said, he had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that there was a reduction on this Vote of £1,685, and he hoped that next year the reduction would be even larger. His contention was that Holy-head Harbour ought not to be maintained by the country. The Harbour existed for the benefit of the London and North Western Railway Company, and for the country to keep it up was simply to give that Company a subsidy. No doubt, viâ Holyhead was the nearest route to Ireland, but there was no reason why they should give the Railway Company £5,000 or £6,000 a year. There was another point worthy of notice. The harbourmaster was a retired commander of the Royal Navy, and drew a pension of £370 a year in addition to his salary of £800 annually. Surely it was not necessary that these appointments should be given to pensioners. Were there not many capable of filling the post who were not already provided with sinecures? Now that the Liberal Government were in power he hoped they would carry out further retrenchments. If the country were going to maintain harbours there were many places in Scotland and Ireland where money might be advantageously spent but personally lie did not think that this duty should be undertaken by the State. Holyhead Harbour, in his opinion, should be maintained by the London and North Western Company, and he therefore hoped that soon the payment of this subsidy would cease.

said, that the London and North-Western Company wanted to spend £1,000,000 on Holyhead Harbour, but the late Tory Government refused them permission to do so.

took exception to the item for the harbour-master at Holyhead. He thought it was very unfair that men who were in receipt of handsome pensions should be told off to fill such posts. He thought that the Government might vote more money for harbours, and that some of it should he expended in the North of Scotland. The Government seemed to him to spend money freely on what were not after all useful purposes and to refuse it where it was really needed. For in stance, Portmahomack Harbour required to be put in order——

Order, order! That does not arise on this Vote.

said, he would content himself with a protest against the practice of conferring well-paid posts on men who were already in receipt of handsome pensions when there were many deserving men really needing employment.

said, the point of the hon. Member for Caithness appeared to be that the advent of a Liberal Government ought to he signalised by a reduction of expenditure. With that he agreed, and the hon. Member would find that this Vote had been decreased by about £1,500. As to the salary of the harbour-master at Holyhead, he certainly did not think that it could be considered excessive. The position, it should be remembered, involved a great deal of responsibility, and to fill posts of this kind it would be diffi- cult to find better qualified persons than gentlemen who had held commissions in Her Majesty's Navy. It would be false economy to exclude such persons from the Public Service. He could not agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Caithness as to the reason for the existence of Holyhead Harbour. Whether further retrenchment in respect of its maintenance could be effected would no doubt be considered when present contracts came to an end.

How long do the contracts run?

said, be would endeavour to find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.

said, be wanted to say a word on Sub-section B, in which, was included the Vote for Spurn Head Works. He did not wish to lessen the number of workmen or delay the works, but he thought the nature of the works should be specified in detail, especially as lie noted that there was some inconsistency in the figures. The total sum asked for was £600, and the details showed that it was supposed to include a groyne which would cost a sum of £700, while there was £75 set down for local superintendence. That made up £775, while, as he had said, the total amount to be voted was only £600. It would be very much better if the works were specified in detail.

asked for more information with regard to the maintenance and repairs of Blackwater Harbour.

said, he bad some very heavy artillery to bring to bear on the Treasury with regard to the east coast of Yorkshire. He would not, however, enter upon the matter now, but simply ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to prepare himself for it next Session.

said, ho did not see why retired men with pensions should be taken for this work. If the man who did the work got £375 a year he ought to be content. He was doubtful of the necessity for spending money on the Bahama lighthouse. There was a tender which went out to the lighthouse which cost no less than £5,206 10s. 4d. a year. Either this lighthouse was used for our benefit or for the benefit of all the world, and he did not see any reason in the latter case why it should be kept up by this country alone. Very high salaries were paid in this instance, too, although the Treasury was very economical elsewhere. It was his belief that the whole British trade which was done was not equal to the cost of maintaining the lighthouse, and he hoped that the Treasury would effect some retrenchment in this respect next year.

said, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had not listened with much attention to what he had said; otherwise he would not have attributed this amount to one lighthouse, seeing that it applied to all the lighthouses.

said, he had complained every year with regard to this Harbour Vote, and they always had the same excuse. He had no doubt that this harbour-master was a very excellent person, but while there were so many unemployed persons in this country lie did not think they ought to give posts to men already in receipt of good pensions. Seeing the many claims that there were upon the Government these offices ought not to be given to pensioners so long as there was anybody else to fill them. It had never been put to them that this particular gentleman, the Inspector of the Bahamas, was better than any other man, and no doubt he received the appointment because he was the favourite of a Minister. He warned the Government—a Liberal and a Radical Government—that their supporters in the country, from whom they received both their places and their salaries, would not stand these sort of appointments much longer.

asked for an answer fro the point he had raised.

said, he was not sure he understood what the point was.

said, the point was that only £600 was to be granted this year, which appeared to include £700 for a new groyne and £25 for superintendence. He had no objection to make if such an economical feat could be performed.

said, they ought to have some further information about this groyne.

said, it was intended to expend £700 for a new groyne, but the expense was not to be incurred this year.

said, he should move to reduce this sum by £100 in order to call attention to the large amount of salaries paid on these works. He should like to hear what the engineer-in-chief, who1 received £800 a year, and the resident engineer, who received £750 a year, found to do. He considered that one man ought to be able to manage the work, and that one of these men ought to be cleared out, and the work managed by one competent man. The Government ought not to keep a lot of idle men about.

said, some facts had been brought to his notice which showed that the local feeling upon this matter was that the money spent yearly on the works was not spent in the most judicious way. More care ought to be taken to see that it was. He thought it was understood that faster progress would be made. What money was voted ought to be expended on the portion of the works which it was most necessary should be advanced.

said, he thought there was a great deal of force in the demand that more money should be voted for this work. The amount asked for this year was the same as was asked for annually. With regard to the other point, he could not agree that the engineers did nothing.

said, it was for the hon. Gentleman to find out which of these two gentlemen had little or nothing to do. He might go down to Peterhead and find out.

said, if that was all that was asked of him he would certainly promise to find out which of these two gentlemen had little or nothing to do.

thanked the hon. Gentleman for his answer, because he thought these works were being carried out in an unusually costly manner. More convict labour ought to be made use of upon the works. He was glad that something was to be done to the outward breakwater in order to render it serviceable. As to the expense on salaries, he did not think that resident engineer at £750 a year and an assistant engineer at £250 a year was too much, but he did not see the necessity for a consulting engineer at £800 a year. The cost of construction and of superintendence seemed to him to be too much, and he urged that a more economical state of things should be brought by utilisation of convict labour.

said, the works ought to be carried on faster, especially the construction of the breakwater, so that there might be some return for the great expenditure of money and labour that had already been made upon the works.

asked leave to withdraw the Motion.

