I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made by the factory inspectors in Glasgow to the local sanitary authorities in that city with reference to defects and in sanitary conditions in workshops during the month of April last; and how many of them could have been rectified immediately, and without further loss of time, by the factory inspector, had he the same power to deal with defective sanitation in workshops that he possesses in factories?

Thirty-two complaints were made to the Sanitary Authority in Glasgow in April—namely, 21 workshops in an uncleanly state, 5 workshops overcrowded, and 6 workshops requiring additional waterclosets, or waterclosets requiring structural alteration. Of these 26 could have received attention by Her Majesty's inspector of factories, had they the same power in workshops as they had in factories?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. John Hunt, a candidate for the office of Poor Law Guardian for the Division of Coolavin, in the Boyle Union, was, as a result of the scrutiny held for the Division at the recent March elections, duly elected Guardian by the returning officer; and that, in the absence of Mr. Hunt and in the presence of Mr. Finan, his opponent, a recount some time afterwards took place, which resulted in the return of the latter; and whether, under the circumstances, the proceedings were regular; and, if not, will a new election be ordered.

I have received a communication from the returning officer of the Union, in which he denies the truth of the statements in the question. Mr. Hunt, he observes, was not declared elected by him at the election referred to, and both candidates were present on the occasion of the second scrutiny of the votes. The Local Government Board have investigated the matter, and have informed Mr. Hunt that they saw no sufficient ground to interfere with the return made by the returning officer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what decision has been arrived at on a subject now under consideration for a considerable time by the Treasury—namely, the part payment from Imperial funds of the salaries of the inspectors of cowsheds, dairies, and milk shops in Ireland, as the duties of these inspectors are mainly in connection with the administration of the Public Health Acts?

After very careful consideration of this subject the Treasury are not prepared to sanction the payment from Imperial funds of any part of the salaries of these inspectors.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, when allotments of common lands, including allotments to be held "in common," and the roads giving access thereto have been laid down and defined in the deposited public awards, and on the maps accompanying the same, by Commissioners under Inclosure Acts, either non-user of the rights conferred on such allotment holders, or adverse user by encroachment or otherwise, can legally weaken and destroy the effect of such award, or whether such awards made by statutory power conferred by Parliament are valid in all their terms and particulars for all time, unless subsequently modified or altered under the powers of a statutory enactment having equal force with the original award?

The questions put to me by my hon. Friend are questions of law which I have no authority to determine, and which are by no means free from difficulty. In these circumstances, and inasmuch as I understand that cases have arisen which are likely to become the subject of litigation, I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is not desirable that I should express any opinion on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether official Reports have been ordered on projected railways in the Colonies of Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, and Lagos; whether all or any of these Reports have yet been received; and whether they will be presented to Parliament shortly, together with any decisions in regard to those railways to which Her Majesty's Government may have agreed?

Preliminary surveys have been executed at the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone with a view to the possible construction of railways in those colonies, and a survey is in progress, or has possibly just been completed, at Lagos. Reports have been received from the engineers who carried out the surveys at Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast, and they are under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and have also been referred to the governors of the colonies for their observations. No Report has yet been received on the Lagos survey. It is not proposed to lay any papers on the subject at present on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, (1) whether an agreement is under consideration, or has been come to, with the Republic of Liberia which permits the engagement of Kroo labourers free of any poll tax provided that British steamers do not call or touch at any parts of the coast or ports, except such as are declared to be ports of entry by the Liberian. Government; (2) whether the Liberian Government exercises jurisdiction in any or all of the ports of call not made ports of entry; and (3), whether Her Majesty's Government at the mere request of the Liberian Government propose by such an agreement to prevent British steamers trading at ports over which the Liberian Government maintains no effective or other control?

An agreement is under consideration, but has not been concluded as regards the engagement of Kroo labourers. The question of ports of entry is also under consideration, but there is no question at issue as to the coast over which the Liberian Government exercises jurisdiction, and the answer to the last question is therefore in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what military stores are manufactured in India, and in what cases the stores manufactured in India form the total supply of that kind for the British forces in that country; whether those stores include cordite; and, if not, when it is expected to commence the manufacture of that powder; and in what cases a system of simultaneous tenders for military stores in England and in India is adopted?

Speaking generally, all military stores that can be satisfactorily and economically manufactured in India are obtained in that country; but it is impossible to give a list of the stores which are wholly provided in this way. Cordite has not yet been made in India, and the question of its manufacture there is under consideration. No system of simultaneous tenders for military stores has been adopted.

asked how long it was since the plant for the manufacture of cordite was actually sent out, and whether the delay was due to any want of confidence as to the ability of Indian manufacturers to manufacture cordite?

No, Sir, the question is entirely one of climate whether cordite can be safely manufactured in India.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies how long it is intended that an Imperial Commissioner, specially sent out for the purpose to Newfoundland, shall continue to employ persons on relief works at the expense of the home taxpayer, and shall go on giving a State assistance to the unemployed which is refused in England?

It is expected that the necessity for relief works will cease about the end of this month, when the fishery will be fairly opened.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give any information as to the proposed conditions under which the Colony of Newfoundland would enter the Dominion of Canada; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to the financial responsibilities which it is proposed should be assumed by this country?

As I stated yesterday, I am unable at present to make any statement.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what means, if any, are taken to ensure that the fair wage condition is enforced on contractors for soldiers' clothing; and, whether any provision is made to prevent the evils of sub-contracting?

In all clothing contracts certain conditions are laid down to ensure compliance with the Resolution of the House of Commons as regards sub-letting and the payment of the current rate of wages. In addition to this, in the case of contracts for making up soldiers' clothing, further conditions have recently been added requiring that all wages shall be paid direct to the workers, and not through a foreman; also that the wages books of the firms employed, so far as the contract is concerned, shall be open to War Office inspection.

asked what means the War Office had of carry out the regulation?

On the receipt of any kind of complaint inspection is made, and the contractor is called to account. There is no difficulty at all.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a sum of £25 a year is paid by the churchwardens to the managers of the Hawcoat Church of England School, Barrow-in-Furness on condition that they provide an organist for the parish church; whether this sum of £25 has been credited to the school accounts; whether, in consequence of this credit, deductions of grant under the 17s. 6d. limit, to which the school would otherwise have been liable, have been evaded; and, if so, whether he can state the total amount to which such deductions should have amounted; whether the schoolmaster's salary includes the sum of £25 for his services as organist; whether the managers have certified on Form IX. that the teacher's salary was for his services as teacher, and did not include any sum paid to him for any service in any other capacity; and, if the facts are as stated, what steps does the Department intend to take in the matter?

The attention of the Department was called last year by Her Majesty's Inspector to the inclusion in the master's salary of £25 for his services as organist, the same amount being paid by the churchwardens and credited to the school account. It appeared on investigation that this had been done for eight years; but it had not affected the limit of grant payable until 1893, when it resulted in an over-payment of £14 19s. This overpayment was deducted from last year's grant. Managers are required to certify on Form IX. that the sum entered as "teacher's salary" does not include any sum paid for service in another capacity. The managers in this case say that they acted in ignorance; and as the master has now ceased to be organist, and the churchwardens do not propose to continue the payment, no further steps appear to be required.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to reply to the questions relating to wages, piecework, and other matters, addressed to him by a deputation of carpenters and joiners on 18th February?

The points brought before the Secretary of State's notice by the deputation referred to involve questions of a very complicated nature, which require, and are receiving, careful consideration. It is hoped that a decision may be announced in the course of a few weeks.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Simpson, chimney sweep, charged at Rotherhithe with unlawfully soliciting employment from door to door; and whether he will introduce a measure to prevent similar prosecutions in future?

This prosecution took place under an Act of Parliament, winch was passed as recently as last year. The defendant pleaded ignorance of the law, and the magistrate adjourned the summons indefinitely, with a caution to the man not to infringe the Act in future. I do not propose to ask the House to repeal the provisions of the Act of last year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case tried before the Ashton-under-Lyne borough court, on Saturday, 27th April, in which a number of tailors then on strike were fined 5s. each for unlawfully and wilfully obstructing the free passage of Stamford Street and Market Avenue by loitering thereon; (2) whether he is aware that the men were engaged on picket duty at the time, and were constantly on the move; and (3) whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. I have made inquiry, and find that the Justices found that the conduct of the defendants amounted to an obstruction of the highway, within the meaning of Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. The facts not being in dispute, the question which arises appears to me to be a question of law, which, if the defendants were dissatisfied with the decision, should have been raised by an application for a special case. I am informed by the Justices that they would have been ready, if asked, to grant such a case. Under these circumstances I cannot interfere.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conduct of a crowd of persons, who on recent Sunday evenings have mobbed and maltreated the speakers at the Independent Labour Party meetings at the Custom House Steps, Belfast and whether he will ensure that adequate police protection is given to maintain freedom of speech?

For some weeks past my attention has been directed to the proceedings at the meetings referred to in the hon. Member's question, and I am aware that some hostility has been shown by the large numbers of persons attracted to these meetings. It is the paramount duty of the Constabulary to preserve the peace, and they have so far, I am informed, been successful in preventing any attack either on the particular member of the party in question who organised the meetings, or upon his supporters at these meetings. The police will continue to preserve the peace on such occasions and to afford every protection to the parties referred to in the discharge of this duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when his decision will be announced in regard to the application of the Anstruther-Easter Parochial Board for the disjunction of part of the parish of Kilrenny, and its addition to the burghal parish of Anstruther, a local inquiry into which was held as long ago as 23rd February; and what is the cause of the delay?

I have been in communication with the Sheriff who conducted the inquiry, and regret to find that the delay in furnishing me with his report has been mainly caused by illness. The Sheriff hopes, however, to be able to let me have his report next week, when no time will be lost in arriving at a decision.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the heavy milk rates charged on the Great Western Railway whilst the London and South Western Railway Company have made large and liberal concessions worth some £15 to £20 a year to many small dairy farmer in the West of England; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

No, Sir; I have not heard of the liberal concessions on the London and South Western Railway to which the hon. Member refers, but I am glad they have been made. I cannot deal with a complaint against the Great Western Railway Company made in such general terms. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of unreasonable treatment I will adopt the procedure laid down by Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what modification, if any, has been made in the rule as to the pensions to veterans of the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny by which these pensions were limited to men in a state of destitution?

The Chelsea Commissioners have been empowered to grant these campaign pensions to all who may be regarded as in necessitous circumstances. These circumstances vary with the locality in which the man may be living, so that a money limit cannot be rigidly fixed that will apply to all cases. The Commissioners have, however, been allowed to exceed the standard which they had formerly regarded as satisfying the requirements of the term "destitute circumstances." Of course the conditions as to length of service and character remain unaltered.

In what way has that been made public, so that the men may know that this change has taken place?

They know it when they make their applications. I do not know that there has been any publication of the change. If a man applies now, he will get his pension under the existing conditions.

My point is that the men are under the impression that none of these pensions will be granted unless the applicants are in destitute circumstances. It appears now that the War Office has considerably modified that regulation, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of these men, to make it public that this change has taken place.

I will see what can be done, but the matter is more in the hands of the Chelsea Commissioners than in mine.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Commander of the French gunboat L' Ardent has been patrolling the Niger waters with armed launches, in violation of International Law?

We have no information to that effect.

asked whether there was any probability of the gun-boats leaving the Niger waters at any early date?

asked for notice of the question.

asked whether any reason had been assigned by the French Government for the presence of a French man-of-war in these waters.

