, in rising to move as an Amendment—

"That in the present condition of the labour market, it is expedient, with a view to giving employment to a greater number of workmen, to discontinue the practice of working overtime in Government Yards and Factories, so far as may be done without injury to the Public Service,"

said, that it was unnecessary to offer any apology to the House for asking it to postpone the consideration of the Estimates for a short time in order to turn its attention, if only for an hour or so, to a subject which was quite as interesting and quite as important, both from an economic point of view, as the saving or the squandering of the nation's taxes. The condition of the labour market and of the sources of employment raised questions which not only puzzled philosophers and statisticians, but constituted for the practical politician the one question of supreme importance at the present time. The one subject which seemed to escape the sweep of our statesmen's telescope was the small Island in which we lived and had our being. He might be paradoxical and parochial in his ideas, but he could not help thinking that the number and the prospects of our unemployed artizans at home formed a subject quite as worthy of consideration as the condition of Egypt, the Canadian Fishery Question, the Indian liquor question, or the remuneration of that interesting person, the Royal rat-catcher. What was the present condition of the labour market? It was generally computed that there were at the present time some 7,000,000 of adult male workers in the Three Kingdoms. According to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. Abrahams) last December, at the annual Congress of the Trades Union at Swansea, there were at the present time 900,000 workmen out of employment, and according to the same authority, the 6,000,000 workmen were working on an average 9 hours a-day. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that if that average of 9 hours a-day were reduced to 8 hours, the immediate effect would be to absorb 750,000 out of the 900,000 unemployed. He imagined, however, although, of course, he spoke under correction, that out of the 7,000,000 workmen there were 5,500,000 in employment and 1,500,000 out of employment, and he put the average daily normal working hours at 10 instead of 9, or 60 hours a-week. The average overtime worked by each man was 12 hours a week, which was a little loss than the average overtime at the Woolwich and Enfield Factories in 1885. As the normal hours of labour were 60 per week, and the average amount of overtime 12 hours per man, seeing that 12 was the fifth of 60, it followed that if the average of 12 hours overtime were distributed it would absorb 1,100,000 out of the 1,500,000 of unemployed artizans. Now, the Government of this country was every large, if not the largest, employer of labour. It employed, or did until recently, at Woolwich and Enfield alone, more than 10,000 men, and at the five great Dockyards it employed 21,000. It was, therefore, necessary to look with special solicitude to see what attitude the Government took up on the subject of overtime. He should also be glad to learn from some Member of the Government what view they took of the respective merits of overtime and night shifts. He thought it was necessary that there should be an authoritative declaration on the subject in order that the country might know the mind of the Government, especially as there was reason to believe that a sensible and wholesome alteration had been made recently. What the public were able to learn from Parliament Returns was that in the year 1885–6—he apologized for the age of the figures he was compelled to give, but it would have taken too long to bring the figures up to a more recent date—in the year 1885–6, out of a total of 10,254 men employed at the Government establishments at Woolwich and Enfield, 7,760 worked, on an average, 12½ hours per week overtime for 37 weeks out of the 52. The total number of hours overtime worked at Enfield and Woolwich in that year was 4,832,950, which, if distributed among fresh men, would have given employ to 1,549 hands for 52 weeks at 60 hours a-week. Thus every five men working overtime kept out a sixth. It was, however, said that the sixth man was not there to accept employment, and, therefore, that the Government must work overtime because the necessary labour was not available. He know it was a prevalent belief that all those called the unemployed were unskilled labourers, and some persons went so far as to say that the unemployed were for the most part thieves and roughs. Heaven knew what the unskilled artizans might come to if they were left no alternative but crime and the workhouse. Unfortunately it had been shown that up to the present time a largo percentage of the most skilled workmen had for some time past been living on the unemployed benefit fund of the Trades Unions. He wished to prove that the sixth man was there, and to prove, also, from statistical tables and from the Trades Unions returns, published in the form of a Blue-Book, that highly skilled artizans of the very same description as those who had been working overtime in the Government Dockyards and factories were walking about the streets and factories waiting for employment and living on the unemployed benefit funds of the Trades Unions. What was the description of men who had been working overtime at Woolwich and Enfield? They were engine fitters, engineers, smiths, boiler makers, iron ship-builders, moulders, carpenters, joiners, wheelwrights, masons, brickmakers and others. It hon. Members would turn to the tables of the Trades Union Societies they would find that in the year 1886 there were in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers 7·4 per cent of its members receiving assistance from the unemployed benefit fund, and necessitating an expenditure on the part of that Society of £1 12s. 5½d. per member; of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Engineers 7·8 per cent of its members were receiving assistance from the unemployed benefit fund, necessitating an expenditure of £1 12s. 7d. per member; the Steam-Engine Makers' Society had 5·8 per cent of its members receiving assistance from the unemployed benefit fund, necessitating an expenditure of £1 2s. 11d. per member; the Friendly Society of Iron Founders had no loss than 13·9 per cent of its members receiving assistance from the united benefit fund, involving an expenditure of £2 14s. 7d. per member; the United Society of Boiler Makers and Iron Shipbuilders had 22·2 of its members receiving assistance from the unemployed benefit fund, entailing an expenditure of £l 7s. 11d. per member; the United Kingdom Pattern Makers Association had 9.6 per cent of its members receiving assistance from the united benefit fund; and the Associated Blacksmiths' Society had 14·4 per cent receiving in a similar way. He maintained that those tables were a splendid record of the fight which the Trades Unions of the country had been making with distress and the want of employment; but the Trades Unions could not go on indefinitely standing this strain upon their resources. There was another feature in regard to overtime work, which he desired to bring under the notice of the House—namely, its costliness and its extravagance. By paying wages of time and a half or time and a quarter to a tired man, they were paying an appreciated price for a depreciated article. He put the produce value of overtime work at a quarter below that of ordinary time; but they paid a quarter more for it. In this way for 4,800,000 hours of overtime work, which was in round numbers the amount of overtime work done in Woolwich and Enfield in 1885, the men claimed and were paid wages for 6,000,000 hours at time and a quarter, or 7,200,000 hours at time and a half. But the produce value was worth a quarter less than ordinary time; so that for 3,600,000 hours' work they paid 6,000,000 hours' wages. This feature of overtime work was perfectly familiar to all large employers of labour, and he was not surprised to find that the Government officials one and all united in condemning the wastefulness and extravagance of overtime. This was shown by the evidence given before Lord Morley's Committee on the Manufacturing Departments of the Army, which reported last year. Among the witnesses examined was Colonel Barlow, the Superintendent of the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich, who said, in answer to question 3,302—

"I think it advisable to spread your work over as large a number of men as you can. In the case of overtime you give the men a good deal of extra pay for the time being, and then it stops; and, so far as the men themselves are concerned, that is a positive disadvantage. I think as a Government work we are right to employ a greater number of men instead of employing a smaller number and giving them a tremendous amount of work. For instance, I found them working up to 10 o'clock at night, and as soon as I could, I introduced night shifts and extended the work over a greater number."

General Maitland, the Superintendent of the Gun Factory objected to overtime on the ground that it was extravagant and wasteful; as also did Mr. Hurst, Accountant and Auditor to the Manufacturing Departments, on the score of expense. The Committee on the Administration of the Dockyards reported in the previous year. Before that Committee, in 1886, Admiral Herbert, Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth Dockyard, in answer to question 1,615, condemned "extra, time" as very expensive, and said—

"That it was impossible for men to work those long hours and give us any return proportionate for our money."

Mr. John Ruddy and Mr. Robert Barnaby joined in the same view. That was a formidable list of witnesses, and he would like to know, and the public were interested in knowing, whether the public had really parted for ever with a system of work which was so unjust to those who had no work at all, which was so costly to the ratepayers, and which was so injurious to the moral and physical welfare of this generation. He would like to know whether it was the fact that overtime had been forbidden at Woolwich and Enfield. He should like to know further, whether that prohibition extended to all Government Departments of labour, and whether it was a temporary suspension or a permanent regulation. The House knew that six weeks overtime had already been worked at Enfield this year. He should like to know what was the nature of the work done by overtime, and if the work could not have been done by night shifts. He would further like to know if in the future the Government were going to substitute working by night shifts for a system of working by overtime. He asked these questions in no spirit of hostility to the Government. He simply asked for information which he thought would be interesting to those who were specially concerned with this branch of the labour question. The question of overtime in Government yards, shops, and factories, and its relation to the labour market, was merely the fringe of that very much larger question which, to an over-populated country, was the one question of supreme moment and surpassing interest—namely, the general distribution of wages and employment throughout the country. It seemed to him to be a question of whether one man was to work overtime and another man to work no time, of whether two men were to work for eight hours or one man for 16 hours. It seemed to him to be a question whether the labourer Dives would allow the labourer Lazarus to pick up the crumbs which fell from his table, or whether he would insist on sweeping them up for his own benefit. We know that any universal application of an Eight Hours' Bill would be impossible in a society like ours, and, it possible, it would be undesirable. It would be impossible, because, before contemplating the adoption of an Eight Hours' Bill, they must first of all get foreign workmen in other countries to reduce their hours of labour, or else they must shut them out of this country by the strictest protection. Any advocate of an Eight Hours' Bill who did not realize that was playing a game at blind man's buff. An Eight Hours' Bill would be impossible in the second place, because intellectual labour and the retail work of redistribution in shops differed essentially from manual labour, and could not be controlled by the same measures. He repeated, therefore, that it was impossible to put a whole society into the Procrustean bed of an Eight Hour Bill. But the working classes themselves had the same power over their hours of labour as they had over the wages they received. They could reduce their hours by the same lever by which they raised their wages; it was by the working classes themselves that the hours of labour must be shortened in this country. It was by combination, by the pressure of public opinion, by voluntary association, rather than by any Eight Hours' Bill that the excessive hours of labour in this country must be shortened. It had already been done in South London by a voluntary closing movement, under the auspices of his hen, Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Maple). They were told that working men who got overtime liked that overtime, and, like all monopolists, refused to share it with their unemployed brethren. He very much doubted that, because, in the first place, working men were very just to one another, and because, in the second place, the unemployed were a terrible tax on the employed, a far greater tax upon the working classes than to any other class. Not only were they a burden on the rates of the parish and the funds of the Union, but upon the earnings of the working men from whom the unemployed were always begging or borrowing. The truth was, that a country with an overstocked labour market like ours must be prepared to do one of two things—either to secure by some means or another a more equal distribution of wages and employment, or be prepared to deal with a very large increase of the pauper and criminal classes. We must face this, because it faced us. Those who would not face facts were sure to be made to feel them. It was the same problem which 40 or 50 years ago stung the sardonic humour of Carlisle into prophecies—then described as the mutterings of dyspepsia—now being realized day by day. It was the same problem which moved the fierce indignation of Kingsley, and which lent to the pages of Disraeli's Sybil their most pathetic interest. The same problem was now again before us, but under conditions how changed. There was now a larger population, no Corn Laws to abolish, no landed aristocracy at whose doors they could lay the burden of their sufferings. The condition of the landed classes in tins country was pitiable in the extreme, was almost such as might "draw iron tears down Pluto's cheek." That condition had been reached while we had been enjoying the unrestricted importation of every article under the sun, human beings included. For 40 years the gospel of every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost, had been preached and practised in this country with amazing success. It had produced cheap money and the sweating system; a million of unemployed, and money so cheap that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and reduced the interest on the National Debt. What a commentary on the gospel of gain from ruin! A period of unexampled cheapness of money, said the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) and a population of something like 5,000,000 of men, women, and children who could get no work or wages, or who were forced to work under conditions which had lately been revealed, and which made a very ugly stain indeed on the gorgeous garment of our modern civilization. Was it not time, then, to take stock of our industrial condition, and were they not entitled to look to the Government for guidance and direction on that labour question, for on no question more than that did the public of this country require more guidance and direction, because economic distress was always more dangerous and more difficult to deal with than political discontent. He expected to receive a sympathetic, and a satisfactory answer from the Government; and he was certain that the formal repudiation of the principle of overtime by the Government would have a sensible and salutary effect in diminishing excessive hours of labour throughout the country, and would thus be a first step towards that more equal distribution of profits, wages, and work which alone could save an over-populated country from industrial anarchy and social ruin. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment which stood in his name.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham had brought forward a very interesting subject in moving his Resolution; but he was afraid that, speaking on behalf of the Government, he could not accept the assumptions contained in that Resolution. Those assumptions were two in number. His hon. Friend assumed, first, that there was a practice of working overtime in the Government Dockyards and manufactories; and, next, that if that practice were discontinued a greater number of persons would be employed in those establishments. He was afraid that his hon. Friend and he approached that subject horn somewhat different points of view. His hon. Friend approached it from the point of view of the condition of the labour market and the dearth of employment which existed in many places. Everybody, of course, had great sympathy with the unemployed workmen, and must feel that it was exceedingly desirable that the trade of the country should be in such a state as to give full employment to all our working population. The Government, therefore, had great sympathy with his hen. Friend when he expressed the earnest desire that work might in some way or other be found for the unemployed. But they had to approach matters affecting the Government manufacturing establishments from a somewhat different point of view from that of his hon. Friend. They had to conduct the Government yards and factories in the manner which would secure the greatest efficiency and the greatest economy. Those were the rules by which alone they must be guided; and, looking at the question from that point of view, the Government absolutely condemned systematic overtime. They thought that systematic overtime was costly, both as regarded the money that was expended and as regarded the quality of the work that was produced. He might point out that they had not in the Departments either under the First Lord of the Admiralty or under the Secretary of State for War any systematic overtime at all. His hon. Friend had quoted certain Returns which went as far back as 1885–6, and complained that there was no material to his hand of later date; but if he had gone to the Library he would have found there a continuation of the Return that was moved for by the hon. Member for East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) last year, and which had since been presented, showing the amount of overtime at Enfield and Woolwich in 1886–7. From that Return it would be seen that, although in 1885–6, during a time of great pressure, there was a considerable amount of overtime at those manufacturing establishments, yet since that date the amount of overtime had been enormously reduced, and at present there was no systematic Overtime at all, When his right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) was at the War Office he looked into that matter very carefully, and issued an order that the practice of overtime must be discontinued except in cases of urgency at the manufacturing establishments of the War Office; and since that period the practice had been discontinued, and at present systematic overtime did not exist there. As to the Dockyards, he could not, of course, speak with anything like the same authority; but he had obtained from his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) the information that the working of overtime in the Dockyards and Factories of that Department was entirely discontinued so far as could be done without injury to the Public Service, and was only resorted to in cases of great urgency or emergency, where it was necessary to advance come special parts of the work, and that it had been arranged to work night-shifts wherever practicable. So that as regarded the Dockyards systematic overtime was altogether discontinued. It was, of course, perfectly clear that occasional overtime must sometimes take place, as, for instance, for the repair of machinery or the preparation for night-shifts, or to advance some special part of the work for which special skilled labour was required. His hon. Friend had referred to overtime being worked at Enfield Factory at a very recent period. It was true that overtime was sanctioned for a few weeks at Enfield in order to advance special parts of the new rifle, which required special skill, and which they wished to advance as quickly as possible. It was their desire to put the new rifle into the hands of the troops for manual drill with the least possible delay, and that could only be attained by employing certain special men overtime for a short period. If he, as Secretary of State for War, had interfered and not allowed that limited amount of overtime the only effect would have been to delay the time at which the new rifle was put into the hands of the troops, and it would not have been possible to employ one single additional man at Enfield. Therefore, as regarded the Government establishments they had discontinued systematic overtime, and they did not resort to overtime except in cases of urgency. They could give his hon. Friend no further assurance than that. In a case of urgency they must claim the right to employ the men in the Dockyards and Government manufacturing establishments for overtime if the interests of the Public Service required it. But, as his hon. Friend said his main object was to obtain a declaration from the Government in regard to overtime, his hon. Friend would admit that he had now given as full and complete an assurance as to their policy and practice as could be fairly asked from them; and therefore he supposed that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division on his Resolution.

