, in rising to call attention to the position of Trustee Savings Banks; and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the relationship subsisting between Trustee Savings Banks and the State is unsatisfactory, and ought to be revised; that Trustees and Managers should be restrained from using the words 'Government Security,' 'Government Savings Bank,' or other words implying more than the law rightfully authorises, in connection with such Banks, the use of which is calculated to deceive depositors, create a false impression of security, and damage the cause of thrift; and that the Trustees and Managers of such Banks should, as formerly, be made responsible for the safe custody of the deposits committed to their care in connection with such Trustee Banks,"

said, the House would remember that for some 16 months he had been drawing the attention of the House to this matter, and he now found that it was necessary for the House to take some further action. He should not have considered it necessary to make any reference to his motives in bringing the question before the House had it not been for a letter in yesterday's Times in which certain imputations were contained. He might be allowed to say that he did not believe in panics nor in legislating when panics took place. All that he desired in this matter, as was well known both to the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was to call attention to certain defects in connection with the management of Trustee Savings Banks so that some remedial measures might be passed, not in consequence of panic, but for the protection of the deposits of the poor persons who had deposited their savings in them. At the present moment there were 405 Trustee Savings Banks in the country, the number of deposit accounts was 1,590,000, and the aggregate amount of deposits standing in the name of these depositors was £46,843,000. If, therefore, they took into consideration the number of the banks throughout the country, the number of depositors in them, and the amount of the deposits, together with the fact that the depositors belonged to the poorer classes of society, he thought a case would be made out for calling attention to the subject. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members who were at all acquainted with the history of these banks, that they were established towards the close of last century, and that they existed for a considerable time as purely voluntary associations. It was not until they had grown considerably and extended to every part of the country that legislation stepped in. Three Bills were brought in in the years 1815, 1816, and 1817; but it was not until 1817 that any Act was passed for the purpose of regulating them. In 1818, another Act was passed to extend the provisions of the first Act to Ireland. The main object of this legislation was to secure the safety of the depositors' money. That object had always been considered of paramount importance; but the Government of that day and the House of Commons went further. They were prepared to give some kind of encouragement as well as protection to the depositors in Trustee Savings Banks, and, therefore, in order to encourage thrift among the working classes, the Government determined to fix the interest upon the amount deposited at £4 11s, 3d. per cent per annum. It was subsequently altered to a lower figure, because a number of persons began to make use of these banks instead of the ordinary commercial banks of the country for the purpose of putting in them, as a matter of convenience, deposits which were used in trading transactions. It was never intended that these Trustee Savings Banks should come into competition with the ordinary commercial banks of the country, but they were encouraged by the State for the purpose of developing thrift among the poorer classes. It was, therefore, deemed necessary in order that these institutions should be made use of for that object that certain limitations should be imposed. In the first place, the annual amount invested by any one depositor was limited, and there was also a limit fixed to the maximum amount which any single depositor could place in them. The main object of the early legislation was the protection of the investor; and it was required that the money deposited should be placed in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. It was thought that by making it compulsory to invest the deposits with the National Debt Commissioners, something like absolute security would be given to the depositors. Although the Government allowed a certain rate of interest to the trustees of these savings banks, yet a portion of the money went to the management, and the other portion to the investors. The State, therefore, paid an absolute bounty for the management of the banks, and consequently had a right to see, especially as they were regulated by the State, that they were properly and efficiently managed. It so happened that very early in the history of the banks it was found that defalcations existed, and defalcations had continued to exist over a long series of years. The earlier defalcations were of a sufficiently startling nature to alarm a great number of prudent men, Members of that House, among others, as to the safety of the Trustee Savings Banks and of the money deposited in them; and there- fore it had been attempted over and over again to increase the responsibilities of trustees and managers, whose duty it was to see that these banks were managed in accordance with the statutory provisions. It was very singular, and the history of these banks disclosed the fact, although he mentioned it with some reluctance, and certainly with some shame, that whilst the managers and trustees of the banks and their patrons, many of whom had Representatives in that House, used every effort to keep up the rate of interest at £4 11s. 3d. per cent, as at first proposed, and had done everything in their power to maintain and continue that high rate of interest, as an inducement to depositors to place their money in the banks; yet from a very early period they threw every obstacle in the way of increasing the responsibility of trustees and managers, and making them liable for any frauds or failures that might take place in regard to them. He did not intend to say anything against the honour of the trustees and managers. In looking through the history of the frauds and defalcations which had taken place, there was scarcely, as far as he remembered, a single instance in which either a trustee or manager had been found guilty of fraudulent practices in relation to the banks. But that could not be said of other officers, both paid and unpaid, and, to a considerable extent, the trustees and managers were by law made responsible for what was done. While practically anxious, therefore, to increase the responsibility of trustees and managers—and there was no other way of doing it than by increasing their liability—he hoped they would not suppose for a moment that he was calling in question their honour with regard to these banks. He knew they had done good work in connection with them in many respects, and he was prepared to admit that a great many of the banks themselves were in a good and solvent condition; but what he contended was that the facts he had already placed before the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last 16 months were sufficient to show that something must be done in order to afford greater protection than they now did to the depositors in Trustee Savings Banks. In his communications with the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject, it was his duty to say that he had received every consideration from those right hon. Gentlemen. He had had a long and arduous task in bringing the matter before the House, seeing that it took a considerable time to get all the facts and figures that were necessary to establish a case, and on every occasion he gratefully acknowledged that the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done everything that they could to aid him up to a certain point as far as he could understand their position. Nevertheless he felt that all that had been done was not sufficient. Last year the House was able to pass an Act for the purpose of making inquiries into the position of certain banks where a primâ facie case for inquiry had been made out. But they wanted something more than an inquiry where frauds and defalcations had taken place, where a failure had happened, and a great many persons had been almost ruined. It was not that which was wanted so much as some kind of efficient legislation whereby frauds and defalcations and failures would be prevented in the future. He had already mentioned the bounty given by the State towards the management of the banks. That bounty was altered in 1828 from £4 11s. 3d. to £3 16s. 0½d.; in 1844 it was reduced to £3 5s.; in 1880 it was further reduced to £3, and it was now proposed by a Bill before the House in the present year to reduce it to £2 15s., of which sum £2 10s., equivalent to the interest allowed by the Post Office Savings Banks, would go to the depositors. [An hon. MEMBER: It may.] As his hon. Friend reminded him, that this £2 10s. "might" go to the depositors. At any rate, under the altered circumstances of the case, the condition of the banks would be very much worse than it was to-day, and he was satisfied that in a great many instances it was sufficiently bad to-day. He therefore desired that the attention of the House should be directed to the subject so that some action might be taken before the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came into operation. He referred to the Supplementary National Debt Bill, whereby the interest on these deposits was to be still further reduced. In a great number of cases these banks had not a sufficient amount for working expenses already if they were to judge from the returns. He was, however, bound to say that there was very little dependence to be placed on the very elaborate returns which were published from time to time. As far as anyone could judge from them the position of the Cardiff Bank for instance was right enough according to the returns, and a number of other banks were right enough until frauds were discovered in connection with them. At the same time the returns, if properly examined, did give a number of important facts. For example—one bank sent up to the National Debt Commissioners a balance sheet that showed a profit on the right side of something a little under £40; but when that balance sheet was sent up, showing some credit to the bank, it was found that the bank had left unpaid a part of the salary of the actuary, which amounted to a larger sum. That was not the kind of solvency he wanted to see in regard to these Trustee Savings Banks. He thought their accounts ought to be able to show, on the face of them, a perfectly solvent condition, and if they did not do that, then, taking into consideration the fact that the National Debt Commissioners were empowered to pay a bounty of 5s. per cent for the management of the banks, they or some other authority should have power to make some inquiry into the condition of these banks by Act of Parliament. So far as he understood the operation of the Act of last Session that object had not yet been attained. Many hon. Members might not be aware of the large amount of money paid by the State towards keeping up this system of Trustee Savings Banks. If it were a bonus paid only and entirely for the encouragement of thrift, he felt that the House, especially after the experience of what other Parliaments had been doing during the last 50 or 60 years would not grudge a few extra pounds per annum in order to encourage thrift among the working classes; but the House ought to be satisfied that this bounty went to the depositors, and was used for the encouragement of thrift. As he understood it, the object of these banks was not to call into existence an institution that was to provide respectable berths for a number of very respectable people; but the real object was to encourage thrift, and for that purpose the main responsibility with regard to the management of the banks was thrown, not upon the actuaries or secretaries, but upon the trustees and managers. Well, these banks had not paid their way; they had never paid their way, but they had been bounty fed from the first moment of their existence under statutory regulation. They lost in the first year they were instituted—namely, from 1817 to 1818—a sum of £12,000, and it increased year by year until the loss reached something very considerable. During the first 11 years of their existence the actual loss to the National Exchequer was £744,552. These facts were contained in a Return moved for by the late Joseph Hume, for many years a respected Member of that House, and it was published prior to 1828, when the first reduction was made in the amount of interest. It was thought that when the interest was reduced that the banks would be pretty nearly able to pay their way; but, even with the reduction, the banks were not able to pay their way, and a very considerable sum of money was lost to the nation in connection with the management of thrift savings banks, and in the payment of interest up to 1844, when a further reduction was made, and again up to 1880. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the year 1880 the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) brought in a measure whereby arrangements were made to pay off the deficit incurred by the banks. It was somewhat difficult to understand what the actual deficit was, but the sum mentioned to the House was considerably over £3,500,000. It was thought after a still further reduction was made in the amount of interest that the banks would not be landed in further deficiencies; but, as a matter of fact, from 1880, when arrangements were made to pay off the deficit at the rate of £83,272 a-year, up to 1908 the Trustee Savings Banks had cost the nation a further sum of £17,000. The rate was now about £10,000 per annum, £6,000 of which represented the cost of management at the National Debt Office, while something like £4,000 represented the sum paid to the trustees in the shape of interest over the amount actually earned. Only recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave some figures in answer to a Question put to him in that House, which showed that last year, 1887, the actual loss to the National Exchequer, instead of being £4,090 as in the previous year, had amounted to £13,746. He could, therefore, understand why it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found it absolutely necessary to bring in this Supplementary Bill to deal with the question of Trustee Banks. So far as the Motion was concerned, that was an important aspect of the question; but with a rich nation like this, he felt sure that the sum of £10,000 a-year would not be grudged if necessary for developing thrift in the country. What they wanted to see was that the money should be used in order to develop thrift, and in connection with perfectly safe and solvent institutions. He was sorry to say that the history of Trustee Savings Banks in this country was not so bright a page as he at one time imagined it would be, and as many hon. Members of the House even now imagined that it was. He had had to go through a number of records in connection with these banks, and his feeling was one of sadness when he remembered the great number of defalcations which had taken place. It was a singular fact that 12 failures took place in the first 11 years after the state imposed some regulations in regard to them—namely, between 1817 and 1828. A great number of failures had taken place in various parts of the country at various times, but the reason why they did not hear so much in regard to some of those failures was the fact that the trustees and managers, rather than have an open inquiry and have all the circumstances of the case brought to light, manfully put their hands in their pockets and made up the deficiency, while the defaulting actuary or secretary, whoever he might be, escaped punishment. In one instance Mr. Hoare paid £7,000 out of his own pocket to make up a defalcation which had occurred in connection with a bank of which he was trustee, while other trustees had paid from £500 to £1,000 according to their means. In many instances the trustees and managers had come forward in this way. One instance occurred last year to which the attention of the House was called. The Bishop Stortford case was sufficiently sad in itself. In that instance trustees and managers paid a large sum of money, although he was not quite sure that all the deficiency was made up, in order to make up the defalcations caused by the fraud and default of their secretary. It was a singular fact in connection with that bank that this man was able to draw sums of money year after year from the National Debt Commissioners without anyone calling him to account. The sums drawn out from the National Debt Office amounted to £8,750, but instead of having that sum in hand £750 was all that stood to the credit of the bank, the rest having been drawn by the defaulting secretary. It seemed to him that even the National Debt Commissioners, placed as they were, ought to have seen that there was something wrong; but they said that they had no authority. All he could say was that there ought to be some authority. The trustees and managers themselves had authority, and it was their bounden duty under an Act of Parliament to see that the rules and regulations, established for the control of Trustee Savings Banks, were carried out. On one occasion some years ago the House of Commons voted a sum of money to make up a deficiency in one bank, a sum of £30,000 being voted towards meeting the deficiency which had taken place in Dublin. It might have been thought that that circumstance would have alarmed the trustees and managers of savings banks throughout the country. It certainly alarmed many Members of the House of Commons, and among others Mr. Joseph Hume, who was not a man likely to give way to panic. It might have been thought that some attempt would be made to increase the liability and responsibility of the trustees and managers, but scarcely had this sum of money been voted by Parliament, when other defalcations were brought to light amounting in the case of St. Albans to £24,000, of Tralee to £36,000, of Killarney to £36,000, of Rochdale to £71,715, of Brighton to £4,000, and of Reading to £3,000. These defalcations occurred from time to time until hon. Members of that House became alarmed, and then an effort was made to increase the responsibility of the trustees and managers. It had been held by a decision at law that trustees were responsible, but they got rid of that responsi- bility. The House of Commons then, in one of these fits of panic which seemed to overtake it, passed a measure which permitted trustees and managers to make themselves responsible and liable by signing a declaration to that effect and sending it to the National Debt Commissioners. The result was that out of the great number of Trustee Savings Banks throughout the length and breadth of the land, only four sets of trustees, who were connected with very unimportant banks, sent in a declaration that they were prepared to incur the liability and responsibility. The trustees and managers of the other banks sent in no declaration to the effect that they were prepared to be held responsible for the money belonging to the poor depositors, and of course this permissive legislation entirely failed to produce any salutary effect. Another effort was then made to increase the security of these banks and the responsibility of trustees and managers. Bills were brought into the House of Commons year after year, and they were rejected mainly on account of the efforts which were made on the part of the trustees, managers, and patrons of these banks, acting, of course, for others whose hands were not quite so apparent. Those Bills were rejected year after year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian attempted legislation on two occasions, and a third Bill was brought in by some other Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian seeing that he could not enforce this liability upon trustees, brought in, on that account, another measure creating the Post Office Savings Banks which was thus absolutely brought into existence, because trustees and managers would not undertake the due responsibility of the trust they had taken upon themselves. The trustees and managers seemed to have come to the conclusion that it was perhaps wise that some farther measure should be brought in, and called upon the right hon. Gentleman to help. They were told that the Government had done their part, and that they must prepare a measure themselves. The result was the Act of 1863. The trustees did introduce a measure, but they took very good care in introducing it that their responsibility was not increased as it ought to have been. Now, he ventured to think not only that the time had come when that House, for the sake of its own credit, must see that the provisions passed by it were carried into effect, but also that it should go on to some further legislation with regard to the trustees of these banks. Their position would be much altered by the new Act, which would come into operation in the course of a few months. Whether, however, that Act had been passed or not, the Trustee Savings Banks could not go on as at present. He maintained that the circumstances which attended the failure and defalcations at Cardiff were quite sufficient of themselves to show the absolute necessity of some kind of legislation. The defalcations discovered at Cardiff amounted to over £37,000, and at Bishop Stortford there was a deficiency of £8,000. The Act of 1863, if it had been honestly worked by the trustees and managers, would certainly have prevented those frauds. At any rate, they would have done so to a very considerable extent, and if the frauds and defalcations had not increased, there would not have been any absolute reason for increasing the responsibility of trustees and managers. But what was the actual state of matters. So far from the trustees and managers doing their duty, it seemed to him that they never stopped to consider whether they had any duties to perform or any responsibilities in connection with the money of depositors at all. This singular fact cropped up in evidence in regard to the banks of Sevenoaks, Bishop Stortford, Cardiff, and other places—namely, that the trustees and managers said that they had never known there were any statutory provisions imposing certain duties upon them. All that he could say in answer to that was that the trustees and managers were rendered responsible for the management of these banks by the Act of 1863. One of the first things set forth in the Act of 1863 was that every depositor on making his deposit, should make a declaration that he had nu interest in any other Savings Bank to any extent whatever. It was the duty of trustees and managers to see that this declaration was made by every depositor, and the Act went further, for they were not only required to say that the declaration was made when the first deposit took place, but power was given to them to see that the declaration was made at any subsequent time if they thought fit. Now, in the case of Cardiff, it was in evidence that the declaration was not made by the depositors, and was never expected to be made, and that it was only in comparatively few instances that it was done. Nor did it appear to have been made in connection with other banks where defalcations took place, notwithstanding the fact that it was the first duty imposed by the Act, the object being to see that no man deposited more in one year than £30, or a larger sum altogether than £150. This was not peculiar in regard to any particular bank. A Trustee Savings Bank pass book had been placed in his hands a short time ago. It was given to him by a gentleman who went and put in a sum of money in a certain bank in London about which he should have to say something on a future occasion. This gentleman expected to be called upon to make a statutory declaration, but no such declaration was asked for or referred to, and no trustee or manager was there to initial the book in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The intention of the law was to fix an annual limit of £30 a-year for depositors, and the intention in fixing that limit was that the bank should be used by the industrial classes only; but, as a matter of fact, this annual limit had been exceeded over and over again in various savings banks throughout the country, and not only the annual limit, but the maximum amount of £150. In Cardiff, so innocent were all the gentlemen connected with the bank, notwithstanding the fact that some of the trustees and managers were lawyers, that one of their number, himself a lawyer, deposited thousands of pounds in the bank, and had the principal paid back again with interest, in absolute violation, not only of the spirit, but of the letter of the Act. When the inquiry was instituted at Cardiff, this gentleman, who, it must be remembered, was a lawyer, told the Commissioners that he had no notion whatever of any restriction having been imposed by the law. Then, again, the Act provided that there should be an audit, and that that audit should take place every half-year. He presumed that those who passed the Act and those by whom it was framed, meant, when they used the term audit, that there should be a real audit, and not that a certain number of figures should be totalled up in a book and initialled "all right," and sent up to the National Debt Commissioners to tell any tale it liked. Of the kind of audit that passed muster there was a sad specimen recently in connection with the Cardiff Bank, and also in a case which occurred recently, in which the gentleman who wrote a letter to The Times yesterday happened to be the auditor as well as the actuary of an important London Trustee Bank. This gentleman, who was joint auditor with his partner of several other banks, might be thought, from the experience he had gained, to have known something in regard to auditing, and to have been able to detect any frauds or defalcations that might have taken place. Yet frauds had been going on for years undetected by the auditor, although they might have been detected very readily if he had simply carried out the rules and instructions of the Act of Parliament, seeing that the pass book of the depositor was examined with the cash book and ledger at the bank. That not being done, of course the actuary could use the money just as he pleased. He put down certain amounts in the cash book and ledger of the bank, and other amounts in the pass books, and as nobody ever saw the pass books and compared them with the books in the possession of the bank, he was perfectly safe. If the auditor had done his duty, the defalcations which took place at Sevenoaks could not have occurred. The case at Cardiff was worse. The defalcations had been going on there for a great number of years. How many they were not told by the Commissioner; but, at any rate, they had been going on for the last 20 years. In that case, the auditor simply did what the actuary told him, and when the inquiry was instituted it was found that there had not only been a defective audit, but something more. It was found in one instance that an auditor who had acted for many years had been removed, and another auditor was appointed in his place. It so happened that this auditor was not quite so easily satisfied, and in one instance he discovered that a great number of accounts exceeded the full limit of £150, which was the maximum allowed by the Act, or £200, inclu- ding the interest. It was found that some of the accounts had run up to a considerable amount, but that, nevertheless, only one single account had been sent up to the National Debt Office as having been over £200, and in that case it was marked £200 12s. The auditor refused to sign the accounts as correct and wrote the word. "false" against it, to which he signed his name. But what did the trustees and managers do? They absolutely published the balance sheet as signed by the auditor and found correct, but without the word "false" upon it. That account was sent up to the National Debt Office, and it contained the name of one depositor only who had exceeded the maximum allowed to be deposited. Then, again, this singular thing happened in connection with the Cardiff bank. Neither in connection with that bank nor in the inquiry instituted under the Hon. Lyulph Stanley, as Commissioner, was there anything to show that any of the trustees or managers actually benefited themselves to any extent by the frauds and defalcations which occurred, and in asking the House to take steps he was at the same time seeking to protect a body of men who were occupying a post of honour as well as responsibility. But in undertaking the duties it was necessary that they should undertake the responsibility connected with them, and see that the rules and regulations provided by statute were carried out. He had shown that the law was set at defiance with regard to the limit of money to be deposited per annum, also in regard to the limit of the maximum amount, and also in reference to the fact that no real and effectual audit took place. His attention had been called by managers, trustees, and actuaries to certain banks which were, undoubtedly, well managed, but he had never called in question the fact that a great number of these Trustee Savings Banks were well conducted. For instance, there was the Glasgow Savings Bank, which was conducted in every way, as far as he could learn, as a great philanthropic institution; its affairs were managed in a wise manner, and every security was given to the depositors. The same might be said of the Hull Savings Bank, and the Liverpool Savings Bank might also be mentioned, but he did not like to mention individual banks lest it might be supposed that he wished to condemn those he did not mention. All he would say was that there could be no doubt that many of these banks were well conducted. No single charge had ever been made against the Liverpool Savings Bank, and it was managed, he believed, in a proper and judicious manner, and had been placed in a sound and healthy condition in every possible respect. The actuary of that bank seemed to be very angry with him for having brought the question of Trustee Savings Banks before the House, and undertook to get up a trades' union of the actuaries of savings banks for the purpose of opposing legislation on the subject. That gentleman, no doubt believing that he was perfectly right, had said, "We do not break the law in any respect, nor do we parade the name of the Government." Now he (Mr. Howell) had had a circular put in his hands in which this gentleman endeavoured to show that no use was made of the Government name for the purpose of security. Yet, the first passage in that circular said, that as many paragraphs were going round the papers as to the security or insecurity of Trustee Savings Bank, it might be of interest to consider how the matter stood in reference to the Liverpool Savings Bank. In the first place the Liverpool Savings Bank had never assumed the title of "National Security" or "Government Security" in any of its pass-books or other publications. Its full title was "The Liverpool Savings Bank, certified by Act of Parliament," and so on. This circular had been sown broadcast throughout the country, and it was quite true that the pass book was not issued with the words "National Security" or "Government Security" upon it. But in this very circular he found the words "Liverpool Savings Bank, National Security, Government Security." No further observation was, therefore, necessary in regard to that point. His main complaint was that the terms "Government Security" and "National Security" had been used in connection with these banks as traps for the unwary, and that a great number of persons had been induced to lodge their money in these banks, believing them to be absolutely safe and sound, whereas they were not so, but had gone to pieces, and the depositors had suffered in consequence. He thought that some action ought to be taken by the House in the first place to prohibit the use of the name of the Government in the way in which it was so used, even in the simple circular he had referred to. The managers had no right to use the term "National Security" or "Government Security," because it was well known that the only security the Government afforded to Trustee Savings Banks was the security of the money actually lodged with the National Debt Commissioners. The National Debt Commissioners were responsible to that extent for the money belonging to the Cardiff Bank, but what had become of the £37,000 of which the bank had been defrauded, and how was it that a demand was made for so large a sum of money? It was because the rules and regulations of the bank itself had been violated by the trustees and managers, and also the provisions of the Act of Parliament. It became the duty of that House to see that the name of the Government was not used as a trap in the way he had pointed out. In the next place, deposits ought only to be taken during the hours the bank was open. This was already provided for by the rules and the Act of Parliament. Any money taken at any other time was taken fraudulently, and the actuary who took it, together with the trustee and manager who signed the pass book or witnessed the payment, whether they knew it or not, were accessories to a fraud. In the particular instance of the Cardiff Bank he had seen a document which was supposed to have been signed by the Attorney General, in which the public were told by one of these trustees and managers that they had acted in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney General. He much doubted the fact at the time the statement was made, so he said, "So much the worse for the hon. and learned Gentleman's law," but he did not know until a long time afterwards what the terms of the case submitted to the Attorney General were or what his opinion actually was. The trustees and managers mentioned what purported to be the document, but the real document was only extorted by the Commissioner with considerable difficulty. When it was printed in connection with the Report of the Commissioner it turned out that the Attorney General and other counsel who had been consulted on the matter had advised the trustees over and over again for 12 months before he called the attention of the House to the matter that their action had been illegal, and that they would be held responsible. During the whole time the trustees were using the money of the depositors for the purpose of fighting the depositors before the Registrar, before the High Court of Justice, and in the Lobby of that House, they kept the opinion back. As a matter of fact, the opinion of the learned Attorney General did not please them. They therefore consulted another eminent counsel, who also failed to satisfy them. What they wanted was the opinion of some eminent counsel which should absolutely satisfy their consciences, and relieve them of all illegal liability and responsibility, so that they would be able to sleep in peace. But not a single lawyer could be found who was willing to give a certificate to that effect, and, as he had already stated, although this opinion was in the possession of the trustees and managers and the solicitors who were connected with the bank, for more than 12 months, during the whole of that time the money of the depositors was being used for the purpose of contesting their claims before the Registrar and the High Court of Justice, the object being to avoid paying the money which was absolutely due to those who had placed deposits in the bank. The next necessary step to be taken was that the trustees and managers of these banks should be made responsible and liable for loss in exactly the same way as other trustees were liable for money committed to their care. If gentlemen were not prepared to take upon themselves the full responsibility of trusteeship, they ought not to become trustees and managers of a Trustee Savings Bank. They undertook the duties under the provisions of an Act of Parliament on the supposition that they would carry out those provisions, and if they failed to carry them out, then, he maintained, that they were guilty of culpable neglect, and ought to pay for it. There was another thing which, in his opinion, ought to be done, and it had reference to the Registrar's Office. Under the Savings Banks Act, before the Registrar's Office was called into existence, a barrister was appointed to certify the rules. That barrister was subsequently made a Registrar, and it was his duty to see that all matters connected with the banks were in conformity with the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The decision and the award of the Registrar was to be final without appeal. But what had happened in connection with these Trustee Savings Banks was that they had absolutely set at naught every decision and every award of the Registrar. The decisions given by the Registrar time after time had never been obeyed up to the present moment, but the managers and trustees used the deposit money in order to prevent litigation and appealed to the High Court of Justice in some cases to restrain the Registrar from acting. In every possible way they had endeavoured to prevent the poor depositors from obtaining their just demands. The Registrar's Office could be made really useful for carrying out the Act of Parliament. The Registrar should have power not only to make his award but to enforce it. How was it possible for the poor people who lodged their half crowns in these savings banks to employ counsel to fight against the eminent men engaged by the banks to fight against them, and paid by the depositors' money? He asked that something should be done to strengthen the hands of the Registrar, so that these objectionable practices should not take place in future. He would not detain the House further in the matter. What he was anxious for was that the Government would see its way to supplement the Act of last year and the Bill of the present Session by some further legislation in reference to Trustee Savings Banks. He was aware that there was some difficulty in the way of legislation, because the Cardiff case was not yet absolutely settled; but he wanted to impress upon the Government that the position of the matter would be altered very considerably as soon as a further reduction of interest took place. His only fear was that some of these banks with small assets would not, with their present liabilities, bear the slightest test that might be applied to them, and he was anxious to avoid a premature run on any of the banks. At the same time, the existing state of things was a perfect scandal, and it was necessary that remedial legislation should take place in order to prevent the recurrence of the failures and defalcations which had occurred. He had again to thank the Government for the careful consideration which they had hitherto given to this very difficult matter, and he also thanked the House for the attention with which it had listened to his observations. He sincerely hoped that before the end of the Session something would be done to increase the security of these savings banks of the United Kingdom, and to make the trustees and managers absolutely responsible for the due performance of their duties.

