I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the falling off of trade between Cyprus and the United Kingdom since direct postal communication between the two countries has been abandoned, and to the offer of Bell's Asia Minor Steamship Company to provide such communication for a small subsidy; and whether, in view of the importance, for purposes of defence and trade, of maintaining direct steamboat communication between Great Britain and all her Colonies, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of taking steps to revive the contract?

^* : The Government are not prepared to accept the offer made to them by Bell's Asia Minor Steamship Company for a subsidised mail service to Cyrus. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that the trade between England and Cyprus has fallen off since the Company in question ceased to receive a subsidy. It has, in fact, risen from an average of £100,000 a year to an average of £127,000 a year.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) on a previous occasion called attention to the item of £1,000 for the Servants and Refreshment Rooms, and made a charge of sweating in the method of hiring the servants. The Chairman of the Refreshment Committee, in reply, said that it was not in the province of the House of Commons to interfere in the matter. Now, if sweating had been going on, I thought it was the duty of the House to interfere in the matter; and not being able to get a satisfactory reply in that quarter, I ob- tained from the manager the information that the men were employed about three hours a day, and were really better paid than any men of the same class in London. They receive 3s. for an average work of about three hours a day, and they get their dinner as well. The impression has gone abroad that there is sweating here the same as at the docks; but as far as I have been able to procure any evidence, the statement that sweating goes on is not accurate. It is necessary in this House as well as in the docks to employ occasional labour, but I do not find that sweating has ever gone on. At the same time, I think that we ought to have some control over the Refreshment Committee. As we give the Committee £1,000 we ought to have a Report telling us what is done with the money. I do not propose to raise the question this year, but unless I receive a satisfactory explanation I will certainly raise it again another year.

I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100, although I do not desire to take that amount from the Refreshment Committee or the servants. We get very good attendance in the Dining Room, but hon. Members have a strong objection to the waiters congregating in the Court-yard early in the evening, like the dock labourers do when they are seeking work. I should like to see an arrangement made which would prevent the waiters from hanging about looking after work. I wish also to know—first, whether tea and coffee cannot be served to Members at the bar in the Inner Lobby; and, secondly, whether the sale of spirituous liquors at that bar cannot be done away with altogether. I think we ought to begin by setting a good example to the country. I do not go so far as to propose that we should do away with the sale of intoxicating liquors in all parts of the House, but I think we might make a good beginning by doing away with the sale of them in the Inner Lobby. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to spend a large sum to compensate publicans whose interest might be affected by the closing of public houses; but if we close this bar, I am not aware that any compensation will be necessary. If at the bar we could have tea and coffee instead of intoxicating liquors, I believe they would be much preferred by most Members, and we should set a good example to the country. It is all very well to advise the working man to give up intoxicating liquors, but he naturally makes the reply that while we propose to get rid of the poor man's pint of beer, we take no step in the same direction on our own account. If we get rid of our own bar the charge can no longer be made against us; and with a view of bringing about such a change, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Item F, of £10,338, Department of Sergeant at Arms, be reduced by the sum of £100.—( Mr. Morton. )

^* (4.0.) : It strike me that this is bringing local option pretty well home, and I hope the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) will have the courage of his opinions and divide the Committee. A great many hon. Members are local optionists abroad, and I shall be glad to see what steps they will take now that the question has been brought to the door of the House of Commons itself. I heartily thank the hon. Member for giving in a fair and square manner the opportunity of testing these local option professions which I have always held to be worth nothing at all.

^* : I am certainly not prepared to take part in a Debate on the temperance question raised upon this Vote. I may point out, however, that a great many Members of the House would be rather unwilling to sacrifice their arrangements and comforts for the sake of providing an argument in the country for the hon. Member for Peterborough. No doubt the Committee is aware that a considerable number of hon. Members prefer the less stimulating drinks of tea and coffee; but the conveniences for obtaining those beverages are very facile at the present time, and I do not think it is desirable that these things should be sold exclusively at the bar in the Inner Lobby. I am not prepared to take the position of saying that intoxicating liquors should be altogether abolished from the bar. If the hon. Member will reflect, and look back upon the history of the past, I think he will find that a great many illustrious Members of the House have taken considerable advantage of the proximity of this bar when, having to undertake important Parliamentary business, they have been unable to go away to dine. Under these circumstances, I think it would be inconvenient to entirely abolish the sale of intoxicating liquors at the bar in favour of tea and coffee and lemon squash, of which there is, I am told, a very considerable sale already. In reply to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), I may say that the subject of the waiters is engaging the attention of the Kitchen Committee, but I think it is not a question which ought to be discussed across the floor of the House. It is a question of the economic working of the Department; and if the suggestion of the hon. Member is carried out, not only would it involve higher payment and the granting of a larger sum to the Kitchen Committee, but it would also throw out of employment the men who come now in the evening and would result in engaging a different class of men.

Although I do not agree in all respects with all the views expressed by the hon. Member for Peterborough, yet I have considerable sympathy with them. It has long seemed to me that the present position of the bar is, I would not say a scandal, but, at all events, an eyesore. If a stranger is introduced into the Inner Lobby to see the House of Commons, the first things he is saluted with are the popping of corks, the clinking of tumblers, and the drinking of liquids on the part of Members of the House. It is quite necessary that some provision should be made for supplying Members with refreshments in close proximity to the House; but it would, I think, be better in every respect if the accommodation were placed in some position equally accessible as at present, and yet not so openly obtruded upon public observation, and I hope this point will be borne in mind in any re-arrangement. In the meantime, there is one question I would like to ask, and I do so in complete ignorance upon the subject. I would like to know whether the House of Commons has a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors? Those liquors are sold not only to Members of the House, but also to strangers, and I am under the impression that no one has obtained a licence for sale in the House.

As a teetotaler, I will not follow in the protestations which have been made about local option, but I will merely join with the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) in expressing the hope that the hon. Member for Peterborough will press his Motion to a Division. I hold that on the part of many Members the protestations of local option are not only illusory, but are absolutely mendacious, and are merely intended to catch votes.

The practical view of the matter is this: that if a Member wants a "pick-me-up" in a hurry, he can go at once to the bar and get a glass of sherry or whisky, or even a lemon squash, whereas if he wants tea or coffee he has to go three chambers off for it, and to wait a long time and go through various ceremonies before he gets it. I think that the consumption of all these liquids should be put on a more equal footing.

^* : The Refreshment Committee will consider the question of introducing tea and coffee at the bar at their next meeting.

I quite agree with the manifest inconsistency of denouncing other persons for having the privilege of obtaining intoxicating liquors and obtaining it oneself, and I hope the hon. Member for Peterborough will divide the House on the question. I shall not, however, vote with him myself, because I have uniformly denounced the system of depriving others of privileges which I have no intention of surrendering myself, but I hope the Division List will show who are sincere in their belief that the deprivation of personal liberty is a step in the right direction, or, if hon. Members like it better, that it is wise for the House to get rid of a so-called monopoly. In order that the House may show an example of obedience to the law, I would be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury will inform us whether a licence has been duly obtained for the sale of intoxicating liquors in this building, and in whose name it stands?

