I wish to point out that this Order goes beyond the Act of Parliament passed in 1870 regarding the tramways of the Metropolis. I have further to urge that the Board of Trade have no power to make this Order, and that it can only be made with the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and also of the Vestry. In the present Order, the Board of Trade seek to establish motive power other than horses, such as electric and other power; and it appears to me that the provisions of the Bill place it out of the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works if they find that the power employed is inconvenient for the ordinary traffic—that it frightens horses, and becomes dangerous to life and property— to put a stop to it. The Metropolitan Board had power originally to refuse to accept this Provisional Order at all, and although they did not exercise their rights, they imposed conditions, which conditions are disregarded in the Bill. Of course, it will be said that if the Tramway Authorities act in any way contrary to the provisions of the Order, the Metropolitan Board will have power, if they desire to exercise it, to go to the Board of Trade; but I may mention that the Act of 1870 so far established the principle of local self-government, in contradistinction from that of centralized government, that it left the Local Authorities to decide whether the tramways were to be continued, in the event of their not being worked in accordance with their wishes. It is, however, in the interests of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not in the interests of local self-government, that I rise for the purpose of making this protest. Before I sit down I may say that, at this late period of the Session, seeing that any effective opposition to the Bill would, in all probability, result in getting rid of any opportunity of passing this Order this Session, the Metropolitan Board do not wish to press the matter to a Division. They only desire to make a protest against what they regard as an infringement of their rights. Their contention is that the Order goes behind the Act of Parliament which has conferred certain powers upon them. I shall, therefore, content myself with having made these remarks, without asking the House to divide against the Provisional Order.

I have no wish to enter into the technical discussion which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman; but I will simply point out that, in reality, the Metropolitan Board of Works have no cause of complaint in the matter. This Provisional Order was advertised in the month of November last. It was sent to the Board of Works, and a copy was forwarded by that Board to the Board of Trade on the 25th of March, and consented to subject to certain conditions.

Will the hon. Member state what the consent was which the Metropolitan Board of Works gave?

I am unable to say. All I can say is that no objection was taken to the Provisional Order until Petitions were lodged against it on the 21st of May last. It appears to me that the matter is a very simple one. The Metropolitan Board of Works gave their consent to this Provisional Order as far as they were concerned, subject to certain conditions, and these conditions were inserted in the Order except the condition that the Metropolitan Board might at any time revoke the authority to use mechanical power. That authority is vested in the Board of Trade; and if, at any time the Board of Works can show to the Board of Trade that there is any reason to suppose that this tramway, if worked by mechanical power, is likely to be a nuisance, or dangerous to the neighbourhood, the Board of Trade could withdraw the consent they had already given. Let me point out another matter which might have influenced the opinion of the Board of Works upon the subject. It has been alleged that the tramway will be worked by steam power. That is not so. The motive power proposed to be authorized is any mechanical power other than steam. The tramway itself will commence, I believe, at Shepherd's Bush, which is within the Metropolitan district. I am glad to find that the hon. Member intends to exercise a wise discretion in not opposing the third reading of the Bill.

I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) has stated; but there is no wish to press for a Division against the third reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade has stated that the Metropolitan Board gave their consent to the provisions of the Order. Now, that I absolutely and utterly deny. A conditional consent is no consent at all, and the present contention relates to a question of principle. By the Act of 1870 Parliament gave to the Local Authorities, who, in this case, were the Metropolitan Board of Works, the power of withholding their consent to the Provisional Order; and the point of the contention is that, at the present moment, the Board of Trade are proposing to grant a Provisional Order which is to become an Act legalizing what is said to be an illegality. It is against that course on the part of the Board of Works that I protest. As the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) is in his place, I should be glad if he will give the House his advice on the matter, because I believe that the point to which I have called attention is an important one, and is of much interest so far as the future construction of tramways is concerned.

As a Member of the Committee appointed to consider this Bill, I should like to explain that the Committee came to no conclusion whatever in regard to the powers of the Board of Trade.

reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

I observe in this Vote items for the salaries of 12 Foreign Office messengers at £400 a-year, and for nine Queen's Home Service messengers. Looking at the other Votes, I see charges for a vast number of messengers who are not styled "Queen's messengers," but are simply called "messengers." For instance, there are five in connection with the Home Office, at the average salary of £150 a-year; at the Treasury, 24, at an average salary of £130 a-year; and at the Colonial Office there appear to be seven. I presume that these are messengers who fetch and carry about the office. But in regard to the 12 Foreign Office messengers, and the nine Queen's Home Service messengers I observe, in connection with them, another item of expenditure for journeys, including an allowance, in the case of the Foreign Office messengers, of £1 per day. Now, I want to know whether it is the fact that Foreign Office messengers are seat upon journeys from this country abroad simply because they happen to be here, and, if so, why the telegraphs should not be employed? I see that the expense of sending telegrams abroad increases enormously year after year; but, nevertheless, you have these Foreign Office messengers sent out once a-week or once a fortnight, as the case may be. I can easily understand the propriety of sending despatches by messengers which it is not considered desirable to send by post. But, surely, in regard to the ordinary despatches of the Foreign Office, it is not necessary that they should be sent in this way. I am perfectly aware that the number of messengers has been reduced in recent years; but I think that the staff might be still further reduced, and the rule should be that a messenger should only be sent off when there is really some important despatch for him to take, and which is supposed to be of a secret character. What I object to is that these messengers should be running from London to any particular place at stated intervals, whether they have important despatches to carry or not. I hardly know how they run at the present moment—whether, in the case of Berlin, Vienna, Paris, St. Petersburg, and Constantinople they are sent out once a-week or twice. As a matter of fact, I cannot ascertain how often they are sent; but I am satisfied that, at any rate, a considerable amount of economy might be effected in this expenditure. So far as the Home Service messengers are concerned, I really do not know what they are. I do not quite understand the Vote, and I fail to discover whether the expenses as well as the salaries of the Home Office messengers are included in the item of £3,400 which appears in the Vote for the year. As I do not see an item of that kind put down anywhere else, I presume that they are included; but I confess that I am unable to understand what these messengers are employed for at all. I propose to move the reduction of the Vote; but I ground that reduction on the Foreign Office messengers, rather than upon the Home Service messengers, and in order to elicit some explanation from the Government, I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

I wish to have some explanation in regard to some of the other items included in this Vote beyond that which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).

If the hon. Member proposes to speak upon other subjects, I think he had better defer his remarks until the question which is now before the Committee has been settled.

I am quite ready to defer my remarks; but all I wish to say relates to matters which apply to the present Vote.

The hon. Member has moved the Amendment of which he gave Notice, to reduce this Vote by the sum of £1,000, and he rests his proposal—first, on the ground that the Foreign Service messengers are not generally necessary, and that they should only be employed in very special cases. Now, this is a matter which has very often been brought before the House of Commons, and it has been held by successive Ministries that it is of importance to retain the services of Foreign Service messengers. No doubt the means of travelling have become more speedy, as well as cheaper, of late years; telegraphing is much more resorted to, and, in consequence, successive reductions have been made in the number of the messengers employed. Whereas in 1869 the number was 17 it was reduced in 1870 to 15, in 1873 to 12, at which number it stood until the present year, when a further reduction of one was made. After a careful investigation into the matter three years ago, it was thought that 10 Foreign Service messengers would be sufficient for the requirements of the Service; and accordingly it was decided to reduce the number to 10 as vacancies occurred. It is the opinion of those who have held the Office of Secretary of State recently that 10 are absolutely necessary to conduct the Service satisfactorily.

But, according to the Vote, there are 11.

Yes, there are 11 at present; but the next vacancy which may arise will not be filled up, so that the number will then stand at 10; and when that reduction is made, it is considered that there will not be more than are absolutely required for the adequate performance of the Service. No further reduction could be suggested upon any other reason than that eight or nine would simply be cheaper than 10. I do not think the hon. Member has stated to the Committee any reason why a further large reduction should be made, and why the Service should be reduced below its actual requirements, unless, of course, the hon. Member differs from us in the opinion that it is important to send particular despatches by confidential messengers. I may remind him, however, that the other Great Powers employ confidential messengers also.

How many?

I do not know. I can only say, in regard to this country, what number is considered necessary after careful consideration, both by the late and the present Secretary of State. So far as the Home Service messengers are concerned, their services are shared between the different Offices, and the messengers themselves are employed in carrying confidential papers into the country, or, rather, some of them in London and others in the country. A great effort has been made to reduce the expenses of the Home Service messengers. The mode of conveyance has been cheapened, and other things have been dispensed with, so that there has been a reduction this year of £100 upon that head. I trust that the House, after this explanation, will not agree to reduce the Vote for messengers further. I really think that no more messengers are employed than are absolutely necessary.

I should be glad to know the number of confidential messengers that foreign countries employ, because it is my impression that they use much fewer than our Foreign Office does. I have often heard—although I do not know what truth there is in it—that the Great Powers sometimes use our messengers to send their letters. Now, I do not think that that is a service we are called upon to perform. The right hon. Gen- tleman says that there has been a diminution in the expenditure for messengers; but if there has been a diminution in one direction there has been a vast increase in another—namely, the charge for telegrams. The expenditure in telegrams in connection with the Foreign Office is something quite gigantic. As everybody knows, everything is now done by telegrams. I know that when I was at the Home Office I used to receive almost daily telegraphic announcements that some Serene Highness had arrived at some small place, the locality of which I was not even aware of. Out of the number of telegrams received daily nine-tenths were altogether unimportant, and related to matters which nobody cared to hear. Some interesting event may have happened in connection with a Royal Family in any part of Europe; there was instantly a telegram sent, and these things were printed and circulated to all Cabinets.

