^* (4.15.) : I was engaged in moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £100 last night when the proceedings were interrupted. In order to give the Committee some idea of the ability displayed by the Office of Woods and Forests for the work they have to discharge, I wish to point out that there are many farms in Wales upon which quit rents amounting, as the case may be, to 1d., 2d., 1s., and 2s. are levied. When these sums are paid to the Woods and Forests a separate receipt is given in every case, no matter how modest the amount may be, and for each receipt a sum of 4d. has to be paid. I only mention this fact to show the Committee how full of red tape and circumlocution the Office of Woods and Forests is, and as an introduction to a more serious indictment. As far back as 1884 I commenced mining operations in North Wales, and for four years the Woods and Forests took no notice of them. They allowed me to spend large sums of money in erecting machinery and in opening up mines, and it was not until the 6th of July, 1888, that they swooped down upon me and stopped the whole of the works. It is only right the Committee should know that this particular locality has long been marked upon the Government maps as containing lead, silver, and gold. Now, it is well known that the Government claim a royalty upon gold and silver, but when I commenced my mining operations in North Wales, I was led to believe that I should not be interfered with. For many years silver had been obtained in considerable quantities in the Principality. No less than £1,500,000 has been realised from silver got from the mines of Great Britain since 1875, and not one single penny of royalty has been paid upon it. I and my friends, therefore, naturally assumed that we should not be interfered with in our efforts to work for the other precious metal—gold. But the Woods and Forests instituted proceedings against us in connection with our workings. The case was in the Court of Chancery for some years, and ultimately a decision was given, to which I wish to refer as showing the disgraceful state of the law in this country with respect to mining. One would think that this Office of Woods and Forests, composed of men of intelligence, would endeavour to make some attempt to allow the natural resources of Crown property to be developed. These gentlemen, however, appeared to consider that they were already doing quite sufficient work, and that a further development of the resources of the country might add to their arduous duties in a way that was not desirable. They, therefore, object to the development of this particular industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has on many occasions been most profuse in his promises with reference to this matter. No doubt his duties are heavy, and occasionally he has to perform, in addition to his other labours, the duties of Leader of the House, but surely between the beginning of 1888 and now there was sufficient time for the right hon. Gentleman to give the interview which he had promised over and over again, not only to myself but to other Members of the House, sitting on both sides, who are pecuniarily interested in the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the communications which have passed, he will see at once that he has failed to keep his promises. We have had great difficulties to encounter in Wales. We have had to contend with the Crown and with the landlords, and the law upon the question is probably unique. The Crown say that they are entitled to all the gold in Wales, but what have they done to justify their title. I maintain that the conduct of the Woods and Forests has been cowardly in the extreme. If the Crown is entitled to the gold and silver in Wales, why not grant licences to those who are desirous of working for these metals, reserving to the landlords what they are entitled to as owners of the surface land? When we went to the Crown for a licence we were told that we must first go to the landowner, and so difficulties were accumulated. But we have struggled away, and some measure of success has crowned our efforts. I claim that we have solved what we consider to be a great problem—the question whether or not out of large quantities of low grade ore we could produce gold at the rate of a quarter of an ounce per ton. It is a small amount, it is true, but we have demonstrated that it can be done, and have at least achieved something which entitles us to some consideration at the hands of the Government. I think it is a great achievement, and one that has been equalled by very few mines in the world, to prove that lodes with ¼ of an ounce of gold per ton can be worked at a profit. We have succeeded in our operations, and we are able to show that there are large bodies of similar ore in the Principality which may also be worked to a profit. Dr. Le Neve Foster, Inspector of Metalliferous Mines, Reports to the Home Secretary upon the condition of these mines; but if the Home Secretary is asked a question respecting them in this House, he says that he has nothing to do with them, and that they are in the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when questioned as to the embargo placed upon gold mining by the law of the land intimates that the Attorney and Solicitor General are responsible, and the Solicitor General, on the other hand, expresses regret that the matter is not in his Department and adds that he has nothing to do with it. In this way we have been sent from pillar to post, and have been unable to obtain the slightest satisfaction. There is one matter in regard to which the Attorney General is greatly to blame. He has admitted that the gold and silver in the Australasian Possessions belong to Her Majesty, just the same as the gold and silver in this part of the Queen's Dominions. That being so, why have the Government observed a different rule in the two cases?

Order, order! The rights of the Colonial Governments are not under the notice of the House. It has been settled long ago that the rights of the colonies have been conceded to the colonies themselves.

^* : I submit with great respect that under the constitution of the colonies they have the control of the gold and silver in the mines just the same as this country have control.

That being so we have no power to interfere with it. The Attorney General has nothing to say to it, and it is outside the scope of the discussion which can be raised upon this Vote.

^* : I bow to your decision, Mr. Courtney, and will not pursue the subject; but I think, and many lawyers in this country also think, that the gold and silver in Wales are no more the property of the Crown than they are in the colonies. The Report of Dr. Le Neve Foster shows that until there is an alteration of the law, all hope of profitable gold mining in this country must be given up. I wish the Committee thoroughly to understand the amount of encouragement we have received in North Wales. The late Sir Warrington Smythe said that from six to eight ounces of gold per ton in Wales would, with economical management, pay for working; but the new adviser to the Crown calculates his royalty on 5 dwts. of gold and silver. According to the sliding scale, out of 20 ounces of silver to the ton you would take something like two ounces, and that two ounces would very often be the profit obtained. Before submitting the sliding scale, surely the right hon Gentleman might have granted me an interview on the subject.

; I invited the hon. Member.

^* : I had an opportunity of seeing the hon. Member for five minutes, but he was so busy that I could not lay the matter before him. But to continue. There is a point at which you arrive when the cost of production exactly equals the value of the produce, and I think at that point we ought to receive encouragement in the hope of something better. The cost of removing a low grade ore is 5s. We will estimate that the ore contains 7s. 6d. worth of gold; the cost of obtaining that from the ore is 5s., making a total cost of 10s. Either we must lose the first 5s. or work the ore, in order to reduce the loss to 2s. 6d. instead of 10s., because the net product is 7s. 6d. But we have one who is known in Wales as Job Bowen, who in levying the royalty has not even got a pair of scales, and he does not understand troy weight. I believe he weighs the gold in an ironmonger's shop. He does not afford the Government the slightest protection, and if we were so disposed we might remove large quantities of gold from the Principality. So far back as last August I sent the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a memorial signed by 73 Members of this House, asking him whether he would be good and kind enough to consider the question of accepting a fair proportion of the profits, instead of taking from us a sum regardless of whether we make a profit or loss. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply except by a private letter.