^* : I accept the challenge which has been thrown out to local optionists in this matter. I shall vote against the Motion, and I shall do so as a local optionist. The question is purely one of local option, and surely hon. Members are able to judge for themselves whether they require intoxicating liquors for refreshment or not, in the House or out of it. I think it should be in the power of every district in the country to say whether they will have the sale of intoxicating liquors or not. It would be an unreasonable thing to prevent persons of grown age, like hon. Members, from getting a glass of sherry or claret at the bar of the House. Personally, I believe I have only had three glasses of intoxicating liquors at the bar since I have been a Member of the House, but I wish to preserve for others that liberty which, to a moderate degree, I have exercised for myself.

^* : I believe the time will come when the House will not permit any intoxicating liquors to be sold within its precincts, and I hope the Motion will be pressed to a Division in order to test the present state of feeling among hon. Members on the question.

I cannot help fearing that if tea and coffee are introduced the clatter of tea spoons and cups and saucers at the bar may lead strangers who come to visit the House to think that hon. Members are a parcel of old women rather than men who are well able to take care of themselves.

I shall certainly, after what has been said by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, divide the Committee. I do not move the Motion in any sense from personal considerations. The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee has told us about eminent Members of the House who have taken advantage of a lull in the Debates to rush into the Lobby, owing to the close proximity of the bar. The hon. Gentleman did not state for what object, but I suppose it was for a "pick-me-up." What I want is to remove that temptation from those who cannot resist it, and to do away with the unfortunate privilege we now enjoy of being able readily to obtain intoxicating liquors. Above all, I want the Members of this House to set a good example to the people of this country, and, therefore, I desire to do away with the sale of intoxicating liquors in the precincts of the House. All I ask is that we should make a good beginning in regard to ourselves, and leave others to do as they like.

I am inclined to think that persons outside, when they read this Debate, will be induced to think that the House of Commons is very much addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has referred to his own convictions upon the subject, and he seeks to remove what he calls "the temptation." Now, I regard the remarks of the hon. Member as an extremely unjust attack on the character of the House of Commons. It is certainly unjust to convey to the outside public the impression that the accommodation of the bar in the Inner Lobby is very much abused, and that this Assembly includes a number of men who are given to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors.

I never intended to make any such charge or insinuation.

I am glad to have drawn that disclaimer from the hon. Member, because the inference to be logically drawn from his remarks was that a certain number of Members of this House are so weak that the proximity of the bar is a great temptation to them, and that, therefore, the bar ought to be removed. Such an inference is most unjust, and although we all know the history of the younger Pitt, yet the present House of Commons is as free from reproach in this respect as any Assembly in the world. My right hon. Friend who spoke from the Front Bench (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) complained that the bar is at present in too public a place, and he suggested that it should be removed to a less conspicuous position. I do not know how far such an arrangement may be practicable. I know quite well that the use of tonics between meals is dangerous, but if I felt that I wanted them I certainly should not be ashamed to take them. But where there is no choice there cannot be much merit, and I shall vote against the Motion with a light heart, believing that the refreshment bar ought to be retained.

I wish to protest against Members catching votes on the hustings with a plea whether in favour of the doctrines of local option or of an Eight Hours Bill, on account of advocating which the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) owes his seat in this House—

Order, order! The hon. Member is now entering into debateable matter which is not relevant to the question before the Committee. He must be aware that, in pursuing such a course, he is committing a gross offence against the Rules of the House.

For the gross offence I will apologise, but I must protest against hon. Members, when the question is brought home to themselves, running away from it, raising specious arguments, and acting entirely contrary to the professions to which many hon. Members on the Benches around me owe their seats.

^* : I am going to vote for this Motion just in the same way that I should vote if local option were the law of the land. I shall vote for the exclusion of intoxicating liquors from the precincts of this building just as I would vote for the same proposition in regard to the street or ward in which I live. I am not taking away any choice from people, but, on the contrary, I am giving a choice to hon. Members to say whether they desire the sale of intoxicating liquors or not. I cannot say that I approve of the unfortunate phrase "local option" in connection with the temperance question. It was introduced some 15 years ago and was never heard of before. I am glad, however, that the matter has been brought to the doors of the House, and that hon. Members are asked to put their opinions to the test.

All I ask is that we in this House should set a good example to the people of this country.

(4.23.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 127.—(Div. List, No. 339.)

Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to stating whether three type writers can be placed in one or two of the rooms for the use of hon. Members?

I will inquire whether that can be done.

Of course, I mean that the Government should provide them.

May I ask who is the officer responsible for checking these accounts?

I believe they are audited by the Speaker.

It is impossible that hon. Members can ascertain how this sum of money is expended, and I think we should have some Return showing how this amount is arrived at. That would be a great deal more satisfactory. At present we are in the dark.

I think the information is already given.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a Return on the Table of the House giving the details?

I will do so.

Vote agreed to.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding. £61,394, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."

Irish and Scotch Votes are mixed up in this Vote, and what I wish to know is whether there are any means of getting rid of the special office for teachers' pensions in Dublin?

It is exceedingly desirable that there should be some explanation of the delay in dealing with the representations as to their pay made by provincial postmen, whose brethren in London are receiving a much higher rate of pay than they get.

I have no special explanation to offer the hon. Member, but I deny that there has been any delay as far as the Treasury is concerned. The question is one of a large character, and will necessarily occupy a long time. I believe, however, an answer has been sent by the Postmaster General, and if that is so the question is practically settled. As to the question of the hon. Member for Caithness, the Teachers' Pension Office has always been a separate Department; and I do not think it desirable to alter the arrangement. Difficult and complicated questions arise from time to time, and it is necessary to maintain the office.

The Treasury has for some time past been a direct clog on the Postmaster General in dealing with postal reforms in Ireland. There is nothing to which my attention is more constantly drawn by persons connected with the Postal Department in Ireland than the difficulty of inducing the Postmaster General to take effective action in regard to reforms involving any financial question. This is due not to the Postmaster General, but to the cheeseparing, niggardly, and contemptuous policy which the Treasury has pursued towards postal reforms in Ireland. I might refer to the difficulties we have experienced in obtaining satisfactory answers with regard to the service of Cross Channel Mail Boats. The Postmaster General made up his mind in the course of the winter on the subject, and the matter came before the Treasury, and only a few days ago we succeeded, by repeated questions and efforts more numerous than ought to have been required, in inducing the Treasury to take satisfactory action in the matter. In County Leitrim the delivery of letters is delayed by 24 hours. The Postmaster General offers for a journey of 28 miles the sum of £20 a year for a mail service during 12 months. I do not think payment should be limited in such a manner, especially considering Ireland's contribution to the Imperial Revenue. The Treasury could well afford to be a little more liberal. There is another matter on which I have lately asked questions, but have been unable to obtain any information. It is as to the revision of the Teachers' Pension Scheme. I asked the First Lord of the Treasury when the revision was likely to be completed. As to the pensions themselves it is a grievous hardship to the teachers that in order to earn the supplemental pension they have to work four years longer than for the ordinary pension. Even if it meant larger payments from their salaries, they would be better satisfied if they could get the whole pension at the end of forty years instead of serving four years more in order to get an additional fraction. I am not aware that the system pursued in Ireland is adopted in any other part of the country. Then there is the question of hospitals. The sum of £17,000 was allocated to the City of Dublin twenty years ago on a basis which does not now obtain, and I ask, in the public interest, that this allocation should be made on a new basis. Why do the Treasury delay it? It is delayed because certain individuals claim to be entitled to compensation, and the Treasury allow personal interests to overbear the public interest, because these individuals will not consent to an arrangement.

