I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the promotion of Quartermaster Sergeants and Colour Sergeants, would he consider the possibility of extending the limit imposed by the last paragraph of Article 638 of 1892 from 1st January 1889 to 1st January 1890?

No, Sir; I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of this relaxation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of men with over 18 years' service?

If the hon. and gallant Member will communicate with me I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any Reports from the Commissioners he sent some months ago on an Alien Inquiry to the United States; and if they will justify him in introducing, before the Session is too far advanced, some legislative regulation of indiscriminate alien immigration into Great Britain, having regard to the large number of our fellow-countrymen reported to be out of employment by the Trades Union correspondence with the Board of Trade?

The Reports are in preparation and are expected next month. It is not possible yet to make any statement as to legislation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that he has been misinformed as to the circumstances connected with the purchase by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty of the estate at Newton Abbot now belonging to them; whether he will make inquiries from persons on the spot who know the facts, and are unconnected with the Governors or the Devon Estate, and state the result; whether he is aware that there are no sea views on the estate, that the estate which belonged to the Earl of Devon was announced for sale by auction, that nearly three-fourths of the leaseholders were willing and anxious to purchase the freeholds, that many of them applied to the Earl of Devon's agents as to prices, and were informed that no sale would be made before the auction, that a few days before the date announced for the auction the Earl of Devon privately sold the estate to the Governors behind the backs of the leaseholders, and that three-fourths of them are now willing to buy the freeholds at a fair price from the Governors; and whether, if he finds that the facts stated in this question are substantially correct, he will suggest to the Governors the desirability of ascertaining how many of the leaseholders are still willing to purchase the freeholds at fair prices, and of selling to them if their number is considerable?

In answering my hon. Friend's question, I must remind him that I have no authority whatever to interfere with the powers that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty possess of purchasing in the open market estates on the conditions prescribed by the owners thereof, or of subsequently disposing of such estates under their statutory powers. I am under no Departmental responsibility for the action of the Governors, and I have neither the duty nor the right to make suggestions to them. The answer which I gave the other day was that supplied to me by the Governors. I have, in consequence of my hon. Friend's question and of information privately given to me by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, asked the Governors for further information. They tell me that it was originally intended to offer for sale the Earl of Devon's Estate at Newton Abbot, on which there were 439 leases and 300 tenants, in 35 lots, so that no individual tenant could have secured his own holding. However, it was subsequently arranged to sell the whole estate in one lot to the Governors, and about 20 leaseholders have applied to the Governors to purchase their holdings. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General tells me that it is now the fact that a large majority of the leaseholders wish to purchase, and the Governors state that if a memorial from the leaseholder is presented to them it will receive careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain on what grounds those Civil Service writers who have been promoted to the permanent ranks of the Civil Service have been refused payment of a part of the bonus to which they appear to be entitled under the Treasury Minute of December, 1886; and whether those writers were in any way notified of the pecuniary loss which they would sustain if they accepted promotion between the dates upon which the instalments of bonus were payable?

No copyist can receive bonus in respect of a broken period of less than half-a-year's copyists' service immediately preceding his appointing to a permanent post, half-a-year's service being the necessary condition, under the Treasury Minute, for the payment of such bonus. In reply to the second part of the question, I should explain that the Treasury have expressed themselves willing to allow to any copyist appointed to a permanent post the option of waiting for the next accruing bonus before taking up the new appointment.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that complaints of an excessive upflow of sewer air at Hampstead have been made before, and since, 1886; that an export, Mr. Mansergh, advising the Vestry, condemned the system then, and still, in use at Hampstead; whether the recommendations of Mr. Mansergh or other exports were adopted; if not, on what grounds; and whether the Local Government Board will cause an inquiry to be held, and receive evidence on the subject?

I have been in communication with the Vestry of St. John, Hampstead, and am informed that there have been a few, but only a few, complaints during the last 10 years of the rising of sewer air from the lower to the higher parts of the parish; that Mr. Mansergh, in advising the Vestry, did not condemn the system in use at Hampstead, but, on the contrary, expressed his agreement with it, and recommended its further development. In accordance with this recommendation the Vestry have been increasing the means of ventilating and cleansing the sewers. If it is considered that there is any ground for complaint as regards particular sewers, and I am informed precisely of the facts, I will bring the matter under the attention of the Vestry; but I do not see that there is any sufficient ground for directing a local inquiry as suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government will publicly notify that printed drafts of the fresh Orders in Council or Rules of Court now under consideration for regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court of Justice may be obtained by purchase or otherwise, and will specify a reasonable time within which representations and suggestions relating thereto may be made by the Bar Committee, the Incorporated Law Society, Chambers of Commerce, and other societies and bodies appearing to be interested, and will arrange that such representations and suggestions shall be taken into consideration by the authority preparing such Orders and Rules before the same are finally settled and published or laid before Parliament?

The Government have no power to issue the suggested notification. The recent Report of the Council of Judges was laid on the Table of this House many months ago, and widely published. It was also specially communicated to such of the bodies referred to in the question as were likely to make observations on its contents. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that very full discussion by those bodies has taken place, and their views have been communicated to the Statutory Authorities. I am in a position to state that all such communications have been carefully considered; and, as the House is aware, any Rules that may be made have to be laid on the Table 40 days.

My question was directed to the Rules of Court now under consideration, and not to those which have already been laid on the Table.

So far as I am aware, those Rules are only Rules founded on the Report of the Judges.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company are charging 4d. per firkin more than last year for single firkins sent from Ennis to Cork and intervening stations; and whether he will make any representation to the Company on the subject?

I am still in communication with the Waterford and Limerick and Great Southern and Western Railway Companies with regard to the increase in the rates for butter to which my hon. Friend refers. The rate from Ennis to Cork is a through rate, and the Waterford and Limerick Company admit an increase of 3d. per firkin. We have not succeeded in getting a definite answer; but I will inquire further, and communicate with my hon. Friend later on.

Have the Irish railways accepted the principle that at least the old rates should be reverted to?

I cannot say that. There is evidently a conflict between the Companies. The whole matter is now before the Committee, and it had better be loft to them to inquire into it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any steps have been taken for the protection of the inhabitants of Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington, where many burglaries have recently taken place?

I am informed by the police that there have recently been two cases of larceny by entering an attic window left open, access to which was obtained through an unoccupied house adjoining. The second of these offences was committed on the 26th of last mouth, and since then special measures have been taken to prevent crimes of this kind. The police are not aware of any other cases of the kind, and I may point out that for the prevention of this class of crime the police are specially dependent on the vigilance and care exercised by householders themselves.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what has been the result of the inquiries made regarding the application of the people of the Four Mile House (County Roscommon) district for additional postal accommodation?

I am glad to be able to say that arrangements are in progress for improving the post in question, so that it shall work six days a week instead of four only. An interval for reply will also be provided for.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state why the Correspondence relative to the signature of the Protocol of 13th February, 1893, modifying the North Sea Liquor Traffic Convention of 16th November, 1887, was not laid before this House earlier than this present week; why three mouths were allowed to elapse after the date of the latest document in the Correspondence —namely, 14th February, 1893—before it was presented to Parliament; why this Correspondence was not presented to Parliament before Her Majesty's Government introduced the Bill ordered to be printed on 13th March, 1893, for carrying into effect the Convention to which the Correspondence relates; and whether, in view of the continued refusal of France to join in the Convention, Her Majesty's Government have seen any, and, if so, what, reason to depart from the conclusion expressed by Lord Salisbury, in his Despatch of 2nd July, 1891, that, if no security is obtained with respect to French vessels in the repression of the abuses which it is the object of the Convention to stop, "coopers" in the North Sea would no doubt hoist the French flag?

The delay in issuing the Correspondence was due to the fact that the printer was occupied with other and more urgent work, especially that connected with the Behring Sea Arbitration. As regards the last paragraph, I have to say that the French interest in the "cooper" trade is comparatively small; but if the result apprehended should take place, it is provided in the Protocol that the Convention can be terminated in one year or three months respectively, instead of in five years and one year.

Do the Government adhere to the conclusions of Lord Salisbury as set forth in the last paragraph of the question?

The object of the Protocol is to guard against the apprehensions expressed by Lord Salisbury, or any which might possibly arise.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain on what grounds the Colchester and District Trades and Labour Council were refused permission to hold a demonstration on the Abbey Field at Colchester upon Sunday, 14th May, while the Primitive Methodists were allowed to use the ground for a similar purpose some few weeks since; and is there any good reason why the ground should not be available for all public demonstrations' irrespective of both party and creed, upon those days when it is not required for military purposes?

The Abbey Field at Colchester lies between the huts and the permanent barracks, and is the drill ground of the troops. I think that there are very obvious objections to a field so situated being used for demonstrations on political and controversial subjects. The meeting held by the Primitive Methodists was simply a religious service.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any reasonable hope of telegraphic communication being restored with the South Cliff at Scarborough; and whether, as a period of six months or more has passed since the telegraph office there was closed, he will ascertain who is responsible for the long delay and great inconvenience which have resulted?

The Department is prepared to restore the telegraphic communication with the South Cliff, and I regret to say that the Corporation of Scarborough is responsible for the delay to which the hon. Member refers. They seek to compel the Department to extend telegraphic communication to the new office in a way which would be about four times as costly as that which the Department proposes to adopt, and I am not prepared to incur this expense. I trust the hon. Baronet will use his influence with the Corporation to induce them to co-operate with the Department in carrying out work which is needed by the inhabitants.

When was the Corporation informed that the Post Office objected to the laying of the wire as they required?

I cannot give the exact date. Communications have been passing for some time.

In the absence of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the London County Council have resolved to erect artizans' dwellings and cottages at a cost of £33,250, besides cost of foundations, on the basis of estimates at a net return of 2½ per cent. on part and 2 per cent. on the larger part, excluding the cost of foundations; and whether, this return being less than the money costs the ratepayers to raise, he proposes to make any representation to the London County Council or to take any steps on the subject?

I have no information as to the proposals referred to, and I have no jurisdiction in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any further information in regard to the position of affairs in Dominica?