I directed a letter to be forwarded acknowledging the memorial and stating that I did not accept the allegations in it as proved. If the hon. Gentleman did not receive the letter I will make inquiry.

^* : It was acknowledged by a private letter to which I do not propose to refer, and it made a promise which has never been carried out. I was promised an interview if a certain event happened in this House. That event has long since passed, and I have had no interview. I want the right hon. Gentleman to remember that in no country but this are any restrictions placed upon the production of the precious metals. Many years before my advent in Wales, lead and copper ores were sent to Swansea where certain gentlemen, whose names are well known in this House, made enormous sums of money out of the gold they found in these ores. Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that, and will he also remember that the gold contained in the ore we are working today is of no value without expensive machinery to treat it in the immediate locality where it exists. The making of gold a marketable commodity is accomplished by a process subsequent to the obtaining of the ore. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that the State is receiving a small amount, but I may say that the dividend which we have made on this particular property which we are working is £10,500.

On what capital?

^* : On a capital of £210,000. The amount of money paid to the Government has been £1,707, and to the landowner by way of royalty £1,750; so that we have had to pay in royalty about 30 per cent. of the amount we have been able to pay in dividends. That is, of course, irrespective of the Income Tax. It may be said that we have over-capitalised the mine. [Mr. JACKSON: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear!" but I can state that so rich was the ore when the mine was placed upon the market that an offer of £50,000 was made to me for a fourth share. And the right hon. Gentleman has had before him a complete financial statement of the position of the mine, and he knows pretty well that at this moment I am £50,000 out of pocket by my connection with Welsh gold mining. But I have an ambition higher than mere "filthy lucre"; I have the desire to be the projenitor of a profitable industry in the Principality, and even though it is my fad, I will pursue it despite the jeers and sneers from the Treasury Bench. Now, the Woods and Forests Office, before my advent in Wales, had collected 11s. 9d. a year out of this industry. If they think there is no gold in Wales why do they insist on these exorbitant royalties? It is not long since they used to charge 1–10th; we got that reduced to 1–15th, and now it is 1–30th. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a great financier, announced to the world that we require greater gold reserves in the banks of this country, and he told us that if we had not on a recent occasion got some money from France the result would have been disastrous. Now, we have produced half a ton of gold out of one small mine, which goes to show that we could increase the amount of gold in this country. The salaries and cost of the Office of Woods and Forests is something like 25 per cent. of the whole cost of administering Her Majesty's Woods and Forests. The solicitor, who has a handsome salary besides fees, charges £20 for a licence to search for gold. That is before you can search on your own land, you must pay £20. Besides, if you find gold, the Government do not merely take their proportion, but they require you to treat the ore for gold, and then pay the carriage of the gold to London, together with the insurance. I do think the time has arrived when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so anxious, apparently, to increase the gold reserve in the banks in England, should encourage this industry and permit us to take out the gold from the mountains in Wales. Will it be believed that the Office of Woods and Forests act under a law passed in the reign of Elizabeth? Surely such an unsatisfactory state of things should be remedied.

It is not within the cognisance of this Committee to discuss alterations of the law. The hon. Member must take the law and start from that basis.

^* . The condition of the law is such that a man having a lead mine is protected to the extent of £22 of gold, and if he has a copper mine, to the extent of £15 of gold.

The hon. Member is criticising the law. That is not within the province of the Committee. The hon. Member has power to criticise the acts of the Administration.

^* : I complain of the action of the Commissioners of Wood and Forests in not having interested themselves in this work, and I want the law to be altered so that this industry may be developed, and in order to do that, I wished to show the Committee the true condition of the Law. I say this, that the Woods and Forests Office, if they are desirous of developing the industry, are neglecting their duty by allowing the law to be in its present condition.

Order, order!

^* : I will not pursue the point, but if the Commissioners of Woods and Forests allow things to remain in such a condition that they cannot collect the revenue, and the Government approve of their conduct, I have nothing more to say. Mr. Courtney, there are certain zinc mines in North Wales, and it has only lately been discovered that there is gold in this zinc, and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are interfering. If gold is found in small quantities in antimony, manganese, or any other metal or mineral beside copper, tin, iron, or lead, the Crown can claim to be entitled to it, because it does not come within the exemption. In the one mine which is working under such great difficulties at the present time, there are 190 men at work. The Government have granted 447 licences, or leases. It is only fair to assume that, at any rate, a proportion of these 447 mines could have been at work. If 50 or 100 were at work a very much larger number of men would be employed. If the Go- vernment would take 100th instead of 1–30th, and if there were ten mines at work the Government would receive three or four times the amount of revenue which they obtain now. I cannot help thinking that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who have fisheries to look after in Scotland, who receive handsome salaries and expenses, are naturally, as I should be, perhaps, if I were in their positions, disinclined to add to the amount of their work. They do absolutely nothing to encourage the industry, and they will insist upon taking their proportion of our product without regard to our profit or loss. The Government have declined over and over again to take a proportion of our profit, yet nothing would be easier than for the revenue officers to levy such a tax on our profit as their consciences would allow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants a larger revenue of gold. Yet he keeps gold locked up in the mountains of Wales. Does he want the reserves for future generations? Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any desire to see this industry developed, issue a Treasury Minute that for five or seven years there shall be nothing more than a nominal charge upon gold and silver produced? At the end of that time, I promise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a great number of mines would be opened in Wales, and that he will get a reasonable revenue from this industry? If the right hon. Gentleman will not do what I suggest, then I can assure him that it will be my duty to bring the matter before the House in a more formal manner, and I will probably take up time that might with the view of the Government have been more profitably employed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the salary of the Chief Commissioner."—( Mr. Pritchard Morgan. )