That is the subject of a special Vote.

I will not pursue that part of the question. I thought it might come within the scope of the Vote. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present, because I find it my duty to move a reduction of his salary in respect of the financial relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland. The House is generally familiar with the state of things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a specific promise last year. I brought forward in the Debate on that occasion what I considered the scandalous and intolerable grievance which existed in regard to the contributions from Ireland to the Imperial Revenue. If you judge Ireland by any fair test ordinarily taken of the capacity of a country in respect of its taxation, you will find that Ireland is paying double her share to the Imperial Revenue. It is a serious matter when a representative of the Irish people in this House, on a specific argument, lays before the House the fact that Ireland now pays £8,000,000 every year, or, after readjustment, will pay £6,500,000 to the Imperial Treasury, or one-eleventh of the whole—it is scandalous, I say, that such a representative should be told, when his country is paying double what she should do, that a Committee has been promised. But here, at the end of the second Session after that promise, no step forward has been made. Ireland is not in a condi- tion to go on year after year bearing this unjust burden, without any attempt being made to inquire whether the burden is just or unjust. The proposal to appoint the Committee to inquire into the finances of Ireland in relation to England was put down to come on after midnight, when the objection of a single Member could stop any progress being made with the proposal. A Welsh Member did object, and the result of it was that the Committee was not appointed, and an important question like the finances of Ireland is left in the background. It was only once that the Committee met last season—that was only for half-an-hour—when the Committee directed that certain Returns should be prepared. That is all that was done last year. One would have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have put down the proposal for the appointment of the Committee at a time when there would have been a chance of discussing the proposal. But excuses have been made that some Members of last year's Committee were absent through illness, while one or two of the Irish Members serving on it were in prison. Here we are at the end of the second Session without anything whatever being done. I am prepared to advance proofs to the Committee that Ireland is paying £3,000,000 more to the Imperial Revenue than she ought to pay, and yet the Committee which should inquire into such an important question is allowed to run on from year to year without doing anything in a matter that is both pressing and urgent. The Finance Minister, whose duty it is, has never submitted a Motion for the re-appointment of the Committee at a time when the matter could be fully and fairly discussed. This is a peculiar and strange state of affairs after 90 years of Union, that when a question about Irish finances is asked the Finance Minister has to go and consult some clerk up the street as to what proportion Ireland is contributing to the Imperial Revenue. It is in this way that we have procrastination and delay in reference to all Irish questions, and by way of protest against the injury and insult offered to Irish interests, I shall move that the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer be reduced by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Item A, of £51,174, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £1,000, part of the Salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."—( Mr. Sexton. )

The hon. Member for West Belfast has called attention to a very great grievance, namely, the manner in which the appointment of this Committee has been put off. I find that it has not been appointed this year, and that is an act of negligence on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The manner in which he is treating Ireland is extremely harsh. This is a substantial grievance. Two sums of money are being allotted to Ireland on a financial basis which is most detrimental to Ireland. One has reference to assistance under the Poor Law, and £30,000 or £40,000 a year is being kept off Ireland because the clerks at the Treasury have taken a totally erroneous view of the financial relations of Ireland and England, which erroneous view the appointment of the Committee would dispel. The other is the grant under the Education Bill, and we are to get £30,000 less than we would get if it were known that we contribute equally in proportion with England to the Imperial Revenue. Now, until the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to get this Committee appointed, I think he ought to adopt the rough-and-ready guide in allotting this money of the amount of revenue collected in each country. That is a request based on simple practice, and one which we would accept pending the thorough examination of the whole question. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proceeded in his calculation upon a totally wrong basis. Clerks or subordinates, it is well known, can, if they think their superiors desire that the Return should be in a certain direction, give it the leaning required. I do not say that they falsify the figures; but they can give it a leaning. The first Return on this matter was favourable to Ireland; but every Return issued since has been more and more against that country. I maintain that until the Committee has sat and reported, the only fair principle to adopt is to take the amount of revenue collected in each country.

^* : I support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, because it is a question which affects Scotland as well as Ireland. The principle of 11 per cent. to Scotland, 9 per cent. to Ireland, and the remainder to England was adopted three years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a basis which he has never yet explained to us. We contend that it is not a reasonable basis, yet the precedent is allowed to grow in the allocation of these moneys from year to year. And we shall find it more and more difficult year after year to urge our case upon the House for a re-consideration of the method of allocation of the shares of Ireland and Scotland. Undoubtedly, there was only one substantial question raised in connection with the appointment of the Committee, namely, whether Wales should be separately treated, and if half an evening had been devoted to the subject, the Government might have got the Committee elected three months ago. I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member for West Belfast.

I think my hon. Friend is entirely justified in all he has said on this subject. The question is one of fundamental importance to Ireland; it is whether she is paying an undue proportion of the Imperial taxation, and I cannot understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury can reconcile their neglect of this subject with their duties to Ireland. The question is essentially urgent in its character. My hon. Friend believes that Ireland is paying £3,000,000 more every year towards the Imperial taxation than she ought to pay, and the dispute should be investigated promptly. No doubt we shall be told that the failure to appoint the Committee is due to the action of hon. Members from Wales, but my reply to that is that the Government are under a pledge to appoint the Committee and ought to have done so. Does not the Secretary to the Treasury think the question whether Ireland is being made to pay an excessive amount of taxation is worth two or three hours of the time of this House? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are apt to paint the condition of Ireland in very rosy colours, but the last Census Returns tell a tale of a very different nature, for alone among the dominions of this Empire has its population seriously diminished. That is not surprising, seeing how unfairly Ireland is taxed, and unless a change is soon brought about we shall lose another million of the population in the next decade. I hope we shall get a distinct and definite pledge from the Government that this Committee will be appointed very early next year. They have often protested their desire to benefit the Irish people, and though I have no wish to call in question their sincerity, I say they can now prove whether or not they intend to act fairly towards Ireland in this matter of taxation.

I quite agree that this is a matter of very great importance, and I regret very much that the Committee has not been appointed. I think the subject is of equal importance to Scotland. But the question arises as to whether the delay that has occurred is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think it is. In my opinion it is due to the action of certain hon. Members from Wales in seeking to have the inquiry extended to the case of Wales. I will, however, join with hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken in urging that the matter shall be taken up at the earliest opportunity next Session.

The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to think that the United Kingdom is only composed of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and to forget that Wales may have a desire to see this Committee appointed. He complains that owing to our opposition the Committee has not been elected. But we have told the Chancellor of the Exchequer over and over again that we will not oppose the appointment if the Committee is made complete, and if its investigation is allowed to extend to all parts of the United Kingdom. I think it would be very easy to show that Wales is contributing more to Imperial taxation than her resources justify. The Chancellor of the Exchequer offered to bring on the Motion for the appointment of the Committee one evening if we would content ourselves with merely dividing the House. But what we want is a reasonable discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken if he thinks we will agree simply to be voted down. A mere Division would be perfectly useless. I do not think we ought to be accused of obstructive tactics simply because we desire to have a discussion on the advisability of including Wales in this inquiry. When the Committee was first proposed, there was not a single Welsh Member among the hon. Gentlemen nominated, and it was not until we raised a protest that the name of the hon. Member for Montgomery appeared in the list. We shall continue to object to the appointment of this Committee until our reasonable desires are met by the Government.