seconded the Resolution.

said, he was the more induced to say a few words upon this Motion, because he was trustee of one of the banks which had been referred to by the hon. Member as instances of banks that were under proper and satisfactory management. And, as a lawyer, he certainly hoped that he knew more of the duties and responsibilities he had incurred than some of those who had been referred to in connection with the Cardiff Savings Bank. He had not seconded the Motion, although he thought it would be easy to accept it if the last clause were omitted, and he hoped before the close of the discussion the hon. Member would see his way to omit those words, so as to enable the House to come to a unanimous conclusion, He also trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to make also some acceptable offer on the part of the Government. With the exception he had pointed out, there was no objection to the principle of the Motion. It was a long time since the matter had been discussed in Parliament, and no one could take exception to the manner in which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) had introduced it. Those who took an interest in the savings banks would welcome the Motion as a means of drawing renewed attention to these institutions, which had been of great value to the country, and of introducing those reforms which would make them still more valuable, and give increased security to the trustees who took an active interest in such work. He fully agreed with the hon. Member that the position of trustee was one of some honour, and ought to carry with it corresponding responsibility; but he would suggest, when it was considered how much the country owed to these trustees, that there was no reason for increasing their responsibility unduly and incurring the risk of getting rid of the great benefit which they had conferred upon the banks. He hoped the result of the discussion would be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be induced to give such consideration to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member as to lead him to the conclusion that the subject was one worthy of more formal and detailed consideration than could be given to it in that House, and that, inasmuch as there had been financial changes which altered the basis of these banks, and as there were points in which the law affecting them might be improved, the matter was one which might very well be referred to a Select Committee on the lines suggested by the hon. Member, without interfering with the voluntary work that had been already done with such good effect on behalf of these savings banks. Let them look for a moment at the vast value the savings banks had been to the country. They could hardly realize the importance of their work, the impetus which had been given by them in a difficult period in the history of the country to habits of thrift, and the way in which they had led up to the formation of other institutions of a philanthropic character. True, there had been failures in connection with the savings banks, and if there was one form of robbery more objectionable than another, it was in the plunder of the poor which occasionally took place in connection with philanthropic institutions. But even in the ease of Rochdale, which had been mentioned by the hon. Member in connection with such a failure, the establishment of a savings bank there promoted habits of thrift among the working classes, which gave rise to the great co-operative movement that sprung up in that town, so that indirectly benefit was associated with the bank. And even now that the State had done its duty by establishing Post Office Savings Banks, Trustee Savings Banks were still found to be of great value, for notwithstanding the existence of the new institutions, the Trustee Banks had a sum of £47,000,000 sterling invested in them, which was almost equal to the amount invested in the Post Office Savings Bank, although their number was only 400 against 8,000. In point of fact, the Trustee Savings Banks supplied a national want, and met the convenience of a large numbers of persons in a way the Post Office Savings Banks could not hope to do. The centralization inseparable from the Post Office system was incompatible with the convenience afforded by the Trustee Savings Banks. A bank would pay £10 or £20 without notice, merely on the production of a pass book, having its own ledgers to refer to. Thus, in all respects, the Trustee Savings Banks deserved strong encouragement rather than discouragement. A very great interest was taken in the question, and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green would be the first to acknowledge that it would be an unfortunate day for the saving people of the country if anything was done to discourage them from making these investments. Granted that there had been cases of gross mismanagement, failure, and plunder, still he ventured to say that the general position of the savings banks was satisfactory. The hon. Member had admitted this in reference to some of the instances he had referred to. That they were solvent was shown by the funds invested with the National Debt Commissioners, and there were also surplus funds so invested to the extent of £400,000, on which no interest was paid. He congratulated the hon. Member for Bethnal Green on having brought forward the question, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to the omission of the concluding words of the Motion, so that the House might unanimously agree to the first part. The first part of the Resolution was—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the relationship subsisting between Trustee Savings Banks and the State is unsatisfactory, and ought to be revised."

They would all admit that it was a long time since legislation took place upon the subject. The Consolidation Acts, which were passed some 20 or 30 years ago, were all based on the Act of 1816, and there ought to be no feeling against modern managers in respect of legislation founded upon the political economy of that date. If only upon that ground it was desirable that the matter should be considered. The State had realized a considerable loss in respect of the obligations of the Trustee Savings Banks; but that loss was not a current loss for which the present managers were responsible, but was incurred years ago in the early history of the system. The hon. Member, instead of blaming the existing managers and trustees, should rather censure the political economy of 1816.

said, that there was the loss of £13,000 last year.

said, his contention was that modern legislation was not to be condemned because a financial subject had not been properly dealt with so long ago as 1816. If the political economy of that day had been better, the loss which had been incurred, and which was in a great measure an accumulated one, would not now be the subject of consideration in that House. On the other hand, there had been a succession of legislation constantly reducing the interest paid to depositors, and the Bill introduced in the present Session would make a further inroad upon that interest. That, also, was a matter which required consideration, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government, were to afford an opportunity for inquiry, the managers and trustees of savings banks generally would welcome many securities which did not now exist, but which were calculated to improve the condition of these banks. There could be no objection to an independent audit, to more frequent comparison of pass-books with ledgers. That would prevent many of the frauds which had taken place in the past. Nor could there be any objection to requiring security to be given by managers and clerks and to Government nominations of local trustees, provided local help and local interest were still maintained. Upon all of these points he believed that the trustees and managers were prepared to welcome inquiry, and he hoped that an investigation would be productive of great good. There was, however, one point on which he seriously differed from the views of the hon. Member. As a trustee, he was fully aware of the responsible position he occupied. It was quite possible that there was a number of trustees who were not lawyers, and who were hardly aware of the responsibility they had incurred; but he thought that the hon. Member had not sufficiently stated those responsibilities. On the contrary, he had somewhat minimized them, and if he would refer to the Act which bore upon the subject, he would find that it made trustees liable in very precise terms for the consequences of their own neglect. Indeed, this had been tested in the Bishop Stortford case, and also in the case of the Cardiff Savings Bank. Trustees were further liable for their own personal default if they did not take full opportunity of inquiring into the position of the bank for which they were responsible, and enforcing those checks which the Legislature had imposed. The last clause of the Resolution, however, sought to make them liable under all circumstances for all the money deposited, the words being—

"That the Trustees and Managers of such banks should, as formerly, be made responsible for the safe custody of the deposits committed to their care, in connection with such Trustee Banks."

This could not mean, as it might appear to do on the face of it, the physical custody of the money—the taking care of the safes and premises; but it meant that the trustees were further to be liable for every default on the part of their officers, who, he presumed, would have been appointed after full inquiry into their character, and who might fairly be regarded as competent to perform their duties. Certainly, since 1816 or 1818, no such responsibility had been placed upon the trustees and managers. At that time their duties were mere clearly defined; and, as far as he could remember, he did not think they had been rendered absolutely responsible and fixed with unqualified liability. Could it he advantageous to the cause of thrift to impose unrestricted liability on gentlemen who had rendered such valuable services to these institutions? Was it wise to place a check and an undue liability upon those who had done, for instance, so much to establish and maintain penny banks? A very large number of those banks were now in existence, and they proved most useful to schools. From those penny banks the depositors were induced to become depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks themselves. Then, was it wise to impose any further responsibility upon the trustees? He hoped the hon. Member would reconsider and withdraw the latter part of the Motion, because there was every reason to believe that the acceptance of those words would impose a liability which very few men of business would be willing to accept in future. They wanted to get as much voluntary agency as possible; and when they found that voluntary agency had, as a general rule, proved so successful in connection with the savings banks, and the trustees were willing to incur great liability, and even to suffer by incurring it, he did not think that Parliament ought to discourage them, but, on the contrary, should offer them every encouragement it could. He would not detain the House longer than to say that he trusted the subject would undergo full reconsideration, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he was now dealing with the funds of the Trustee Savings Banks by reducing the interest, would make some return by granting a Select Committee.

said, he had taken for many years a great amount of interest in this important question; and he was, therefore, anxious to say a few words in connection with the Resolution which the hon. Member had moved. He must candidly say that in the main he fully agreed with the hon. Member. He thought that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman clearly showed that the time had arrived when the subject should be carefully gone into. The hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the last clause of the Resolution, and he agreed with the hon. Member that, as it stood, it was somewhat bald and open to objection. But, on the other hand, they must re- cognize the fact that if trustees and others connected with these banks took on themselves the responsibility of looking after these institutions, if they failed to carry out the law as it was laid down by Act of Parliament, they should be responsible for not attending to those rules and regulations, which, if they had been attended to, would have prevented all of those catastrophes to which reference had been made. At the same time, they ought not to forget the enormous amount of good which these Trustee Savings Banks had effected. They had been the pioneers of the great movement of thrift in this country. Nearly 100 years ago, when they were first commenced, there was no other movement or institution for promoting thrift and this branch of the well-being of the country. Although it was perfectly true that some of these banks had failed, and there were instances of the very unsatisfactory manner in which they had been conducted, yet he thought that no impartial man would deny that the instances of failure had been comparatively few. The work which had been done had, as a general rule, been done well, and it would be a disastrous thing if they were to do anything to endanger the existence of these institutions. He thought they might take it for granted that it was owing to the failure of some of the Trustee Savings Banks that, some 20 years ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) brought forward his scheme for the establishment of the Post Office Savings Banks. When that scheme was introduced, most persons thought that the Post Office Banks, by affording such great facilities in all parts of the country, that by opening all the Post Offices throughout England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland for deposits, would shortly absorb the Trustees Savings Banks, which were comparatively few in number and covered a comparatively small area. As a matter of fact, that had not been the case; but it had been proved that the more they gave facilities for thrift in all parts of the country, the more advantage was taken of it. He did not wish to make a long speech; but those of them who had studied the subject were aware that a great number of Trustee Savings Banks had gradually dropped out of existence, and been swallowed up by the Post Office Savings Banks. Although that was the case, still the enormous sum of £47,000,000 was held by these banks. He agreed most heartily with all the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Howell) had said about the system of audit. The system of audit in the Trustee Savings Banks was anything but satisfactory. Unless there was some machinery by which the depositor's pass book could be brought systematically before the auditor, and by which deposits should be received only in regular hours, all other checks would be useless. There was no doubt that many trustees did not realize the great importance not only of an accidental audit taking place every half-year, but of the system of banking being such that there should be a systematic plan by which the audit should go on continuously from week to week and from month to month. Under the present system, by which an auditor simply went to these banks twice a-year, it was perfectly impossible, considering the enormous number of transactions which the banks had, and the carelessness of may of the depositors, to expect a systematic check. In the institution he had a great deal to do with, they were so careful about this that they had a regular staff of men who did nothing else but continuously go about accidentally, without system, rule, or time, or place, and in the most miscellaneous manner, in order to see that the pass book was absolutely compared with the ledger to see that the two tallied. At the present time these Trustee Savings Banks were considered by the public and the depositors to be practically Government institutions. It was no use saying that the public did not understand this; they believed it, they thought that this Government security made these banks Government banks; and although it might be said that the papers did not distinctly state it, the fact remained that the great bulk of the depositors really did believe there was Government security. This was a very serious matter, because there was really no Government security; the State was in no way responsible, the State was simply responsible for the money which was handed over to it, and the State was in no possible way responsible to the individual depositor for getting back his money. He went further, and considered that since the Post Office Savings Banks had been established, there was no reason why the State should take upon itself the responsibility of these banks as well as of the Post Office Banks. In olden days, of course, it was different. Before the Post Office Savings Banks were established, it was reasonable, possibly, that these banks should have some sort of Government guarantee; but at the present time it was not reasonable, inasmuch as the State had created a magnificent system of Post Office Savings Banks. But, on the other hand, he considered it would be a most serious disaster if these Trustee Savings Banks were allowed to lapse. He believed it would immensely retard the cause of thrift in this country; he believed it would be a disaster second hardly to any we had had if, by any means, this House were to settle that these Trustee Savings Banks should collapse. Therefore, he thought we were on the horns of the dilemma how to make it perfectly clear that the State was not responsible, and, on the other hand, so to legislate for them that they should be made perfectly secure and reasonably and practically safe from the depositors' point of view. Many of these banks were very large and important institutions. The banks the hon. Member (Mr. Howell) had referred to—the Liverpool, the Glasgow, the Hull, and others—were banks which were doing an enormous amount of good; but there were a great number of these banks which were very small and unimportant. Some of them had only 200 or 300 depositors; some had only 100 depositors, and some of them had even less than that number. He considered, inasmuch as the Post Office Savings Bank system existed in every small town and village, it was not reasonable that a system should be continued by which these small savings banks should be allowed in small places, and, therefore, he thought the Legislature should so arrange that the smaller Trustee Savings Banks should be worked into the Post Office Savings Bank. As he had said, it was important that there should be a regular system of auditing. The cost of auditing in many of these institutions, no doubt, was very great; in the institution in which he was interested a very large part of the expense was paid in auditing machinery. Now, he agreed most distinctly that there should be a Committee of Inquiry into the whole question; and he thought that what would result from that inquiry would be that a Bill would be framed by which the position of these banks would be placed on a more distinct and clear footing, which should be so laid down that the Bill should contain clauses providing machinery for auditing and all the various details connected with the banks. He thought that after a certain period, say, two, three, or four years, or whatever period might be fixed in the Bill, it should be clearly laid down that, unless, of course, a bank was wound up in that period, or handed over to the Post Office, the whole responsibility of the State in connection with the banks should cease, and that they should become, as it were, Companies or Corporations, say, under the Board of Trade regulations. In that way each one of the banks would become an independent corporation of itself, and would carry on its own business on the terms laid down by the Bill. He would then do away with all privileges as to the money being deposited with the National Debt Commissioners, and he would allow the managers of the banks to invest their money in Consols, or in local loans, or in any other things according to the precise terms of the Bill under which the banks existed, and by that means, he thought, they would get the banks established on an independent footing. He believed that they would thus do a great deal more good than they were doing now; and that the smaller banks, which were really the shaky ones, would be merged as a matter of course into the Post Office. Now, if that were done, it would be quite clear that those who wished to have Government security, those who wished to invest their money on the security of the State, would then put their money into the Post Office Savings Bank or into Consols. Those, however, who preferred the great facilities which these savings banks gave, would continue to invest their money in the banks, which would be in future rigidly looked after, though they would have clearly no state guarantee. There would be in all large towns these great institutions, gradually developing by School Penny Banks, Workshop Penny Banks, and other schemes, a regular network of thrift which would be of enormous advantage, and which never could be established under the present system. He thought he had already said as much as he need on this matter; but perhaps he would be allowed to add that on the Governing Bodies of these reformed Trustee Savings Banks there might fairly be put representatives of the depositors, for it was strongly desirable, if they were to promote thrift as they were doing in this way, the depositors themselves should take an interest in the management of the banks, as members of the great friendly societies and other institutions did in their concerns. He could see no possible reason why, with the spread of education, the people should not have a voice, and some decided voice, in the management of those institutions, and he believed that by such a system very great benefit would accrue. In that case, of course, the responsibility of the trustees would be clearly and distinctly defined; they would be under ordinary articles of a Corporation or Company, and by that means the whole difficulty which had been raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Howell) would be overcome—namely, that the trustees and managers would, as in large Companies, be responsible for the carrying on of their business. One result would be that all idea of Government security would be done away with, and in every district there would be, as it were, a large institution with a special charter, which the State would not be responsible for, but which would be responsible absolutely under its charter, working side by side with the State guaranteed Post Office Savings Bank. By such means they would have in all the large towns a most efficient system for promoting thrift, and in the smaller villages we should be content with the Post Office Savings Banks. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would agree to the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry, so that the subject might be most carefully threshed out. This was a most opportune moment, inasmuch as we were reducing the interest to be paid to the banks. There must be a great change in the banks, and, therefore, the present moment was opportune for overhauling the whole organization of the banks, and putting them on a permanent and satisfactory basis.