^* : The Government levy a royalty not upon gold, but upon the process which makes that gold marketable, I, myself, believe that if gold mining is to become profitable in this country, it will be necessary to carry it out on a large scale and with every possible economy. I fear that if the Government continue to levy a royalty on the gold produced, it will do much to stifle this industry in its infancy, whereas if they levy it on the profit which results from producing the gold, much will be done to encourage the industry, which would probably in the future afford employment to a vast number of people, and the Crown would receive their share should the mining prove successful. These are considerations which will, I think, be acceptable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to any right hon. Gentleman who succeeds him. There are several grounds that might be brought forward in favour of this proposal if this were the proper time for doing so. There is one certainly that might have some weight with the Government. At present there is a mining section of the London Chamber of Commerce being formed. When the Royal Commission make their report I ask the Government not to take any action upon it until the Members of this section have had an opportunity of expressing their views to the Government. I do not think it necessary for my hon. Friend to proceed to a Division.

Everybody will have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and who speaks with such authority on this question. I wish to support the appeal that has been made for the levying of a very moderate sum indeed—at all events, at the beginning—on these gold-mining undertakings. As a Member of the Commission of Woods and Forests I must say that there was no blame attaching to that Department, which has merely performed its duty. I believe that there is no other country in the world, however, where these rights over the precious metals exist. They do not exist in America or Australia. I was much struck with the fact mentioned by my hon. Friend that if copper or lead ore is brought into Swansea from abroad, and gold and silver is afterwards extracted from it, no royalty is charged, whilst gold extracted from Welsh ore has to pay a royalty. It may be said it is not a very heavy royalty, but at the same time these duties are a great discouragement to young enterprises. It is to the interest of every one to get gold, and especially in Wales, which is such a poor country, is it desirable to foster any such industry. I think the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are a little too technical and high in their charges for leases of this description. They very often insist upon doing by means of a deed costing £8 or £10, that which any gentleman on his own estate would do for half-a-crown on a stamped piece of paper. I would urge that the charges upon the mining of gold and silver might be revised in a liberal spirit. We all know that in poor countries, where the landlord has land out of cultivation, he will let it for next to nothing to any man who will reclaim it, and then, after a certain number of years, when a profit has been derived from the land he will take a rent which may be a fair rent to take under those circumstances. Surely some system of that kind might be devised with reference to mining in Wales. I am not sure that it would be possible to raise a duty on the profits, because it is extremely difficult to discover what are the profits of a mining concern, and a statement of profits would be open to every species of fraud. I would much rather let at a very low rent or royalty for a certain number of years, and then raise the royalty. I think that an industry of this kind should be relieved from every possible discouragement.

With everything that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken as regards the desirability of encouraging and stimulating not only the industry of gold-seeking in Wales but industries generally we all agree. The Government are just as anxious as anybody can be to develop to the largest extent this industry on fair terms. I think, however, that I have a little reason to complain of the tone of the hon. Member for Glamorgan (Mr. Pritchard Morgan). I must say that, having listened very carefully, I came to the conclusion that whenever the hon. Member attempted to make out any case of maladministration against the Commissioners of Woods and Forests he failed altogether, being met with the difficulty that it was the duty of the Commissioners to administer the law as it stands. As far as I could make out, he made no complaint against the administration by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests of the law as it stands.

^* : I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests have the power, subject to the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to reduce the royalties to the lowest possible amount, but the royalties charged have amounted to 30 per cent. of the profits. I say the Commissioners have no right to insist on royalties which have practically taken from us one-third of the profits we make.

Yes; I am aware the hon. Member said that, but I am not quite sure how he calculates his profits. I suppose he is making some allowance for interest on the large amount of capital employed.

^* : None whatever.

It appears to me that there is a point below which a reduction of royalty would merely tend to swell the amount which the public has to pay for the mines with which the hon. Member is connected, and would not tend to increase the profits of the shareholders. It will be in the recollection of the hon. Member that there sat, for more than a year, a Commission to inquire into the administration of woods and forests. The hon. Member had every opportunity of laying his case before that Commission.

^* : I was not asked.

The hon. Member knew that the Commission was sitting. The Government, aware of the importance of the question of mining royalties, appointed a Royal Commission to examine into the whole question. The hon. Member had the opportunity of giving his evidence before that Commission; and, as the matter under discussion is at this moment before the Commission, I think the hon. Member will agree that it would not be seemly on the part of the Government to make any changes before the Commission reports.

^* : The Commission has reference to mining royalties generally, and not particularly to those connected with gold and silver. That is a mere incident in their inquiry.

The hon. Gentleman, at all events, gave very full evi- dence before the Commission on this very question. I think I have a right to complain that the hon. Member has hardly done justice to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in their desire to make a scale such as would meet the requirements laid down by the right hon. Member for Derby. The result of their careful consideration of the matter has been communicated to the company with which the hon. Member's name is associated, and that result is represented by a scale of charges which no one would say is anything but extremely liberal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said it would be desirable in the first instance to charge a low royalty. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that should be to some extent conditional upon the value of the material which is being got. If a mine is being worked on the low grade ores there should be a small royalty, so as not to hamper the industry to any unreasonable extent. The first part of the scale imposed by the Woods and Forests is as follows:—

"When the ore or veinstuff crushed or otherwise treated for the extract of gold and silver during any half-year of the term produces (on an average) per ton of ore or veinstuff not exceeding 5dwts. of gold and silver, a royalty of one one-hundreth part in value of the gold and silver obtained."

I contend that 1 per cent. of the profit is an extremely reasonable rate of royalty to charge. Indeed, I challenge the hon. Member himself to say whether it would unreasonably handicap or hamper this industry.

^* : I am prepared to say that if the Woods and Forests would accept 1 per cent. all round it would not be unreasonable. But when they insist upon taking 1 per cent. of the product and take from the mine what may be required to make good a loss, I say that is an unreasonable thing. If they said 1 per cent. all round that would be a proposal which I have made to the Government over and over again.