I do not think that the hon. Member for West Belfast has treated either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury with justice. He has complained seriously of the action of the Treasury in connection with the delay in the completion of the arrangements for a mail service viâ Stranraer. I am quite prepared to defend the action of the Treasury in that matter. It would have been a monstrous waste of public money if the Treasury had not resisted the exorbitant demands that were made for such a service. The result of the resistance of the Treasury has been that a contract has been made for about half the money that was at first demanded. That alone affords ample justification for the action of the Treasury. I may further point out that this is a question for the Post Office. The Treasury can only deal with such matters on the recommendation of the Post Office. The hon. Member for West Belfast has spoken of the cheeseparing policy of the Government with regard to Ireland. For my own part all I can say is that I am quite sure that the hon. Member cannot carry his mind back to a period in the history of this country when any Government or Chancellor of the Exchequer or Treasury has endeavoured to do more for Ireland than has been done by the present Government, and I think that the charge hardly comes with a good grace.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my interruption. My contention is that Ireland is obliged to pay £3,000,000 too much, and as long as that is done I decline to be thankful for doles of an infinitely less amount.

Gratitude from the hon. Member is more than I either anticipate or desire, but I must say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been most anxious to have t his Committee appointed. I believe that the hon. Member, who contends that Ireland pays too much, will be convinced when he sees the figures that she is doing nothing of the kind. It was understood that it is rather for the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland that the Committee should not meet early in the Session. With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire that there was no Welsh Member proposed, that was not the fault of the Government, who were anxious that every part of the House should be represented. With regard to treating Wales separately, I may point out that there are no figures available for this purpose, and the proposal is impracticable. The information collected will be at once circulated, and I hope that the earliest opportunity will be taken next Session for moving the appointment of the Committee.

When the Committee was proposed last year five of the Members nominated were representatives of London constituencies, and I opposed the Motion because the Principality of Wales was unrepresented. The Committee sat once last year, and it was understood that it would meet again early this Session, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was questioned about it he pleaded that he was too busy with his Budget. Since then the Committee has not been appointed, simply because the Government by not bringing it on before midnight refused to allow the question of the inclusion of Wales in the inquiry to be threshed out. That is not the way to disabuse our minds of the impression that in the matter of taxation we are being defrauded, and if the Government wish to convince us of their desire to treat all parts of the United Kingdom fairly they will move the appointment of this Committee early to-morrow, and allow it to get to work this Session. Seeing that the Scotch as well as the Irish Members are dissatisfied, something ought quickly to be done to clear up any doubts that exist. If Ireland has cause for complaint I think that Scotland has still greater reason, for a Return published some years ago showed that the Scotch people paid 2s. more per head of taxation than the English, and 12s. more than the Irish.

^* (5.27.) : This is a statistical question, which ought to be taken into consideration altogether outside Party politics. While no one can dispute the importance of the question with which this Committee will have to deal, it is a most difficult and perplexing one, upon which there must be a large mass of evidence to consider which has never been fully considered by a Committee of the House. It once fell to my lot to have to consider the financial relations of the different parts of the United Kingdom. I will ask hon. Members to reserve their opinions on both sides of the question until they see the figures. It seems to me that there has been a great misunderstanding about the Committee this year; the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have got the impression that there is no anxiety on this side of the House with regard to it. For my own part, I have always been most anxious for its appointment. With regard to what has been said about the claim of Wales, on that point also I will reserve my opinion. I have not seen the documents which have been circulated, but they will require a great deal of consideration, and, therefore, even if the Committee were appointed to-morrow, it would be impossible to deal with the question before the end of the Session. Therefore, I suggest that my hon. Friends below the Gangway should rest content with the promise—first, that the information shall be at once circulated to hon. Members; and, secondly, that the Committee shall be appointed at the commencement of next Session.

Did the right hon. Gentleman notice that the right hon. Gentleman opposite carefully abstained from saying he would put the Motion down as the first Order, and thus prevent the operation of the 12 o'clock Rule in respect of it?

^* : I understood the First Lord to say that the Committee will be appointed at the commencement of next Session. It is quite evident the Government will take the Motion before 12 o'clock.

^* (5.31.) : I should like to repeat that we will take the earliest opportunity next Session of moving the appointment of this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has very fairly observed that a misunderstanding has existed as to the desire for the appointment of the Committee at an early period of this Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was of opinion that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway did not desire the Committee to be appointed early in the Session. He perhaps failed to gather the real opinion of hon. Members, but that was his belief; and, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, circumstances intervened which made it difficult to proceed with the Motion which had been placed on the Paper. It is the intention of the Government to circulate the Papers with the least possible delay. The Secretary to the Treasury will move tonight for the Papers. The most recent information has been incorporated in the Papers. So that when hon. Gentlemen come at the earliest part of next Session to the consideration of this difficult question they will find themselves possessed of the latest and most authentic information. I trust the Papers will completely set at rest those doubts and difficulties which I believe are honestly entertained by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.

We have our own opinions, and they are sufficient for us for the present. I hope the pledges given will be kept. My experience, I confess, makes me rather sceptical. Meanwhile, I think it is necessary, as a measure of precaution, to put on record by a Division our sense of the treatment we have received.

I think Her Majesty's Government have failed to make even a decent excuse for the non-appointment of this Committee. After what passed last year we had every reason to suppose that the Committee would be one of the first appointed this Session. I do not know how Ireland and Wales will come out of the inquiry, but I am confident Scotland will come out well. As to the Papers, I fear they will not present a fair view of the question. Unless they show the receipts of the common Metropolis they will not afford material for a fair investigation.

We are told to possess our souls in patience, but we in Ireland are paying £60,000 for putting the question off until next year. £30,000 at the least is to be stopped for poors rates, and I am told that £30,000 is to be stopped for free education. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is allotting this money unfairly. The question I am anxious to put to the Secretary to the Treasury is whether, with the allotment of this money, Ireland receives credit for the whole of the taxation collected in Ireland? Are the taxes collected in Ireland credited to Ireland when the grants from the Exchequer are allotted for education and in relief of the poors rates?

The greatest pains have been taken to obtain accurate information as to what the contribution of each country is. The contribution from spirits, for example, is ascertained by ascertaining the consumption.

Then are we to understand that Ireland gets a less share than she would if all the taxation collected in Ireland were credited to her?

No; I cannot say that.

I want a clear answer. Would Ireland get a large share if all the taxation collected in Ireland were credited to her?

I think if Ireland were credited with all the taxation on all the whisky drunk by Englishmen she would certainly net a larger share.

I cannot get a straightforward answer. I do not want Ireland to be credited with the taxation on all the whisky drunk by Englishmen, but I do want her to be credited with the taxation on whisky which is collected in Ireland. I want the Secretary to the Treasury to tell us whether she would get a larger sum if she got credited with all that taxation.