From a Despatch received yesterday it appears that the state of affairs is less serious than it was, though the island has not as yet entirely quieted down. We hope to hear further by telegram immediately. Mr. Jarvis, Government Officer of the District, and Mr. James, Inspector of Police, have left the island. Mr. Roper, who was altogether unconnected with the previous occurrences, has been appointed Resident Magistrate in the disturbed district. When we have received the further information called for, both in regard to the lamentable occurrences at La Plaine and in regard to the alleged grievances of the people in different parts of the island, we shall further carefully consider what course it may be right to adopt.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether His Excellency has received a Memorial, signed by representative persons of all creeds and classes in the locality, respecting the sentence of one month's imprisonment without the option of a fine, recently inflicted by the County Monaghan Justices at Cloves upon John Carron, aged 74, for an assault, and praying for its remission; and has such Memorial been considered; and, if so, with what result?

said: The Memorial in the case referred to has been before the Lord Lieutenant, together with a Report which shows that the assault was of a wanton nature and committed on a quiet, inoffensive man, who was obliged to get another person bound to the peace lately. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Lord Lieutenant decided that the law must take its course.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-hind whether he is aware that the house of a farmer named John Conran, at Trocken, County Wicklow, was attacked by armed men early upon Tuesday morning last, and his wife and servant woman both shot dead; whether any arrests have been made; and has Conran himself been afforded protection?

It is unfortunately the case that the two women referred to were shot dead on the night of the 15th instant. The police cannot find any confirmation of the suggestion that the house was attacked by a body of armed men. They do not consider it advisable in this stage of the case to discuss the matter, a course which might tend to interfere with their investigation.

May I ask whether this was an agrarian crime, or whether it belongs to the class of outrages specially reported?

As far as I know, there is nothing whatever to show that it was an agrarian crime.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can explain how it is that if owners of land in Ireland are assessed on Griffith's Valuation, the statistical abstracts show that the assessments which in 1862 were close upon £9,000,000 sterling had increased in 1877 to close upon £10,000,000, although Griffiths' Valuation had been completed long before the former year?

I believe that the increase referred to is mainly apparent and not real, being largely due to a change of classification which was made in 1877, by which farmhouses and buildings were transferred from the head of houses to that of land.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Brazilian Government to the representations of Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in the matter of the claims of the owner of the steamship Fulwood for demurrage at Rio de Janeiro?

Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Rio de Janeiro has made several representations both in writing and verbally to the Brazilian Government; but up to the date of his last Despatch on the subject, March 17, had not received a satisfactory reply. The case continues to occupy his attention.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware when, on 13th March, 1893, he introduced the North Sea Fisheries Bill, to carry into effect the Convention of 1887, that the French Chamber had refused to pass a similar law, on the ground that the Convention gave the right to foreign cruisers to search and seize French vessels in time of peace; that it would prevent fishermen from obtaining assistance from other vessels when at sea; that it would lead to different punishments being inflicted for the same offence; that no compensation was provided for vessels wrongfully detained; and that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as each country could prohibit the offences aimed at by municipal regulations; and whether, in view of the fact that the Correspondence disclosing these objections has only been presented to Parliament during the present week, he will give the House time to consider how far these objections are applicable to the case of England before proceeding further with the North Sea Fisheries Bill?

The fact that the French Government has refused to ratify the North Sea Liquor Traffic Convention of 1887 has long been known to everyone interested in the removal of the evils which have prevailed in that traffic, and it was on this account that the late Government entered into a new Convention. The objections cited by the hon. Member would apply equally to the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, and to the Convention of 1882, which has worked admirably. It is of the utmost importance, for the honour of this country and in the interests of the fishing industry, that the Convention should come into force immediately.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he was aware at the time he introduced the Bill of the facts disclosed in the Correspondence, which was for the first time placed in the hands of Members this week?

I thought everybody was aware of the fact that for six years past the Government have been negotiating the ratification of the Convention, and that, for reasons which I need not enter into, the French Government declined, with the result that Lord Salisbury entered into a new Convention which excluded France.

But had the right hon. Gentleman seen the Correspondence when he introduced the Bill, although it has only just been issued?

I had not actually seen the Correspondence; but I was aware of the facts, and thought everybody else was.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been arrived at in reference to the pension of Sir Thomas Brady?

As I stated yesterday, the Treasury have made a proposal which they hope shortly to be able to communicate to the House.

Have the Treasury communicated its proposal to Sir Thomas Brady?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is a fact that there are now two district auditors in the employment of the Local Government Board who have attained the respective ages of 71 and 66; whether under the provision of the 10th clause of the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, and the letter of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, these officers should be compulsorily retired; and who is responsible for these gentlemen continuing in office?

The circumstances are completely set out in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Accounts for 1891–2 and the Correspondence appended thereto, and no observation from me is called for, especially as the matter has already come before the Public Accounts Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all the Lee-Metford Magazine Rifles, Mark H. pattern now in store, are fitted with the Penn-Deeley patent bolt head?

Yes, Sir.

Arising out of that question, may I ask what the Penn-Deeley bolt is?

(taking a bolt out of his pocket): To satisfy the hon. Gentleman, here it is, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that great inconvenience is often caused to British merchants and manufacturers by the detention at the Custom Houses of patterns bearing their names, such patterns having previously been sent to their correspondents abroad, and returned for the execution of orders; and if, in view of the worthlessness of such patterns except for business purposes, and the necessity of their being promptly forwarded, the Regulations under the Merchandise Marks Act can be altered so as to prevent such detention?

I have received complaints such as are indicated in the question, and I am most anxious to remove all impediments to the transaction of business. If the hon. Member will bring under my notice a specific case, I will inquire into it, and communicate with the Customs with a view to a practical remedy.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what steps he has taken to assimilate the conditions of labour as to hours and wages of the employés in the Royal Parks to those of the employés in the parks under the control of the London County Council?

Although the labourers in the Royal Parks are not paid at the very high level recently adopted by the London Council for the labourers in their parks, yet it appears, as the result of a recent inquiry, that the terms of employment are better than those given by other employers in London of similar labour. The question whether, under these circumstances, we should raise the minimum rate of wages for ordinary labourers to that of the London Council, is one involving many other Departments of the Government, such as the War Office and the Admiralty, and opens a very wide subject of policy. It is now being considered by a Committee of the Government, in accordance with the statement made by the Secretary of State for War on the Motion raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate why the grant for roads was not given to County Caithness as to other counties?

The grant in aid of roads in the Highlands and Islands was not given in reduction of the road rate, but for the express purpose of constructing roads and footpaths within the specially congested districts. It was a condition of all these grants that the money was to be allocated to those districts which from poverty, remoteness, and other causes, most required roads; and the wants of the districts where the access of the children to school was difficult and even dangerous was specially to be kept in mind. I may add that urgent applications have, from time to time, been made to the Scottish Office from the Highlands and Islands for such a grant; but, until the recent grant was expended, no applications had been received from the County Council of Caithness. I regret that there is no more money available.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the time of the House now taken up in answering questions, an arrangement could be made for the questions to be answered in a printed form, instead of orally, as at present?

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has just become alive to the fact that a great deal of time is spent in answering questions. I think it is an evil of which the House has long been conscious; but the remedy that my hon. Friend proposes has been often considered, and I am afraid it would only aggravate the evil, as it would add to waste of time, waste of paper, and waste of print. There is one remedy which I would suggest to the consideration of the House, and that is that if we had a strict rule against subsidiary questions we might save one-third of the time expended. The putting of these questions is a recent practice, and, as far as I know, there is no authority whatever for it in this House. The practice of hon. Members getting up and saying, "Sir, arising out of that answer," practically trebles the questions on the Paper. This is a matter well deserving the consideration of the House, and I am quite sure that if the House should express an opinion to the effect I have stated, you, Sir, would be glad to enforce it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider the advisability of Ministers abstaining from argumentative replies?

And of keeping close to the questions put?

I can only promise for myself.

In connection with this matter, I venture to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will not again consider the advisability of revising the practice of going through the Question Paper a second time, in order to save the time of the House; and whether it cannot be ruled that any Member who is not in his place to ask his question when it is called shall forfeit his right for the day?

One result of that Rule might be that questions which were passed over one day would be put down on the next day, and so swell the number of questions again.

May I ask whether a remedy would not be found if the questions were edited before they are put on the Paper, and if such as are suitable could be sent direct to the Departments, and answered from the Departments, instead of being brought before the House?

That would be a very responsible duty to undertake.

Arising out of all these questions, I should like to ask whether it would not be possible to limit the number of questions asked by any one particular Member? Some Members only ask one or two questions during the Session, while others ask scores.

It is quite possible that a Member might have a legitimate curiosity which would necessitate the asking of many questions.

Is it a fact that the Vote on Account will be taken on the first day after the holidays?

Yes.

Then, as the hon. Member for South Antrim has given notice that he will raise the question of the condition of Clare, I beg to say that I will be there.

May I ask what is the nature of the Bill? It seems to have a good object; but I would suggest that it might be improved by being made to apply to persons of sober habits before they get drunk.

I hope the hon. Baronet will allow the Bill to be printed before he expresses any opinion on it. It is a very small affair. It simply provides that persons who have been convicted a certain number of times within a given period will be under disabilities, and unable to go to a public-house to buy drink. It will be for the House, when it has the Bill in print, to say whether, as I think it will, it commands universal satisfaction.

said, he objected to this and to every other clause in the Bill, because the provisions could only be enforced by adopting in times of peace methods that ought only to be resorted to in times of war—namely, search and seizure. Under this Bill foreign cruisers would be enabled to search a British vessel, examine her papers, and if the commander of the vessel were not satisfied with them to seize her, and take her into port. This was a most dangerous power to give. He had no objection to the enactment of laws against the exit from our ports of vessels likely to be engaged in this noxious and harmful traffic; but he did object to giving this power to foreign vessels over English vessels. A certain amount of spirituous liquor was necessary at times for sailors, and what they ought to provide against was the abuse of it. The Bill had been intro- duced into that House under circumstances which were extremely discreditable to Her Majesty's Government, who had tried to smuggle it through the House after 12 o'clock without giving the slightest information as to its object. The French Government bad refused to accept it on good and substantial grounds. Her Majesty's Government had been in possession of the Correspondence that had taken place with regard to the Convention for the last three months, and yet it was only when they had succeeded in smuggling the Bill through its Second Reading that they had condescended to lay that Correspondence upon the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had told them he knew nothing of the Correspondence when he introduced the Bill.