The question on the paper refers only to armed launches. I must ask for notice of the question as to a man-of-war.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether an inquiry by an inspector or sub-inspector of the Board has been ordered into the fatal accident caused by a collision on the railway being constructed between Leamington and Daventry; and, whether the Board is being represented at the inquests held on the men killed?

As this railway is merely in course of construction, the Railway Acts do not apply, and the Railway Inspecting Officers have no duty to perform. The Company will, no doubt, report the accident to the Board of Trade under the Notice, of Accidents Act, 1894. The Board of Trade will immediately consider the facts of the case as elicited by the coroner, and determine whether any formal investigation under that Act is desirable.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken by the Powers to induce the Porte to release the Christian Arch- bishops, Bishops, and other Armenian ecclesiastics at present imprisoned in Turkey; and, has the Armenian doctor, known as Mourad Effendi, yet given evidence before the Turkish Commission of Inquiry in Armenia, and is he now alive?

Her Majesty's Government understand that 19 Armenian ecclesiastics, including the Archbishops of Zeitoun and Furnouz, and the Bishops of Adana and Arabgir, are now at Constantinople, under the care of the Armenian Patriarch. The examination of Mourad was to take place after the return of the Commission from visiting the Sassoun villages. No report of it has yet reached Her Majesty's Government, nor have they heard any report of his not being alive.

Was this Mourad the leader of the insurgents in the rising last August?

My information as regards Mourad is confined to the fact that it is thought to be of considerable importance that he should be examined before the Commission.

said, he had been asked to second the proposal which had been so ably laid before the House. Having had many opportunities of forming a judgment as to the feelings of the service on this question, he had no hesitation in saying it was idle to deny the fact that the very gravest dissatisfaction and discontent existed, that the discontent was widespread, and that there was so much justification for it as to call for inquiry—preferably by a Royal Commission—in the interests not only of the employés but also of the State itself. Inquiry could not possibly do any harm; on the other hand, if, as he believed, real grievances existed, it might be the means of removing them. Simply to deny such allegations was no answer, it begged the question, which could only be decided by impartial inquiry before a Commission or Parliamentary Committee. Nothing could be of more disadvantage to a State service than that a large department of it should be allowed to entertain strong feelings that they suffered injustice, and that they had not had that consideration extended to them to which they were justly entitled. He did not deny that the Postmaster General had done something to mitigate the causes of complaint, but what had been done was inadequate. In 1891, in a discussion on a motion by the hon. Member for Barnsley, the Postmaster General said he believed the feeling of dissatisfaction was widespread, and to a deputation of Members of Parliament which waited on him more recently he made the same admission. It was stated that so long ago as May 1894 the right hon. Gentleman received a representation on the grievances of sorters; but up to the present no reply had been received. If a whole year were allowed to pass without any notice being taken of a statement of grievances believed to be well founded, and expressed in moderate terms, it seemed that the time had come when the House might well say it would like to have an inquiry of a different character. On the other hand, he was told there was one case, that of the tracers. He was told that there was a case in which the right hon. Gentleman had reversed this procedure, and, after asking for information, had given a decision without waiting for it and for a deputation, and somewhat prematurely. The rule that the Civil Service Departments sought to enforce was—that at all public meetings at which Government employés took part, and elsewhere as at elections, there must be a due regard to discipline on their part. But inasmuch as Parliament had conferred the Franchise upon Civil Servants they should be entitled to exercise that Franchise without restrictions, except such as were imposed by statute, and the above words were vague and ill-defined, and therefore dangerous pitfalls. The late Postmaster General came to the conclusion that it was a breach of discipline for Civil Servants to approach Members of Parliament with the view of inducing them to support a Motion for an inquiry into the alleged grievances of Post Office employés A Post Office Circular, dated June 17, 1892, issued in view of the then approaching General Election, and addressed to Post Office Servants, contained the following:

''Sir James Fergusson, at the same time, desires to warn Post Office Servants that it would ho improper for them, whether in combination or individually, to endeavour to extract promises from any candidate for election to the House of Commons with reference to their duties and pay."

It was in consequence of their disregard of this instruction that several Post Office employés had been dismissed, with the consequent loss of their pensions. The question which the Post Office employés put to candidates was not even within the terms of the Circular, for it had no reference whatever to their "duties or pay," and in his opinion such an instruction and the dismissals were ultra vires on the part of the Postmaster General. It was a most unfortunate thing that one Minister should lay down a certain rule, and should dismiss a number of men for disobeying it, and that his successor should set that rule aside, and yet the dismissed men should not be reinstated, although by the reversal of the rule their action had been vindicated. Proper redress was to restore, and they ought at least to be amnestied. If the mode in which Civil Servants were to exercise their Franchise was to be limited it should be done by statute and not by departmental rules, and much less by any one Minister's will, for the days of such disabilities died with George III., and it was their duty to themselves and to their families to ask such a question. With regard to the case of the auxiliary postmen, it was the fact that they received very small salaries, amounting to from 15s. to 18s. a week in the case of adults, and that they thought that they were entitled to a minimum salary of 24s. a week, in place of what they regarded as sweating. It was further alleged that the wages of the rural postmen were inadequate, and that the employment of boy labour at boy wages in adult duty was an injustice to the men. The men also sought to draw attention to the rules regarding promotion, and the small annual increments of pay, and complained that the hours of labour, although nominally only 8 were in fact 14 or 16. All these matters ought to be inquired into, and if the complaints of the men were well founded the grievances ought to be redressed. In reference to the question of leave, it had been stated that many of the men were required to take their leave in the winter months, and that in some cases where they had been compelled to take their leave in December in one year they had been required to take it again for the next year in the February following! Such a system was undoubtedly detrimental to the health of the men. It was no recreation. Then again, the sanitary condition of the central office and of the office at Cold-bath Fields was said to be very bad, and it was asserted that the insanitary condition of the offices had occasioned several deaths among the men. The deserted prison was a most unsuitable public office. Housing and health were closely connected. The men had also put forward a complaint with regard to the period at which they were superannuated, alleging that there was no maximum term, say after 25 years' service, and that they were worked until they were quite unfit for any other duty, and were so deprived of the benefit of the pension to which they were entitled and to which they had contributed large sums in the shape of deferred pay. It was not in one department only that these complaints against the State existed—they came from sorters, postmen, and telegraphists, men who from their education were capable of forming a just judgment. Notwithstanding the schemes of Mr. Fawcett, Lord Playfair, and Mr. Raikes (and at the Post Office it was universally felt that Mr. Raikes as Postmaster General did his best to meet reasonably the complaints of the service) the inequitable system of classification created injustice and discontent. He believed the system was fundamentally unsound, and that it led to irregularity, inequality, and stagnation of promotion and of pay. In the telegraph service the hours, and the conditions of work were complained of, and the telegraphists asked reasonably for a definite minimum and a moderate maximum of remuneration. He would read a resolution they had passed, in which they urged the Treasury to consider the inadequate scale of pay of telegraph clerks, and the inequitable operation of the system of classification amongst them, with a view to re-adjustment, so as to enable London telegraph clerks to obtain a salary of £80 per annum after five years' service; £110 after 10 years' service, and a maximum of £230 per annum after 22 years' service; to enable provincial telegraphists to earn 28s. per week after five years; £2 a week after 20 years, and a maximum of £200 a year after 25 years. If this reasonable demand could not be met, let inquiry determine the question between the clerks and their department; if on the other hand there was nothing unreasonable in the demand, which would be met by a private employer, let it be acceded to. Another resolution was—

''That the meeting of telegraph clerks strongly protests against the present system of sending clerks on annual leave during the months of January, February, November, and December, thus counteracting the object for which leave of absence to an indoor staff was originally designed."

This was formulated after long discussion at a general meeting of the employés. The linesmen, as at Hull, had asked for an eight-hour day, but at present there was no approach to it. Another grievance of the telegraphists was the new requirements as to technical examinations. With such examinations he had every sympathy. No doubt it was to the advantage of the employés themselves that they should have more knowledge of, and greater interest in, their work. He regretted that for many years the State had not done its duty, and work had been monotonous which greater knowledge would have made interesting. But for the State to act differently from a private employer, and ignore the contract under which the labour had been done, and say suddenly to an employé who after 20 years had grown up in the service—

"You must pass technical examinations or you will not get promotion or increments of Pay,"

amounted almost to tyranny. The cost in time, trouble, etc., of preparing for the examinations was great, yet no additional remuneration was paid to those who passed. Where law ended, tyranny began, and what in the case of a private employer would determine the relationship between thorn in the case of the Post Office did not. If the House was satisfied that there was discontent, and that the demands of the Post Office employés were not, and, if unreasonable the Postmaster General challenged the accuracy of some of the statements made and the reasonableness of some of the opinions held, what possible objection could there be to an independent and impartial inquiry, the result of which the Post Office employés said they would accept? The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say he had no money for an inquiry. He was fond of appearing in formâ pauperis. But there was something more important in these matters than money, and that was justice; and he was sure that if the House felt that an injustice was being done they would be willing to find the money in order that full justice might be done to what had been justly described as the best Civil Service in the world.

said, that perhaps it might be to the advantage of the House if he stated the decision of the Government before the Debate proceeded further. He thought he should be able to make a statement which would satisfy those who naturally took a deep interest in the subject. In the first place, he wished to say that he had no objection to what had been said by either the Mover or Seconder of the Motion. He certainly did not intend to treat the Motion as a vote of want of confidence. He was one of the first to admit that if there were grievances in large bodies of public servants some effective step should lie taken to remove them, or discover whether they were really well founded. He understood the Mover of the Motion before the House spoke on behalf of those in the service, who had taken an active part in promoting what he might call an agitation, and that his position was that, in the condition of feeling in the service, some step ought to be taken which would enable the real facts to be brought, not only before the public, but before Parliament. The hon. Member founded his case to some extent on the Ridley Commission, which was appointed to inquire into the establishments of the different offices of State at home and abroad. He had looked carefully into the matter, and he thought it was beyond dispute that that Committee was appointed to inquire, from the point of view of economy and good administration, into the clerical or administrative branches of the great civil departments of the State. The reference to that Royal Commission was in these terms:—

''You will state whether in your opinion the work of the different offices is efficiently and economically performed, whether it might be simplified, whether the method of procedure can be improved, and whether the system of control is deficient or unnecessarily elaborate. As ten years have now elapsed since the adoption of the scheme of organisation recommended by the Playfair Commission, the time has come when the working of the scheme may with advantage be reviewed. You will, therefore, report whether the scheme has been fairly tried, whether its provisions have met the requirements of the service and deserve confirmation, and whether any modifications are needed to give it complete development.''

That Commission was never intended to inquire into the subject-matter of the Motion now before the House—the terms of pay, prospect of promotion, and conditions of employment of great bodies of men like the sorters, telegraphists, and postmen. Conversations he had had with members of the Commission bore out that view.

asked, whether the Postmaster General did not invite the men referred to to give evidence?

said, he did not know. But the Commission specifically stated that they did not consider such matters were referred to them, as was shown by the following passage in their Report:—

"Again, among persons receiving civil pay, and forming in one sense part of the establishments, are included a great number of men engaged in other than clerical labour. In the clothing manufacturing departments of the Army (Woolwich, Enfield, Waltham Abbey, Pimlico, Birmingham), upwards of £1,000,000 per annum is paid in wages, speaking roundly, to 18,000 men, and at the dockyards and victualling yards the analogous number of men employed is upwards of £21,000. We have not considered these classes of employés to form part of the staff of the offices into which we have to inquire. Their numbers and wages must obviously be regulated by different considerations from those which should guide the administrative portion of the offices; and it would be impossible to deal with them satisfactorily without touching large questions of policy."