I am afraid I cannot answer that.

^* (5.43.) : I think that on examination the hon. and gallant Gentleman must see that his proposition is a most extraordinary one. The people who pay the taxation on Guinness's stout or on Irish whisky are the people who drink it, and many of them live in England and Scotland. The taxation is collected in Ireland, but surely Ireland is not entitled to be credited with it? With reference to his proposition to divide the Committee, I beg the hon. Member for West Belfast to look at the difficulty in which we are now placed by the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says he means by his vote to record his dissatisfaction at the present allocation of taxation between the three countries. That is the very question into which the Committee is to inquire.

This is not a trivial matter; it is not a question of any error of judgment or of misapprehension. Months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew we wanted the Committee. As to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, I presume he will vote with me in order to express his discontent that he has not been afforded any opportunity of ascertaining whether his dissatisfaction is well founded.

Will the Secretary to the Treasury promise that the Papers shall be in the hands of Members before the Prorogation, so that if we think they are not sufficiently full and distinct we may have an opportunity of asking for more?

I desire to say that I have no wish to disturb the hon. Member's (Mr. Sexton's) idea as to the object of my vote.

The right hon. Gentleman has blamed the Welsh Members for the non-appointment of the Committee, but why should he refuse to admit Wales within the province of the inquiry? If he would do that then the Resolution for the re-appointment of the Committee might be carried without any discussion at all. The Secretary to the Treasury says there are no figures at hand from which the contribution of Wales to the Exchequer could be ascertained; but could not the Treasury ascertain through the Revenue Officers the contribution of each particular county to the Imperial Revenue?

It is quite impossible. The question has been asked more than once, and the Inland Revenue have always pointed out it is quite impossible.

If there is a difficulty, amounting to an impossibility, in ascertaining the exact amount of the contributions of Wales to the Exchequer, then it would be demonstrated to the Committee, and the Committee would report the impossibility.

(5.50.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 154.—(Div. List, No. 340.)

Original Question again proposed.

I desire to call attention to the item for the Statute Law Committee, and the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury a night or two ago. It will be recollected there is a Bill before the House for Statute Law revision, and this Bill has been through the House of Lords. This Bill has been drawn on the lines of previous Bills dealing with the same subject passed during the past 25 years, except that on the present occasion the Bill is drawn in accordance with the view expressed in the Report of the Select Committee of last Session. But the First Lord of the Treasury has resolved that only part of the Bill shall be relegated to the Select Committee, under circumstances which I think are not respectful to the House, considering what transpired last Session in regard to Statute Law revision—

That is not a subject for consideration upon this Vote. The Committee itself has nothing to do with it.

I shall move a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £200, which is the amount in excess of the Vote of last year, as a protest against the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Item G, of £1,115, revision of the statute law, be reduced by £200."—( Mr. Howell. )

^* (6.0.) ; I do not know whether I should be in order in replying to the speech with which the hon. Member prefaced his Motion for the reduction of the Vote. I see you shake your head, Sir, so I am placed in a little difficulty. But perhaps, by the indulgence of the Committee, I may be allowed to say that the action which I took in this matter was taken upon my responsibility in the position which I occupy, bound as I am to consider any objection raised. I referred the matter to the Statute Law Revision Committee, who, I am glad to say, entered into it with impartiality, and with that sincere desire for the public interest which they have always shown, and the result is that the present arrangements were entered into at their suggestion.

I wish it to be understood that I have no objection to urge to the Statute Law Committee, who, I believe, do their work in an admirable manner. Nobody can be more conscious of that than I am, yet I do feel that a protest should be made against the way in which the Bill has been handled.

I have no doubt that as regards England very useful work is done; but Scotch Statutes are not dealt with, or at least I was under the impression that Scotch Statutes were not to be dealt with; but I find an item in the Vote (£52 for draftsmen) employed in expurgating Scotch and Irish Statutes. Are we to understand that this work of expurgating Scotch and Irish Statutes is with a view to the editing and revision of those Statutes, and how is it that only this small sum, about equal to the wages of an unskilled artizan, is spent on it?

The Statute Law Revision Committee have been directed to deal with Imperial Statutes only, and therefore they have not dealt with the Scotch Statutes. In dealing with Imperial Statutes it has been necessary, in relation to parts of such Statutes as refer to Scotland and Ireland, to consult other Departments—the Lord Advocate's as representing Scotland, and the Attorney General for Ireland's as representing Ireland; but we only deal with Imperial Statutes.

Have the pre. Union Statutes been revised at all?

Pre-Union Statutes have been revised at a time now long passed, and we are dealing with much later Statutes.

But the Scotch Statutes have not been dealt with.

It is not my intention to press my protest to a Division, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw my Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

To emphasise my complaint against the Treasury, I beg to move a reduction in the Vote for the salary of the Secretary by £100—

That item has been passed over.

The complaint I have is, that the dilatory action of the Treasury hinders the work of other Departments.

Under this Vote are included—and this was not the case formerly—the expenses of the Suez Canal Company Directors, and questions in relation to the Suez Canal must be raised now or not at all. I have been in the habit of moving a reduction in the amount in respect of the payments to Sir Rivers Wilson, to whom more than any other man I attribute our troubles in Egypt. But I take the opportunity now of asking for some information in respect of the Canal. We at one time heard a great deal about widening and improving the Canal, though we have not heard much in this direction in recent years. There has been improvement, I believe, in lighting. But I should like to hear what is being done, or is in contemplation. I do not know if the Secretary to the Treasury is able to give us any information.

At the same time, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman can givens some explanation of the entries for British Directors. I notice there is an entry "Resident Director," and no salary is attached; but there is a note to the effect that the Resident Director is allowed to retain his fees and emoluments in lieu of salary and pension on condition that if his fees and emoluments fall below £1,000 during any one year then Parliament shall be asked to vote the deficiency. What is meant by "fees and emoluments"? what does he get these fees for?

Well, I should have thought the hon. Member would have understood that when a man is Director of a company he does sometimes get fees and emoluments for attending to the business of the company. This is what is meant: There are fees and emoluments, and the arrangement made is an economical one. I believe we pay a certain fixed salary to the Directors (non-resident), and the fees and emoluments are paid into the Exchequer. The result is, we receive a good deal more than we pay, and the directorate does not cost us anything.

Then the two non-Resident Directors at £450 and £500 do not receive any fees and emoluments?

No.

But the Resident Director does, and why, if in the one case it is a wise and an economical course to pay salary, is that course not followed in the other case?

For the simple reason that the Director is allowed to take the fees and emoluments. The excess of these over salary is paid into the Exchequer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman right in this? Does the excess go into the Exchequer? The note says—

"The Resident Director is allowed to retain his fees and emoluments in lieu of salary and pension on condition that if his fees and emoluments fell below £1,000 during any one year Parliament shall be asked to vote the deficiency."

There is not a word about the excess over £1,000 being paid into the Exchequer.

Am I to understand that the fees and emoluments amounted to exactly £1,000 last year?

I cannot say.