I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the next item in the Vote. The Question before the Committee is a Motion to reduce the messengers' salaries and allowances, and the telegraphic expenses come next.

I only desire to submit that as the telegraph is now largely used there is no necessity for employing the same extent of messengers. Everyone who is acquainted with the Foreign Office knows that the business is not done by despatches, but that the real business and information are transmitted almost entirely by the telegraphs. I must say that I believe the weekly messengers who were sent away, it may be to St. Petersburg or Constantinople, are really a superfluity, and I will ask the Government to consider whether the system cannot be reformed altogether, and whether something may not be done in the direction of reducing the expenditure now incurred in communicating with Foreign Powers?

I can assure the Committee that the very inquiries which the right hon. Gentleman suggests have been carefully made. No doubt it is only a natural feeling that it is desirable to effect economy as far as possible in the various branches of the Public Service. The system of employing Foreign Office messengers has been carefully revised, and the number is not larger now than has been considered necessary both by the late and the present Government. As to the great expense of telegrams, I shall have to refer to that subject later on. That despatches are no longer of importance is not the ease. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that it is impossible and unsafe to trust entirely to telegrams, and that it is absolutely necessary that communications which are important, and not useless to this country, should be conveyed in full, and that reliance should not be placed upon Government telegrams, however convenient they may be.

May I point out that many despatches sent by the Foreign Office have to be sent in cypher, and it would never do to send them by telegram. Therefore, it is quite necessary that the employment of Foreign Office messengers should be continued. It must also be found desirable to employ men in whom the Government can place reliance, and, of course, it is necessary to give them an adequate salary. Sometimes voluminous papers, documents, and confidential despatches are sent away, together with masses of Blue Books which it is found necessary to make Her Majesty's Representatives abroad acquainted with. The hon. Member for Northampton has complained that messengers are sent weekly or fortnightly to certain places. Of course, it is necessary to carry on a regular communication with Foreign Courts; and, as a natural result, messengers are despatched to the large capitals of Europe at stated intervals. I, therefore, cannot agree with the hon. Member in thinking that the Vote ought to be refused. My impression is that the sum is a small one compared with the services which the messengers render.

I suppose that the number of messengers required will depend, to a certain extent, on the amount of work they have to do. But some of the work which the Foreign Office performs can scarcely be fairly classed as work for which the country ought to pay. Not only are there expenses incurred in the employment of cabs to convey these messengers home after they have finished the Foreign Office work, but a consi- derable item in the present Vote is one to defray the expenses of messengers engaged in distributing Foreign Office papers to the newspaper offices in London. I do not know how many newspaper offices there are in London; but this item is a very considerable one. It is perfectly true that the charges in connection with this Vote are not as high as they used to be; but that fact is owing, I believe, to the attention which has been called to the matter, and which has been the means of inducing the Foreign Office to effect some economy. My contention is that the work of distributing papers to newspaper offices is not work which ought to be done by officers paid by the State. If the newspapers want the information, there is no earthly reason why they should not send for the papers themselves and pay the expense. A newspaper is simply a commercial undertaking, and if the State undertakes to distribute valuable papers to them at the expense of the country it is simply a method of subsidizing the London newspapers. I certainly object to the charge. It has nothing to do with the salaries of the messengers who are employed in this kind of work; but it is perfectly clear that if you impose such duties upon messengers the number of the messengers themselves is necessarily increased. I am of opinion that there is ample room for the reduction of the Vote.

I do not wish to enter into the question whether it is possible to diminish still further the number of Queen's messengers, although I am inclined to think that the number could be reduced by taking still greater advantage than we have taken of of the Post Office, the telegraphs, and the additional facilities which the railways now give almost every day. But, as the question has been raised with regard to the need for using Queen's messengers at all, I feel bound to say that my experience, although only short, in the Foreign Office induces me to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State (Sir James Fergusson) has stated—namely, that we cannot altogether trust the post and the ordinary channels of communication with the conveyance of important despatches. It is perfectly true that in some countries we cannot rely upon the post, and that we must have a more secure mode of com- munication. No doubt, a good deal of important business is now done by telegraphing, and now-a-days one does not hesitate to act upon a telegram, and even to take the most important resolutions upon it. But still there are sometimes confidential letters passing which have considerable value, because they enable our officials both at home and abroad to obtain a fuller idea of a particular matter than could be given in a telegram. Therefore, in that respect the existence of the telegraph, although it facilitates the business of the Foreign Office, by no means does everything. I believe that everyone who has been in the Foreign Office will bear out the contention of my right hon. Friend.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary whether he will make inquiry as to the way in which the travelling expenses of messengers are concocted? I do not use the word "concocted" in an invidious sense in any way; but I mean that, although Parliament may be ready to pay the legitimate expenses to which these messengers are put in going upon these journeys, I understand the practice of the Foreign Office is this—that when a messenger returns home from a particular place he goes to some individual in the Foreign Office and asks him to make out the expenses of his journey— it may be to and from Constantinople, St. Petersburg, or anywhere else, and the consequence is that there is a list of allowances kept in the Office.

Maximum allowances.

Yes; maximum allowances, and the messengers are paid according to a list. The messenger, however, may not necessarily have been put to anything like the expense which is actually paid. No doubt this is a small matter; but as we are in an economical mood at the present moment I think it is one well deserving the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

My hon. Friend is really labouring under a great misapprehension. I can only answer his question by saying that the Foreign Office messengers are only paid their actual outlay. Their accounts are very carefully audited. In respect of cabs and porterage, it has been found more economical to give them a fixed allowance; but as regards all other expenditure they are paid the actual outlay. In regard to what has been stated by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), in reference to the delivery of diplomatic papers and so on to the newspaper offices by Foreign Office messengers, I may say that that practice has been done away with, and that these papers are now, as a rule, delivered through the post.

Since when?

I cannot say exactly, but it is now the practice. My hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) says his impression is that the number of Foreign Office messengers now employed might be still further reduced. I can only say that while the administration of Lord Rosebery, at the Foreign Office, was going on the Department was carefully and economically conducted, and Lord Rosebery went carefully into the expenditure of the Foreign Office. He did not, however, leave anything on record to the effect that the number of messengers should be reduced. He carefully revised the charges of the messengers employed in the Home Service; but he made no suggestion whatever in regard to the Foreign Service messengers. After careful inquiry, it was the opinion of Lord Iddesleigh—an opinion in which Lord Salisbury concurred—that 10 was the number required.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiry and inform the House, on the Report, whether what he has now stated is altogether correct? The reason why I ask is this. It is only within a few weeks that the question was brought before the Committee on Public Accounts, and the officials of the Foreign Office certainly did not allege that there had been any reduction.

I believe that new rules have been laid down under which it is to be assumed that a very considerable economy will be effected in future. It has been stated by the Public Accounts Committee that the expenditure under this head is most lavish; and, therefore, I think it would be well that the Committee should be informed if my right hon. Friend can tell us what these new rules are. I believe the Foreign Office themselves admit that the expenditure is unnecessarily high; and I think that we ought to know what steps are proposed to be taken in future to correct the evil. For my part, I do not see why, on some occasions, these messengers are not required to travel second class.

I have already given the Committee the information which I received to-day from the Office—namely, that by a recent decision in regard to Parliamentary Papers hitherto delivered by hand, they will, in future, be sent through the post. My attention has been called to the liberal way in which Papers have been gratuitously distributed from the Foreign Office, and Lord Salisbury has approved of a very large reduction being made in that system of gratuitous distribution. Since that decision was arrived at, the gratuitous distribution has been reduced; but all Parliamentary Papers and Blue Books can be procured on payment of a very small charge. It has not been thought right to withdraw the privilege of the gratuitous distribution of Parliamentary Papers to London newspapers; but that is almost the only remnant of the old system of gratuitous distribution. I think the Committee may rely upon it that in future the new system will be strictly followed—namely, that, when possible, these Papers will be distributed by post, and not by messengers.

If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, in the early part of his remarks he said that one of the important duties of these Foreign Office messengers is to convey Blue Books abroad. Now, Blue Books, as far as my experience goes, are more or less ancient history; and I think they might just as well be sent by parcel post, by rail, by steamer, or by some other mode of conveying heavy goods. There certainly can be no sufficient reason for sending books which are of no practical value. Not only so; but there are no State secrets contained in a Blue Book. They refer only to matters that have been practically settled, for hon. Members know very well that it is most difficult to obtain official information from the Foreign Office upon any question until after it has been altogether settled. Therefore, there is no necessity for secrecy, and these Blue Books could be conveyed abroad quite as well by post as by special messenger. In fact, the Blue Books are for sale in the open market, and foreign countries can readily procure copies of them. There is no necessity, therefore, for the expensive precautions which are now taken in regard to their distribution. Then, as to telegraphing. In many cases—for instance, the despatches sent to the French Government might be just as well sent through the Post Office from this country to Paris as by messenger, for this reason—that they only go through the Post Offices of this country and France, and as the communication is intended to be made to the French Government there cannot be the slightest advantage in observing secrecy. The same maybe said of our communications with Germany and other Continental countries. I can well understand that on certain occasions it is desirable that secrecy should be observed; but, in the great majority of cases, the despatches sent abroad are of a perfectly harmless nature, and do not influence public affairs in the smallest degree. I certainly do not see the necessity for maintaining 11 Foreign Office messengers, when the greater part of the work performed by them at present may be done equally well by means of the ordinary post or the Parcel Post, and a substantial part of the expense saved.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has quite answered the question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), and the saving effected by the adoption of the new rules has not been stated to the Committee. The charge for Foreign Office messengers in this Vote is £14,000, including salaries and allowances; and it is certainly a liberal sum. The hon. Member for Preston asked my right hon. Friend to explain what reduction will be made in future upon that sum in consequence of the new rules? I should certainly like to have that fact stated generally—namely, how far the reduction will go, and also on what scale the expenses of these messengers are settled.