said, he rose for the purpose, not of finding fault with what was in the Estimate, but of finding fault with what was not in it. The condition of the building of the Normal School of Science, to which he would like to draw the attention of the Committee, was really almost disgraceful. The accommodation which they had at present in this school, the only Government school in the country for training science teachers, would be a disgrace to a third-rate German town. He happened only that day to visit the school, and had judged for himself what the accommodation was. To take one department only—namely, that of the experimental science of physics under the able direction of Professor Thicker. It appeared that so large a number of students at the present moment attended that particular department, that the buildings on the east side of Exhibition Road were entirely insufficient for their accommodation, and that a temporary building on the west side, which was put up for the International Exhibition, had been rented from the Commissioners of 1851, and was used as a physical laboratory. Not only was that building totally inadequate, but even that was to be taken away from the Science School. He was informed that the authorities of the Imperial Institute had given notice that they would require the land upon which the building was erected in a very short time for a road which they purposed making, or were in the act of making, between Queen's Gate and Exhibition Road. The consequence of this would be that the whole of the students who now worked in this building would be thrown, as it were, out of employment, and that our only Government Normal School of Science would actually have to reject the very large number of students who were now going there. He would put it to the First Commissioner of Works whether this was a desirable condition of things, and whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention should not be directed to the very important question of providing accommodation of a really efficient character for this great national institution? Even from an economic point of view this matter required, he thought, the attention of Her Majesty's Government, for should these students be turned away from the doors of the Normal School, the fees which they paid, amounting now to no less than £3,500 a-year, would no longer be paid into the Exchequer, and the Government would suffer a corresponding loss. He trusted, therefore, that this first point to which he begged to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would be carefully considered by him. But there was a still wider question to which he wished to refer, and that was the housing of the National Science Collections. The Committee were, perhaps, not aware that we possessed now in South Kensington one of the most complete collections of scientific instruments and apparatus in Europe, and that it was only housed in temporary buildings—in a portion of the building once occupied by the International Exhibition. For this housing the Government now paid £2,000 a-year. Some time ago, this matter having attracted the attention of the Government, a Departmental Committee was appointed considering, not so much whether this collection should continue or should be housed, but having the collection, and valuing it, how it should be housed. The Committee consisted of Sir Frederick Bramwell, Lord Lingen, Mr. Mitford, and Colonel Donnelly, and they went into the whole question most fully. Evidence was obtained from all the leading men of science in the country as to the necessity and importance of this collection, and the Report of the Committee was so nearly unanimous that three of these gentlemen—namely, Sir Frederick Bramwell, Lord Lingen, and Colonel Donnelly, reported most favourably of the necessity of having proper buildings erected for the housing of the collection. Mr. Mitford reported separately, not so much because he did not agree with the Report of his Colleagues, as because he failed to appreciate so much as they seemed to do the value of this scientific collection. About that matter, however, there could be no doubt at all. The question of the cost of the erection of suitable buildings was most carefully gone into, and it was shown that, inasmuch as a very large rent had to be paid towards the housing of the present collection, and considering the sale of other land and buildings belonging to Government which would no longer be needed, a sum of something like £32,000 would be sufficient to pay for what was required. Under these circumstances, he thought there ought to be no difficulty in inducing the Government to look into the matter, and to take steps to put the National Science Collection on a footing worthy of the nation. A great deal had been talked about our failing industries, and we had heard much about protecting those industries; but he would venture to say that the one mode which all were agreed would lead to the protection of our industries was the development of the scientific education of the people. As he had said before, the present con- dition of things was a disgrace to the nation. When they heard of a small country like Switzerland spending £70,000 or £80,000 in erecting a single building, he thought it was high time that we should turn round and put our house in order, so far as concerned the proper accommodation in the National Science Schools and the housing of this scientific collection. He trusted that the Board of Works and Her Majesty's Government would give their best attention to this matter, which was one of real national importance.

said he should like to say a word or two on this subject. He must candidly say that he agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Roscoe) that something ought to be done to complete the Museum at South Kensington. When they looked into the Estimate they found that on new works, alterations, and additions to the South Kensington Museum only £100 was to be spent, and those of them who believed in the importance of the National Science and Art Collection at South Kensington must say that they ought to look forward to the building in which the collection was exhibited being completed at once. Another part of the Estimate showed that they were paying at the present time no less than £4,500 for the rent of premises on the opposite side of the road to the Museum. Under the new state of affairs as to the future rate of Consols, that represented a sum of something like £200,000. Well, he (Mr. Bartley) thought the time had come when they should make the South Kensington Museum complete, and should finish the buildings which had been designed for so many years, and do away with the present old and perfectly unsuitable premises On the other side of the road which they were now renting. It was true he had taken an active part in the objection raised to the system of circulating objects of art throughout the country, and he thought the reason why money was not given freely to complete these Museum buildings was because many persons thought that South Kensington spent too much money in keeping Art treasures, duplicates, and reproductions to itself, and did not circulate them as much as they should amongst other parts of the country. But, be that as it might, he agreed that it was a disgrace to the country that they should not by this time have completed these Museum buildings. It was true that a good deal of money had been spent on them; but it was also true, as the hon. Member opposite had pointed out, that smaller countries than our own spent greater sums than we did on such purposes. He thought the time had arrived when they should complete the buildings in South Kensington and put its working upon a broader basis. If this were decided upon he thought the House would be very willing to spend the necessary amount. He must say he did not look with any great hope to the two Front Benches doing this. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), if he got up to speak on this subject, would advocate increased expenditure for this purpose; but, as it was pointed out last night, when the right hon. Gentleman was on the Ministerial side of the House, he did not take any steps to bring about such a consummation. The only way in which a satisfactory result in regard to this matter could be arrived at, and the Museum buildings completed, was for both sides of the House to combine in forcing the Front Bench into action. If this magnificent Museum were complete he believed it would do more than any other measure which could be adopted to promote trade and industry. Nothing would do more good than to put this Exhibition in a better position, and extend its operations by loans of specimens through the small as well as the large provincial towns of the country.

said, he hoped the Committee would allow him to add a few words to what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the debate so far, The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Roscoe) occupied, as they knew, a position of authority in connection with Owen's College, Manchester, and he (Mr. P. S. Powell) had the honour of being a member of the Governing Body of the Yorkshire College at Leeds; and he must say that when they took into account the work that was being done by those two provincial institutions, the position of South Kensington in regard to the country generally was discreditable to the Government. He thought the time had come when those who had seats in the House, as the Representa- country, ought to entreat the Government, not indeed to be lavish, but to be just and generous in their dealings with this institution. They had had occasion in the course of last year to regret the contraction of the grant to the British Museum; and while they viewed that contraction with great regret, he was sure they did not regard with any more satisfaction the unfair and unjust economy with regard to the scientific department, so to say, of our popular institutions in London. They had pressed on the Government by deputations and by various means the necessity of giving wider and larger and more perfect technical instruction throughout the country; but when they dealt with that which was the centre, that which was the chief, that which was the origin, and at the same time the controlling power in London, they found a want of largeness of view, and had to lament a most deplorable and false economy on the part of the Executive. He (Mr. F. S. Powell) had had an opportunity of visiting the collection at South Kensington in the course of the last few weeks, and he believed that no one could visit that Museum without feeling great regret that such a building should be allowed to remain in an incomplete state. Some portions of the building, as they knew, had been carried out in accordance with the designs of those who laid out the general scheme; but other parts were entirely unbuilt, and the remainder was in a miserably decaying condition, which was a sarcasm and a satire upon the whole conception. It was the wish of some Members of the House of Commons at all times to press economy upon the Government. It fell to his lot some times to join in this cry; but he did hope that if they were economical when economy was called for, they would also be liberal when necessity demanded liberality. It seemed to him to be really a mockery that they should be on all occasions entreating the Government to aid Municipalities in the different districts in the giving of technical instruction; and that then, when they came to London itself and to the Central Government, they should find matters worked down to what was really a miserable starvation point. There was one point of detail to which he should like to call the attention of the Government, and to ask them to answer a question upon, and that was the item of insurance. He saw that the sum for insurance had been reduced from the sum of £400 to £100. He held there was no more false economy than restricting the amount of insurance, and he trusted they would have an assurance from the Government, in the course of this discussion, that the reduction of the amount from £400 to £100 had not arisen from any reduction in the total amount for which the Museum was insured. He held that no more false economy could be committed than to risk the loss without compensation of such valuable objects as those which were continued in the Museum for the mere sake of saving the shin of £300. He (Mr. F. S. Powell) was sorry for having trespassed so long on the time of the Committee; but he had felt bound to take part in the discussion, having, as he had, the subject so closely at heart.

I wish to say, in the first place, that so far as I am personally concerned, and I am surd I may speak for every Member of Her Majesty's Government, that we most entirely sympathize with the great interest which the hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Roscoe) has expressed—and certainly no one has a greater right to speak on this subject than he has—in the welfare and prosperity and highest development of the Science and Art Department of South Kensington; and whatever part may be taken—whatever, comparatively speaking, humble part may be taken by the Office I have the honour to represent in this controversy, so I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee that it is in a spirit of most hearty goodwill to all the interests for which the hon. Member has so well pleaded this evening. But then the Committee must understand that this question is one of very considerable difficulty. It has been felt to be a question of difficulty not only by the present Government, but also by the late Government, and the various proposals that have been made from time to time have not been given effect to, because all the interests concerned in this question have unfortunately not bean able so far to come to a common understanding on the subject. Now, of course, it is quite true that it is better that a little time should be occupied in arriving at a thoroughly satisfactory plan than that, by a hasty decision, a wrong direction should be given to the ultimate development of this important institution; but, on the other hand, I must admit that there has been very great delay indeed on the part of successive Governments in dealing with this question—a delay which I myself deplore, and which I should be very glad to see terminated. But now let me explain to the Committee that it is net quite as plain sailing to settle this question as one might suppose if he had only heard one side of the matter. The authorities representing the Science and Art Department at South Kensington have very wide views as to how this subject should be dealt with. They naturally wished that in whatever buildings are undertaken the largest provision should be made, not only for the present needs, but also for the possible development of this great institution. On the other hand, the Treasury has to consider what they might fairly propose in the way of expense in the interests of this particular Department. I am afraid that it is a kind of triangular duel which has been going on for seine time. The Office of Works being appealed to by the Treasury are, of course, bound to advise them from the practical point of view of the builder as to what they really think can fairly be asked in the way of increased buildings, and as to what they thought unnecessary and visionary demands. I ought to say at once that I admit that there is a considerable and a pressing want of immediate relief—and when I say immediate relief, I mean as soon as it can possibly be afforded—for the congestion that at present exists at South Kensington as regards the operations of the Science and Art Department. I do not think it would be of any use now for me to go over the early history of this controversy. I have no intention of doing so. I wish rather to submit to the Committee the proposals which have been made by me since I have been at the Office of Works. What we proposed to the Government was that there was a very large question which would have sooner or later to be decided, and the sooner it was decided the better; but that that matter wait rather a question for the future, and one which, comparatively speaking, could afford to wait for its decision—namely, in what shape and form the Science and Art Department should find housing in South Kensington when the whole of the ground which is naturally the best for its accommodation—I mean that part which lies to the east of Exhibition Road—should come to be occupied by buildings. There have been various plans proposed. There were plans proposed by General Scott, and there have since been plans proposed by the Surveyor and Architect under the Office of Works. These plans, I believe, have each considerable merit; but I am not at all sure that when we put our hand to the plough and really undertake to make this building, it would not be, perhaps, advisable—I only throw it out as my own opinion—to invite the very best architectural skill to deal with this very important matter—important not only in the interests of the Department of Science and Art, but also important because it will permanently affect a very prominent site in a very beautiful part of London; and I think everybody will feel that, when that ground is covered, it should be covered by a building which should not only meet the wants of the Science and Art Department, but will be in itself an admirable architectural feature. That is all I want to say about the ultimate solution of this question; but it is agreed on all hands that any such plan, if it were undertaken, would require at least four years, and possibly a longer time to give effect to it. Well, but the want is pressing, and we have made suggestions which, I am afraid, have not been favourably considered by the Science and Art Department. I will tell the Committee what those suggestions were. There are at present abutting on the eastern side of the Exhibition Road four largo and handsome residences, which are occupied by officers connected with the Science and Art Department. Now, one of the suggestions was that two or three—at all events, two—of these residences should, at any rate for a time, be taken from those who inhabit them at present, accommodation being found for those officers elsewhere. There would be no difficulty whatever in finding accommodation for them in the immediate vicinity of the establishment at South Kensington, and in these days of rapid communication by telephone and otherwise we do not suppose that any inconvenience would accrue from, say, two of these officers being located in the immediate neighbourhood and having to go a short way before reaching the Exhibition. The space which would be in this way obtained could, we are satisfied, be easily adapted for meeting the immediate wants of the Science and Art Department. We made, also, a further proposal. There are at present in these buildings in South Kensington a number of naval specimens, and various objects exhibited there in connection with naval architecture; and we have proposed that that part of the collection at South Kensington should be removed, at all events for a time, say to Greenwich, where we believe that accommodation could be found fur it, the space so saved being given to the Science and Art Department. I may say that these proposals are the best we can think of to meet the want which we fully admit to exist, and which we are most anxious to see properly dealt with. I am afraid, however, that when the Treasury submitted these proposals to the Science and Art Department they were not favourably received; and so, unfortunately, the triangular duel appears still to be going on. I can only add that I regret this very much, and that whenever the Science and Art Department can propose terms which will be satisfactory to the Treasury—and, of course, the Treasury being the Department which has to find the money for anything which is done, it must first be satisfied on the subject before anything can be undertaken—then I assure the Committee that the Office of Works will be perfectly ready and most glad and prompt in giving whatever assistance they can to settle this question, which, as I explained when I commenced these few observations, is an object which I fool, as strongly as any Member of the Committee, is one deserving to be dealt with as soon as it conveniently can.

The concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appear to me to sum up the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman said that when the Science and Art Department could make proposals which would be satisfactory to the Board of Works and the Treasury, then it was to be hoped the question would be solved. Now, Sir, it does net rest with the Science and Art Department. They have done everything, I believe, that lies in the power of the Department to do to bring about an accommodation both with the Board of Works and the Treasury, and the whole matter has been investigated in the fullest, most careful, and most impartial manner, and by the most impartial investigators. The hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe) did not use too strong language when he said that the condition of the Science and Art Department at South Kensington was a disgrace to the country. It really is a public scandal, and I am quite sure that if the public had any idea of the condition of things, they would not tolerate it for a day longer. Now let me just state to the House how the matter stands. In the first place, the office accommodation and the examination rooms are altogether inadequate for the services which have to be performed. There are servants there who are working in passages, corridors, and cellars—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council knows all about it—and are crowded up in unhealthy rooms in conditions under which no public or private servant ought to be asked to work. It is in the last degree disgraceful that this state of things should be continued. There are something like £80,000 worth of Art objects which have been examined, or are to be examined, in the old building known as one of the old "Brompton Boilers," and when we remember the way in which the work is done it can hardly be imagined that it can be allowed to continue. The improvement of the state of the Science School is a matter of immediate and pressing necessity. That school has completely overflowed its limits, and a part of the physical laboratory has gone to the French annexe of the Museum on the opposite side of the road. That annexe is required either next year or the present year—I believe during this year—for the Imperial Institute, and the Science and Art School will have to "clear out." There will be 60 students displaced, and there will be a loss of fees alone of over £3,000 a-year. But, more than that, the new students coming up from the country will have no accommodation, and this is, as has been pointed out, our training school for Science teachers. We talk about technical education in this House and on public platforms, we plead for it, and are all in favour of it—that is to say, we are in favour of talking about it—but no one seems to be in favour of spending money on it, and the result is that we are about to diminish our supply of Science teachers in consequence of lack of room in this Department. Then I go to the housing of the Science Collection. We have a Science Collection which is unexampled, which is unique, and which, taken with our Patent Museum, we can safely say contains examples which no Museum of the kind in the world contains. Our Patent Museum possesses Arkwright's great loom, Stephenson's first steam engine, and many other similar great inventions. In fact, from an historical as well as an industrial point of view, there is nothing to compare with the contents of this Museum anywhere else in the world. But these objects of interest cannot at present be seen or examined. Nothing could be more wretched than the position in which they are placed at the present moment. No one who has not seen the manner in which they are exhibited can believe how bad it is. They require, in order to be properly understood and appreciated, that proper accommodation should be given to them. It may be said, however, that these things will not suffer by delay; but that cannot be said in connection with the Science School. That is suffering by delay, and if when the right hon. Gentleman opposite passes the Technical Education Bill, as we sincerely hope he will, as technical education spreads in the Provinces, and as Local Authorities set up Technical Education Institutions, they will want teachers. Whore are those teachers to come from? The Science School at South Kensington has provided the best teachers in the country, and that institution has done more for technical education than all the others put together, except Owen's College, in Manchester. Something ought to be said about finishing the Art Museum and Art Collection. What does the right hon. Gentleman opposite say? He says—"Well, we have our ideas about it—take over two or three private residences, pending accommodation for those who now occupy them elsewhere." I would put it to the First Lord of the Treasury, as to the removal of the officers of the Exhibition from these residences, that you ought to have in connection with this Institution, as you have in connection with the British Museum, your officers resident on the spot. You have a collection at South Kensington the value of which amounts to millions of money. The Art specimens cannot be replaced if once lost. In case of a fire at the Museum the officers ought to be on the spot. To remove these men from the building is, I think, a great mistake; they certainly ought to be within a minute's call. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) said this is a problem which has engaged the attention of successive Governments, and that it is not so easily solved. Yes; but what is the reason that it has not been solved? It is because the Treasury, when driven into a corner, when it is short of money or wants to make a saving, says—"Oh, we will cut off Science and Art." In this country it is always a safe thing to cut down Science and Art. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) went down to Newcastle, and in his speech, which. I read with great care, he said—"If you only left Science to local effort, Science would now walk alone and do without Government subsidy." As a matter of fact, he was speaking in a school which, but for Government subsidies, would have been shut up next day. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh, oh!] I know the school a great deal better than the noble Lord, and I tell him that nobody could be more astonished at his remarks that Dr. Rutherford.

Why, he gave me the information.

But Dr. Rutherford would close his school within a month but for Government assistance. It would be impossible to continue the schools of this country unless there was a Central College for the training of teachers. But that does not arise on this particular Vote, and therefore I am afraid I have somewhat transgressed. What I specially want to do is to confirm all that has been said by my hon. Friend (Sir Henry Roscoe), and by hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the other side of the House—that there is no country in Europe that has made such wretchedly small sacrifices for the training of scion- tific men, for the purpose of giving scientific instruction, as our own. The subsidy given in any small German State is far greater than the subsidy we give. The difference is as distinct as daylight is to darkness. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington Will make that out if he turns to the Report of the Commissioners on Technical Education. It is time we should put our house in order, and put our scientific teaching upon a proper footing, if we mean to do anything in the way of technical education.