Well, but somebody has the information. The right hon. Gentleman says if the fees exceed £1,000 the balance goes to the Treasury, and I should like to know if the amount has been paid into the Treasury. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the information now perhaps he will allow the Vote to be postponed. [ Laughter. ] It is very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh, but right hon. Gentlemen hold their position on that Bench for the purpose of giving us information to enable us to consider these Estimates, and, failing such information, it is not unreasonable to ask for the postponement of a Vote.

There is some misunderstanding about the question and answer. I was referring to the Directors who received a fixed salary, and whose fees and emoluments go into the Exchequer. The Resident Director has no salary, and receives the fees whatever they may be.

Who is the Resident Director, and can the right hon. Gentleman say what is doing in reference to widening and improving the Canal?

I think—but I am not quite sure—that at present the Director is Mr. Austin Lee.

Then we are to understand that if the fees and emoluments exceed £1,000 the excess is not paid into the Treasury by the Resident Director?

Quite so; but he does not get any salary.

Then there is an item of £385 for travelling and incidental expenses. Does that money go to the Directors? It is not quite clear who gets it. Also I would ask what the "Receiver of Hereditary Revenue" does for his £300. There is also an allowance to the same official of £145 for office expenses. It is admitted that it is a bad practice to make such payments without any statement as to how the money is used. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information upon these points?

I believe the travelling and incidental expenses were actually payments out of pocket. As to the Receiver of Hereditary Revenue it is an office which, in all probability on the next vacancy occurring, will be abolished.

Question put, and agreed to.

3. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £65,385 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."

^* (6.14.) : In putting down my notice of Motion to reduce the Vote by £100, of course I have no intention of making an onslaught upon the salary of the right hon. Gentleman. I adopt the usual form for the purpose of bringing before the Committee a matter of vital interest to many of my constituents, and which is of general importance, namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman has not violated the provisions of his own Act of Parliament by appointing as an Assistant Inspector of Welsh coal mines a gentleman who cannot speak a word of the Welsh language. The district to which this appointment is made comprises, I may say, the whole of the North Wales coal fields. It takes in also part of Lancashire, and is called the West Liverpool District. Taking the figures from the Report of Inspector Hall, I find the total number of miners in the district is 50,796, of whom more than 12,000 are in the Welsh part of the district. There are no official statistics which show what proportion of these 12,000 Welsh miners speak Welsh; but, speaking from my own intimate knowledge of the country, I should say you would not be above the mark in putting it down at 10,000, and in estimating that several thousands, at least, among them speak nothing but Welsh. The 39th section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, places the appointment of Inspectors in the hands of the Home Secretary, but provides that in Wales and Monmouthshire, among candidates, equally qualified persons having knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred. I take that to mean that where you have a first-rate man who can speak Welsh he should be preferred to a man who cannot. Amongst his duties the Inspector has to examine into and make inquiry respecting the state and condition of any mine, the ventilation, and all matters relating to the conduct of the mine. When an Inspector goes down a mine he meets, perhaps, 20 or 30 persons whom he has to examine, and the only person, as far as I can discover, who acts as interpreter between him and the colliers is the very man whose conduct is in question—that is to say, the manager. I have received several letters from men speaking of the extremely unsatisfactory condition of affairs to which this leads on. I am not astonished to find from the able Report of Mr. Hall that that gentleman complains of the extreme paucity of convictions. It is not surprising that there should be few convictions if the evidence has to filter through the lips of the man who would be liable if the accusation were made good. I have, unfortunately, mislaid a letter from Mr. Richard Jones, the Secretary of the North Wales Miners' Federation; but I may say that Mr. Jones specially traversed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that when the office of Inspector was filled by a gentleman who did not understand Welsh the work of inspection proceeded in a satisfactory manner. The new Inspector, Mr. Stokes, is a man against whom I have no complaint, except that he does not speak a single word of Welsh. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have availed himself of the opportunity afforded by the vacancy in this district to appoint one person who was conversant with the Welsh language. I know, as a matter of fact, that there were among the candidates properly qualified gentlemen who speak Welsh. In particular, there was one who is the manager of one of the largest and most successful mines in North Wales. Yet the right hon. Gentleman appointed a gentleman from Leicester who is unable to speak a word of Welsh. The appointment is in direct contravention of the assurances given to us by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to South Wales on the 21st April. The right hon. Gentleman stated on the 1st of June, in reply to a question I put to him, that Mr. Stokes had the best qualifications of 28 selected candidates, among whom were several who could speak Welsh, including one whom he has since appointed to the South Wales district. That is a distinct admission that there were applicants eminently qualified in other respects who also knew Welsh. The appointment has given rise to a great amount of irritation in the district. The right hon. Gentleman said the district was only partly in Wales. I cannot conceive that that is put forward as a serious argument, because, if so, the effect would be to deprive North Wales entirely of the benefit of the proviso. I think the right hon. Gentleman said, also, that the duties of Inspector had been satisfactorily discharged by gentlemen who could not speak any Welsh. I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I am told, as I have already said, that the reverse is the case. The duties cannot be satisfactorily carried out if the Inspector derives all his knowledge of the facts from a man who is himself liable to a penalty if anything wrong has occurred. I have brought the question forward as a matter of public duty; and I cannot help thinking that, apart from its great importance to my own constituency, it also raises a grave constitutional question. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give some more satisfactory explanation of the course he has adopted, I shall feel it my duty to divide on the question.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £28,587, Salaries, be reduced by £100 (part of the Salary of the Secretary of State.")—( Mr. G. Osborne Morgan. )

^* (6.31.) : The right hon. Gentleman challenges my exercise of my patronage; but when he says I have violated the Act of Parliament, I must point out that he studiously refrained from stating the real point of all my answers to him. The substance of those answers has been that I regarded Mr. Stokes, who was appointed, as far and away the best qualified candidate. I explained to the right hon. Gentleman the enormous pains I took, as I do in every case of the kind, to get the best man. There were, in the first instance, more than 300 candidates, amongst whom was a protégé of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The chief recommendation of that gentleman was that he spoke Welsh, but his name could not be included in the list of those who were selected.

^* : What testimonials had he?

^* : If the right hon. Gentleman saw as many testimonials as I do, he would be astonished to find how many admirable qualities are attributed to candidates. In this case I laboured through the long list of names, and made inquiries from those best able to judge, until the candidates were ultimately winnowed down to 28. But Mr. Stokes, who shortly before had been placed second in an examination which was held on the occasion of another vacancy which had occurred, appeared to me to possess superior claims. I should have preferred even for this Liverpool appointment a man who spoke Welsh, but the qualifications of Mr. Stokes seemed to me to be so much superior to those of the other candidates that the section did not seem to me to apply at all. I thought that Mr. Stokes, having distinguished himself so much in the examination and having subjected himself to all the trouble and expense of the examination, was entitled to the appointment. The Liverpool district has always been regarded as an English district. The tonnage produced in the Welsh portion of the district is 12,000 out of 60,000, or one-fifth of the whole, and the number of colliers is about one-fifth. The district has always been administered by English-speaking Inspectors. Neither Mr. Hall nor Mr. Hedley had any tincture of Welsh upon them, and I am bound to say that no report has ever reached me to the effect that any inconvenience ever arose in the district from the want of a knowledge of Welsh on the part of the Inspectors. I am given to understand that they generally found some foreman or superior workman who knew sufficient English to state the grievances of his fellow-workmen. Mr. Stokes has quite ability enough to acquire the Welsh language, which I should certainly encourage him to do, if he gives his mind to it.