Sir, I think that great advantage will arise from the fact that this subject has been brought before the House by the hon. Member for the North-East Division of Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell). It will, I think, help to dispel some of the doubts which are resting on Trustee Savings Banks, and likewise to put in a proper light both the responsibility of the managers and trustees of those institutions, and possibly also the proportion which the defalcations that have taken place bear to the enormous total which those institutions represent. Amid the many dark spots of our civilization, I think we may point with some pride to the fact of those enormous reserves belonging to the working classes of this country, and to the great development of thrift which is shown by the deposits both in the Trustee Savings Banks and in the Post Office Savings Banks, deposits which now amount to the stupendous sum of over £100,000,000 sterling. I entirely recognize, and the Government recognize, the importance of a question so deeply affecting a vast portion of the community as this question does. We can conceive of no greater disaster than any blow that might be struck at the confidence of the working classes in institutions like the Trustee Savings Banks, with investments amounting to £40,000,000; and I was a little apprehensive sometimes that the account which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green gave as to some of these cases of failure that have occurred, might fill depositors of Trustee Savings Banks generally with undue alarm as to the safety of their deposits. It seems to me that shareholders in limited liability companies might just as well be alarmed by the breakdown or the frauds of a few of those companies, and that such a scare might operate against the whole system of limited liability. But any undue alarm of that kind would be a very great misfortune. While, therefore, I am very glad that the attention of managers and trustees has been called to their responsibility, I think, on the other hand, it would be much to be deplored if general confidence in those institutions should receive a shock which is scarcely justified by the evidence before us. If one contemplates the proportion which the frauds that have taken place bear to the magnitude of these investments and that of these institutions themselves, I do not think it will be found to be greater than that of the frauds occurring in other departments of business. I admit that the frauds in the case of Trustee Savings Banks are more deplorable, because, as an hon. Member had said, the plunder of the poor must come home very forcibly to the imagination of every man, and it is a very sore disaster when humble people who have deposited some of their scanty earnings in Trustee Savings Banks find that their thrift is of no avail to them owing to the default of those in whom they placed confidence. Such disasters are not only economical disasters but also moral disasters of the gravest character. Looking at the frauds which have taken place, I quite admit that they show that there has been great laxity on the part of some trustees and managers—I hope that in many of these cases it has been from ignorance—and I think that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has rendered considerable service in calling the attention of trustees and managers to what their duties are. An hon. Member of this House or any other member of the community may undertake one of these posts in a moment of enthusiasm, and forget afterwards the great responsibility attaching to them; and it is quite right that the sense of what they owe to depositors in those institutions should be brought home to the managers by these discussions and revelations. An hon. Member has suggested that this is a good opportunity for looking into this question because of the change that is taking place in the financial position of these savings banks; but I would point out to the House that the solvency of these savings banks will not be affected in the slightest degree by the reduction of the rate of interest they receive, because that reduction in the rate of interest will be accompanied by a parallel reduction in the rate of interest which they will pay to their depositors, so that none of the Trustee Savings Banks will be the richer or the poorer by the action that has been taken. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green seemed to consider that possibly the reduction of the rate of interest was contemplated on account of the annual loss which in the past has fallen on the Treasury in consequence of the amount of interest allowed to depositors being somewhat greater than was justified by the circumstances. That is not so. The reduction of the rate of interest that will take place, if the House should agree to the proposals to be made to them at the end of the present financial year, is a simple corollary of the conversion scheme. The House will see the point in a moment. The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt hold £40,000,000 in round numbers belonging to Trustees Savings Banks. If the rate of interest on their investments is reduced by ¼ per cent, that means a difference of £100,000. Therefore, unless there was this parallel reduction of the interest paid by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt to the trustees of savings banks, it would be necessary for the House to vote £100,000 a-year to make good the deficiency that would arise. Therefore it follows that, as the rate of interest has fallen, it is necessary to reduce the rate of interest received by Trustee Savings Banks. Then there is another annual loss, apart from the annuity of £83,000 a-year that has to be paid in order to make good the £3,000,000 of the deficiency of past years. My hon. Friend behind me was perfectly right in saying that the managers of these savings banks are in no way responsible for that deficiency or loss to the Public Revenue. No blame or odium ought to attach to the trustees in consequence of that deficiency. But this other deficiency of £10,000 a-year is due to the fact that the National Debt Commissioners have at times been obliged to invest savings banks deposits in the funds when the funds were above par, and accordingly, whenever they received a large amount of deposits in the course of the year and had to invest them at a rate that would not give three per cent, there was an additional loss. That additional loss is, I think I may say, very slight, considering the enormous amount involved. It is £10,000 a-year upon deposits amounting to £40,000,000. The loss has arisen from the fact of the funds being high during the last few years, and no portion of this loss falling on the State is due to what the trustees have done. I turn now to the suggestion of the hon. Member who moved—

"That in the opinion of the House the relationship subsisting between Trustee Savings Banks and the State is unsatisfactory and ought to be revised."

The hon. Member further moved—

"That Trustees and Managers should be restrained from using the words Government Security, 'and Government Savings Bank;'"

and, thirdly, he pointed to the liability of the trustees. As to the use of the words "Government Savings Bank" and "Government Security," of course you can lay down in an Act of Parliament that the Trustees shall not use these words in the description of their institutions. Even now it is questionable whether they are not committing an illegal act for which they might be prosecuted if they use such names. But if they simply put in print "Government Securities," it is sufficiently near the truth in one sense to make it extremely difficult to attack them for using the term and to make it out to be illegal. Their investments are in Government securities, but they have not got Government security for the management of the bank. It is a misfortune that the words "Government Security" have this double meaning. It is a difficulty, however, which must be faced, and I am afraid it will be very difficult to deal with it by Act of Parliament. Various suggestions have been made, and the question has been raised whether the relations existing between the State and those institutions are satisfactory. I am perfectly prepared to admit that I cannot consider them entirely satisfactory. But the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) is a very sweeping one, and practically amounts to destroying the whole present character of the Trustee Savings Banks and putting them entirely on the footing of limited companies.

Under a charter.

Yes; just so. In many respects I can conceive that very strong arguments can be advanced in favour of that proposal; and I hold with the hon. Member strongly up to this point—nothing can be more unsatisfactory than illusory security of any kind. Any forms or any arrangements which give the impression of security which does not exist are infinitely worse than those forms and arrangements under which security does not profess to exist at all. Therefore, it must be the duty of the House or a Committee, if it should be appointed, to analyze most carefully the existing arrangements and to see whether they are illusory in their nature. I am prepared to say, on the other hand, that whatever securities you may take, whatever laws you may lay down, whatever regulations you may draw up, it will be impossible to make it absolutely certain that frauds will not take place. No private bankers, with all their shrewdness, are able altogether to avoid frauds; no limited liability companies have been able to avoid them. It seems as if the ingenuity of the fruadulent really defeated every precaution that can be taken. There is one quality in the end upon which you must rely—the general character of the people who are appointed. Trustees may study Acts of Parliament, they may investigate all their regulations; they may have a man on whom they stake their reputation, but sometimes he abuses it, and terrible frauds result. I fear, therefore, no regulations can be framed which will prevent occasional disasters. Here comes the immense advantage of the Post Office Savings Bank, where, if any disaster takes place, there is the credit of the country behind the Bank. In that case there is absolute security, which cannot be given by any private establishment, however watchful the audit may be, or however excellent the rules. It may, however, be said that that point is acknowledged, but what is wanted is personal liability. But in that case is there not force in the contention of an hon. Member that if you make trustees liable generally for the losses which may be caused by the negligence of officers, you will not get trustees who will make themselves responsible with their own fortunes. You may get men of straw to act, but you would not get that which you want—namely, trustees with money behind them to make good any loss which takes place. If you compare the various cases of frauds which have been committed, it is seen that there is a family likeness among them; and you might be able to put a finger on the point where reform might be useful, and by which you might counteract the designs of the fraudulently disposed. We could not agree to the suggestion that trustees should be liable in the form in which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green proposes, because liability, even formally, means that they are to be liable indefinitely for all that takes place. I do not say that we may not find moans to enforce liability to a greater extent on the trustees. You may be able to make regulations, or pass a law to bring them to book more easily. That, however, seems to me to be a matter for most anxious consideration; but to say that trustees should be liable in the manner suggested is a proposal which I do not think will be generally desired. What, therefore, I would suggest to the hon. Member is this—that he should allow his Motion to be negatived, the Government undertaking on its own Motion, or at the suggestion of the hon. Member himself, to move for a Committee which should inquire into the operation of the law of 1863, and into the questions which he raises in his Motion. The Committee should inquire into the liability of trustees; into the use of the words "Government Security;" generally into the relations between the State and the Trustee Savings Banks; into the relations with, and the duties of, the Registrar; and examine the question of audit. Personally, I should rather deprecate an official audit, because I think it would be in the direction again of strengthening the idea that you had a Government security when really you had not. There ought to be an independent audit in every case, and on which we ought to insist. I understand that those institutions are themselves desirous of being reformed, and I think they will welcome any broad, fair, and impartial investigation. I think it may tend to dispel any alarm which may be created if we allow the best as well as the worst about these institutions to come before the public eye. Unfortunately, it is only the disasters with which the House of Commons and the public are acquainted, and we see little of the considerable service and magnificent working of many of the larger institutions which have done so much credit to the country. But in the case of an inquiry they would be granted the opportunity of stating their case fully. Even the sweeping suggestion of the hon. Member for North Islington might be placed before the Committee. I think, however, the House will see that there is one point which ought not to be referred to the Committee—the financial relations between the State and these institutions. The question of the rate of interest which should be allowed is a subject to be dealt with in a clause of the National Debt Supplementary Conversion Bill, and ought not to come before the Committee; but on every other point the Government would welcome the fullest inquiry, believing that nothing but good could come of it. There is no jealousy on the part of the Government of these Trustee Savings Banks from the point of view of the Post Office Savings Bank. If we had initiated an inquiry of this kind perhaps there would have been a suspicion abroad that we desired to prove the greater soundness of the Post Office Savings Bank; but coming, as the Motion does, from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, there can be no suspicion of any desire to throw impediments in the way of the full development of the Trustee Savings Banks. I say again, therefore, that the hon. Member has done considerable service in bringing this most important matter before the public.

said, he should be glad to accept the offer of the Government, and to withdraw his Motion. He thought the object he had in view would be attained by accepting the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he desired to express his indebtedness to the hon. Member for the action he had taken. As to the Cardiff Savings Bank, he thought it ought to be borne in mind that the trustees in that case had erred by negligence and not with the intention or hope of getting gain for themselves. They had been as much deceived as anyone. He thanked the Government for the course they had adopted in this matter.

said, he would assure the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that the statement he had attributed to the actuary of the Liverpool Savings Bank, to the effect that the actuaries of savings banks were going to form a trades union to oppose legislation, was not correct. What the actuary of the Liverpool Savings Bank stated, he was informed, was that the managers of the Liverpool Savings Bank, and other large banks, together with the actuaries, were most anxious to assist the Government in every legislation for the benefit, both of Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks; and, so far from opposing the Motion, as the hon. Member had supposed, the Members for Liverpool intended to support it. The actuary of the Liverpool Savings Bank was a man of high character, and in justice to him he thought it just to set right the no doubt unintentional misrepresentation of the hon. Member.

said, he had heard with satisfaction the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was not the slightest reason why these banks should sail near the wind in the way of appearing to hold out the inducement to depositors that they were founded on the basis of a Government security. He held in his hand papers relating to a most successful Trustee Savings Bank in his own constituency, and there was not a word in the rules, depositors' books, or reports tending in that direction. Yet the amount of the deposits had more than doubled, and the number of the depositors had been nearly doubled within the last 10 years.

said, that before the Debate closed there were one or two questions which he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one could doubt that the Savings Banks had done much good. The question was whether there had been serious loss to the country or to depositors. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green in his interesting speech had referred several times to a deficiency of £3,500,000 in the Savings Bank account, and to a sum of £83,000 a-year set aside to wipe this out. If, however, he was not mistaken, that deficiency was calculated at a time when Government securities were much lower than at present, and he believed that the actual difference between the amounts due to the Savings Bank and the securities held by the Commissioners was only £120,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state whether this was so, for he (Sir John Lubbock) was afraid that otherwise an erroneous impression would be created. He would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could state what loss had been suffered, say, in the last 20 years, by depositors in Savings Banks? Most of the cases referred to by the hon. Member were either of some years back or the loss had been made up by the trustees. His impression was that the loss to depositors of late years had been very small, and he should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman could state what the amount had been? He (Sir John Lubbock) thought that the Savings Banks on the whole had been well managed, that the country was indebted to the trustees and managers of Savings Banks, and that they would not object to such an inquiry as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

hoped he understood rightly that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to accede to the suggestion made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Howell). The offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they should allow this Motion to be negatived. His hon. Friend, however, asked that he should be allowed to withdraw it. He (Mr. Rowlands) would like to know whether the Government accepted that, because it made a very vast difference as to the action his hon. Friend would take. He (Mr. Rowlands) did not intend at the present time to inflict a speech upon the House, but he desired to make one remark as to the position his hon. Friend had taken up. With regard to the use of the name of the Government by many of these banks, the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) said, that the bank with which he was connected, and which he told the House was a very well governed bank, in no way flaunted the name of the Government before the public, but stood on their own financial position. But that was vastly different to many other banks. He held in his hand the book of a bank whose name he would not for obvious reasons give. Upon the book was given the local name of the bank, and then came the words "Government Bank for Savings." That implied that there was some direct connection with the Government, and ordinary individuals who deposited their money in Trustee Savings Banks were not well versed in legal matters, and therefore they were readily deceived by this palpable fraud upon them. That was a matter which it would be well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with at once, even before waiting the result of the Committee. If, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he believed it was already illegal to use the name of the Government, in the way it was used in the book he held in his hand, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not possible for the National Debt Commissioners or some of the legal officials of the Government to send out a warning to the trustees of these banks, that if they used the name of the Government, they were using it illegally? He believed that great good would result from such action on the part of the Government. They must all agree that the debate which his hon. Friend (Mr. Howell) had raised on this occasion must result in good; they knew that there were too many gentlemen in the country who had lent their names to these institutions, he was afraid without realizing the responsibility they incurred to look after the institutions to which they had lent their names. There were of course others who, realizing their responsibilities, did attend to the business of the banks. It was impossible, however, for the general depositor to draw a distinction between these two classes of persons. There were defalcations which had been brought before the notice of the House. Some of the defalcations which his hon. Friend had mentioned were not those of times gone by, as the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) seemed to think; some of the worst cases had only just occurred, and it was because there was some fear, on account of these defalcations having become publicly known, that there might be other banks in the same position, that an inquiry was desired to see whether these banks were solvent or not. Those Gentlemen who were connected with banks in which they had the utmost confidence need not fear an investigation; indeed, an investigation would result in their banks being placed in a better position than they had hitherto enjoyed. He hoped the Government would accede to the request of his hon. Friend, and allow him to withdraw the Motion, and then at some future time they might have a Committee to investigate the whole question, which he thought was now ripe for thorough investigation.

said, that before the right hon. Gentle- man replied, there was one matter which he did not think had been made quite clear. He felt indebted to the Government for the manner in which they had met the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell), and he quite agreed with what had been stated by nearly every hon. Member that anything which checked in any fashion the growing habits of thrift—for he believed them to be growing habits, despite what was said outside—would be a misfortune. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some exception as to how far the inquiry was to go. That exception was as to the interest to be paid to the Savings Banks' Trustees. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) did not quite understand whether the inquiry was to extend to everything else. It was a matter of great importance that the powers of the Registrar and the methods of enforcement should be included in the inquiry. He only rose for the purpose of emphasizing that, in case it had been overlooked.

said, there was only one point to which he desired to call attention. In the county of Essex, which he represented, there was a Trustee Savings Bank which was conducted on the best principles. Now, if they arbitrarily took away from that bank the name of Government Savings Bank, the depositors—who were, as a rule, ignorant men, and who knew nothing of finance—would be seized with panic, and the result would be very much like the panic which took place the other day in Victoria Street, without, however, the same fortunate result. He fancied any drastic change in these banks would do considerably more harm than good.

, in replying to the questions addressed to him, said, that all the questions to which reference had been made would be referred to the Committee of Inquiry, the only exception being the rate of interest between the Government and the Trustee Savings Banks, which was dealt with in a Bill now before the House. The whole question of the relations between the Government and the Savings Banks, and between the Registrar and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt and the Savings Banks, would be included in the inquiry. He should himself wish the nquiry to be as thoroughgoing and to cover as much ground as possible. He would consult with the National Debt Commissioners as to whether it was possible to take any action with regard to those banks which wore using the words "Government Security" and "Government Savings Bank" so as to prevent the use of such descriptions. The question was one partly of law, and he could not give a definite opinion upon it now. As regarded the point mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock), it was perfectly true that the deficiency of £3,500,000 was calculated at a time when the Government Stocks were very much lower than they were now; and that deficiency was almost wiped away, if they took the present market value of those Stocks. It was also correct that the amount of actual loss suffered over a series of years by depositors in Savings Banks had not been very large.