We spend over £500,000 sterling a-year.

Yes; but what do we spend it in? We do not spend it upon scientific teaching. That amount includes the whole of the Science grants of the country; it includes the whole of the cost of the Art teaching of the country; it includes the whole cost of management at South Kensington and the cost of the whole of the Circulation Department in the bargain. It is something loss than what is spent upon a single Science teaching institution in Berlin alone. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) said we should come to an agreement about the method to be pursued. He is anxious we should take wise steps, and not be too hasty lost we should not perform our work thoroughly and satisfactorily. He pointed to the fact that a Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the housing of the Science and Art Collections. Lord Lingen, of the Treasury, Major General Donnelly, Sir Frederick Bramwell, and Mr. William Mitford, formed the Committee, and they all agreed, except the latter, to a Report, and that Report was signed on the 27th of July, 1885. Mr. Mitford doubted whether the public would spend the money recommended. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) would refresh his memory on the point, he would find that, so far as the Treasury of that day was concerned—and it never had a better Representative, or one who was more more careful of the expenditure than Lord Lingen—he would find that the Treasury assented through that Report to a principle which would settle the whole question.

At that time Lord Lingen was not Secretary to the Treasury.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Lord Lingen was Secretary to the Treasury during the whole of the time the Committee was sitting. He resigned on the 27th of July, 1885, and the Committee was appointed fully a year before that date. The whole time he sat on that Committee he was the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and I know that since that time Lord Lingen has not changed his mind. He is of opinion that the Report ought to have been carried out. It would have been wise and economical on the part of the Government to have carried it out. However, I do not blame the Government for not having done so, but I do trust they will take some decisive action in respect of Science and Art teaching. It is a scandal if pupils who come up from the Provinces to attend Science Schools cannot be admitted to Science teaching. For the sake of the work on which we are about to enter—namely, the better technical education of our people, I trust that some better steps with respect to this teaching will be taken.

said, that he only desired to add a few words to the observations he had already addressed to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had criticized one of the proposals which was recently made by the Office of Works on the ground that if they excluded the officers who were at present resident in the building at South Kensington it would considerably increase the dangers besetting the Museum—especially in case of fire. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that the experience of the Office of Works was that the presence in buildings of such officers, so far from being of any advantage in the case of fire, or being any protection against fire breaking out, was to increase the danger from fire. What they found was that to protect buildings from fire by police and by night watchmen was by far the best and most practical way. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there had been a reduction in the insurance premium of South Kensington from £400 to £100. He was glad, however, to assure his hon. Friend that there had been no reduction at all in the amount for which they were insured. They were obliged to pay a higher fee at the time the Colonial and other Exhibitions were taking place there. The Insurance Companies insisted upon higher premiums in consequence of the increased danger from fire, because of the proximity of these Exhibitions.

asked to be allowed to add one word by way of explanation. He did not mean to say that the officers should reside in the building, but he thought that they should reside in the grounds, some little distance from the building.

said, that under the wing of the building were four very large and handsome houses, and it was proposed that two of them should be vacated and used to meet the pressing wants of the Institution.

said, there was another correction he should like to make. When he spoke of the expenditure of the Science School at Charlottenburg, the Secretary to the Treasury shook his head. He did not mean to say that that Institution cost £500,000 sterling a-year, but that the building cost £500,000, and that £140,000 more had been spent in furniture, appliances, &c.

said, he rose in consequence of the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). He wished to remark that he was not in the least deterred by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman from pursuing a very close scrutiny of the expenditure of the country at the present moment on Science and Art. This was not the moment at which such a scrutiny could be made. The most convenient time for criticizing the expenditure would be on the Vote for the general expenditure upon Science and Art. He would give the right hon. Gentleman fair notice, however, that he hoped to be in a position, when the expenditure on Science and Art came up for review, to give some startling particulars of extravagance on a marvellously largo scale. If those particulars were brought forward and proved to the satisfaction of the House, the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe), and others who agreed with him, would very probably have far more money to spend in the way they desired than they had at present. Constantly charges were brought by right hon. Gentlemen opposite against the Government of the country for penuriousness, short-sightedness, and other bad qualities, with respect to Science and Art, and grants for Science and Art buildings. He would like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he would cause to be prepared a Return, showing the expenditure which had been incurred in this country merely on buildings for Science and Art purposes, so that they might know exactly what had been spent, and that they might be able to meet the charges of niggardliness which were constantly brought by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? If they could find out exactly what had been spent during the last few years upon Science and Art buildings, they would be able to compare the expenditure with that of other countries, and he thought it would be found that our expenditure on Science and Art exceeded that which had been incurred by other countries. At any rate, the Return he proposed would be very useful in view of the continued demands made on the Treasury. Those demands were very popular, and very easy to make, and it was very difficult for the Treasury to incur unpopularity by refusing them. He did not think the House had the remotest idea of the hundreds of thousands of pounds which had been sunk by the country in the payment of Professors' salaries, and in other forms of encouraging Science and Art.

said, he did not propose to follow the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) in his remarks, which he had listened to with considerable surprise; but he hoped they would hear from some Representative of the Government something more definite upon the question. He listened to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) with some disappointment. No doubt, he spoke in a sympathetic spirit, but, at the same time, his remarks were not at all definite, and the suggestion he made seemed to be of the nature of a makeshift. With regard to the question of the residence of the officers of the Museum, it was argued that, so far as the prevention of fire was concerned, police were more effective than the officers connected with the Institution could be; but, surely, when a fire had once broken out it must be of great importance to have someone on the spot who knew where the more valuable articles were stored, and what were the best steps to be taken for their protection or removal. They had heard from the hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) of the crowded condition of the physical laboratory. He believed there was on the south side of the road a piece of land belonging to the Commissioners of 1851 which might be acquired. It was very desirable to secure that plot of land at once, because he understood that very probably ordinary houses would otherwise be built upon it, and the opportunity would be lost. It was quite clear that this was a matter which did not concern one Department of the Government merely; and, therefore, he hoped that before the discussion closed they would have the advantage of hearing the views of the right hon. Baronet the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) and of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). The subject had been engaging attention for years, and it was now high time something definite was done.

said, he sincerely hoped that in the course of the next year something would be done to improve the accommodation at South Kensington. He did not know whether the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) was aware that an annual Exhibition of drawings and prizes in connection with the Science and Art Schools of the United Kingdom took place at South Kensington in the summer months; but he (Mr. W. H. James) had attended these Exhibitions, and had experienced great difficulty in finding them. When he had found the exhibits it was exceedingly difficult to inspect them. These exhibits were prizes which were brought in from the chief centres of the United Kingdom; and it was a pity so little should be known of them. Occasionally he had seen the classes at South Kensington at work. The accommodation was of the most wretched, unsatisfactory, and miserable kind. He was inclined to think that in respect to Science and Art education the feeling of the democracy in the constituencies generally was rather in favour of a lavish expenditure than otherwise. He sincerely hoped the Government would be able to see their way before another year came round to increase this Vote.

said, he had listened to the debate with great interest indeed, and especially to the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella). He must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the great complaint made against the Government was that they were penurious. They had heard different stories at different times and in different parts of the country; but he was not ashamed of their penuriousness when it was necessary in the interests of the public purse. He thought it was the duty of the Government to examine the proposals by Departments of the Government with the greatest possible care, and to be perfectly and absolutely certain the expenditure proposed was absolutely necessary in the public interest. Very much had been said this evening which seemed to indicate that other provision was necessary at South Kensington. His noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) was amply justified in the remarks he made as to the cost of the buildings which had been erected at South Kensington within the past few years. Complaint had been made with regard to the course pursued by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had the Treasury to deal with in his day; and he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman found that the Treasury exercised a very careful supervision over the demands which were made upon South Kensington; and he had frequently, no doubt, himself been the medium of making demands upon South Kensington which were not always satisfied. The Treasury were simply doing their duty in examining most carefully the demands made from time to time. He admitted they might at the Treasury occasionally prevent the execution of works quite as quickly as they might be demanded by the public; but he wished to take note most distinctly of the fact that the Government desired only to spend money when it was necessary in the public interest, and that they were hound to offer resistance to Departments which from time to time made demands upon them from the point of view of the Department alone, and not from the point of view of the interests of the country at large. He did not wish to make any observations with reference to the particular demand for further accommodation which had been urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe). It was a matter which demanded the consideration of the Government as a Government, and they must decide as between the Department which was wrong and that which was right, and determine which was the proper course to be taken. He undertook, on the part of the Government, that attention should be given to the question, and that a statement should be made in the House without any unreasonable delay. But he did trust that the House of Commons and the Committee of Supply would not urge the Government, night after night, to make large expenditure, and then expect them to conduct the finances of the country upon economical principles. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington asked that a Return should be given of the money spent upon Science and Art buildings. He should be exceedingly glad to give such a Return; and to make it as full and complete as possible he would suggest that it should be a Return of the cost of South Kensington from its establishment, 20 years ago, down to the present date.

said, he had great sympathy with Science, but very little with a great deal that was called Art; and he had also great sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said with regard to economy. Therefore, his feelings with respect to this Vote were a good deal mixed. As an outsider, however, he could not refrain from saying that it did seem to him a shame that South Kensington Museum should be allowed to remain in its present unfinished state. A foreigner must be shocked and astonished that the Establishment should be allowed to remain year after year in its present condition. While he hoped that the Treasury would exercise a wise check upon extravagance, he was bound to say we were not a nation of paupers, and that if we did keep up establishments in this country, these establishments ought to be made to present a docent front to the public. As long as he could remember South Kensington there had been a hideous spectacle of an unfinished front. He hoped the Government would either finish the Establishment or abandon it.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had premised the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington the Return he desired. To make that Return as complete as possible, he suggested that it should not only deal with the cost of buildings, but with the cost of examples from the foundation of the Museum, and with the value of the gifts made to the Museum since its establishment. He was sure that the country had no idea of the value of the Art treasures which the Museum possessed.

said, he would endeavour to prepare the Return so as to do full justice to the views of the right hon. Gentleman as well as to those of the noble Lord. He wished to allude to one observation which fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). The cost of the proposed addition would be about £300,000. That was the cost arrived at by a very elaborate process of arithmetic. The first outlay was estimated to be £233,000. The experience he had had in dealing with figures was that the outlay was absolutely certain to be exceeded, and that it was very doubtful indeed whether economy could be effected in the Estimate.

begged the First Lord of the Treasury not to mix up the information he (Lord Randolph Churchill) required, which was valuable information, with the information the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) asked for. How could the Government give an estimate of the value of the gifts to the South Kensington Museum? What he asked for was a Return of the capital outlay on bricks and mortar in connection with South Kensington, and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would limit the Return to that outlay. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite wished to have another Return he could move for it.

said, he trusted that he would be in Order in referring to the question of the lighting of the British Museum at night. It was within the recollection of many hon. Members of the House that last year, in the course of a debate upon this question, the First Lord of the Treasury gave an assurance that the matter should have his full consideration. He (Colonel Duncan) could not find any mention in the Votes of the lighting of the Museum by night. It was possible that this might be owing to the uncertainty of everything in London in consequence of the introduction of the Local Government Bill; but he implored the First Lord of the Treasury and the Government not to forget this subject. There were many people in London who were only able to visit the British Museum at night. Representing, as he did, the district in which the Museum was situated, he asked the House to bear in mind the great success which had attended the opening of Museums at night elsewhere, and reminded the House that the Trustees of the British Museum had already twice recommended that action in the matter should be taken.

said, his recollection of the debate of last year was that there was a general concurrence of opinion that the first step in reference to lighting should be taken at the Natural History Museum. That was a most popular Institution for the people of the Metropolis, and he believed that if it were lighted up at night it would be very largely visited.

said, the Government undertook last year to consider this question very carefully, and they obtained an estimate of the cost of the plant necessary for the lighting up of the Museum, and also of the cost of maintenance. Unfortunately, he had not got the Papers with him, as no Notice was given that this question would be raised. To the best of his recollection, however, it was estimated that the plant itself would involve an outlay of £30,000, and that the cost of maintenance would amount to £7,000 a-year. That, of course, referred to the two Museums. He believed that the cost of maintenance in the case of the Natural History Museum would be about £3,000 a-year. They had careful observations made as to the frequenters of, perhaps, the more attractive Museum at South Kensington, which was lighted up at night, and they came to the conclusion that they would hardly be justified in asking the House of Commons to incur so largo an original outlay, and the annual charge which would be involved. Of course, it was for the House of Commons to say whether the hands of the Government should be forced in a matter of this kind. In addition to a question of cost, there were the dangers incurred in connection with night exhibitions in London to be considered. These Collections were of very great value; indeed, they could not be measured simply by money value, or by their cost. In many cases it would be quite impossible to replace the exhibits if, by any accident, they should be lost, and accidents were more likely to occur at night than in the depilate, when supervision was more easily exercised. The Government took counsel with those who were, next to themselves, bound to care for these Collections, and the view the Trustees hold was that they would hardly be justified in asking the Government to incur the risk of lighting up the Museums at night. Under these circumstances, and having given the matter most serious consideration, with the fullest possible desire to open these Collections to the largest number of persons who, by any possibility, might visit them, the Government thought they would not be justified in putting an Estimate on the Vote for the plant required, and for the annual charge which would be involved.

said, he could only express extreme regret at the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. He confessed that he was astounded to learn that the cost of plant was so enormous. He should have thought that with the advance of Science the plant would not have been so tremendously expensive. Certainly the lighting of the Natural History Museum at night was not open to as much objection as the lighting of the British Museum. The exhibits were not of a very inflammable character, and if they were destroyed they could be replaced. by new ones.

said it was unfortunate that the First Lord of the Treasury had not the figures of the estimate with him. It appeared to him that the estimate as to the cost of the plant was far in excess of what it ought to be; and he was at a loss to understand why the lighting of the British Museum at night should cost £7,000 a-year.

And the Natural History Museum.

said, that in that case there was not very much to complain of. It was an intolerable thing that a great Institution like the British Museum should be a closed building to the great mass of the people of London. The Museum was situated in the very heart of the Metropolis, within easy reach of hundreds of thousands of the working people of London; and it was now practically closed to them, except on holidays and times when they could not visit it. Most people did not cease work until 6 or 7 o'clock, and even later, and if Museums were kept open until a reasonable hour at night—say 10 o'clock—they would et once get rid of the very vexed question, on which there were strong opinions on both sides, the Sunday opening of these Institutions. He, as one strongly opposed to the opening of Museums on Sundays, felt that unless they were prepared to meet the people by throwing these Institutions open in the evening, the progress of the Sunday opening movement would be very great. As to the danger attending the lighting of the Museums at night, he could not help thinking that it was much exaggerated. The South Kensington Museum had been open at night for a number of years, and, so far as he remembered, there had never been a serious accident in consequence. He did not see why it should not be as easy to guard against accidents, or why accidents would be more likely to occur, at the British Museum and in the Natural History Museum than at South Kensington.

said, that last year there was something almost amounting to a promise given by the Government that during the course of the financial year an effort would be made to see whether that which had been so long desired by the London public could not be granted. He could not help feeling that even if the cost were as large as represented by the First Lord of the Treasury, this country ought not to hesitate to defray it, seeing that thereby an opportunity would be afforded to the working and toiling masses of the Metropolis to visit these two great Museums. He was disposed to demur to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the desirability of first of all lighting up at night the Natural History Museum, because he took it that, for an Institution whose object was to educate the people, the British Museum had a far larger claim on their attention than the Natural History Museum, setting aside for the moment the more central position of the older Institution. He strongly urged the Government, if they wished to afford an opportunity to those who had but few opportunities of seeing these great National Educational Establishments, to turn their attention seriously to the subject.

said, he desired to ask the Minister in charge of the Vote to state what was the condition of the works in connection with Dover Harbour?

said, he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman was aware of the answer which was given yesterday by the First Lord of the Treasury to the Question put upon this subject. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that last year, when this question was raised, it was promised that the question as to further expenditure on Dover Harbour should be considered. The question hardly arose upon this Vote, because, as the hon. Member knew, Dover Harbour was rather connected with the building of the convict prison there. However, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government having given their most serious consideration to this question, leaving gone through the Report of the Committee which sat on the question, and even having regard to the very largo expenditure which had been already incurred upon the convict prison at Dover, had come to the conclusion that the cost of such a harbour as had been suggested would be so enormous, and that the advantage was so doubtful, that for the present, at any rate, they ought not to ask Parliament to vote any more money in respect of the Harbour at Dover.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he would not agree to postpone the Vote until next Monday, when Members from Ireland could be in their places? He thought it unfair to take Votes of this kind in the absence of Members who were interested in them.