The Royal Commission clearly took the view that they were not authorised to look into questions such as that now before the House. But that did not affect the real question. If grievances existed they ought to be investigated. He had made a careful examination of most of the alleged grievances during the three years he had been at the Post Office, and though he had satisfied himself that in the main they were not well founded, he recognised that a very strong feeling existed not only among a portion of the staff, but also among the public and among Members of the House; and he was therefore prepared to make a proposal which he thought would meet the views of those who had taken action in the matter. Reference had been made to a departmental committee, but he had not appointed a departmental committee to inquire into the question of grievances, because he had always considered that that was a question that should come before himself; and he had received a considerable number of deputations, and had gone carefully into the matters which they had put before him. The hon. Member had mentioned the case of auxiliary postmen, but he had instances in which the figures given with regard to the wages and hours of service of these men had proved to be wholly inaccurate and misleading; and he should not be surprised to find that the figures given by the hon. Member did not accurately represent the facts of the case. Many statements had appeared in the papers which he very much regretted. He had, however, thought it wiser not to take any notice of them, but he was glad of the opportunity which the Debate gave him of placing the facts before the public. He would take first the case put forward by the provincial telegraphists. They had issued a pamphlet, about which he had nothing to complain, except that in certain respects they exaggerated the case which they wished to submit with regard to the terms of their employment. Their first point was that promotion was retarded because of the system of classification. They said that after 14 years' service, when a telegraphist was 30 years of age, the salary he received was 40s. a week, and there he stopped unless he could pass from the second class to the first; that the barrier between the classes was quite an arbitrary one, that there was no difference in the class of work done or in the way it was done, and that it was simply chance that determined the promotion from one class to another. The inference from that statement was that a large number of telegraphists having arrived at the salary of 40s. a week at the end of 14 years' service, were blocked, and that the chance of getting into the higher class was problematical and dependent on circumstances which might not happen. He had made an examination of the facts of the case. At the Central Telegraph office there were no telegraphists who had attained the maximum in the second class; and, in the case of the staff there and in the provincial offices, out of 3, 308 second class telegraphists only Co, who were eligible for promotion, stood at the maximum. While the maximum salary of the second class was 40s., the average salary of the men promoted from the second class to the first class in 1894 was 33s. 10½d. That meant that, on an average, the men were promoted three years before they reached the maximum term of service. In the same document there was an extraordinarily misleading table with reference to the rates of promotion in various offices. It left out promotions due to causes other than what were called ordinary causes—promotions due to appointments to postmasterships and chief clerkships, to transfers from provincial offices to the office in London, and to the reduction of officers through misconduct. But promotions due to these causes equally affected the How, and were equally advantages to the staff. If they took them into account it would be found that at Birmingham instead of 11 promotions as stated in the table; there had been 16; at Liverpool instead of 8 there had been 37; at Newcastle instead of 5 there had been 24; at Belfast instead of 4 there had been 14; at Bristol instead of 6 there had been 13; and at Southampton instead of 2 there had been 8. Then it was stated that a large proportion of the increased expenditure, consequent upon Mr. Raikes's revision, was spent upon the superintending classes; but those who made that statement ignored the fact that there was a very large increase in the number of superior places, to all of which they were entitled to look forward by way of promotion, and that the very creation of these superintending appointments hastened and facilitated the promotion of the officers in the classes below. It was a very remarkable fact, notwithstanding that allegation of hardship, that in London, where there was a competitive examination for entrance to the service, there were 9 candidates for every vacancy, while in Dublin there were 17 and in Edinburgh 13. He thought, therefore, that the case put forward by the provincial telegraphists showed a considerable amount of exaggeration and misstatement. But these were matters that would be thoroughly investigated under the proposal which he was about to make, and when the truth was made known it would be found that the case was not nearly so hard as was made out. A case appeared in the papers some time ago, headed "A Premium on Sweating," in which it was stated that the telegraph superintendent at Bristol had been recommended for a bonus of 100 guineas for effecting savings of £760 a year by economies at the expense of the staff. He did not think he need state that there was no foundation for that statement. There was a reorganisation of the telegraph duties at Bristol. Economies consisting of a reduction of overtime and of the abolition of four junior situations resulted in a saving of between £600 and £700 a year; but the statement that any bonus was offered to the officer who carried out the reorganisation was absolutely without foundation. As an instance of the way in which some of these allegations and charges were manufactured, he might state that he received a deputation from the London Trades Council in June 1894, when it was stated that skilled electric-light workmen were often employed by the Post Office at labourers' wages. He inquired into the case of a man named Turner, quoted as an example, and found that he had been employed as a wireman in the Post Office factory. He was discharged from slackness of work, and, being unable to obtain work elsewhere, he applied in writing to the superintendent to be taken on as a labourer. This case was put forward as one of great hardship; but inquiry showed that the man was taken on out of kindness and was paid in proportion to the amount and class of work he performed. The same deputation mentioned the case of a man named Harrison, employed in the Post Office factory on piecework, and represented that in three weeks he was only able to earn 7s., 9s. and 11s. respectively. That was a strong statement justifying careful examination, and after making a full inquiry into the facts he wrote to the Secretary of the Trades Council on November 9th, informing him that prior to those three weeks Harrison had been earning on the average £2 0s. 6d. per week, and that immediately after the three weeks his wages rose to the same or a larger amount. In spite of that explanation, which clearly indicated that this was a man who, for the purpose of agitation, had deliberately lowered the amount of his wages by abstaining from doing full work, statements of the case were again made in the newspapers, and resolutions were carried by the council denouncing the authorities at the Holloway Factory for permitting such a state of things to exist. The sudden fall and then the rise again in the payments made to Harrison clearly indicated what his object was—namely the production of a grievance. With regard to the auxiliary postmen, he was not prepared to say that their case was one which did not require consideration; indeed, in view of the improvement in salaries which had been universal in the public service, he thought there was a case for careful examination on their behalf. At the same time, however, he could not help pointing out that the public were very much misled by grossly inaccurate statements that appeared in the newspapers, and which tended to create wholly wrong impressions in the minds of people who read them. There was the case of a man named Mears, in the south-eastern district, and statements were made in a newspaper letter to the effect that after 27 years' service in the Post Office he was in receipt of only 12s. a week. Inquiries showed that the 12s. was received for duties performed between the hours of 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., and Mears, who was a warehouseman, stated that he regarded the use of his name as an unwarrantable liberty, and objected to its being brought into the controversy. Other cases have been mentioned, in not one of which were the figures accurate. Instead of 10s. 6d., one man actually received 15s. 9d. for a short duty on each day in the week. Then there was a case of another man. Second-class sorters who failed to qualify for promotion were required to attend the sorting school, a facility for obtaining promotion which they highly appreciated. In connection with this man's attendance at the school, complaint had been made that he had been compelled to attend between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. after working at night. That, however, only happened on two occasions through an alteration in his hours of work, and he stated that the assertion had been made without his knowledge, and that the times suited his convenience or he should have made a representation to get the hours altered. There was only one other case which he would mention in support of his statement that misleading facts had been placed before the House. It was the case of a man named Churchfield, the general secretary of the Postmen's Federation, who stated, in the course of an interview with a representative of one of the London newspapers, that what was wanted was an eight hours day, because the shortest time worked at present was 12¾ hours and the longest 22 hours, and that the time was so arranged that the men worked a continuous day. As Churchfield's duties fell far short of the time mentioned, he was called upon to explain his reasons for making such a statement, and his explanation was that he excluded the eastern central district of London. Now, with regard to the maximum, he explained that the duties referred to extended from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., with a two hours' break from 10 p.m. till midnight. What was really a seven hours' duty covering a nine hours' period, was called by Churchfield a continuous duty covering 22 hours, and it would be just as reasonable to say that the House of Commons, which that day would practically sit for ten hours with a two hours' interval between seven o'clock and nine o'clock, would be sitting continuously for 22 hours. He did not, however, blame the newpapers for inserting those statements, because they had no means of ascertaining what was the real state of affairs; but, in view of such statements being made, it was important that a through investigation should be made in order that the public and the House of Commons might know what the real facts were. Hon. Members had referred to the auxiliary postmen, and, as he had already said, their case was deserving of consideration. He would like to do away with the system altogether, but that would be impossible. Efforts, however, had been made to limit their numbers when it was found that the duties were capable, of being amalgamated, and, the auxiliary men were, where possible, given the opportunity of taking up the full duties. The character of the work of the postal system both in London and in the country made it impossible to have a continuous eight hours' duty, and there, must be some means of filling up the short duties in the morning and in the evening. As far as was possible under the existing system, they endeavoured to work continuous duties, but the increasing desire of the public, and Members of Parliament too, to get their letters at the earliest possible moment in the morning, and to post them at the latest possible moment in the evening, added considerably to the difficulties with which the Post Office had to contend. The pay of the auxiliary postmen varied from 6d to 8d. and 9d. per hour. In the country the pay varied from 4d. to 5d. per hour, according to the expenses of the district in which the men lived. In London and the provincial towns, in addition to their wages, they wore provided with uniform, with free medical attendance in case of sickness, with extra payments on Christmas Day and Good Friday, and for any extra duties they performed, so that the statement that the men's wages were a certain amount was not an accurate statement of the emoluments which they received. They had these other additional advantages which he had mentioned, and which were of a fairly substantial kind. In London these men were, as a rule, small tradesmen, shop assistants, and night watchmen, who had light work during the period of their employment, and who were glad to be thus able to add to their incomes. He was happy to say he had done something towards improving their position by granting uniform clothing and improved pay to the rural auxiliary postmen, at the cost of about £20,000 a year. With regard to temporary postmen, they were taken on to meet sudden increases of work, but as soon as possible they were put on the establishment. As to junior town postmen, the whole question was one which deserved very careful attention, and he was looking into it. The hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had not referred to the scales of pay or recommended a large increase. He would like to tell the House how the matter stood as regarded the largest classes. Take the sorters in London. Before the date of the revision by Mr. Fawcett in 1881 the maximum salary of sorters of the first class was 45s.per week, and it was now 56s. The maximum for sorters of the second class was then 25s., and it was now 40s. In the case of telegraphists the maximum of the senior class before 1881 was £160, and it was now £190. In the first class the maximum used to be £130, and it was now £160, whilst the maximum of the telegraphists of the second class had been increased from £90 to £110. With the postmen there had been a corresponding increase. The maximum salary for first class postmen in London had been increased from 30s. to 34s. per week, and in the suburban districts from 28s. to 32s. In the provincial offices, both in the cases where there were two classes and in the case where the sorting clerks and telegraphists were on one class, the salaries had been correspondingly increased. In addition to these improvements, there has been a large increase of superior officers. Twenty years ago the superior appointments averaged only 5·2 per cent. of the total telegraph staff of the provincial offices, and they now averaged 12·9, whilst the average salary of the higher officers had been increased from £154 to £190 per year. Apart from the extra cost due to the numerical additions to the staff', the increase in wages had amounted to £750,000 since 1881, of which £364,000 was the result of the latest revision, which took place in 1891. In 1881 the wages formed 48·7 per cent. of the gross expenditure of the department, whereas now they formed 59·9 per cent, of the gross expenditure. The Post Office revenue, he might observe, had not gone up to the same extent as their expenditure. He did not think he need add to these figures, except to say that in addition to salaries there were a large number of allowances for special duties. In the circulation office in London there were 4,000 sorters, of whom 250 had each an allowance of 10s. a week, whilst a very large number had allowances of 5s., 3s., and 2s., of which never a word was said when complaints were made about their salaries. Again, they had sick pay, free medical attendance, uniforms, and the certainty of pensions. As to the question of overtime, that was a subject to which he had long devoted considerable attention, and at the circulation office alone during the last two or three months there had been an addition of between 300 and 400 men who would be shortly placed on the establishment and whose appointment had been rendered necessary by the reduction of overtime. He thought that was a policy of which the House of Commons would generally approve. He had also endeavoured, as far as possible, to reduce the necessity of what were known as split duties. But he would here observe that many men greatly preferred split duties to ordinary continuous duty, which would interfere with the employment of their spare time. There was a matter he should like to refer to, which would indicate the real position of the men in the service. He would take as examples the first six postmen who came forward for retirement at the commencement of the present financial year. The first case was that of a man who had served the Department for 35 years in London. He commenced as a postman in 1859 at 18s. a week. He had risen to a sortership, and his pay had gradually increased to £146, or, with extra pay for Sunday duty, to £176 a year. He would now retire, at the age of 54, on a pension which the Treasury would fix at about £110 a year. That was a postman who began life at 18s. a week. He had had permanency of employment and location; he had had freedom from all the anxiety which the ordinary labourer had to encounter who started in the same competition as himself, and who might for months, or, at any rate, for weeks, in each year be out of employment, and who, if unable to perform his duties, would have no sick pay or free medical attendance. The one man at the age of 54 was entitled to retire for the rest of his life on a pension of £110 a year, whereas his fellow-labourer had no prospect of that kind for his old age. The second case was that of a postman in a small town in the south-west of England, who was compelled to retire after six years' service, because of mental disease. His pay was over £57 a year, and, with his other allowances, reached a total of £64 a year. The third case was that of a postman in Glasgow, who was retiring because of consumption, at the age of 32, and after 11 years' service. His pay was £78 5s., or, with his allowances, £88 a year, and he would have a retiring pension. The fourth case was that of a postman in a small town in Wiltshire, who was leaving the service at the age of 70, after being 40 years in the Department, whose pay was £57, and whose total emoluments reached £71 a year. His pension would be about £47 a year. The next case was that of a rural postman in Scotland, who was retiring at the age of 59, after 23 years' service. His total emoluments, including a special delivery allowance, were more than £84 a year, and his pension would probably be about £32 a year. The sixth case was that of a postman in a Midland town, who was retiring after less than four years' service, and whose pay was £48, with certain other allowance. He might mention that in fixing the pension the Treasury, in their calculations, took into account all the allowances. He had compared the salaries paid to postmen with those paid to agricultural labourers. He found it stated that the wages of the agricultural labourer were in many cases below 12s., and only in a few districts in the north did they reach 14s. a week, although it was true that their total receipts exceeded those sums. In the small town that he had mentioned in the south-west, where the postmen's emoluments were more than £64 a year, the average earnings of a labourer were 15s. a week, or £39 a year. Thus, where the postman got £64 a year the labourer only got £39, and at the end of his period of service the labourer had nothing to look to but the workhouse, whereas the postman had an assured pension for the rest of his life, calculated on a scale which Parliament had laid down. He was bound to inform the House that the claims put forward by the various classes of the staff would involve very large increases in the salaries they now received. He received the other day a deputation from the telegraphists, in which they put forward their views with regard to what their scales ought to be. He had had a careful estimate prepared of the increased cost which that would mean to the Department. Of course, he had taken into account the consequential advances which other classes in the Service, treated on the same footing, would naturally receive; and he found that the increased annual cost of these demands would be £650,000 a year, very nearly equal to the increase brought about by the great revisions which took place at the instance of Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Raikes in 1881 and 1891. Sorters, in the same way, put forward an application for a new scale, involving a direct increase of £127,000 and an indirect increase of another half a million. In one case they asked that two-thirds of their full pay should be optional by way of pension at the age of 50 years instead of 60; and in another case they asked that retirement on two-thirds of their salary should be optional after 25 years' service. What did that mean? It meant that postmasters, postmen, or telegraphists of the Post Office Service should be put on a totally different footing from every other class of Civil servants. Suppose a lad entered at the age of 18; at 43 he would be able to retire on two-thirds of his salary for the rest of his life, possibly with 20 or 25 years' good work in him, and the State, whom he had served for 25 years, would have to assume the responsibility for this enormous burden on the taxpayers of the country, and especially on the working classes. He could not help thinking that when the working men got to know to the full extent the terms and prospects of Postal Service, the sympathy which they have so freely bestowed on Post Office employés would be largely withdrawn. Although, as head of the Department he was most anxious—naturally anxious—that the men in the employment of the Department should be treated considerately, reasonably, at even liberally, still he had to look at this question, not only as Postmaster General, but as responsible to Parliament and the taxpayers, and to see that no more than was reasonable should be given. He was anxious for an inquiry, because he believed the statements and allegations made as to general dissatisfaction were much exaggerated. He had had some figures taken out showing, first of all, the desire among people outside to come into the Postal Service, and secondly, the disinclination of those inside to go out. The results rather tended to dissipate the general allegations of discontent. He found that in the case of male sorters, taking different months, for 130 vacancies there were 338 candidates; for 150 vacancies, 284 candidates; for 150 vacancies, 389 candidates; and for 220 vacancies, 425 candidates. In the case of telegraph learners commencing at a low age, for 67 vacancies in 1893 there were 1,194 candidates; and in 1894 for 121 vacancies there were 1,292 candidates; in the one case 18 candidates, and in the other 11 candidates for every vacancy. Then as to resignations, he found that in London, out of a total staff of sorters of the first class numbering 1,261, there had not been a single resignation in 1894—though, of course, there had been vacancies caused by illness or death—and in the second class, out of 2,958 sorters there had only been 23 resignations, or one resignation in the whole class of sorters for each 183. Of the postmen in London, out of 5,000 men there were only 19 resignations, or one out of 263. Out of 5,700 telegraphists there had been 348 resignations in five years; the proportion being larger in the case of women. He thought it would be interesting to find out the number of persons employed in the London Postal Service whose fathers were, or are, in it also. He found that out of a total force in the London Service of 18,500 there were 981 now in the Service whose fathers were or had been in the Service before them; and when one considered that these were chiefly entrances obtained by competition, and that, therefore, it was fair to assume many more applied who had not succeeded, the fact cited was a remarkable testimony to the belief among the staff generally that the Service, after all, was a very good Service to belong to. He should be the last to deny that changes and amelioration might be required in certain respects, but, having examined all the cases, he believed the men of the Postal Service, the Telegraph Staff as well as the Postal, were better treated than people from the same class in private employment. But that opinion was not altogether shared by the public, or by certain Members of the House of Commons, and therefore the Government were prepared to appoint a strong Committee, composed of men who would have special and practical knowledge and experience of administration, and who would, he hoped, be assisted by a Member of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. He did not propose that it should be a Post Office Committee. He quite agreed that the officials of the Post Office, having already made recommendations upon most of these questions, the staff of the Department might feel that they would not get fair and fresh minds brought to bear upon the subject if the Committee was composed of officers of the Department. There must be upon the Committee one official of the Post Office in order to assist the Committee, but apart from that one appointment, he proposed that the Committee should be appointed from executive officers of the Government not in connection with the Post Office. The reference would be something in this form—to receive and consider any statement which may be made, either orally or in writing, by any class of persons in the service of the Post Office, other than the clerical staff in the chief offices, on the subject of their remuneration, prospects, or conditions of their employment, and to report thereupon. He would propose to lay their Report and evidence on the Table of the House, when it would become public property, and in that way, he believed, misapprehensions which now existed in the public mind on the subject would be largely, if not entirely, removed.