The hon. Member does not quite meet the point, but I think I may take it that the hon. Member does not really deny that a royalty of 1 per cent. under the conditions I have mentioned is a reasonable thing.

^* : Most unreasonable, with the condition imposed.

That certainly is very strange, because the hon. Member in his evidence before the Mining Royalties Commission expressed his opinion that 1 per cent. would not be an unreasonable royalty to charge. In fact, the hon. Member went further, and said he did not think the gold mining industry of Wales could carry more than a handicap of 2 per cent. on the gross product.

^* : The right hon. Gentleman must read the whole of that evidence in order to get my opinion. I said that the industry could not possibly be handicapped by more than 2 per cent., and I suggested that if the Government would not adopt the principle of having a portion of the profits they should have 1 per cent. on private lands and should receive 2 per cent. on Crown lands.

That opens up another question, as to the desirability of raising revenue on the profits. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that it would be extremely difficult to fix upon a satisfactory scale or method of levying this royalty if it were to be done on profits. The hon. Member (Mr. Pritchard Morgan), when giving evidence before the Commission, was asked whether he thought a royalty on profits would be preferable to a royalty on products, and his answer was—

"I certainly think it would be if there were no difficulties in the way. I urged the Government to take the royalty in the profits, but I pointed out that difficulties would arise. I said that five or six unprincipled men having property which was valuable might change it into a limited company, and charge £5,000 or £6,000 in fees, and so absorb all theo prfits."

I hope I have shown the Committee that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have endeavoured to meet the case in a fair manner. They have framed a scale which I think no one can say errs on the side of severity in the case of working low grade ore; and there is every disposition on the part of the Commissioners to do everything they can to develop this industry in Wales and in other parts of the country. I am speaking, of course, of the royalty to be charged on low grade ores.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the rest of the scale is.

Yes; I ought perhaps to have read it before. It is as follows:—

"When the ore or veinstuff crushed or otherwise treated for the extraction of gold and silver during any half-year of the term produces (on an average) per ton of ore or vein-stuff exceeding 5dwts. but not exceeding 7½dwts., a royalty of 1–75th part in value of the gold and silver obtained; exceeding 7½dwts. but not exceeding 10dwts., 1–50th; exceeding l0dwts. but not exceeding 15dwts., 1–35th; exceeding 15dwts. but not exceeding 20dwts., 1–25th; exceeding 20dwts. but not exceeding 30dwts., 1–20th; exceeding 30dwts 1–15th."

I ought to say that the proposal was that these results should be taken upon the half year's work. I certainly thought this scale would have met the hon. Member's approbation. At all events, I think the Committee will agree that in view of the fact that the whole subject is at present before a Commission it would be premature on the part of the Government to announce any decision upon the subject. We await the Report of that Commission, which I feel sure will endeavour to stimulate this industry in every possible way.

Some years ago I expressed the opinion that if the Government were to develop the gold industry in Wales they must cease to levy the royalty on the gross production. We have had three years' experience since, and the result is that we have only one gold mine working in Wales, although 400 or 500 licences to work have been granted. At that time the mine of my hon. Friend (Mr. Pritchard Morgan) was producing 5oz. of gold to the ton, but now I doubt whether they will get 5dwt. to the ton. In Wales there are great bodies of low grade ore with only occasional pouches of better ore. Very much the same state of things is to be found in Sutherland-shire, and my hon. Friend is fighting in Wales the battle which we are prepared to fight in Scotland. The cost of mining alone is so much. My hon. Friend does not mine; he tunnels in the hill, and he has a water mill for crushing, and under the circumstances it is possible for the Morgan Mine to pay on 5dwts., but only under such circumstances. Then we have heard of the overloaded Stock of this gold mine. £210,000 is the nominal capital, and what is the price per share to-day? Three shillings. So that for £35,000 you can buy the mine—less than the cost of erecting the crushing machinery. It is not a question of giving bloated capitalists high dividends. What I wish particularly to urge is that if the Government are anxious to develop the gold-mining industry in Wales and in other parts of the country two conditions are necessary: The first is that the royalty should be charged on the net results. We are told that it would be possible for unprincipled owners to absorb too large amounts in fees and salaries, but 99 out of 100 of these undertakings are Joint Stock Companies, because the capital required is so large, and the shareholders will see that their dividends are not prejudiced by the high fees drawn by their Directors. A royalty on the net results will permit the poorer lodes to be worked. After three years of inquiry and discussion the Government are still going on charging royalties on the gross. A royalty of 1 per cent. upon 5dwts. of gold and silver per ton of ore or veinstuff is preposterous. With a 15ft. lode mining 3dwts. to the ton, the cost of milling would not allow of the working. Here and there you come upon a richer lode, and, by combining the two, milling is possible. But into the technical part of the question I do not wish to enter. Our position is simply this—we hold that if the royalty is charged upon the gross production it hinders and prevents the development of the industry, as has been proved by experience. The second point to which I wish to refer is the fact of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests granting licences—upwards of 400 have been granted—without laying down any conditions whatever as to working. The Commissioners ought to lay down the condition, as is done in the colonies and in every gold-producing country, that a certain amount of work must be done or the licence will be forfeited. I do not wish to take up time, but I could point out how the application of similar prejudicial conditions to those we now object to almost crushed the gold-mining industry in the Transvaal during the time that country was under the control of the Colonial Office, whereas under present and more reasonable conditions the mines have since greatly flourished. I am confident that if in this case the Government would be content with a reasonable royalty on the net results the industry would rapidly develop in Wales and other parts of Great Britain, and add very largely to gold production.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given a sufficient answer to the claim of my hon. Friend. The scale, which might be fair as applied to one set of circumstances, would not be so in another set of circumstances.

It is based on the particular circumstances of this mine.

Well, I must accept the statement of my hon. Friend, for the simple reason that he knows the mine very well, having had charge of it for six or seven years. It is no question of overstocked capital, and we find a third of the profits going in royalties. The principle upon which the royalties are charged has not, I think, been adequately considered by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. When a mine is situated in the heart of the mountains, 10 or 15 miles distant from railway communication, there is an increased cost in carrying on operations, beginning with the cost of conveying and erecting machinery, and this I do not think has been adequately considered. Then, also, I find that local agents are consulted in the imposition of these rates, getting a percentage on the royalties charged. I do not know whether this applies to this particular mine, and I do not suggest any sort of corrupt motive; but if a man has a pecuniary interest in the royalty on a mine being high or low, necessarily this will influence him. The system is a bad one, and I believe that as long as the local agents have a direct personal interest in the royalties charged we shall never have a fair or reasonable system established.