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like to have some explanation from him in reference to the extent to which the new arrange- ments promised by the Post Office to the Committee on Public Accounts have been carried out and brought into practical operation. The Committee were told that arrangements were in contemplation, and would be carried out; and I should like to hear from the right hon. Baronet whether, on the whole, he is of opinion that the new scheme works satisfactorily?

I think I am able to give the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) the information he wishes to have. The expenses of the Foreign Office in 1885·6 amounted, in addition to salaries, to £9,152, including expenses to Vienna, Constantinople, St. Petersburg, and so on. The cost of the Home Service in connection with the Foreign Office came to £1,812. The expense of a journey to and from Constantinople is £90. The hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) says that the Blue Books ought to go by post as they contain nothing but ancient history. But apart from the Blue Books there are current Papers containing matters of the most confidential nature. It would be absolutely impossible for the Foreign Office to send papers of the most confidential nature except by very careful and trustworthy hands.

But they are printed.

Yes, they are printed, but they are printed as confidential papers at the Foreign Office itself. An hon. Member has asked how the expense incurred in the employment of Foreign Service messengers is divided. It is estimated that there are 26 journeys to Constantinople every year, which at £90 for each journey amount to £2,340. There are 26 to St. Petersburg at a cost of £1,500, while the journeys to Paris cost £1,000 a-year. These are for ordinary double journeys; there are special journeys in addition.

The right hon. Gentleman has given some particulars about the travelling expenses of the Foreign Office messengers. I should like to call attention to the enormous sums charged for journeys much less considerable in extent than those to Constantinople and St. Petersburg, but for which an item of £8,400 appears in the Votes this year. A large portion of this sum appears to have been paid to messengers in excess of the regulations for cab hire and the like. Now, the charge itself is very high; but what makes it particularly deserving of attention is that the Comptroller and Auditor General has reported that a large part of it is spent without any proper authority. The last report of the Comptroller shows that there were 357 cases of journeys to and from the messengers' private residences—that is to say, that not content with the very handsome salaries they receive, these messengers seem to be in the habit, whenever they go from home, of using cabs at the public expense. One of the items they charge is from the Foreign Office to the newspaper offices in Fleet Street. Now, I suppose that if any Member of this Committee had of his own motion to make this journey, he would look upon the distance as a little under or over a mile, and would pay 1s. or 1s. 6d. for it. But when the Foreign Office messenger goes the distance expands to 12 miles, and the messenger charges 6s. for it, which sum the taxpayers of this country are made to pay. The method in which the taxpayers' money is dealt with has been distinctly pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General; but we have no kind of assurance that the practice has been stopped since the last Report was issued. In that Report the Comptroller says—

"The charge seems to embrace a distance of 12 miles or more, and the charge amounts to a uniform sum of 6s., which on the face of it cannot possibly have been incurred."

I think the Public Accounts Committee ought to have given Parliament information to satisfy the taxpayers that the public money is not being squandered in the shameless manner in which it has been squandered for so many years past. Some light is thrown on this matter, I think, at page 121 of the Report of the Comptroller General. He says that on the occasion of a journey to Hatfield a uniform charge is made of 5s. for a fly, the distance being two-thirds of a mile, and that there is a charge of 2s.. in addition for porterage. Sometimes five or six journeys are made, and 7s.. is always charged from the railway station to the house. Somebody evidently gets a nice little picking out of the transaction. The Comptroller and Auditor General throws out a suspicion that the money is not paid for flys and cabs, but that it finds its way into the pockets of the Foreign Office messengers as a sort of perquisite. He implies that wherever the Foreign Office messengers go they scatter largesse around them, abundantly among all the railway porters. The presence of a Foreign Office messenger at a railway station must be the signal for general rejoicing. The Comptroller and Auditor General says that they give considerable gratuities to railway guards and porters, although the Treasury have decided that such expenditure should not be charged to the public funds. Consequently, we have no security, although this Report has been made, that the practice has been stopped. The Committee have been told by the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that upon another occasion a distinctly irregular practice was brought to the knowledge of a Committee upstairs—namely, that a large sum of money had been paid away year after year without any kind of authority. Although the Comptroller and Auditor General decided that the payment I have referred to was improper, it may still be going on. The Report of the Comptroller says that the inference with regard to these charges is that they are looked upon as more in the nature of a fixed allowance than an actual disbursement—in other words, that whenever a Foreign Office messenger faces the danger of a journey from Whitehall to Fleet Street he may pocket 6s.. by way of perquisite, and that when he undertakes the equally dangerous journey from the railway station at Hatfield to Hatfield House he may pocket from 5s.. to 7s.. I believe there are a large number of unemployed persons to be found who would be glad to undertake this hazardous service for half the money. Anybody who will take the trouble to examine this Vote will see that the whole expenditure of the Foreign Office is conducted on the most lavish scale. That Office seems to be viewed as a sort of gold mine, and the men who get into it appear to scatter the money about with both hands. Perhaps there is no necessity that they should refrain from doing so, because the British public are always ready to pay everything they are asked to pay. In this Office alone I see that there is a sum of £11,744 expended for stationery and printing. Of course, I need not say that a Foreign Office messenger, costing the taxpayer a large sum of money in the shape of salary, cannot stir out of his house or office without having a cab in waiting for him. He must also have a fly at the station with porters and all the rest of it to assist him with his luggage, and all the expenditure, including his salary, is on a scale which, in the case of a clerk in a commercial establishment, would be considered not merely enormous, but profligate. The salaries of the Foreign Office clerks range from £500 to £900 a-year, and there is a general impression that no great amount of work is performed for the remuneration received. As a general rule, the time of a Foreign Office clerk is supposed to be occupied in sketching caricatures on the office note paper and reading The Times. For that he gets from £500 to £700 and £900 a-year, so that it may be looked upon as a well-paid occupation. The office hours are generally from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. But anyone who glances at these Estimates will see that this is by no means all that the British public have to pay, because underneath this Vote there is a statement in small type of certain charges which are called "non-effective charges" —£10,500—that is to say, that the gentlemen who are fortunate enough to get into the Foreign Office are not only sure of large salaries for doing very little, but when they leave they are provided for by the country, and receive enormous pensions. Then there is another thing which came before the Committee upstairs.

I think the remarks of the hon. Gentleman ought to be deferred until after the special Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton has been disposed of. The hon. Member is now going at great length into other matters.

Then I will confine myself to the salaries and travelling expenses of these gentlemen. I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary whether the charges which have been reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General to be irregular have been stopped; whether it is the practice for the Foreign Office messengers to distribute gratuities along every railway line upon which they travel, and to charge enormous sums for short journeys to Fleet Street and Hatfield? The charge of £35 for every journey to Paris is, I think, monstrous. I do not think any Member of the Committee will venture to defend it. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity, I will undertake to go to Paris and back again for him for £5, and I do not see why the superior beings at the Foreign Office should be paid exactly seven times as much. I think that explanations are called for, and that something should be said by the Government to justify these extraordinary charges upon the taxpayers.

I should like to point out that the journeys to Paris include the expense of the messengers in staying at a hotel. A messenger proceeds to Paris every Sunday and remains there for a fortnight. In regard to the lavish expenditure of a Queen's messenger upon his journeys, I may say that I have been constantly engaged in performing those journeys myself; and so far from my presence, either at a railway station or a hotel, exciting rejoicing with a view to the largesse I was expected to distribute, my appearance generally passed unnoticed, and excited no feeling of gratification whatever. I think the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) made some allusion to the heavy expense of a journey to Constantinople. Now, I have been upon that journey once or twice myself, and I beg to inform the hon. Member that the sum of £90 covers also the expenses incurred at Constantinople in a stay of 10 or 12 days. It also includes a very large amount of luggage, which naturally costs a high figure for such a journey. The messenger who is sent to Constantinople is always encumbered with a large amount of luggage in the shape of despatches and papers, circulars and Blue Books, which are convoyed in the ordinary Foreign Service bag.

The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary rather pooh-poohed the suggestion I made that some of these messengers might travel second-class; but I see there is a distinct order of the Treasury that upon all journeys under 100 miles the messenger shall travel second-class.