Oh, no! What I said was that I had not the full Correspondence before me in printed form; but I knew its purport was indeed generally known.

said, he had not understood that; but he would, of course, accept the statement. Still, he thought they had good cause for complaint, inasmuch as endeavours had been made to push forward the Bill after 12 o'clock when there could be no discussion. The French Government had refused to ratify the Convention on grounds which were extremely valid. Lord Salisbury was of opinion—as he himself was—that if France stood out the traffic would not be stopped, but would be carried on under the French flag.

This more properly arises on Clause 1. Clause 3 simply creates penalties for infringements of the Act, and has nothing to do with policy.

admitted that, but thought he should have some latitude in view of the attempts to smuggle the Bill through without discussion. He held that the Government ought to move that Progress should be reported, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of reading the important Correspondence just issued before they were called upon to consider this most silly and mischievous Bill in Committee.

I could not have believed that any hon. Member in this House would have delivered such a speech as that to which we have just listened. As has been pointed out, by Clause 1 the House has confirmed the Convention, and by Clause 2 has imposed penalties for exchanging or selling spirits. The other clauses are subsidiary. The circumstances of the Bill are simple. In 1886, after the greatest evils had prevailed in the North Sea Fishery, a Convention, including France, was entered into for the purpose of putting down the abominable system of "cooperage." That Convention was confirmed in 1887, and an Act was passed, promoted by my Predecessor, of which the present Bill is au exact copy, with the exception that it leaves out France, who, for reasons set forth in the Correspondence, practically because we are in Egypt, decline to join us in the Convention.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. France objected to the Convention on the ground that this was an attempt on the part of England to dominate the North Sea.

Exactly. But France has agreed to a similar Convention, which is now actually in force, and the Convention of 1886 extends over exactly the same area as this. When I came back to the Board of Trade last year, I found that Lord Salisbury had agreed to set up a separate Convention leaving out France; and as a result a Convention was entered into, and it required a new enactment, giving France the option of coming into the Convention. What was said by France herself on this subject? A French Commission sat upon it, and reported that the trade in alcohol had been carried on by persons devoid of any sense of morality on board vessels flying the German flag; that shameful advantage was taken of all the vices of fishermen, who were detained by prostitutes, and when their reason had been destroyed by intoxication the men were stripped and robbed. There wore most scandalous orgies, succeeded often by scenes of robbery and murder. A more terrible statement has never been placed on paper.

The same thing goes on among English sailors.

Yes; under the influence of this system of floating brothels. This Bill is intended to put down these evils; and, in the face of what promises to be sheer obstruction, I say that no Bill ever had such claims upon this House, and that in the interests of our fishermen, and by reason of our pledges to other Governments, we are bound to place this enactment on our Statute Book as soon as possible.

said, there appeared to be a great deal of misconception in regard to the Bill. The International Convention of 1887, to devise means to suppress the floating grog-shops in the North Seas, was the result of negotiations between the British Foreign Office and the Maritime Powers of Europe. His right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham was the first to induce the Foreign Office to take up the question, and Lord Salisbury took steps to have the Convention assembled owing to the representations made by Sir Edward Birkbeck—a name that would be always held in respect by fishermen—and himself in 1887. That Convention was signed by all the Plenipotentiaries, and a Bill, ratifying that Convention, was passed by the House in five minutes in 1888. France alone refused to pass the necessary legislation; hence the new Convention in February last, which all the other Powers had signed and ratified, and which the Committee were now asked to ratify by passing the Bill before it. Therefore, France would now either have to come into the arrangement, or bear the responsibility of the "floating hells" carrying on their illegal traffic under her flag—a traffic the consequences of which to the moral and commercial welfare of the fishermen few hon. Members could fully realise. As to Clause 3 under discussion, it was entirely subsidiary to Clauses 1 and 2, which had been passed. His hon. Friend opposite objected to Clause 3. But they could not amend the Bill. They must now either take the Bill as it was, or nullify the proceedings of the Convention of February last. The House of Commons, in 1888, passed an Act ratifying the previous Convention, and Clause 3 of the present Bill was word for word in exactly the same terms as Clause 3 of the Act of 1888. England was the first to ask the Maritime Powers to outer into an engagement to deal with the evils complained of, and it was a matter of honour that we should do what was necessary on our part to carry it out. England, of all the Powers who had signed the first Convention, had not yet ratified the second Convention, and she was bound in honour to ratify it. It was believed, too, that France would come in as soon as the other Powers had ratified the Convention. That France thought it was necessary something should be done to protect the fishermen was proved by the fact that a Commission appointed by the French Government in 1889 to inquire into the subject fully recognised the evils of the existing system, and agreed that it was necessary something should be done to abolish it. He would read an extract from the Report of the Commission—

"After an inquiry ordered by the Government of Great Britain, the Commissioner charged with the Mission declared that the presence of 'floating grog-shops 'at the fishing grounds constituted a permanent source of disorder among the fishermen, and that the most detestable evils ran riot in these establishments; theft, abuse of confidence, threats, violence, brigandage, obscenity and fraud; drunkenness, pushed to its most extreme limits, produced as a necessary consequence outbreaks and indiscipline among the crews. To satisfy their passions the fishermen spent not only the resources destined for the maintenance of themselves and their families, but bartered away for beer and bad liquor the fish and fishing gear belonging to their masters. The Commissioner added that violent deaths had resulted from the scenes which took place on board this new kind of public-house."

The statement that the men often bartered away the fish in order to obtain drink on board these floating grog-shops was perfectly true. Two skippers were brought before him, as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, for bartering away their employers' fish, and he was sorry to say he had to sentence them to hard labour. They had been respectable men, and were reduced to that condition by the evil influences of these grog-shops. If the Committee desired to keep up the morality of the fishermen, and earn the gratitude of the fishermen, and especially the gratitude of the wives of the fishermen, they would pass the Bill at once.

said, there were two distinct parts in the Bill. They were all agreed as to the terrible effects of the spirit traffic in connection with the North Sea Fisheries, and that those evils should be stopped, or mitigated, if possible. But hon. Gentlemen should not try to rush through the Bill on pleas of that kind. It was not because a Bill was well-intentioned that it would be an effective Bill. He confessed he should like to have the present discussion postponed till a later clause of the Bill, because Clause 3, which they were discussing, limited the effect of the measure solely to British sailors. He thought the House should do everything it could to limit the traffic as far as British sailors were concerned. He was sorry to say that it was the conduct of British sailors mainly that had led to such legislation; and in the face of the extreme objection which France had taken to any Convention of the kind he thought the Bill should apply to British seamen alone, both in respect to selling intoxicating liquors and purchasing them from other ships. Therefore he had no objection to Clause 3, but he thought it was useless to go further, and pass a Bill which would be inoperative. The Bill was not limited to grog-shops alone. It might fall heavily on innocent British sailors. It did not apply only to fishermen who wanted spirits, but it might be applied to fishermen who, after a storm, wanted fresh rigging or an anchor. Another great objection to the Bill was that Franco did not come into the arrangement. It was all very well to say that a similar Bill was passed by the late Government; but things had altered very much since then. France was then a party to the arrangement. France refused to ratify the Convention now. The fact that France would be a party to the arrangement made the arrangement inoperative. Let them do everything, so far as they could, to legislate for British sailors; but it was idle to go further and pass an Act which would be inoperative, and which would possibly make them a laughing-stock. The mere fact that France refused to join in the Convention made it possible for the traffic to be carried on in the future just as in the past.

No, no!

said, he did not see how the traffic could be prevented under the circumstances. At all events, the operation of the Bill should be confined to our own sailors or fishermen, with whom alone we had power to deal. Mr. Mundella rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

said, he would like to hear some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade on the points he had raised. He would like to know whether the Government had taken into serious consideration the objections -which the French Government had offered to the Convention? An attempt had been made to pass the Bill without discussion after 12 o'clock, before some Members of the Government and Members generally knew anything of the serious objections raised to the Convention by France. Their action in objecting to the Bill being passed after 12 o'clock was, therefore, justified. He did not think the Bill should be discussed at any length that day; but he thought they should have some statement from the Government as to whether they had really satisfied themselves that in legislating without the concurrence of France we were not leaving out a very important factor in the problem; and whether, by passing this Bill, we should be able to stop this abominable traffic if it were possible for French vessels to carry it as heretofore? He believed the Act would prevent British people from indulging in the traffic, but did not think much good would follow, as France would still be free to carry it on.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would explain, by reference to the Correspondence, in what way he had come across the information that France was opposing the Convention in connection with some question of her claims in Egypt.

My reference to that subject was based upon the state- ment in the Correspondence that France had complained that the English were dominating the seas, and that we had not, been sufficiently considerate to her in dealing with the Egyptian Question. I may add, in reply to the hon. Member for Preston, that France has always been an innocent party in this matter, because she has never supplied bad spirits to the fishermen. It is chiefly Belgians, Scandinavians, and sometimes Germans, who supply these vile and injurious spirits. France is alive to this great evil, and I hope, by-and-bye, France will come to a better understanding and join us. It was not the French Government that objected to the Convention. They did their best to get it carried, but the obstruction to this legislation came from the Members of the Committee of the French Chamber. This clause is simply a repetition of a corresponding clause in the previous Act. The House has already passed the enacting clauses, and, really, as there is nothing loft to discuss, I hope we will go through with the Bill.

said, he agreed that very little time ought to be consumed in discussing the Bill; but he was bound to say that, in his experience, he had never known tactics less calculated to advance the end in view than the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had charged those who had brought forward Amendments to the Bill with obstruction.