There is no Notice of any opposition whatever against this Vote, or the next. If there had been the slightest intimation of opposition, I should not have taken them to-night; but the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that the Report will not be taken until the time he has named.

said, he rather demurred to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Notice of opposition to the Vote, because many questions might arise upon them with regard to which Members did not feel themselves bound to give Notice on the Paper. However, he would not press that point. With regard to the National Education Buildings, he believed it was a fact that the Estimates of previous years had been very considerably exceeded by the National Education Commissioners in connection with buildings for ordinary schools. The position of the Treasury and the Board of Works (Ireland) and the National Education Commissioners had been recently considered; certain resolutions had been adopted; certain regulations drawn up and instructions issued to the National Education Commissioners. Those instructions would limit the powers of the Commissioners to advance money for building schools under the Statute now in force. But many managers of schools had undertaken liabilities under what they considered to be a Parliamentary guarantee, and the restrictions imposed would very materially embarrass a number of gentlemen who had no reason whatsoever to suppose that the powers of the National Education Commissioners would be curtailed or suspended. That was the first point that he had to bring before the attention of the Government. His next point was connected with the Ulster Canal. Last year the Canal figured for the sum of £705. The Canal was in the hands of the Government; it was a security which they had taken, and it had constituted a heavy charge on the Exchequer for many years. The Government had tried from time to time to get rid of it; but the terms offered by the parties were so onerous and unreasonable that the House had refused to entertain them. The sum now proposed in aid of the Ulster Canal was, that year, £1,500, and there was no explanation whatever of the increase. He should be glad to receive some information from the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject. Then, on page 83, there was the sum of £5,000 on account of repayment of the balance under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act of 1883. He believed the Government were able to advance the sum of £40,000 a-year, at the rate of 2 per cent on the amount of capital invested, where the guarantee of the barony had been given and had been discharged by payment of a percentage of the guaranteed dividends. He asked what were the baronies which had made payment, and what were the Companies to whom payment had been made, and also the amounts paid?

said, that the relation between the Treasury and the Board of Works and the National Education Commissioners in Dublin had been very correctly stated by the hon. Member as having recently undergone considerable revision. As he had explained to the House on a previous occasion, it had come to the knowledge of the Treasury that the grants approved by the National Education Commissioners had largely exceeded the provision made by Parliament, and it was necessary that some arrangement should be come to by which effective control should be exercised over those grants, and particularly with regard to the point of Supplementary Estimates. It had been his duty to put matters in such a form that there should be effective financial control, and that Supplementary Estimates should, if possible, be avoided, at the same time without disregarding what, at present at all events, he considered to be the obligation of the Government, as far as possible, to keep to the grants which had already been approved. Although he had not yet received figures which would enable him to give particular information to the Committee, yet he was having a statement prepared which would show in detail the amount of expenditure upon every school for which a grant had been sanctioned, and which was likely to come in course of payment during the current financial year and during subsequent years. He hoped that when he received those figures it would be found that the £40,000 in the Estimates for this year might be, if not entirely adequate to meet the actual requirements, at all events so nearly adequate that no Supplementary Estimates would be necessary, and no serious inconvenience would happen in the case of schools in process of building. The sum of £40,000 a-year for the next three years ought, in his opinion, to meet the full require. ments of the case. With regard to the Ulster Canal, the cost of its maintenance had been in recent years, upon the average, about £1,100. It often happened, of course, that the expenditure was more in one year than another, according to the amount of work undertaken, and repairs necessary in particular years. With regard to the payments by baronies under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, he need not remind the Committee that Parliament had, on former occasions, passed Acts which imposed upon the Exchequer certain charges with regard to tramways made under certain Statutes if they did not earn sufficient money to meet the interest guaranteed. He did not wish to take a gloomy view of the matter; but he was afraid that some of the tramways sanctioned, like railways similarly sanctioned, would not, for some time at least, earn sufficient to pay the guaranteed interest, and that a larger sum than was asked for this year might be found necessary to meet the deficiency which might arise. The sum in the present Estimate had been arrived at on careful inquiry in each case. He had a list of the amounts likely to be earned and expended, and of the amount of charge likely to come upon the Exchequer. He was not able to furnish the names of the baronies at that moment; but he could give the hon. Member the names of the Companies. The total amount of increase was £9,000, and, therefore, in taking £5,000, the Government had made provision for very little more than half.

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had told the Committee little beyond the fact that, although £700 a-year had been taken for some years on account of the Canal, that amount had always been exceeded. This was one of the things which made proceedings in that House so unsatisfactory. The Estimates were really no check upon the expenditure of the Government, and had never been a check upon the Board of Works in Ireland. The Ulster Canal was a bad bargain, and, in his opinion, every sovereign spent upon it, so far as the public interest was concerned, had been practically thrown away. An Estimate was now brought forward exceeding by more than 100 per cent what had been asked for in former years.

said, that what he had stated was that the average expenditure amounted to £1,100, although that amount was sometimes exceeded. He had explained to the Committee that last year £705 was taken, because it was not anticipated that this amount would be exceeded; but it was found that a larger expenditure would be necessary this year, and accordingly £1,500 had been taken. He did not mean to convoy that the expenditure in previous years had exceeded the Estimates, but only that the expenditure varied from year to year.

, said, he had no wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. The Canal did not pay even the wages of the lock-keepers, and there was no justification for spending upon it an annually increasing sum. The Government would, in his opinion, do well to wash their hands of it. It was a bad security, and he must certainly protest against the present increase by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £400, which would bring down the amount to what had been found sufficient for several years.

said, he could hardly state with what pleasure he had listened to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. Every year, for the last five or six years, the Government had been endeavouring to carry a Bill for the purpose of effecting that which the hon. Member suggested—namely, to get rid of this annual charge. Such a Bill was introduced last year, but they had been unable to obtain opportunities for passing it. He was extremely anxious to get rid of the Canal, and agreed with every word which had fallen from the hon. Member with respect to the bad bargain which the Government had made, and which they were most desirous of parting with. He would not say why they had been unable to succeed. The hon. Member was probably aware that there was before Parliament at that time a Bill promoted by the Lagan Navigation Company seeking powers to take over the Canal. He hoped that Bill would become law during the present Session, and then the Government would have an opportunity of getting rid of this annual charge of about £1,100 a-year, and at the same time of accomplishing some good for several districts in Ireland, by opening up communication from Belfast to the other side of the country as a means of cheapening freights, carrying coals, and competing with as well as keeping the railways in order. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, but that he would assist the Government in passing the Bill to which he had referred.

said, he was perfectly well acquainted with the provisions of the Bill brought in year after year to enable the Government to get rid of this Canal. He had always, however, looked upon the proposed arrangement as a job, and had therefore opposed the Bill. The Government Lad, year after year, submitted the proposal that the Canal should be handed over to the Lagan Navigation Company, with the condition that the Company should be paid £10,000 by way of a douceur. If the Canal was of any use to the Company, by all means let them have it, but why, he asked, should they receive £10,000 as well. The Company having at first asked £10,000, on finding that that was opposed, moderated their terms, but they still wanted a considerable sum. The amount which the Committee were now asked to vote was probably intended to put the Canal in as good a condition as was possible for the Logan Navigation Company. The Government could get rid of the Canal by a stroke of the pen, and he did not see why this further expenditure should be incurred. He could inform the hon. Gentleman that the idea of a canal between Belfast and the Shannon was simply moonshine. There was no water to float a boat in some parts, and the idea of communication described by the hon. Gentleman was altogether chimerical. As his contention was that the Government could get rid of the Canal and wipe this item off the Estimates, he felt it his duty to press his Motion to a Division.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether it was the practice to establish police barracks in the huts of evicted tenants, and whether a rent of three times the tenant's rent was paid for them? He pointed out that this practice led to an injustice in the case of tenants who were resisting the extortionate demands of landlords, because the Government paid the landlord a higher rent than he before obtained. He knew of one case in which three times the original rent of £15 had been paid to the landlord under the circumstances he had referred to. The Constabulary in Ireland were already sufficiently unpopular; but he looked upon this as the most odious use to which they could be put—namely, that of placing them in the hovels of evicted tenants.

said, he must point out to the hon. Member that his remarks had no reference to the present Vote. The hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of referring to this subject when the Votes of Class III. were reached.

said, he joined in the protest of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) against the Government taking this Vote in the absence of Irish Members, and if there was one circumstance more than another to which Irish Members would be likely to take exception, it was that the Vote provided for the maintenance of police in barracks. He found various sums charged for police barracks at Belfast, Roscommon, and Carlow, and he was bound to say that in his opinion all this money had been very badly expended. There were already too many barracks in Ireland. His attention had been directed the other day to the fact that in one town in Scotland, where there was a population of 35,000, the number of policemen did not exceed 18. Let the Committee compare that with a town in Ireland of 3,000 inhabitants, in which there were two police barracks, one at either end of the town, in each of which 15 or 20 policemen were stationed. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government to continue to spend the money of the taxpayers on the erection of police barracks in view of the time which he believed was fast approaching when all these police arrangements in Ireland would be done away with?

I can assure the hon. Member that the amount of barrack accommodation is strictly regulated by the number of police necessarily stationed in the district.

said, in view of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he felt it his duty to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,000.

asked, whether the designs for these buildings were now satisfactory, and whether they had arrived at the end of this Vote?

said, he should not like to promise that they had reached the end of this expenditure. He thought the Committee had had tonight an example of the pressure constantly put upon the Government in matters of the kind. He was afraid there would be some expenditure both on account of furniture and fittings, in order to make the building habitable. It was true that there had been an increase on the Estimate, but there had been also a considerable enlargement of the buildings originally contemplated. The Government had no reason to believe that the contract which had been taken for the work would show any unreasonable excess.

said, he should like to hear the hon. Gentleman say that this Vote did complete the expenditure for the building. The building was exceedingly handsome, and, so far as he was able to judge, it was the best of its kind that had been produced during the last quarter of a century.

said, the House was aware that a Royal Commission had been appointed about 18 months ago to inquire into the Public Departments for the conduct of Business and into the scale of their expenditure. That Commission, however, had no power to inquire into the expenditure of the House of Lords. It appeared to him that no one would argue that the expenditure of the two Houses of Parliament did not require revision, and that they were not conducted on the most lavish scale. A very largo number of persons were employed, while the work could probably be done by a smaller number, and many of these persons appeared to receive a higher salary than was necessary. But, whether this were so or not, it was an important fact that the two Houses of Parliament were not within the scope of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Public Departments. Certainly an inquiry ought to be made into the present establishment of the two Houses. The First Lord of the Treasury would recollect that it had been his intention, when at the Exchequer, to propose the appointment of a joint Commission of both Houses to review their respective establishments. When he mentioned his proposal in that House it was not ill-received, and if things had gone on in their normal way the proposal might have been carried out. He believed that a very considerable reduction might be made in the expenditure of the Houses of Parliament. Of course there was a much larger question in connection with the Private Bill legislation of the two Houses. If a Committee of the two Houses came to the conclusion to remove all Private Bill legislation from the Houses of Parliament, then a much larger reduction would be pos- sible. But apart from that, there was every reason to suppose that the expenditure of the two Houses was higher than it need be, and he would press upon the First Lord of the Treasury the advisability of appointing a Committee of both Houses for the purpose of reviewing their expenditure, which amounted to an enormous sum of money. The two Houses managed to spend on themselves something like £120,000 a-year. That expenditure had never been inquired into, as far as he was aware, and in view of the fact he trusted that his suggestion would receive favourable consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

It will be in the recollection of the Committee that last Session a discussion arose upon this Vote, and that I then undertook, on the part of the Government that inquiry should be made, at any rate in the House of Lords, as to the extent of the expenditure of that House. I am hardly aware, however, of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, that a Joint Committee should sit to inquire into the expenses of the two Houses of Parliament. The suggestion, however, that the subject should be treated in that way is very well worthy of consideration, and I think it is possible that a Joint Committee might be able to effect economies which would be acceptable to both Houses. But my noble Friend the Prime Minister has been engaged with a small Committee of the House of Lords in investigating the expense of the establishment of that House, and my noble Friend mentioned to me a few days ago that he had every reason to hope he would be able to recommend considerable economies in the expenditure. But as the Committee is still sitting, and has not reported, it would be premature for me to make any statement in respect of alterations which my noble Friend believes can be effected. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, I do not know whether the expenditure is greater than might reasonably be expected for Gentlemen of whom a large amount of attendance is required in the public interest. Still, I shall be exceedingly glad if the noble Lord's suggestion can be adopted. Without pledging myself absolutely, I will un- dertake to confer with those who are well acquainted with the subject, and with the authorities of the House; and I will endeavour to make some recommendation to the House with the view of securing that this question shall be fully, impartially and carefully considered. The arrangement I made with the House occurred very late in the Session, and sufficient time has not elapsed for maturing the recommendations which may come down from the House of Lords, but as I have said the whole matter shall have our consideration.

said, he regretted to have to state that the right hon. Gentleman's reply was eminently unsatisfactory. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been more correct if he bad said it would be premature if the Committee passed this Vote rather than that it was premature to state what would be done because the Committee was still sitting. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) pointed out that seven or eight months had elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman agreed, under great pressure, to have a Committee appointed, and now he came down and claimed to have carried out his pledge, by saying that the Committee had not finished its investigation. That seemed to him a most extraordinary way of fulfilling a pledge given in the House of Commons, and he ventured to say that if the Committee had passed this Vote without protest, the right hon. Gentleman would come down, after another nine months had elapsed, with his usual suavity of manner, and say that they must wait a little longer. He thought under the circumstances he was justified in saying that the right hon. Gentleman was trifling with the House. The sums paid to officials in the House of Lords were ridiculously high as compared with the officials of the House of Commons who had much more onerous duties to perform. The Sergeant-at-Arms in attendance on the Lord Chancellor had £1,500 a-year; then the Messenger to the Crown Solicitor had a salary of £1,500 a-year. But all these officers received additional payments for various offices which they discharged, besides their regular duties. The best way of dealing with this subject, however, was to make a comparison between the two Houses. He found that the Chairman of Ways and Means re- ceived £2,500, and the Chairmen of Committees in the House of Lords received the same salary, yet 20 minutes or half-an-hour was the average length of a sitting of the House of Lords, taking one sitting with another throughout the year. The Counsel to the Chairman of Committees received £1,500 per annum; the Examiner of Standing Orders £900; the Clerk of the Parliament £2,500, in addition to £500 as an allowance for a house; the Clerk Assistant £1,800; the Reading Clerk £1,200; the Chief Clerk of the Parliament Office £1,200; the Senior Clerk £1,000; the other Senior Clerks £1,000 each. He presumed that some of these gentlemen belonged to that mysterious body of gentlemen whose work it was to say "La Reine le veut" when the Royal Assent was given to Bills. Among other ornamental officials was Black Rod, an officer who received £2,000 a-year and also received emoluments as Admiral on the Retired List, in addition to fees which he received for his own use as an officer of the Garter. He thought this gentleman must be a happy man to have so many official salaries to draw at the expense of the taxpayers of the country; while his only duty was to take part in the piece of periodical tomfoolery of knocking at the door of the House of Commons and summoning the Speaker to attend the House of Lords, and to give Members of the House of Commons leave to take ladies and gentlemen into the other House. Then there was the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, who received £1,000, and the principal Doorkeeper, who received £600 for discharging duties which any ordinary porter could be found to perform for 25s. a-week. Then there was a further array of Assistant Messengers and Porters who received £2,225 between thorn, and there was a Librarian who received £810. The duties of this gentleman must be very light; because he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was satisfied that not one Peer in a dozen ever read a book in the Library of the House of Lords or elsewhere. This gentleman, however, had the aid of an Assistant Librarian with the salary of £439. He would not pursue the subject further than to say that the Estimates of the House of Lords were a perfect scandal, and he was not at all surprised that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had risen to protest against them. As he would not be in Order in moving the postponement of this Vote, he should propose its reduction by the sum of £1,000, part of the salary of the Chairman of Committees.

said, he did not think the First Lord of the Treasury had a clear recollection of what passed last year on this Vote. The salaries of the officers of the House of Lords were then discussed at length on a Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). In the course of that discussion he (Mr. Childers) had called the attention of the House to the discrepancy between the salaries of the officials of the two Houses.

said, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion before the Committee was for the reduction of the Vote in respect of a single item, and that this should be disposed of before the subject referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was dealt with.

said, he was quite willing to withdraw his Motion in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.

said, on the occasion referred to it was his duty to take part in the debate, and he had called especial attention to the great excess of the Estimate for the House of Lords over that of the House of Commons. On that occasion, he had ventured to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who was opposing the Vote, to withdraw his amendment, if the First Lord of the Treasury would give an undertaking that when a vacancy arose, the successor to the office should not receive morn than the amount of salary that would be paid in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had replied that he would undertake on the part of the Government, that the subject should receive consideration in the spirit in which he (Mr. Childers) had suggested it should be considered; and that although he could not undertake absolutely that when vacancies occurred, the salaries should be in each case and in every respect in accordance with the salaries in the House of Commons, he would give an engagement that full inquiry should be made with a view to the salaries being brought down to the amounts paid in the House of Commons. He (Mr. Childers) was not then quite satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and, in reply to his further observations, the right hon. Gentleman said he would undertake to open negotiations with the other House with a view to carry out this arrangement at once. The right hon. Gentleman had now told the Committee that he had had some communication with his Colleagues and the Prime Minister with reference to this matter; but he would point out that this was a very different thing from opening negotiations to carry out the arrangement at once—namely, that the officials in the House of Lords should be put on the same footing as those in the House of Commons. Under the circumstances, he thought the Committee must call for something more definite from the right hon. Gentleman. The matter was an important one, and ought not to be put off. In his opinion, some pressure should be used, and that it should be shown that the wish of the House of Commons in this affair was paramount. He would, therefore, urgently ask the Secretary to the Treasury to allow this Vote to be withdrawn for the present, as there was no urgency in the matter, in order that a Joint Committee of the two Houses might be immediately appointed to consider the whole question. If necessary, Votes on Account could, of course, be taken; but they ought not to allow this very important matter to drag on. It was, therefore, important that the Joint Committee should be appointed to go into the matter.