I only wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will agree to leave the matter open until the minerals section of the London Chamber of Commerce, which is about to be appointed, can place their views before him?

I would prefer that the minerals section of the London Chamber of Commerce should put their views before the Royal Commission now sitting. I cannot, of course, say that the views they express before the Commission will be carried into effect, but their views would be embodied in the Report of the Commission, and I can promise, at all events, that the recommendations that are made upon them shall be attended to without delay. I would remind hon. Members on both sides that in regard to this question the Government are only waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission to decide on what course to take, and it would be premature, if not unseemly, for us to give any pledge at the present time as to taking any particular course of action before considering the Report and evidence to which so much attention is given.

^* : But the Royal Commission may sit two or three years longer yet, and what is to be done in the meantime? Unless I get a satisfactory assurance that the Government will take some action at once, I must press the matter to a Division. The scale which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is an absurdity, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having already had so many statements and facts laid before him, would do well to adopt the suggestion that the Government should charge a mere nominal royalty for the next four or five years—or even three years, so that a chance may be given to push forward this as yet undeveloped and un-tried industry. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree that for three years a nominal royalty shall be imposed I will at once withdraw my Motion.

(5.45.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 134.—(Div. List, No. 360.)

Original Question again proposed.

There is another matter in relation to the administration of the Department in Wales to which I wish to draw attention. The Crown lands in Wales extend over 273,939 acres rich in mineral wealth, and in the administration of this property the people are deeply interested. I have to call attention to what I must condemn as the bad administration of the Office of Woods and Forests in connection with the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry in North Wales. The quarry, which used to employ some 200 or 300 men and was a valuable industry to the locality, has been closed by the lessee, and the general belief is that he has simply desired to obtain possession of the quarry, not to work it, but to prevent its being worked by anybody else in competition with another quarry on the other side of the mountain in which the lessee is interested. I have asked the Secretary to the Treasury many questions in reference to this subject, and I urged, as I wish to urge now, that there should be a clause in these leases requiring the lessee to work a quarry. I wrote a letter to the right hon. Gentleman giving him my reasons for this, and the receipt of that letter he acknowledged, and I also told the right hon. Gentleman that there were neighbouring owners quite prepared to undertake the working of the quarry. The right hon. Gentleman told me, in one of the answers he gave, that it was usual to insert in these leases a proviso that a minimum number of men should be employed in the quarry, and that if they were not employed the Crown should resume possession. He did not say, however, what the minimum was. This quarry had been keeping 200 men in constant employment, and I think Mr. Parry ought to have been compelled to keep at work a number of men proportionate to the size of the quarry. The right hon. Gentleman assured me that a provision would be inserted in the lease for the purpose of compelling the lessee to work the quarry. It is certainly rather remarkable that the lessee of the quarry was a Unionist candidate for this particular locality at the last election. I think it is most important that the properties which are in the hands of the Crown in Wales to the extent of 210,000 acres should be conducted for the benefit of the people of the locality. The right hon. Gentleman said that a minimum number of men should be employed. I am informed that Mr. Parry keeps four men at work in a quarry where 200 men were formerly employed. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt say that if the quarry is not worked it will he a loss to the lessee; but it is really to the advantage of Mr. Parry to pay a rent of £200 a year merely to prevent anyone else working the quarry and competing with his other quarry. He might lose £10,000 a year by having it worked by someone else. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can present the case in a different aspect from that in which it now appears to me, I must press the matter to a Division. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £300.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £300, part of the Salary of the Chief Commissioner."—( Mr. Lloyd-George. )

The case to which my hon. Friend refers is one of which I have some little knowledge. It appears that this quarry is to be shut up because a gentleman on the other side of the mountain has a quarry of his own with the trade of which he does not want to have any interference. The idea of employing only two men in a quarry is too monstrously absurd to need any comment. It must be evident that it was the intention of the Office of Woods and Forests to shut up this quarry and keep it from working. This is in keeping with the whole conduct of the Department. I have in my hand some most amusing correspondence in the shape of a letter from an Under Sheriff to the Office of Woods and Forests. He writes acknowledging the receipt of two warrants of execution for Crown rents, amounting to 2s. 2d. each, and he says—

"I do not see that I can seize, as the warrants are addressed to no one. No name has been filled in after the word 'To' at the top of the warrants."

The letter is dated the 10th of March, 1891, and there is the following post-script:—

"Your warrants are dated the 19th of February, 1890, Is this correct? The present Sheriff was not in office at that time. Does this matter?"

The fact is, that the whole administration of the office is of the most disgraceful character, and is quite in keeping with the manner in which the Commissioners have treated the gold industry. They have not been near us to look after the interests of the Crown. The Commissioners get the same amount of money, whether they do much or little, and the interests of the Crown and of the public are totally disregarded by them.

The hon. Member has fairly stated what has taken place with regard to these quarries, and I do not think I can add very much to what he has said. I understand that the fact of the quarry not being worked is owing, not to any desire not to work it, but to the condition of trade. This is only one quarry out of six or seven in the district equally well situated that are not being worked at present. The Woods and Forests Department accepted the best tenant they could get and on the best terms.

The right hon. Gentleman states that there are half a dozen other quarries equally well situated that are not open at this moment. He wrote me a letter stating that he would be glad to have one of them worked by the people of the locality. I am very much obliged to him for his letter, but I may say that when I looked into the matter I found it was a quarry which bad never produced good setts. It is half a mile further from the sea than one with which it would have to compete, and this would involve the construction of half a mile more of railway. I sent the right hon. Gentleman's letter down to the district, and was told that it would be impossible to compete for a moment with the other quarry. With regard to the quarry with which I have been dealing, I say the Department ought to have handed it over on the express condition that the lesser must work it. There was no reason whatever for handing it over to Mr. Parry, unless it was the desire to indulge in a bit of favouritism. I am afraid the matter cannot be remedied now. I can only ask the Woods and Forests Commissioners to enforce such conditions as there are in the lease, although those conditions are really not worth the paper they are written on. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is of the same impression as myself, namely, that the Woods and Forests Commissioners have not acted properly in this matter.