No; it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of narrowing the range of discussion, had introduced a subject which, if followed up, might have led to an interesting Debate on Egypt and the foreign policy of this country. It was an extraordinary thing to find a Minister, who was in charge of a Fishery Convention Bill, going beyond the province of the Bill, and charging a Committee of the French Chamber, which represented every section of the Chamber, with obstructive tactics. He did not wish to be drawn into a discussion on the Constitutional arrangements of the French Chamber, or on the foreign policy of this country; but no thanks were due to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that such topics did not now make a large demand on the time of the Committee. With respect to the action of France, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman, from his observations, was scarcely a Minister calculated to approach France on this subject with the necessary conciliatory spirit; but he wished to know whether any steps had been taken by the Government to obtain from the Government of France some assurance that, while standing outside the Convention, they would, as a matter of French Municipal Law, endeavour on their part to put down what was universally admitted to be a grave scandal and reproach? If the Government had taken steps to obtain from the French Government some expression that they would assist to abolish this infamous traffic, it would have been far more satisfactory to the Committee than for the Minister in charge of the Bill to indulge in vain denunciations and strictures upon the Committee of the French Chamber.

said, one little fact had escaped the notice of the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had stilted that there was no danger of French vessels engaging in the liquor traffic in the North Seas. Perhaps that was because the French had not hitherto engaged in the fishing. The fishermen were mostly Englishmen, Dutchmen, and some Norwegians. But it was stated in the Correspondence that the French people, and especially the inhabitants of Boulogne, were now beginning to fit out vessels for the North Sea Fisheries; and as the French would be the only persons allowed to engage in this traffic in the future they would be very much tempted to engage in the traffic on a large scale. He would also call the attention of the Committee to the fact that when the former Act was passed, in 1888, France had taken part in the Convention. But the situation was now entirely changed. France had taken no part in the present Convention, but not because, as the right hon. Gentleman had indiscreetly stated, she was jealous of our position in Egypt. There was no mention of Egypt in the Correspondence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby had quoted from the Correspondence of 1891 but he ought to have also quoted from the Correspondence of 1892. In the French Correspondence he found it stated —" England has tried to usurp the dominion of the seas."

; Hear, hear!

maintained that England had usurped nothing. What England sought to retain was her own dominion over the seas; but France stated that we had usurped the dominion of the seas, and had refused to join in the Convention in order to prevent English cruisers roaming about us the police of the seas. His objection to the Bill was that it would give power to any vessel of the five nations in the Convention to overhaul any merchant ship whatever in the North Seas. Captain Norton rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

repeated that his objection to the Bill was that under it any English merchant ship going to the North Seas was liable to be seized by a naval officer of any of those five nations, and its papers searched and overhauled, and the vessel seized and taken into port. He denied the imputation that, had been made broadcast upon our fishermen—that they were drunkards, and that they desired to be protected by foreign cruisers. He knew them well; he had sailed for many years with them, and he undertook to say that there were no honester men in the country, and that a larger number of them were temperance men than of any other class.

I rise to Order, Mr. Mellor. I desire to ask, are the observations of the hon. Member in Order on this clause? THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is out of Order.

said, the Bill would place the English fishermen, who, as he had said, were a temperate body of men, under the dominion of foreign cruisers. They occasionally required an anchor, or cable, or something of the kind after a storm; but the effect of this Convention would be that vessels would be indisposed to supply them with any of these things for fear of falling under the suspicion of being engaged in the "coopering trade." He contended that the Convention was unnecessary. The English fishermen were not drunkards, and did not need this legislation. Foreign cruisers, he contended, should not have the right to capture English vessels in the North Sea. Mr. Mundella rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

said, hon. Members had asked how were we to Lope that France would come in? He would give them the answer in the words of the Commission to which the investigation of this question was deputed. On page 21 it was stated—

" The results of our not adhering to the Convention must be considered. It would none the less exist among the five other signatory Powers, who have decided to forbid absolutely the liquor traffic among the fishermen of their respective nations. What would be the consequence? Being hampered in their contraband trade, the floating grog-shops would not hesitate to fly the French flag under the pretext that France had not adhered to the Convention, and that, consequently, her flag would be protected against the pursuit of cruisers. Is it our interest to displease the neighbouring Powers by not lending them our moral and effective support in this work of improvement? Should we be right in sheltering under our honoured flag an immoral, shameful, and disgusting trade? "

With reference to the suggestion that English vessels would be put at the mercy of foreign cruisers, he pointed out that the moment a cruiser discovered a floating grog-shop its duty would be to call in the cruiser of the nation to which the vessel belonged, and ask them to take care of the case.

said that, as one who had more fishermen in his constituency probably than any other hon. Member, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby and the hon. Member for Lynn, he hoped hon. Gentlemen on that side would not impede that clause, but would allow the Bill to pass. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Preston had said, that they had not been allowed to discuss the Bill; but the Government had not allowed them to discuss anything except the Irish Home Rule Bill, and when they discussed that they were closured. However, on the principle that half a loaf was bettor than no bread, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass.

said, that the ground France took for not joining the Convention was that five other important nations refused to join. Were the Government, in order to make this Bill effective if passed into law, prepared to negotiate with Norway and Russia with the view to joining in a fresh Convention, for France, Russia, and Norway were all concerned in these fisheries, and had had no share in this Convention?

stated that the Norwegian boats did not remain at the fishing ground, but simply ran out and home again, whilst Russian boats did not fish in this part of the North Sea. The discussion on the Bill had already occupied more than three times the amount of time his right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) had placed at his disposal, and he felt that he must carry out his engagement. Not a single Amendment had been put on the Paper in reference to any clause, and unless the Bill was at once passed through he should move to report Progress.

would tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was his own conduct of this Bill which had led to the opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been constantly bringing charges of obstruction against the Opposition and against the French Government, who questioned his proceedings, and had done what he had done that day—namely, put down the Bill in Government time at an earlier period, very little objection would have been raised. He did not think it right this clause should be claimed to be taken now because they had not put down Amendments. The reason they had not put down Amendments was because they wanted the Bill to go through. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt his suggestion, and enter into negotiations with Norway and Russia.

expressed the hope that the Government would recognise the importance of applying to those Powers that had not joined the Convention for support, as a vessel could, by hoisting the Hag of one of these Powers, prevent search by a cruiser.

replied that if they found a vessel hoisted the flag of one of these Powers in order to sell grog they should feel it their duty to approach the Government of that Power on the subject. He expressed the opinion that the French people had not done anything in this direction—they had boon perfectly innocent of such proceedings.

said, that very serious International considerations, and also the interests of the fishermen themselves, had made him feel it to be his duty to make a few remarks on the Bill. They did not wish to obstruct it, and never had justified any charge of obstruction, and they were now disposed to let the right hon. Gentleman have his Bill if he would behave nicely to them in future, and take what steps he could to avoid what might become an abusive practice of search, seizure, and capture of English vessels by foreign enemies.

said, in reply to the hon. Member, he might point out that the Report from which he had already quoted stated that —

"The Convention of the 6th of May, 1882, relative to the police of the: fisheries in the North Sea was signed by the same Powers. Its object was much more important than that of the Liquor Traffic Convention, without presenting greater features of interest for our country. We accepted it, but it has not given rise to any incident concerning us. There is still less reason to fear the present stipulations, which, while protecting the morality and sobriety of the fishermen, will prove to be absolutely inoffensive."

asked the House to consent to the Bill being read a third time.

said, they had allowed the Bill to pass through Committee in spite of grave doubts; and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Third Reading to stand over. They had shown by their conduct that they were not disposed to do anything but what was generous; and, for his part, he should very much like time to enable him to communicate with his fishing constituents as to the Bill.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his objection, because, at the present moment, all the fleets were in the North Sea, and it was therefore important that the provisions of the Bill should be put into force at once.

said, the previous evening he ventured to put to the Secretary to the Treasury one or two questions, to one only of which he had up to the present received an answer. He at once said that the question which was answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was replied to in the most satisfactory manner. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the suggestion that, instead of charging the cost of Post Office buildings on the Votes for the year, it should be spread over a number of years, the same as was done with the expenditure for barracks and fortifications. But there were two other points to which he had not yet received a reply. Ono was as to the form of the Estimates, and the other was as to Re-Votes. The right hon. Gentleman told him that the items opposite which "Re-Votes" were marked indicated sums of money voted in the previous year, but which had not been spent, and which, therefore, had to be re-voted this year. These Re-Votes amounted, in the case of the Post Office, to no less than £46,000, and on Customs and Inland Revenue buildings to £5,500, making a total of £51,500 apparently at the disposal of the First Commissioner of Works on these items. That amount, if this Estimate was accurate, must have been either surrendered or spent. Clearly it had not been surrendered, because from the Re-turn with which he had been favoured by the First Commissioner of Works he found that the total sum at his disposal for 1892-3 for Revenue Department buildings was £237,000, of which he expended no less than £231,000. Either, therefore, the Return must be erroneous, or he had spent for works not indicated in the Estimates of last year over £50,000. He should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in the expenditure of money not required for one item, he could apply it to another without Treasury control? He knew that in other Departments the Treasury had to be consulted before money saved from one item could be expended on another. That Treasury control very often led to great delay and inconvenience, and his experience was that such control was not of advantage to the Service. Another question in reference to the Treasury control was this: Did that control extend to the stoppage of the commencement of any work in the financial year until the whole Vote had been passed by that House? because, if it did, the summer season, which was best for building purposes, was often lost, and the work not commenced till the autumn, so that the amount of money which the First Commissioner might have expected was not expended.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had yesterday made an attack on his Department, although that attack in reality was more on the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman than it was on him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He thought the right hon. Gentleman, before making his observations, should have consulted his Colleagues who sat beside him, for they would have removed some of the misconceptions into which he had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury had starved the Post Office Vote; that great delays took place in the completion of these works after they had been agreed upon; that the money which had been voted and not been expended on these works had been surrendered to the Treasury, and that the Votes, as presented, were entirely misleading. To the first of these charges —namely, that the Treasury starved the Post Office Vote, he had no complaint to make of the Treasury, and he did not think there was any ground for the suggestion that had been made under the late Government. There was equally no ground for the other complaints made by the right hon. Gentleman. The facts of the case were shortly these: The Department had under construction at the present moment no fewer than 64 Post Offices in different parts of the Kingdom. These works were at different stages of progress. At the commencement of every financial year the Office of Works made out an estimate of what could be spout upon each of these works, and that estimate formed the basis of the aggregate Estimate laid before the Treasury, and finally before Parliament. Experience had shown that in the course of the year where so many works were undertaken, accidents and unexpected events occurred which prevented the full expenditure taking place on some of these works. In other cases disputes occurred with the contractors, or strikes took place, or questions arose regarding light and air, and the result was that in a certain number of these works delays occurred, and it was found impossible to expend in the financial year all that was expected at the commencement of it. In order to meet these cases and prevent the voting of unnecessary money for any financial year, the practice had been for the Treasury to make a reduction on the aggregate Vote of about one-fourth from the aggregate Estimate. In other words, when the total amount was to be added up, the Treasury had been in the habit of making a reduction of one-fourth, which in practice had been proved to be exactly the amount to deduct from the aggregate Vote. He had before him a statement showing the actual Vote in each of the four or five years, and the actual expenditure, and it was very curious bow nearly the two coincided. In 1889–90 the aggregate Vote for the Revenue Department buildings was £125,900; and the actual amount expended £126,800, a difference of less than £1,000. In the year 1890–91, the amount voted was £215,000, and the amount expended £213,600, a difference of only £1,400. In 1891–92 the amount voted was £214,000, and the amount expended £227,000, an excess of £13,000, which had to be met by a Supplemental Vote. In 1892–93, the amount voted was £237,000, and the amount expended £231,000, showing an expenditure of within £5,000 or £6,000 of the aggregate Vote. He thought that entirely disposed of the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman. He quite agreed that when once they began a work they should push on with it.