said, that on the occasion of the last Vote on Account, he put a similar Motion on the Paper to that which appeared now, but unfortunately he was not present when the Vote was called on. The statements made by the Secretary to the Treasury could not be regarded as satisfactory, and he desired for two minutes to refer to the subject, and make some reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he wished to point out how extremely important this question was. It was not exclusively a Metropolitan question, but applied to all places where Government property was situated. So far as the Metropolis was concerned, there wore some parishes in which the matter was of vital importance. Take the parish of St. George's. In regard to this parish, where the Government esta- blishments occupied so large an area, the matter was of great interest. Now that the Equalisation of Rates Bill had been passed, it was more than ever necessary that there should be a fair valuation over the whole of London, and he sincerely regretted that owing to the opposition of sonic hon. Gentlemen opposite he was not able to proceed with the new Valuation Bill which he introduced to the House on behalf of the London County Council. It was, however, possible for the Secretary to the Treasury to make some approach to equality and equity as between the different districts in London, and lie desired strongly to urge him to do what he could in the matter. The Government property in London fell naturally into two classes. One class was covered by Statute, for instance, the High Courts of Justice. It was provided in this case that rates to a certain amount should be paid—that was to say, the amount of rates which were payable over the site before the Courts of Justice were erected. It was obvious that such an arrangement was unjust, but it could not be altered except by Statute. With regard to the bulk of Government property in London the case was different, the rating being governed by a Parliamentary engagement. Ever since he bad been a Member of that House, whenever this question had been raised, they had always been put off by successive Secretaries to the Treasury by statements that the Local Authorities were satisfied. He thought that statement might be explained in this way. The valuer for the Government was, no doubt, a good Government servant, and a very diplomatic gentleman, and some way or another Local Authorities were led to believe that unless they accepted at once the valuation which he put upon the property they would get nothing, and that it was a case of Hobson's choice. This, however, was not really so, because the payment of rates on Government property was not an act of grace, but a matter of right which could be claimed, and which rested upon as high authority as could be, short of an Act of Parliament itself. He proposed to examine for a moment, the value of the explanation which the Secretary to the Treasury gave. In the first place, Somerset House was mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government valuation of Somerset House was bused upon the valuation of King's College which adjoined. The Government valuer put it at, £12,000. The basis of the case for the new Valuation Bill was that it was not fair and just that the Local Authority should be allowed to place its own value on the property. The value placed on the site of Somerset House, irrespective of the buildings, by the valuer of the London County Council was £27,450. On the last occasion when this subject was before the House, the care and accuracy with which the valuations of the London County Council were made were touched upon by as high an authority as the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster). The next cases were those of the National Gallery and the British Museum. It was not contended by the Government that the valuations of these buildings fairly represented the values, but they craved in aid the Act of 1843, by which such institutions as Museums and Art Galleries were exempted from local rates. He could not help thinking that it was the intention of the Government to exempt those buildings on the engagement then given that Government property should bear its fair and equal share of the local burdens. The valuation of the Foreign Office was fixed at £11,500. The Government said the explanation of this was that it did not include the India Office. The valuation of the India Office was £2,900, and if the two valuations were added together an aggregate sum of £14,400 was obtained, whilst the valuation placed upon the sites alone of these buildings by the valuer of the London County Council was £32,580. It was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Office valuation was fixed as long ago as 1878. Since then there had been no fewer than three quinquennial valuations, and, even assuming that the valuation of 1878 was a fair one, it was altogether out of date now. The last case cited was that of the Treasury buildings. It was stated that they had been valued by the Government at £8,500, and the right hon. Gentleman said that the gross valuation was something under £7,000. The valuer to the London County Council, however, put the site value alone at £15,386. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Local Authority concerned was satisfied with the valuation fixed by the Government valuer in this case, and he tried to establish this by quoting a letter 10 years old. A few days after the right hon. Gentleman's statement a signed letter appeared in The Times, stating that the Vestry had, two mouths before the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, requested their Finance Committee to approach the Government.

was understood to say that the Treasury had not been approached on the subject.

said, that at all events the Vestry were not satisfied, and had requested their Finance Committee to approach the Government on the subject. It had been suggested that the Local Authorities themselves should be allowed to fix the values of the Government property in their areas. He should have no objection to that, but he thought the Government might reasonably object to the suggestion, as they would in that case be putting themselves entirely at the mercy of the Local Authority. A private person, if he wore dissatisfied with the value fixed by the Assessment Authority, could always appeal to a Court of Law, but it would not be possible for a Government to appeal to a Court of Law, because these buildings were not rateable in law. Ho would suggest that the Government should consent to the appointment of a Committee on the subject. He had discussed the matter with a Committee of the London County Council, and that Committee took the view that the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry would fairly meet the exigencies of the case, provided that the London County Council was represented upon it. The question had become more urgent since the passing' of the Equalisation of Rates Bill.

said, ho was glad his hon. Friend had brought the matter again under the notice of the Committee. It was one of the most important practical questions in local administration that could possibly be raised. He believed that the figures with regard to Government property in the provinces were even more ridiculous us valuations than those affecting the Metropolis with which he had previously dealt on the Vote on Account. It would hardly be believed that the whole Customs property of the country was valued rateably at £4,300 a year. The Inland Revenue property, which was to a great extent composed of new buildings in large towns, was only valued at £5,300, or rather, that was the total amount of the rate paid. The whole of the Post Office property paid only £33,700, while the whole of the Law Courts, including the County Courts and the Metropolitan Police Courts, paid only £54,530. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Local Authorities had acquiesced in the present valuations. He would take one test instance of valuation—the case of King's College and Somerset House. He was a member of the Council of King's College, and therefore did not want to increase the rating of the building, and he was quite content to take King's College as the standard on which Somerset House ought, to be valued. But it must be remembered that King's College had no frontage whatever except a gateway, whilst Somerset House had a very long frontage to the Strand and another to the approach to Waterloo Bridge. It also had a frontage to, with entrances from, the Embankment. These facts differentiated the position of Somerset House from that of King's College, but supposing that King's College was properly valued, the valuation of Somerset House ought to be 10 or 20 times as much as it was. Yet it was only about four times as much. He trusted that a definite and clear statement would be made by the Government to the effect that something would be done, in reference to this matter, which had become much more important in consequence of the passing of the Equalisation of Rates Bill. He was glad that the highest authority in another place had stated that that Bill did rough justice, as such a statement might be regarded as a tardy reparation to those on the Opposition side of the House of Commons who had taken an independent and a different view from their colleagues. He trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman was not able to say he would provide a remedy for the present state of things he would, at all events, assent to the ap- pointment of an impartial Committee by whom the Government's own valuation would not be accepted as entirely authoritative.

said, he was glad to hear that some hon. Gentlemen were determined to take a Division. Ever since he had been in the House of Commons, and he did not know how long before, complaints had been made every year on this subject, and yet, although promises had been made by the Government, nothing had been done. He had had some experience himself in this work, and he knew what happened. He had no particular objection to a Committee so long as it was not a Departmental one. If they had a Committee at all, it should be a Committee of the House of Commons, on which the Local Authorities as well as the London County Council should be represented. He had always thought that so far as London was concerned they did not want an inquiry. In London, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, a quinquennial valuation was held under different auspices to any other valuation in the United Kingdom, and at the meeting of Assessment Committees a Government officer was always present to see that the property of private individuals was properly assessed. He know from experience that as a rule this officer valued Government property at about half its real value, and when he was appealed to for redress he replied, very often impudently, that the Government were not compelled to pay anything, and if his proposals were not accepted nothing at all would be paid. That was the only reply they got from the Government valuator or the police authority—although the police would come under another Vote. He knew as a fact that this valuator never listened to what they had to say, and he hoped that something would be done. There was a large amount of Government property in some parishes, and little or none in others, and the only way to arrive at a fair valuation was to value all on the same basis. Payment, however, was not an act of grace on the part of the Government, for it had been declared by Act of Parliament in 1874 that they should pay rates, and they ought to do so honestly. If there was no other way of getting out of this except by having a Committee, let them have a Parliamentary Committee that would be open to the public.

