is that in connection with St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks, the item for "minor works," which last year figured for only £36, has this year gone up to no less a sum than £1,655? That is a very large and a very surprising advance in a model Estimate. In connection with the Green Park on the same page—page 13—is shown amongst the minor works the improvement of Hyde Park Corner and the contribution towards the new statue of the Duke of Wellington, which figures at £2,000. The original Estimate was £6,000, but the revised expenditure under this model Estimate is £8,000. There does not appear to have been any great economy practised there. But the reason I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain the astonishing increase in the item for "minor works" from £36 to £1,655 is that it has been very difficult to ascertain what has been the amount of the expenditure in connection with the removal of the old statue of the Duke of Wellington from Hyde Park Corner. Some time ago, in the present Session, I asked a Question about this, and was told that the expenditure had been defrayed by the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, or some one else; but I found an item for the Manufacturing Department of the Army of several hundreds of pounds in connection with the removal of the statue of the Duke of Wellington. I asked for a statement of details, but I never was able to get a satisfactory statement, and for the simple reason that the War Office itself was not in a position to furnish it. But I put on the Notice Paper a Motion for a return showing, as far as the War Office could furnish it, what the expenditure was. I found out that for the hire of horses £202 were put down, for the carriage of the statue from Hyde Park to Woolwich £8 17 s., the cost of sending back to Woolwich the truck on which the statue was sent to Aldershot £18, the travelling expenses of officials £20, making altogether £249 10 s. In addition to this, £317 1 s. 7 d. has been taken in the Manufacturing Department Accounts, not as representing any actual expenditure connected with the removal of the statue, but for preparations and non-effective and incidental expenses under the Ordnance Store Department. If that is the way in which the Army Accounts are made up no wonder it is very difficult for a stranger to make either head or tail of them. The Army Department cannot explain its own figures. But that is not all. Underneath the Return signed by Sir Ralph Thompson is the item "All other charges incurred were covered by repayments from the Marlborough House Committee"; so that the total amount of the cost of removing that particular statue is an amount which nobody can possibly hope to get at. Now, what I have to ask is whether any portion of the £1,655, which is put down in connection with the alterations which have been effected at the corner between Hyde Park and the Green Park is in connection with the removal of the old statue or the putting up of the new one—whether in the amounts in page 9, which have come down fortunately some hundreds of pounds in the present year, there is any repayment on account of public services rendered in connection with the removal of the statue, because if the Marlborough House Committee are to defray the expense, which the public were given to understand they would, any services given by the Army Department or the Office of Works ought to figure in that account. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Trea- sury (Mr. Jackson) will be able to answer my question?

I am glad the hon. Gentleman opposite has raised this point because we shall, perhaps, be able to obtain from the right hon. and learned Gentleman some information about this unfortunate Wellington Statue. Now, of course, it is too late to raise any question in connection with the original disaster of Hyde Park Corner, which has created the wilderness we now see there when we pass by. It is too late to prevent that unfortunate expenditure of money whereby the arch upon which the Wellington Statue used to stand has been placed in such a position that the roadway beneath it leads nowhere at all except to a cabman's shelter. I do not wish to raise that point even if it were competent to do so, because I feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in no way responsible for it. It was the act of his Predecessor, whose judgment was warped in the matter. We are now in for this unfortunate result. The arch is placed where it is an absolute disgrace to the nation, and a laughing stock to everyone who has the slightest pretention to knowledge of the principles of the old masters. Now it appears we are to have a smaller statue placed upon that portion of ground which we see lying waste. All I know about that new statue is from having observed two months ago that a model statue was erected in that place for a few hours. I was very much surprised to see that the statue of the Duke of Wellington was made to ride nowhere at all, and I should like at least to know from, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as this is a matter of great interest to those who desire to see the ornamentation of our Metropolis improved, whether he can inform the Committee in what particular position this statue is to be placed? When I observed the model, the Duke of Wellington was made to ride, not upon the flat ground or upon an eminence, but it was placed upon falling ground—upon a slope—which is entirely disastrous to all the principles of the old masters. I should also like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman which way the statue is to point? I should like to ask him if it is to be placed on sloping ground, and whether the north side is to be higher than the south side? I should like to know whether the model we saw there is a correct model as regards size of the statue that is to be erected? Another point is with regard to the improvements which have been effected at Hyde Park Corner. I should like to say that no doubt as regards carriage ways there is now much better accommodation for the traffic than there used to be, but as regards ornamentation or good effect, I am sorry to say that the result which has been arrived at was the result which was prophesied by the Institute of British Architects at the time when we endeavoured to pursuade my right hon. Friend's Predecessor not to agree with the scheme—the Earl of Wemyss, "elsewhere," and myself, in this House. I observe that in connection with Hyde Park Corner we have a contribution from Her Majesty's Government for the new statue of the Duke of Wellington. The statue was originally estimated to cost £6,000, and we have already voted that sum; but it seems now that the expenditure is to be £8,000. I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he can assure the Committee that this is the last of the Estimates, or whether there is likely to be another call on the country for this very unfortunate statue, as I believe it to be? I wish to ask, first of all, if the statue is to be placed on that plot of ground where the model was placed some months ago? Is it to be placed in the position as if riding in the direction of Piccadilly, and is my right hon. and learned Friend able to say whether or not we have come to the end of the expenditure?

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) answers that Question I should like to put another Question or two to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, more from a financial than from an æsthetic point of view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) has pointed out that the original estimate for this statue was £6,000, and I remember when this question was discussed in the House, and I sat where my right hon. and learned Friend is sitting now, I objected to this expenditure altogether. We were then assured that the estimated sum would represent the entire expenditure; but we have now got from £6,000 to £8,000 to put up another statute in London to the memory of the Duke of Wellington. Now, I am under the impression that the memory of the Duke of Wellington will be kept alive by the history of this country, and by the very prominent monuments which already exist to him, without putting the country to the expense of the erection of another statue in lieu of the statue which has been removed to Aldershot. But I should like to ask my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Plunket) whether he has considered the monument that is to be erected under the next Vote—namely, the statue to General Gordon in Trafalgar Square, which is to cost £3,200? I want to know why, if we are only to spend £3,200 on a statue to General Gordon, we should be asked to spend £8,000, or probably more than £8,000, on a statue to the Duke of Wellington? In addition to that, I should like to know whether this £1,655 includes any expenditure whatever on these Hyde Park improvements? I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is heartily tired of those Hyde Park improvements. We have sat together on a Committee upstairs on this matter, and we have, I hope, relieved the taxpayer permanently from any charge in respect of that matter; but I think the country has little idea of what the cost of those improvements has been. I must say that I think the block at Hyde Park Corner is greater now than it ever was before. There is greater confusion and danger to the public. I think that, looking at the large amount of public money which has been spent upon these improvements, we have a right to ask that the safety of the public should be ensured, I would ask the First Commissioner whether he will give instructions to the Metropolitan Police to make better arrangements than those which prevail at this moment at Hyde Park Corner for securing the safety and convenience of pedestrians? The improvements which have been made seem to exist solely for the convenience of carriage traffic in the eyes of the police. I think that there should be better protection for foot passengers, and that probably it would be advisable to construct two additional refuges.