asked, what about the Re-Votes, amounting to £50,000?

said, he had explained that from the aggregate Vote there was deducted by the Treasury one-fourth. In the course of the year, from accidents of various kinds, it wits impossible to spend the whole of the sums anticipated in respect of particular post offices, and a Re-Vote was necessary. It was not a Re-Vote of the aggregate amount, but in respect of that particular item. The Treasury sanction was obtained for the transfer from one item to another without difficulty, and no inconvenience was found in practice to that expenditure. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his experience at the Admiralty must be very different to his, because he had found no difficulty whatever in getting the Treasury to facilitate arrangements of that kind. As he had said, he quite agreed that when once a Post Office was begun the true policy was to complete it as quickly as possible; that was a policy he had always endeavoured to carry out, and he had found no difficulty in the Treasury voting the necessary sums of money to carry out that policy. The right hon. Gentleman had staled that the Return which had been presented showed that the average length of time for the erection of a post office was five years. He had been misled in that respect by the inclusion in the Return of many post offices, of which the total cost was very large; but where a few hundreds only were to be spent in completing them during the current year.

That is not what I said. What I said was that the amount of money asked for this year, compared with the total expenditure of £1,096,000, showed that it would take five years to complete the works.

That is precisely what I said. The right hon. Gentleman had been misled by figures which be had not studied. Included in that Return were many post offices which were just on the point of completion, and on which a very small amount would be expended within the year. If they deducted these cases, instead of the average time for the erection of a post office being five years, it would be found to be less that three, which, having regard to the magnitude of the works, was not excessive. The Department was doing its utmost to complete the works when once they were begun, and it would fully recognise that no economy was so bad as to delay works when once commenced. He now came to the Liverpool Post Office, a subject in which the right hon. Gentleman was naturally so much interested. It was a fact that two or three years ago a very large sum of money was voted by the late Government for the purpose of purchasing a site for the Liverpool Post Office. Apparently, it was not anticipated that last year it would be possible to spend any sum to commence building; but in the course of the year it became possible to do so. Tenders were invited for commencing the foundations; the lowest was accepted, and if things had gone on as was expected it would have been possible during the last year to have expended a considerable sum of money upon them. But, unfortunately, as sometimes happened, a dispute arose with the con-tractor as to the terms of the contract and the conditions imposed upon him under the tender, which led to delay, and only that clay they had been apprised by their solicitor that they were justified in treating the contract as at an end, and in accepting the next tender. The result had been that during the last year they had been unable to expend any money on the Liverpool Post Office; but they hoped to be able to do so at once. The work of preparing the foundations in a building of that magnitude was very great, and it was not, therefore, likely that any money would be spent on the building itself during the present year; but the work would be pushed on with the utmost expedition. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there was much to be said in favour of treating these Post Office buildings as a matter of capital expenditure, instead of voting the money every year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken to consider the matter.

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that his Department submitted to the Treasury the sum of money which they had anticipated they could expend in the coming financial year over each of the different buildings; that the Treasury had a better knowledge of these matters than the expert officers of the Commissioner of Works, and struck off one-fourth from the total, and, as a matter of fact, that after such revision the total left really represented the amount of work that could be done in the course of the year, thus showing the Treasury could make a better estimate than the Office of Works. If it was the fact that the Treasury were better able to estimate the amount of money that could be expended on post offices than the First, Commissioner of Works, he would strongly urge that when that right hon. Gentleman put down the amount required for the year opposite each and every work, instead of putting it at the larger sum of £15,000 or £20,000, as the case might be, he should take 25 per cent. off each of these works, and then they should see the amount which, in the judgment of the Treasury, could be expended on the work, and they would thus got rid of that misleading item of Re-Vote. It was not really a Re-Vote, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, and it was, therefore, misleading to represent it as such. He submitted that he was justified in raising this question, as the Estimates themselves wore misleading, and led the House to believe that a large sum of money voted last year had not been spent, when the real fact was that the money had not been voted. He believed that if the First Commissioner of Works had had more money he would have been enabled to complete a greater number of Post Office buildings, and so do the work more efficiently than was done by starving the work from considerations of the Treasury.

could assure the right hon. Gentleman he was entirely mistaken if he thought there had been any starving of this Vote. There were 64 works in hand. The Office of Works at the commencement of the year brought an Estimate in respect of each of them, and the aggregate amount went to the Treasury. The Treasury, with the full assent of the Office of Works, guided by experience of the past, knocked off one-fourth of the whole amount, which the results showed exactly led to the requirements of the year. It would not be advisable to follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and knock off 25 per cent. from these works. There was no difficulty in getting the consent of the Treasury to transfer the Vote from one item to another, as the requirements necessitated; the whole arrangement was a convenient one, and in the aggregate the work was done as anticipated.

attributed the delay of completing the works in hand and the insufficiency of money for the post offices to the system which compelled the Post Office to satisfy the Treasury as to the requirements in particular places. Naturally the Treasury would not look beyond the immediate present, and they allowed post offices to be designed and built which satisfied the wants of the place at the particular time, but which took no regard whatever for the expansion of the town and the consequent necessity for an increase of accom- modation. His own borough of Preston was an instance of this. They had there a post office which was built, he supposed, 40 years ago, when the town was only about half the size it was at the present time. The town had gone on increasing; telegraphs and parcel post had been added, so that additional post office accommodation was urgently needed. Years ago this matter was brought under the notice of Mr. Raikes, who considered various schemes. It happened that the Post Office at Preston was in one of the leading thoroughfares, so that there was no room to enlarge it, and, therefore, what the authorities had to contemplate was the providing of a new site and the building of new buildings. It appeared to him that the system of passing the Estimates for Post Office buildings from the Post Office to the Treasury, and from the Treasury to the Hoard of Works, entailed an enormous amount of delay and unnecessary work. The condition of the post office at Preston was that about 20 men were working in a place which was not fit for more than 10 at the outside. The conditions under which the officials had to carry on their business was conducive neither to health nor the efficient discharge of duties. He did not want to travel beyond this Vote, but he would like to point to the fact that they had this curious matter connected with the Post Office, that while the buildings and works came on on this particular Vote the acquisition of sites came on in another Vote, and before they began to build they must of course acquire the site. He should like to know at what point the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner came in in reference to the acquisition of the site? It appeared to him that the public interests were not well served by the intervention of that officer when he did come in. The Post Office was really a Commercial Department, which ought to be conducted on commercial lines, and those who were responsible for its management, when they decided that further accommodation was required in a particular place, should not be hampered by having to go to another Department. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could make any statement about the present position of the Preston Post Office, or state what steps it was intended to take towards providing the increased accommodation which was so urgently needed in that town.

said, that the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Liverpool had made an interesting and practical speech, which resolved itself very much into a question of the advisability of Treasury control. As one who had been for many years on the Public Accounts Committee—for some time Chairman—he could bear his testimony that, although the Treasury made mistakes occasionally, like other Departments, yet its control was advantageously exercised, and conduced very much to the economy of the finances of the country. His hon. Friend spoke of the Post Office and Treasury as being two separate concerns, but he rather looked upon them as two Departments of one business carrying on the affairs of the nation. The right hon. Member for Ormskirk questioned very much the present form of keeping-accounts, because he said—if he understood him correctly—that the Controller and Auditor General found it practically impossible to give his certificate under the present system.

My remarks had reference to one special form of Estimate placed before the House which is totally different to the form of Estimate placed before the House by all other Departments, and on that form of Estimate I said that the Controller and Auditor General could not give his certificate with any degree of accuracy. This points out certain expenditure to be allocated to certain buildings; but that expenditure, although set out on the Estimate, is varied by a lump sum deducted in the aggregate.

said, with all due deference, he thought there would be no difficulty in giving the certificate under the form of Estimate they now had. Of course, whether it was a desirable form or not was another question. As far as his experience went, he did not anticipate any difficulty on the part of the Controller and Auditor General in giving his certificate under the present form of Estimate. His right hon. Friend suggested they should get out of the difficulty alluded to by using the power of the Treasury to grant transfers from one sub-head to another. That was a useful provision in keeping the national accounts, and was exercised by the Treasury with great judgment. No doubt there was some convenience in allowing money to be transferred from one Vote to another, and, though it would be a mistake to put any great restrictions on the practice, there were objections to it, and it was not desirable that it should be resorted to oftener than could be avoided. He had been under the impression that £180,000 was the total cost of the Liverpool Post Office, but it now appeared that that amount did not include the cost of the site; and to that extent the statement in the Estimates was misleading. In order to have all the facts before them the purchase of sites should be included in the Return. In the case of Landport Post Office nothing was to be spent this year, although there had been an original and a revised Estimate of £(3,700, and if there were no idea of spending anything he did not see why it was introduced at all. Great loss in interest was involved in undertaking so many works and expending so little upon them. To acquire sites and to do nothing with them for a long time made a very serious addition to the cost of the buildings. He understood that the First Commissioner was willing to expedite building operations as much as possible, with a view to minimising this source of loss, and, therefore, he did not think it necessary to pursue the subject further. Some of the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Ormskirk would rather complicate our accounts, and the right hon. Gentleman hardly did justice to the valuable supervision exercised by the Treasury.