I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) is asking rather more than the circumstances of the case demand. The discussion to which he refers, took place in the month of July last year, when, under the circumstances in which we were placed, it was almost impossible to get together an adequate Committee charged with these duties in the House of Lords. At the earliest time this year, however, the Committee met to consider the question, and is now pursuing its inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the revision of salaries which might be proposed could not, in justice, be made to apply to the present year. What we wished at the time was, that as vacancies occurred, no office should be filled without duo consideration, with regard to the engagement made. Well, Sir, that has been done. The principle has been acted on in the case of the office of Taxing Master to the House of Lords which has been vacated. The late holder of the Office received £1,000 a-year, and the Office has been filled by the appointment of a person to perform the duties at £250 a-year and two clerks at £150 a-year each, the gross payment being now £550 in lieu of £1,000 formerly paid. It is perfectly true that there is an increase in the Vote, of this amount, as the Taxing Master's fees did not appear at all, but as the fees will now be paid into the Exchequer, there will be a saving of £450 a-year with reference to this Office. I only mention this by way of evidence that the Treasury and the Government are anxious to carry out the engagement made, that it is being carried out, and that the inquiry is of a searching character. It was not suggested last year that the inquiry should be conducted by a Joint Committee, and I think it only reasonable to leave it to the House of Lords to make its own proposals with regard to any reduction of the establishment that may be considered desirable. But I have undertaken now to consider whether a Joint Committee of the two Houses can sit with advantage. I am inclined to regard the proposal with great favour, because it is most desirable that there should be agreement between the two Houses as to the cost of their establishments. The present inquiry has already proceeded to some extent; but I should certainly be disposed to press upon my Colleagues in the House of Lords, the desirability of the appointment of a Joint Committee. I trust I have said enough to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman opposite that Her Majesty's Government have done as much as they could reasonably be expected to do in the time which has elapsed to fulfil their engagement. We have already effected an economy in re- spect of one Office alone, and the Committee may be assured that steps will be taken in the direction of further economy as vacancies arise.

said, he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfactory. It would be hardly possible for the Government to withdraw the Vote, as it would appear like a refusal of the House of Commons to pay the salaries of the present year. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) opposite would see that the withdrawal of the Vote under the circumstances could not take place without great disrespect being shown to the other House, and he would go further, and say that had be known that the pledge given by the Government last year had been carried out as it now appeared to have been, he should have abstained from the remarks he had made. He agreed that it was impossible that an inquiry could have been conducted in the short space of time—barely one month—that remained of last Session; and it would not have been easy to get together an authoritative Committee of the House of Lords to sit through the months of August and September. They had heard that the Committee had made great progress. He did not know how it was composed; but they might expect that it would make its Report before long, that it would be in the direction of economy and that it would be communicated to that House. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bring into this discussion no unnecessary heat or accusations, but be satisfied with the general assurance which his right hon. Friend had been able to give with regard to the stops to be taken for the solution of the question. There seemed to be a general agreement between both sides, that steps should be taken to review the Establishment of both Houses, and he had a distinct recollection that in the Autumn Session of 1886, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, he bad proposed that there should be a Joint Committee appointed; and that this proposal was accepted by his Colleagues at the time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had urged that the salaries in the House of Lords should be reduced to the level of those in the House of Commons; but that, in his opinion, would not be at all adequate. It was most desirable that there should be a Joint Committee; because, otherwise, either House would be indisposed to make its salaries lower. If they appointed a Joint Committee the Members of both Houses would come together, and the whole subject, having regard to the work to be performed, would be threshed out, and a better result would follow. He believed that a considerable reduction would take place in respect of the Establishments of both Houses when the subject had been thoroughly examined in the way suggested, by a Committee empowered to take evidence as to hours, labour, and remuneration of the officials. He felt confident that the First Lord of the Treasury would press this question upon his Colleagues and that no unreasonable delay would take place, so that when the next Session came round, the two Houses would be in possession of fuller information on the subject of their respective expenditures.

After the explanation given by the First Lord of the Treasury I may be permitted to say that I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman did act in the spirit of the pledge which he made last year. I was not aware of the alteration which has been made in the case of the successor of the late Taxing Master of the House of Lords. I was under the impression that there had been too great delay, but I am now satisfied that this is not the case, and therefore agree with the noble Lord that we ought not to postpone the Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that a Joint Committee shall be shortly appointed, I think the object I had in view will be obtained.

said, he should like to hear from the First Lord of the Treasury the names of the Members of the Committee of the House of Lords and how often the Committee had met.

I should be glad to give the hon. Member the information asked for if I had it, but at this moment I do not know the names of the Members of the Committee. I have stated to the Committee all the information received from the Prime Minister to-day, and also the information conveyed to the Secretary to the Treasury by the Clerk of the Parliaments. With regard to the sittings of the Committee, it has met more than once, and I know that considerable progress has been made in the direction of economy. That I say on my responsibility in this House, and with it I trust the hon. Member will be satisfied. I am personally in favour of a Joint Committee being appointed, and I hope it will be possible to arrange that such a Committee shall take this matter into consideration; but I must of course confer with my Colleagues and the Prime Minister on the subject before giving an undertaking that the Committee will be appointed.

Am I to understand that the Committee of the Black Rod Department is considering the whole expenditure voted by this House.

Yes, Sir.

asked, whether the Secretary to the Treasury had any information as to the number of times the Committee had sat? Was it correct to say that the Committee had only met once? Because, if so, how was it possible to say that considerable progress had been made?

said, there was considerable difficulty in giving particular information on this subject, and the question with regard to how many times the Committee had met formally was one which he was unable to answer. But he was able to assure the hon. Member that the investigation which was being made was most thorough, and reached throughout the whole expenditure of the House of Lords. From the information given that day he had come to the conclusion that there had been a very searching inquiry, and that the proceedings of the Committee were approaching a point at which they would be able to report the result of their investigations.

asked, if the hon. Gentleman would communicate the Report to that House?

said, he was unable to answer that question until the Committee had reported to its own House?

asked, if the hon. Gentleman would give the names of the Committee, and the number of times it had met by the time the Report of the Vote was taken.

said, he had no hesitation in saying that he would inquire whether there was any objection to that proposal. As far as he was concerned, he was perfectly willing to do so.

said, he would put the question again on Monday.

said, he thought it would be exceedingly unfair to press the Financial Secretary to the Treasury any further on this matter. He desired to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could give an explanation of the system under which officials of the House of Lords were placed on the retired list. There was in the House of Lords an anomalous institution called the Fee Fund. A sum of money was invested, and the interest, together with fees on judicial proceedings, Private Bills, and the taxation of costs, was paid into the fund, while, on the other hand, various sums were written off; one was paid into the Exchequer, another went as remuneration to those concerned in the taxation of costs, and a third sum was applied for superannuation allowances to certain officers of the House of Lords. It was with regard to the last item that he desired information, and he asked what was the authority which decided upon the retiring and pensioning of the officers of the House of Lords? Who was it that decided when money was to be drawn from the Fee Fund for superannuation allowances; and what was the authority which sanctioned the grant which was annually made from the Exchequer, extra receipts in respect of the Fee Fund in aid of the retiring allowances? All these things were so mixed up as to be perfectly unintelligible; he defied anyone thoroughly to understand from the Paper the system on which the retiring allowances to the officers of the House of Lords were regulated. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to impart some information on this subject, which he assured him could be done without any breach of confidence.

said, the hon. Member was aware that there was a sum at the disposal of the House of Lords, the result of the accumulation of fees received. This fund, which amounted to about £43,000, is invested, and the deficiency of interest supplemented to the extent which might be necessary for the payment of these pensions. It was generally supposed that they were granted on a much higher scale than obtained generally throughout the Civil Service. He was not able to say that there were no cases in which the Committee charged with the duty in the House of Lords had not granted pensions on a higher scale, but he was sure that the general practice was to follow exactly the scale of remuneration adopted by the Treasury. If cases were to be found in which exception might be taken on the ground of departure from the general rule, there were also cases in which the same objection would apply to the action of the Treasury with regard to the Civil Service. The fees went to make up the pensions, and the balance was paid over to the Exchequer. In the case referred to by the First Lord, the officer in question was paid out of the fees received; but his successors would be paid by salary, so that the House would know exactly what was received. The fees would henceforward be paid into the Exchequer, and the arrangement in the case of the Office of Taxing Master had secured a saving of something like 40 per cent.

said, the hon. Gentleman had not answered his question as to what authority sanctioned the allowances on retirement of Officers in the House of Lords. Was it the Black Rod, the Treasury, or the House of Lords? It would appear that the Fee Fund was in the hands of some official of the House of Lords over whom the Treasury had no control whatever. If the Fee Fund was insufficient to pay the retiring allowances, the fees which would otherwise be paid into the Exchequer were drawn upon for the sums necessary to supplement it; in other words, there was an authority independent of the House of Commons competent to place on the retired list any officer of the House of Lords; and in order to furnish each pension, that authority had power to draw not only on the Fee Fund, but also on the foes which, in the ordinary course, ought to be paid into the Exchequer.

said, that beyond the information he had given that a Committee of the other House awarded the pensions in question, he could not answer the question of the hon. Member. He thought he had made it clear, that although the pensions were not awarded by the Treasury, they were on the scale adopted by the Treasury in dealing with Civil Service pensions generally. He sympathized with the hon. Gentleman in his desire to have everything relating to these matters in order, and he believed he was justified in saying that this was one of the questions which was being considered.

asked, how far the duties of the Clerks of the House of Lords corresponded with those of the Clerks of the House of Commons?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I believe the Clerks referred to conduct the Business of the House of Lords between them in precisely the same way as the Clerks of the House of Commons conduct our Business. But they have also to take charge of the Judicial Business of the House of Lords, and in November and December those officers have to be in. attendance from 10 o'clock till 4.

said, he had called attention to the fact that the Senior Clerk had a number of Judicial Clerks under him at £150 a-year, and also a Clerk of the Journals. He understood what the Clerks in the House of Commons did; but surely the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Clerk Assistant, and the Chief Clerk of the House of Lords did not take part in the judicial duties of the House of Lords?

said, he had gone into the question, and he believed that if the Chief Clerk were challenged he would be able to show as good a record as any officer in that House.

said, he regarded the salaries now received by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and by the Yeoman Usher as excessive, and he should therefore move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,500, being £1,000 in respect of the salary of Black Rod, and £500 in respect of the salary of the Yeoman Usher.

said, that when last year he raised the question of the appointment of Clerks to the Staff of the House, he had pointed out that, whereas the whole of the Civil Service outside the House was practically open to competition, and the old system of patronage and nomination had been abolished, here, at the head-quarters of government, no such system prevailed, and the appointment of Clerk to the House was a close borough, admission to which was obtainable only by privilege. At the time the First Lord, or an official representing the Treasury, undertook to communicate with the officer in charge of the Department, in order to ascertain whether the practice in the House might not be assimilated to that which prevailed in other Departments of the Service, and whether the appointments might not be thrown open to public competition. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether that communication had resulted in any arrangement being made?

said, he had no information to give the Committee which would lead them to look forward to the appointments being very shortly thrown open. He understood that there was for thorn what was called limited competition. A certain number of gentlemen were called upon, amongst whom there was competition before admission took place. There was a very limited number of offices to be filled, and he was informed that the present system worked well.

said, his proposal would do no injury to any man on the Establishment of the House of Commons at the present moment. He was not attacking any person; he was merely claiming for the public at large the right of access to the offices. The hon. Gentleman said that the present system was working well; but, of course, every system worked well in the opinion of those who benefited by it. They had removed the old system of nomination and patronage in the great majority of cases; why, then, was it maintained in the House of Commons? They could set up any standard of fitness they might wish, and they might exact any qualifications, however delicate they might be; they had Commissions perfectly fitted to test the qualifications of men for any post, however exceptional. Why, then, should they refuse to enforce the system of open competition which had answered well in the India Service and in the Civil Service generally, and which anyone would suppose would be adopted in the House of Commons? There was nothing that stood in the way of open competition in the House of Commons but a very narrow piece of personal patronage, which ought not to be allowed to stand in bar of the very fair claim of thousands for employment in the Civil Service. Although the system had worked well for those who obtained the appointments, it had not done so for those who had no chances of admission. He asked the hon. Gentleman what answer he had received to the inquiry which he undertook to make last year with the view of seeing whether these posts could not be thrown open, but to that he had received no answer. Had the hon. Gentleman received a pointblank refusal—had the officer in charge of the department said that he would not surrender his patronage? But if there was any moot point between the hon. Gentleman and the officer in charge, he might possibly have it settled by Monday next, when the Report came up. If he could promise that, he (Mr. O'Connor) should be satisfied; but it was an anomaly that the House of Commons should be the last entrenchment of a system of patronage which had been most successfully attacked.

said, he had no objection to the hon. Member putting a further question to him on Report, if he desired to do so. He had endeavoured to convey to the Committee that the result of the inquiries he had made had not led him to the conclusion that he could usefully press this matter in the particular way which the hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest. There was patronage in the appointments, no doubt, and it used to be close patronage; but a considerable step had been taken in the direction in which the hon. Gentleman desired to travel, because it was not now by nomination but by limited competition that the offices were filled. He was sure that those charged with this responsible duty had far more regard to the manner in which the work was clone than to the particular point of patronage. His intention had been to convey his belief that the system worked well so far as the duties discharged in that House were concerned. No doubt the system of open competition had led to the admission into the Services of a large number of very able men; but they did hear sometimes of men who, although they had passed examinations extremely well, was not always perfectly successful in the performance of the particular duties which they were called upon to discharge. He had no objection to saying that he Would take up the question again, and see whether any further effect could be given to the wishes expressed.

asked the reason of the increase in the charge for the office of Parliamentary Counsel? It was £4,465 last year, and it was now £5,000. Parliamentary Counsel, who previously received £2,500, seemed to have their salaries increased to £2,811, and there was still the same number of them.

said, this was a growing charge, as the hon. Member knew; but in recent years there had been an increase in the salary of the second officer. Parliamentary Counsel, as the hon. Member knew, received salaries which increased from time to time. The salaries began at £2,500, and went on to £3,000.

said, that was not the arrangement. The arrangement was that the Parliamentary Counsel should have £2,500 for two years, and then have £3,000 instead of £2,500; but here they saw the amount put down at £2,811. He should like to know on what system they paid for Parliamentary Counsels' work. Take such a Bill as the Employers' Liability Bill, which was founded upon the Report of a Select Committee. The drafting of that Bill had to be placed in the hands of some competent draughtsman; but, allowing any amount of time for the preparation of the Local Government Bill, and one or two other Bills which the Government had in hand, there would appear to have been abundant leisure for the Parliamentary counsel or his assistant to draft such a Bill as the Employers' Liability Bill. He wished to know whether any portion of £2,811 for Parliamentary counsel, or of £1,500 for the assistant counsel, was taken in consideration of such a Bill as the Employers' Liability Bill, or was that Bill given up to some other counsel who were en rapport with the Treasury, and who received special fees for their work, and if so, would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) say who these counsel were?

said, the course of business was this. There were, as the hon. Gentleman knew, two permanent draftsmen at the Parliamentary Draftsmen's Office, and under ordinary circumstances when Bills had to be prepared for the Government, those gentlemen prepared them. But there were measures upon the drafting of which special knowledge had to be brought to bear, such as the Land Transfer Bill, and other Bills of a complicated nature, and in connection with these measures particular counsel were employed. As to the Employers' Liability Bill, he thought that had been entirely drawn by the Home Secretary and the ordinary Parliamentary draftsmen. He was not able to mention the name of the special counsel who have been engaged on particular Bills; but he did know this, that since he had had the honour of holding his present Office from the year 1885, special gentlemen who happened to have been specially acquainted with certain subjects, had been engaged at ordinary fees to take part in the work of drafting.

said, he should like to know with reference to the next item—namely, "Fees to Counsel," what there was in the circumstances of the present year which rendered it necessary to raise the sum of £1,200, which was quite adequate last year, to £1,500 this year. Unless he was greatly mistaken the number of Bills which it had been necessary to deal with this year had not been particularly heavy.