said, he agreed with what had been said by the hon. Gentle man opposite. He could show how obviously the valuation of Government property was below the mark. The gross amount taken for this service was something like 6s. in the £1. The sum taken this year was some £264,300, which would show that the absolute rateable value of the whole property belonging to the country in England, Scotland, and Wales was only £800,000. Of course, such an idea was absurd. If they looked through the Estimates they would see that £1,000,000 a year was spent on new buildings. For 100 years they had been spending this amount, in addition to all the land and property belonging to the Crown. To suppose that £800,000 covered the net value of this property was ridiculous. It was double or treble that amount, and some districts were affected very hardly indeed. It might come to pass that a large part of a district was taken up with public property, and though, in some respects, this might be an advantage from a rate-payers' point of view it was an enormous disadvantage. The Equalisation of Rates Bill made the matter worse than it was before. No doubt, it was only a question of paying money from one pocket into another; but, no doubt, it was only fair and honest on the part of the Government to the localities that they should pay proper rates on the buildings they chose to erect.

said, he must protest against the doctrine, which hon. Members appeared to favour, that the rest of the country ought to defray the local rates of London. A grant of some millions a year was made from Imperial sources in aid of local taxation, and this being the Metropolis of the three Kingdoms it had the advantage of having centred within it a large number of institutions which ought fairly to be distributed all through the rest of the Kingdom. They could not have it both in meal and in malt. They wished to have the advantage of these institutions, and what was paid for their upkeep, and then they wanted to have an advantage in the matter of rating. He protested against the doctrine. He objected to the system started by the right hon. Gen- tleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, of making grants out of Imperial taxation in aid of local rates. He thought the system a most mischievous one, and all he could say to the Government was, that if they once entered on this plan it would involve much more than London. They in Ireland got very little indeed in respect of Government buildings.

said, that Ireland got the largest share of the Vote.

said, he knew what she got. She got a composition in lieu of the actual amount of rates that should be her due. The Government did not pay their full share of the rates.

said, that as-this question was fully discussed on the; Vote on Account, he did not propose to, go into it again at any length. But he entirely dissented from what his hon. Friend had said as to these valuations not being allowed. He was prepared to assert that the gentleman who was accustomed to value Government property was quite as competent to value property as the valuer of the London County Council. The valuer of the London County Council set up his valuations in contradistinction to those of the Government valuer, but he did not know whether the valuer of the London County Council understood the principle on which public buildings were to be valued. The Government valuer did not adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member for Peterborough. The hon. Gentleman said the Government valuer went to the Local Authority and said, "Here is Hobson's choice; take it or not." [Mr. A. C. MORTON: That is so.] Surely the Government valuer was a gentleman who could be trusted to speak the truth in a matter of this kind, and he reported that he had in every case furnished the Rating Committee with his proposed valuation, and then in person discussed his proposal with the Committee, carrying on his negotiations until a satisfactory arrangement was arrived at. That was not Hobson's choice. He had many letters from Eating Authorities in various parts of the Metropolis showing that they were satisfied with the valuations.

Will you give the date and the authority?

said, the committee in Kensington were well satisfied with the valuation. The City of London also expressed their general satisfaction with the state of things, but that was not a new case.

They do not in my parish—St. Dunstan's-in-the West.

said, he had the valuation of 1891 before him, and he saw that in St. Martin-in-the-Fields, St. Mary-le-Strand, St. Clement Danes, Westminster, and other parishes the rating was accepted by the committees as fair and reasonable. He could go through a great number of others.

said, that the letters were not from the Overseers.

said, the letters were from the proper authorities. The Overseers were not the Assessing Authorities; the Assessing Authorities were the Assessment Committees of the Unions.

My right hon. Friend will excuse me——

I must request the hon. Member for Peterborough not to interrupt.

said, the Secretary to the Treasury was prepared to allow him to make an explanation. He had been an Overseer for a number of years, and asserted it was the Overseers who made the assessments; the Assessment Committees only revised the assessments.

said, the principle of the valuation of these Government properties was one that ought to be considered. They could not value Government property like the India Office or Somerset House, as they would value a shop or warehouse. They had to take into account all the circumstances of the case, and value the property according to what it would be likely to let for if it were put in the market to be rented. When, however, there was a small valuation of Government property he was quite prepared to bring in a Bill to place the property in the position of other property. He thought that was a fair offer. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will it apply to the three countries?] Certainly. Since the 30th July, when this question was before the House, not a single representation had been made by a parish or Union in respect to assessments. The Treasury were ready to consider any representation that any Rating Authority might wish to make with a view to a revision of a valuation of any Government property. They were ready to listen to any representation made by the County Council, but they could not deal with the County Council; they could only deal with the Rating Authorities. As to the proposal that a Committee should be appointed, he would confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He quite admitted that the Equalisation of Rates Bill had made this a more important question than it was before.

said, he would like to point out to his right hon. Friend that most of the Local Authorities were in recess at the present time, and it was impossible for them to have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman between the last time this question was brought before the House on the Vote on Account and now. They must, therefore, wait until they met again. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were prepared to reconsider the whole question of assessments. Next year they would have the quinquennial assessment in London, and all the Local Authorities desired was that Government property in any of the parishes should be assessed on the same basis as property in the occupation of private individuals was assessed, and that could be effected without an Act of Parliament. He contended that every building, whether Government property or otherwise, ought to pay according to its proper assessment.

What would you put on the House of Commons?

said, ho did not know. He was not the authority. He was prepared to put on what was necessary. He objected to any property being exempted from rating; he objected to the whole principle of exemption. Every building ought to pay according to assessment, however it was occupied. He was quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, ho did not like to intervene in this family quarrel between the supporters of the Government and the Government themselves. He thought, however, the difficulty would be' much better met by a Committee— either Departmental or a Committee of this House—to consider the whole question of the rates of the Metropolis, and to endeavour to establish a uniform system of rating throughout the Metropolis. Reference bad been made to Somerset House, and to the large frontage which it had, and to the small amount of contribution it gave to the taxation of the Strand. Primâ facie, that would appear unfair; but he gathered from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Equalisation of Rates Bill that they were not to consider the question of frontage, but of night population. He asked, how many people lived in Somerset House in the evening? That argument, he held, fell to the ground. He contended that the question "was a broad one, and, as ho had said, they should have a uniform system of assessment for the whole of London, and not only for Government property.

said, he really must object to the omnivorous cry of London. On every topic now they had the London Members getting up and urging on the Government that London should get something more. He did not forget this fact: that if London got more the rest of the country got less. He would willingly admit that London got, on the whole, too little on some Government assessments, but he would set off against that that the whole expense of the Royal Larks was borne by the public at large. Nobody could say that those parks existed mainly for the benefit of the country; they existed mainly for the good of London. If he were in his right hon. Friend's place he would make a rough-and-ready sum. Speaking of the cities, as a rule where Government property was situated, he had never heard any complaint at all that Government property was not, upon the whole, fairly assessed.

said, that every member of the London County Council, both Moderate and Progressive, had the highest opinion of the ability of the London County Council valuer. The hon. Member was understood to ask a question respecting the salary of the Government valuer.

said, the present holder of the office was a very valuable officer. He received his pre sent salary on the condition that his successor would not ask for the same amount.