was understood to ask what was the contemplated expenditure on the new post office at Croydon?

inquired what was proposed to be done with the old post office at Birmingham, an ugly building, whose ugliness was rather added to by its present unoccupied condition? The popular idea in relation to the building in Birmingham was that it was absolutely un-suited to any purpose whatsoever. If the right hon. Gentleman could devise some means of disposing of it and getting it occupied he would confer an advantage on the inhabitants of the town. He should also like to ask a question in relation to the incidence of charge for these post offices as between the Telegraph and Postal Services. The first point, would arise upon the original cost of the building, and he should be glad to know how that cost was distributed between one Service and the other. He believed the system formerly in operation was that the superficial space of the floors in the building was ascertained, the quantity of that area appropriated to the two branches of the Service ascertained, and the total charge of the building was distributed as between the two Services upon that calculation. He should be glad to know if that system was still in operation or not. A further question arose in relation to maintenance and repairs. Some years ago maintenance and repairs were charged—25 per cent. to the Telegraph Service and 75 per cent. to the Postal Service, and if that was the case now he did not see how it could be justified. If a less charge on the important item of maintenance and repairs was being made upon the Telegraph Service than ought strictly to be made it was very clear that the deficiency on the Telegraph Service was in reality much, more considerable than the Estimate showed, and if the deficiency were increasing it was also clear that there might exist a necessity for a change of policy in relation to the Telegraph Service. As he understood from the First Commissioner of Works, the Treasury contemplated trying the adoption of some system of capital expenditure in relation to these buildings. It was a very curious circumstance that if a Municipal or other Local Body wished to erect an expensive building it did not do it out of revenue. Such a process would be absolutely impossible, inasmuch as for a year or two over which the expenditure would extend there would be such an increase of rating as would be intolerable. Therefore a loan was borrowed for the total value of the building and site, and that loan was spread over a series of years, having some relation to the life of the building, probably being 50 or 60 years. That, on the face of it, was a. fairly just system, and for this reason: A building lasted far beyond the term of the life of the persons who, under the system pursued by the Crown, had to pay the whole cost of it; and, therefore, by the Municipal system, the cost of the building was really paid for by the generation winch had the use of it. It would be a perfectly fair and just system if something of the kind could be applied by the Treasury to buildings of a permanent character, such as those provided for the accommodation of the Post Office, the Customs, and other Services.

said, it was quite true that nothing was proposed this year as regarded the post office at Land-port. He believed they were quite prepared to undertake the building, but it was uncertain whether they would be able to do it this year. If, fortunately, they were able to commence the building, they would be able to do it out of the savings of another Vote. As representing the Treasury, he did not in the least find fault with the right hon. Member for Ormskirk for his criticisms; but, on the contrary, he rather thanked him for Usefully drawing attention to many points in the Estimates. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman, who said that the column as to Re-Votes was more misleading than it was. He thought it was clear what was meant by that column, though he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his criticisms with respect to the information given. He quite agreed that the form in which the Re-Votes wore given was very misleading. For instance, there was a case in which £6,860 was voted last year and a sum was spent, leaving £2,000 unappropriated. That was put down for this year as a Re-Vote of £2,000, but it was a Re-Vote of less, because last year there was taken off from the total a certain amount which would have the effect of reducing the Re-Vote to a less sum than £2,000. He was going to suggest that the Treasury should consider whether a better form could not be devised for next year, and if his right hon. Friend would wish to make any suggestions on the subject he would be glad to receive them. With regard to the long delay in the building of post offices, and to the suggestion that they should be built out of capital, he did not see why that should be done for post offices unless it were to be done for all other public buildings throughout the country. If it was desirable for one, it was desirable for all. What he would suggest to the First Commissioner was that quite so many post office buildings should not be undertaken at the same time. There were 64 now in some process of construction, and, in his opinion, it would be better to have only one-half that number on hand and to spend a larger sum upon them.

said, that it would be desirable to give great consideration to the form in which the Estimates should be presented. What the House of Commons wanted was to get more information, instead of less; the present system was not calculated to give them that, and he hoped the matter would have the attention of the Treasury. Another matter to which he wished to draw the attention of the First Commissioner was the Leeds Post Office. This work had been on hand a very long time, and there was not a case in the United Kingdom which was more pressing, in view of the fact that it was in contemplation to make Leeds a still more important centre for forwarding telegraphic communications, and that the present building was entirely inadequate. He noticed that only £20,000 was to be voted this year as compared with £24,000 last year. He could not understand how anyone who had prepared the Estimate could consider himself justified in reducing the amount. Only £18,500 was spent last year, and that might seem some justification for reducing the amount. But last year there were local circumstances which tended to delay. The building was now well advanced, and there was no reason whatever why not only £20,000 but even £40,000 should not be spent upon it during the present year. What he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman was that, if he had it in his power, he would not allow the work to be limited by the amount of the Vote, but let it make as much progress as it could.

said, that the contract was entered into more than a year ago by his Predecessor—

There was a strike.

said, that was so; and thus the right hon. Gentleman would see that the amount to be expended depended not upon the Government, but upon the contractor. Nothing, he could assure the Committee, would be done by the Department to delay the work. If, under the contract entered into by his Predecessor, it was possible for the contractor to make greater progress, more money would certainly be expended.

said, there were other questions to be answered.

said, with regard to Croydon he had to say that £5,000 was the total amount which it was intended to spend.

said, he would like to point out to the right lion. Gentleman the First Commissioner, and the Committee, the great difference between the amounts of the original and revised Estimates, which might be made still larger next year. For example, the new Sorting Office at Tothill Fields was now put down for more than double the original Estimate. Telegraph factories also showed a large increase. They had in one case, he found, an Estimate of £983,857, and another Estimate of £960,152, and even the revised one, which was the higher, was not final. That was a very serious matter, because the House was asked to vote for the buildings involved on the original Estimate, whereas they were now asked to sanction an expenditure of over £1,000,000 more. Surely that would strike them as a very serious abuse. In another item they had an original Estimate of £137,000, and a revised Estimate of £190,000. Why, the difference would constitute a small fortune! Next year, perhaps, they would have another increase of £20,000. They had still another item, relating to the North-Western District, with an original Estimate of £26,000, and a revised Estimate of £54,000. Was not that a serious condition of affairs? In the matter of the telegraph factories, the increase was from £36,700 to £65,000. Next year he supposed it would be £75,000, and it might even go up to £85,000 the year after that. But perhaps the right lion. Gentleman did not care what happened next year, as he know he would not be in Office then. At the same time, he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not do something to place the House in a better position with regard to these Estimates.

said, that he had received no answer to the question he had put.

It is a matter of account, and I would prefer that it should be discussed on the Report stage.

said, it was not a matter of that kind, but a matter of principle, and it should not be treated so lightly.

said, he would look into the matter referring to the Telegraph Department. The Birmingham Post Office buildings had not been sold because the Government did not think that the offer which they received was good enough. In regard to the increase in the present Estimates, he would point out that the original Estimates had been framed in some cases six or seven years ago. Wages were much higher now than they were then. As to the Tothill Fields Office, it was found that largely increased accommodation was acquired since the original estimate was framed.

asked for further information with regard to expenditure.

said, there was a question of great importance which he would like to press upon the notice of the Government—namely, that of electrical communication with lighthouses and lightships. He had often tried to do so before, but he could not get an opportunity, and he doubted whether this was the Vote upon which he should speak regarding the subject.

said, this Vote did not cover the subject-matter of the inquiry proposed to be put.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was rather premature. He wanted to guard himself, if this were not the proper Vote, against being subsequently precluded from raising the question at a later stage. What he desired to ask was whether there was included in the Estimates any provision for carrying out the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission relating to this question? [Cries of Order!]

Order!

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman, and could only answer that he did not know at present. He would now appeal to the Committee to allow the Vote to pass.

said, he would not delay the Committee, but he was anxious to know what was being done in regard to the buildings at Manchester, the site for which had been acquired?

said, he hoped the matter would be proceeded with in the course of the coming year.

wished to thank the First Commissioner for the courteous way in which he had met the remarks which had been offered.

said he wished to call attention to the want of accommodation for examinations at the London University. The Government had recognised the fact that the accommodation was deficient, but seemed disposed to put off dealing with the matter almost sine die. If they would only inquire into the subject, he was sure they would satisfy themselves that something should be done at once. The Millbank site was by no means the most convenient that could be selected. His view was that, as additional accommodation was required at South Kensington, arrangements should be made whereby that accommodation, and the additional accommodation for examinations required at the London University, should be given in the same building. This would be much the most economical arrangement. The cost of the University to the National Exchequer was very small; in fact, with the exception of the buildings, the expenditure was more than recouped by increased fees. The government of the University was carried on at no expense to the State. The number of students going up for examination increased nearly 10 per cent. every year, the total number of students doubling itself each decade. At present, the examinations took place in buildings by no means suitable for the purpose, where there was not sufficient means of giving accommodation to successive batches of students. Clearly it was very disadvantageous for a batch of students in chemistry to be obliged to undergo an examination in a room just vacated by another batch, where the atmosphere was laden with the fumes of previous experiments. The late Government had recognised the necessity of something being done, and had proposed to add another storey to the University buildings, but the Royal Academy Authorities had objected on the ground that it would interfere with their light. It had been expected that the late Government would have taken steps to give additional accommodation at South Kensington, but nothing had been done.