I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) did not put a Question to the Government before he entered so largely into the subject of the waste of the public money. There can be no doubt that the payments for porterage and fees to guards had grown up to an undue amount. For some years it had been the custom of the messengers to pay for such services at a higher rate than hon. Members would pay themselves, and from the uniformity of the charges it was suggested that they were regulated by a fixed tariff. The hon. Member has expressed surprise that a messenger taking papers to Hatfield House should require a cab to take them up. Of course, he has to take with him bags of despatch boxes, some of them so heavy that it would be impossible for him to carry them personally. Therefore, it is necessary for him to have a vehicle of some kind to take them about with him. It is further necessary to get them out of the railway station quickly, and he requires the assistance of a porter. In the same way the Blue Books are taken to the newspaper offices, and when you have a messenger going about London in this way, conveying a considerable number of Blue Books to the different newspaper offices, it is obvious that it is necessary for him to take a cab. I have already told the Committee that economies have been effected in connection with the Home Service expenses, with the result that those expenses have been reduced by at least £100 a-year. In the first place, we have stopped the issue of Parliamentary Papers by hand. Until a recent period they were always delivered by hand, but now they are sent through the Post Office. In the next place, the expenses of messengers, when they are travelling over a distance under 100 miles, have been reduced from first-class to second-class, and there has been a further reduction in the charge allowed to messengers for cabs to convey them to their private residences. It must be remembered that some of them are kept at the office until a late hour at night. They have constantly to deliver telegrams and so forth, and when they have been detained at the office until a very late hour, it has been the custom for them to take cabs to convey them home. That practice has now been altered, and they are not allowed to take cabs, except under special circumstances. It will, therefore, be seen that the notice which has been taken of these matters by the Committee on Public Accounts, has been acted upon, and that the result has been a reduction in the expenses of £100 a-year. The right hon. Member for South Edinburgh seems to have been somewhat startled when I said that a journey to Paris cost £20.

£40, I think, is what you said.

That would be for the double journey. I said that Paris was one of the places which are technically called stations. I cannot off-hand tell the Committee exactly what constitutes a station; but it means that a messenger is occupied in travelling between Paris and London constantly. I believe that in the course of a fortnight he goes from London to Paris and between Paris and Calais four times, or twice in each week, finally returning to London, and £40 is the entire amount expended on these journeys.

I think this discussion has proved how very desirable it is to call attention to these matters. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his remarks by saying that this Motion has been made very frequently, and then he told us that there have been considerable reductions since the year 1869. Now, I made a Motion similar to this 20 years ago, and I am glad to see that there have been reductions effected. I have no doubt, if I continue to make the same Motion year after year, that there will be more reductions still. We have been told that there has been a reduction of £100 this year in the expenses of the Home Service messengers. What we want to see, however, is a reduction in the cost of the Foreign Office messengers. I am quite willing to admit that there are times and occasions when it is necessary to send a Foreign Office messenger with confidential despatches; but the mistake is in having these Foreign Office messengers sent out at fixed times in the way the right hon. Gentleman has just pointed out in reference to Paris. In point of fact they are required to make the journey whether there are despatches to convey or not. I presume the right hon. Gentleman will admit that there are occasions when a messenger goes out without any despatches at all. I would send a messenger when it is necessary; but I would not have a system of sending messengers all over the Continent at fixed times, whether there is anything for them to carry or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has pointed out that it is desirable to know what foreign countries are doing in the matter. Probably they employ a less number of messengers than we do, and it is suggested that occasionally foreign Ministers employ our messengers. I do not know whether that is the case now; but when I was in the Diplomatic Service it certainly was frequently the case. With regard to the journey to Constantinople, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary says that it costs £90. Now, a ticket to Constantinople costs £38 only, and for most part of the time occupied in the journey the messenger is on board ship, and gets his subsistence with his ticket. He takes four days coming back, and I think the charge for those four days is a very extravagant one.

He is at Constantinople for 10 days altogether; but he takes a return ticket by the Oriental express, which costs about £48.

Well, that will make 18 days, and £1 a-day for food and lodging would be £18, and that, with the charge for his fare, does not come to anything like £90. I believe the system is this—you give the messenger a certain fixed maximum allowance, and whether he spends it or not he receives the exact amount. You do not require him to make a declaration that he has spent that amount, but he gets it. It is said that sometimes a messenger has so much luggage with him that he takes a first-class place for it. I never heard before of anyone taking two places in a railway carriage because he had so much luggage. I know very well that in regard to a foreigner he will come into a carriage and take up anybody's seat with his luggage with the most reckless disregard for the comfort of his neighbours. What we ask now is that the right hon. Gentleman should look into these matters. We believe that if he would look closely into them he would be able to effect a reduction in the expenditure of much more than £100 a-year. I I believe that the discussion which has now taken place will have been useful. I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and with, the permission of the Committee I will withdraw the Amendment.

I have placed an Amendment on the Paper in reference to this Vote with the view of calling attention to the inefficiency of the present Agricultural Department, and in the hope of inducing Her Majesty's Government to consider the matter with the view of establishing the Department on a more satisfactory footing. I trust that this will be the last occasion on which we shall have to deal with a Vote so meagre in its amount as the present one. I take the liberty of making that statement, because the question is essentially one in which the question of expenditure is involved. I fully admit that in drawing the attention of the Committee and of Her Majesty's Government to this point, I am bound to show good reasons why this Department should be well arranged, and why an additional expenditure should be incurred. I do not think it is necessary that I should go through the form of calling the attention of the House to the enormous importance of agriculture; to the vast number of persons engaged in it; to the large interests involved in it, or to show that we cannot expect a return of prosperity to the various industries in England so long as agriculture remains in its present depressed condition. Those are matters which are obvious to everyone. I may be asked what good can we get from an improved Agricultural Department, and my answer is this—We have an example before us of a Department somewhat similar which is already in practical existence in another part of the Kingdom. And here I may say that England may claim to have a grievance, because we have here no Agricultural Department of the State such as the Agricultural Department of Ireland. Of course, it would not be right for me to discuss the Irish Vote now. Therefore, I will simply refer to the fact that there is a Vote for an Agricultural Department in Ireland which makes provision for dairy schools, for the appointment of a staff of professors and lecturers, and for a variety of objects in regard to which in this country we have no parallel whatever. Such institutions as the Munster Dairy Schools work admirably in Ireland; and, having regard to the condition of Ireland, it is quite certain that such schools could not have been established as private venture schools. What I propose in connection with the Agricultural Department of England is that we should have in England, Scotland, and Wales similar schools to those which are maintained by the Agricultural Department in Ireland. I am unable to inform the Committee what the expense would be; but, looking to the Irish Vote, I find that for something like the modest sum of £4,000 the Irish people are able to maintain the advantages to which I have referred. I know it will be said that it is undesirable to ask for State aid in regard to a business like agriculture, and that we ought to rely solely upon the energy which those who are engaged in it bring to bear upon it. We are now, however, brought face to face with a new scheme of technical education which is about to be introduced to the notice of the House. In that respect, perhaps, I may be allowed to point to the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, which contains the following words: —

"We cannot forbear to express our opinion that the improvement and extension of scientific agricultural teaching, with the view to the improved cultivation of the soil, is an indispensable measure in order to secure the general prosperity of the people."