, who had the following Motion on the Paper:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the epidemic of small-pox in Sheffield and the surrounding district, and especially to ascertain whether its origin can be traced to defective vaccination, or to insufficient sanitary precautions, or to any other causes; also to inquire how far the rapid spread of infection has been owing to the absence of any system of compulsory notification of contagious diseases; likewise, whether the notorious diminution of vaccination in Leicester, Keighley, Dewsbury, and other towns, has been attended by any evil consequences, or whether preventive measures other than vaccination have been found effectual, and, if so, whether they are capable of wider application,"

said, he trusted, although it would now be impossible for him to ask the House to divide upon the Motion which he had proposed to bring forward, the subject would be deemed of sufficient significance and importance to justify him in advancing the arguments on which, had the Rules of the House permitted him, he would have liked to have taken the opinion of the House. The arguments that he should urge would not, he hoped, offend the strong convictions of any section of the House, however keenly they might feel upon a matter which had given rise to a good deal of bitterness. It was open to the Government to accede to the proposal for an inquiry even if he was not allowed to take a Division, and the proposal for an inquiry did not necessarily commit him or anyone else who supported it to any particular opinion upon the subject of vaccination. He desired that that should be distinctly understood. Of course, they all had their own opinions; he himself had a very different opinion from what he used to hold upon this subject. He felt there was a great deal to be said on both sides of the question; but it was now 17 years since any public and authoritative inquiry was held in regard to it, and during those 17 years very great advance had been made in medical science, and especially in the sanitary branch of that science. During those 17 years a number of medical treatises had been published bearing on the question, and suggesting that many theories formerly held rested upon very insecure foundation. He said this much in order to defend himself against the accusation that he was asking something unreasonable or impracticable, or in a marked manner contrary to universal opinion, and as a reason for asking that an inquiry should be held. It would ill become him to deal with technical medical arguments; he did not profess to understand them as well as some hon. Members who sat near him, and he would rather draw attention to certain facts which had recently come to light, and which did suggest that the country ought to have some more information upon the subject. Let him compare—without insinuating that any inferences could fairly and logically be drawn from the cases, but as a suggestion as to the line of inquiry that ought to be pursued—let him draw attention to the experiences of two towns, the town of Sheffield and that which he had the honour to represent—namely, the town of Leicester. He trusted that no hon. Member would think that the history of the diverse experiences of these towns could be dismissed with a smile. The town of Sheffield, like a good many other parts of the country, was afflicted with an epidemic of small-pox in the year 1871–2, and at that period a very considerable number of people died of the disease. The town of Leicester also was visited in 1872 with a very fearful epidemic of small-pox, and 346 of the inhabitants died from the disease in the course of the year. He asked the House to notice the different impressions produced by this epidemic upon the two populations. In Sheffield, the result was, he believed, that an increased attention was paid to vaccination. It was pressed, of course, by those in authority; the officers were very busy, and the number of vaccinations increased in Sheffield until it stood at over 95 per cent of the population. Sheffield had earned very large bonuses from Government for extra and specially good vaccination. During the last 10 years, £2,223 had been distributed in bonuses for specially successful vaccinations, and during the last year £189 had been granted in bonuses in Sheffield for special success in vaccination. The result of the epidemic in Leicester in 1872 was very different; the people observed that the disease did not, is all cases, respect vaccination, or even re-vaccination, and, whether rightly or wrongly, they came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding all the fuss made about it, vaccination was not an effectual safeguard against small-pox. In the next year, 1873 and 1874, there was a slight rise in the number of those vaccinated; but afterwards, as he should presently show, the number of vaccinations very rapidly diminished. He would like to return to this point in a little more detail, as the argument resting upon it would more properly come in in another part of his remarks. However, the number of vaccinations in Leicester rapidly diminished, as he had said, until last year not more than one child in nine of those who survived to undergo the operation had been vaccinated. Now, of course, those who looked upon vaccination as the only effectual guarantee against incursions of small-pox would acknowledge that that was a very serious state of things, and many people had said that Leicester was like a mass of dried tinder exposed to falling sparks; that when once small-pox made its appearance in Leicester, the epidemic would devastate the whole town. Now, in March, 1887, there were three cases of small-pox reported in Sheffield, and there were three admissions to the hospital. The existence of these three cases attracted but little attention, because, as Dr. Sinclair White wrote in his Report to the Health Committee of the town, a Report dated January of this year, "the disease appears every few months in Sheffield." They were so used to its appearance that these cases attracted very little attention. In November of the same year five cases of small-pox appeared in Leicester in one house. Not only those who wore seized with small-pox, but all the occupants of the house were instantly removed. The patients were taken to the hospital appropriated to such diseases, and the other occupants of the house who had shown no signs of having the disease were removed voluntarily into quarantine. There was no compulsion exercised; but the inhabitants of Leicester were reasonable, and they voluntarily subjected themselves to a term of quarantine in such cases. In the absence of the people just referred to, the house was entirely disinfected and limewashed, and put into such a state that no return of the infection might be feared. That was the experience of Leicester last year; now look, again, at the very diverse experience of Sheffield. The fates of the towns were as different as the methods employed were different. He had spoken of three persons who were removed into hospital in Sheffield in March, 1887; only the patients were removed, no one else was disturbed. But as the patients multiplied, it was soon found that there was no room in the hospital, and the people seized with the disease had to be left in their houses. In April there were four cases, and one death; in May there were 20 cases, and no deaths; in June there were 35 cases, and two deaths; in July there were 104 cases, and three deaths; in August there were 130 cases, and 11 deaths; in September there were 187 cases, and 21 deaths; in October there were 582 cases, and 57 deaths; in November there were 656 cases, and 79 deaths; and in December there were 1,011 cases, and 103 deaths; so the deaths rose to more than 10 per cent of the number of cases. The Committee would observe that the percentage of deaths rapidly rose as the year went on, while the disease increased by leaps and bounds. Dr. Sinclair White issued his Report on January 11th of this year, and said—"At the time of writing the disease is more prevalent than at any time since the commencement of the outbreak." Unfortunately that was so, for, from January 1st to April 9th, there were 3,461 cases of small-pox, and 362 deaths; in all, from the beginning of the outbreak to April 9th, there were 6,202 cases, and 609 deaths. Of course, it was not necessary to enlarge upon the horror of such a visitation as that; those who, like himself, notwithstanding efficient vaccination in infancy, had suffered from the disease against which it was intended to guard, and suffered not once only, but twice, were well aware that there was no affliction that could recall so vividly the terrors and the suspicions incidental to a time of plague. There was no visitation which excited a more cruel conflict between the affections of those who desired to surround the sufferer with faces of sympathy, and the stern duty, on the other hand, which required insistance on a rigorous isolation. The house visited by such a disease was like a pest house, and only those of unusual courage dare go near it. Nor was it personal suffering alone that was to be lamented. The loss of business in Sheffield during the last year and a quarter could scarcely be estimated. Sheffield had had little intercourse with surrounding towns during that time, and he remembered very well the alarm expressed in Liverpool when an excursion train was advertised to run from Sheffield to take people to the Liverpool Exhibition; in fact, he believed, the train was taken off. It was, therefore, from no levity in regard to the terrible nature of the disease he desired to guard against, that he was urging on the House the necessity of inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of some remarks upon the interesting subject that had recently been discussed, warned the House against the unsatisfactoriness of any illusory security. Certainly, in matters of disease an illusory security was just as unsatisfactory as in matters of business, and he (Mr. Picton) believed the population of this country were suffering under an illusion, the nature of which he proposed to endeavour to explain more clearly presently, as to the complete sufficiency of vaccination alone as a safeguard against small-pox. He had spoken of the experience of Sheffield during the last year; let them turn again to Leicester. He had said that there was an outbreak of five cases in November, 1887; in the next month, December, 1887, a man living close to the borough boundary, but outside the boundary, went on a visit to Sheffield. He was a vaccinated man, and, therefore, let no argument be founded upon that. When he came back, he certainly had small-pox in his organization, for within a few days he was down with the sickness, and by December 10 the disease became known. Observe, it was outside the borough boundary; the medical officer attending was not bound, by the compulsory Local Act existing in Leicester, to make known the disease; notwithstanding, he felt that so much was at stake that he reported it, and though the patient did not belong to the town, the usual officers visited him and persuaded him to go into the borough hospital. The whole family were taken away, and some of them suffered from the disease afterwards; the house was disinfected, and there was no further extension of the disease in the neighbourhood. On December 14 there was another case, but this time within the town; the same measures precisely were taken, and with precisely the same result. Since the beginning of the year there had been eight more cases, but the disease had always been stamped out; 26 times within a very recent period the disease had been brought within the town from places it could generally be traced to, and 26 times it had been stamped out. Now, they were constantly being told that if Leicester were visited with small-pox, there would be an end of the system adopted there; but the town had been visited again and again by the disease; it had been visited as often as any other town, but the authorities had always succeeded in stamping out the disease. He thought the experience of Leicester did deserve more inquiry than it had yet received. He might be told—he supposed he would be presently, by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), if that right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to notice his remarks—that an inquiry had been and was being held, and that they had not yet received the Report. But the inquiry was a Departmental inquiry. That might be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman, and to those who sympathized with his views, but it was not satisfactory to the people of Leicester, and it was not satisfactory to the growing multitude of people who objected to be compelled to vaccinate their children. Therefore, he urged that the experience of Leicester was deserving of some larger inquiry than it had yet received. He had spoken of the rapid diminution of vaccination in Leicester. Immediately after the great epidemic of 1872, in 1873–4 the rate of vaccination was kept up, but in 1875 it began to go down, and from that period it rapidly fell. Notwithstanding the relentless prosecutions constantly persevered in for many years, by zealous Guardians and magistrates, vaccination rapidly fell until the time when the people exercised local option by electing a Board of Guardians, the majority of whom were opposed to vaccination. Since 1885, there had been no prosecution, and last year, he believed, the number of vaccinations in Leicester amounted to only between 11 and 12 per cent of the births. The small-pox, though it had visited the town, had been very slight, and for several years there had been no deaths at all. Now, he had said that one reason for this change in the habits of the people in Leicester was their observation of the ineffectiveness of vaccination. The people of Leicester were not fatalists; they did not believe they must resign themselves to the evil until they had tried every way of combating it. In 1872 there was a very zealous crusade in sanitary matters which was persevered in for many years. All kinds of old cesspools and objectionable institutions of a similar character were disestablished, and disendowed, as it were, and proper modern appliances were brought, as far as possible into all the houses. Besides that, the compulsory notification of infectious diseases was adopted. There were 49 towns in the country, he believed, which had Acts giving power of insisting upon the notification of infectious diseases, and Leicester was one of them, and Leicester had made very good use of that power. In the year 1881–2 there was a period of test, for, although it was said by Dr. MacVaile that there had been no epidemic of small-pox since 1871–2, there was a very considerable amount of small-pox in the years to which he had just now referred. There were in Loads, he believed, 174 cases, and a very consider- able number of cases of small-pox came into Leicester in the year 1881–2. The health officer showed in his report of that year how the disease was dealt with. He showed that the disease appeared in different localities in the town. On January 5, for instance, a case was reported in a house in Abbey Street. The inhabitants of the house were removed without delay, and the house was forthwith thoroughly, fumigated and disinfected. There was no doubt, the officer stated, that, from inquiries made at the time, the infection in the case was received from the person of a tramp who had rested for a few hours in the house, and had then left the town. On the 7th January, in another lodging-house in the same street, three cases were reported. They were all removed to hospital, together with the other lodgers, and the same means were employed for disinfecting the house; and a strict and daily inspection was kept up for some time afterwards. No fresh cases, however, appeared. Of course, the greatest vigilance and zeal were required to carry out these precautions, but certainly an equal amount of zeal was required to insure compulsory vaccination, and the result in Leicester gave ample ground for inquiry as to how the zeal and vigilance should be directed. The experience was not of one town only. It was well known that Keighley, Dewsbury, and other towns were revolting in an increasing degree against compulsory vaccination. The Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, in his Report for 1886–7, said that 71 per cent of the children born in Keighley were left unvaccinated. There was very little vaccination in Dewsbury, and he was informed that only about 7 per cent were vaccinated. In Oldham, Halifax, Gloucester, Nottingham, Ashton-under-Lyne, and many other places all over the country, the compulsory law had been suspended by the action of the Guardiaus, and small-pox had, by various precautions, been kept down, so that his case did not rest on the experience of Leicester alone. It was often supposed there were only two alternatives on the question of vaccination—either to deny there was any advantage in it at all, or else to acknowledge the duty of compelling vaccination; but he declined to accept these as the only alternatives. He would not say there was no value in vaccination. He attached great importance to the experiments of M. Pasteur, and could not say that in all circumstances vaccination was wholly valueless. It had a certain value; but he contended that tile claim for it as a general and universal safeguard against small-pox had entirely broken down; and besides, as a precaution, it depended upon conditions impossible to realize. He could give reasons for that moderate expression of opinion. Many hon. Members, whose attention had been drawn to the subject by their constituents, had met with the pamphlet of Dr. Wallace, on the registration statistics, and also Dr. MacVaile's book, Vaccination Vindicated. He (Mr. Picton) had done his best to master the arguments of both, and the conclusion he arrived at was that small-pox might, to a considerable extent, be guarded against by careful and effective vaccination over a period of five years, but after that its effect entirely disappeared. Dr. MacVaile, in his book, quoted from the Report of the Registrar General, and gave a table separating the following ages:—Under 1 year, under 5 years, between 5 and 10 years, between 10 and 15, between 15 and 25, from 25 to 45, and from that upwards. Then he took the periods from 1847 to 1853, when vaccination was optional, though strongly recommended. Then from 1854 to 1871, when vaccination was obligatory; then the period from 1872 to 1880, when vaccination was made, if possible, more obligatory, or, at any rate, when it was more effectively enforced. It was a striking fact brought out from those figures that the only age that showed the benefit from vaccination was under five years, and even amongst these children any substantial benefit appeared to be confined to infants under one year. The table showed the mean annual number of deaths from vaccination in the successive periods per million of births. In the period 1847 to 1853 the mean annual death-rate from smallpox of children under a year was 1,617 per million; from 1872 to 1880 the deaths were only 323 per million, which, so far as it went, afforded a successful argument in favour of vaccination. Taking the case of those children under five years in the corresponding periods, there was a diminution from 327 to 186, and between five years and ten years the numbers were 94 deaths per million as against 98 in the last period. Between 10 and 15 years of age, in the first period of optional vaccination, the deaths from small-pox were 109 per million, and in the last period 173 per million. Between the ages of 15 and 25 the deaths under the period of optional vaccination were 66 per million, and in the latter period, when vaccination was obligatory, 141 per million. Of the ages from 45 upwards, the deaths in the first period were in proportion of 22 in the million, and in the latter period 58 per million. So that in the ages over five the mean annual rate of deaths from small-pox had increased considerably, though vaccination was strictly enforced. Those were striking facts that indicated the necessity of inquiry. It was easy to suggest re-vaccination, but by no means easy to carry it out, and a proposal to enforce re-vaccination every five years would be regarded as a Coercion Act more hateful, and would excite more opposition, than any Coercion Act for Ireland. No Government would attempt it. But if it could not thereby guard the people against small-pox, was it not useless cruelty to insist on vaccination in all cases? He had spoken only of deaths from small-pox, not as to the amount of disease. He might be told that the disease had been very much mitigated, and with good authorities on either side he was not prepared to offer an opinion; but at present all that could be fairly urged was that vaccination was a safeguard, though not an altogether effective one, for a period of five years. The argument for the compulsory clause was that if vaccination was compulsory in the case of every birth, then we should become entirely free from small-pox; but the acknowledgment of a very different state of things by medical men of high position strongly suggested the expediency of inquiry. Vaccination, too, was not an entirely safe process. It was too late now to say that no child had ever been killed by vaccination, or that the number of cases of injury was so trifling that no parent need be alarmed. He might refer to the Norwich case, and the lame and impotent conclusion of the inquiry, that the medical officer had used ivory points not quite clean. That same officer had received handsome gratuities the year before, and, in spite of what happened, the bonuses given began rapidly to rise again, and he was evidently a medical gentleman of high repute in his locality. It was maintained by Dr. Collins, in his review of the Norwich case, that it was not proved that dirty ivory points were used, and there was no evidence to satisfy anyjury not prejudiced in favour of vaccination. Dr. Collins occupied a high position in his profession, and had won high honours in the London University, including two gold medals, one of which was for sanitary science. But he only mentioned that gentleman to refer to a quotation in his book from Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, who, in reference to the notion that contamination could only be conveyed by blood drawn in vaccination, said that in three series of cases, carefully examined, there was no evidence of the lymph being contaminated by blood. Dr. Charles Creighton, a high medical authority, was selected to re-write the article on the subject in the last edition of The Encyclopœdia Britannica, and value must be attached to his words. On page 125 of his work on Vaccinal Syphilis Dr. Creighton states that, as a result of all his previous inquiry and argument, the real affinity of cowpox was not to small-pox, but to the great pox. The vaccinal roseola was not only very like syphilis, but it was the same sort of thing. Now, in that conclusion, Dr. Creighton was not referring to one or two or half-a-dozen cases, but to a very long series of cases. He (Mr. Picton), therefore, believed he had very considerable authority for saying that vaccination was not entirely as safe a process as it was believed. Whether hon. Gentlemen agreed with that or not, they could not convince all parents that it was a safe process. To tell a parent that he must subject a child to an operation which he did not conscientiously believe to be right, but, on the contrary, thought was wrong, and involved very serious danger to the child, was one of the most cruel applications of law that civilization had ever decreed. The only defence for such a law would be that vaccination was the only possible safeguard against small-pox, and that it was a sure and certain preventive. Nothing less than that would justify the law of compulsory vaccination, and that, he was sure, could not be maintained now. Besides, the law of compulsory vaccination was very unequal in its application. He dared say hon. Members had received a letter from a gentleman residing at Hampstead describing his own case. That gentleman refused to have his child vaccinated. He was summoned before a magistrate, who allowed a solicitor to appear for him. He was fined, and the fine was paid, the defendant saying that the fine was of no consequence to him. But, at the same time and place, there were a number of half-starved persons who were unable to pay fines, and who were liable to have their property seized and to be dragged through the streets to gaol for defying the same law. He (Mr. Picton) maintained that whatever might be advanced in favour of vaccination in certain circumstances, it was not an equitable or humane law. The enforcement of law, outside Ireland, depended upon public opinion. In England the law could usually be enforced, because public opinion was in its favour; but the moment there arose a strong opinion against it the law could not be enforced. According to the Local Government Report the opposition to vaccination was spreading and coming to such a head that it might become impossible to enforce the law. He might be reminded, perhaps, of the excessive mortality of the unvaccinated. But there were facts also on the other side. That had been demonstrated as the result of a house-to-house visitation at Leeds, where the disease had been unfortunately severe. How could it be maintained that vaccination mitigated the disease? There were figures as strong on the other side, and therefore it was high time that an inquiry was held to see on which side the truth lay. He had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to put before the House some of the new facts on which he had ventured to urge the Government—he would not say the House—to give way on this subject, and to be considerate to their weaker brethren who could not see the value of vaccination. If his opponents had confidence in the truth of their opinion, they must know that any further inquiry would only illustrate that truth, and bring it out the more clearly. If, on the other hand, they allowed that medical opinion had to a considerable extent changed, and that it was desirable to know whether a better mode could not be adopted, then he ventured to think they ought to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to consider the subject. He therefore hoped the Government would take the matter into their consideration with a view of granting the inquiry that had been asked for.

, in supporting the proposal, referred to the inquiry which took place some years ago respecting the alleged deaths of some children at Norwich through vaccination. He had always been of opinion that the conclusion to which the gentlemen who conducted that inquiry had arrived was not at all satisfactory. The inquiry in question turned upon the allegation that the deaths of the children were due to erysipelas, and whether or no that was caused by vaccination. He would quote the following extract from the Report of the Inspectors as to two of the cases:—

"Although we are unable to assign with certainty a specific source of infection" (with respect to the erysipelas contracted in the vaccination station) "the evidence raises a strong case of suspicion against the freedom from contamination of the lymph with which they were vaccinated."

The Inspectors, however, practically exonerated the vaccinator, although Dr. Buchanan, in an appendix to their Report, made some very severe remarks as to his want of cleanliness in the use of the ivory points. It was true that the inquiry took place some years ago, and he was bound to confess that no complaints of similar nature had reached him since, the same vaccination officer remaining at his post. He was glad to find that the hon. Member who had asked for the inquiry (Mr. Picton) had not placed himself in such direct antagonism to the theory of vaccination as had been assumed by his predecessor (Mr. P. A. Taylor) in the representation of that constituency. The former Member for Leicester, who was accustomed to move a similar Resolution to the one given notice of, took a view so hostile to vaccination that he had alienated the support of those who wished that an inquiry should be made into the whole subject. He (Mr. Colman) was not prepared to take up that feeling of hostility to vaccination itself. But knowing as he did how strongly many persons felt upon the subject, he was prepared to say that he thought the time had come when there should be further inquiry of a full and impartial character into the whole question. The Report of the Committee of 1871 upon this subject contained the following:—

"If the operation be performed with due regard to the health of the person vaccinated, and with proper precaution in obtaining and using the vaccine lymph, there need be no apprehension that vaccination will injure health or communicate any disease."