^* (6.20.) : I do not know this particular quarry, but I know enough of slate quarries in general in Wales to, know that the "condition of the trade" is a very common excuse for gentlemen in the position of Mr. Parry not working their quarries at all. It is with a view to meet cases of this kind that it is usual to insert in leases of quarries a covenant requiring the employment of a certain number of men. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what the number of men employed in this quarry is. If there are, as I hear, four, it is a mere colourable working. We perfectly understand the meaning of this dog-in-the-manger policy. It is adopted simply for the purpose of staving off competition. If the Amendment be pressed to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it.

I do not know anything about the merits of this particular case, and, therefore, I cannot form any better judgment upon it than those Members who have taken the trouble to listen to my hon. Friend, but it is quite certain, from what my hon. Friend has said, that in dealing with the Crown lands in the Principality a good deal of natural dissatisfaction has arisen. Crown property in Wales is of a very peculiar character. I am a Member of a Select Committee which during the last two Sessions has been considering the question of Crown property. The case my hon. Friend has brought for ward only confirms the view I formed and ventured to express when the Committee were considering their Report, namely, that a Central Department cannot possibly deal with property of this kind so satisfactorily as it can be dealt with locally. I am not for a moment suggesting that the central administration of the Commissioners is not, under the circumstances, as good as could be expected. I think the result of our careful inquiries conclusively proves that the property of the public is administered by the Commissioners efficiently and economically and, under the circumstances, as well as could be expected—better and more cheaply, in fact, than ordinary great estates are managed. I wish to add also that the administration is honest. The Crown property in Wales consists of 84,000 acres of waste land. The Crown has all the manorial rights over that land, and, of course, owns the minerals under it. It also owns the mines under 189,000 acres of waste land, of which it had formerly the manorial rights. What has become of the surface ownership? Somehow or other there does not seem to have remained any part of the surface which belongs to the Crown. The total receipts of this enormous tract of country are only £14,000 a year. It is clear from the evidence given before the Committee that there exists in Wales a deep-seated feeling that the administration of this great area of land ought to be in the hands of the representatives of the people in Wales itself. I suggested to the Committee that it was in every way desirable that the Crown lands should be locally managed by the County Councils, and the proceeds applied for the benefit of the people. That seems to me to be a conclusion to which we are also irresistibly drawn by this discussion.

^* (6.28.) : I wish to ask what are the intentions of the Government with regard to carrying out the recommendations of the Committee on Woods and Forests? That is a matter in which my constituents are very much interested. One of the points on which the Committee made a recommendation related to the contribution by the Office of Woods and Forests to religious and educational purposes. At present they are only allowed to give to Church of England schools. Another recommendation was as to the enclosure of land for public purposes, such as gardens and allotments. The other principal point relates to the amalgamation of gales in Dean Forest; and the avoidance in cases of amalgamation of way-leaves and tolls.

I may inform the hon. Member that it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee to which he has referred, and steps would have been taken to do so this year if time could have been found for the introduction of the Bill. I rather think that the legislation required was of that kind which appertains to Private Bill legislation, and therefore notice would have had to be given before the Bill was lodged. In order to comply with those requirements the matter has necessarily been postponed; but I hope it will be possible to give the requisite notice so as to bring on the Bill next Session.

I desire briefly to call attention to a matter in connection with this subject. It is well known that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are the owners of a large property, of which the ground rents alone amount to upwards of £237,000. The Committee to which reference has been made recommended in their Report that the management of certain property appeared to be in the hands of Mr. A. Tate, and they added that they were of opinion that one of the Commissioners should take a more active part in the management of the property. The question I desire to ask is, whether anything has been done to give effect to that recommendation; and, if so, who is the Commissioner to whom that duty has been assigned?

was inaudible in the Gallery.

(6.37.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 136.—(Div. List, No. 361.)

Original Question again proposed.

I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the administration of the Woods and Forests Department in regard to the slate quarries in North Wales, and the extortionate charges that are made in the shape of royalties in those quarries. I am informed by competent judges that there is a large amount of undeveloped property of this kind in North Wales that would otherwise be worked if it were not that the industry is so crippled by those exorbitant charges. I am assured by quarry proprietors in this slate district that not one of them has been enabled to make more than 2 per cent. profit during the last 10 years; in fact, some of them have not made a single penny profit during the whole of the time they have been working in the quarries. They have repeatedly made representations to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with a view of securing the reduction of those royalties, and in consequence some slight reductions have been made, but they have been so slight that they have not been enough to enable the proprietors to work the quarries properly. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentle- man before I move the reduction of the Vote whether he does not think the complaints made by the quarry proprietors are well founded?

This is the first time I have heard of the complaint made by the hon. Member, and I shall be very glad if he will lay before me the necessary facts, in order that I may inquire into the matter. With, regard to the fixing of the rents, I would remind the hon. Member that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are advised by experts, and there is a universal approval of the competency and fitness of Mr. Foster-Browne, who has succeeded to the post of adviser.

I do not deny the fitness of Mr. Forster. Browne, to advise in connection with matters relating to collieries, but I doubt whether he has had the necessary practical experience to qualify him as an adviser on matters relating to slate quarries.

^* (6.50.) : Before the Vote is taken, may I ask what are the hours of the clerks in the Office of Woods and Forests?

^* : I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman another question, namely, whether the Solicitor to the Department, who receives a salary of £1,500 a year, gives the whole of his time to the work of the office?

In reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch, I believe the junior clerks in the office of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are employed for six hours in the day.

^* : Does that include the time for refreshment?