That passage was contained in the Report issued in 1881, and since then we have had the Report of the Royal Commission on Technical Education, which Report distinctly points to the necessity of the establishment of an agricultural school. Looking at the condition of similar schools abroad, I believe there is no case in which they can be regarded as self-supporting; and the Royal Commission recommended that, as they cannot be self-supporting, they should be estab- lished and maintained, with the assistance of the State. Consequently, we have the opinion, not only of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, but of the Royal Commission upon Technical Education, that agricultural schools ought to be established, and that State aid ought to be given to them. There can be no doubt that if that were done great benefit would result. We know what has been the effect of the precedent set by Denmark. We all know that a few years ago the agriculture of Denmark was at a very low ebb; but by the system of dairy schools established there such a change has been brought about in the condition of things there that, in a time of agricultural depression, Denmark was able to pass through its trials with greater advantages than any other country. The people had been so admirably taught by the State dairy schools that they were able to make better butter, and to obtain a higher price for it when imported into England, than the agriculturists in other localities. It is hardly necessary to call the attention of the Committee to this fact—that, under the existing condition of agriculture, it is only under exceptionably favourable circumstances that the growth of cereals—wheat, barley, and oats—may be carried on at a profit. That renders it necessary that we should turn our attention to the products of the dairy. There are, however, many other things which the Agricultural Department might and ought to do. Experiments might be made in many directions, if there were only proper machinery and an adequate staff—experiments which can only be undertaken by a Department which has at its disposal a certain amount of funds, in order that the experiments, when undertaken, may be carefully conducted, accurately recorded, and their success duly announced, so that the whole country may reap the advantage of such experiments. Of course, the tenants of England cannot afford to do the work themselves, and the impoverished landlords are in very much the same condition. It is, therefore, impossible to get these things done without, as the Royal Commissioners have already reported, State aid being given. For instance, experiments conducted by the Agricultural Department may be of great value in the case of disease among animals. In the present Vote I see an item of £200 put down under the head of "investigations in regard to cattle disease" and "incidental expenses." In many parts of England the agricultural industry has been paralyzed by a disease which has committed great havoc—I mean swine fever. About a year or a little more ago an investigation was made in reference to swine fever by the Privy Council. But when the officers of the Department came to deal with it the Home Office stepped in, and when it was proposed that certain animals should be brought here to be dissected and subjected to medical operations the Home Office stood in the way; the Agricultural Department were snubbed; and when they required the use of some building in which the experiments might be carried on, the answer received by the Agricultural Department was that there was a difficulty in obtaining such premises. We were, consequently, placed in this position. There was a scientific Department quite ready to undertake an investigation, when another Department of the State stepped in, and, by refusing the necessary accommodation, brought the matter to a deadlock. I believe that what happened in consequence is that the matter is still waiting investigation. May I point to another instance in which the Agricultural Department not only failed to obtain encouragement, but actually met with opposition from the Government? This very year there was a meeting of statisticians at Borne from all parts of Europe, who proposed to undertake an investigation into questions connected with the tenure of land, small holdings, and so forth. The Agricultural Department invited certain eminent statisticians to represent them at Rome, and having accepted the appointment, the representatives of the Department went there, but because the sanction of the Treasury had not been previously obtained to the expenditure involved, the expenses of these gentlemen have been disallowed. Now, my contention is that if this were a real instead of a sham Department presided over by a Minister, as we were given to understand it would be, and if it were a really responsible Department, it would never have been treated in this oil-band manner. I should like the Committee to consider what the Agricultural Department is, and how it was established. It was established in consequence of a vote in this House in the year 1882 upon a Resolution proposed by Sir Massey Lopes, which, somewhat to the surprise of himself and those who supported him, was accepted by the Government of the day. It was impossible to do anything that year; but in the following year an Agricultural Department of the Privy Council was established, but it obtained no Vote; it received no grant of money, and therefore it did no work. It got nothing and it did nothing. Some years afterwards, in regard to a question as to the nature of its proceedings, its days of meeting, and what it did, I was informed that it never met, that there were no proceedings in connection with it, and that no information was obtained by it. In point of fact, the Agricultural Department, after a serious and solemn vote of this House, was a sham, is a sham, and has remained a sham ever since. I will not say for a moment that some good work has not been by the Veterinary Department in grappling with the diseases which affect animals. That Department has done admirable work, but it was in existence before the establishment of the Agricultural Department, and is really only doing the same work now that it did before. My contention is that the business of agriculture is so great and important, and is suffering so severely from depression, that something ought to be done to stimulate it. The sum we ask for is very small. I myself believe that a Vote of £25,000 would go a long way towards the establishment of the scientific investigation that is now asked for. It must be borne in mind that this expenditure has been already distinctly recommended. The Royal Commission on Technical Education, which traversed Europe in order to discover what provision is made in other countries for technical instruction, have distinctly recommended in their Report that the attention of the Government should be directed to the matter, and that an Agricultural Department should be established for scientific investigation and research. My belief is that we should have in England two or three such branches. I would have one in the North, another in the Midland Counties, and a third in the South, and I should like also to see a branch established in Scotland, and another in Wales. Those countries are certainly entitled to consideration equally with ourselves. I should like to see the Munster dairy schools in Ireland repeated and increased in number. I am satisfied that if such schools were established in a practical way, much advantage would be derived from their establishment. These farms and dairies might be established one by one, and might be associated in some way with the Royal Agricultural Society. I would also suggest that if the Department were organized in this way, there are other Departments which might be grouped and amalgamated with it. For instance, there are the Reports of the Enclosure Commission and the Land Commission. I think if the Vote for those Departments were carefully studied it would be found that there are a number of highly-paid officials connected with them who are by no means overworked. Then, again, there is the Department of Woods and Forests which might be included in the amalgamation. In that case I think it would be found that there is a large staff which might find a little more healthy occupation in the work of the Agricultural Department, which I desire to see undertaken. I merely throw this out as a suggestion. If the work were taken boldly in hand, I have no doubt the Agricultural Department would soon be placed on a satisfactory footing. There are precedents to be found at home in what has occurred in Ireland; and if you go abroad, you cannot see a country, be it little or be it great, which does not incur a large expenditure in connection with an efficient system of State-aided agriculture. The farmers of this country are accustomed to self-help, and they are anxious to go on to the best of their ability as far as they can. Five years ago this House was certainly under the impression that something ought to be done, and since then a Royal Commission has reported in favour of State aid. All precedents are in favour of my proposal. The farmers of England are a long-suffering race, and they have had a bitter and hard time of it; yet I think they ought not to ask in vain that Her Majesty's Government should give the matter their serious consideration. At present the Agricultural Department is a sham. No more work is done now than was done before it was established, and there are no more officials employed. The work now done was equally well done before the Department came into existence. In the hope that I may induce the Government to give their serious attention to the matter, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) will be able to give a satisfactory answer to the appeal which has been made to him upon this very important question. Everyone admits at this moment the depression which agriculture is passing through, and it is very little that is asked from the Government by my hon. Friend, who has gone so closely over the whole question. What is required is this—that we should have a proper Department to which we can apply upon all agricultural questions—a real Department to which we can go, and to which we can explain all those wants and requirements which are perpetually arising in the present condition of agriculture. I do not think there are many Gentlemen on the Front Bench—there are some I know—who realize the present position of agriculture, particularly in the present year. Last year it was bad enough, but this year it is even worse. The depression at this moment is extraordinary. You have already given State aid to an Agricultural Department in Ireland, and you have established schools and dairy farms in that country. Why should you not adopt the same principle in reference to England? When we come to deal with questions of that kind we are invariably left out in the cold, while the people of Ireland always get what they require. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member says "hear, hear!" but if he comes to analyze the tenure of land and the whole question of agriculture he will find that exceptional legislation has been applied to Ireland and to Ireland only. I certainly do not say that such legislation is required for England, or ought to be given to England; I only ask with regard to this particular case that the same principle should be adopted in connec- tion with other parts of the country. What we are in want of now is the establishment of some system which will enable those who are engaged in agriculture to acquire a practical and technical education. We see how necessary it is that every young man who desires to become a practical farmer should have a real education in regard to agricultural pursuits, which certainly a good many of them do not get now, although they have constantly to study what they ought to do to make both ends meet. I venture to express a hope that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury will give a favourable answer to the appeal which has been made to him. There is only one other point which I desire to refer to. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Groschen), when he received a deputation the other day, said—and I am sure the country felt relief when they heard his statement—that he had the interests of agriculture very much at heart, and would endeavour to help those engaged in that interest. I am sure, therefore, that he will not grudge the very small amount of money which would be required this year in order to carry out these arrangements.

I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to remind him that the Irish people established the Munster farm for themselves.

Although I do not represent an agricultural constituency, I have some interest in agriculture, and I desire to endorse the statements which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget), especially with reference to the dairy interest. Coming from a dairy district, I know a great deal can be done by teaching people to make better dairy produce than they do at present. What happens now, unfortunately, is that the education given in our country villages does not give the lads and girls of those villages any interest in farming occupations whatever, and their first step is to migrate into the towns. I have certainly found that to be the case in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. In order to show the advantage which may be derived from teaching these people properly, I may, perhaps, be allowed to state to the House what happened to myself. I found my rents going down, and my tenants not making good butter and cheese. In order to give them proper instruction I obtained the services of two good dairymaids from the Cheddar district, and the result was that cheese and butter were better made, the cheese fetching 25s.. more per cwt., and the butter 2d.. more a lb. There is no reason why what has been done in that case should not be done by dairy farmers in other parts of England. I am quite sure that a great deal can be done both in the interests of the tenants and of the landlords to teach these people to make more out of the land. It only takes a gallon of milk to make 1 lb. of cheese, whether it is made well or badly, and a difference of 2d. or 2½d. a lb. in the price makes all the difference between profit and a serious loss.

I think it is nothing short of a scandal that there is no school of technical education in agriculture in the whole of England. I cannot understand why there should be so much indifference, when we all know how the agricultural interest is depressed. I hope the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Paget) will press his Amendment to a Division, in order to show the House and the country that we agriculturists are in earnest in endeavouring to obtain from the Government some practical amelioration of our condition.

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners) is not present. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget) is aware, he is detained abroad by a serious illness, or he would have replied much more effectively than I can to the speeches of my hon. Friends behind me. The Government are deeply concerned at the very serious depression which prevails in agriculture, although they are too much occupied to have much personal knowledge of details. Yet I can speak myself from personal suffering, because I have had more acres thrown on my hands than I wish to have; and, therefore, I have experienced directly the results of the depression of agriculture, so far as my own property has been affected. I have already stated to my hon. Friend, in answer to a Ques- tion which he put to me a few days ago, that it is the wish of the Government, and the interest of the Government, to do all that they can, not by the creation at once of a great Government Department, but by building up a Department, to do everything that can be done to extend the knowledge that is required in the processes of agriculture, and to give such encouragement as it is possible to give to the development of land by the adoption of the best agricultural systems. We have much to pride ourselves upon in this country in regard to the skill and knowledge and enterprize of our farmers. I am sure that any Gentleman who compares the agriculture of this country with that of almost any foreign country will be surprised at the skill and knowledge of our farmers. I am ready to admit that there may be, and probably are, many subjects, which require more investigation, more inquiry, and more exhaustive treatment than they have received up to the present time. The Royal Agricultural Society has done a great deal for agriculture by example, by examination, and by experiment, and by carrying out different methods of treatment and different modes of cultivation; but it is possible, I admit, that something more may be done, and any encouragement it is in the power of the Government to give, within reasonable limits, which afford any expectation of a profitable and satisfactory result, they are ready to give. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) referred to the improvements which he has himself effected in the management of his own affairs by the exercise of skill, judgment, and discretion. I think there are many others who might do a great deal of good in their own neighbourhood by the exercise of the judgment which the hon. Member for Preston has shown. I myself have introduced a good dairymaid into my neighbourhood with the most beneficial results. I could not understand why butter should be so much better made on one farm, and should obtain so much better a price in the market than another, until I came to see that it was due to the care, skill, and the attention of the dairymaid. We have yet, I confess, a great deal to do in dealing with the difficulties of agriculture. They are difficulties, I am afraid, which no Government Depart- ment can altogether remove; but we confidently expect that good results will follow from the technical education scheme which will shortly be brought before the House. I am not sure that the immediate expenditure of £25,000 a-year would be an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with, the subject. There are causes of depression which no Government can modify, such as climate, foreign competition, and, it maybe, the appearance of some new fly. At the present moment the English farmer has to compete with the whole world; and there are facilities by which food and produce of every description can be brought cheaply to this country from other parts of the world. There is also another cause of depression in the competition, which is the result of an abundance of capital which seeks employment at a very low rate of profit indeed. As far as the Government are concerned, it will be our aim and purpose to provide the information which my hon. Friend desires to obtain by giving to the farmers that technical education which will place them and their labourers on a par with those who are being so ably instructed in other countries. I repeat again that we are deeply sensible of the serious depression which has overtaken the most important interest of this country. When we speak of any other interest—that of iron or cotton, for instance—it must not be forgotten that the agricultural interest employs a much larger number of persons, and, there fore, demands a larger amount of consideration on the part of the State, seeing that it is altogether of greater importance than any other interest. It would, therefore, be a gross mistake, if it were possible, for the Government to be unconscious of the present circumstances of depression, or unwilling to acknowledge the conditions which now exist, or disinclined to do anything which lies in their power to assist in restoring the agricultural interest to its proper position.