He was very much inclined to think that the opinion expressed by a good many medical men at the present moment was not so strong as to the impossibility of conveying disease by means of the vaccine matter as it was in 1871. He would also point out that it was a very difficult thing to have proper precautions taken in crowded vaccine stations. Some time ago, a friend told him (Mr. Colman) that his child was going to be vaccinated, and that he had a feeling of dread as to the result. The medical man who would perform the operation in this case was a near relation of the parent, and, of course, knew all about the condition of the child, yet the parent was not free from anxiety. He (Mr. Colman) felt when he heard that observation how much greater must be the force of the objection to vaccination by a poor person, in whose case the operator did not know anything at all about the constitution of the child that was going to be vaccinated. Some years ago a friend of his, a magistrate, referring to the compulsory clauses, said he had many cases coming before him of persons who refused vaccination for their children, and he added that he never had convicted them and never would. That gentleman was blamed by his magisterial colleagues for his obstinacy, and his reply was that the law should make vaccination really universally obligatory, or repeal the so-called compulsory clauses. As the law allowed exceptions to be made, his friend said he would not carry out the law, as he contended that all should be treated alike. He (Mr. Colman) was inclined to think that his friend had a considerable amount of common sense on his side. There was one other question touched on by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Picton), and that was in reference to the partial way this law was carried out. They all knew that there wore institutions in the country established for the purpose of resisting the Vaccina- tion Laws. Some of the societies were in the fortunate position of having a balance at their bankers with which to resist the law. The members of those societies, therefore, were certain to be exempted from the operation of the law, and, as a matter of fact, the law was not put in force against them. The haphazard character of the law in this respect was therefore most unsatisfactory. He thought that any parent who objected to vaccination should be able, at the time of registering the child's birth, to state this objection, and to obtain a certificate of exemption; whether on payment of a small fee, was a question that might be settled by Parliament. That course would lay the foundation for complete statistical knowledge as to the value of vaccination, and was in his opinion desirable, though he was quite aware that a similar proposal had been condemned by the Committee of 1871. In conclusion, he would say he supported the demand for inquiry, because he felt there was a very strong feeling of distrust and of very great hardship in the mind of a portion of the public with respect to these Vaccination Laws.

said that when inquiries of this kind were asked for, there seemed to be an irresistible tendency to launch out into the general question. His hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) stated that it was generally believed in Leicester that the protection given by vaccination against small-pox was entirely illusory. If that were so, all he (Dr. Farquharson) could say was that it was so much the worse for the mode in which vaccination in Leicester was carried out, because it was undoubtedly the fact that in London, during the last visitation of small-pox, not one single fatal case occurred amongst those who had been properly vaccinated—that was to say, where the proper number of vaccination marks was shown on the arm. Although he did not agree with the first part of his hon. Friend's speech, he was bound to say that in some measure he agreed with the latter part of it, for he believed it would be more satisfactory to the public if a Committee of the House were appointed to consider the special question brought forward by his hon. Friend. If the Government would agree to an inquiry into the two cases of Norwich and Sheffield, he thought it would supply a great deal of scientific information, and to a great extent satisfy the public mind. He thought the inquiries that were held into those cases were of a somewhat hole-and-corner character; they were not public in the sense that their proceedings were open to the public, and there was throughout the stamp of officialism upon them. He did not use the term in an invidious sense, but he could not help thinking that the inquiry suggested by his hon. Friend would be more satisfactory to the public and to the Medical Profession. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the system carried out in Leicester. In that borough, compulsory notification of disease was in force, he believed; also, compulsory removal to hospital and compulsory disinfection. He quite agreed with that; but it was very curious that Leicester, in the words of The Lancet commissioner, had no compunction in restricting personal liberty except in the matter of vaccination. He was bound to say that, short of the pole axe, which could not be here applied, he did not think that any more effectual means could be employed for stamping out disease. Of course, the Medical Profession held that these precautions were not alone sufficient; they maintained that vaccination was necessary, and if, as the hon. Gentleman said, the non-vaccination of children in some towns was growing yearly, he was afraid that some day the results would be indeed serious. He had no doubt that everything was done under the Local Government Board by means of inquiry, well and efficiently, but he thought that in addition to that, if some further inquiry were held to satisfy the public mind, it would be of very great value. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

said, he had some difficulty in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member in its present terms. The hon. Member had in his speech entered into questions which had nothing to do with the Motion before the House. Few men in the House had devoted more time than he had to the study of vaccination, and whether the conclusion he had come to were right or wrong, he was convinced that no just conclusion could be arrived at upon statements in half-a-dozen ex parte books. If anyone wanted to understand the matter, he must go into the statistics of half-a-century, and compare the results of vaccination against small-pox with those general laws discovered to exist in connection with vaccination and inoculation in the case of many diseases of the lower animals; and even then, probably he would not be right if he dogmatized like an author quoted by the hon. Gentleman when he asserted that cow-pox had a greater affinity for syphilis than it had for small-pox. He would, however, point out that the method of safeguarding against small-pox might with perfect regard to the theories held by the Department, be inquired into with advantage; and some such inquiry as the hon. Member had suggested might have a great deal to do with improving the system which the Department had to supervize. There were three different systems which might with advantage be inquired into. There was the system which prevailed at Leicester, where there was very defective vaccination, but strict attention to segregation; there was the system which prevailed in London, where vaccination was carefully carried out, without any effective provision; and there was the system prevailing at Glasgow, where there was great attention to vaccination, the re-vaccination of those brought into contact with the infected, and strict attention to segregation. It seemed to him that an inquiry into the results of these three systems would result in demonstrating the superiority of some such plan as that adopted in Glasgow, as contrasted with the system which prevailed in London where it was sometimes almost impossible to get persons removed to hospitals, and where it seemed no one's duty to provide either for vaccination or disinfection. An inquiry which would elicit the results of the three systems might, he thought, lead to the adoption of practical measures, which would tend to the suppression of small-pox and the diminution of the number of deaths from the disease.

said, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was worthy of the closest consideration, as there was no one who had paid more attention than he had done to the subject. But the hon. Gentleman, while he said that the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) was altogether outside the four corners of the Resolutions on the Paper, seemed rather desirous of supporting the appeal for the appointment of a Select Committee. [Dr. CAMERON: Not a Committee, but an inquiry.] The hon. Gentleman would see that the inquiry which he desired was altogether of a different kind from that asked for by the Mover of the Resolution, because whatever might be the terms of his Motion, the hon. Member for Leicester had spoken in terms of studious moderation. There could be no doubt, whatever inquiry might be made, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was not a proper Body to make it. The hon. Member who introduced the subject, though not himself strongly opposed to vaccination, yet spoke in the name of a large mass of the people of Leicester who were strongly opposed to it, and believed that it was not only not a blessing, but that it was a curse. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman asked for an inquiry it was impossible to dissociate him from the cause which, to some extent, he represented in that House. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) must be aware that any inquiry into the more efficient employment of vaccination would not be of the kind which the hon. Member for Leicester desired; and that no results which had been anticipated by the hon. Member from the inquiry which he advocated would, in the smallest degree, be likely to remove a single prejudice on the part of those whom he (Mr. Picton) represented. The hon. Member is aware that if the Government were to grant such an inquiry as he advocated, the hon. Member for Leicester, and those whom he represented, would insist that certain Gentlemen who had expressed opinions strongly adverse to vaccination should be placed on the Committee. No such tribunal could ever hope to arrive at a unanimous Report on the subject; things would remain very much as they were, and no satisfaction would be given to the minds of those who supported the hon. Member for Leicester. The hon. Member for Glasgow had dealt with many of the points raised by the hon. Member. The question was brought into the debate as to whether or not syphilis had resulted from some cases of vaccination; and the same with regard to erysipelas, which sometimes occurred altogether apart from vaccination—but, whether or not those results had followed, it was impossible for them to discuss on that occasion. The hon. Member for Leicester had really anticipated very much what he was about to say on this subject. The Government acknowledged that the circumstances of the epidemic in Sheffield were such as called for inquiry, but they said that a Committee of the House of Commons was not the proper tribunal to make the inquiry, which, to be effectual, must be made on the spot by men properly qualified to conduct it. Such an inquiry, though the hon. Member did not attach much importance to it, was now being made, and when the House was in possession of the whole of the facts they would see that a more thorough investigation had never been instituted. The inquiry embraced such points as these—how the disease had arisen, how it had spread, and how far vaccination, or want of vaccination, had been concerned with the prevalence of the disease; a house-to-house visitation was being carried on, and every case of death of an unvaccinated person was being rigorously inquired into. He hoped that when the result of this inquiry was placed before the House it would be seen that the sole aim and object of the Government was to get at the facts and at the truth of the case. The inquiry was not being conducted with any prepossession for or against vaccination. Every single case would be reported on by a medical inspector of the Local Government Board, who had been down at Sheffield for many months, the name of the person, the date, and all the circumstances attending the case being specifically set out.

Are vaccinated as well as unvaccinated cases to be dealt with?

said, every death was being investigated, and all particulars gone into. Of course, it was necessary that there should be a fuller and more careful verification of cases reported as unvaccinated. There would, however, be full inquiry into every case. He was sorry to say that it would be longer than at one time he had supposed before the Report could be laid upon the Table of the House. The investigation had already occupied a large amount of time, and only a few days ago he had received a letter from the gentleman who was conducting it, in which he said that, owing to the large number of cases to be examined into, it was doubtful whether he would be able to send in his Report before the end of next month. It would not, therefore, be possible to lay the Report before the House earlier than that, and it might, perhaps, be somewhat later before it could be done. The hon. Member had spoken about the very sad circumstances which had been in existence in Sheffield before the investigation was made. No doubt the epidemic which had raged at Sheffield for some time past had been extremely severe, and had taxed the resources of the authorities to the utmost extent. Although a good deal of fault had been found at the beginning, yet the authorities in Sheffield had done their utmost to meet the necessities of the case when the epidemic was upon them. It was rather a pity that those precautions were not taken earlier; but he might say that nothing could exceed the vigour with which, when once the authorities became aware of the enormous importance of the question, the disease was attacked. So far from the result of the investigation at Sheffield telling against vaccination, he thought that in all probability there was never a more complete case in favour of vaccination than that which would be presented; and he would give a few figures from the Report of Dr. Sinclair White, the Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield, which would speak for themselves. The number of vaccinated children under 10 years of age in Sheffield was estimated at 82,958, and out of that number 207 were attacked, or one in 400; and of the 207 children only two, or 1 per cent, had died. The number of unvaccinated children under 10 was estimated to be 4,366, and of that number 146, or one in 30, had been attacked, while 70, or 48 per cent of those attacked, had died. If the same proportion of vaccinated children had died as of unvaccinated their deaths would have amounted to 1,330. He was well aware that great precautions had been taken, and could not speak too highly of the way in which the authorities in Sheffield had attacked the disease; but it must be remembered that those who were most strongly in favour of vaccination did not contend that other precautions were not necessary. They did not say that, because persons had been once vaccinated, therefore, for all time to come, a town was perfectly safe against small-pox. No assertion of that kind had ever been made; but what the Government said was that hand in hand with vaccination it was essential that there should be proper means of isolation, of disinfection, and of destruction of everything that could possibly convey small-pox; and they said also, that because Leicester by reason of the precautions it took had been able to show a very satisfactory condition of things so far as small-pox was concerned, it did not disprove the enormous danger that Leicester was now in, and was likely to remain in. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Picton) had seen a report which had been made quite recently by a gentleman who was well acquainted with Leicester—he meant Dr. Tomkins who was officer of health for Leicester, and who had just written an article in the last number of The Lancet, giving the history of the attack of small-pox in Montreal. He would not trouble the House by reading this Report, but as it was desirable that the people of Leicester and other towns similarly situated should be made aware of danger they were running, it was most important that he should give the House one or two facts in regard to the outbreak in Montreal—facts which had been brought to the attention of the public by the Officer of Health for Leicester. Prior to the year 1885, there had been for many years no case of small-pox in Montreal. There was considerable opposition to vaccination in the town, and the consequence was that there was a very large proportion of the population of that town unvaccinated as at the present moment there was a very large proportion of the population of Leicester unvaccinated. Like Leicester, Montreal for many years had enjoyed immunity from this terrible disease. But in 1885, a man was admitted to the hospital in Montreal suffering from small-pox. He was cured and left the hospital. Within a few days of that a further case arose; but until the month of June the cases did not become very numerous. In July, 46 cases were reported, and in August 239. Then the people became alarmed; further hospital accommodation was called for and supplied, and vaccination was vigorously and rigorously enforced with compulsory removal to hospital of persons attacked; but the disease went on at such a pace that by December of the same year no less than 3,161 deaths had taken place in six months in a population of under 200,000. If the same proportion had died in London of the disease the death would have been upwards of 63,000 in six months. As a matter of fact, however, there were not 63,000 deaths from small-pox in all England and Wales during the period of 10 years from 1871 to 1880.

Does the report to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring give any description of the sanitary state of Montreal?

said, that it did not. He thought the hon. Gentleman would have gathered from what he had said that he did not at all undervalue the comparative security given to Leicester by reason of the excellence of its sanitary arrangements, and he was not prepared to argue that the sanitary arrangements at Montreal were as good as they were at Sheffield; but he was certain that no amount of sanitary precaution would enable the authorities of a town to deal with this disease when it had once seized hold of a place as it had in the case of Montreal. It was absolutely and entirely beyond any measures of that kind, and the only means of dealing with it was a vigorous course of vaccination and re-vaccination. He had given the statistics of the deaths in Montreal. By December, instead of any opposition existing to vaccination in that town, the vaccination station was literally besieged by applicants for vaccination, so much so, that it taxed all the energies of the authorities to regulate the applications and to keep order. No less than 80,000 persons were vaccinated in three months. A remarkable fact, showing conclusively the protection given by vaccination and re-vaccination was that among all the numerous officers who had to deal with the large number of attacks in Montreal not a single one had ever been at- tacked by small-pox. That circumstance was also common to the case of Sheffield, and in connection with Sheffield he would further remark that notwithstanding the prevalence of small-pox there all the large number of Post Office employés in that town were re-vaccinated, and not one was attacked, notwithstanding the fact that they had constantly to be all over the town and to face those dangers which the hon. Gentleman opposite had said that excursionists from Liverpool were afraid to face. He should just like to call the attention of the House to the last paragraph in the report of Dr. Tomkins toThe Lancet with regard to the outbreak in Montreal. This gentleman spoke of the heavy weight of responsibility which in the face of evidence such as this rested upon those who opposed vaccination, and whose influence was greatest upon the poorer and least educated classes of the community who were least able to form a right judgment upon such a question, and who suffered most severely from the disease. He also stated that those who were familiar with this plague looked forward with the gravest apprehension to the future so far as those towns were concerned, which like Montreal contained a large proportion of unvaccinated people. He (Mr. Ritchie) had endeavoured to show, from the report of the Sheffield Health Officer, the results of the outbreak of small-pox in Sheffield as an evidence of the value of vaccination and re-vaccination, and he had shown by quotations from the evidence relating to Montreal what might possibly occur in Leicester some day or other looking at the large number of unvaccinated people who existed there. He had acknowledged that there was in Sheffield a case for inquiry. He had shown to the House that the Government were instituting an inquiry in Sheffield of a most drastic character, the results of which would be placed before the House of Commons, and if, when it was so placed before the House of Commons, it should then be thought that a further inquiry was desirable, it would then be for the House at the time to consider the question; but surely it would be in the highest degree indiscreet on the part of the Government to institute such an inquiry as that asked for by the hon. Member opposite when an inquiry such as that he had referred to was going on in Sheffield, the result of which would shortly be communicated to the House. He was aware the inquiry which was going on was not such as the hon. Member demanded. The inquiry the hon. Member asked for was such as was only asked for by those who were opposed to vaccination, and looked upon it, not as a blessing, but as a curse. No evidence given before such an inquiry would be of value to the purpose of those, or could possibly give satisfaction to those, who were asking for it. It might have a result which the Government would very much deprecate, that of showing on their part some want of confidence in the power of vaccination—a want of confidence which they did not feel, and a want of confidence which was not felt by a very large proportion of the people of this country. The Government, in common with the unanimous opinion of the whole medical profession of this country and of the world, entertained no doubt at all as to the efficacy and value of vaccination, and he did not think they had anything to learn by such an inquiry as that advocated by the hon. Gentleman; and he must, therefore, on the part of the Government, decline to accede to the hon. Member's proposal.

said, he wished only to refer to one or two statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

said, he wished to refer to one or two points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman from a medical point of view. He wished, in the first place, to say that he entirely agreed with the facts put forward in the admirable speech the right hon. Gentleman had made in defence of vaccination. The right hon. Gentleman's facts were admirably marshalled, and he had done great service to the cause of vaccination by his statement; but there were one or two points to which he (Dr. Macdonald) desired to call attention. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it had not been proved that syphilis was capable of being carried into the system by vaccination. He (Dr. Macdonald) wished to point out, in answer to that statement, that medical men were of opinion that the disease was capable of being carried into the system in that way. That such a thing had occasionally occurred was what few medical men doubted. The argument against the general impression was that there was no certainty that the children had not had syphilis in the system previous to vaccination, as it was a well-known fact that syphilis was apt to appear in children at three months of age, and that many children were vaccinated before that age. With regard to his own experience in dealing with vaccination in the North of Scotland, one year they had several cases of small-pox in a country district where all the people were healthy, and where there was not one case in a thousand of syphilis. He had been detailed to vaccinate every individual in the country whom he could vaccinate, and he had gone to the different villages around, and had vaccinated one, two, three, and four at a time, using the healthiest lymph. A short time afterwards he went back and vaccinated about 20 people from each individual of these, and what had been his experience all over the country? Why, he had kept an accurate and correct record of what had occurred, and he had found that now and again here and there about one case in 20 showed severe symptoms—that where 19 of those vaccinated from the same person were all right the twentieth would have a very bad arm and abscesses about the body, what was there to complain of? These 20 individuals were all vaccinated from the same person, and if there had been anything wrong, any syphilitic inoculation, the whole 20 persons would have suffered; but, as a matter of fact, serious symptoms occurred very rarely—as he had said, only in a proportion of about one in every 20 cases. So that vaccination was very frequently blamed in cases where it had no right to be blamed. These were the only points he wished to put before the House. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if it should be his duty at any future time to do anything further in this matter, and he would also recommend the hon. Member for Leicester, to read a book published about a month ago about vaccination, which shattered in almost every point the arguments and statistics of the anti-vaccinationists all over the country, and showed that there was no foundation for them. This book showed that the arguments and statistics of the anti-vaccinationists were copied from one book into another, and were frequently exaggerated in the process; and furthermore, that they were nearly all without foundation. All these statements against vaccination were inventions, and had been handed down from one book to another.

said, he had to call the attention of the House to a very important question connected with the fishing industry on the South-East Coast of Scotland. He had given Notice of the following Motion on the subject:—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the existence and extent of private rights in mussel beds in the tidal waters of Scotland, and to inquire generally as to the nature and value of such rights, and to report as to the advisability of compelling the transfer of all such rights and of all mussel beds to the Fishery Board for Scotland, with the view of preserving and protecting the mussel beds, and enabling fishermen to obtain mussels at reasonable rates."

He was precluded by the Forms of the House from moving this Resolution, but he could call attention to the subject. He regretted that it should be necessary to do so, because he had hoped that what took place last year would have been sufficient to effect his purpose. It might be remembered that a Motion almost identical in form to the one standing on the Paper in his name was brought forward by him last year, he thought in the month of May, and that on that occasion the Motion was opposed by the Government on the ground that the inquiry he wanted, and of which they admitted the necessity could be better conducted by the Scotch Fishery Board than by a Royal Commission, which would be a much more costly process. Well, certain pledges were then given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to which he (Mr. Anderson) would refer more particularly presently, but it was needless to say, and he regretted it very much, that those pledges had not been fulfilled —that the promises then made by the Government had not been carried out, and that practically this question which was of such vital importance to the line fishermen of Scotland had been put on one side, apparently by the Government and by the Scotch Fishery Board as a matter of comparatively little importance. A subject of the most vital interest, which ought to have engaged their closest attention, was put on one side to make way for others which, to his mind, would better much better left alone. It would be seen at once that to line fishermen any question relating to bait would be of the greatest importance. One of the essentials to their prosperously carrying on their business was that they should have a good and ample supply of bait, that they should have that supply near at hand, and that they should have it without being put to any great expense for it. At the present moment the line fishermen of Scotland could not be said to enjoy any single one of these conditions. It would seem almost incredible to many Members that although the mussel, which was the bait ordinarily used by line fishermen, was one of the fish which, above all others, was easy to propagate—which would grow without any difficulty at all—at the present moment the line fishermen on the North-East Coast of Scotland had to procure the greater part of their bait from the Western Coast, and even some of it from Ireland and other places. It seemed that on the Eastern Coast of Scotland—and this was the point upon which this matter originally arose and caused him to bring it before the House last year—the landlords had appropriated to themselves, backed up, he must say, by laws which protected their rights of property, the mussel beds in the tidal waters. Into the question of the assertion by the landlords of their right to the mussel beds he was not going to enter, except, in passing, to say that it was a very strange right to assert, because he ventured to think that every reasonable person would assume that fishermen could not fish without bait, and would be supposed in the natural course of things to procure their bait from the natural bait beds in the vicinity in which they lived. To an ordinary person that would seem to be an ordinary thing, but instead of that it had been asserted that these bait beds did not belong to the fishermen at all, and that they could only use them by the consent of the landlords, who charged a very high rate for the mussels. Evidence was given upon this subject before the Crofters Commission. Witnesses were called who spoke to the fact that on the estate of the Duke of Sutherland as much as 1s. 6d., 2s., and 2s. 6d. a basket was charged for the mussels, which the fishermen gathered in the tidal waters on that estate. The witnesses were asked if the Duke of Sutherland had a right to these mussels, and the answer was: "Well, he claims the right, and we also claim that we have a right to them." It seemed to him (Mr. Anderson) that that was ungenerous conduct in the extreme on the part of a landlord who knew the difficulties that fishermen had to contend with, and that they were at the present time making a very precarious living. It seemed to him conduct which ought to be condemned, particularly when they remembered the exorbitant charge which was made in many places for the mussels which the fishermen must have in order to obtain a living. He was glad to find that this rapacity did not seem to prevail on the whole coast of Scotland, for they found on the West Coast that no claim of this kind was made—at least this was the case so far as he knew. And what had happened? Why the fishermen on the East Coast being charged 1s. 6d., 2s., and 2s. 6d. a basket for their bait did not buy the mussels in their own neighbourhood, but it paid them better to dredge for mussels on the West Coast, and to have them transported across Scotland by railway. After paying for this transportation and going to the trouble of dredging them, they obtained the mussels cheaper than they could get them in their own neighbourhood from their own landlord, who made this high charge. That was the present state of affairs, and the consequence was that fishermen were put in a position of great difficulty, because bait was a very serious item in their day's work. It was essential that they should have it, and each of them should pay, generally speaking, a shilling before he could commence his day's work, which was a thing he very naturally resented, believing that he ought to be able to get his bait without paying for it. When the fisherman came back after his night of toil on the deep, he found it result in a small, miserable pittance, the greater part of which either went to the landlord or to pay for bait brought from the West Coast. The question was, whether this was a state of things which ought to be allowed to continue. As he had said, he brought the subject before the House last year, and he had pointed out what he again proposed to point out—namely, that the grievance was one which should not be allowed to continue, and that, therefore, it was desirable that a Royal Commission should be appointed for the purpose of making inquiry, and ascertaining what were the real rights of the landlords to these mussel beds, and for the purpose of ascertaining what steps should be taken by the Scotch Fishery Board, or by the Government, to put this matter in a satisfactory position. He had said just now the Government stated that inquiry was being made. As a matter of fact, he was put off, as hon. Members on that, the Opposition, side of the House, were very frequently put off, by the statement that the matter was engaging the very serious and earnest consideration of the Government, and that the Secretary for Scotland was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject. He was told, in effect, that the matter was one in respect to which no stone would be left unturned to ascertain the merits of the case. These were the Lord Advocate's own words as they appeared in Hansard. He stated—

"The Government admitted that it was a matter for inquiry; he thought the Fishery Board was a competent body to look into it, and perfectly competent to advise the Secretary for Scotland, first, as to whether anything should be done, and, in the second place, as to what should be done."