thought that the House was to be congratulated, on the whole, that the hon. Member for Devonport had brought this subject before the House, because opportunity had thus been given to the Postmaster General to put before the House the real facts of the case. The Government had deemed it advisable to appoint a Committee to hear and report upon all complaints that might be made by those whom he might call working members of the Department. He did not question the expediency of that step, and he trusted that the result would prove satisfactory to those who had interested themselves in this subject. At any rate, they might now rest assured that any well-founded grievance would not fail to be listened to, and that the result of the inquiry would be made known to Parliament. The various points raised by the supporters of the Resolution had been dealt with fully and frankly by the Postmaster General, and therefore it was unnecessary for him to offer further observations upon them. He would like, however, to say that it was the duty of everyone who held an office of such responsibility, to guard the public purse against unjustifiable attacks, and especially against combined attacks. It would be a poor performance of public duty were a Minister yielding to pressure, to increase any public expenditure to an extent not required by the necessities of the case. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that there was no difficulty whatever in finding candidates for employment in the Post Office. In fact, it was impossible to meet the wishes of many of those who desired to enter the Department. In these circumstances he thought it could hardly be contended seriously that the remuneration offered was grossly inadequate or that the conditions of service were unduly onerous. It was frequently said that men worked for long hours and got but small pay, and special sympathy was often expressed for those whose time was only partially occupied. But they must all be aware that in country districts men and lads were frequently employed for a very small portion of the day, and that it would be absurd to pay them for full time. He knew cases of lads who were employed for three or four hours a day in collecting and delivering letters in small districts, and who were exceedingly glad to do the work for 6s. or 7s. a week, hoping for permanent employment hereafter. The principle of a strict eight hours flay, if applied to the service generally, would have ridiculous consequences. In Australia arid Sew Zealand most absurd instances had been brought to his notice of the working of a strictly enforced eight hours system. For example, there were men in charge of small stations where only two trains passed in a day, and if one of the trains passed at an interval of more than eight hours after the passing of the preceding train, the men had to be relieved. Such were the results of substituting sentimental for economical reasons. It had been maintained as a hardship that some men in the employment of the Post Office were obliged to take their leave in winter, when a holiday, it had been said, was not very enjoyable. He could not assent to that view without qualification, for winter amusements were not always uncongenial. It was impossible that people in the public service could all get their leave at the same time of the year, which might be the busiest time. In the Army and the Navy men had to take their leave when they could, the juniors having the last choice. This complaint he could not think was put forward seriously. He felt bound to take some notice of the observations made by the hon. Member for South Islington with reference to the action which it had been his painful duty to take when at the Post Office in connection with certain acts of insubordination by members of the service, some of whom organised a system for putting pressure upon Members of Parliament and Parliamentary candidates. It would he very unfair to represent the action in 1892 as action done in a corner. He thought it at the time his duty to bring the matter before the House, and he gave a full explanation of the circumstances, stating that the Government could not possibly allow such indiscipline to continue. No objection was taken to his statement at the time, except by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, and one or two other hon. Members. It was quite a mistake to allege that what he did was in any sense illegal. It was not only legal but in strict accordance with the; Act for removing revenue officers' disabilities. That measure, it would be remembered, was amended in order to enable the Revenue Departments to regulate the use of electoral privileges by their employés, so that those privileges should not be exercised in an improper manner. In the Committee upon that Bill in 1874 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Iddesleigh, pointed out that if public servants wore to take an active part in elections, very considerable inconvenience might arise. He referred specially to the case of the Post Office, and showed how dangerous it would be for postmasters and letter carriers to take a very active part in elections. Then he said:—

"The first clause in the Bill might cause some difficulty, which provided that no person engaged in the Revenue Departments should be liable to any pains and penalties by reason of his having solicited the vote of any elector, or addressed any assembly of electors, in reference to the choice of any person to serve as a Member of Parliament. If they passed so broad an enactment as that, it seemed to him they would inconveniently impair the action of the Executive Government, and the Board of Inland Revenue, or of the Customs, might be held to have violated the Act, if they issued any order whatever with regard to the officers taking part in elections. Therefore, what he proposed was that the Bill should be amended by striking out that section."