I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that it is the intention of the Government to pay some attention to agricultural matters. I have stated before in this House that the English farmers have shown the greatest patience under circumstances of the greatest gravity and of the most deep distress, and I trust they will find that Parliament is really anxious to do all it can to remedy the ruinous position not only of the lauded interest, but of the farmers and farm labourers. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will pardon my venturing to say so, I would suggest that there is not very much to be done in the way of teaching the farmer how to make jam, or how to make butter. We want something that will go a little deeper into the matter than that; and I hope that Parliament will be able to establish a more efficient Department in reference to British agriculture than we have had up to the present moment. I believe that the taxpayers of England will not grudge a reasonable amount of money for that purpose, because, after all, agriculture is one of the most important, if not the most important, of all our industries. The number of trades which depend upon the prosperity of agriculture are innumerable. An hon. Member the other day spoke of 12,000,000 of acres of land not being cultivated; and another hon. Member said that there was a very large amount of land out of cultivation which ought to be utilized. In those remarks I entirely agree; but I think it will be necessary to go much deeper into the subject before we can get that land cultivated. There is a cure for it all; but I am afraid that I should be ruled out of Order if I were to enter into it to-night. I hope that the Front Bench will give us an opportunity of discussing the subject at length on some other occasion. I hope that the patience with which the English farmers and their Representatives in this House have borne the depression which now exists will induce the Government to see their way to give us, before long, a night in which we may be able to go thoroughly into our grievances, and to suggest, in a straightforward way, what we consider to be the only remedies.

As the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has expressed a desire to give effect to the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget), I would venture to suggest to him that the most practical way of doing it, and that which would give most satisfaction to the farmers, would be to establish schools, not for dairy purposes only, but for general instruction in agricultural matters. I think it would be well, in experiments of the kind suggested, to see what can be done with farms of different sizes, say, from 50 up to 200 acres. The object in view would also be assisted, in my opinion, by the Bill which was introduced last night, which, when passed, would assist in showing what can be done with very small holdings. It is to be hoped that the proposal which has been made will be carried out as soon as possible; and I am convinced that it would be a most satisfactory way of enabling the British farmer to deal with this matter of foreign competition.

I rise for the purpose of supporting, as far as I understand it, the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North - West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with regard to establishing an agricultural school in this country. I was very glad to hear the excellent remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and I can quite confirm what has fallen from him, and I can say from my own knowledge that the example which he has shown is one which I should like to see copied. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the impossibility of spending £25,000 per annum in this direction. I will go to the extent of saying that £250,000 would be economically spent in this work. Anyone must see that something of this sort will have to be done if the agricultural interest in this country is to maintain anything like a profitable competition with foreign countries; but the hope of competition with America is altogether fallacious. The competition in America arises from two causes. The first cause of competition is, that the soil of America is more productive than the soil in Europe; and, secondly, the transport is cheaper. Anyone who examines into the matter will find that, so far from the present rates in America breaking down, they are likely to become cheaper every year. At the present time there is flour coming into the English market from San Francisco, and selling 6s.. per barrel cheaper than it can be produced in Ireland. The machinery in America is the same as is used in Ireland at the present time; but it is the transport that kills the Irish, as it also kills the English manufacture. It is not a question of railway rates in America, because the railways which compete with us are really not Railway Companies, but Land Companies, who can, if they like, bring the whole of their freights for nothing, and still pay a dividend on their capital, which arises from profit out of land that extends four or five miles on both sides of the line. Villages are springing up, and the need of railroads is increasing every year; and, as I have said, they are able to compete with us by bringing flour into this country from San Francisco without its having to pay a charge of one single cent for transport. Now, inasmuch as this cheapness of transport cannot be broken down, the hope of English or Irish agriculture competing with America is a very small hope indeed. But there is one direction in which we can improve. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take some glory to the farmers of this country with regard to the excellence of their farming. Now, I have examined into this question, and I am able to say that the system of farming adopted in this country is far inferior to the system in Belgium and Holland, in both of which countries the land is poor; but farming has succeeded there by reason of the agricultural schools which have been established. The right hon. Gentleman may not accept that comparison; but I am sorry to say that it is exactly true that those countries I have mentioned are far in advance of us in their knowledge of the principles of farming, as an instance of which I may mention the principle of the succession of crops, which, although considered a new one here, is, in Holland and Belgium, as old as the hills. Unless you have schools you will never introduce into the farming system of this country those economies which are necessary to success, for there is a parallel between agriculture and the system which obtains in commercial houses; that is to say, it is not the amount of sales which gives the profit—it is the internal economy of the establishment. And I say it is the internal extravagant system in England and Ireland which causes the great loss to the farmer. If you had a system of agricultural education in this country you would alter all that, and that which is now loss woul4 become profit in the future. For that reason I strongly advocate the establishment of agricultural schools. Farming is different from all other pursuits. When, a man fails in everything else he turns his eyes to farming, and I know acquaintances of my own who have left the Bar and other occupations to become what are called gentlemen farmers. I know that in Ireland every man thinks himself capable of becoming a farmer; and these are the facts that account for the bad farming in this country. It is entirely due to this want of education and want of training in the dairy farms of the country that France and other countries are able to compete with us and outsell us in our own market, notwithstanding the means of transport which we have at our disposal. Some endeavours have been made in Ireland, with success, in the matter of dairy farming; but that only goes in one direction, and what we require is a large system of instruction not limited by the outlay of £25,000 to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes, but resting on a grant of such a sum as I mentioned—namely, £250,000, which outlay, I say, in the end would become a source of very large profit. I think the English Government —and especially this Government which has brought in a Land Bill—should make it their special duty to introduce the system we are advocating; and if they succeed in that one thing alone, they would leave behind them a record far more valuable than nine-tenths of the Acts of Parliament which have been passed in other times.

The assurances which I have received from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) are to a large extent satisfactory; but I am bound to say it would have been better if there had been a more clear and definite statement that the money which is required would be forthcoming from the public funds, because I again venture to say that the essence of this question is that funds should be found to set up an efficient Agricultural Department, and that one of the necessities of the Agricultural Department is the establishment of at least one school of agriculture. I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the fact that agriculture is carried on in these days as a matter of science, It is not stationary; you cannot farm to-day as you did in times gone by; you must keep your mind open to progress; and, in endeavouring to enable our farmers to meet competition in the New World, you must furnish them with the means of carrying out their endeavours successfully. In all other countries farmers have a strong protection; they have the advantage of cheap railway rates and a complete system of agricultural education. We have none of those advantages; our railway rates are higher than the rates paid by foreigners who come into our markets to compete with us; we have no system of agricultural education; we have no protection; and if, with all these disadvantages, we have to fight our battles, it is no wonder that we go gradually to the wall. I understand my right hon. Friend to say that he is prepared to take steps in the direction of improving the present Agricultural Department; but allow me to point out that it is not long since that a Minister was obliged to say to a large deputation from Scotland, asking that scientific investigation should be made into pleuropneumonia—"I cannot help you; I have not the money." Thus the disease had to run its course; no investigation could be taken by the Agricultural Department, simply because there were no funds to enable them to deal with it. Now, I think I know the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) sufficiently well to say that, if there is a disposition on the part of the Government to give effect to what is proved to be the universal demand in this House, he will admit that the ways and means should be found that are necessary to do what is required. I do not ask you to spend one sixpence without getting full value for it; I want you to be careful that nothing shall be done which will not produce a valuable return to the nation; but I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee (Mr. Molloy), and I hold with him that £10,000, £20,000, or £25,000 is not in it. If you are going to get an advantage which is necessary, you must furnish the funds necessary to obtain it. I hope I have interpreted rightly what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, that in directing these steps to be taken he does so with the clear intention and know- ledge that those steps will require expenditure of public funds, and that he will not shrink from finding the necessary funds to enable this branch, at any rate, to be set on foot. If I have lightly interpreted my right hon. Friend, perhaps he will be good enough to signify assent; in which case I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I can assure my hon. Friend that there will not be any hesitation on the part of the Government in carrying out our engagement to inquire into this matter, and, if possible, proceeding step by step to make such an arrangement as in our judgment may be satisfactory. My hon. Friend not having given me Notice that he was about to raise this question, I have not had an opportunity of going into the circumstances as fully as I could have wished; but I give him the engagement heartily that we will examine into the question, and that we shall not be behindhand in the matter of any expense which may appear to us to be necessary to bring about a satisfactory result.