What is the salary?

The salary; will be fixed when the next appointment is made.

said, he was sorry his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury haul not seen his way to make some more definite proposal. It had been suggested, in the House that the contributions London received from the probate and other duties was considerably smaller than it ought to be, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised a Committee to inquire into that matter. He would suggest that that Committee might be empowered to inquire into the cognate subject of the valuation of Government property.

said, he hoped the Committee would be appointed, and that the Reference would be a wide one, including not only the question of the rating of property, but the cost of the property over London. He thought that either a Departmental Committee or a Committee of the House ought to be appointed to thresh this matter out.

said, be should be glad to consider the proposal of his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Shoreditch. He now appealed to the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken.

should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by allowing the authorities to appeal to the Treasury? Would that be an appeal to some party other than the valuer? Because an appeal to him was no good whatever. Again, it was utterly impossible to suppose that one man could value these properties all over the United Kingdom. He would have no local knowledge which it was requisite he should have in such matters. He should like to point out that London did pay a larger share of Income Tax and House Duty than any other part of the United Kingdom, because it was the only part that was properly assessed.

Relying on the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, I propose to withdraw my Amendment.

said, he saw that the rates payable in Scotland this year had increased by the terrible leap of 50 per cent., having risen from £10,800 to a 16,500. How had that great change occurred?

replied that, additional properties had come into rating which had not been rated before. He was unable at present to give details of the properties.

asked how far the Government were carrying out the suggestion which he made some few years ago, and which it was then stated should be considered? They paid a large sum in respect to charges on buildings used in this country by Ambassadors and Legations from abroad. He strongly objected to giving such privileges unless there was reciprocity in the same matter on the part of other countries.

was understood to say that the charge on this head was decreasing from year to year, and the Government were proceeding as far as possible in the direction indicated by the ton. Member.

expressed the hope that on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give particulars of the increase in rating with regard to Scotland.

I will inquire into the details.

said, he wanted to draw attention to certain matters affecting the Phoœnix Park, Dublin. As lie understood, in that Park certain rights had been granted in the case of certain clubs, and the result had been that a good deal of jealousy was excited, inasmuch as the Government had not undertaken to lay out a proper part of the Park for games for the general body of the working people. Up to the present it was only the favoured classes who had these privileges or rights conferred on them. He had frequently protested against the way in which every Government had allowed facilities for the erection of buildings to be put up in the Park for the accommodation of the fa- voured classes. In the year 1886 he got an undertaking from the then Secretary to the Treasury that no further permanent buildings would be allowed to be put up for the purpose of certain games. In spite of that, in the case of the Polo Club the Government, had allowed a certain portion of the Park to be concreted and a stand-house put up for the purposes of carrying on the game of polo. This had gone so far that the public when they went on the ground were regarded as trespassers. Everyone did not play polo, and, while he bad no objection to the game, ho thought it was going entirely too far to allow permanent buildings to be erected in this way on Government property. As so much had been done for the privileged classes, ho thought something ought also to be done for the general body of the people. In Parks in England swings, &c., wore erected for the convenience of children, and places set apart where they could play their games, and he would suggest that a portion of the Phoœnix Park should be set apart for the benefit of the children of the working classes, to have games and swings, &c, suitable for them. He had frequently protested against cattle being allowed to graze in the Park, and had urged that only sheep and deer, which were an ornament to the Park, should be allowed to graze there. The result of allowing cattle there some years ago was that they had to pay several hundred pounds for the slaughter of the cattle because they had pleuro-pneumonia, and a pledge was afterwards given by the Conservative Government that cattle grazing in the Park would be restricted to a considerable extent. Instead of that being done, he was now told that the Government intended to again make contracts for cattle grazing in the Park, but he hoped they would not do so. As to cycling, he understood it was intended to put a stop to cycling races in the Park. Some people had a prejudice against cycling, but he did not think cycle races had been found to be an inconvenience. The general body of the public attended them; and if the police found bookmakers and other offensive persons along the roads, the way to deal with the matter was to arrest the bookmakers. The Association which organised these races had stringent rules against betting and gambling, and it was their fault if the bookmakers came there. He thought those sports should be allowed to continue. He did not believe the Government had the legal power to put down this cycling racing in the Park. He himself had resisted several attempts at further stringency in the matter, and he had killed two Bills introduced by the late Government to give further power to the Board of Works. He also wished to refer to the rule preventing market gardeners going through the Park before 10 o'clock in the morning with their flowers, fruits, vegetables, &c. Those people lived along the valley of the Liffey towards Lucan, and it was of great convenience to them that they should be allowed to make a short cut through the Park before 10 o'clock in the morning. The only other route was by the public road on which there was an enormous hill, and he need not point out the injury that would be done to the flowers, &c, by being jolted over a hilly and uneven road. The Government for some reason had put a stop to that traffic through the Park. It was unfair to those people who had those rights for 100 years; and, further, he would point out that while the market gardeners were prevented from using the Park in the way he had mentioned, Lord Iveagh and other local aristocrats were allowed to have their horses and carts going through the Park to any extent, sometimes carrying coals. He did not object to these gentlemen having these advantages, but he strongly protested against any attempt being made to restrict the privileges or rights of the market gardeners. If it was complained that they caused the road to get out of repair, he thought there would be no objection to voting a certain amount of money for the purpose of keeping it in proper condition. With regard to the erection and repair of piers, he understood that the money for such purposes was now practically exhausted; but he got a Return some time ago in connection with a proposed pier at Whitehouse, County Louth, which showed that, under certain circumstances where loans had been paid, there still might be a certain amount available for the building of piers, and he hoped the Government would approach the Board of Works and see whether money could not be found to enable piers of this character, the construction of which had, been recommended by the Fishery Inspectors, to be made. In conclusion, he suggested that the Bull Wall, in the neighbourhood of Clontarf, should be asphalted or concreted on top, so that it might be turned practically into a promenade. It would only cost a few hundred pounds to do so, and he hoped the Government would see that the work was done. Such works were never left uncompleted in England and Scotland and they ought not to be in Ireland. Some contribution might be obtained from the Clontarf Town Commissioners in connection with the matter, as it would add greatly to the amenities and facilities of the township, and he suggested that the Government should ascertain how much it would cost.