Mr. Monk, who had introduced the Bill, said—

"he cordially agreed with almost every word that had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer … As to the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had put on the paper, he assented to them all, and he thought the Bill when altered as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, would effect a very great public service."

The House unanimously resolved to leave to the Departments the power to regulate the use of the electoral privileges enjoyed by their officers. Therefore, if his hon. Friend averred that he had acted illegally, he spoke without justification.

explained that what he had suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman had acted ultra vires. He did not intend to convey that the right hon. Gentleman did anything without the knowledge of Parliament.

said that his action, was not ultra vires according to the letter and intention of the statute. What would the public service come to if servants who defied authority went unpunished? He trusted that any well-founded grievances would always be listened to, with an attentive ear by the heads of the Post Office, or of any other branch of the public service. He was glad that there was to be an inquiry, and he hoped that the result of it would be to make the servants of the Post office more contented. If any bonâ-fide grievances could be proved, he was sure that that House would be glad to have them redressed.

was very glad that the hon. Member who had moved the Resolution, had succeeded in doing that which he had himself vainly striven to effect on several occasions. He thanked the Postmaster General for having given wav in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated in his speech that his view was that the alleged grievances were rather unsubstantial. That question would be decided by the Committee. It was a good thing that this Committee was not to be composed exclusively of Post Office officials, but he quite recognised that there ought to be one such official among its members. The action of the right hon. Gentleman would give satisfaction to those Members of Parliament who had interested themselves in the fortunes of the employés, and also to every man in the Post Office service. He believed that the gentlemen nominated upon the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman would give clear directions as to what ought to be done, and he for one should abide by their decision loyally.

said, as one interested in the movement, he protested against the statement of the Postmaster General suggesting that the grievances had been manufactured, and that there was no case for a Committee. He did not know so much about this country, but as far as this class of officials in Ireland was concerned, he thought it was inaccurate to say that they had manufactured any grievances in this matter; and, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman would probably see that it was unreasonable to state that men should go to the trouble, inconvenience, and risk of manufacturing grievances in order to have a Committee appointed, the only result of which could be that if the grievances were manufactured the effect would recoil on their own heads.

said, he had never suggested that any members of the staff manufactured grievances. He referred to the newspaper Press and to communications made to the Press in a way which led him to believe that they were largely manufactured.

thought that it was somewhat hard on hon. Members who had interested themselves in this matter that they should be laid open, even indirectly, to the charge of associating themselves with the manufacture of grievances. The real grievances, indeed, had not been dealt with by the Postmaster General. On the contrary, in granting the Committee the right hon. Gentleman had practically conceded that there was a case for inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman also deprecated agitation. It might be very displeasing to the heads of Departments that Civil servants should lend themselves to anything like agitation, but everyone knew that no end could be attained without a certain amount of agitation. The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, see that the agitation bad been completely justified by the fact that a Committee was now to be appointed. He also protested against the doctrine laid down by the late Postmaster General, as well as by the present holder of the office, that officials of the Government should not be allowed, in a respectful and proper way, to put forward their grievances. On the whole, he was extremely glad that the Committee had been granted, because he believed that when it had finished its labours its appointment would not only be justified, but the right hon. Gentleman would find that there were serious grounds for the discontent which prevailed in the Service.

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman (the Postmaster General) upon the decision which he had announced. He wished to know, however, what were the subjects which the Committee would be allowed to consider. He was not at all clear on that subject. For instance, would the Committee be allowed to consider the question of combination among the men themselves? He noticed that although the Postmaster General had yielded, to a certain extent, by saying that he would listen to any grievances the men might urge, he objected to their bringing anyone with them who was not in the Service. The same objection had been raised by railway companies and by local boards, who objected to labourers and others bringing paid representatives with them. He could not see why the men should not be allowed to bring such officers, nor why the Post Office should object to any of the men bringing their paid officers with them. The Postmaster General was allowed to have a private secretary to attend him, and he was anxious to know whether the authorities were going to maintain that objection, or whether the Committee would be allowed to consider it. Would the Committee also be permitted to consider the question as to the way in which the men obtained their holidays? The right hon. Gentleman in his statement did not say anything about the complaints of the in sanitary state of the Post Office buildings. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the local sanitary officers to inspect those buildings in the ordinary and regular way? If he did probably the right hon. Gentleman would receive the benefit of the inspection without any expense being caused either to his department or to the local authorities. Moreover, he thought that the Post Office servants ought to be well paid. They conducted, in the interest of the whole population, a most successful business, and we had every reason to congratulate ourselves on the very successful and useful manner in which the officials carried out their duties. They ought, therefore, to be well paid and to be well looked after on account of the arduous and useful services which they rendered to the country. No one could say that the Post Office was being worked at a loss; it was a successful and growing business; but before these small reforms could be obtained they had to be forced on the attention of the Post Office Authorities time after time before they were carried out. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman accuse some persons of being agitators. He would tell the Postmaster General who was the real agitator. A Resolution dealing with this subject was moved in 1891, and the Postmaster General at that time actually sent out a whip asking the supporters of the Government to vote for him. Every Member of the present Government then in the House of Commons voted for that Resolution—a Resolution which he thought it was proper to carry. Complaints at that time had been made, and all that was then asked for was an inquiry; hon. Members were not asked to pledge themselves in favour of any particular grievance. This course was adopted; but if there was a complaint against anyone as to agitation, the right hon. Gentleman ought reasonably to blame himself as being the head and front of whatever agitation had arisen. He should lie sorry if some of the Post Office servants had behaved offensively; such action he would by no means support. He admitted that public servants of this kind ought not to take too active a part in any elections whatever, because such action might create mischief. In holding public meetings also he did not excuse the men who made offensive statements with regard to their superior officers. Such action could not receive his support. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the names of the Committee to the House in good time. He was anxious to say that, as far as he was personally concerned, he had no complaint to make against the Post Office employés. He desired that all public servants should be properly treated, and that, even where it was not quite clear whether their complaints were right or wrong, ample opportunities should be afforded for matters to be inquired into. The better the case of the Postmaster General, the more anxious should the right hon. Gentleman be for inquiry.

congratulated the Postmaster General on the decision arrived at; but, with regard to the Committee, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to confine it to Civil appointments, or whether he would not include in the Committee merchants and bankers of large administrative abilities and great experience. Some 10 years ago he had gone through all these matters with the late Mr. Raikes, but the reform which followed was not sufficient, for it culminated in a serious strike. He had managed to persuade the Postmaster General to reinstate a great number of the men who took part in that strike, but, in his own constituency alone, he knew of many who had suffered great deprivations and poverty owing to the loss of their situations and the refusal of the Postmaster General to reinstate them; and these men felt that they had been very harshly treated. If the Committee could put a stop to the feeling of discontent which now prevailed in the Post Office on subjects such as revision of salaries, pensions, and hours, he thought that the Postmaster General would confer one of the greatest boons on the Post Office. He rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had taken this course, and ho hoped he would succeed.

said, he should be the last person to maintain that every complaint put forward could be substantiated; but, on the other hand, he would be the last to admit that grievances had been wilfully concocted. It was clear that a primâ facie case for inquiry had been made out, and this was admitted by the action of the Postmaster General himself. He was glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman had become alive to the auxiliary system of labour, which concerned the public as well as the men themselves. He was not sure whether that system had not had an injurious effect on the London men. It was a scandalous thing to have a large number of persons now reaching 2,400 in London alone, employed by the Post Office, and having from all sources, according to the theory of the Post Office, an income of 18s. a week each, all told. It was not fair to the men or to the public to put men on such wages into the responsible positions which these men occupied.

was understood to say that 18s. was the minimum, and that many of the men had more than 18s. a week from all sources.

said, he was aware that the theory of the Post Office was that these men should have at least 18s. a week, but was the right hon. Gentleman certain that in all cases they had even as much as that? It had, in fact, been conclusively proved that in many cases they had less, and he repeated that it was a scandal. One of the saddest spectacles in our Courts of Assize was the number of Post Office employés prosecuted and convicted of dishonesty. Ninety per cent. of those convicted or dismissed for dishonesty were receiving the lowest wages in the Service. He was surprised to hear the Postmaster General say that the matter had not been brought previously to his knowledge. Turning to the question of the sanitary condition of the central office, he found from the report of a deputation of Post Office servants who waited upon the Postmaster General on May 28, 1894, that one of them gave a description of the kitchen of the central office, which was simply disgusting. The details were so unsavoury that, unless he was challenged, he would not obtrude them upon the House. He was informed that neither on that subject, nor on any other matter put forward by the deputation, had any report of improvements yet been made. It was, however, satisfactory to himself and other London Members that there was to be an inquiry, the importance of which they had long been pressing on the Department. Something, of course, might be said with regard to the constitution of the Committee, but, speaking as an individual, he would have preferred that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken as his model the constitution of the Departmental Committee on Prisons, upon which the House was represented. He thought that the House ought to be represented upon the Committee of Inquiry into the Post Office. The Postmaster General seemed to be jealous of Members of the House of Commons. But if it had not been for the inquiries made at the close of the last and beginning of the present century, our Civil Service would continue to be a hotbed of extravagance, nepotism, and inefficiency. Therefore, he could not see why Members of Parliament should be excluded from the Committee now proposed. The great object which he and his friends had had in view was to give the postal servants an opportunity of stating their case; and a Committee composed entirely of officers of the Post Office would clearly have been unsatisfactory. Upon the whole he might, however, say that he and his friends accepted the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that every opportunity would be given to the postal servants to make a full presentment of their case.

thought that there was only one serious defect in regard to the action of the Postmaster General, and that was that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to treat his great branch of the Service in too general a way. He called attention to the fact that some of the auxiliaries were receiving only 18s. a week altogether, and thought that this was not sufficient. He was quite prepared to admit that generally speaking the Post Office was a desirable service, but like the other great employing Departments of the Government, any complaints about small sections were treated with impatience. No private business was conducted on that basis, and he thought that when grievances could be remedied easily, it was of great importance to remedy them. As an illustration, he instanced the fact that there were 13,000 or 14,000 hands employed at Woolwich, a small section of whom received 19s. or 20s. a week. A small amount of £3,000 or £4,000 would raise the wages of these men to the minimum standard of 24s. recognised by the County Council. He trusted that this point would be considered fully by the Committee, because such a wage did not seem to be adequate for the duties these men had to discharge. He thought that the whole question of the civil rights of postal servants should also be referred to any Committee that was appointed. With regard to the question of the circular which was sent out before the last General Election, he thought it was a most innocent document. He himself replied to it, and was prepared to take his share of any blame if any attached to it, but if there were men dismissed from the Post Office solely on this account he thought their dismissal ought to be reconsidered and referred to the Committee Of course, if there were any other allegations against men who were dismissed, he did not refer to those cases,

thanked the Postmaster General for the concession he had made on behalf of the telegraph clerks and other officials of the Post Office of Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman had met the representations which had been made to him in a cordial and generous spirit. He thought the Committee would be much more likely to arrive at an impartial and fair conclusion if Members of Parliament, who might wish to gain popularity in order to keep their seats at the next General Election, were excluded from the Committee.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the reference to this Committee could be enlarged so as to permit of the investigation of the case of men who were employed by the contractors, and did work indirectly for the Post Office. It seemed absurd that they should refer the grievances of the postmen to the Committee, and yet allow the greater grievances of the mail cart drivers to be unconsidered. The mail cart drivers had a very strong claim indeed on the consideration of the House of Commons; they had not the pension, sick pay, emoluments, and regularity of employment that the directly employed postmen had. Another point he should like the Committee to consider, if possible, was the condition of the horses that were used by the mail cart contractors.