The Government have not lost sight of the subject to which the right hon. Baronet refers. I thought we had gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman by suggesting the Millbank site, not only for the Civil Service Commission Buildings, but for London University examination rooms. Of course, if the London University object to that site their objection will be entertained, and we shall consider what provision can be made elsewhere, but it occurred to me that, on the whole, it would be well to have the examination rooms in combination with other buildings.

desired to impress on the Government the necessity for something being done at once. The matter had been discussed the other day at the Senate of the University, and the unanimous opinion was that the accommodation was so defective that the students could not do justice to their work. He thought that in the interests of education something should be done. As to the Millbank site, he concurred with what had been said by the right hon. Baronet. The examination rooms ought to be near the University, and he doubted whether the proposed site was at all suitable. Furthermore, it was desirable that there should be no delay; therefore, he hoped that something would be done in the matter as rapidly as possible.

said, he did not desire to be understood as objecting to the Millbank site. It was only as a matter of economy that he suggested they should go to South Kensington. He would, however, press on the Government the necessity of doing something as soon as possible.

said, there was an item for the residence of Parliamentary counsel, and he should like to know what explanation the Government had to offer with regard to such a charge? It seemed to him to be as dark and mysterious as any item the hon. Member for Peterborough had ever drawn attention to. He should also like to know how it was that the item for the Public Works Loan Board had increased from £700 to £2,000?

said, the increase referred to was due to the fact that the Bank of England, to whom the building belonged, had raised the rent, and the Government were not in a position to raise objection. No doubt the building was worth £2,000 a year. The item for buildings for Parliamentary Counsel was owing to the old quarters having been given up for the purposes of the Admiralty. In a short time those quarters would be pulled down, and this was thought to be a convenient opportunity for removal to Whitehall, where a private house had been obtained. The rent charged was not excessive.

said, he presumed that when the buildings at the St. Martin's side of the National Gallery were finished that portion of the structure would be complete. No one could say that the buildings at that side were not handsome and suitable for their purpose. But the buildings on the opposite side, near Pall Mall, were not such as they ought to have for national purposes. The approaches were a disgrace to the country. It would be impossible to improve them, and make them like those of the other side, so long as the barracks were maintained in the rear. Besides being inconvenient in this sense, the barracks were a source of danger in the possible event of lire. He had heard it said, and he hoped it was true, that the Government proposed to remove the barracks to the Millbank site.

said, he saw a sum of £25 in the Estimates for the Whitehall Banquetting House. He had understood that that building had been given up to an institution of some sort; and he should, therefore, like to know whether it was still to be kept in repair at the expense of the public? On another page he found an item of £1,000 for electric current against £150 last year; and he found that, in spite of this increase, there was no reduction in the charge for gas and oil. He failed to understand how the whole of the charge for the electric lighting could be put down as an extra. Some time ago he had put a question to the Government as to the condition of the water in the Fountains at Trafalgar Square, which was supplied from the Orange Street Waterworks. The tanks were in a disgraceful state, and he should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would give orders to have them cleaned out? Though be (Mr. Morton) had called attention to their state every year for some years past nothing had been done in the matter. As they now had a new First Commissioner of Works, and as there was some fear of cholera coming to this country, he would ask the Government for some explicit statement at to what was to be done in this matter.

said, that the barracks behind the National Gallery would, by arrangement with the War Office, eventually be removed to Millbank, and this would enable the Government at some future time to make a further extension of the National Gallery. The day was not far distant when it would be necessary to do that, in order to find room for all the pictures of the National Collection. He did not agree that the approaches to the Gallery were unworthy of the country. The question of the condition of the water in Trafalgar Square had not been brought under his notice since he had been in Office; but In. would make inquiries into the matter. He ventured to hope that the Committee would now pass the Vote.

suggested that the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner was responsible should follow the example set by the London County Council in other parts of London and the City Corporation, and provide orderly boxes in. Trafalgar Square and other open spaces in which pieces of paper, orange peel, and so forth could be thrown.

urged the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, in connection with Item D, for Caretakers, to remember the ease of discharged soldiers, and to give them situations as caretakers when he had the opportunity. He could say a great deal on that subject, but he would not now take up the time of the Committee.

I do not, of course, rise to offer any opposition to the Motion, or raise any question of a personal character; but I want to put a couple of questions to the Chancellor of the. Exchequer on matters of first-rate importance. The first question I put to the right hon. Gentleman on account of his authoritative connection with the Treasury. Some 10 days or a fortnight ago I asked the First Lord of the Treasury for a Return setting out the payments which are the first charges on the Irish Exchequer in connection with the demands made by England under certain clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill, and the First Lord of the Treasury gave what I understood to be a promise that the Return should be prepared. I cannot think it is a Return that would take long to prepare. The information ought to be in the Treasury. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will undertake to inquire at the Treasury whether the Return is being prepared; and whether he will also undertake that it shall be presented, if not immediately on the recommencement of business, at any rate within a few days, because the matter is one that will require a great deal of study? It is merely a financial Return, yet one which is absolutely necessary for the information of the House. The other subject upon which I would put a question to the right lion. Gentleman is as to Lord Herschell's Indian Currency Committee. It is almost a public scandal that this Committee having been appointed months ago, and having held frequent sittings, that now, when we are getting on towards the middle of summer, we should be without any promise or pledge that the Committee is going to make a Report. Numerous questions have been put to the Government as to when the Committee will report, and we have always been bidden to hope that the Report will not be long delayed. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that until the Committee reports the Indian Government are absolutely precluded from deciding anything whatever in the preparation of their financial policy. I know that Ministers have no authority over Royal Commissions; but I should imagine that they can exorcise the greatest possible influence, and if the Members of Lord Herschell's Committee are entirely unable to agree upon a Report, at least let us have from them the evidence, and any expression of opinion which two or more of them may have agreed upon.

I do not wish to raise any general discussion whatever on this Motion: but it may be convenient to the Government if I follow my noble Friend in submitting two questions to the Government. One of them has been anticipated by my noble Friend. I had intended to press a question as to the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee; but what my noble Friend has said leaves me nothing to add, except to call attention to a paragraph which I noticed yesterday in the public Press. The following was telegraphed from Calcutta:—

"The exchange, after remaining fairly steady for some weeks, has now fallen to a point which is almost the lowest ever reached. Great anxiety is expressed on all sides for the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee. Indeed, the tension has become almost intolerable, and longer delay may have serious results, as the Government of India must speedily decide whether it will be necessary to call a special Session of the Legislature at Calcutta in July for the purpose of imposing fresh taxation."

I presume the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will not deny that that is a true statement, and that there is no exaggeration in it; and before we separate for the Recess I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the question of my noble Friend, and will tell us distinctly whether there will be any Report at all; if so, when that Report will most probably be presented, and how long India is to be left in a state of suspense? I pass to the second question I wanted to raise, and on that I shall have to address myself partly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and partly to the Minister for Agriculture. It arises from an answer given to mo yesterday in reply to a question. I asked if the Government had made up their minds as to whether they would give effect to the Departmental Committee which has recently sat upon the question of swine fever? That is a question which, in the agricultural districts, is considered of the greatest importance. It is, moreover, one with regard to which there is now a general consensus of opinion that the time has come when this matter ought to be taken under the control of a Central Body— namely, the Government—like the unfortunate diseases, foot - and - mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia. At the commencement of the Session I asked the Minister for Agriculture if he was prepared to deal with this question, and he replied to me that he thought it necessary to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into all the circumstances before taking that step. I pointed out to him, and urgently pressed upon him, that if he wished to deal with the question economically and effectually he could not do better than deal with it at once—at the beginning of the Session, and for one reason in particular—namely, that at that time he had a most effective staff' of Inspectors, who would have been perfectly well able to carry out the work. As pleuro-pneumonia has greatly decreased, a large part of the staff of Inspectors may be dispensed with; and, in all probability, there will not be the present facilities for dealing with swine fever if action is postponed for an indefinite period of time. I must say I have never been able to see the necessity for the appointment of that Departmental Committee. It always appeared to me, I must confess, like a pretext for shelving the question, at all events for the present, and I am confirmed in that by the Report of the Committee, in which there is absolutely no new information. Be that as it may, the Committee reported, as it was a foregone conclusion they would, in favour of the policy which I advocate—namely, that this matter should be taken up and dealt with by Her Majesty's Government without delay. Two paragraphs of the Report, to which I will in a few brief words call attention, bear out what I say. In Section 24 they point to the overwhelming evidence given to the effect that if proper measures were adopted swine fever would be extinguished in a reasonable time, and they go on to say—

"But we are satisfied from the evidence submitted to us that, owing to the impossibility of securing uniform action under the jurisdiction of the Local Authorities, it cannot be extirpated unless under the direction of a Central Authority."