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some information about the Green Street Court House. Some years ago it was resolved to have a new Court House, and an arrangement was come to between the Grand Jury of County Dublin, the Dublin Corporation, and the Government for the erection of the necessary building. That arrangement fell through because of some claim made by the Corporation which the Government declined to assent to. The Judges had refused to sit in the Court House because of its insanitary condition, and now some arrangements had been made to patch the Court House up. He raised a question last year, when £3,000 were voted as the contribution of the Government towards patching it up, and now this year there appeared another charge of £1,000, and there was no statement in the Estimates as to the probable amount that would be required. This money would be simply lost, as the expenditure so far had been lost, it being quite impossible to make the old Court House into a building at all fit for the administration of justice. What has occurred since last year? The workmen in making some excavations came upon a large number of human skeletons, and it was then discovered that the Court House was on the site of the old Churchyard of Mary's Abbey. Whether that accounted for the unhealthy condition of which everybody who used the Court House had to complain, lie did not know; but the fact remained that the Court House was originally built upon a churchyard. What was the use of going Ion spending public money upon a build-ting that was absolutely certain to be useless? They could not make it suitable has a place for the administration of justice, and he did not see, when the Government the Grand Jury, and Corporation had almost come to terms some years ago, before this expenditure was incurred, why they should not be able to come to terms again. It was certain that a new Court House would have to lie built, for it was not fair to ask the Judges and professional men and litigants to spend their time in a Court House which was in such au unsanitary condition as Green Street Court, House, and which always must be so from the nature of its site.

observed that the hon. and learned Member for Louth strongly objected to the rates on the public property in London being paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, although these properties concerned the interests of the whole country and were located in certain parts of London. Hut the hon. and learned Member now, when it was a question which concerned the Dublin ratepayers, wished that the whole country should step in and provide the Dublin people with cricket fields, swings, and so on——

Give us a Parliament of our own, and we will do it ourselves.

You want us to give you the money with which to pay for it.

We do not.

said, it was rather a strong order to ask that they should assist to provide Dublin with these things, considering that they had to pay thousands out of their rates. Again, with regard to the roads in Phœnix Park which were used by the market gardeners, the hon. and learned Member said he should not object to voting a few more pounds in order to put the road in a proper state of repair. He (Mr. Bartley), as a Londoner, objected to having to pay to put the roads in order which should be paid for by the Dublin people, in the same way as the roads in the London parks were paid for by the London ratepayers. As to the hon. Member's request that money should be spent on the asphalting of the Bull Wall at Clontarf, as that was a matter which would improve the property in the neighbourhood, it ought to be done by the Dublin people, and not at the public expense.

said, he should like to support the observations of the hon. Member for Louth in regard to the importance of providing piers in Ireland. On this subject the Sea Fisheries Select Committee came to the conclusion in their Report that the small amount available for this purpose in England, Scotland, and Ireland was very much to lie regretted. No one could doubt the value of these grants, and how much they contributed to the improvement of the various districts. Baltimore, in County Cork, hail been transformed by such means, socially and commercially, into a wholly different district. If there was one thing more than another to which they lay under a deep obligation to the Leader of the Opposition, it was for the industrial development of Ireland. His policy, which had been happily followed by his successor, was one which was economical and sound from every point of view, and of a most valuable character. He urged that the light railways in Ireland should be continued downwards to the water and made available for the carriage of fish to the market and manure to the laud, the necessity for this being especially urgent in the case of the Skibbereen and Baltimore Light Railway.

referring to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, said, that hon. Gentleman had, in a moderate manner, raised several subjects worthy of consideration. With regard to the cricket and other clubs in the Phoenix Park, he quite agreed that the stations set apart were not altogether satisfactory, but it was hoped that in another year they would be very much improved. He quite agreed that when accommodation was arranged for the clubs there should also be liberal provision made for the public, and ho thought that had been done. With respect to the permanent building the hon. Member referred to, he believed it was only a very small structure. He did not think they ought to deal in a narrow spirit with respect to the facilities given to the clubs, but at the same time the Government would take care that these buildings should not become so numerous or so large as to be objectionable. With regard to the use of the parks by children, he did not agree with the hon. Member for North Islington, lie did not see why children should not enjoy the park like grown-up people. They did a great deal out of the taxes for the public parks in London. They did not do it for all the parks, because the London County Council managed a considerable number.

said, the expense in that case came out of the rates, and to that he did not object.

said, that a great deal was done out of public money for Hyde Park, St. James's Park, the Green Park, Kew Gardens, and other parks, and he did not think they ought to be at all narrow in voting money for the Ph œnix Park. He did not see why children should not enjoy the park like grown-up people.

I did not suggest that they should not.

said, that Ph œnix Park had been managed as a public park; and anything that could be done to make it more useful and enjoyable to all classes was worthy of consideration. It was true the presence of cattle in the park had been found to be a nuisance. Sheep were to be introduced in the place of cattle, and the ugly buildings used for the latter were to be removed further away from sight. Cycling was still to be allowed; but cycle racing was to be prohibited, as it had been found dangerous to the public.

Has anybody been hurt?

said, the information he had received was that the racing was likely to be dangerous to the public, and there was also the question of the bookmakers who attended the races. As to the cart traffic through the Park, pressure had been put upon the Local Authority outside to keep their road in thorough repair, as it was owing to the bad state of that road that the Park road was used. It was hoped that the representations made would be successful.

Abolish the Grand Jury system, and we will put the roads in repair.

said, that in reference to piers, he had to say that there was no money available for addi- tional works. It might become a question whether money should not be found for carrying out new work, but that was a matter for the Chancellor of the Ex chequer to decide. With respect to the question the hon. Member had raised with regard to Clontarf, he was bound to say that it was deserving of consideration. The improvement would not involve a very great expenditure, and he promised to bring the matter under the notice of the Board of Works. He agreed with the hon. Member for South. Tyrone that a good deal was to be said with regard to he condition of the Green Street Court House; but the sum in question now was simply a re-Vote. The work was in charge of the Corporation, and the grant in aid would not be paid until the work was completed. The Corporation had been urged to push on with it without unnecessary delay.

said, that some years ago £8,000 was voted annually for Pier Works in Ireland. That Vote had been abolished, the expenses being put on the Church Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol when Chief Secretary held out hopes that the money would be re-granted. If it were re-granted all the difficulties of the Secretary to the Treasury would vanish. He wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his defence of the expenditure on the Ph œnix Park. He desired to point out that the Stick was in process of drainage, and had, as a matter of fact, been pretty well drained. He thought, however, that Her Majesty's Government should consider the important question of the drainage of the tributaries of the Suck. Before the drainage of the Suck was fairly finished, he urged that the Government ought to give consideration to the question of the drainage of tributaries of the Suck, and of the various districts in Ireland which were in need of drainage. The way to facilitate the drainage of the Suck and other districts would be to send down an officer of the Board of Works to the district which was in need of drainage to map out the area affected, to advise the people to form Boards, and then to get the people to go to work and get the Government to help them. The way in which the Government could help them would be to supply some of the money and the people to raise the rest. He gave, as an example of a suitable district for operations of this kind the district of Dunmore, in the County Galway, and he very strongly urged that drainage works should be inaugurated in this district. The Secretary to the Treasury had by means of drainage a unique chance of improving the country. Ireland required draining, and the neighbourhood of the Suck especially would he much improved by drainage, and works might very advantageously be undertaken in connection with the Lower Bann. But the Suck had been picked out as one of the best works in the whole of Ireland. Mr. Cowen once said that the first thing to be done in Ireland was to dry it. If the Secretary to the Treasury would dry Ireland he would confer as great a boon on the country as any system of politics whatsoever could. He hoped the Government would give their attention to the matter.

said, the hon. and gallant. Gentleman had given him a larger work to do than he had ever been asked to do before. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked him to drain the whole of Ireland. If he undertook to do that, he thought he would soon drain the pockets of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom as well. He did not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal was really practicable.

said, he had spoken more particularly of the Suck and Shannon.

said, that many works of that kind had been carried out in Ireland.