said, the hon. Member was not in order in referring to the horses.

held that it was impossible for the men to carry out their duties with the class of horses which was supplied to them by the contractors.

ruled that horses could hardly be included in "the terms and conditions of employment in the Post Office."

urged that the mail cart drivers worked very long hours, and the horses they drove were sometimes from six to nine hours without food. There was not even a nosebag kept in the carts. The men did their very best to work for the Post Office under the conditions, which, however, compelled them sometimes to be more cruel than they liked to be. Had not the time arrived when the right hon. Gentleman should dispense with the contract system for the mail cart drivers and all their appurtenances, and should they not he taken over by the Post Office? These men received from 21s. to 25s. a week, and worked for longer stretches of hours than did the postmen who received 30s., 34s., and in some cases more. If called upon he could bring evidence in regard to the horses as well as the drivers before the Committee.

hoped the Postmaster General would consider the representations of the hon. Member. The whole of the time of the mail cart drivers was given to the Department, and the Post Office recognised their claim upon them by making a concession in regard to clothing. A much better arrangement could be made in regard to the Sunday duty of these men, who were sometimes brought on duty for only an hour on Sunday, which however, necessitated their spending several hours in coming and going from their work. He thought the number of men called out on Sunday might be fewer, and they might work a somewhat longer time. He heartily thanked the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped he would extend the terms of reference.

wished to know whether the proposed inquiry would be a public or a private one. He thought it was desirable that it should be a public inquiry. He pressed that point on the Postmaster General, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider it favourably.

called attention to the continuance of the Money Order Office at Coldbath Fields. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that this question was still regarded as a very great grievance. The investigation that had taken place showed that the sanitary conditions of this office were not right, and those conditions still remained unreformed. Within the last three or four days he had received further letters desiring him to impress the matter on the attention of the Postmaster General, and although the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, he hoped the House would allow him to give a little further information with regard to the intention of the Post Office in this matter. With regard to the general question of the appointment of a Committee, he had been requested by a great number of Post Office servants to support the appointment of a Committee, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to make the inquiry a public one. He hoped also that the Committee would be allowed to entertain any question of the Coldbath Fields Office that might be put before it.

thought that the statement of the Postmaster General had given satisfaction in the House, and would give satisfaction to the public. If there were grievances, and that there were there could be, no doubt, it was far better that they should be inquired into. He wished to call attention to the position of the rural postmen who were placed under inequality as compared with the postmen in towns so far as free medical attendance was concerned. They held, rightly he thought, that they were just as much entitled to get advice free as town postmen, and more so in fact, seeing that they incurred much greater risk of illness. It would be said, on doubt, that it would be very costly to comply with this demand, but he would point out that the money would not be lost entirely so far as the State was concerned, as the State would get an authoritative statement as to the illness which prevented the postman from doing his work. He believed that the Department had found this information most beneficial in the towns. Then, again, good would be done in another direction. These men would be more likely to seek medical advice than they did now, and if medical advice were worth anything, it must be of advantage that they should be able to get it easily. Surely it was to the advantage of the State that rural postmen should be kept in as good a state of health as possible, and therefore he urged the necessity of very carefully considering their demands.

said, he was afraid he would be out of order in discussing the condition of the horses driven in mail carts; therefore, he merely rose to confirm everything that had been said on the subject by the hon. Member for Battersea.

wished to confirm all that had been said by other hon. Members as to the necessity for a public inquiry. It would be perfectly futile to hold an inquiry with closed doors. He was glad a Committee was to be appointed, from whom they expect a Report within a reasonable time. The appointment of a Royal Commission would have been absurd. He thanked the Postmaster General for lending a favourable ear to the representations made to him on behalf of the Post Office servants and officials.

also desired to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that the inquiry being held in public. He had been requested by people in the East End of London to state that, if the inquiry were held in public, it would add much to the satisfaction of the public and the officials.

said, that in regard to the Deputation that waited on him last year concerning the condition of the central office, he suggested to the Deputation that they should formulate a scheme, a workable scheme, which he could consider. Months went by, and it was only in the early part of this year that a reply came in, and that had to be very carefully considered. Any delay in this matter that might have taken place was not due to any fault of his. He had not been satisfied with the examination that had taken place into the sanitary arrangements, and he had been in communication with the Office of Works on the subject. Another question had now arisen with regard to the safety of the building in case of fire, and he had to refer that matter to an officer of the fire brigade. He hoped, however, to be able before long to carry out improvements in both respects. The great mass of post offices were in private houses and small shops. All these were entirely under the control of the local sanitary authorities. Wherever a local authority desired to make an inspection of Crown offices free access was given to them, and due weight was always given to their recommendations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman let us send the City Sanitary Officer to go over the General Post Office?

said, that if his hon. Friend made an application of that kind he would give it a fair consideration, as he would to any representation coming from the Commissioners of Sewers, or the London County Council. With regard to the names of the proposed Committee, he was not now in a position to give them to the House. He wanted to get as strong and impartial a Committee as he could. The Committee would be appointed as much in the interest of the public as in the interests of the men, and he should make every endeavour in his power to secure the strongest and most impartial Committee. With regard to the question of a public inquiry, he must ask to be allowed to reserve his judgment. He saw that there were advantages in it, and at any rate, he thought the evidence and the report of the Committee ought to be made public as soon as possible. As to the Coldbath Field Money Order Office, the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in saying that nothing had been done to correct its insanitary condition. He might add that it was under consideration whether some arrangement could not be made to change the building in which these officers worked. As to the drivers of mail carts, they were not in his employ, and it would be going a little out of the ordinary course to make them the subject of inquiry as if they were employed by the Department. The hon. Member for Battersea knew that he had taken a great deal of interest in the case of these men, and he had been able to improve the conditions of their employment by reducing their hours of duty from 16 to 10 or 12. But it must be remembered that, although they were on duty during that time, they were on the average actually driving for only four hours and a-quarter; and the remainder of the time they were resting, or only waiting with their horses and carts, and were, therefore, not undergoing actual physical exertion. He was considering the whole question of contracting, and it was possible that some remedy might be found for the grievances complained of. He desired to make the scope of the inquiry as wide as possible, so that it might embrace all practical grievances, and that the men might be encouraged to come forward and state them fully and freely; and he was glad the suggestions he had made had received such general approval.

added that this must be an inquiry by a Committee of executive officers of the Government and men of great experience and, therefore, it could not be conducted either by a Committee of the House or by a Royal Commission.

asked for the indulgence of the House to state that he was prepared to accept the terms of the Resolution that had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but would like to ask him——["Order, order."]

The hon. Member has already spoken.

had on the paper the following notice:—

''To call attention to the relations between the Department of the Board of Trade and the Judiciary; and to move—' That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire generally into the relations between the Department of the Board of Trade and the Official Receivers in Bankruptcy and between the Board of Trade and Her Majesty's Judges; and into all communications (whether by interview or correspondence) which have taken place in or since the year 1893 between any Board of Trade official and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, between any Board of Trade official and the Lord Chancellor, and between the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, with refer-to, or connected with, Official Receivers or winding-up business.'"

The hon. Member said he had but a short time to make out the case for the Committee for which he asked. If he might judge from the numerous communications he had received on this subject, some of them from unknown persons and many from persons of consideration, there lay behind the matter a very grave public scandal. He was not going to give an opinion whether such a scandal existed or not; he was only concerned to show that there was an unanswerable case for inquiry. The Government would scarcely refuse it, for the credit, nay, the honour, of the Board of Trade was concerned in the investigation of charges some of which had been publicly made. The Government would feel that in a matter like this, which touched the independence of the judiciary of the country, and suggested that it had been tampered with by the undue interference of the Board of Trade, nothing short of such an inquiry would be adequate to give satisfaction to the public. Any suspicion as to the independence of the judiciary, or that they were being tampered with by a public Department, presided over by a Minister, was a matter so serious that it was most urgent that the suspicion should be removed. Such a suspicion undoubtedly did exist and had existed and had been growing for some time; and one development of it had been made public in the case of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams. The whole truth as to that matter had not been made known; there had been only a partial revelation; and a full and complete revelation was awaited with terest. All that we knew was that Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams had tried a fall with the Board of Trade and had fallen on the upper side; but we did not know all the facts. We knew, indeed, that the Lord Chancellor had fully vindicated his own action in the matter, which it was, indeed, unnecessary for him to do, for no one supposed that he would lend himself to any improper conduct; he might have been ill-advised, but no one would suggest anything more. Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams had returned to the seat on the Bench which he was eminently fitted to adorn, and that incident was ended; but it was only a small part of the matter; it was only a symptom of a serious and deep-seated malady which still remained. It was not dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, who did not defend the Board of Trade, but left the case exactly where it was. He did not say that there had been any intention of serious or mischievous interference on the part of the Board of Trade with the course of the administration of justice; he was not imputing any improper action to the Board of Trade or its President; but they could not but be aware of the fact that it was an ambitious Department, grasping at one thing after another until it overshadowed the land. Further, they could not forget that there had been concerned in these judicial proceedings political personages allied with a political Party. In a case now open, and in a further case likely to be brought on, names had been mentioned of personages of political character and considerable political position. That being the case, any suggestion that there had been interference on the part of the Board of Trade with the action of the judiciary was unfortunate and ought to be cleared up. The whole matter arose from the action of the Board of Trade with regard to the Official Receivers. They were most important men; they had become more important than they were intended to be; they were not merely receivers, but they were often administrators; they did not merely wind up concerns, but they constantly carried them on. One official with a fixed salary of £1,200 or £500 had borrowed a million and a quarter of money in order to carry on part of the Liberator business, and was assisted by the appointment of a a manager with a salary, he believed, of £3,000 a year. An Official Receiver should not carry on business in this way. An inter-departmental committee of the Board of Trade was appointed in 1893 to inquire into the limits of the action of the Board of Trade as regards the liquidation of companies; and in the Report dated July 25, 1893, the Committee said:—

"There are, however, cases in which it seems to us undesirable, as a rule, that the Official Receiver should he continued in the office of liquidator. We refer to cases where large funds have to he raised and heavy fresh liabilities incurred for the purpose of carrying on a business for any length of time as a going concern."

The Treasury approved of this Report of the Committee in a letter, in which they said:—

"In the opinion of the Board of Treasury the Official Receiver should he instructed in future not to act as permanent liquidator in any case unless the parties interested are unable to find a competent representative of their interests elsewhere."