said, that in the first place during the present year the drafting had been very heavy indeed, and in addition to that, as was generally known, Mr. Jenkyns had been ill, though he was now quite recovered. There had probably been as great pressure on the Drafting Office during the last nine months as there had ever been during any equal period since the office had come into existence.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a portion of the work of the Home Office, which, so far as he knew, that Office had no apparatus for doing, and which the country would not think did this work satisfactorily. There was hardly any Department of the State, so far as he was aware, which had undergone so many alterations as had the Home Office; but in regard to the specific Department to which he was about to refer, there had been no change whatever. There had been new functions thrown upon the Home Office; but for the discharge of the new duties involved new machinery had always been provided, and everyone he thought would admit that the Home Office, generally speaking, had discharged its work very well; but there was a good deal of the old work of the Office for which there was only old machinery or no machinery at all with regard to which good reason for complaint arose. The jurisdiction of the Home Office in capital cases was always about as important a function as the Office could perform, as it loft in the hands of a single Minister decisions in cases of life and death. That jurisdiction was always important; but he ventured to say that in recent years when life got to be considered as much more sacred than it used to be in the old days, and sentences were more lenient than was formerly the case, the exercise of this jurisdiction was a much more delicate matter than in years gone by. It had also become more extended, because, as a matter of fact, whereas in the old days the jurisdiction of the Home Office, that was to say of the Secretary of State for the Home Department acting in the name of the Crown, and by virtue of the Prerogative of the Crown, exercised his jurisdiction chiefly under the jurisdiction of Parliament. Now, Sir, to a great extent the idea of the Parliament had dropped out of the jurisdiction, and as a matter of fact, the Home Secretary acted to a great extent as a Court of review and in reality re-tried prisoners, and reviewed the decisions of Judges at the Home Office. His (Mr. Hanbury's) contention was, that for work of this kind there was no provision at the Home Office at the present time. The work almost wholly fell upon the Secretary of State himself personally, as an individual practically without any assistance. The Secretary of State had no machinery to enable him to come to a proper decision, and there was no reason whatever why he should have any legal or other qualification. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) no doubt was an able lawyer, but other holders of the Office might not have the slightest legal qualification for work of this kind, and, in addition to that fact, it must be remembered that a great deal of extra work had been thrown on the Office of the Home Secretary within recent years, rendering the Home Secretary one of the hardest worked Ministers of the Crown. The work of the Home Secretary in Parliament itself had largely increased, so that it came to this—that a special description of duty, which had become more direct and enlarged in its scope, was thrown upon a Minister who might have no special qualification for dealing with it, and who, besides, was one of the hardest worked Ministers in the Cabinet. He (Mr. Hanbury) did not intend to touch upon the subject of criminal appeal generally, as no doubt if he did, he should be ruled out of Order by the Chairman; and, further, the subject was too large a one for him as a layman to deal with. It was, however, possible for an ordinary layman as a looker on to see that the Home Office in some of those cases where appeals were made to the Royal clemency arrived at decisions which, he ventured to say, were not in accordance with common sense. He was not going to base his remarks to-night upon mere theory, because his attention had been called to this matter by some recent decisions of the Home Office, and because one of these cases he considered a matter of urgency, and one which should be brought before the notice of the House without any further delay. What had tempted him to take up this question had been the case of the convict Bowles. This man had been convicted by a jury of murder, and he ventured to say if the murder for which Bowles was tried was actually committed, it was as bad a murder as any man ever perpetrated; and if Bowles were guilty, he ought undoubtedly to have been hanged. It was one of these cases in which, so far as the accused was concerned, there was no third course open. Either the man was guilty of a most ferocious murder—in which case it would have been criminal not to have hanged him—or he was innocent, and ought to have been let off scot-free. But what had happened? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in this case seemed to have split the difference, and to have made a compromise between the innocence and the guilt of the unfortunate man, whose sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. That, be (Mr. Hanbury) contended was a most illogical course for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to have pursued. As he (Mr. Hanbury) had said, either the man was guilty and ought to have been hanged, or he was innocent and ought to have been let off. And the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was all the more remarkable, as there were two cases under his eye which should have taught him that to sentence a man to penal servitude under such circumstances was a most serious matter. Two men named Beesley and Rice had within the past few months been released after serving 15 years' penal servitude. Why had these men been let loose? Their original sentence had been commuted to one of penal servitude for life, and why had they not been allowed to serve out the sentence? Was it that there had been fresh evidence forthcoming to prove their innocence? He did not think anything of the kind had happened, and he held, in regard to these two cases, that either great injustice had been done to the public or great injustice had been done to the prisoners. If these men were guilty of murder the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had no business whatever to let them out of gaol at all at the end of 15, or even 20, years imprisonment, for we could not afford to have murderers let loose upon society. Evidently, then, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary felt that these men were innocent, and the result was that, having undergone 15 years' penal servitude, they have been let out as innocent, because it was impossible to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would have let out guilty men. Such a thing would have been an act of lunacy; therefore it must be assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was convinced of the innocence of these men. He (Mr. Hanbury) said then, with these facts before his eyes, and feeling that Beesley and Rice had suffered 15 years' penal servitude in respect of a crime of which they were innocent, it was a very strange course of procedure to send this man Bowles to the very same kind of penal servitude which he knew Beesley and Rice had innocently endured for the long period of 15 years. Some people said that they did not want a Court of Appeal or any appeal at all in these cases. He did not wish, however, to discuss theories, but to look at facts, and the facts in the cases to which he referred, as they could judge from the conduct of the Home Office, went exactly the other way. The fact was, in the first place, that it was very often necessary to review cases of this kind; and, in the second place, it was clear, from the practice of the Home Office, that it was not merely a question of remitting sentences or pardoning prisoners, but a question as to the fact of the guilt or innocence of the prisoners—a question of trying them over again. There was a third fact equally apparent, and it was that the Home Office, either in theory or practice, was about the worst Court of Appeal they could institute in cases of this kind—and he called it a Court, although it only consisted of one man. How did the Home Secretary and the Home Office come to consider cases of this kind at all? It came under cover of the Royal Prerogative of mercy or pardon. No one wanted—he certainly did not—to limit the Prerogative of the Crown in its dispensation of mercy one iota; and he maintained that if we had a Court of Appeal in criminal cases that Prerogative would remain untouched, and would be just as large as it was at present. But he wished to call attention to this fact, that so far—certainly up to recent years—the Prerogative of the Crown was a Prerogative of pardon, and of pardon which extended itself either to remitting sentences altogether or remitting them partially. But the Prerogative of the Crown, as he understood, in such cases, was exceedingly limited. For instance, it was not possible for the Crown to give anything like the Scotch verdict of "Not proven"; because if the Crown once granted its pardon, however guilty the man might afterwards be proved to be, there was no possibly of his being again tried for the same offence. It was impossible for the Crown to look upon a man as innocent; it merely pardoned him. This was hard on an innocent man, for, if the Home Secretary really believed that a man was innocent, that man ought to be able to go back to his home without a stain on his character, and not simply as a merely pardoned man. Formerly this pardon—as he had said—was a real pardon. It was limited chiefly to the cases of political offenders, and it was afterwards extended to the cases of persons who were sentenced to barbarous punishments which were not approved of by public opinion. The Crown in the exercise of its Prerogative mitigated and made milder these sentences; but at the present moment the Prerogative of the Crown was exercised by the re-trial of the guilt or innocence of a prisoner. This he held to be a very momentous difference. Everyone could see that a great change had taken place in the way the Prerogative of the Crown was exercised, and as to the class of cases to which it applied, and without questioning the right of the Crown in any way as to the exercise of its Prerogative, he submitted that such exercise of Prerogative was open to these three remarks. In the first place by re-trying prisoners, the Crown superseded the functions of its own appointed Courts, and this was entirely contrary to the theory of pardon which was the basis of the Prerogative. In the next place this exercise of the Prerogative was entirely inadequate, because it was not sufficient merely to pardon a man who was innocent—there ought to be a Court to decide that a man was an innocent man and not merely a pardoned man. He (Mr. Hanbury) mentioned that the plain facts as to these cases was that the Home Office did actually retry the question of the guilt or inno- cence of the prisoners. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could deny that. Let them take the case of Bowles for instance. Was there any ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could have given his decision, except upon the question of Bowles' guilt or innocence? Everyone admitted that the murder for which that man was tried was a most atrocious murder, and there was no other issue than that he was either guilty or innocent—there was no possibility of any other questions arising. He (Mr. Hanbury) would go further, and say that if they once admitted that there ought to be a re-trial in such a case, it ought to be a re-trial by a Judge in open Court—a full and complete inquiry with the ordinary apparatus of judicial proceedings, and not a hole-and-corner secret inquiry at the Home Office. What was the present position? How were such cases dealt with by the Home Office at the present moment? At present the appeal to the Home Office was a haphazard affair. It was a question almost of accident whether a case came before the Home Secretary at all, the circumstances very often depending on the activity and perseverance of the prisoner's counsel. If there was to be a re-trial, it should be by a duly qualified Judge, and not by a Home Secretary, who might be a layman, and who was always an overworked official. The prisoner, if he were to be re-tried, had a right to re-trial in open Court; and the hole-and-corner way in which capital sentences were now reviewed at the Home Office was a disgrace to English justice. If a man had a right to re-trial at all, he had a right to retrial before a jury of his peers, and in a Court in which he could know what was going on, and could have counsel present capable of dealing with all the facts of the case. He (Mr. Hanbury) would go even a trifle farther, and say that whether a re-trial took place in the Home Office or in a regularly constituted Court, at any rate the ordinary principles of justice which were acted upon in open Court ought to be most rigidly observed. It ought not to be in the power of the Home Secretary or anyone else to keep a prisoner in gaol merely on the chance of further evidence turning up as to his guilt or innocence. Yet, when he had questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on this point, he had told him that penal servitude was not an irrevocable sentence, and that evidence might turn up to prove a man's innocence. But that was not an answer—that was not the spirit in which this matter ought to be dealt with. It was contrary to the principles of English law that a man should be kept in gaol on the chance of evidence to prove his innocence turning up. No prisoner ought to be kept in confinement unless his guilt were thoroughly established; indeed, in this, as in other cases, the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Clearly there had been in the case he (Mr. Hanbury) had referred to a doubt in the right lion. Gentleman the Home Secretary's mind; and he contended that the prisoner should have had the benefit of it. The prisoner was entitled to a plain "Yes" or "No," as was a prisoner in open Court, none of our Courts recognizing compromises—

The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to criticize the action of the Home Secretary in advising the Crown in the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy; but he is entering into an examination of the extent of the limits of that Prerogative, which is outside the scope of this Motion. He is discussing the question of the re-trial of prisoners.

said, he was pointing out that he was not so sure that it was within the Prerogative of the Crown to come to such a decision as the Home Secretary came to on the occasion to which he had referred.

The hon. Member would be entitled to question the action of the Home Secretary, but not those principles which are independent of the action of a particular Home Secretary.

said, he desired to criticize the conduct of the Home Secretary in not coming to a different decision to that which he had arrived at in the case of this man Bowles. He maintained that it was unjust to the man, and contrary to the ordinary principles of justice, not to give a plain "Yes" or "No" in the case. Either the man was guilty or he was innocent. If he was innocent he ought to have been allowed to go free, and if he was guilty he ought, un- doubtedly, to have been hanged, and the Home Secretary no more than any ordinary jury had a right to give a decision which was a mere compromise between "Yes" and "No." Further than that, he held that the reason given for commuting the death sentence to one of penal servitude in the case of the convict Bowles would not hold water for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the sentence was not irrevocable. Well, in theory, no doubt, the sentence of penal servitude for life was irrevocable, but in practice it was not, as was illustrated by the case of Beesley and Rice, these men having had their sentence commuted to penal servitude for life and having been released after 15 years' imprisonment by the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, who must have had a doubt as to their guilt. It was argued that such sentences as penal servitude for life were lighter than the death penalty, but he very much questioned whether to an innocent man that was so; and where the Home Secretary's decision was delayed to the eleventh hour, it seemed to him (Mr. Hanbury) that the commutation of the death sentence into one of penal servitude was almost an additional sentence. Gaol Chaplain after Gaol Chaplain had written to him complaining of the bad practice which in recent years had grown up on the part of Home Secretaries. Formerly, they said, Home Secretaries used to make up their minds and give their decisions at once; but latterly they had put off their decisions as to the guilt or innocence of prisoners sentenced to death until 24 hours of the time fixed for the executions. In the case of a man like Bowles it was hardly an exaggeration to say that he had already undergone the death penalty, and that the sentence of penal servitude for life, or even for 15 years, was almost an additional sentence to the one of death, which he had already undergone. He had been urged to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the extreme cruelty of the course of not giving decisions in these cases until the eleventh hour. It was most cruel in the case of the innocent man, and in the case of the guilty man it was just as cruel. In theory, an interval between the delivery of the sentence and the execution was allowed in order to enable the convict to prepare for death; but in cases where an appeal was made to the Home Secretary for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy, owing to delay in arriving at a decision, the convict did not know whether the death penalty was to be inflicted, and remained in a state of painful uncertainty and unable to prepare himself for death. Here, again, was an evil existing under the present system which would not exist if we had a Court of Criminal Appeal. This uncertainty, he was told, had a most painful effect upon the criminal classes themselves. The Chaplain of the Gaol in the county of which he knew most—namely, the County of Stafford—had written to him telling him that during the time he had held the office of Chaplain of the Gaol, out of 14 men sentenced to death only two had had their sentences carried out, and that the undoubted effect upon the criminal classes of the uncertainty attaching to these sentences, and the knowledge that the chances were that they would not be carried out, was to produce a most painful feeling. It was certain that a great deal of uncertainty must arise under the present system of retrial, on which so much depended on the character and en the political views and the general views on such a subject as capital punishment of a particular Minister for the time being. If we had, instead of a single administrative official, an ordinary Court to deal with these cases, the proceedings would be a good deal more regular, and there would be a much greater certainty of punishment following crime—and it was that certainty of punishment much more than the stringency of it which had so great a deterrent effect on the criminal classes. And there were other reasons why the appeal in capital cases should be much more real than it was. If the present system was to continue, something at any rate ought to be done to strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary. He (Mr. Hanbury) did not refer so much to the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, who was an eminent lawyer, but it was necessary to provide for cases where the Home Secretary was not a lawyer at all, and in dealing with this point he wished not to touch upon the question of the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. They must remem- ber that this appeal was an appeal which touched the social system at its two 'extreme ends. It touched the rights and the Prerogative of the Crown on the one hand and the rights of the poorest and most ignorant subjects of Her Majesty on the other. Already English law told too much in favour of the guilty at the present moment, and he was heartily glad that changes were about to be introduced which at the other end of the scale would make it more difficult for the guilty to be acquitted than it was at present. But he must say that at the other end of the scale they wanted something to protect the innocent prisoner. The system pursued by the present Home Secretary of deciding neither the one way nor the other until the last moment, was one which told very greatly against the innocent man. And then, again, in the present state of English law, when they had appeal after appeal allowed in cases affecting property, with which the rich were principally concerned, they ought to be very careful indeed that the only appeal which was left to the poor man, namely, an appeal in regard to that which was dearer to him than any property, that was to say his person or his life, was a real and genuine appeal, giving him every opportunity of having justice done to him. But, as a matter of fact, the poor man, in capital oases, had no right of appeal at all; and then, when an appeal was granted, he had no opportunity of making himself heard by counsel before the Court, the appeal being heard in a hole-and-corner manner. It would be better if the decision of the Judge and jury were final, than that a prisoner should be exposed to all the uncertainty which attached to the review of that decision in the Home Office. He (Mr. Hanbury) held that by the present system they weakened the responsibility of jurors, who always knew that there was a possibility of their verdicts being reviewed. In the next place they increased the uncertainty of punishment because of the particular idiosyncrasies of Home Secretaries and the constant changes which took place in the Office of Home Secretary; and, finally, they weakened the adminstration of justice by lessening the respect in which justice ought to be regarded among the criminal classes. He would repeat what he had said at the beginning, that his attention had been called to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative chiefly by the way in which that Prerogative had been exercised in the case of the convict Bowles; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—looking at the cases to which reference had been made, the cases of Beesley and slice, who had been released from penal servitude only within the past few months—to realize that a sentence of penal servitude for life was almost irrevocable, and that it was most unfair to re-try a prisoner without giving him an opportunity of defending himself or of getting a barrister to defend him. They had some right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he would act on the same principle of justice and administer the same sort of justice as was administered in the ordinary Courts, and that if he had a doubt in his mind he would give the prisoner the benefit of it. By acting in this way the right hon. Gentleman would increase respect for the authority of the law. There was a strong feeling that in the case of Bowles the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made up his mind sooner than he did, and there was some fear that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