Which of them has been successful?

The drainage of the Suck, I believe, has been successful.

I believe it has been most unsuccessful.

It is not yet completed, but it is a success.

said, the Government were not prepared to undertake to drain the tributaries of the Suck. They had passed a Bill not only through this House, but the other House of Parliament, which gave increased powers for borrowing money for the Suck drainage. The Government would be glad to facilitate drainage if it did not cost a large amount.

said, this was a very important subject. He had not liked the whole of the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury, though one portion of it was nice. The nicest part was where the right hon. Gentleman said that if it did not cost too large a sum of money he would do what he could to facilitate drainage works in Ireland. He hoped that during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the matter. A large sum would not be required. The hon. Member for Sunderland was quite wrong in the statement he had made. These drainage schemes had all proved successful, except when it was attempted to confine drainage with navigation. It was premature to speak about the success of the operations on the Suck, as the work was not completed; but there were many works of arterial drainage, such as that at Tuam, and which were successful, or nearly so. He hoped that in the coming winter the Government would bestir themselves, and see where drainage works could be carried out, and advise the population as to the steps to be taken.

said, he noticed that the sum for Constabulary huts, which was £850 last year, was this year £863. He could have wished that the Estimate had been larger for the year, because the item was one on which, perhaps, it might be necessary to have a little larger expenditure. He did not desire to embarrass the Chief Secretary, but the matter was most important. There had been threats and menaces thrown out within the past few days to the effect, that the men who were holding evicted farms would not be comfortable in their houses. There were two forms of giving police protection—by patrolling, and the construction of police huts near lonely farms. If the position should become more dangerous he hoped the Chief Secretary would not hesitate to incur necessary expense in increasing the number of police huts. These huts were very efficacious in warding off danger, much more so than patrolling. He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would not fail in any way in affording adequate protection to persons who might be in danger.

The hon. and learned Gentleman need hardly, I think, have called my attention to the possible risks arising during the coming winter. I called attention to those risks the other day in my speech on the Tenants Bill, and if those apprehensions are realised it is possible they will lie very heavily upon some of the friends of the hon. and learned Member. However all that may be, he does me no more than justice when he assumes that I will do my best to preserve law and order in Ireland in every particular. The question of providing police huts in particular districts is entirely a question of detail in police administration. Of course, whatever the number of huts required, they will be provided, and we will not scruple to expend whatever money is necessary.

submitted that it was not in Order to discuss questions of policy on a particular Vote.

said that was so.

said, Ireland had always been the spoilt child of the Treasury, and for the simple reason that Irishmen always fought for what they wanted, and they found the Treasury to be very squeezable, although that was not their experience in the case of Scotchmen. He did not so much regret this, however, for Ireland was terribly overtaxed; there was an enormous amount of poverty in the country, and it was a melancholy fact that the result of two years of Liberal Government had been to add to the terrible burden upon Ireland. Scotland suffered, but not so greatly. There were, for example, a large number of grants to various Learned Societies in England and Ireland, whereas in Scotland similar Societies got practically nothing at all. Against this he wished to protest; and although Scotch Members were economists, he for the future meant to go in for a policy not of economy, but of extravagance, in order that Scotland might get her due, and might also have given her grants for the Royal Society of Edinburgh and for her other Learned Societies. He would not on that occasion move a reduction of the Vote, but he hoped that before another year some understanding would be come to by which Scotland would be more fairly treated in these matters.

asked for a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury as to the progress made with light railways in Ireland. In what position did they stand?

said, the Glenorlan railway, 24 miles in length, was nearly finished, and should be opened in September or October this year. As to the Collooney line, the total length of which was 47¾ miles, the first contract had to be rescinded, and that of necessity caused some delay in the completion of the undertaking. As a matter of fact, the period allowed for making the line had had to be extended. The Galway and Clifden line, 49¼ miles in length, should be completed by October or November, 1894. Other lines had been completed, and he might inform the Committee that, having visited last Whitsuntide, and also during Whitsuntide of last year, nearly all these railways, he was able to testify that they would be very beneficial to many districts of the country which at present it was difficult to approach except by carts over a common highway. He was told at one place, where the railway goes down to the sea, that there were tons of fish sent every day over the line, this being previously impossible on account of the distance and inaccessibility of the markets.

asked if it was intended to continue the extension of the Skibbereen Railway?

I am not aware of such an intention.

said, he thought the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury quite satisfactory, but he urged that the opening of certain of the lines should be pushed forward with a view to the accommodation of the army of harvesters when they returned from England and Scotland. They could not forget the tragic disaster that lately occurred at Achill, and he hoped the works in hand would be so far advanced as to render any repetition of it unlikely.

said, he hoped that a temporary station would be put up at Achill as early as possible.

said, he did not blame the Government for not rushing through these railways. They might give work to the peasantry for three or four winters to come. But he did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the line between Claremorris and Collooney. When was it to be opened? Pie was aware that considerable difficulties had arisen in connection with the financing of the undertaking. He further would like to hear something about the Galway and Clifden Railway. Everyone was anxious that that line should be opened as soon as possible, as the fishing industry on the West Coast would benefit very greatly by it. Finally, as so much was done in this direction by the late Government, he would like to see the Liberal Government giving them two or three more light railways.

said, pressure was as far as possible brought to bear upon the contractors to expedite the works. With regard to the grants made by the late Government and the suggestion that the present Government should increase them, he was happy to state that Ireland generally was in a much better condition than formerly, and he thought they might look forward to a good winter.

When will the Collooney Railway be opened?

Probably in October, 1895.

said, he did not know whether the ordinary course was taken in this case in entering into the contract, because as a rule it was usual to impose conditions both as to time and circumstances. It appeared to him, however, that the late Government had in this ease given the Midland and Great Western Railway of Ireland the greatest possible latitude, and the result was that instead of the undertaking being completed in accordance with the contract the time was exceeded by something like 12 months. He hoped that the Government would not allow this to go on, and would guard itself against a repetition of the offence by giving contracts to people who were fully competent to undertake and complete them. Even now the Government should insist upon the Company carrying out this agreement without any further delay.

said, that the Order in Council fixed December, 1894, for the completion of the Galway and Clifden line, and it was not anticipated that the time allowed would be exceeded.

said, he should like to put in a claim on behalf of Wales. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway had suggested that the Liberal Government should I undertake to make two or three fresh light railways in Ireland, but surely it was about time that other parts of the United Kingdom came in for some consideration in those matters. To the railways themselves he had no objection to make, except perhaps that the amount voted for them was inadequate; but, still, he found that altogether a sum of about £1,000,000 sterling bad been spent on 24 or 25 railways in the agricultural districts of Ireland, and he would suggest that it was time the Government undertook the construction of similar works in Wales.

That question does not arise on the Vote, which is confined to light railways in Ireland.

said, he had of course no wish to infringe the ruling of the Chair, but he would like to remark that the Secretary to the Treasury spoke in glowing terms of the beneficial effect of these railways on the industries of Ireland, and he ventured to think equal benefit might be reaped from similar undertakings in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.

said, these light railways had now been in operation along time, and he would like to have some details as to their working. Were they constructed on the standard Irish gauge or on the narrow gauge?