I suppose they take refreshment. But, at any rate, their hours of attendance are what I have already stated. The Solicitor gives the whole of his time to the office, and nothing is paid to him for allowances for the clerks except in the case of money actually expended. In reply to the hon. Member for Carnarvon, I should not like to say that I had so little confidence in Mr. Foster-Browne that I should prefer to take the opinion of someone else, but I will undertake to give consideration to the matter brought under my notice by the hon. Member.

I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a grievance existing in the western part of my county. That grievance is that a large number of farms are held by one person, and the result is that there is a great deal of agricultural sweating going on. We should like the representatives of the Crown to consider this question when the existing leases expire.

Question put, and agreed to.

2. £35,174, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.

I wish on this Vote to call attention to the item for the Superintendent of Furniture. The right hon. Gentleman last year or the year before that informed us that the contract would be thrown open to such firms as might desire to tender for the supply of furniture for the Government Offices. Up to the time we began to heccle the right hon. Gentleman on the subject some two or three persons appeared to have had a monopoly in supplying this furniture, and there seemed to be a very comfortable arrangement among the furniture dealers with regard to this subject; but the right hon. Gentleman, in that spirit of fairness and honesty which always characterises his conduct in this House, assured us that he would do his best to have that contract thrown open. The workmen in the trade were, however, unable to obtain a list of the firms supplying furniture, and they asked me to obtain the particulars. I applied at the office, and a promise was made to supply the conditions, but so far they have never reached me or the workmen. I should be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman the reason why. I should also like to know, too, what are the duties performed by the Superintendent of Contracts for Coals? I drew attention to this item some years ago, when the salary of the official was only £200; it is now £350. It seems to me a very extravagant sum, and one, therefore, which calls for explanation. The Superintendent of Contracts for Candles and Oil gets a salary of £250 a year. What does he do for that? I may perhaps be permitted to conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman for information as to the hours worked by the clerks in the Works Office.

In the Office of Works the employés are engaged for seven hours a day, and they get their refreshments in the office. The Superintendent of Coals, &c., has to take into consideration contracts to the amount of from £28,000 to £30,000 a year. He also has to inspect the quality of the articles received, and to see that we get value for our money. He is a very hard-worked official indeed. He is not so much a superintendent as an adviser of the Board, and his title, therefore, is rather misleading. The other official to whom allusion has been made has his time fully employed, and, no doubt, he has saved the country a large amount of money, both with regard to making contracts and seeing that they are properly carried out. With regard to what the hon. Member has said as to the furniture, I will look into the matter without delay.

^* (7.7.) : I am glad to find that in the right hon. Gentleman's Department there is no Purveyor of Luncheons. I suppose the Department is not quite aristocratic enough for that. I wish, however to call attention to the management of Epping Forest. I find that by the Act of 1878 the name of the First Commissioner of Works is mentioned in connection with the bye-laws, and it no doubt has been inserted in the Act with a view to protecting the rights of the people of London. The bye-laws are to be under his supervision, and are not legal without his consent, Now, one bye-law which is being enforced has not been approved by him.

I may save the time of the Committee if I tell the hon. Member that I have nothing to do with this matter. Under the Act power is given to the Conservators to make bye-laws, and I admit that they have no force unless allowed by the Ranger on the advice of the Office of Works countersigned by the First Commissioner of Works. But the regulation to which the hon. Member refers is not a byelaw.

^* : I desire to point out that one bye-law now being enforced has not been approved by the First Commissioner, and, that being so, I contend that the right hon. Gentleman should take steps to stop its enforcement and to end the proceedings which have been instituted against a number of poor people. When I put a question on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman he suggested that I should take legal advice. I have done so. I have consulted the highest legal authority—the Attorney General. He says he cannot assist me. Now, I say it is the duty of the First Commissioner to interfere in this matter. It is one of the things for which he gets his salary, and I shall propose a reduction of his salary if he refuses to protect the rights of the people of London against the enforcement of an illegal bye-law.

It is not a bye-law at all. I cannot get that into the hon. Member's head.

^* : I say it is a most important bye-law that has ever been made. I have here a list of the bye-laws sanctioned by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor, and it does not appear among them. Here are bye-laws about donkeys, and so on, but this is a question of common rights, and one which affects about half the voters. I hope small commoners will not continue to be interfered with by the enforcement of an illegal bye-law.

I rise to a point of order. I have already explained to the hon. Member that my office has nothing to do with this subject. There is no bye-law affecting it.

^* : I wish the right hon. Gentleman to give the Conservators notice that they have no business to enforce this illegal bye-law.

Order, order!

^* : The right hon. Gentleman is not only generally courteous, but he is always fair, and I am sure he wishes to do the best he can for the people. I therefore trust he will interfere, and—

Order, order!

^* : I will not press the subject further, but there is another matter to which I wish to draw attention. I hope that something will he done to improve the condition of the fountains in Trafalgar Square. The right hon. Gentleman the other day, in answer to a question, said the fountains were cleaned out once in three months. These complaints as to the condition of the water have been raised for years, and it surely is now time that something was done to do away permanently with what is undoubtedly a nuisance to the neighbourhood. I am told that the water is pumped up from a well in close proximity to old St. Martin's Churchyard, and that, consequently, its purity is very doubtful. I am also informed that it is pumped into a tank and used over and over again for three months until it becomes very much like thick soup. I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the water could not be obtained as cheaply from the Water Companies, so as to discontinue using water from a well near an old churchyard, and also whether he will give orders for the fountains to be more frequently cleaned out during the summer months than at present?

It is quite true that the water is supplied to the fountains from a well at the back of the National Gallery. It is excellent water, superior even to that of the companies, though that is good, and it is also supplied to some of the public offices—among them mine, and I myself drink it. It is true that the water from the fountains occasionally goes back, but that is not done so often as to render it unfit for use. Of course, the water at the fountains is not fit for drinking, and that is not the purpose for which it is used. As to the more frequent renewal of the water, and cleaning out the fountains oftener than at present during the summer months, I will look into the matter and see whether the suggestion of the hon. Member cannot be carried out.

With regard to the assistant surveyors of the first and second class I should like to know whether under any circumstances they get anything beyond their salaries. Are they allowed to receive fees?

No, Sir.