said, he would venture to interpose between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) for a few moments, for two reasons—first, because when he went to the Home Office he held almost precisely the opinion which the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Hanbury) now entertained; and, secondly, because he was a layman, and with all the disadvantages which the hon. Member had referred to in the course of his remarks. What he (Mr. Childers) wished to say was this—that the experience which he had obtained at the Home Office with reference not only to the 14 cases of capital convictions which came before him during the short time he was there, but, also, with reference to many cases of minor offences and convictions as to which applications to mitigate sentences had come to him, had led him to a very different conclusion from that with which he had originally gone to the Home Office. In the first place, he should like to got rid of one idea which ran through the whole of the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hanbury); and in dealing with this point he did not wish to trespass in the direction which the Chairman had so well pointed out. The function of the Home Secretary, under the present practice, was not to re-try a case. He could not put that too clearly. The Home Secretary was not a Court of Appeal. He was not going to say whether there should or should not be a Court of Appeal, although he was of opinion that even if there were a Court of Appeal the exercise of the Queen's Prerogative would be asked for on behalf of convicted offenders just as much as it was now. The function of the Home Secretary was simply this, when a prisoner had been convicted, to be the medium of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The prisoner under our present law, having once been found guilty of a criminal offence, had no right to a re-trial; and he (Mr. Childers) was not now going into the highly technical question of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, which did not enter into this debate. The question raised was whether the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy, which, as he had said, they must be perfectly clear from the first was not a re-trial, took place in a judicious and satisfactory manner. If it did not, it ought to be amended; but if no clear case for amendment was shown—and he should discuss the question at no very great length—then he thought the proposition which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hanbury) had placed before them fell to the ground. He wished to deny altogether, at the outset, before he went through the process which the Home Secretary had to follow and the assistance he got, one statement the hon. Member had made, so far, at least, as Ms (Mr. Childers's) own experience was concerned, and so far as the experience of those who went before him was concerned. As to the experience of the present Home Secretary, of course no one but the right hon. Gentleman himself could speak to that. According to his (Mr. Childers's) experience, it had not been the practice to defer the decison of the Home Secretary until just before the time fixed for the execution of a criminal. In the cases which had come before himself inquiries were made, and the prisoners' friends and the prisoners themselves and the prison officials were informed of the Home Secretary's decision, not just before the sentence was carried out, but as soon as the Home Secretary's mind was made up. He was not speaking for the present Home Secretary, but of what was the case in his time. He wished also to make it clear to the House what the Home Secretary had to rely on in dealing with this most important of all his duties—the duty of exercising the Queen's Prerogative of Mercy. There was nothing which filled him with greater relutance when he was offered the Office of Home Secretary in the late Government than the knowledge that he would have to exercise this power, and that it would depend on him either to mitigate, or not to mitigate, the sentence of prisoners. He had approached the Office with some dread and with a keen sense of responsibility, and almost his first act when he went to the Home Office was to ascertain precisely what the practice in this matter was, and what assistance he should have in dealing with this most important part of his duty. The hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury) appeared to think—in fact, he (Mr. Childers) thought he had used the words—that the Home Secretary had to act upon his own unguided mind in dealing with these matters. But that was not the case. In the first place, the Home Secretary had at the Home Office, and had had for a long time, two permanent Under Secretaries, one of whom was called the Legal Assistant, both of them trained lawyers; secondly, he had the opportunity of obtaining the advice, if he should deem it necessary, of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, thirdly, he had the opportunity of obtaining—as, in one notable case, he (Mr. Childers) had found it necessary to obtain—the assistance of the officer connected with the Treasury—he referred to the Public Prosecutor. The Home Secretary had also, and above all, the benefit of the advice and assistance of the Judge who tried the case, and that advice and assistance was not necessarily obtained only once. He remembered one case which came before him in which the advice of the Judge was taken in writing, and by personal interviews three or four times, before a final decision was arrived at. So far then from its being the case that it was the judgment of a Secretary of State, and an over-worked Secretary of State, upon which the exercise of the Queen's Prerogative depended, and that the Prerogative was likely always to be exercised in a particular way, almost the opposite might be said to be the case. The Home Secretary had the written opinions, the advice, and personal consultation with two distinguished lawyers at the Home Office, the opportunity of appealing to the Law Officers of the Crown—although it was not usual to appeal to them—the advice of the Crown Prosecutor as to certain questions of fact, and, above all, he had the assistance of the Judge. He (Mr. Childers) could say with certainty that, whether or not it would be expedient to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal, he doubted whether any machinery could be invented in an Office, the head of which dispensed the Queen's Prerogative of Mercy, more efficacious than that which now existed. After the experience he had had, he did not see how more valuable machinery could be invented, or how the Prerogative of Mercy could be more satisfactorily exercised. Therefore, he thought that before the House adopted the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), they required to hear a great deal more than he had laid before them. The hon. Member must remember that with respect to legal advice of different kinds, and from different quarters, the Home Secretary was armed with advice to such an extent, and of such a character, that he doubted whether any better channel for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative could be discovered. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston seemed to think that there was something haphazard in the action of the Home Secretary. Well, he (Mr. Childers) would not deal with the special case which had been referred to, in which a man who had had the capital sentence passed upon him, had quite recently received a commutation of that sentence to penal servitude for life. He did not know the facts, and it would be rash of him to found any argument upon newspaper reports of them; but he would say this, that if the Secretary of State had to discharge the duty, not of retrying cases, but of exercising the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, there must be cases in which the evidence as it came before the Home Secretary contained just that element of doubt which would perfectly entitle him to retain the man in prison for life, or for a long period of years, but which would not justify him in saying that that should be done which, once done, could never be undone in respect of that man. No one but the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could know the circumstances of the case in question, and he (Mr. Childers) could not say whether they ought to be disclosed now. He (Mr. Childers) was perfectly aware that such cases had arisen, and must arise. The hon. Member for Preston had said something about the action of the Home Secretary being illogical. Well, it would be the most illogical thing in the world to tell a person who was to exercise the Queen's Prerogative—"You must either hang the man, or let him out upon the public again." He (Mr. Childers) did not intend, when he rose, to speak at any length, but he desired to put forward in a few words what was the practice of the Home Office, what was the assistance the Home Secretary received in these cases, and what was the result of that assistance. He could certainly say this, that what was done, in the case of the 14 appeals which were made to him whilst he was at the Home Office, was eminently logical. He had to become acquainted with the facts of the trials, the Judges' notes came to him, the reports of the trials themselves were submitted, and every fact in public knowledge which could be obtained was carefully collected. Then the Judge himself was consulted both by written communications and orally. A most careful report, prepared by the two lawyers in the Home Office, was then considered, and in some cases it was thought desirable to seek assistance from the outside. These proceedings, which were by no means casual, but each had been built up gradually by successive Secretaries of State—certainly this had been so during the whole of the Queen's Reign—seemed to him to be satisfactory, and he did not think that the present moment was a time at which to alter the existing arrangements. Therefore, while he was no optimist, and did not believe a thing to be good merely because he happened to have found it in existence, he concluded by saying that it would be for the hon. Gentleman opposite, and for those who agreed with him, to point out distinct blots and flaws and to propose for them categorical remedies before the Committee adopted the views he had expressed.

said, he felt some difficulty in following the hon. Member who had introduced this subject, through his extremely interesting speech, and through the legal topics he had raised, as he (Mr. Matthews) gathered from the ruling of the Chairman that he should be out of Order in discussing the question of a Court of Appeal as compared with the exercise of the Queen's Prerogative of Mercy. He confined himself to the personal criticism—of which he by no means complained—contained in the speech of the hon. Member. To start with, however, he should like to endorse what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers)—namely, that the idea that the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy amounted in any way to a re-trial was contrary to the whole spirit of the law in criminal cases. The only effect of constituting a Court of Criminal Appeal would be that a new trial would take place before a fresh jury, a new trial would begin de novo, as if there had never been a previous trial, and if a new trial were granted in the case of a conviction, it must also be granted in the case of an acquittal, and he did not know how that could possibly be of benefit to prisoner. With regard to the advice given to the Crown in a capital case as to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy, it was not in any sense a re-trial. In his own opinion, it was somewhat an abuse of the existing system which had sprung up in recent years that cast upon the Home Secretary the necessity of considering new matters of facts which had not been before the jury, these matters coming up for consideration not through the action of the Home Office, but through the action of outsiders, who, feeling sympathy with the man whose life was forfeited to the law, cast about for new facts to press them upon the attention of the Home Secretary—facts not proved upon oath or sifted by the valuable tests of open inquiry in Court. Was it possible for the Home Secretary altogether to shut his eyes to these various facts, and to refuse to consider them? The Home Secretary was placed in a position of extreme difficulty and delicacy. He agreed that the Home Office was not a satisfactory tribunal to ascertain new facts with regard to a case, but did the hon. Member for Preston suggest that a really new fact undiscovered at the trial, and coming to the knowledge of the Home Secretary afterwards, was to be disregarded, and the man hanged in spite of it? The hon. Member would hardly suggest that. Once they let in the principle that there was to be a now trial before a jury because a new fact had been discovered supporting the theory of innocence, would anyone say that they could refuse a new trial when a new fact had been discovered supporting the theory of guilt? Now, in the case in question there was a man with whom were living his wife and her son. [An hon. MEMBER: His son.] No, a wife and her son. At night the woman and the boy died, undoubtedly by poison. The post mortem examination proved that conclusively, and the doctor had no doubt of it. The jury found the man guilty. He and the learned Judge who tried the case went over every line of the evidence given at the trial, and also over the depositions given before the magistrates and the coroner, and they both came to the conclusion that it was impossible to say that the verdict of the jury was wrong. It was quite true that the evidence before the jury did not trace any of the poison to the prisoner, he was not shown to have become possessed of strychnine within any reasonable period before the lamentable occurrence, and another blot in the evidence was that no adequate motive for the murder was shown. On the other hand, the only possible theory of the prisoner's innocence was that the unhappy woman who died committed suicide and murder. As he had said, neither he nor the learned Judge could say that the verdict was wrong; but, at the same time, it was clear from the facts before the jury that there were gaps, so to speak, in the evidence, and that there was a possibility of its turning out some day that the woman had procured strychnine, and taken it herself and given it to her son. There was also the possibility of its being shown that the man had obtained strychnine. There was a most material fact which was not covered by the evidence at the trial, and which, according to the way it turned out, might show that the verdict was absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Was it possible, under the circumstances, to give that simple "Yea" or "Nay" which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hanbury) said he (Mr. Matthews) was bound to give? It was impossible for him to say that the man was innocent, and that, therefore, he ought to be allowed to go free; and, on the other hand, he did not feel justified in sending the man to execution. He therefore, thought—and the learned Judge agreed with him—that the man should be subjected to the next severest punishment known to the law, but which was not irrevocable, and would allow of his being set at liberty if his innocence should afterwards come to light. He agreed that that was an illogical proceeding; but the Prerogative of Mercy was full of illogical consequences. Thousands of considerations that were illogical were constantly allowed to prevail in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Let him take, for instance, a case which excited great interest last year—the case of Miriam Jones, who murdered her child. She was a girl who had been seduced at the ago of 14, abandoned by her seducer, and left to poverty and want. Her case, when she tried to get rid of her shame and the consequence of her own distress, caused most poignant sympathy throughout the whole of the Principality of Wales. They might say it was illogical to give countenance to that kind of public sympathy; but he apprehended that, illogical as it might have been to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy, to minimize the girl's punishment, and to award the lightest punishment the circumstances admitted of, it was a proper case in which to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy. The hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury) had criticized his (Mr. Matthews') action in the case of Beesley and Rice. If the hon. Member had told him he would have referred to that case, he (Mr. Matthews) would have refreshed his memory. The hon. Member said he (Mr. Matthews) released those men, because he must have known them to be innocent. The hon. Member was quite mistaken. The two men, with others, had got into a riot and fight outside a public-house in Leeds, in which fight a man met with his death. Beesley and Rice were participators in the fight, which resulted in the publican's death. Altogether five men were convicted—two of them were hanged, and the other three had their sentences commuted to penal servitude for life. Although technically and legally guilty of murder, yet the part these men played in the attack upon the publican was slight. They were not the actual inflictors of the wounds and violence which led to the man's death, and he (Mr. Matthews) felt when he released Beesley and Rice that their sentences had lasted long enough for the ends of justice; and, with the full concurrence of the learned Judge who tried them, he allowed the men to be released. They were young men, not otherwise of bad character, and they acted in the heat of blood. There was a sort of partizan feeling actuating them—he was not sure if there was not some feeling of race. Certainly he knew there were circumstances of that sort in the case which considerably mitigated the character of their offence. They had less of the guilt of the man's death upon them than those who were executed. They had not inflicted the actual blows which caused his death, and he thought that, after 15 or 18 years' imprisonment, he might, with the sanction of the learned Judge, allow the men to return to what he believed, from all he could learn of their circumstances and history, to be an honest course of life. The men had conducted themselves well in prison, and the proper discipline of prisons required that they should hold out to prisoners the hope of an alleviation of their sentences if their conduct was perfectly good and satisfactory while they were in prison. If they were to preclude the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in such cases, they would find it very much more difficult to maintain discipline in prisons. Again there were cases in which prisoners, in consequence of extraordinary good conduct, such a thing as saving a warder from murder and attack by another prisoner, were very justly forgiven the remainder of their sentences. These were perfectly illogical cases too. The hon. Member would have a man hanged, so that there should be no possibility of his release, if he were found guilty of murder, but, illogical as it seemed, there were cases of murder in which it was proper that the Prerogative of Mercy should be exercised. There might be cases in which there had been some mistake in law. He could hardly fancy any tribunal which was more abundantly assisted by the best legal advice than the Home Secretary. He had never dealt, not only with capital sentences but with cases of any gravity, without consulting either by writing or by word of mouth the Judge who tried the case. In some cases he had called in the assistance of the Law Officers. A case occurred the other day in which, on a point of law, he was advised by the Law Officers to pardon a man sentenced to death. The Lord Chancellor was always ready to assist him, and he never knew a Judge refuse to come in, in a case in which he had not been connected, in order to give his advice to the Home Secretary. In one case in which his Predecessor refused to interfere with, the verdict, but which had been again pressed upon the attention of the Government, he had solicited the services of the Master of the Rolls, and had asked him if he would meet him (Mr. Matthews) and the Judge who tried the case, in order to review the case. As far as legal advice went he believed the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy was abundantly well guarded. The most painful, and upon the whole most unsatisfactory proceeding, was when new facts were pressed upon the attention of the Home Secretary as a reason for the exercise of the Prerogative. The Lipski case brought that home to his mind most forcibly. The disadvantage under which he tried in that case to grope his way through a variety of new facts which were presented to him and alleged to be true, was certainly most embarrassing; but he believed that unless they took away the Prerogative of Mercy altogether, he did not know how any Adviser of Her Majesty could refuse to listen to cases of that sort. For his part, the principle upon which he had gene, had been not to listen, but to refuse to listen, to allegations which were contradicted by sworn testimony at the trial, and to listen with great reluctance, and an unwilling mind to any statements of fact that might have been proved at the trial, but were not, and only to lend a willing oar to matters that had bonâ fide come to light since the trial. It might always happen that some fact was not known at the time the trial took place, which had been since discovered, and had a very material and important bearing on the result of the trial, and which ought not to be overlooked. He did not know whether the explanation he had given to the hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury) was satisfactory to him; but he frankly surrendered his own action to the severe criticism of the hon. Member in the confidence that, though there was always a possibility of error, he had used every means in his power to ensure the right and proper exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. He certainly thought it was a safe course to take, if there was any reasonable and substantial ground, although illogical ground, for not putting the prisoner beyond the reach of any further mercy, to substitute for the punishment of death the punishment of penal servitude for life, which could be revoked and put an end to if the prisoner proved to be innocent. The hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury) must not suppose for a moment that the advice he (Mr. Matthews) gave to Her Majesty to spare this man's life was tendered because he supposed the man was innocent. On the contrary, he relied on the material before the jury, and on the jury not being wrong. The materials before them were not so complete as to shut out the possibility of the man being innocent, and, therefore, in order to afford an opportunity of a mistake being rectified, he asked Her Majesty to substitute the sentence of penal servitude for life for the irrevocable sentence of death.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated the facts of the Bowles case with accuracy; but he had omitted one incident which seemed to him (Mr. Pickersgill) relevant, and which he thought should have been stated. The right hon. Gentleman said very accurately that the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. They did; but, at 9 o'clock in the evening, they came into Court, the Judge was re-called, and the jury informed his Lordship that there was no chance of their agreeing, and they intimated that they were about equally divided. The learned Judge addressed them, and told them, in language as plain as it was decent for him to use, to acquit the prisoner. They then left the Court, and an hour afterwards returned and brought in a verdict of guilty. It was obvious that the Judge was perfectly astounded at the result, because he was so overpowered that it was some minutes before he could speak. He (Mr. Pickersgill) was as jealous as any man of the interference of any Government with the verdict of a jury; but he thought that a jury which came into Court at 9 o'clock and said they were hopelessly divided, and then at 10 o'clock brought in a verdict of guilty, had by their conduct discredited themselves, and that, therefore, the Home Secretary might with less hesitation have superseded or over-ruled the decision at which they had arrived. So much with regard to that case. He should be unwilling that this Vote, which included the salary of the Home Secretary, should be passed by the Committee without some criticism from the quarter of the House in which he sat of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct on other grounds. The Home Secretary, of all the Ministers of the Queen, occupied a peculiar position towards the citizens of this country. Their relation was very intimate; one might perhaps almost say it was a kind of domestic relation. It was extremely important they should have as the occupant of the Home Secretaryship a Gentleman who was ready to lend an attentive ear to substantial grievances. But if that was the position which the Home Secretary occupied towards the community at large, the relation was peculiarly marked so far as the citizens of London in particular were concerned. It was so in many particulars, and especially so in one to which he wished now mainly to refer, one which concerned, or might concern, the daily life of all of them, and especially of those who belonged to what were called the humbler classes of society. The difference arose from the circumstance that in other towns the ratepayers, through their Representatives, had the control of their police, whereas the ratepayers of London had not control of the police. The head of the police force was in this House, and whereas the citizens of Manchester and Birmingham might, if they had grievances against the police, approach the members of the Watch Committee and have the matter investigated, the only resource for the citizens of London, when they had grievances against the police, was to bring those grievances to the knowledge of the Home Secretary through Members of the House of Commons. He was not going to blame the Home Secretary upon this occasion for refusing to inquire into anything which occurred on the 13th of November. It would be unfair to saddle the Home Secretary with any special responsibility for refusing inquiry with regard to anything which occurred on that day, because, as he (Mr. Pickersgill) very much regretted, the House had covered the right hon. Gentleman's conduct and had declined to authorize an inquiry. But the vote of the House was strictly limited to the events of the 13th of November, and he challenged respectfully the attitude which the Home Secretary had taken up towards grievances which had been brought to his knowledge relating to other dates. A little while ago he brought to the knowledge of the Home Secretary the fact that a young man, proceeding along Holborn on the 20th of November, was seriously assaulted by the police. How did the Home Secretary meet him? The right hon. Gentleman said that if the complainant would tell his story to a magistrate, or to the Chief Commissioner of Police, and not through him (Mr. Pickersgill), the matter would receive attention. The reply was scarcely so courteous as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt intended it to be, but that matter, perhaps, was a small one. He submitted that the Home Secretary, in making a reply of that kind, was quite overlooking the Constitutional rights and privileges both of a citizen outside the House and a Member of the House. As he understood it, there was no right, no privilege, more ancient, more well established, than that if a citizen had a grievance against a servant of the Government he should bring that grievance to the knowledge of the Government through a Member of the House of Commons, and that especially that was the case where, as in the case which he brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, a citizen could not have resource to the ordinary remedy of the Law Courts, because, owing to unavoidable circumstances, he was not able to identify the particular person who assaulted him, although there could be no doubt he had been assaulted. There were other cases which were brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, with regard to alleged assaults upon prisoners whilst in custody. So far as they knew, nothing was done in consequence of the complaints, and he submitted that the attitude assumed by the right hon. Gentleman was extremely unsatisfactory. What was the result? He saw that yesterday, at one of the Metropolitan Police Courts, a charge of a most serious character against the police was endorsed by one of the Metropolitan Magistrates. What did that Magistrate say upon the very question which was brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice—namely, that in frequent cases—he (Mr. Pickersgill) hoped that they were not habitual—it had become the practice of the Metropolitan Police to assault persons whilst in custody? The right hon. Gentleman declined to do anything in regard to the complaints which were made, and what was the result? They found that yesterday, at the Wandsworth Police Court, the Magistrate declared that a policeman in plain clothes struck a prisoner, whilst in the station, on the back of the head. The Inspector positively swore that no assault was committed. The learned Magistrate continued, "I am bound to say I do not believe the Inspector's evidence. I am very sorry, indeed, to have to say so, but I do not believe it all the same." The Magistrate came to the conclusion that the man was injured by someone while in the station, and he concluded, "I consider the whole conduct of the police, of all concerned, from the highest to the lowest, eminently unsatisfactory, and it must be inquired into." These were the words of a Magistrate who was as little likely as any man upon the Bench to use language of that description unless the thing was well founded. They were the words of Mr. Montagu Williams, a keen man of the world, as well as a most experienced criminal lawyer. Mr. Montagu Williams had set a good example to some of his colleagues by bringing to the judgment seat neither prejudices nor prepossessions. They had the complaints which had been made in the House of Commons endorsed by a magistrate, speaking with all the responsibility of his judicial office. But there was another matter, perhaps a more significant matter than the fact that these constables had misconducted themselves, because it threw some light upon the general practice and regula- tions of the Metropolitan Police, which he submitted were most inimical to the liberties of the citizens of this City. How did Mr. Montagu Williams endorse the charge sheet? Why, "I consider the conduct of 200W, 496W, 574W, and 431M, (156W on the last occasion, having since been been removed to Southwark) and Inspector Spencer, unsatisfactory and their evidence unreliable." What did that show? It showed that whilst this charge, a charge of a most serious character, was hanging over the head of this constable, he was removed from the districts in which he had been serving, to another district, and not only so, but instead of remaining 156W he became 431M.