Most of the lines are on the standard (broad) gauge, but others are narrow gauge.

asked, further, whether the companies working the lines used their own rolling stock, or was special stock built for these lines? The question of light railways was about to be considered by an International Railway Congress, and he would ask whether a Return giving details of the construction of the Irish light railways, and of the revenue earned by them, could be presented?

promised to inquire as to where the information could be found.

said, he was glad to hear that the light railways were proving a great success in Ireland. Perhaps they might hope to have them provided for Wales and Scotland as well?

I have distinctly ruled such remarks to be out of Order.

said, he did not at all object to voting money for Irish light railways, but he must say the time had arrived when they should tell the Government that similar railways were required in other parts of the country.

Order, order! This is the third time I have ruled such remarks out of Order.

said, he was only going to give reasons for opposing the Motion. A great deal of money had been wasted on these undertakings, and he wished to call the attention of the Government to the necessity of preventing such waste. By all means let them have railways which would be useful and beneficial to the people, but do not let them job the money away on contractors and other people. He was sorry they were not allowed to discuss the necessity for railways in other parts.

Order, order! I distinctly ruled that out of Order.

said, that on the point of Order he wished to call attention to the fact that whilst Members could not move to increase the Vote they could move to decrease it on the ground that they could not get money in any other way. He was sorry for the Chairman's ruling, because it prevented them discussing this matter.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that.

said, the Government had gratefully acknowledged the action of the House of Commons in reducing the Vote for the House of Lords last year by the sum of £.500. This was a little testimonial to the vigilance of the Representatives of the taxpayers upon which they had a right to congratulate themselves. There appeared to him to be no reason why they should not go a little further in the same direction. He did not see why, after the House of Lords had been able to act in the splendid and efficient manner in which they had acted in the last few days, even after a reduction of £500, there should not be a further reduction, as it might help them still further along. A good many people besides himself found it a very trying thing to have to vote a large sum for the House of Lords. He would suggest to the Government that as the House of Lords had managed to get along very well after the reduction of last year there should be a further reduction this year, and he would move, therefore, to reduce the Vote of £41,595 by £40,000.

I must point out that the sum now asked for is only £22,595.

Then I move to reduce the Vote by £20,000.

I must appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, having made his statement, not to press his Amendment. Since the Vote of the House of Commons last year, reducing the Lords' Estimate by £500, we may say that the House of Commons has achieved a victory, for the Treasury has not allowed the Estimate of the present year to exceed the amount allowed by the House last year. As we refused to comply with any increase in the Estimates passed last year, a conference took place between the Lords and the Treasury, and the House of Lords met us in a most liberal spirit. [A laugh.] Well, I speak of a liberal spirit from a financial point of view. They have agreed to meet the suggestions of the Treasury, and place their staff of clerks exactly on the same basis as the staff of clerks in the House of Commons. This is great pro- gress, because, after all, though the House of Lords may not have as long hours as we have, they have a very much smaller number of clerks to do the necessary work of the House. But this is not all. A Committee of the Lords, which sat in 1889, made recommendations which are being carried out at the present moment, and which will eventually lead to a saving of £6,500 on the Vote. Already £2,104 of that amount has been saved, but, of course, the full reductions can only be carried out when the members of the existing staff retire. We cannot ask the House of Lords to break faith with any gentleman who holds the position of clerk or any other position in that House. I mention this to show that the desire of the House of Lords is to deal with this matter in a liberal spirit. They have gone a step further than we even asked them to go. In accordance with the strong opinions expressed in this House last year by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), that officials of the House of Lords should retire at 65 years of age, they hare passed a Resolution providing that retirement after the (55th birthday should be compulsory for every clerk appointed by the Clerk of Parliaments. They have done this without being requested by us, and they have placed themselves in a position not only in this respect, but with regard to the reduction of expenditure which I think deserves the approbation of this House. I would therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment to a Division. [An hon. MEMBER: Divide, divide!] Surely the question is worth discussing. I have shown how the House of Lords have treated the Treasury in this matter, and I am bound to bring forward every point which I think shows in their favour. I think I should be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. I should just like to show the difference in the distribution of clerks between the Commons and the Lords. In the Public Bill Office in the Lords there are two clerks, while in the Commons there are five. In the Committee Office the Lords have one principal clerk and four other clerks, or a total of five, whilst in the House of Commons there are one principal clerk, two seniors, five assistants, and seven juniors, or a total of 15. In the Private Bill Office the Lords have two clerks, against five in the Commons. In the Journals Office the Lords have three clerks, and the Commons have seven. Well, I think I have shown that there has been a desire on the part of the House of Lords to meet the wishes of the House of Commons in respect of their staff, and I again appeal to my hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment to a Division.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not move my Amendment on the ground of economy. I think we ought to show the House of Lords that in this matter the House of Commons is the predominant partner. It is solely on that ground that I intend to take a Division on my Amendment.

I quite understand that my hon. and learned Friend has not raised this point as a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Last year, however, the reduction of the Vote was put on the ground of economy—that is to say, that the salaries were at a higher rate in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons. That was a proper matter to be considered from a financial point. It was so considered, and I declined altogether this year to have put upon the Estimates a larger sum for the staff of the House of Lords than was voted by the House of Commons last year. As I understand, my hon. and learned Friend raises the question now rather as part, of the differences of opinion which have arisen between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I desire to point out to my hon. and learned Friend, however, that that is a very great question, and that it is a question that will have to be discussed, and probably have to be determined, but upon very different grounds from that of the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords. My hon. and learned Friend will remember in the play of Henry V. the objection taken, I think by the gallant Welshman, to carrying on war by killing the baggage bearers. That is not the way in which this contest ought to be waged. We ought not to begin this contest by an act which is not in accordance with the laws of war. It would be a very strange thing if we began a contest with a great man by cutting down the salaries of his servants. I remember the very same question arising when the Compensation for Disturbance Bill came on in 1881. The same proposal was then made in the House of Commons, and it fell to me then to advise the House not to indicate their indignation on the subject by a Vote of this character. I confess that I do not think it will conduce to the dignity of this House to enter upon this conflict—if conflict there is to be—between the House of Lords and the House of Commons by this particular method of procedure. The penalty, such as it is, does not fall upon the right persons. It falls upon those who are not Members of the House of Lords—upon men who have their careers in life, upon labourers who are worthy of their wages. [Laughter.] They are as much worthy of their wages as anyone else, as much as the gentlemen who serve this House. To reduce this Vote would be an act of personal injustice to individuals who are really outside this quarrel altogether. I would press my hon. and learned Friend not to take this particular course of action, which does not appear to me to be appropriate to the object he has in view. If there is to be a legislative contest between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, let us conduct, it on higher ground than this. This is a method which, in my opinion, will bring down the character of the House of Commons, and therefore I sincerely trust that the hon. Member will not press the Motion he has made.

I must call attention to the fact that nothing really is open to discussion on this Vote except the duties and salaries of their clerks.

The right hon. Gentleman did not limit himself entirely to such considerations.

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go beyond them.