Now, upon hearing that statement, he (Mr. Anderson) believed that several hon. Members who would otherwise have supported his proposal, believing the position taken up by the Government to be a reasonable one, refrained from supporting him, and ranged themselves on the side of the Ministry. He himself, however, did not feel justified in accepting that statement as satisfactory. He confessed that perhaps he did not place that confidence in Government statements that he ought, and on that occasion he took a Division on the subject because he fancied that the general remarks which had fallen from the Lord Advocate were perhaps not seriously meant, and might not lead to what was desired. Well, he was sorry to say that his prophetic feeling on that occasion was correct, because, although that had been in May last, up to the present moment the Executive Government of Scotland, represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Lord Advocate) and the Secretary for Scotland and other officials in the Scotch Department, and also the Scotch. Fishery Board, he believed, had done absolutely and literally nothing to carry out that pledge of the Government. Although this question only affected men in a humble position of life, and men who had to work hard for their livelihood, he wished the Government and the Lord Advocate, or whoever represented the Scotch Fishery Board, to remember that it was a matter of vital importance to thousands of people. A solemn pledge was given a year ago that it should be investigated, and it was almost incredible that since then nothing should have been done to redeem that promise. That to his mind was a monstrous dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. This dereliction of duty absolutely led to a waste of the time of the House, because it had rendered it necessary for him to repeat observations which he had made last year. If the Government had done their duty, it would have been unnecessary for him to have troubled the House this evening, so through their inattention to the subject they were to blame for the time of the House being occupied with this discussion. The question was one which was not very difficult to deal with. In Scotland they had at the present moment a Fishery Board which, he believed, was not the case in England. In the Resolution of which he had given Notice, but which he was precluded from moving, he had suggested that this Scotch Fishery Board should take in hand this question of bait beds around the coast of Scotland. Such was the feeling of the people of Scotland. A meeting was held last autumn in Aberdeen which was attended by a large number of fishermen, and there was a general expression of opinion there given that the bait beds should not be open to everybody, because that course led to very great mischief. One of the mischiefs of the present system was that although the landlords excluded the fishermen from the use of the bait beds by an exorbitant charge for mussels, they could not prevent the public from taking them from other beds. Everybody who chose went to the bait beds, and the beds were consequently seriously damaged by improper dredging and by bait being taken away in improper quantities. The bait was taken by unskilled parsons, and great part of the beds was spoiled, and he wished to remedy this evil by putting the beds into the hands of a proper authority—a competent public body—in order that they might protect them so that the fishermen might reap the greatest possible benefit from them, a small toll being levied from fishermen to defray the cost of management. That seemed to him to be the proper course to be taken by the Scotch Fishery Board in this matter. He was bound to say that although the Scotch Fishery Board, as a body, had done nothing, a certain member of that Board had recently published, apparently upon his own responsibility, a report upon this question. He was sorry to say that he believed that gentleman—namely, Professor Ewart, did not seem to get on very well with the other Members of the Board. He had published a paper—he (Mr. Anderson) did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had read it, although he hoped he had—a very important paper which dealt very fully with the subject in hand. Might he ask the Lord Advocate if he had seen it?

Yes, I have seen the Report by Professor Ewart.

said, it was a very important document, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, he was sure, would agree with him that it dealt very fully with many matters which he (Mr. Anderson) had brought forward last year. It pointed out how important it was for the Government to take action, and to take action at once, with regard to this subject. Professor Ewart pointed out that in many cases, owing to neglect of these bait beds, the supply of bait was deteriorating in quality and quantity. He pointed out that last year over 20,000 tons of mussels were taken and consumed by the fishermen of Scotland, but that next year—that was to say, the ensuing year—the prospect was a very gloomy one, and that the sources of the supply of bait were not nearly sufficient.

I thought the hon. and learned Member was referring to a paper read by Professor Ewart before the Fishery Board. In the answer made just now I may have made a mistake. I was referring to the printed paper before me.

said, he was sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not seen the document to which he had referred. It was in the form of a letter.

What is the date of it?

All he could say was that the copy he had of it was extracted from The Scotsman newspaper, he thought of the 11th May—either the 11th or 12th of May.

said, he had road it in The Scotsman at that time.

said, the Government had evidently not yet fully considered the document, and knew little about the subject beyond having read that letter in the columns of The Scotsman. He thought it unfortunate that the document had not been brought officially under the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because in it Professor Ewart, who was the scientific member of the Scotch Fishery Board, said that the cause of the discontent amongst the Scotch fishermen was the charge made for bait, and then he went into the causes which were bringing about a gradual decrease in the number of mussels. He said that the amount of bait was decreasing owing to the mussels not being properly looked after, and then he proceeded to point out various measures which he thought ought to be adopted for the purpose of remedying the evil and placing at the disposal of the fishermen bait at a reasonable price. In one part of his letter, Professor Ewart pointed out that fishermen on the East Coast of Scotland were taxed by the railway rates they had to pay, in order to get their bait for use from distant places, something like £20,000 a-year. He trusted, at any rate, that this report would be considered by the Government. It seemed a most extraordinary thing that this document, which had been pub- lished some weeks ago, should not have been brought under the notice of the Executive Government, even privately. Why had they officials to carry out the Executive Government if important documents of this description were not at once brought to their notice when they knew discussions of this kind were about to take place? He (Mr. Anderson) thought he had just cause of complaint in the fact that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was not able to get up in his place and tell them that the Government had considered the paper of Professor Ewart, and whether or not they agreed with the statements contained in it and the recommendations and suggestions made. He did not wish to say anything disagreeable, but desired to put fairly before the House the course the Government had taken in the matter, and fairly criticize their conduct. He only desired what was most reasonable—namely, that the Government of Scotland should come down to this House, and say whether or not they agreed with the views expressed by Professor Ewart. What were these views? He had shortly stated a portion of them, but the Professor went on to point out the absolute necessity of practical legislation. In the third part of the report Professor Ewart stated that sufficient had been said to show—firstly, that the mussel fishery was one of great importance to Scottish fishermen; secondly, that the fishermen along the Eastern and North-Eastern seaports were dependent for mussel bait almost entirely on supplies brought from the West Coast; and thirdly, that the insufficiency of local supplies was apparently in many cases due to the reckless destruction of mussels; and that such being the condition of affairs on the large fundamental subject of bait—a sine quâ non of line fishermen—it formed a subject of serious consideration as to what measures it was possible to adopt with the view of remedying it. Then Professor Ewart went on to discuss various measures which he suggested. He dealt with the matter in considerable detail, but the substance of his suggestions was practically that the mussel beds should be brought under the Scotch Fishery Board. Towards the end of his paper, he mentioned three or four points. He said that should his proposal be adopted as to legislation, he would recommend amongst other things—firstly, that there should be an accurate survey made by the Fishery Board of the mussel beds to be cultivated; and secondly, that the taking of mussels by hand should be prohibited, except under special circumstances, since great quantities were destroyed by the fact of the people gathering them, and that the gathering should be done by a system of raking; and thirdly, that where it was possible only a limited portion of the beds should be annually worked, and that care should be taken to prevent the overcrowding of any portion of the beds. Then Professor Ewart went on to deal with other parts of the coast. These seemed to him (Mr. Anderson) to be very practical suggestions on the part of Professor Ewart; but there was another matter which he thought had not had sufficient importance attached to it, and that was that he believed we were the only fishing country which had not made some attempt to increase bait by artificial means. Had that subject engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government?

Yes.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate assented. It had engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government to this extent that he (Mr. Anderson) had put a Question on the Paper on the subject, and that he received an Answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which gave him no information at all—that he had got the stereotyped answer from the Scotch Office to the effect that the subject was engaging the attention of the Government of Scotland. He wished to ask the House whether the time had not come for the Government of this country to take a leaf out of the lessons taught us by the United States of America, and by Norway, Sweden, and France, who spent enormous sums of money for the purpose of putting bait in the way of fishermen to enable them to carry on their industry successfully? This was a matter which would lead to very little expense. The Lord Advocate said that it was being attended to; but he had asked the Government the other day if they attached any importance to the bait beds in the Moray Firth, but it seemed that they did not, as they replied that they could not undertake to spend a few hundred pounds for the purpose of carrying on experiments there. What had Professor Ewart said upon this subject? Why that it was essential that these experiments should be made. The mussel was a fish which grew in enormous quantities with very little difficulty, and all that was required for their cultivation was to take some steps for the protection of the beds. He thought the least they could have expected from the Government was a promise that they should take measures, at any rate, to experiment in that direction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told him the other day—although he might have misunderstood him—that the Government did not see their way to spending money in making experiments, and if that were so he thought it was a matter of which the Scotch fishermen had every right to complain. The points he had gone over showed this was a matter of the utmost importance, and one which the Government ought to take in hand without delay. The Lord Advocate looked as if he were about to reply, as he had a number of papers in his hand, and he (Mr. Anderson) supposed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman did reply, he would say that the inquiry which he had promised last year should be made had been made. It was true that last September a State Paper was issued from the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland; but the inquiry to which that Paper gave an answer was as to where the principal mussel beds on the Coast of Scotland were, to whom they belonged, and upon what terms the Scotch fishermen could obtain mussels from them? He could only tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that those were not the points upon which his (Mr. Anderson's) Motion of last year was founded and upon which he had desired the Government to obtain information. They all knew where the mussels beds were, and they all knew to whom they belonged—or rather to whom it was alleged they belonged—and they also knew the terms upon which fishermen could obtain mussels from them. His complaint last year was that the fishermen were charged exorbitant rates for the mussels. He certainly had not gone to the Scotch Office for the purpose of obtaining an answer to a number of questions which he had not put, and for the purpose of hearing a number of facts stated with which they were already acquainted. He was bound to say that this table did summarize very conveniently what he ventured last year to bring forward—namely, the great difficulty fishermen on the North-East Coast of Scotland had in obtaining bait. It was clearly shown that over an enormous expanse of coast—the greater part of the Coast of Aberdeenshire, Banffshire, Morayshire, and Nairn—there were practically no mussel beds, and men had to obtain their mussels from those persons who had private beds, or to get them, as he had said, from the other side of Scotland. He hoped that they would hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate something satisfactory upon this question. He assured the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this was a question in respect to which the deepest interest was taken by the fishing population in the North-East of Scotland. He could hardly believe that the Government realized the importance of this question, because he saw the Secretary for Scotland this afternoon, and he was surprised to find that the noble Marquess apparently did not know that this question which was coming up for discussion was a question of any importance; he did not appear to have considered what answer the Government should give in the matter. That was not at all a satisfactory way of treating a question which affected the fishing population of Scotland most deeply. When it was seen how precarious their existence was, and how toilsome a life they had to live, he could not help thinking that the time of the House could not be better employed than in considering measures for their relief. In bringing this matter before the House he felt that he was only doing a simple duty to those men, and he trusted that some satisfactory assurance would be given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on behalf of the Government.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) took a great interest in this question, and always spoke upon the subject with great earnestness. Representing, as he did, a constituency which was especially interested in the matter, the hon. and learned Member would not be doing his duty if he failed to bring before the notice of the House the views which his constituents entertained with regard to it. There might be, on the part of a number of people, a certain feeling of impatience that their views on this subject were not at once carried out; but he hoped it would be realized that those who had to act had a great deal more to do than those who merely suggested. Up to the present moment the Government had not had put before them any scheme on the part of scientific men that would enable them to say whether it would be wise to carry it out or not. Hon. Members opposite would agree with him that to attempt anything in a matter of this kind before they wore satisfied, in the first place, that it would be effective, and, in the second place, that any money spent upon it would not be wasted, would be a most unwise proceeding. This matter was one which depended to a great extent on the evidence to be obtained from persons of scientific knowledge and skill. It was quite true that upon the bleak and exposed coast of some parts of Aberdeenshire there were no mussel beds; but he thought it would be found that the reason why there were no mussel beds there was that the ground was not suitable for the establishment of mussel beds. On a very rocky, iron-bound coast, they could not have conditions which admitted of successful mussel scalps. When the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn said there were certain points on the East Coast of Scotland where there were no mussel beds, and where mussel beds could be established, he was entirely mistaken, and he would not get any evidence to support that statement.

said, that Professor Ewart pointed that out himself.

said, he was afraid that with the information before them it was perfectly hopeless to attempt to establish mussel beds in any of the places suggested by the hon. and learned Member. If mussel beds could not be established in every place where there were fishermen who might desire to use those mussel beds, was it a cure for the difficulties which had arisen to throw open the existing mussel beds to everybody? The inevitable result of throwing them open would be this, that those people who lived in places where there were no mussels would flock down to those places where there were mussels, and they would make a hash of the garden of mussels wherever they found them.

said, he never suggested anything of the kind. He suggested that the mussel beds should be put under the Fishery Board to prevent that being done.

said, he quite understood that. It was obvious that if regulations were to be made by which the supplies of mussels were to be available to all fishermen, that was a matter which would require very grave consideration if it was to be worked out at all. His hon. and learned Friend had pointed out that they did not imitate the example of other countries which were spending enormous sums of money in the development of fisheries. He would remind his hon. and learned Friend that the authorities at Dover House had no control over the public purse, but if a grant were made for any purpose connected with the fisheries of Scotland, he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that they would be very glad to spend it to the very best advantage.

said, if the Secretary for Scotland asked for money, he would get it.

said, that was a popular delusion. If that was the idea which was present in the minds of hon. Gentlemen, he could quite understand their indignation that any views which they might put forward were not carried into effect. The grant they had at present did not enable them to carry out any such proposal as that suggested by the hon. and learned Member. The problem they had before them was to see whether the mussel scalps which existed could not be made more productive and safe from destruction. It had also been brought out quite clearly that in a great number of cases where there was no competition for mussels, the proprietors had allowed the fishermen in their neighbourhood to take them perfectly freely. The Government had just lately received from Professor Ewart a report of very great importance. Professor Ewart pointed out the necessity of proceedings that had not been thought of in this country till a year or two ago. Not relying upon natural causes, but adopting some system of cultivation, there had been a very successful system of cultivation carried out on the Continent in regard to mussels. Three things had been realized—First, that they must have a rich or muddy bottom for cultivating; second, that they must have some means to enable the mussels to attach themselves conveniently and quickly; thirdly, that they must have some pruning and clearing of the spaces; and fourthly, that they must have a removal of the mussels when they had got to a certain size, so that the new ones might form in a sheltered spot. All these things were of enormous importance; but they meant not only the expenditure of money, but considerable study and experiment. Professor Ewart's report had only been received on the 10th of April. He (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) himself looked forward to very great results from some such system. If it could be successfully carried out in this country, it would probably lead to the relief of a great portion of the difficulty felt on many parts of the coasts of Scotland. Hitherto in this country the practical principle had not been adhered to by fishermen as was followed by agriculturists in the cultivation of land—the rotation of crops, or the alternation between fallow and cultivation. It was, therefore, necessary that there should be some regulation—analogous to the system of cropping on land—by which a certain portion of the mussel beds should have a rest while other portions were being worked. All this would require a great extension of the powers of the Fishery Board. The evil undoubtedly existed, and it could only be hoped that, by reasonable measures, those places that had severely suffered might be restored to a condition of productiveness. Careful investigations had been made, and these necessarily occupied time. The report which had appeared in The Scotsman, and to which reference had been made, was not the report he had before him, and he assumed that the Fishery Board was now making its report upon the subject. All these suggestions were the suggestions of experts, and required consideration, which they were receiving. Clear and detailed estimates of the cost were also required before Parliament could be asked to vote any money. It was for the Cabinet to consider whether any such action could be taken after receiving information. He was afraid to say the matter was receiving serious consideration, because he quite saw that the hon. and learned Member never believed that; but the Government frankly admitted the importance of the subject, and that it was their duty to investigate it, and see what was best to be done; but he thought it was only reasonable that they should not be pressed for an answer till they had considered all the questions involved.

said, he was glad that the Lord Advocate admitted the importance of this subject. It was one the importance of which was felt especially on the East Coast of Scotland, and the present depressed condition of the fishery trade intensified its importance. At present, on the East Coast of Scotland many of the best men were looking to other fields for their labour. Many of them desired to emigrate, and try their hand at fishing on the other side of the Atlantic; and, while he admired the enterprize of these men, he would not like to see them leaving our shores until, at any rate, all the resources of this country had been fully developed. He would not detain the House by going into the many hardships which the fishermen had to encounter in getting bait. It had been generally understood—at any rate, amongst laymen—that while rates might be charged by a proprietor for mussels between high and low water mark, yet where fishermen succeeded in finding mussel beds for themselves beyond the low water mark, they had a right to them; but a case brought before the Courts where the proprietor charged for mussels found five or six fathoms deep had been decided against the fishermen. That decision occasioned surprise even among some of the Legal Authorities of Scotland. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD dissented.] The Lord Advocate shook his head; but he (Mr. Duff) recollected going to the Fishery Board in Edinburgh, and being told by two Sheriffs that they believed that no right whatever could be established by law to mussel beds beyond the low water mark. However, the case was decided against the fishermen. The Lord Advocate had said he did not want to take any precipitate action in the matter. He (Mr. Duff) did not think they need be alarmed about that. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) brought this question forward last year, and was then told that it would receive the serious attention of the Government. He did not know what the Government had done in the interval. They did not seem to have made much progress. The Lord Advocate had also said—"It was all very well to come down there and ask the Government to cultivate mussel beds; but where was the money to come from?" That was a point on which he (Mr. Duff) ventured to offer a suggestion to which he hoped the Government might pay some attention. Some years ago, he presided over a Committee on the Herring Brand, and before that Committee it was distinctly and conclusively proved that there was a very large surplus, which was acknowledged to belong to the fishermen, of £31,570. He would suggest to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland whether they could not with justice give some of that money to carrying out a scheme for cultivating mussels. It seemed to him a very appropriate fund for the purpose, and one on which they had some claim. Fishermen were being helped in Ireland and on the West Coast of Scotland. Well, here were some of the best men on the East Coast going out of the country; and while there was a large sum of money which practically belonged to them, the Government came down to the House and said—"We cannot cultivate mussels because we have not the means." He could assure the Lord Advocate that there was a strong feeling on this question. He might be asked, if his hon. Friend could carry his Motion, what would be the result? Well, if they were to cultivate mussels, they would have, in the first place, to determine the existing private rights. He had never advocated the confiscation of these rights. Let them be valued and compensated; then let the mussel beds be handed over to the Fishery Board, and he had no doubt that under the able supervision of Professor Cossar Ewart they could produce mussels in various parts of Scotland just as they were produced in France. This would be an immense boon to fishermen on the East Coast.

said, he admired the great ingenuity with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had evaded, if he might say so, all the points raised by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson). As he (Mr. A. Sutherland) understood the question, it was not as to the best moans for the artificial cultivation of mussels, but as to who had a right to the mussel beds. It was perfectly well known to the fishermen that the mussel beds used to be free; in fact, he believed the oldest fishermen would assert that they could remember the time when they could go to the beds and take what bait they wanted, without being charged for it. It was a matter well known to everybody that bait for line-fishing was a necessity—as much a necessity as a boat—and, therefore, it was the duty of the Government to give every facility, not only for the cultivation of mussels, but also for the free supply of mussels to the fishermen. The question of proprietory in the mussel beds was not touched upon at all by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and he (Mr. A. Sutherland), for his own part, would have liked very much to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion on that subject. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) had stated that it would be a very great thing for the Government to buy out the rights of the owners of the mussel beds. He (Mr. A. Sutherland) should like to know how many of those who now claimed rights of proprietorship on the mussel beds really bought these rights in the first place. That subject would certainly have to be considered before the subject of compensation was taken in hand. The principal question, however, was that of the right of proprietorship. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had stated that on questions of this kind generally the officials at Dover House were dependent for information upon their subordinates, and, no doubt, that was so. No one could blame the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) for not having information upon a matter of this sort, if their sub- ordinates had failed to supply them with it; but he thought the opinion of experts was worth ascertaining, and that was the exact point of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced this subject (Mr. Anderson)—namely, that the Government should consent to an Inquiry being instituted into the whole question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, however, met that proposal by giving them a long dissertation upon the artificial production of mussels. Now, with regard to the proprietorship of these mussel beds, the pretence always put forward was that it was necessary that some one should have the ownership vested in him, in order that they might be protected and regulated. Well, he believed that also. He believed that the mussel beds should be protected and regulated, but that was no reason why the beds should be appropriated by private persons. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) declared that the best custodian of the mussel beds would be the Fishery Board of Scotland, a Body publicly appointed and responsible to the Crown for the due administration of its functions. That was the point, and towards its elucidation the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had not contributed very much. He (Mr. A. Sutherland), however, was thankful for small mercies coming from that quarter, and he was thankful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that, at any rate, this subject would be made a matter for consideration. It was to be hoped that he would grant this inquiry.

said, he should be failing in his duty if he did not join in the appeal made to the Government to look into this matter, with the view of taking definite action upon it. The supply of Scotch mussels was a matter of great importance to English as well as Scotch fishermen, particularly to those along the North-East Coast of England. He supposed there was no article of food in our country which had increased in price so much as fish, and to this addition to the cost of fish the scarcity of bait was one of the principal factors. But whilst this was of great importance to the country at large, it was of more pressing and immediate importance to those who brought in this food supply to England, and who earned a living very hardly on the waters of our North Sea. If the men who went out in open boats all round our coasts carrying on this line-fishing industry, could see the comparatively small interest that this subject excited in that House, he should be sorry to confront a body of them to-morrow. It was a fact that every one of these men had to lay out from 3s. to 8s. for bait before he went in search of fish, and it might be, if the weather was rough or the catch was small, a man might come back not only having lost his night's labour and his expenditure on bait, but a serious amount of capital, which might leave him in debt and cripple him for some time to come. The scarcity and the high price of bait was a very serious problem. He might mention that this was no mere supposition. He had taken great pains to work out a balance sheet as affecting 90 fishermen—line fishermen—and he found that these men, living in the town of Filey, in Yorkshire, in 10 weeks last autumn only made a profit of 10d. per head per week. One of the principal items which had reduced their profit was the extremely high price they had to pay for bait. That was a very grave position of things, and he thought the responsibility of the Government was considerably enhanced by the fact that this matter had already been the subject of legislation, and had been acknowledged by the House to be a suitable subject for legislation, only, unfortunately, such legislation as had been adopted had turned out to be practically a dead letter. There was an Act passed dealing with this subject so long ago as the year 1868, but the Royal Committee of 1885 made a careful inquiry along the Scotch Coast, and that Committee actually said—

"With regard to this particular matter, as we already pointed out, the Legislature has attempted to deal with it by the Act passed in 1381, but we were informed that that Act was a dead letter. We think it advisible that some more effective method should be adopted for dealing with what has already been recognized as an evil by the Legislature."