Whereas the Treasury recommended that the Official Receiver should not be permanent liquidator unless it were impossible to find anyone else, the Committee which reported subsequently suggested that he might possibly be allowed to be Official Receiver except in cases where large funds had to be raised and heavy fresh liabilities incurred. He wanted to know if the Treasury still absolutely held the opinion they held in 1893. The Secretary to the Treasury was asked on April 25 whether the Treasury adhered to the opinion contained in a letter of January 23, and he replied: "Certainly; the Treasury holds the same opinion."

said, that since the Committee reported, the Treasury had slightly altered its position in the matter.

said, it was rather unfortunate that they did not know that earlier. But it strengthened the necessity for inquiry by a Committee such as he had suggested.

said, that he had written to the hon. Member for East Marylebone giving a full explanation of the circumstances under which the Treasury had altered its opinion.

trusted the right hon. Gentleman did not think he attributed a want of candour to him. All the House knew there was no one in the House more candid than the right hon. Gentleman. The want of information was unfortunate to himself, because it altered his case. But an inquiry might throw a different light on the matter. The Board of Trade acted, they were now told, on the recommendations of the Committee. But that did not cover the case he had raised, because the Committee he asked for would have to deal with matters not merely since the Report of the Committee, or since the change in practice of the Board of Trade, but before. He proposed that the Committee he asked for should investigate the circumstances that arose in and after 1893. Even if the Board of Trade had adopted a new practice, still the old proceedings under which a grave public scandal arose required to be inquired into, not only for the credit, but the honour, of the Board of Trade. Let the House observe the anomalous position of the Official Receiver. Official Receivers were officers of the Court, but also of the Board of Trade, and therefore in the position of having to serve two masters, and, as usual, either had to hate the one and love the other or hold to the one and despise the other. The predominant partner—to use a phrase now in fashion—was the Board of Trade. It controlled their appointments, decided on their promotion, and might allow or disallow their expenses. The Board of Trade had, in short, the power of the purse. Which of the two—the Court or the Board of Trade—were the Official Receivers likely to love or hate? The question answered itself. If it should happen that the Court and the Board of Trade disagreed, which was likely to carry the day with the Official Receiver? Undoubtedly the Board of Trade, and improperly, because these officials ought not to be officers of the Board of Trade at all. As members of the Civil Service they were controlled by a department under the management of a political officer and not the Court itself. They were judicial officers, and should be under judicial authority. Had there been any difference between the Bankruptcy Court and the Board of Trade? He would read one of the extracts to show the kind of differences there had been. Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, on March 19, 1894 (after, be it observed, the Report of the Committee of 1893), in dealing with the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency, said the Report of the Official Receiver suggested two distinct grounds—that the Official Receiver had delayed his report too long, inasmuch as the winding-up order had been made in July, 1893, and the report was not delivered until February, 1894, and the Board of Trade had expressly claimed to control the discretion of the Official Receiver, both in respect of the expression of their opinion as to fraud having been committed and in respect of the presentation of their reports to the Court. So the Official Receiver, the fountain and origin of the report upon which alone the Board of Trade could act in cases of suggested fraud, was controlled by the President of the Board of Trade, who kept his hand on the tube through which alone the report could flow, and turned it on or off as he pleased. On March 6, 1894, Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams said practically the same thing, but put it more precisely. Speaking of the report of the Official Receiver upon which the Court could found its opinion whether there had been fraud, he said:—

"The report is made on the personal responsibility of the Official Receiver and is the basis on which the order for public examination is founded. This being so, the Board of Trade ought not, in my judgment, in any way to interfere with, or give directions to, the Official Receivers in the performance of this function. I do not think it desirable or proper that the Official Receiver should consult the Board of Trade in the matter. I therefore now direct the Official Receivers that in future they shall act on their own responsibility exclusively in these matters."

The President of the Board of Trade, however, had not abandoned all right to give directions to the Official Receivers, because he had avowed that in certain cases he assumed the right to control them. Therefore he was at entire variance with the Court, which said that the Official Receiver should not even consult the Board of Trade. He submitted that in a matter of this kind, where such serious issues were raised as the independence of the judiciary, where uneasiness still existed in mercantile and legal circles as to the extent to which this action had taken place, was taking place, or might in future take place, it was most desirable that an inquiry of the sort he suggested should be held. He made no judgment; he waited for the facts. If it was refused the refusal would amount to a suggestion that there was something behind, something underlying it which it was desired still to conceal, something it was desired to keep back. In a matter like this, where the purity of the judiciary and its freedom from interference, upon which our lives and property depended, was concerned, it was important that no breath of suspicion should be allowed to remain on a system of which they were so proud. He hoped he had advocated this matter in moderate language. He made no imputation. He simply asked for a Committee of inquiry, which it was desirable and important should be instituted.

said, he would not lose a single moment in replying to the hon. Member, and he thought the House would pardon him for saying that he had listened with some indignation to the speech of the hon. Member. The hon. Member had taken credit to himself for having brought this matter before the House. He began by saying, and he repeated more than once, that this was a question affecting the honour of the Board of Trade, and there was a grave suspicion resting on the Department that political questions had been involved, that the Board of Trade was headed by a political officer, and that suspicions had arisen that the powers of the Board of Trade were misused in the interests of political persons. Surely any hon. Member—even the hon. Member who had just spoken—who had accustomed them to expect from him some neglect of the rules they were accustomed to in that House—ought to feel that when he used those words and talked of suspicion and grave discontent in mercantile circles and questions affecting the honour of a public Department, he should have afforded some proof of the truth of those allegations. He had advanced no proof whatever; he had given nothing at all in justification of the charges which he had hinted and insinuated against the Board of Trade, He owed the hon. Member the fact of the opportunity he had given him of declaring in the most distinct and solemn manner that there was not the slightest foundation whatever for any of these charges. He could speak with some freedom, because these things did not affect him, because every one of the matters to which the hon. Member had referred occurred before he came to the Board of Trade. [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES signified dissent.] The hon. Member shook his head. Perhaps he would explain?

The matter to which I referred, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, is not merely what occurred before he became President of the Board of Trade, but also the present practice of the Board of Trade, and whether it does not require alteration.

said, the hon. Member had pointed to nothing that had been done since he himself became President of the Board of Trade to which he could take exception. The relations between the Board of Trade and the learned Judge referred to in working the Act of 1890 had been friendly and smooth; no difficulty or collision of any kind had arisen between the Board of Trade and the Court, and no difficulty was likely to arise between them. He would state in the shortest possible way how matters stood. The Act of 1890 was, no doubt, an Act which there might be difficulty in working. The Official Receiver occupied a double position. He was, on the one hand, an officer of the Board of Trade, and, on the other, of the Court. It was clear to anyone who would read the Act of 1890 in connection with the Act of 1883, that the Official Receiver was, for many purposes, under the direction of the Board of Trade. It was also clear that he was for some purposes under the direction of the Court, and he admitted that if the Board of Trade, on the one hand, and the Judge on the other, were actuated by a desire to find grounds for controversy they might conceivably do so. But the relations of the Board of Trade with the Judge and the Court were so friendly that on friction had occurred. The view the Board of Trade took of the matter was that the report which the Official Receiver made under Section 8 of the Act of 1890 was to be his report, a report made on his own discretion, and contained his conclusions, and the Board of Trade claimed no right whatever to interfere with the substance of his report. The Board of Trade did not claim any right in any way to prescribe or to interfere with the full discretion which they believed the Legislature had intended to invest in the Official Receiver. That was the view that they had acted upon since they had obtained the opinion of the law officers of the Crown with regard to the functions of the Board of Trade under the Act of 1890. Of course, he could not lay the opinions of the law officers of the Crown upon the Table of the House, because they were confidential communications; but, in order to be sure that they were acting in accordance with the views of the Legislature, the Department had thought fit to obtain the opinions of the law officers upon the subject, so that they might be guided by them. The business of the Courts of Justice would be advanced by the Official Receiver having the benefit of such knowledge as the Board of Trade possessed, but they also thought that they should leave the Official Receiver free to act upon the information that he obtained independently. The statement made by Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams was, he believed, made under a misapprehension of the policy and action of the Board of Trade, an action, by the way, which had been taken before he entered upon his present office. The relations of the Board of Trade with the learned Judge were in every respect of a cordial nature. The Official Receiver had declared that not a day's delay had occurred in the matter referred to in consequence of the action of the Board of Trade, and nothing could be more unfounded than the suggestion that it had been the object of the Board of Trade to affect in any way the position of the Official Receiver. He should like to toke that opportunity of paying a tribute to the way in which the learned Judge had discharged his duties in reference to this subject. He should have referred to the very hasty and unjustifiable imputations which had been made against the Lord Chancellor had it not been so completely refuted that it was absolutely unnecessary that he should do so. With regard to the Liberator case, he thought it unfortunate that a question of such magnitude should be in the hands of any Government Department. The Liberator was one of a group of companies whose affairs were extremely intricate and entangled with each other, and, therefore, it was difficult to deal with them separately, but it was pre-eminently a case in which it was right that expense should be saved and litigation avoided as far as possible. That could best be done by placing all the cases in the hands of the same liquidator. Very much against their will the Board of Trade found itself drawn into allowing its Official Receiver to become liquidator to the different companies. It was also felt that, by having the liquidation in the hands of a public department there was more complete security to the public that all these alleged frauds would be more completely investigated. He also desired to take that opportunity of stating that, in accordance with the Treasury letter which had been referred to, the Board of Trade had appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question which had been raised by the Incorporated Law Society, which had been presided over by Lord Justice Rigby, and which had prepared a very careful report on the subject. That report completely vindicated the action of the Board of Trade. The Committee, in their Report, said:—

"There are, however, cases in which it seems to us undesirable, as a rule, that the Official Receiver should be continued in the office of liquidator. We refer to cases where large funds have to be raised and heavy fresh liabilities incurred for the purpose of carrying on a business for any length of time as a going concern, or where the best mode of liquidating the affairs of a company appears to be the constitution of a new company. We suggest, for the consideration of the Board of Trade that the Official Receiver should be instructed as a general rule to take all reasonable means of discouraging his continuance as liquidator in such, case, by, for instance, informing the meetings that in the absence of express instructions from the Board of Trade his duties as liquidator are confined to the realisation of the assets with all convenient speed, and that if the parties interested required another policy to be pursued they should appoint an outside liquidator to carry it into effect."