I wish to say a few words on a question alluded to by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Richard Paget), and which is all-important, not only with regard to this Office, but also with regard to a number of other Departments throughout the Service. The question might, perhaps, have been more conveniently raised on the Vote on Account; but, unfortunately, the discussion on that Vote was closured before it was complete, and in the discussion on the Vote for the Treasury the Chairman decided that that Vote was not the proper one on which to raise the question, but that it could be brought up on the specific Vote immediately concerned. Now, the question is as to the distribution of work between several Departments. I would remind the Government that the Education Office at one time was under the Privy Council and intimately connected with it; it has been separated from it for some years, and the Department is now under the Vice President of the Council with a separate Office and a separate Vote. But provided for under the present Vote are such matters as the Burial Boards and the official work con- nected with them, although the inspection of Burial Boards is in the hands of the Home Office. Similarly, with regard to merchant shipping, all the work connected with pilotage, lighthouses, and tonnage dues are dealt with by the Privy Council. But those matters are intimately connected with the work entrusted to the Board of Trade: and, therefore, you have work of a cognate nature and almost of identical character being performed in a number of different Departments. Now, I submit that that can only result in unnecessary correspondence, in the multiplication of duties, and unnecessary expenditure. I believe there is room for very considerable economy as between this Vote and the Votes for the Board of Trade, Home Office, and Local Government Board, and I throw out the suggestion in order that I may get the views of the Government on this question. I know that you will say there is a Royal Commission sitting to inquire into this matter; but it will be many years before it reports the result of its labours.

In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, I think all we can say is that the matter referred to by the hon. Member for East Donegal will receive consideration. I quite agree that at first sight it does appear that the work is not altogether well distributed. As the work has arisen it has been shifted from one Office to another without sufficient consideration. This is a matter which would come under the consideration of the Royal Commission; but I am aware there is a difficulty owing to the delay which may arise before the question is reached, and, therefore, if on further inquiry it is found that it is not likely that these points will be soon brought under the consideration of the Commission, then I think I may promise on the part of the Government that they will be considered.

It is announced that cholera has broken out in the South of Europe, and I ask whether it is intended by the Government that any further precautions will be taken in view of that fact?

I point out to the hon. Member that the subject he refers to does not come within this Vote.

It will be in the recollection of the Committee that in the last Parliament there was a unanimous Resolution of the House for the appointment of a Bureau or Department in connection with labour statistics. I want to know from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) exactly what has been done with reference to giving effect to that Resolution, and I will ask him these questions, upon the answers to which will depend whether I feel it necessary to offer further opposition to the Vote. I ask, what officials are actually employed to carry out the Resolution of the House; what are their expenses, salaries, and duties; when those duties actually commenced, and what they have each done? We were told that a large number of inquiry schedules had been prepared by the Board of Trade, and some very glowing promises were made as to the issue of those schedules. Now, I want to know how many of such schedules have been sent out; in what trades; in what proportion in each trade; and how many replies have been received from each trade and between what dates? Then we were told to believe that by the appointment of some gentleman who had been connected with one of the Trade Societies—Mr. Burnett, connected, I believe, with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers—inquiries might be made outside those in the schedules. I want to know what inquiries outside the schedules have been made; by whom and in what manner; and if any inquiries have been made of Trade Societies, and the kind of response that has been given to them; and, especially bearing in mind the promise made, what labour statistics have been collected? I believe that some of these are contained in a volume which exists at the Board of Trade, but which has not been published; and I want to know whether any of these have been published, and, if not, whether any of them will be published? Then we had rather a definite promise made by the Vice President of the Board then in the House of Commons, of some cheap kind of publication which was to be issued containing labour statistics at frequent periods. I think that would have been very useful, but there is no trace of anything of the kind; the Board of Trade does not fulfil, or pretend to fulfil, any of these objects. If the Labour Bureau is to report once in every seven years, it will not in any way fulfil the intention which I think the House had when it unanimously assented to my proposal, and it would be a farce as compared with what is being done in this respect in the United States of America and also in Canada. I want to know what is the cause of the great delay there has been in carrying out the promises of the Board of Trade? I do not want to make any attack on the present Government, and I am bound to say that the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) has treated me with the utmost courtesy in communicating to me what were the plans of the Board; but I should like to see some more realization of these plans, because if the statistics are to be of any use they should be published rapidly and periodically. If this Labour Bureau is to be of use it ought to be useful to the extent of preventing a strike of the kind we had in the county of Northumberland, where there was a body of men more intelligent of their class than any other in the United Kingdom—strong men and industrious men, who showed good temper on the verge of starvation, in a contest in which there was an absolute disagreement between the employers and the representatives of the employed as to prices. I do not wish unduly to press the Government on this point, if I see by their answers that steps are being taken to realize in practice that which the House adopted in theory, my object being to insist that the Resolution of this House should not result in a sham.

I must acknowledge the great courtesy of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) in giving me Notice of these questions. To the first question of the hon. Member the answer is, that the officials actually employed in carrying out the Resolution of the House are three lower division clerks at salaries of £90 each, one lower division clerk at £190, and a Labour Correspondent at a salary of £300 a-year. These are all the officials engaged exclusively on the work, but one clerk of the upper division is partially employed upon it with a salary of £300. The whole of the work is under the Heads of Departments of the Board of Trade. These are the only officials engaged in the work. Mr. Burnett gets £300 a-year. To the second question the answer is, that the number of inquiry schedules sent out was 46,000, and the number of replies received 6,000. The 46,000 schedules sent out apply to 57 different trades, each of which have one, two, or more forms of a special character prepared for it, which arrangement involves, of course, a great deal of labour. The sending out of these schedules commenced in October last, and has continued to the present time; and there are about 14,000 schedules still remaining to be sent out. The third question of the hon. Member is answered partly in the reply to question No. 2. When the whole of the schedules have been sent out, and the replies received from the trades, I shall be happy to communicate the result to the hon. Member. Then as to inquiries other than by schedule. The Labour Correspondent has made and is now making inquiries as to immigration in the East End, Trade Unions, short time in Lancashire, wages in tailoring shops, and expenditure in working-class families. The Labour Correspondent's Report has already been published in a Parliamentary Paper. The Report on Trade Unions is in the Press, and will be circulated; others will follow in due course. The Labour Correspondent has also been engaged in examining into the question of the Manufacturing Departments of the War Office, and from time to time given the Government information as to the state of employment in different trades. Question 5 is partly answered in the reply to No. 4. In addition to the compilation of wages statistics of the last 50 years—a very bulky volume —which will be published, there will be an analysis of wages in different districts. With regard to the periodical publications, we have hardly had sufficient experience yet to decide; but information as to wages has been published from time to time by the Board of Trade in The Monthly Journal. Now, as to the delay which the hon. Member appears to think is rather excessive, I must point out that there has been no real delay in carrying out the promises of the Board of Trade; the programme is being steadily carried out without incurring undue expenditure. I do not wish to detain the Committee by reading the statistics of the Bureau; but if the hon. Member likes to have them I shall be glad to place them at his disposal. The Department, although young, has been engaged in useful labour; and although the work has not, perhaps, progressed as rapidly as it is desired, it is to be accounted for by the fact that the Department has worked on an extremely wide basis. There must be great labour and correspondence, as well as expenditure of time, in a work of this kind; no undue delay has taken place, and we have every reason to believe that this Labour Bureau may became a useful adjunct in the hands of the Board, and be of great utility to the working classes themselves.

I am not at all satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I will point out why I am not satisfied with it. The compilation with regard to wages for the last 50 years is one of extreme interest; but the whole of that material was in the hands of the Board of Trade at the time when I made my Motion, and I cannot help thinking that 16 months is time enough for the publication of the volume. Then with reference to the information on trades unions, which Mr. Burnett was specially fitted to obtain, the bulk of the information as to our trades unions is already in print, either in America in the Reports of the Labour Bureaus or elsewhere. Therefore, I cannot help thinking that there is some ground for complaint that the publication has not yet appeared. I can say that the American Reports with regard to the trades unions of this country are extremely full and accurate. There is one difficulty which occurs to me with regard to the schedules. I understand that the bulk of 46,000 of these have been sent out, and that there have been only 6,000 copies received. If that is so, then it is clear that the system has failed, so far as getting voluntary replies is concerned, and on that subject I shall have a suggestion to submit to the House. Then I find we have three lower division clerks at salaries of £90 a-year each, one at £190 a-year, and one Labour Correspondent at a salary of £300 a-year, and practically there bas been nothing issued in the year. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in every one of the Labour Bureaus of the United States, with, possibly, the exception of that at Washington, the movement was initiated as a perfectly new thing; and yet within a year, with much less expense than has been incurred here, there were issued to the country statistics which, although not complete, showed a beginning. Now this information will serve no purpose for the people if it is only to reach them two years after the event. Unless it is possible promptly to communicate to the people the amount of wage which ought to be earned in particular trades, the whole of this expenditure will be utterly useless. It is of no use to go on year after year with a kind of red-tape establishment, supplying old information; and, unless we are to get something useful from it, I shall regret having put the country to the expense already incurred. Then I infer that, with the best intention, the Board of Trade has given too much occupation to Mr. Burnett outside the occupation intended for him. I think his sole occupation should have been to attend to the labour statistics; but he has been put to other duties which, although very useful, do not at all fit him or enable him to fulfil his office. Then, with regard to the Emigration Office, that is an office which should be attended to separately and distinctly. I admit that this has been exceedingly useful during the year; but it is impossible for Mr. Burnett to attend to it, as well as the one thing which ought to occupy him. Then, looking cursorily at the figures which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade has placed in my hands, I am afraid that the trades organizations themselves have not supplied on their own account the information which they ought to have supplied; and unless there is a concurrence on the part of employers and the employed in furnishing information, it is clear that, as a voluntary scheme, the whole thing has broken down. In reference to the schedules I am afraid that it has broken down, because, in some cases, the number of replies is ridiculously disproportionate. We have, for instance, only 24 replies from the printing and dyeing trade—it is an extreme case; but there are others in which the proportion of replies to schedules is one-quarter. I submit to the Government that it would be well to consider whether there should not be a short enactment, such as was found necessary in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other States of the Union, which would have the effect of bringing forth replies which have not been obtained voluntarily. I am bound to say that the Government have met me fairly; but it appears to me that the work has been wrongly commenced, and that Mr. Burnett has been overburdened. He certainly has not performed his duty here, and I see no evidence that anyone else has done so.