I see you have reduced the number of surveyors from 28 to 22, and yet the charge for the 22 is larger than that for the 28 last year. How is that to be explained?

I have not the particulars here. I will inquire into the matter and let the hon. Member know.

I wish to raise a question as to a certain number of labourers, for the treatment of whom the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. A little while ago I pointed out that the wages paid to certain labourers were less than those paid for similar labour by other employers in the same locality, and the right hon. Gentleman then told me that, in instituting a comparison, I ought to take into account the fact that the men had certain pension rights which, presumably, men in other employments did not possess. My object in rising is to point out that the statement with regard to pensions is almost, if not entirely, illusory. I have been supplied with a number of cases which, I think, will substantiate that assertion.

Will the hon. Member tell me what particular class of labour he is alluding to?

Yes, the labourers in Kew and Hampton Court Gardens. A working foreman named Hollands was discharged after 33 years service and received no pension. Joseph Jacobs, after working in Kew Gardens for 25 years, was discharged as being worn out. This man is now 72 years of age; he has been in the public service for 40 years, having been in the Police Force before being engaged by the Office of Works; and I am informed that he is absolutely starving. Surely a pension ought to have been granted in a case like that. A third man laboured in Kew Gardens for 15 years, and was personally incapacitated by being jammed by some machinery in the gardens. He has received a gratuity of £15, and a sum of £16 odd in respect of his injury. He is totally disabled for work and has nothing to live upon. My next case is that of a labourer who served 18 years, and had one of his eyes knocked out while in the performance of his duty. Yet this man, who is believed to be entitled to a pension for life, has received only a gratuity of £14. Again, there is the case of a woman who worked in Kew Gardens for 25 years. She became blind, was discharged, and is now in a state verging on starvation. My last case is that of a labourer who served for 23 years and then became dumb and paralysed. He, too, was discharged without either pension or gratuity. This man never received more than 10s. per week. Either these persons are entitled to a pension or they are not. If they are, then there is reason to complain that the right hon. Gentleman has not adequately investigated the circumstances; and if they are not, then there is very little in the argument which the right hon. Gentleman put before the House with a view to showing that the conditions of service under the Board of Works are better than those of outside employment.

Some of these cases have been mentioned for the first time to-day, and I have not, therefore, had an opportunity of acquainting myself with the details. But in reply to the general argument of the hon. Member, I may say that some of the labourers employed are entitled to pension and others not, and the very fact that some persons in the cases alluded to by the hon. Member have received gratuities, proves that they are not entitled to pension.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for courteously promising to make enquires into the cases I have mentioned; but I desire to call particular attention to the actual language he used, as reported in Hansard. I had called attention to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the labourers employed in Kew Gardens and similar labourers employed in the neighbourhood, and the right hon. Gentleman replied—

"Having regard to the exceptional advantages which labourers in Kew Gardens enjoy in many ways as regards sick pay, attendance of medical officer gratis, pension, and other matters, so far from being Mused, or badly paid, they receive wages really above the average given to others in the neighbourhood."

Upon that I wish to ask whether there are any labourers in Kew Gardens who are entitled to pension, and if so, what work do they do, and after how many years' service do they become entitled to pension?

I think there must have been some slip on the part of the reporter. As far as my recollection serves me—[The explanation was inaudible in the Gallery.]

I should like to point out that the Hansard Report is headed with an asterisk, which is usually understood to indicate that the Member has revised the Report.

I regret I had not observed that.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his promise. Would he desire me to hand him a list of these cases?

I should be extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

^* (7.35.) : I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question relating to a matter of account. The question really arises on all the Votes. We have here shown what are the minimum and maximum salaries in the Department, but I see that in many cases the maximum salaries are exceeded in the shape of "personal allowance." Two chief clerks get £100 more than the maximum. Is there any favouritism in the "personal allowance," or is it a way of getting over the fixed maximum salary?

I notice that in almost every speech in Supply the hon. Member makes some charge of want of straightforwardness, some want of honesty in the Public Departments. The tone of the hon. Member is such that I am not sure he ought to have any answer at all, but I will explain at once that the maximum is only exceeded when changes are made in the office, and public servants are asked to undertake new work which is not originally a part of their bargain. In such cases it is only fair that additional personal allowance should be given. But in every case in which a personal allowance is given it is carefully scrutinised beforehand by the Treasury. In the case of the two clerks referred to, let me say that formerly there were three principal clerks. Great economy was effected by reducing the number to two. It was felt to be only reasonable to give each of the two an additional allowance.

^* : I never intended to make any charge against anybody, and least of all against the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say it is a shocking system that the maximum salaries are so often exceeded, especially when the clerks are already well paid.

Vote agreed to.

3. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £19,000, 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 Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."

^* (7.40.) : I do not propose to move a reduction of this Vote, because I object to the Vote as a whole. We were told the other day that there is £300 now put on the Accounts for the management of a portion of this fund. I wish to know whether any one else in any other Department receives anything for the management of the fund. Surely the charges for management might very properly appear in the Votes for the respective Departments. We are told that a great deal of the money is used in secret service payments on the Continent, that it is used for the purpose of getting information that cannot be obtained in any other way. That means bribing and corrupting public servants in other countries. Not only is it an inducement to those servants to act illegally and immorally, but it is also an inducement to Foreign Governments to do exactly the same thing in regard to the Public Departments in this country. I have never yet heard that information got in this way is at all necessary for this country, or even for the integrity of the British Empire. I cannot understand why a Christian country like this, with an Established Church, Bishops, and all the rest of it, cannot get on without doing what we admit to be wrong—corrupting public servants in other countries—and therefore I shall take a Vote against this Secret Service Fund altogether.

It is evident the hon. Member for Peterborough has a great deal more information on this subject than my-self. I do not know where he gets his information about the corrupting of public servants abroad, but I presume he has such information; perhaps it would be desirable he should produce it. I am one of those who never have opposed the Secret Service Vote. I think it is necessary there should be a certain amount of Secret Service money at the disposal of the Government. No doubt there is a great deal spent under this Vote which might as well be brought upon the Estimates, because it is not spent in Secret Service in the true sense. There ought to be an assurance given that there will be nothing of this kind in future.