Order, order. I do not see how that is connected with the action of the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be directed to the action of the Home Secretary.

said, that, of course, he should submit most willingly and cheerfully to the Chairman's ruling, but he would ask if he might indicate how he connected his remarks with the action of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was the head of the Metropolitan Police, and he (Mr. Pickersgill) was pointing out that there was a rule or a practice of the Metropolitan Police, which, in his judgment, was very injurious to the public.

A general statement of that kind could be entered into on the Police Vote, but on this Vote hon. Members must deal with the specific action of the Home Secretary.

said, he would content himself with having brought these facts to the knowledge of the Home Secretary, and with asking the right hon. Gentleman what he proposed to do in the matter. Mr. Montagu Williams said that inquiry must be made. Of what nature was that inquiry going to be? He asserted distinctly that an inquiry by Sir Charles Warren would be a pure farce. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] With all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, he asserted that in the opinion of, at all events, a very large proportion of the citizens of London, a portion of whom he had the honour to represent, a private departmental inquiry by Sir Charles Warren, such as that which took place lately in the case of Constable Bloy, would be a pure and unadulterated farce. The only inquiry which would satisfy the public mind would be a thorough and open and public inquiry, and he should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposed to take in these very grave circumstances?

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he never meant to be discourteous to him. On the occasion to which reference had been made, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of a young man unknown, who had been attacked by a policeman unknown.

said, that he mentioned both the name and the address of the young man, and he would give them to the right hon. Gentleman now if he desired it.

said, that the policeman's name was certainly never mentioned. The hon. Gentleman asked him if he would direct an inquiry, but he could only direct an inquiry which, in the opinion of the hon. Member and those who sat with him, was unsatisfactory and inconclusive. He must decline to institute fishing inquiries of the sort indicated before he knew what were the facts with which he had to deal. If any definite case of misconduct was brought against a policeman, and it assumed a criminal complexion, he would, as he had already said to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) send it before a magistrate, but if it was a mere breach of discipline, a mere breach of duty by a policeman, the proper course was to send the case before the First Commissioner of Police, who was the only tribunal competent to deal with it. He could not institute fanciful inquiries—the law did not admit of it—simply because the hon. Member chose to suggest that there had been some misconduct by a policeman unknown. With regard to the case reported to-day, he would tell the hon. Member what he had done. Before this afternoon, the constables implicated in the censure of Mr. Montagu Williams were suspended. He had applied to Mr. Montagu Williams for his notes, and as soon as he got the notes and a copy of the evidence, he would look into them. He had, however, already directed that the matter should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that being so, he thought the hon. Member would feel it would not be right or proper for him to make further allusion to it.

said, that if any justification were needed for the speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) it was to be found in the two addresses which followed it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) admitted that the function of advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy was undoubtedly the most important of all the duties appertaining to the office of Home Secretary. That carried out the contention the hon. Member for Preston put so clearly before the Committee, for it proved that the judicial portion of the office was far more important than the administrative portion. The Home Secretary himself told them that there was no question of re-trial in any sense, and that it was an abuse of right to press on the Home Secretary any new matter. The right hon. Gentleman further said—"I agree it is a bad tribunal to re-try a case," but he virtually went on to give them reasons why he had re-tried the case brought before them by the hon. Member for Preston. The Home Secretary also said one blot in the evidence was that no adequate motive had been shown for the murder. How could a case for re-trial be put more clearly? The right hon. Gentleman further admitted that there were gaps in the evidence, and that a material fact was uncovered. That led up to another very important remark of the Home Secretary—namely, that he agreed that the Home Secretary did form a bad tribunal to re-try a case. Speaking of the two men whom he had liberated, the Home Secretary said that was a peculiar case; he added that considerations of partizanship entered into the attack upon the publican, and that otherwise Beesley and Rice were not of bad character. Surely, an administrative officer holding a seat in the House as a partizan could not be the best tribunal to re-try these most serious cases, because, in the eyes of the country, there were virtually re-trials. It certainly seemed to him that the case against the present system had been very fully made out.

said, he thought that the most interesting part of the discussion that even- ing was not so much the speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) as the two speeches which followed, one from the ex-Home Secretary and one from the present Home Secretary. Certain statements were made by those right hon. Gentlemen which were of a most interesting character, and which must cause all thinking men to consider not only whether the Home Secretary was a proper person to decide the awful question as to whether a man should be sent to execution or not, but whether they were prepared to continue the present system of condemning men to capital punishment. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) had said he respited the man Bowles not because he believed him to be innocent, but because he thought there was a possibility of its being shown that the verdict of the jury was wrong.

Not because I believed the jury were wrong in drawing the inference that the man was guilty, but because the facts were not complete, and a new fact might turn up to show that the verdict was wrong.

said, that another statement of the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps still more significant; it was that he believed it might be positively the duty of the Home Secretary, whilst he was convinced there was still a possibility of evidence being forthcoming which might show that a man was not guilty, to send the man to execution. That was a fearful state of affairs, and it ought not to be allowed to exist. This country stood alone almost amongst the civilized States of the world in maintaining such a system. The discussion to-night showed that the present system for dispensing the Prerogative of Mercy was exceedingly unsatisfactory, and he believed what had been said would tend to greatly ripen public opinion upon the subject.

said, that notwithstanding all that had been put forward against the present plan, it was impossible to suppose that any other tribunal would do away altogether with the need of the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy by the Crown through the Home Office. There was a recent case that proved that a man named Habron was tried at Manchester a few years ago for murder. He was found guilty. The circum- stantial evidence was so clear and strong that there was no general doubt in the public mind that the man was guilty. There was no recommendation to mercy; because if the man were guilty the murder was a very bad one indeed. Habron was respited, but it was never made public why he was respited; he (Mr. Provand) believed it was because the Judge who tried the case had some doubt as to his guilt. Within a year the notorious Peace was arrested, and confessed to the murder for which Habron had been sentenced to death, and Habron was set at liberty. That case could not have been met by any Appeal Court for criminal cases. The Home Secretary had stated, and no doubt it was quite true, that the action in connection with the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in capital and other cases must always be more or less illogical. The inquiry which took place at the Home Office never could be the same as a new trial, as circumstances and probabilities were taken into account that could not be considered at a regular trial. On the other hand, he (Mr. Provand) was certain the Prerogative was never exercised on the opinion of the Home Secretary alone, and only after conference with at least the Judge who tried the case and the Law Officers of the Crown, which gave security that no point in favour of any prisoner would be overlooked.

said, he noticed there was a charge of £4,000 for the inspection of explosives. Salaries were provided for no less than three Military Inspectors, but he could find nothing in the Vote showing that the Board of Trade dealt with the question at all. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been badgered enough by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would ask the Under Secretary (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) to say whether it was the duty of any one of the three Inspectors to see that merchant vessels receiving as part of their cargo dynamite, gunpowder, or guncotton were properly fitted for the conveyance of such explosives. He also desired to know whether proper precautions were taken by vessels which shipped and transported petroleum, and whether, in the case of vessels carrying cargoes of coals, it was the duty of anybody to see that the holds of such vessels were pro- perly ventilated, so that coal gas could not accumulate. If the hon. Gentleman assured him that one of the Inspectors was told off for the duty he had specified, he should submit it was a public scandal that not one of the three Inspectors was a naval man who know something about ships.

said, that the duties in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was interested were laid down by virtue of Section 34 of the Explosives Act, 1875, upon Harbour Authorities who, with the sanction of the Board of Trade, made bye-laws regulating, the loading, unloading, storage, and conveyance of explosives. There was also a power of searching ships under section 73. He was not aware that there was any particular system of apportioning duty amongst the three Inspectors of explosives. They were all very valuable public servants, and he had no doubt that the Board of Trade could, whenever necessary, resort to them for advice.

said, he did not think it would be quite fair to the Home Secretary to raise again the question which was debated at considerable length a short short time ago—namely, his action with reference to the meetings in Trafalgar Square, and he did not propose to do so. He listened very carefully to the speeches the right hon. Gentleman made upon the question, and, if he might say so, they were very able from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. What he wished, however, to call attention to was the statement made in the course of the debate to which the right hon. Gentleman indicated his assent across the Table. The main defence for the prohibition of the meeting in Trafalgar Square was the disorderly character of certain meetings which had taken place about the time or immediately before the 13th November. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was not going to say whether the right hon. Gentleman did or did not make out a satisfactory defence; but he thought this was a fair summary of his case—namely, that while public meetings could be held under proper circumstances, and under proper authority at certain times, there was a certain condition of affairs at that time which made the meetings undesirable. [Mr. MATTHEWS indicated dissent.] He did not know whether he was very lucid in his attempt to summarize the right hon. Gentleman's contention. Perhaps he might sum up the right hon. Gentleman's view by saying that while he did not object to meetings in general in Trafalgar Square, he did object to them at that particular season and under the particular circumstances of the time. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) was speaking, and was making one of the strongest speeches made in the debate in favour of the action of the Government The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied to a question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney asked how many public places were now left in London for meeting, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury replied—"That there were just as many places now as there were before the 13th of November;" and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) remembered very distinctly the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said "Hear, hear!" across the Table of the House to that statement. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury went on to say under what circumstances, in his opinion, meetings would be allowed in Trafalgar Square. The requirements he laid down were that the meetings should be called for a legal and proper purpose, and called by responsible persons. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) held that the meeting called for the 13th of November was called for a legal and legitimate purpose, and was called by a perfectly responsible body—namely, the Federation of Radical Clubs in London, which had previously conducted many public meetings in Trafalgar Square, and always done so in a most orderly manner. The question he wanted to put to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) was whether he did not consider that the exceptional state of things, which, in his opinion, justified him in prohibiting meetings in Trafalgar Square, had not passed away, and whether it was not now his duty, for the purpose of maintaining good relations between the authorities and the people of London, to remove the prohibition, and to order that there should be no interference with any responsible body which wished to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square for legal and legitimate purposes?

said, that he was unable to assent to the version the hon. Member gave of the remarks he (Mr. Matthews) addressed to the House on the occasion of the debate upon the Motion relating to the Trafalgar Square meetings. The proposition which he made on the occasion in question was that meetings in public thoroughfares were not lawful; that it was only by licence, suffrage, and permission, and by winking at illegality, that any meeting could be held in any public thoroughfare at all. He stated that North, South, East, and West there were places, pointed out by Act of Parliament, where meetings could take place without interruption of traffic, and without interference and without inconvenience to trade and business in this crowded Metropolis. But, unfortunately, last autumn those meetings which had been, though illegal, such as the authorities could regard as likely to do no harm, assumed proportions that required in the interest of public security a prohibition from the authorities. That was the justification of his action, and gave a wholly different form to the arguments used by the hon. Member.

said, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had not quite understood his statement, because that was quite consistent with the version of the matter the right hon. Gentleman had just given and the argument he had laid down. The right hon. gentleman denied the legal right of the people to use Trafalgar Square as a meeting place, but, at the same time, he conceded that usage had established the custom of using the Square for the purpose.

There is a Rule of the House that forbids a recurrence to former debates in the Session. The hon. Member can by question refer to a former debate, but he cannot go into a question which has been the subject of debate on a former occasion.

said, then he would put his observation into the form of a question, and ask the Home Secretary, did he now see his way to continue the action of former Governments, including Conservative Governments, to permit public meetings in Trafalgar Square for legal purposes; whether, in view of the different state of things existing now from that which existed in the autumn, he would withdraw the prohibition?

said, no; he could not see his way to make any alteration which might prevent the peaceful and orderly use of Trafalgar Square by the public.

said, this was an extremely important Vote, and he wished to make some observations upon it. But the Committee had been discussing Votes for a long time, and he thought the Government might be satisfied with the result, and not ask the Committee to take more Votes at that hour (11.5.)

said, he was quite prepared to admit that considerable progress had been made with Supply during the last two nights, and he should be sorry to ask the Committee to proceed beyond a time when it was entirely agreeable to do so under the circumstances. The Government were grateful to the Committee for the satisfactory and business-like spirit with which the Votes had been dealt with, and would not object to Progress being reported, but they must ask that the Report of Supply granted on the previous night should be taken immediately afterwards.

said, he must oppose the Motion. The Bill was an old friend, and he regretted that it was very much in the form in which it appeared last year. He had some hope that those responsible for it might, on consideration, have recognized the great injustice they proposed to inflict on men who had very little power to help themselves—chemists' assistants. The Bill proposed to alter the whole status of that body of young men, who, under great difficulties, had got together money to qualify themselves as chemists' assistants, and afterwards to become chemists and druggists. If this Bill passed, these assistants would be deprived of all chance of becoming chemists and druggists.

rose, and called the Speaker's attention to the number of Members present.

There are obviously 40 Members present.

I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.

What was the real meaning of the Bill? It was simply to place these unfortunate chemists' assistants bound hand and foot in the power of an irresponsible body called the Pharmaceutical Society, giving that Society the right to say that no man should be a chemist or druggist unless he attended their lectures, paid their fees, and obtained their certificate. He would not deny the necessity that the men should be fully instructed and qualified for their important duties, but that they were fully qualified the nature of the examinations they were required to pass left little room for doubt. He had the high authority of the Government Inspector, who, in reference to these examinations, said there was every guarantee of competency that candidates who passed might with perfect safety be permitted to exercise the calling of chemists and druggists, and that such a curriculum as was imposed by the Bill was not required, nor was there any reason why the burden of additional expense should be thrown upon the candidates. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,