Well, the Minister for Agriculture, 10 days or a fortnight ago, was asked whether he was prepared to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee, and he replied that he could give no answer until he had had an opportunity of seeing and studying the evidence. Yesterday he was asked the game question, and he gave the same reply, whereupon I myself ventured to ask him where there was any information whatever contained in the Report of the Committee which was not perfectly well known already, and which he could not have obtained in his own Department; and I venture to say, having read the Report with great care, and having referred to it again since I asked the question yesterday, that the statement I made was absolutely true, and that there is absolutely no information of any sort or kind contained in the Report which could not have been obtained in the Office of the Agricultural Department. The Committee has reported most strongly in favour of this thing being done, and it appears to me that all the Minister for Agriculture and the Government have to consider is two things: first, they have to frame the Estimates, which are necessary; and, secondly, to obtain the consent of the Treasury to the money necessary for giving effect to the Report. It has been whispered to me that the Estimates foreshadowed in the Report are of enormous proportions. I do not know whether it is true, because I have not seen the evidence; but I have heard it stated that the amount required will be £400,000. I cannot understand what necessity there was to go to a Committee for evidence on that point. Estimates for a purpose of this kind ought to be settled in the Department itself, and it seems to me extremely foolish to go to a Committee for such information, however that Committee may be constituted. But I think, on this point, I can offer the Government a word of consolation. If, when I held the position of Minister for Agriculture, I had been deterred by the Estimates first presented to me, we should never have had the Pleuro-Pneumonia Act at all. We had that Act, however, and it has been attended with absolute and complete success. I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that he should not be deterred by any rumours or any evidence given to the Committee of the enormous sum which is likely to be required for this purpose. I cannot, of course, say what may be the case in Ireland—I should have to refer to the Irish authority before dealing with that country but. I will undertake to say this— that, so far as England is concerned, I believe that the sum sanctioned in the Pleuro-Pneumonia Act would be sufficient to enable the Government to deal successfully with the difficulty. The Government could safely embark on a measure at once. There is not likely to be any controversy or opposition in the House. If they brought in a measure without delay, it might be put into operation by September. Even in the present financial circumstances of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might stretch a point and make a very useful concession to the agricultural interest. I do hope that the Government will favourably consider this proposal. Surely the present situation of the agricultural interest demands some consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The position of the agricultural interest never has been worse, I believe, than it is at the present time for many years; but no step has been taken by the Government in its interest, with the exception of the appointment of a roving and general Committee of Inquiry. Even there I should have been ready to go with you, but for the absolute conviction in my mind—a conviction amounting to absolute certainty—that the inquiry would be productive of nothing but delay, and, therefore, would be mischievous rather than useful. Everything for which we have asked with regard to the agricultural interest has been refused. Early in the Session we asked the Government whether it would not be possible to give some further relief from local taxation; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister absolutely put their feet down upon any proposals of that kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that I have always been a great advocate of currency reform in the interest of the agricultural portion of the community. I entertain that opinion to-day as strongly as ever I entertained it. It is an opinion which I believe is growing every day, not only in this country, but in foreign countries. You used at one time to treat it with ridicule and sneers, but it is now supported by many men on the Continent and in America of such experience, and such ability, and such knowledge of the subject, that you are no longer entitled or able to treat it in that way. Although you had an opportunity of doing something effectual on this subject when the Conference was held at Brussels, you did everything in your power to bring the proceedings of the Conference to nothing. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer differs from me on that point. I have given as much attention to it, and studied the proceedings as closely, and had as much information upon it as anybody in the country, and I adhere most deliberately to the opinion I expressed in the Debate we had some time ago. At an earlier period of the Session the Government were asked to give effectual guarantees that there should be no possible risk of a return of pleuro-pneumonia to this country, and to pass a short Act which should make the slaughter of all foreign animals landed in this country compulsory. Even there we were met with the opposition of the Minister for Agriculture, on grounds which I thought then, and still think, were inadequate and unreasonable under all the circumstances of the case. Everything almost that we have asked has been refused; and now with regard to this very simple matter, which could be so easily done at comparatively small cost, the Government seem unwilling to make up their minds to act without delay. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer: but, in view of the reply I received from the Minister for Agriculture yesterday, I thought I could not allow this opportunity to pass without endeavouring to impress on the Government the necessity there is for dealing with this question at once.

In reply to the noble Lord opposite, I may say that, as to the Returns he desires of the charges on the Irish Revenue, I will take care that everything is done to accelerate their publication. I agree with the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Lord Herschell's Committee, as to the vital importance of an early decision on the Indian Currency question; and, though I have no official information, I believe the final stage has been reached at which an agreement is likely immediately to be arrived at. I hope the House will, with the very shortest delay, be informed of the decision of the Committee, and from reports which have reached me, I do not despair of an agreement among the persons forming the Committee. The House must not, however, take this as an official communication. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken, and most fairly spoken, of the importance of the measures to put down swine fever. Well, Sir, I recognise the importance of that subject. In fact, I hope the result of the Motion I have submitted to the House will be to enable me to go into a part of the country where this question is one of vital importance. I wish to relieve my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture from the greater part of the burden of responsibility for an immediate decision not having been arrived at. I have not had placed before mo officially the cost of this work. My unfortunate position is this. As I ventured to point out in my Financial Statement, there are constant demands being made on the Government to undertake new works of every description. Some of these works may be desirable; but it is absolutely necessary, in the position I hold, that I should examine what will be the cost of these new undertakings before they are commenced. I must toll hon. Gentlemen opposite that if demands for such a sum as £400,000 are made, I shall have to ask for more money, and probably I shall have to ask for the repeal of the clause that was put into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill abolishing the Goschen stamp. The right hon. Gentleman opposite does not seem to think that it would cost £-100,000 to stamp out swine fever; but surely we must see how much it would cost before we come to any decision. We will look into the; matter, and if we find there is power to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, and we can do it reasonably, it shall be done. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we shall approach the subject with every desire to deal with it. in a manner that will give some relief to the agricultural interest. I cannot be tempted, even on the present occasion, to follow the right hon. Gentleman into a discussion of bimetallism.

I never mentioned bimetallism.

Even the original promoters of the Brussels Conference, when the fatal 30th of May was approaching, postponed it until the end of November. I will agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we also should postpone the question and any further discussion on it till the end of November. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to another large subject—that of local taxation. He reproaches us with not having made any further grants in relief of local taxation. I do not propose to argue that question over again; but he knows very well that in the course of the last few years there has been something like £4,000,000 a year chargeable upon the taxpayer for the relief of local taxation. Whether if we had left these £4,000,000. in the hands of the Exchequer we might not have been able to do more for the agricultural interest and for the other interests of the country is a very arguable question. I do not believe that there is such a sense of relief from what has been given in reduction of the rates as at all adequately corresponds to the amount that has been granted. I believe myself that if the £4,000,000 had been devoted to the stamping out of swine fever, and many other objects in connection with the agricultural interest, agriculturists would have obtained more benefit than they have, as a matter of fact, obtained from these grants, which I am afraid, in many cases, are like rivers running through the sand and disappearing in swamps. This is, I think, a matter for very serious consideration before we enter into any further expenditure in that direction. I am glad to learn, from the able Report which my right lion. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has prepared, that there has been a very sensible relief to the rates, and that in the agricultural districts the rates are now very much lower than they were in former times. Remember what this £4,000,000 represents. It means 2d. on the Income Tax. This ought to be borne in mind when complaints are made as to the height of the Income Tax.

pointed out that the Goschen tax on securities to bearer had been repealed precisely because it had not yielded as much as it had been expected to yield, and the right hon. Gentleman would recollect that the yield for 1892–3 was not, as he stated by a lapsuslinguœ, £(500,000, but £60,000.

wished to support what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) on the subject, of swine fever, although he had nothing to allege against the Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Gardner). That right hon. Gentleman had acted to the best of his ability, although he had not done the agriculturists very much good, he (Major Rasch) could not understand, as a matter of common sense, why, if the right hon. Gentleman had before him the Report of the Committee with reference to swine fever, he should also want to go into the evidence that had been placed before the Committee. As to the cost of dealing with swine fever, it had only cost £120,000 to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia; and it was, therefore, utterly impossible that the expenditure on swine fever would amount to as much as £100,000. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer bud only left on the Estimates the sum that had been allocated to pleuro-pneumonia, there would be no difficulty whatever in the matter. The Minister for Agriculture had now only to harden his heart and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an additional sum, and all difficulty would be obviated

said, he must congratulate the Minister for Agriculture on the way in which he had acted up to the present time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would go on in the course he had hitherto pursued. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee with reference to swine fever. It was a new thing to him to learn that swine fever was well known through the country, and that veterinary surgeons wore well versed in it. He had been under the impression, until the Committee's Report was presented, that swine fever was a complaint of which veterinary surgeons had little knowledge. He was glad they were now coming to the conclusion that they knew what the disease was. If it was to be stamped out it must be dealt with as a whole, and not approached in a half-hearted manner. It could not be dealt with altogether as pleuro-pneumonia was. Swine ever was a most infectious thing, and it would be necessary to pull down buildings and to use disinfectants on an extensive scale if it was to be destroyed. His own opinion was that money would be absolutely and entirely thrown away if the disease were dealt with in anything like a half-hearted manner.

I should not have spoken but for some remarks of my hon. Friend opposite. I cannot imagine that any Government can possibly entertain the proposals that have been made on the subject of swine fever until they have seen the evidence. The foundation for saying that the large sum of £400,000 will be needed, if it exists anywhere, is to be found solely in the evidence of which we are not in possession. Until we have the evidence before us it is quite impossible for us to consider the subject at all. There are various questions that will have to be considered when the subject is dealt with. For instance, swine fever is not confined to a few of the Eastern Counties of England, but extends to Ireland, and it would be necessary to consider the restrictions that would have to be imposed upon those who send pigs from one portion of the United Kingdom to another. We should also have to deal with what I might almost call the sanitation of the dwellings of pigs. There are, in fact, many largo questions that will have to be dealt with when the subject is taken in hand.

asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, after the Motion respecting the holidays was disposed of, to go on with the other Orders of the Day. Some of those Orders were of the most contentious character, and certainly one or two of them ought not to have been put down for discussion on that occasion. He thought it would conduce to the progress of business if the Government would state that they had no intention to take anything after the 5th Order of the Day—(Supply [18th May] Report)

We propose, after this Motion as to the Adjournment, to take only the Conveyance of Mails Bill and Report of Supply.

said, he wished to know what decision had been come to with reference to the Zulu prisoners? Was it proposed, as had been stated, to restore them to their country in a few months? Considerable apprehension existed, and he should be glad to know what were the intentions of the Government.

said, that the reports which had appeared in the papers on this subject, and to which the hon. and gallant Member no doubt referred, might give rise to misunderstanding and unfounded hopes among the Zulu tribes. The report that he had stated to the Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Society that the Zulu exiles would be restored to their country in a few months was not correct. The Government had given the closest attention to these Zulu questions; but they thought that, as the present Administrator was about to retire, it would be better to wait for his Report and for the appointment of his successor before taking any steps. It was admitted by everyone that Dinizulu and the other Chiefs would have to return to their own country before very long, but the question was when and under what conditions. The friends of these Chiefs would do them ill service by creating the, impression that they would be allowed to return to their country and occupy the positions which they held before exiled. They would, indeed, go back under very different conditions. The Government would deal with the question at the earliest possible moment in a way which they hoped would be satisfactory to all who wore interested in that country. He was glad that the hon. Member had raised this question, as there appeared to have been some misapprehension as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to it, and some misrepresentation of what he had said to the Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Society.

said, he should be glad to have some assurance from the Government that the question of Greenwich Age Pensions would receive early attention after the Whitsuntide Recess. It had been before a Select Committee, which had favourably reported on the Resolution of the House with regard to it, and he was bound to say that his loyalty to the Government had been severely taxed by the delay in dealing with it. As a Member for Portsmouth, he was well aware that great dissatisfaction prevailed at the continuous delays. He, therefore, hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assure them that there should be no further delay.