I am bound to admit the amount of the information has not been collected which was desired. Mr. Burnett's duty was at first confined to the collection of labour statistics; but it was found that there was not sufficient work of that kind for him to to do, and he was therefore employed in other duties, one of which was to find out the various employments of foreigners who settled in the East End, and to check, to some extent, the information given by the Boards of Guardians. The hon. Member has called attention to a very important point—namely, that out of 46,000 schedules only 6,000 have been returned, and I quite admit that if this small proportion is all that we are to get the result will be useless. The question, then, would be, how are we to get this information? The schedules are sent to all the employers of labour; they are very carefully compiled, and if they were properly filled up the information obtained would be of the most valuable kind. But not only are they not properly filled up, but only a small proportion is returned at all. It will be a matter of serious consideration whether we ought not to introduce some sort of compulsory power with regard to these schedules, which would enable us to get a reasonable number of answers, otherwise I can only repeat that the Labour Bureau will fail, the information being too scanty to be useful. I can promise that we will endeavour to devise some scheme by which the return of the schedules can be better obtained.

I think some pledge ought to be given to me that Mr. Burnett's duties will be confined to the Department for which he is paid.

I can certainly give the hon. Member that pledge.

I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) for some information as to whether the Board are prepared to reconsider the decision lately announced as to the lighthouse experiments at the South Foreland? I think I am in Order in raising the question on this Vote. The facts are exceedingly brief. Mr. Wigham, of Dublin, has for many years carried on a struggle against the Trinity House and the Board of Trade in regard to lighthouse illuminants. He was engaged, first, in ascertaining the superiority of gas over oil, and after that he has been engaged in fighting the battle of gas versus electricity. I believe there is no doubt that in foggy weather that gas is superior to electricity. Mr. Wigham, I understand, was not allowed to show his best light, and the electric light was unfairly used, the beam having been localized and not thrown upon the horizon. Mr. Wigham's claim is supported by the shipowners of Glasgow, who, with our seamen, are deeply interested in the question, and I hold in my hand a Memorial signed by the former calling for a repetition of the experiments under independent authority. The objection raised to this is on the ground of expense; but I would point out that the Mercantile Marine Fund is the property of shipowners, and I cannot see why, if they are willing that the experiment should be performed, it should not be paid for out of their own money. The question of lighthouse illuminants is of enormous importance to the Mercantile Marine, and I do not think the opinion of the House will stand in the way of the experiment being repeated, or that the Board of Trade ought to continue to resist the appeals made to them by the shipowners of the country.

I rise to say that the statement of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. T. W. Russell), that amongst the shipowners in Glasgow there is an opinion that there has not been a fair trial of Mr. Wigham's light, is true. There is a feeling that too much power is in the hands of the permanent officials, and that it is impossible to get any trials without their approval. I trust the Government will look at the Memorial presented, and that they will gratify the owners of ships to the extent of having a fair and impartial trial. The subject of lighthouse illumination is one of the greatest importance both to shipowners and seamen. The Trinity House and the Board of Trade ought to be ready to receive any useful suggestions for the improvement of lighthouse illuminants, as new inventions are always taking place from time to time, and our object ought to be to secure the very best illuminant, no matter at what cost.

I can assure the hon. Member that the question relating to Mr. Wigham's invention has received the fullest consideration at the hands of the Board of Trade, and it is not due in any way to caprice on the part of the Board that we have to say that we cannot entertain the proposal for fresh experiments, as neither the Scotch nor Irish Lighthouse Authorities have asked that they should be undertaken. The function of the Board of Trade is not to initiate, but to sanction or decline to sanction what the Lighthouse Authorities suggest. Again, I would point out that the experiments which Mr. Wigham proposes to make, at a cost of £2,000, would, in the judgment of those capable of forming an opinion on the subject, cost a great deal more than that sum. The Committee will be aware that the cost of the experiment is not confined to the one light, inasmuch as this has to be tried in comparison with other lights, and the expense must be measured by the number of competitive lights against which it has to be tried. Admitting that the experiment with one light would not cost more than £2,000, we must assume that three or four times that amount would have to be expended in arrangements for the other lights against which it would be tested. The impression seems to be that Mr. Wigham has been badly treated; but I beg to assure the Committee that this is not the case. Mr. Wigham has received £5,000 in recognition of his improvements in lighthouse illumination—that is to say, £2,500 in 1876, and £2,500 in 1884. In addition to this, his firm has during the period of 17 years ended September, 1886, made manufacturers' profits on orders from the Lighthouse Authorities, amounting on the average to upwards of £3,500 a-year, besides other indirect advantages in being advertised at the public expense in numerous Parliamentary Papers. I have asked the Trinity House to give me their views on the question. I do not propose to weary the Committee by reading their Report; but there are two or three paragraphs which I think will answer the remarks of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). It appears from this Report that the experiment at the South Foreland showed that three oil lights held their own against four gas lights in moderately thick weather up to 10 miles; it was found that the oil light was simplest in production, and quite easily managed for all lighthouse purposes, and that the expense of another experiment must far exceed Mr. Wigham's estimate of £2,000. A comparison of double quadriform gas with simple quadriform in either of the other illuminants would not be conclusive. Each must be allowed the right to show on equal terms with the other two in point of power. The Report goes on to say that—

"Without disparaging the opinions of the Chambers of Commerce who have urged another trial, we may urge the opinion of European and American officers, who as experts have watched the South Foreland experiments, and whose Reports practically confirm the conclusion arrived at here."

The Report proceeds—

"If there were any real advantage to the mariner to be gained by the gas light, no thought of expense ought to interfere with its adoption; but when we find that it is a question between ten miles and ten and a-half in hazy weather, we think that the safety of navigation is well cared for, and the question of expense ought to be considered in the interest of those who are taxed to provide it."

It was not thought, under these circumstances, that additional expense ought to be incurred in the interest of the country. I would point out that the only means we have of defraying the expense of experiments in the illumination of lighthouses is the Mercantile Marine Fund. I think the Committee will bear me out in saying that that fund is not in a flourishing condition, and that it is not desirable to charge upon it the cost of the suggested experiments. I think also the hon. Member for South Tyrone will agree that there has been no wish on the part of the Board of Trade in any way to prevent the due testing of Mr. Wigham's inventions; that we have tried them; and we find, on the authority of the Trinity House, that the whole question is between 10 miles and 10½ miles in hazy weather; and in view of the fact that the experiments are calculated to cost a very large sum, and further, taking into account the condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, I hope the Committee will agree that the Board of Trade has exercised a wise discretion in not sanctioning further experiments.

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade has stated that the Irish Board has not made any application for further experiments. I happened to be a member of the Board, and I can say that for years we pressed the matter on the Board of Trade, and that we were met by constant objection to give effect to our views. I am inclined to think that if no further application has been made, it is because long experience has convinced the Board that it is utterly useless to do so. I think I am right in saying that Lord Meath resigned his position on the Board in consequence of the action of the Board of Trade in connection with this very business. I should like to ask one question with reference to the competition between these lights. The hon. Gentleman has said that the experiment would involve, perhaps, five times the cost suggested, because there might be five competitors. I take it that the only competition would be as between oil and gas, so that, at most, there would be twice the expenditure calculated by Mr. Wigham. But I hope that some explanation with regard to the public Company, with a very large capital, which, two or three years ago, was formed and promoted by the engineer to the Trinity House, for the sale of his own inventions, in competition with those of Mr. Wigham, will be given. Can the hon. Member tell us how much money Sir James Douglas received for the con- cession of his patent rights to the Company I refer to? Sir James Douglas is engineer to the Trinity Board, and practically they are guided by his advice; and his brother, who is one of the Irish Board, takes good care to look after the interest of oil in that position. I should like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade to inform the Committee what is the present position of the Limited Liability Company promoted by Sir James Douglas, and the amount of trade which that Company has done with the Government, and whether Sir James Douglas is still connected with it or not?

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade appeared to me himself to make out a good case for further experiments. It was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that a gas burner of the greatest power was not tried in the last experiments, and this has been admitted by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade; and he also says there were oil and gas lamps of greater power than those tried, and yet not experimented with. I therefore urge that the further experiments asked for should be made, in view of the fact that they will be made for the benefit of the Mercantile Marine of the country. One objection to the experiments being made is on the ground of expense, which the hon. Gentleman says would be four or five times as much as the amount estimated by Mr. Wigham. But I point out that Mr. Wigham has offered to guarantee that the expense shall not exceed £2,000. Under these circumstances, I ask, with confidence, that some inquiry should be made with a view to having the experiments repeated. I am certain that this would give satisfaction to the Mercantile Marine, who are by no means confident that the best means are at present being used for illuminating our lighthouses; and, moreover, I think that what has fallen from the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Dwyer Gray) shows that there are many weighty reasons for dissatisfaction.