I am rather sorry that it is necessary to call in question the appointment of such an able man as Mr. Stokes. Still, it is not a question of tonnage with us, but a question of men. We have in this part of Wales 12,000 men, at least 50 per cent. of whom are Welshmen, and—I am sorry to have to admit it—Welshmen that understand no other language than the Welsh language. Inspection, so far as its reality is concerned, is consequently lost in the district if you send there an Inspector, however able he may be technically, who cannot converse with the workmen in their own language No one can be more grateful to the right hon. Gentleman than I for the clause he put into the Act relating to the appointment in South Wales—which clause he has most faithfully carried out. I only wish I could have said the same thing with regard to the appointment we are now discussing. As a practical miner, I have seen Inspectors making inquiries in mines where accidents have occurred. I have known them obliged to go for information to men who did not understand a word they said to them. They had to fall back upon the officials of the mine, and I solemnly declare here that such an examination into the facts of an accident might just as well never be made. The Inspector in such cases is quite in the hands of the persons whose character and conduct he is inquiring into. I am sure there is no one in the House more anxious to see the work of inspection done thoroughly than the right hon. Gentleman himself, otherwise he would not have done so much as he has done for us already. I should like to hear from him whether he does not think there is a call for something to be done to remedy the present condition of affairs. We know that amongst the candidates for the appointment of Inspector there were several colliery managers who have obtained certificates of competency for the mangement of mines. If they can obtain such certificates and can do their work to the satisfaction of their employers, surely they can do the work of inspection, and do it well. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman two ways out of the present difficulty. In the first place, I would suggest that North Wales should be attached to South Wales, so that the same Inspectors should be employed for both parts of the Principality. That would be the best thing to do, but if there are great difficulties in the way, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman directly a vacancy takes place in England to remove Mr. Stokes there and appoint in his place the best Welsh-speaking candidate, so that in Wales we may have inspection carried out in reality. If the right hon. Gentleman assents to either of these courses I do not think we can ask him to do more.

I join with my hon. Friend in his suggestion to the Home Secretary that those parts of Flintshire and Denbighshire where there are miners should be added to the South Wales District and taken from the English District. I know a good deal about the work in collieries, and I have come to the conclusion that it is of vital importance to the Inspectors where the colliers speak Welsh that they should be Welshmen having a knowledge of the language themselves. The men are unable to make complaints in any other than their own language, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that it is absurd to suppose that the men can go to an overman or foreman, and ask him to make complaints to an Inspector, for the reason that it is very frequently in consequence of the negligence of these officials that complaints have to be made at all. However able an Inspector may be, and whatever competitive examination he may have passed, it is impossible for him to find out defects in a mine if he does not understand the language of the miners. The Home Secretary told us that he had passed the candidates through a competitive examination. Well, he must have known from the very moment that the examination was entered into that if it was conducted in English it was ten thousand chances to one that an Englishman would win. If it had been conducted in Welsh, I have no hesitation in saying that a Welshman would have been at the head of it. I venture to say that you do not want as an Inspector a man who can distinguish himself at a competitive examination, but a man who lies been in a mine and who has had experience underground. The Act of Parliament says that in making the appointments in Wales and Monmouthshire amongst candidates equally qualified, the person having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred. Well, I do not say anything against Mr. Stokes, whom I have heard on all hands is an exceedingly able man, and well fitted to be an Inspector, where he understands the language of the people amongst whom he goes; but clearly he is an Inspector of mines "in Wales and Monmouthshire." The Act says "otherwise equally qualified," and the intention of the Legislature must have been this—that where you have two men both of them fit to be Inspectors, one able to speak Welsh and the other unable to do so, even though the latter may be the better qualified—the Welsh-speaking man is the one to be appointed. The Home Secretary has not said that there was not a properly qualified Welsh-speaking person amongst the 28 candidates from whom the selection was made. If there was, I submit that under the circumstances he ought to have been appointed, and not Mr. Stokes, however able that gentleman may be. That is a matter of importance, not to Welshmen especially, but to the whole of this country, because the lives of the colliers are endangered if they cannot make complaints to the man who has charge of their safety. I trust that what has been suggested by my hon. Friend will be acceded to, and that in future we shall have Welsh-speaking Inspectors taking care of the lives of all Welshmen engaged in collieries.

I would urge on the Home Secretary the vast importance of this question. I am perfectly convinced that if it be true that 50 per cent. of the men engaged in North Wales speak only the Welsh tongue, and if the Inspector is required to find out from them what the real facts of any particular accident are, it is necessary that he should speak the Welsh language. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had had any experience in mining he would see the immense importance of this question. I, myself, have occasionally found very great difficulty in ascertaining the actual facts of a case, because I have not under stood the particular dialect of an English miner. The miners sometimes use expressions which, unless you have lived your life amongst them, are very difficult to understand. If we find that to be the case in England, how much more must an Englishman find it to be the case amongst the Welsh miners, who do not speak English. I do, therefore, moss sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will consider the propriety of adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member below the Gangway, and, without putting any slur upon Mr. Stokes, whom I know to be one of the ablest gentlemen in the public service in connection with mining, will take some opportunity which may present itself before long of removing that gentleman to another district, and replacing him by a gentleman who is fully conversant with the Welsh tongue.

^* (6.56.) : As a Member for a Welsh county containing a large, number of miners, I wish to heartily support all that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). A very strong feeling exists on this subject, and grave dissatisfaction will prevail unless means are taken to remedy what is a real grievance. I think the suggestion thrown suggestion out by the Member for Rhondda is a good one, namely, that North and South Wales should be formed into one district. We all see that the present system of dealing with the matter is unsatisfactory, and I cannot see why Wales should not be dealt with separately. If we can get an assurance that as soon as an opportunity occurs steps will be taken in that direction on this side of the House, we shall receive the proposition with satisfaction.

I think it must be patent to every one that the duty of the Home Secretary in appointing an Inspector was to select the best man, and this he did, although he had to pass over a protégé of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire. We have been told that in the Liverpool district there are 38,000 English miners and 12,000 Welsh miners, half of whom are entirely Welsh-speaking. I fail to see why an inferior man should be appointed for the sake of the few Welsh-speaking miners, it might be to the serious detriment of all the rest. It seems to me that the best course was that adopted by the Home Secretary, namely, to give the appointment to the best man, especially as the protégé of the right hon. Gentleman below me was not in the 28 selected candidates.

^* (6.59.) : The man to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary referred was no protégé of mine. I know this of him, that he is the manager of one of the largest mines in North Wales, and has under him 600 or 700 men. I, of course, know nothing about the competitive examination—whether or not this gentleman was amongst the 28 selected candidates. But on the 4th of June the right hon. Gentleman said that 28 candidates were selected, and that of those several were acquainted with the Welsh language, including a gentleman whom he had nominated to a vacancy that had occurred at the same time in South Wales. I would point out that if you appoint an Inspector who does not understand the language he has to collect the evidence from the workmen, and he is the very man whose conduct is impugned. I ask if that is a fair state of things? I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider the question?