I am confident that neither the character nor the credit of the House will suffer by anything that may be done on this Vote. It is open to the House of Commons on this Vote to take whatever course may appear most suitable to the judgment, or I would even say the just resentment, of this House without inflicting any damage whatever on this Institution. I doubt if any direct injustice would follow to any individual even if the House of Commons refused to confirm this Vote to-night. I have no doubt but the resources of the Constitution exercised in one way or another will be found capable of providing the officials of the House of Lords with their remuneration. And, indeed, I would say that even if the people refused to provide those officials with any remuneration, the private resources of the Lords themselves would be equal to the burden of paying their own clerks. We cannot always be perfectly logical in politics. The course of politics is not ruled by logic; men are bound to take the best opportunities that offer. The House of Lords themselves are not too nice in their dealings with this House, or with our country. They act without any regard to our convenience, and I do not think it rests upon the Representatives of the people here, and especially upon the Representatives of the people of Ireland, to have any nice regard to their convenience. The House of Lords, in my opinion, is an institution which acts without regard to the will of the people of the United Kingdom. It treats the conclusions of this House with contempt. It treats the necessities, and even the sufferings, of the people of Ireland with callous cruelty. I heard it said within the last couple of nights, in the House of Lords, that it was a matter for regret that Ireland had any Representatives here.

Mr. Mellor, I rise to a point of Order. Are we discussing the policy of the House of Lords, or only the staff which serves the House of Lords?

I have already said that I do not think the policy of the House of Lords is open to discussion on this Vote. The Committee can only discuss the duties and remuneration of the officials.

Well, Sir, I have stated my opinion of the House of Lords. Now, I will only add that the only regret I feel is that a clean sweep has not been made. I would respectfully suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the best course for him to adopt is that of withdrawing the Motion for the reduction. I, for one, as a Representative of the Irish people who have been insulted, and the peace of whose country has been endangered in a base political game—I, for one, feel that, as long as circumstances remain as they are, I cannot take any share in voting any money contributed by the Irish people for the support of the House of Lords.

I remember a Vote of this kind being snatched at the dinner hour, when the Address was under discussion at the beginning of the Session. A vote hostile to the House of Lords was carried against the Government by a small majority, but next day the Members who voted for it allowed their vote to be reversed. What is the use of this child's play? The Government are as clearly responsible for the Estimates as they were for the Address, and nothing is more certain than that, if this Vote were refused to-night, the Government being responsible for the Estimate——

We were told distinctly last Session that the Government wore not responsible.

This is the first time I have ever heard such a doctrine laid down in the House of Commons. I have always understood that the Government, in introducing Estimates, made themselves responsible for them. What is certain to happen if the Committee strikes out this £20,000 is that the Government will have to re-insert it on Report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained perfectly clearly that the reason why the £500 was struck out last year was that the salary of the Clerk of Parliaments was a larger salary than that of the Senior Clerk in this House, although the work here is much heavier than that in the Lords. That was a plain issue, and I am very glad that the result of the Vote has been to amend that. Now, simply because of the action of the House of Lords on other matters, you are proposing to strike, not at the House of Lords as an institution—[Nationalist cries of "Yes"]—but at the servants of the House of Lords. I ask you, is it fair or manly to strike at the servants of the House of Lords? Abolish the House of Lords if you can convince the country that it ought to be done. [A Nationalist MEMBER: "Let them pay their own salaries."] Very well, then, take that issue. The House of Lords pays its own way by the fees it pays into the Treasury.

May I give the figures?

The hon. Member is never backward in speaking, and he can wait for his turn. This House has a perfect right to deal with the House of Lords; but I say that the attack on that House ought to be made in a straightforward fashion on the Institution itself, and not on the servants it employs. Just, as you had to consent to your child's play on the Address being reversel, so, if you insist on this reduction, you will have to restore the Vote to-morrow.

I may point out I hat the definite cost on the Estimates of the House of Lords is £105,000, whereas the estimated receipts from fees for next year are only £44,000. I may say that, so far as I understand, the constitutional way for this House to object to anybody is to move a reduction of his salary.

There is this difference between the action of the House on the Address and the action it is invited to take on the present Vote: On the occasion of the vote on the Address, hon. Members could only vote as a protest, and therefore it made no difference if, having recorded their protest, they afterwards assented to a different arrangement with regard to the Address. I can promise the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell) that if the House rejects this vote for the salaries in the House of Lords, hon. Members will not come down to-morrow and reverse that vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was a great question, and it ought to be treated as such. Well, we are all anxious to treat it as a great question, and only want the opportunity of trying it out, and this is the first opportunity we have had. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to us, in the words of the play, not to make war upon the enemy by killing his baggage bearers; and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said it was not fair or manly to strike at the House of Lords by refusing the salary of their servants. I reply to that argument by asking is it fair, or manly, or courageous of the House of Lords to strike at the Irish Members by starving women and children in Ireland? Are we to be asked to vote a sum of £20,000 or £30,000 to an Institution which we believe to be a curse to both England and Ireland? If the House of Lords is to continue to exist we are entitled to ask them to subscribe to pay their own servants. We hold that the work the Lords do is not of such a character as to justify us in voting the money of the people to continue it. For my part, speaking as an Irish Member and as a Radical who believes that this great question ought to be brought to a trial before the country as soon as possible, I earnestly appeal to every friend of Ireland in this House, and to every sincere Radical who really wishes to make this a live issue before the people of the country, not to be led away to vote this aid to the House of Lords by any arguments such as are usually put forward on this subject, but to vote on this question in such a way that the people can believe they are in earnest. An argument was used by the hon. Member for South Tyrone such as I have never heard used before. He said that all Governments were responsible for the Estimates they brought into this House. Did he mean to convey that the Committee was not at liberty to decide whether certain items should be paid or not?

No, I do not contend that, and I never said anything of the kind.

said, he earnestly appealed to every Radical in that House to show to the people of this country and the people in Ireland that they were in earnest in their opposition to the House of Lords.

I think, Mr. Mellor, you might record the fact that we have again saved the Government from their own friends.

I think I could very well make out a ease for reducing this Vote, because, judging by the amount of work we have accomplished, we are not worth the money we cost.

said, he wanted to say a word or two about the accounts of the Kitchen Committee. Early in the Session, on the Vote on Account, they had a balance-sheet presented to them, but it was not audited. He would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would see that the balance-sheet presented for 1894 was audited by the Auditor General, so that they might have it put before them in proper form.

was understood to say that he would much more readily grant this request if the food was better than it was. As for the auditing of the account, he had no objection to it. They were reckoning without their host, which was an unwise thing to do, but he would consider the matter.

said, he should like to ask for an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that there should be a more efficient distribution of Papers from the Vote Office. Parliamentary Papers which should be available to Members at the Vote Office in the afternoon were often not available even at the time of the adjournment of the House. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would see that when any Papers were issued there should be a sufficient number in the Vote Office for all Members.

said, these Papers were distributed under the authority of a Committee. He was aware that complaints had been made on the subject, and he would see if the Papers could be distributed earlier.

said, he thought it was time that some arrangement should be made as to the manner of the remuneration of the clerks in the House. They had four principal clerks beginning at £850, and going up to £1,000. The principal clerks were now getting the full sum, and in addition there were certain allowances. These allowances were things that belonged to a past time, and ought not to be continued any longer. One clerk got £300 a year for acting as paymaster, and an extra payment for taking Divisions. When any change was made these allowances ought to be swept away, and proper remuneration made by payment of salary.

said, the appointment of the clerks was under the control of the Speaker, and he would take care that his attention was called to this suggestion.