He thought that when a Royal Commission declared to the House that this matter had been dealt with ineffectually hitherto, and recommended, as they did in 1885, that it should be dealt with effectually, it was to be hoped that the Government would not delay making the most definite and effective inquiry that could possibly be made upon the subject.

said, he had no wish to intervene for any length of time in that debate, seeing that he was an Englishman, and that he did not represent a coast constituency. At the same time, he personally had some interest in a part of the country in which there was a fishing community, and he wished to point out to the House the enormous importance of the subject they were discussing, a subject which he believed to be equally interesting and applicable to other parts of the "United Kingdom as to Scotland, and that was the reason why he should not be surprised if other English Members desired to say a word or two in that debate. In olden times the rights of fishing around our coasts were carefully guarded. Wherever the tide came up the public had the right of fishing on the shores, and so close had been the guardianship of that right that never had any of the Law Courts recognized the validity of a grant by the Crown since the year 1215 derogating from the supreme right of the people to take fish wherever the tide ebbed and flowed. That right bad undoubtedly been whittled away in many respects by presumption of lost grants—a presumption held by the Courts in more than one instance. Though individuals had had difficulty in securing the exclusive right to fish in mussel-beds under the claim of a fishery—because fish, of course, included mussels—yet individuals had secured the right of taking mussels,on our sea shores by another process. The process by which they had obtained that right had been by claiming the soil upon which the mussels were placed, there being no Statute of Prohibition against the grant of the soil to individuals. Though the right to the soil did not carry with it the exclusive right to take the mussels on the soil, or to fish in the waters that overflowed that soil, yet, by the various Salmon Fishery Acts, it had been held that wherever an individual could show that he had a right to the soil on beds marked out and chose to place mussels or oysters thereupon, he had a right to take those mussels or oysters in derogation of the primâ facia rights of the public.That being so, the Legislature had, he presumed, contem- plated certain circumscribed, settled, and definite beds; but cases had come under his own knowledge in which individuals had "marked out" whole miles of our coast. In one instance he knew of five miles altogether being marked out by an individual who claimed the soil along the sea. He had put up certain posts at the corners of these five miles of land, and had said that that was an oyster and mussel-bed, "well and sufficiently marked out and known as such"—in the words of the Legislature—and had claimed the right, therefore, and had succeeded in making good his claim to oust the fishermen from taking mussels as bait over the whole of the five miles. The result of that had been that the fishermen of that particular locality had been really prevented from exercising their trade as fishermen because, as the oysters could not be disturbed, therefore the mussels could not be disturbed, and because the mussels could not be disturbed, there was no bait for fish, and, as a consequence, the fishermen had had a profitable trade closed to them, and had their means of obtaining a livelihood barred to them for good and all. He submitted that the question was one of some moment, and that it was time that the rights of the public and the rights of individuals were made the subject of inquiry and definitely ascertained.

said, that as representing a constituency largely interested in mussels and oysters, he should like to say a word upon this matter. The rights of the owners of the soil and of the fishermen to the bait beds around the Island of Orkney were unsettled, and he thought in any inquiry instituted this point should be set at rest. There seemed to be some doubt in the North as to whether private rights did not extend in some cases eight miles from shore, or considerably more than the three miles limit, which existed in other quarters. This was an important question, not only with regard to mussels, but also with regard to the cultivation of oysters. Considerable importance appeared to him to attach to the matter of providing police in these waters—these tidal waters, these small shallow waters which, in certain places, were valuable for the cultivation of shellfish. He would urge upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate and the Government to take means without delay to get this question settled. Several attempts had been made to cultivate oysters in the sea water near the shore in the large firths which ran far inland, and which in former years were well known for the enormous supply of shell-fish that they yielded. These firths had all been cleared out now by parties from the South, and perhaps by the Islanders themselves, and the state of things now existing was not likely to be set right, as the people were in ignorance of their legal position. He thought, however, the question was one essentially of police—of supporting proper police in these waters in which these rights existed, or were supposed to exist. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

said, that a short time ago he asked a Question of the Government with reference to their alleged intention to give up the Island of Ascension, and also with reference to the alterations which such abandonment would necessitate at the naval station of Simon's Town. He should like, for a moment, to ask the attention of the Committee to the position of affairs in these two places. With reference to the Island of Ascension, he believed that it was popularly supposed to be rather a barren and useless spot, and that at the most it was only a sort of port of call for ships occasionally when they were in distress. So far, however, from that being the correct view, the Island of Ascension was a fertile and healthy spot, and most agreeable as a sanitarium. So far from its being an arid waste, it was to-day not only very fertile, but of late years had had a rainfall of as much as from 40 to 53 inches, and sheep and cattle bred well in the Island. He merely mentioned these facts to draw attention to the importance of the place as a sanitarium. It had, he believed, long been used as such for the benefit of our officials in that part of the world.

I rise to Order. I wish to point out that there is nothing relating to Ascension contained in this Vote. The Vote for the Island of Ascension is taken in the Navy Estimates, and I wish to know, therefore, whether the hon. Member's observations are in Order?

Any observations in connection with the retention of the Island of Ascension would be in Order, because that question would refer to Colonial policy; but if the question is merely as to the retention of the Admiralty establishment there, that would not be in Order.

said, that he wished to deal with the question of the Island of Ascension and the question of Simon's Town as matters of Imperial Policy. He had commenced his observations by saying that he had called the attention of the Government to these matters the other day.

As I understand it, there is no intention whatever of altering the possession of the Island of Ascension, and the subject is not, therefore, one of Colonial policy. The question of the Admiralty establishment being kept up there is not relative to Colonial policy.

said, he understood that, and did not think he should be out of Order in what he was about to say. He did not desire to detain the Committee by entering into the advantages of retaining the Island. He was aware that it was used primarily, or had been used primarily, as a naval station, and any remarks which he might be disposed to make with regard to the Island in its character as a naval station, he would reserve until they came to the Naval Estimates if there were any Votes left in those Estimates upon which he could bring this matter forward. But he apprehended that, so far as the question of retaining the Island as a sanitarium was concerned, that was a question which he was perfectly entitled to raise now, because it did not affect simply the question of our Navy, but, as was well known, the Island had been used as a sanitarium for our Colonial officers and Governors on the West Coast of Africa. It was because he thought it of some importance, from that point of view, that he desired to address some observations to the Committee. Everybody knew that the West Coast of Africa was extremely unhealthy, and the importance of having such a sanitarium as this Island had been admitted, he thought, by most persons. Assuming that there was any value attaching to the Island as a sanitarium for recruiting the health of officers of different kinds in the Colonial Service on the West Coast of Africa, the question as to whether the cost involved in maintaining the Island was equal to the benefits we derived from it was the point he wished to consider. The inquiry he had addressed to the Government the other day had reference to both points—that was to say, as to the desirability of retaining the Island as a naval station, and as to the desirability of its being retained as a sanitarium. On both points he was answered that it was intended to give up the Island, and he thought he was entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had fully decided, as he understood they had, to give up the Island as a sanitarium, and whether there was any possibility of getting them to reconsider that decision? The point of Imperial policy which be had raised, and to which he had referred, was one which he could not altogether keep out of view at that moment. It appeared to him that if Her Majesty's Government intended to give up the Island both as a sanitarium and as a navalstation, the Island practically would become useless to us. He did not know what proposal Her Majesty's Government intended to make for the purpose of maintaining our rights over the Island. He had asked them, on a former occasion, what means should be taken for the purpose of preventing its being seized by some Foreign Power, and he had not yet received any satisfactory answer to that question. If the Island was not to be used either as a sanitarium or as a naval station, it appeared to him that it would be perfectly idle and use- less to keep any guard there, and if no guard was kept, he did not know what was to prevent any Foreign Power from seizing the Island if it felt so disposed. However that might be, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to give them some explanation of the matter, only expressing as his opinion what he did not give as his opinion merely, but as based on the authority and assurances of persons who were more familiar with that part of the world than he was himself, that it would be a great loss to this country if the Island were given up, as it was proposed to do, and if we no longer had the advantage of using it for the purpose of recruiting the health of our Colonial officers on the West Coast of Africa. Now he would pass on for one moment to the question of Simon's Town. He did not wish to say a word about Simon's Town from the point of view of its being merely a naval station, but at the same time he quite felt that the remarks which he desired to address to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of Simon's Town might possibly be ruled out of Order, on the same ground that the noble Lord opposite had endeavoured to have ruled out of Order his observations with regard to the Island of Ascension. He did not wish to speak of Simon's Town simply as a naval station, but the point he wanted to raise was this—and he should be glad to ask the Chairman whether he should be out of Order in raising it—as to the present position of the fortifications of that port, and as to the future policy of the Government in respect to it.

That would certainly not come under this Vote. It is not a question connected with the Colonial Office at all.

Very well, then, he would not trespass upon the atention of the Committee with regard to that subject. He would, he hoped, have some other opportunity of raising the question of the condition of the fortifications of Simon's Town, and he would merely leave the matter, so far as the Island of Ascension was concerned, where he had placed it, before Her Majesty's Government, asking them to give him some answer to the question he had addressed to them. With reference to the details of the Vote for the Colonial Office, he should like to draw attention to one item, not for the purpose of opposing it; but he observed that, amongst other items, there was an extra allowance for attendance on Sundays to Queen's, Home Office, and First Class Messengers, who got 5s. a-week for that extra service. Lower down in the Estimate he saw that door-keepers also had a similar extra allowance for attendance on Sundays. It appeared to him to be a sound principle that officials in different branches of the Service should be treated equally and fairly and on the same principle, and the reason he drew attention to these extra allowances for Sunday work was because on several occasions he had had to direct the notice of the Government to the want of a similar arrangement so far as firemen engaged in the Devonport Dockyard were concerned. He was aware that he was sailing very close to the wind in mentioning the firemen in the Devonport Dockyard, but he simply mentioned them in order to draw attention to the difference of treatment between them and the messengers and door-keespers who were paid under the Colonial Vote.

said, the hon. Member had made his observations as to the Island of Ascension under a complete misapprehension as to the use to which the Island had been put for years past. The Island had been used as a naval station, and it had been decided, after full consideration, by a Royal Commission who had gone very carefully into the question of the defence of our Colonies and coaling stations, that it was not advisable any longer to maintain this naval establishment at Ascension. The matter was subsequently referred to the Admiralty, and the Colonial Defence Committee, composed of representatives of the Colonial Office, the Admiralty, and the War Office, and they confirmed the opinion of the Commissioners, and consequently the present Board of Admiralty thought it advisable, in the interests of economy, that this naval station should be transferred elsewhere. Therefore, for naval purposes, the establishment hitherto maintained at Ascension would be transferred to other stations on the African Coast. The hon. Gentleman assumed that the Island had been used as a sanitarium for civil officers employed on the African Coast. That was entirely a mistake. [Mr. CONYBEARE: I did not say so.] The hon. Member assumed that it was used by Colonial and other officers, and he also assumed that it was a very fertile Island. Well, the fertility could not be very great, for, as a matter of fact, the Island was an extinct volcano, and all the cultivated soil it possessed, some five acres in extent, had been carried up on men's backs. The hon. Member had said that any Foreign Power could seize the Island if England abandoned it. Well, every Foreign Power would know that if it attempted to seize any Island belonging to the English people, it would come in contact with the most powerful Naval Power in the world. The Island of Ascension, whether a naval station were maintained there or not, would enjoy the same immunity from attack as all other Britishs Possessions in every part of the world.

said, it might be that he had gone too far in talking about Colonial and other officials having systematically used the Island of Ascension, or as being supposed to have systematically used the Island as a sanitarium; but he certainly had been given to understand that others besides men belonging to the Navy had been sent to Ascension for the purpose of recruiting their health. However, he accepted the statement of the noble Lord. He was at variance with the noble Lord as to the fertility of the place. He understood that the Island was small, and probably the five acres to which the noble Lord alluded constituted a considerable portion of it. But whether that was so or not, the reasons he had given for retaining the Island as a sanitarium, if not as a naval station, appeared to him to be sufficient; but, of course, when one was prevented from discussing the matter in all its aspects as a naval station as well as a sanitarium, it was impossible to lay all the facts before the Committee. However, he did not wish to labour that point. It occurred to him that he would not be out of Order, in speaking of Simon's Town, to ask Her Majesty's Government with reference to the proposed railway, with regard to which some correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cape Colony had been laid before the House. It appeared from that correspondence that the Government had now finally decided not to lend their assistance in any way to promote the extension of the railway from Hawk's Bay to Simon's Town. He did not know whether he correctly stated the intention of the Government in that respect; but he should like to mention that it would be a very great saving to this country, to the administration of the Naval Department at any rate, if we had that extension of railway carried out, because he was assured, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not deny it, that during the last few years, while the construction of forts at Simon's Town had been proceeding, the cost of transport alone had amounted to £10,000 per annum, which was double what would have been necessary to spend if they had had the railway. There were other reasons, he thought, why it was desirable that the railway should be completed. After the removal of the naval station from Ascension, Simon's Town would become a larger and more important depôt than it was at present. That, it appeared to him, was a very strong reason in favour of the Government in some way contributing or assisting in the completion of this short railway, for he believed it was only five or six miles in length, and was easy and inexpensive to construct.

said, he should like it if the Government would give him some information with regard to the Island of Cyprus upon a matter which he had brought before the House some time ago, but upon which he was unfortunately stopped by a "Count." He should like to know what they were doing with reference to the compulsory cultivation of land in the Island, which, by two Ordinances, they had sought to enforce, partly by a penalty tax and partly by confiscation of lands? It would, he was sure, be interesting to the Committee if the Government would say how the farther policy had succeeded; how much land they had confiscated; and what they had done with the land they had so confiscated. He did not wish to press the Government unfairly upon the matter. He had given them no Notice of his intention to raise the point; but as they had had their attention drawn to it quite recently, he thought that some Member of the Government would probably be able to give him an answer.

said, it would perhaps be more convenient to defer the discussion upon the question of Cyprus until a later period. There was a Vote for Cyprus.

said, it was true he had not given Notice of the Question, but the Government had had an opportunity of investigating the matter since he had last raised the question. He was willing, however, not to carry it any further, and he would content himself with giving Notice that when they came to the Vote on Cyprus he should ask for the information he had indicated.

said, that technically the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Baron Henry de Worms) was no doubt a sound one—namely, that there was a separate Vote for Cyprus on which the question could be raised; but the hon. Gentleman had not reminded the Committee that the Vote for Cyprus, which was £18,000 last year, was £30,000 this year, and that almost the entire Vote had already been taken on account. The Government had already obtained £29,000 on account out of the Vote of £30,000. It was on that ground that he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) objected, when the Vote on Account was before the Committee, to the very unreasonable proceedings of the Government in obtaining such a large proportion of the Vote by such means.

It is quite irregular to enter into that question now.

Yes; I am not going to discuss the Vote on Account.

It is quite irregular to enter into the question of the deficiency of the Vote for Cyprus on this Vote.

Quite so; but I was simply dealing with the subject to which the Under Secretary had referred. If I am out of Order, he was clearly out of Order too.

The Under Secretary was simply referring to a Vote to come on later, and showing the inadvisability of going into the question now.

said, he would not pursue the point further. With regard to the Office itself it appeared to him that the Colonial Office as an establishment was in a very curious condition. There were under the Secretary of State an Under Secretary, three assistant Under Secretaries, and then there were four principal clerks receiving £1,000 each. All these gentlemen were at the maximum of their salary. There were below them seven first-class clerks, with salaries rising from £700 to £800. All the seven were at the maximum of their salaries. In other words there was absolutely no promotion; there was no prospect for any portion of the staff in the Office. The non-effective Vote in connection with the Colonial Office was £10,000. Over and above the regular classified staff there were a Superintendent of the Correspondence and Legal Instruments Branch, who was almost at his maximum too; a Superintendent of Registry, a Superintendent of Printing Branch, a Superintendent of the Library, and a Superintendent of the Copying Branch. All these gentlemen occupied positions which were altogether exceptional. Hon. Members would not find any set of appointments like this in any other office. There was a Note appended to the Estimate by which it appeared that "no vacancy in the superintendentships was to be filled up without previous reference to the Treasury"—that was to say, that besides a staff which was so old and of such long service that all of them were at the maximum of their salaries, there were maintained at the Colonial Office a number of superintendents of different branches, not one of whom would appear to be necessary, because the special sanction of the Treasury was to be obtained for the filling up of a vacancy. The history of any of these appointments in the Colonial Office was rather a strange one, and in certain cases it was rather a shabby one. The superintendent of the library had £400. That post represented one which was held by a Mr. Wood, who was removed from the Treasury on the distinct promise that he would be allowed to succeed from the post of sub-librarian to that of librarian. Mr. Wood gave up his prospects at the Treasury under the assurance he obtained on his transfer. When he was in the Colonial Office the Treasury abolished the post of librarian and pensioned him, but not on the sum he was assured he would obtain, but the very much lower pay of the sub-librarian.

Order, order! I fail to understand how the case of Mr. Wood can be brought under this Vote. I remember it was settled at the Colonial Office before my time there many years ago.

said, it was, no doubt, settled years ago; but these superintendents were, he presumed, contemporaries of Mr. Wood. He knew perfectly well that the Under Secretary for the Colonies might tell him that all these positions were under the consideration of a Committee. With that answer the hon. Gentleman might possibly meet any inquiries addressed to him; but, as a matter of fact, in spite of the existence of the Committee, the Government was setting its house in order in a great number of different directions, especially in the Department from which the hon. Gentleman had lately been removed—namely, the Board of Trade. So it might be in the Colonial Office; and, if it was not, he should like to ask why it was not—why such a staff, at such rates of pay, was maintained in its present position? Was it a fact that there were officers at the Colonial Office who were not really necessary, and that some of them, at least, were kept at a very high rate of pay when they were beyond effective work?

said, that the hon. Gentleman had really answered the question he himself had put. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly well aware that the whole question was now being considered by a Committee, and that when the Report was received, very important changes and reforms would, no doubt, take place. As had been pointed out, these were no new appointments. If the hon. Gentleman would look at page 111, he would find that, with regard to the Superintendent of the Correspondence and Legal Instrument Branch and the Superintendent of the Printing Branch, the rates of salary were personal to the present holders. Those places might possibly not be continued when the present occupants ceased to hold office.

said, there was one topic on which the Government ought to give the Committee some information—it was one which was exciting very intense feeling in Australia, and which was likely to cause considerable friction between the colonists and the Colonial Office—namely, the emigration of Chinese to Australia. Of course, he spoke subject to correction, because no Papers had been laid before the House on the subject, and hon. Members had no information except what was to be derived from the newspapers; but he understood the policy of the Colonial Office was, in the supposed interest of the Empire, to oppose the policy which found favour with some of the Australian colonists, who desired to exclude the Chinese from the Australian Colonies. That was a question of great importance, both to the Colonies and to the Empire, and it was most desirable that no uncertain sound should be given on the subject. He trusted the Under Secretary of State was in a position to inform the Committee what was the present stage of the negotiations between the Australian Governments and the Colonial Office, and what was the policy the Government intended to pursue.

said, that he must demur to the views that had been expressed that Her Majesty's Government were in any way opposed to the line of policy adopted by the Australian Colonies. He was not yet in a position to lay Papers on the Table of the House dealing with the subject. He explained, in an answer he gave the other day, that one or two telegrams had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Australian Governments, and that it would not be advisable, before the Papers were completed, to lay them on the Table. On the 12th of the present month, a Conference would meet in Sydney for the purpose of considering this very important question; and until the result of that Conference was known, it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to make a statement to the House. But Her Majesty's Government were deeply sensible of the very strong feeling which existed in Australia that they should not be called upon to receive an unlimited number of Chinese. The Government were most anxious to see that the best measures possible were taken. He might remind the Committee that a very similar question was being dealt with in this country, and a Select Committee was at present sitting to consider the best means of meeting the enormous influx of foreign labour which found its way to these shores. There was one point which was of very great importance, and which ought to be cleared up. There seemed to be an impression that China could claim, on general grounds, the right of pouring her subjects into our Colonies. That was not the case; and he asked the attention of the Committee to what was really the fact. Although the Emperor of China had engaged by Treaty not to prevent his subjects from leaving China and emigrating to British Colonies, there was no engagement on the part of Her Majesty's Government that Chinese emigrants should be permitted to enter any British Colonies at their pleasure; so that the engagement was not reciprocal. On the other hand, it was desirable, if possible, to make such arrangements with China as would obviate any check in the extensive commercial relations between her and our Australian Colonies. It might, perhaps, be of interest that the Committee should know what the words of the Treaty really were. Article 9 of the Treaty between Great Britain and China, signed at Tien-Tsin, June 26, 1858, said—

"British subjects are hereby authorized to travel, for their pleasure or for the purposes of trade, to all parts of the interior under passports, which will be issued by their Consols and countersigned by the local authorities"

This was amended by Rule 8 of the agreement. Rule 8, referring to foreign trade under passports, was as follows:—

"It is agreed that Article 9 of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin shall not be interpreted as authorizing British subjects to enter the capital city of Pekin for purposes of trade."