Certainly. Mr. Courtney, I will undertake to consider the question, but I may say that I am informed that an Inspector in South Wales would be of no use in North Wales. ["Oh!"] I am not sure of that; but I am told that a Welsh-speaking Inspector in South Wales would be of no use in North Wales. ["No!"] At all events, I undertake to consider the question.

^* : I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that nearly the whole of the clergy in North Wales are South Wales men.

We are very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to consider the question, and I hope he will give it early consideration. I represent a constituency which comprises a large number of miners who do not speak English, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they feel this matter as a real grievance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's answer is not a convenient one to shelve the question in order to get through the other Votes of Supply, but that he will really give the matter his early consideration. As to the other question, it is a pity we have to enter into questions of this kind; still I venture to say that it would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman paid less attention to competitive examinations, and chosen one of those 58 men who were perfectly competent to discharge the duties. It is very difficult to carry measures of justice to our countrymen in this House. An hon. Member on this side said the Welsh people do not appreciate the nice distinctions of the English language, but he spoke in ignorance of the fact that the Welsh people are as great linguists as even the Anglo-Saxons themselves. There is no difficulty about being understood in either North or South Wales, which might easily be made one district under one Inspector. If there be any difficulty, it is experienced by Englishmen in endeavouring to acquire the Welsh language. I am told that the Bishop of St. David's preaches in Welsh, but that it is difficult to understand a word he says. The right hon. Gentleman should either re-arrange the districts, or make another appointment.

I wish simply to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if Mr. Stokes were removed, he would take into consideration the applications of managers who hold first-class certificates, and who can speak both English and Welsh?

I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he has given us, and I hope that of the two alternatives he will adopt the former, namely, that of making Wales one district by joining North and South Wales. I am quite sure that with his sense of fairness he will concede that it is much better that Wales should have Welsh-speaking Inspectors. An hon. Member on this side has spoken superciliously of the Welsh people, but I would ask him how he would like a monoglot Welshman or Russian to inspect the mines in the English district which he represents? One of the first requisites of a competent Inspector is that he should know the language of the district in which his duties lie.

I hope we may accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, that this question will be attended to in either of the said two ways which have been suggested.

May I just say this, that under the Act I am bound to consider the claims of the candidate—even if he only speak English—whose superiority is marked. However I may desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members, I have a duty also to the candidates.

Let it be understood that we do not desire for a moment to have incompetent men as Inspectors. But a manager, before he receives a certificate of competency, has to be examined, and the examination is confined to the English language. They are not examined in Welsh. I hope that the Home Secretary will not for a moment withdraw from the promise he has made.

It seems to me somewhat strange that it does not appear to be desirable in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in the question of competition for the appointment of Inspectors in Wales to take into view the necessity of speaking the Welsh language. An Inspector in many parts of Wales can hardly perform his duties in a competent manner unless he understands the language of the people. That, at least, is my opinion.

^* : I wish to say that I do not know the person whom the right hon. Gentleman has called my protégé even by sight.

It appears to me that under the circumstances all the Welsh people have to do is to send up Welsh-speaking candidates who will distance all the others.

I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some answer to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire before leave is given to withdraw this Amendment. It is exceedingly important that Welsh Inspectors should be appointed for the Welsh collieries. We have, no doubt, excellent inspectors in Wales, but it is very desirable that they should be able to speak the Welsh language They are desirous of doing their duty, but they are unable to collect the necessary evidence in cases of breaches of the law because they do not understand Welsh.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

I wish to call attention to a matter of some importance in Scotland. I have frequently during the Session called the attention of the Home Secretary to accidents occurring in Scotland, involving serious loss of life, and have asked whether he would follow the precedent set by previous Home Secretaries, and order a public investigation. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not like to do anything which would appear to run counter to the duties of the Secretary for Scotland, but unfortunately the Scotch Secretary is not intrusted with the powers which are vested in the Home Secretary. At the beginning of this year three serious explosions occurred in steel and iron works in Scotland—two in Glasgow and one in Gartsherrie. The inquiry in those cases was made by the Procurator Fiscal, but the results of such inquiry are always kept secret. It is traditional in Scotch investigations of this kind, made for the purpose of bringing home criminality to those guilty of culpable carelessness, that the proceedings are not divulged even to the relatives of those who are injured or killed. With regard to the Gartsherrie explosion, a similar accident had occurred at the same works two or three months before; and had a special inquiry been made into that accident the cause would probably have been discovered, and the subsequent accident, by which a number of persons were seriously injured, would, in all likelihood, have been prevented. The power residing in the Home Secretary is of great importance, because by means of public investigation, and a consequent publication of all the facts, not only would many serious accidents be prevented, but where they did occur the relatives or representatives of the persons killed or injured would be supplied with information enabling them to take proceedings for the recovery of damages. In England there is in all such cases a public inquiry before a coroner, and all the facts are open to every one interested. All I ask for is an open inquiry in Scotland, such as is held by coroners in England—an inquiry of the same kind as has been granted by the predecessor of the present Home Secretary, and which he alone at the present moment has power to grant.

I desire to bring under the attention of the Home Secretary a grievance whih is felt by the check weighmen and miners in the district I represent, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that he will receive a deputation of the representatives of those men on the subject.

I regret that the hon. Member has not given notice of his intention to bring forward the subject he has mentioned, so that I might have had the opportunity of referring to the papers relating to the question. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, I may say it is true I have not thought it my duty to interfere in such cases as have been referred to by him, except in those which, in my opinion, expressly demand such intervention. I never hesitate, however, to hold inquiries in cases of mines, or to exercise such limited powers as I possess under the old Factories Act. I do not know whether the hon. Member has made inquiry into the old factory law, but I may inform him that there is now in a Factory Bill before the other House a special clause enabling a public inquiry to be held before the Sheriff in every case where a serious accident happens in any factory or workshop in Scotland. I have done my best to remedy the defect pointed out in the new Factory Bill, and I invite the hon. Member to look at the particular clause in order to see whether it satisfies his view. I have been looking carefully into the grievances of certain Scotch miners, whose case has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire. I am informed that the Scotch Department held that the action of the mineowners in question was not contrary to the Mines Act. If the particular person comes within the terms of the Act, and has violated any of the conditions laid down, of course the owners have a perfect right to dismiss him. However, I am not yet fully possessed of the facts.

What I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is that this power of special public inquiry should not be altogether lost sight of, and dropped between the Scotch Office and the Home Office, for it is most necessary that such inquiries should be held. I sincerely trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will look further into the matter.

If the decision of the Scotch Office is as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it is evident that employers will be able to evade the Act of Parliament. If they are to be enabled to do that by a side wind everybody will, I think, admit it is a dirty trick. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill of one clause making such conduct illegal, I believe it would meet with unanimous support. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to receive a deputation on this important matter. If a check weigh-man's position is to be an independent one, the employer ought not to be in a position to dismiss him. I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to receive a deputation of miners on the question, and in order to raise the point I beg to move a reduction of his salary by £500.

Order, order! I would suggest to the hon. Member that it is not necessary to move a reduction.

I should have preferred to take a vote, but, under the circumstances, I will not press the Amendment to a Division.

Motion made, and Question, "That Item A, of £28,587, Salaries, be reduced by £500,"—( Mr. Philipps )—put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.