He quoted this in order to show that there was no reciprocal engagement between China and Great Britain. Article 13 of the Treaty said—

"The Chinese Government will place no restrictions whatever upon the employment by British subjects of Chinese subjects in any lawful capacity."

There was nothing in the Treaty that could be construed into an obligation on the part of the British Government to admit an unlimited number of Chinese into British Colonies. There also seemed to be an entire misapprehension as to what was said by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford) with regard to this question. The noble Lord was quoted as having said—

"That if the Australian Governments will join together and make common cause, then, and then only, will he communicate the character of the negotiations between China and the Home Government on the Australian difficulty."

No negotiations had been commenced as a matter of fact, and what Lord Knutsford really said was embodied in the following telegram, which was sent to Sir William Robinson, at South Australia, on the 22nd of May:—

"Referring to your telegram of the 10th of May, there can be no doubt that Her Majesty's Government would obtain assistance from Australasian Colonies, making joint representation in dealing with Chinese immigration. If Conference meets, Her Majesty's Government will be happy to telegraph for consideration points for discussion which appear important."

As he had said, the Conference would sit on the 12th instant. The decision would be communicated to the Home Government, and then he might be in a position to communicate the result to the House. There was no pretence for saying that Her Majesty's Government had in any way ignored the wishes and representations of the Australian Governments, and in corroboration of this he would read another despatch, which was sent to Lord Carrington on the 11th of May, by Lord Knutsford—

"No foundation for report that Her Majesty's Government refuse to negotiate with the Chinese Government. Before arriving at conclusion against negotiations, Australian Colonies would have been consulted further. Her Majesty's Government fully recognize strength of feeling."

Now, it appeared to him that from the information he had given, the Committee would be satisfied that, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, they were not in the slightest degree in antagonism to the Australian Governments. The question was of very great importance, and one not to be decided hastily. It would be obviously improper if any decision were suddenly arrived at by the Australian Governments which should prevent many thousands of persons from landing on their shores, under the idea that their so doing would be prejudicial to their commercial interests. On the other hand, it was equally clear that, in view of the treaty which he had quoted, it might be reasonably argued that there was no ground for saying that the landing of Chinese there could be demanded as a right. The Conference would, naturally, take all the facts into consideration, and he had little doubt that some arrangement might be arrived at, perhaps in some degree similar to that which had already been arrived at with the United States, and which might be entirely satisfactory to Australia, without in any way wounding the susceptibilities of the Chinese.

said, there was one phrase he would like the hon. Gentleman to modify. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Select Committee which was sitting in reference to the "enormous" influx of foreign labour into this country. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) would not be in Order in referring to the proceedings of the Committee; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would erase the word "enormous" from his remarks. There were certainly no statistics before the House which would justify the use of the word at present, and he was not at all sure there ever would be. There might be immigration oppressive to a particular trade; but the evidence in a general sense was the other way.

said, he accepted the correction, and would substitute the word "considerable" for enormous.

said, he did not desire to obstruct the passing of the Vote, but he would like a little more information. He was anxious to be informed whether there was anything in the Treaty between England and China which would prevent as favourable terms being granted to Australia as were granted by China to America.

said, there had been no refusal to negotiate with China a similar treaty to that made between China and the United States, as far as the conditions of that Treaty might be applicable to Australia.

said, he had to put a single question to make clear what was a very important point with regard to the Treaty rights of the Chinese. Was he right in the view that according to Treaty, the Emperor of China bound himself not to prevent any of his sub- jects leaving China, and leaving China to reside permanently in British Colonies; and, in the second place, whether by Treaty, or by International Law, Chinese who left China with that intention, had the right to take up residence in the Australian Colonies?

said, there was another thing in regard to which more information was desired. The House was informed last night that these negotiations were not carried on with the Agent's General of the Colonies, but directly with the Governments of the Australian Colonies themselves. It would strike one that those Agent's General could give most important information, and hon. Members would like to know whether the Governments of the Australian Colonies were compelled to send over the Bills which were passed by the Parliaments of New South Wales and Victoria to the Queen for her Assent? He believed that all previous Acts of Parliament relating to China were sent over to England, and that several were refused.

said, it would be impossible for him to give information as to the exact bearing of the Treaty. Of course, the Treaty would be considered by competent authorities, and before any decision was arrived at, the facts might be laid before the House.

said, he desired to refer to the personal changes which had taken place in the Colonial Office. The head of the Department was no longer a Member of the House of Commons. He did not imply any censure upon Lord Knutsford, because he was sure he only did what all hon. Members were prepared to do, when he acknowledged the courtesy and ability which Lord Knutsford invariably brought to bear upon the duties of his Office. Neither did he complain of the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry de Worms) who now represented the Colonial Office in the House of Commons. His complaint was of a more general character. He thought there were too many Members of the House of Lords in the present Ministry, as in all Ministries. Probably the country did not know or realize how largely the House of Lords absorbed the high places of every Administration. He found that in the present Government, to deal with that alone, out of the 17 principal Ministers, including the Secretary for Scotland, 11 were Members of the House of Lords. He held that that was a totally unfair proportion. He once made a calculation of probabilities. The question was—Supposing the average number of a British Cabinet to be 15, how often, on the average, might a Duke be expected to be a Member of the British Government, and be found—

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks have any bearing on the vote?

I understand the hon. and learned Member is commenting on the fact that the Colonial Secretary is a Peer, but he is taking a very wide scope.

said, that what he was about to say was that while on the average a Duke might be expected to be a Cabinet Minister once in 32,000 years, there never was a Cabinet without a Duke in it. He should say that, on the average, if there was one Peer in a Ministry that would be a fair proportion, supposing Peers to be no wiser and no better and no luckier than any other people. He had another objection. He held that the heads of all Departments ought to be Members of the House of Commons, and there was a perfectly good and sound Constitutional reason for that proposition. The House of Lords had no control whatever over the Administration of the country—

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot enter into a general discussion.

said, that he would content himself by saying that, in his opinion, the House of Lords having no control over the Administration, and the House of Commons having sole control over the Administration, the heads of Departments who were responsible to the House of Commons ought to be Members of the House of Commons. That was a general principle he laid down. He took objection to this Vote for the Secretary for the Colonies, not on any personal grounds, but on that general ground; and, in order to test the opinion of the Committee, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000, the salary of the Colonial Secretary.

said, he had had the honour of being a Member of the House during the three Administrations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and during the whole of those Administrations the Secretary for the Colonies was a Member of the House of Lords. The principle of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained was, therefore, sanctioned by his own Leader.

said, he would like the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to give him some explanation as to what the Queen's Home Service Messengers were. In the last Vote passed, provision was made for Foreign Service Messengers. There were five of these Queen's Home Service or First Class Messengers, and they received from £150 a-year each. In addition, there were second and third class and extra Messengers. He really could not understand what all these Queen's Home Messengers did, and why they had different salaries to the Messengers of the Foreign Office? What did they do? Did they take messages to Her Majesty in any particular way? If that were the case, surely there were too many of them. He found eight in the Foreign Office, and five in this Office, and he had no doubt if he went into the other Offices he would find several more. He imagined they took boxes of despatches to Her Majesty, or to Members of the Cabinet. If so, the salaries were excessive. It was Lord Palmerston who first appointed Foreign Office Queen's Messengers. The noble Lord used to appoint butlers and such like people. It was then felt he had got relations, or his friends had got relations, members of the aristocracy, and he thought it desirable, as the salaries were good, that these places should be given to them. Lord Palmerston then sent a circular abroad to say that henceforth Queen's Messengers were not to be treated as butlers, but as gentlemen. Under these circumstances, the Committee might fairly ask what these gentlemen were? what their precise salaries were? why their salaries should be larger than the salaries of other persons in a similar position.

said, that these Messengers were Messengers of the Secretary of State. He was not able to say why there was a different scale of pay for the Foreign Office and Colonial Office Messengers. All he could say was, that the duties were the ordinary duties of Messengers. Their duties were confidential, as they carried despatch boxes.

said, that under the circumstances, he must move the reduction of the Vote by £250. The hon. Gentleman said that these Gentlemen were paid more than other people, because their duties were confidential. What were these confidential duties? Taking a few boxes with despatches to Ministers. Who did the despatches come from? Why was not the Minister in his proper place in the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office? Why could he not carry his boxes himself? This was one of the instances of abuse which had crept into the Civil Service, and which was porpetuated year by year. It was high time the House of Commons registered its protest against the continuance of the abuse, and therefore he moved the reduction of the Vote by £250.

said, he wished for some information with regard to Item B for telegrams, £3,500. He pointed out that even the large sum here asked for was generally exceeded, and a further sum asked for under a Supplementary Estimate. He thought hon. Members would agree that the time was come when the payment of these large sums for telegrams should cease. The Government paid as much as £50,000 a-year for telegrams, and he asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade for some explanation of the item to which he referred.

said, that no doubt the sum in question was large; but hon. Members would bear in mind that last year there was much communication with Australia, and that the cost of this by telegram was as high as 10s. a word. The only explanation he could give was, that the amount of communication by telegraph being large, there must be a corresponding amount of charge.

said, that recently strong claims for representative government had been put forward by many of the Colonies, especially by the Colony of British Guiana. Very urgent representations had been made from that place to Her Majesty's Government with regard to the absolute disfranchisement of the great mass of the population. The Colony was ruled by a Court of Policy, consisting of five nominated and five elected members, the latter being chosen by a College of Electors, composed of five members. The people who chose the members for the College of Electors were only equal to about 1 in 250 of the population. There was, therefore, really no representative Government whatever, and practically a few members who were large plantation owners ruled the Colony. Taxation was carried out by a Combined Court, the Members of which were only nominally elected. Under those circumstances, representations had been made to Her Majesty's Government with regard to the claim of the Colony to something like representative Government. The population of the Colony was very rapidly increasing, and in the near future its position, in respect of its neighbour Venezuela, would be an important question. Without representative institutions of some kind, it was impossible to ascertain what were the views and wishes of the people. The question was also of importance with regard to other Colonies which were clamouring for representative government.

said, the hon. Member's description of the Government of British Guiana was not quite correct. The present constitution of British Guiana was practically that established by the Dutch previous to the cession of the country to Great Britain in 1803. It consisted of the Governor the Court of Policy, and Combined Court; there was no Executive Council; the executive functions were exercised by the Governor and the Court of Policy, and the line between what was executive and what was legislative was not sharply drawn. The Court of Policy consisted of five official and five elective members, the latter being indirectly elected. There was a College of Keisers or Electors, consisting, not of five, but of seven persons elected for life by such of the inhabitants as possessed the required property qualification for the franchise; and when a vacancy in the Court of Policy occurred, the Keisers nominated two persons, one of whom was selected by the Court of Policy to fill the vacancy. All legislative matters were dealt with by the Court of Policy, except subjects relating to finance; these were considered by the Combined Court, which consisted of the members of the Court of Policy, together with six financial representatives chosen directly by the same electorate that chose the College of Keisers, but who only hold Office for two years. No change of any kind had been made in the political system since 1849, A Memorial had been addressed to the Government by certain inhabitants, and the general desire of the Memorialists was to obtain such a modification of the qualification for membership of the Court of Policy as would enable those who were not landed proprietors—that was, professional and commercial men—to obtain seats in it. He would say that the subject was engaging the very serious attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford); but, to prevent any possible misunderstanding, he would point out that although there was every disposition to consider the expediency of reforming the representation so as to give more representation to every class than was the case now, Her Majesty's Government had no intention of adopting any such changes as would transfer from the Crown the full control of such questions relating to boundaries, or otherwise, as wore being agitated for at the present time.

said, he never expected that the Crown should abrogate any rights in respect of such questions as that of territorial boundaries. What he urged was that the electorate which now existed, and which was merely nominal, should be made really representative of the people, and that, instead of a single elector in 250 of the population, there should be 1 in 50 or 60, so that the desires of the people should be made known. He pointed out that the reform which the hon. Gentleman referred to—namely, the reduction of the qualification for membership of the College of Electors—was a most worthless reform, inasmuch as it would leave the whole Government in the hands of a small clique of planters, who arranged all matters to suit their own interests, utterly regardless of the wishes of the people. The desire was the extension of the suffrage to the whole body of the population.

said, he had stated that there was every desire to consider the expediency of extending the suffrage, so that all classes should be represented, but that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to allow them to have any voice in the question of boundaries.

said, it was perfectly clear that the present Government of British Guiana was an oligarchy of the narrowest kind, and he trusted that any reform that might take place would not be merely an enlargement of that oligarchy, but that it would be on the basis of popular representation. In Colonies where the Government had conceded popular representation the result had never been anything more than what he called oligarchy on a wider basis—that was to say, the main body of the population of the country was excluded. To give British Guiana a Constitution like that at the Mauritius would do more harm than good. He would also invite the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to give the Committee some information with regard to the burning question of the Chinese in Australia. He knew that this was a delicate subject; but Sir Henry Parkes, and other Australian Ministers, had not treated it in that sense, but had, in fact, attempted to "bounce" us in the matter. He did not wish, at that hour, to prejudge the question; but he said that if the Chinese immigration was prohibited we might under existing Treaties with China get into very great difficulties. What would be the position taken up by this country and the House if the Chinese Government acted in the same way with regard to Europeans entering China, or if they were to put upon them a heavy prohibitive tax? He thought they ought to treat the Chinese in the same way as we insisted on their treating us. He asked the Government to inform the Committee if they were prepared to enforce the law in Australia as well as in Ireland, and see that our Treaties were duly observed? He was far from depreciating the sentimental connection between this country and the Colonies; but it could not be long maintained, unless the latter were prepared, to some extent, to subordinate their wishes to Imperial requirements and interests. He hoped the Government would tell them as much as they could on the present position of that important matter without injury to the public interests.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not think him discourteous if he refrained from repeating the speech which he had delivered half-an-hour ago, and in which, as far as he was able, he had explained the exact position of the question with regard to Chinese immigration into Australia.

asked whether the Papers relating to Cyprus for which he moved some time ago would be presented before the Cyprus Vote was taken? If so, he would not now enter upon the Turkish tribute and other matters, which he would raise on a future occasion.

said, the Papers would be in the hands of Members before the Vote came forward.

asked what was the state of the negotiations with regard to the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela?

said, that was a question within the province of the Foreign Office.

said, he only intended to call attention to one of the many questions which might be raised on this Vote. He would like to have an explanation of the item of £5,000 for agricultural purposes. The items were so set forth in the Vote that it was impossible to understand what assistance was to be given to agriculture under the various heads. He wished to urge upon the Government the great value there would be in having, during hay-making and harvest time, the weather calculations posted up at the post offices, as was, he believed, done in the United States of America.

said, that when the Estimate was prepared, the Committee was just finishing its work. It had not been decided in what form the £5,000 should be applied; but the Government had put the sum of —5,000 into the Estimate, in order to show that it had an earnest intention to do something in the matter. The Committee had made several recommendations; these were considered by the Privy Council Office, and the Privy Council Office communicated with the Government. The matter was now under consideration, and when a decision was arrived at they would be able to appropriate the money in the best way for agriculture generally. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and which was made also last year, he had made inquiry of the Post Office Authorities, who, although they recognized the importance of the question, pointed out that there were many practical difficulties in the way, and he was sorry to be unable to say at present that the proposal could be adopted.

said, he hoped the Government would state what amount of the grant would be given to the different parts of the United Kingdom, and in what way the recommendations of the Committee would be carried out. All that they received in Scotland was £150 a-year in aid of an Agricultural Chair in the University of Edinburgh, and he considered that grant for the purpose of technical education very small. In Scotland they wanted better teachers. The ordinary school teachers who came up with certificates from several Universities were utterly unacquainted with practical agriculture. There were many reasons why they were anxious to hear from the Government in what way this money would be distributed. He was anxious that Scotland should get a larger share than she did at present; and he would urge upon the Government especially that Scotland should be allowed to use her share of the grant as she thought best, and without being hampered with restrictions from a central office in London.

said, the Committee would observe that the Departmental Committee had recommended a great many things. They recommended that grants should be given to elementary schools; that new State-schools should be set up for the purpose of agricultural education; and that grants should be given to secondary and endowed schools. Three distinct courses were suggested. The Government now asked for £5,000 for the purpose of giving effect to such of the recommendations as might be adopted by them, and surely the Committee might ask which of the recommendations they intended to adopt. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) could not give that information—he could only say that communications were going on between the various Departments. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Mark Stewart) in asking how much Scotland was to receive, and for the same reason he would ask how much of the grant would go to England? They were all agreed that it was a good thing to support agricultural education; but there was some difference of opinion as to how it should be supported. He thought that, at all events, they should have some information from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how the Government proposed to allocate the grant.

There is some force, no doubt, in the observations of my hon. Friend that the Committee are entitled to know how this £5,000 is to be distributed. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has stated the circumstances under which this item was inserted in the Estimate. At the time no final scheme had been made, but the Government were anxious to redeem the pledge of assisting agriculture in this matter. We regret that this extremely difficult subject is not in a more advanced condition, and that we are unable to state the manner in which this sum will be expended; but I am sure the Committee will feel that nothing can be worse than to act in a hurried manner, and without taking into consideration all the difficulties of the case. Of course, the Committee can insist upon the postponement of the Vote if they think it desirable to do so. The Government have given their most anxious consideration to the mode in which the money should be spent. The Privy Council have reason to believe that much might be done by the expenditure of £5,000 in the first year, which would cover the cost of grants-in-aid to selected schools in various parts of the country, and the inspection which would be necessary in order to insure proper distribution of the money; and the communication states that if the Commissioners of the Treasury would agree to this arrangement their Lordships would at once frame regulations. The Treasury has not yet agreed, and it is for that reason that we cannot yet state the way in which the money will be allocated. We do not feel in a position to carry cut the recommendations of the Committee that there should be established seven dairy schools in different parts of the country, five for England and two for Scotland, as it is felt that the districts would be too large for the development of that local effort and interest which would be necessary for the full development of the schools. It is, therefore, thought wiser that grants-in-aid should be made to the existing schools which would undertake to give agricultural education. If the Committee will leave it to us to propose a scheme, to be hereafter communicated to Parliament, we will then proceed to elaborate conditions on which the grants will be made; but I think we may undertake, although I have not communicated with the Privy Council on the subject, that no part of the money will be spent until we are able to lay before Parliament the perfect scheme under which the expenditure would take place, and in the prepara- tion of which I can assure the Committee that no time shall be lost.

said, he thought, under the circumstances, the course pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the best to adopt. He would have been much better pleased if a scheme had been submitted by the Government; but as the item was an earnest of their intention to do something to assist agriculture he should vote for it.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he had spoken of agricultural schools, had said nothing about agricultural colleges. He would like to hear that no portion of the money would be used to subsidize Cirencester, or any other agricultural college.

said, he thought, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Vote ought to be postponed until the Government had decided how the money ought to be spent. The Committee must not forget that they were the custodians of the public purse, and that it was no part of their duty to entrust the Government with money before they knew what was to be done with it. To test the question he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an answer to his Question.

It is not proposed that any portion of this £5,000 should be given to any college.

, as a point of Order, asked, was it competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make that Motion, seeing that it was past midnight?

The Motion may be made "on the interruption of Business," and Business would be interrupted at the close of the Division.

gave Notice that on Report of Supply [1st June] on Civil Service Estimates, Class II., Vote 7, Privy Council Office, to move to reduce the Vote by £12,635.