The Board of Trade entirely concurred with those recommendations, and, as far as they could do so, were giving effect to them; and their policy certainly was to give no encouragement to the Official Receiver to undertake the management of such cases. He had conferred with the Lord Chancellor as to the issue of a new rule on the subject, and in consequence the noble and learned Lord had abrogated Rule 45, so that now the creditors would have complete freedom to choose their own liquidator. He hoped that he had shown that the Department had made good the chief recommendation of the Committee, and that he had convinced the House that really there was no necessity for the appointment of the Committee asked for. It would be impossible for him to undertake to lay the confidential communications that had passed between himself and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams or the Lord Chancellor upon the Table, because no Government could be carried on for a single day if such communications were to be made public. The Board of Trade were doing their best to carry out, in the interests of the country, the very difficult duty imposed upon them by Parliament in connection with the administration of these Acts. They were very well satisfied with the experience they had had of the Acts so far, and they believed that the more the Acts were worked in a cordial spirit, and in perfect confidence between the Department on the one hand and the Courts on the other, the better it would be for the commercial interests of the country.

next moved to leave out Clause 3.

in seconding the Resolution, said that the hon. Member who put down an Amendment to the Resolution admitted, by its terms, that some inquiry should be made by a Committee into this subject of tied houses. He thought it was a very important admission for the representatives of the trade to make, that it was a matter worthy of investigation. He would not traverse the ground so ably covered by his hon. Friend, the Mover of the Resolution, as to the extent of the tied house system, further than to mention that in the city of Liverpool alone there were, it was stated, upwards of 800 tied houses which were compelled to sell whatever liquor the brewers thought well to force upon them; that in Runcorn there were 67 tied houses out of 82; and that in the small town of Northwich there were 24 out of 26 licensed houses tied to particular brewers. The Resolution which was being submitted to the House was in favour of Free Trade. It was in favour of the publicans being able to buy in the cheapest, and sell in the dearest, market; it declared that they should have full and complete liberty to purchase Torn any manufacturer they thought proper, and buy the articles which, in their opinion, were best suited to the tastes of their customers. Under the system of tied houses, the publicans had no liberty whatever. They were compelled to take whatever beer the brewer thought well to impose on them, whatever fire-water was sent to them, and even to use whatever sawdust the particular brewer recommended. He thought, therefore, that it was high time for the House of Commons to put a stop to this system of oppression which had been forced upon the publicans by great and wealthy corporations. He thought, also, that the Resolution ought to receive a large measure of support from the other side of the House. Hon. Members opposite were given to boasting that they were the only friends of the trade, and they had made some political capital out of the boast. He hoped, therefore, that they would support the Resolution, which was really in the interest of the trade, and which would not hurt a single firm that desired to conduct its business honestly and honourably. Since he had introduced his Tied House Bill he had received an enormous number of letters from tenants of tied houses in all parts of England, and, in some cases, from Wales, in support of the measure; but it was significant of the abject fear which prevailed amongst those tenants that most of them asked him not to publish anything which might lead to their identification. One letter, written with great intelligence and great ability, by an ordinary licensed victualler in a provincial town in a midland county, said:—

"I am compelled to get petitions signed by customers against your Tied House Bill, which makes my soul revolt."

Later on, in his letter, he showed how he was marshalled off on particular grand field days to attend great demonstrations of brewers and licensed victuallers, to cheer and to vote in favour of motions which he detested. That might not be new to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but to some of the Members on the Ministerial Benches who suspected some little irregularities it was a revelation. The writer also showed that the agreements were submitted to them under circumstances which almost precluded them from thoroughly weighing and understanding the purport of many of the clauses of the agreements. It was only after they had appended their signatures that they became aware of the act of folly they had committed owing to the pressure of circumstances. His correspondent pointed out that according to the agreement all spirits, wines, beer, and stout were to be of good quality and of current market price. That sounded fair enough, but the clause was a delusion and a snare for the publican had to pay from 6s. to 8s. per barrel, and from 25 to 30 per cent. for their spirits and wines more than they would pay were they free. In conclusion, the writer of the letter said that pressure was exercised at elections, and he was ordered at all the meetings to enter his protest against measures to which in reality he was not opposed. The introduction of his simple Bill had really been the means of an extraordinarily large amount of information being brought to light. The correspondent to whom he had already referred pointed out also that one of the evil effects of the tied house system was that a man who wished to carry on his trade on respectable lines could not do so at a profit, but had to leave his house in order that it might be occupied by a less scrupulous man, who, in order to increase the trade of the previous tenant, had to resort to means and methods which led to disaster and to ruin in a large number of cases. A South Metropolitan publican had also written to him and imposed no restriction whatever as to the disclosure of his name. He said:—

"I quite agree with your remarks relating to tied houses. So many of them are traps, snares and swindles for those who take them, and robbery to the public who drank the bad beer some of the brewers send in."

With regard to the iniquity of the system, he found a most unexpected ally in the Morning Advertiser, who on October 2, 1893, said they would greatly prefer all who bore the name of licensed victuallers were licensed to their own houses, for they were persuaded that the more independence given to the publicans the better for the publicans, the public and the brewers. There was further evidence from other people engaged in the trade. A tied publican in the neighbourhood of Plymouth stated in an interview that restrictions were imposed as to the quantity of a particular liquor they purchased. He said:—

"For instance, I must buy three times the quantity of my brewer's own stuff—"

not a very elegant expression—

"that I get of another brewer. Allsopp's is most in demand. If I want throe hogsheads of Allsopp's I must purchase nine hogsheads of my brewer's production."

He now called it production, and not stuff. Further on in the interview the publican said—

"I get this house for £25 a year, but I would gladly pay over £60 a year if it were free."

All the information he had received went to prove that under the tied house system local taxation was robbed of a large portion of its legitimate contribution. If there were thousands of tied houses let at £30 a year instead of £60 or £70 a year, hon. Members must easily see what an enormous loss there was to local taxation, the gain all going to swell the wealth of the brewers and to prepare them for that higher sphere on the other side of the Lobby. Again, Her Majesty's Revenue was really defrauded of its due share of increased income, which would result from the increased value of licences. The system was condemned in every part of the country. At Hanley applications were made for transfers, and they led the Mayor to make the following remarks—

"The Mayor pointed out that nearly all those houses were under the control of brewers, and it was quite palpable to the Bench that people who saved a little money first, and placed it in the hands of the brewers' agents, made a great mistake by going into the trade."

He had a number of other documents in his possession equally interesting, showing that this question was moving public opinion, and that there was a great wave of indignation arising, which must ultimately ensure legislation upon the subject. There was evidence that even the publicans were rising in revolt; and then there would be anxious times for the Conservative party. If the licensed victuallers once got the bit between their teeth, the party must look out for a spill. The Birmingham Daily Mail recorded that 15 Coventry publicans sent in a petition in favour of the Tied Houses' Tenants Bill, which was presented by Mr. Newdigate. He had no doubt the hon. Member found his way in the shady part of the evening along the opposite gangway, and dropped the petition into the bag at the back of the Speaker's Chair, and the House consequently heard nothing about it. They had to thank the intelligence department of that excellent Conservative journal, the Birmingham Mail, for their enlightenment about the petition from the Coventry publicans. He had received a circular, dated 5, Victoria Street, S.W., from the Country Brewers' Society, in which it was sought to be shown that these tied houses had been in the hands of one family, and had passed from father to son and grandson for generations. But that was not so. He had a letter from a magistrate in one of the home counties (Bedfordshire) who had taken a great interest in licensing reform, and he obtained at his Quarter Sessions, in 1891, a return which went to show that tied houses were transferred three times as often as free houses. What became, then, of the generation to generation argument? Again, the charges against publicans of offences against the Licensing Acts were as 2 to 1 in tied houses as compared with free houses. That did not argue very much in favour of tied houses. The interesting argument in the circular referred to went on further to say that—

"The tied house tenant has many compensating advantages. He pays less rent, and nothing for goodwill."

And again—

"They are never at a loss for applicants for tied houses."

Well, we knew very well that, unhappily, such was the overcrowded state of this country, that no matter how onerous the terms, amounting almost to slavery, you will find men so pressed by circumstances that they will fly to them rather than go into the workhouse or die by the roadside; but that did not justify an unequal contract. The hon. Member for Epsom had an Amendment on the Paper, desiring that there should be a Committee to inquire into the subject. Did the hon. Member not know there had already been a Committee? Was he acquainted with the history of the subject? One of the witnesses examined was a brewer named Barclay; and another witness examined was asked—

" 'Do you think it would be desirable to prevent by legislative enactment brewers and distillers from becoming the purchasers of public-houses?' His reply was 'Taking it for granted that it could be done without difficulty, our house would be very glad if the thing were done, that brewers had no control whatever over public-houses in any way."

This was the declaration of a gentleman named Martineau, a member of the firm of Whitbread and Co. Here again was the evidence of Mr. Sampson Hanbury, who said that, at a general meeting of brewers, he got up and proposed—

"That all classes should be done away with, stating that we were ready to surrender ours. Q. Was that at a recent meeting? A.—Five or six months ago. Q.—Have you abandoned in your business the granting of these leases? A.—Entirely. Q.—Should you consider any tenant holding a public-house under you to be at liberty to employ whatever brewer he chooses besides you? A.—We think it should be done; we wish it to be done.'

He found after some research that there was a committee who dealt with tied houses so far back as 1817; and the names of the brewers of that day were practically the same as those of to-day. The above was an example of the opinions expressed by those men at that time. They believed that the tied house system was on the decline, that the system could not last, and yet to-day nearly 75 per cent. of the whole licensed premises of the country were tied to some brewer or some brewery company. This was not a party question. Radical members had no especial interest in it, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were quite at liberty to make the question one of the planks of their political platform. He and his hon. friends would be glad to help them forward in any movement of the kind which they cared to initiate. He was certainly of opinion than the operative brewing trade as well as the public interest demanded this reform. It was no interference with legitimate business. The butcher the baker, or the candlestick maker, did not ask for permission to set up business, or for rules as to its guidance. On the other hand, the public-house business was clearly a State business like the Church, or any other business. He meant that it was under State control; and in this sense he invited the co-oporation of honorary members opposite towards the adoption of this resolution.

said, that the hon. Member for Leicester, in the course of his speech, had thought fit to twit him with regard to his ignorance on this subject. He did not think that those remarks of the hon. Member would quite meet with the acceptance of a generous House.

I never said one word that would bear that construction.

accepted the statement, but his ears must have greatly deceived him. He did not pretend to know as much on this subject as those who had spent their life in the trade or were more experienced than he was; but he happened to take a great interest in the matter, and he did not blush to state that he was President of the Epsom Licensed Victuallers' Association, as well as Member for that Division. He was speaking to-night because he did not believe that this Amendment was acceptable to licensed victuallers as a class. The hon. Member, while disclaiming any political bias, had made allusions which could only be animated by political motives. He did not suggest that there were no abuses in existence, nor that the brewers' trade, any more than other trades—aye, and professions, too—was perfect. There were brewers in this country who were, perhaps, no better than they should be; yet this was the case in every profession and trade in the country. It was easy enough to find fault wherever one chose to take the trouble to do so; but it was a great deal more difficult to meet accusations like those brought for ward by the hon. Member for Leicester, without having had the opportunity of looking into them. Referring to the nature of the Amendment the House was, he said, asked to declare that the tied-house system was injurious to the tenants and to the public. He invited the House to see whether that accusation could fairly and properly be substantiated to such an extent as that (following out the words of the Amendment) immediate legislation was desirable to make all such agreements illegal—that was to say, to make illegal all contracts which had been freely entered into; between the brewer and his tenant. This was, to use a common expression, a very strong order indeed. It was coercion, with a vengeance, because it went so far as to render every agreement—they were not going to take an agreement here and there which might, possibly, have been brought about by improper pressure—to render every agreement between a brewer and the keeper of a tied house absolutely illegal. Before the House undertook the responsibility of passing such a measure, it ought to have the strongest and most conclusive evidence before it. It was no argument to say that 70 per cent. of the public houses in the country were tied houses, unless it was shown that these houses were so absolutely injurious and vicious in themselves as to make it right that the Legislature should step in and declare the agreements in regard to everyone of them to be illegal, as being wrong and bad in principle. Had any voice from the people of this country been heard to that effect? Here and there, no doubt, statements had been received from different parts of the country, and people were very quick to find fault. He observed that one letter read by the hon. Member for Leicester was from a man who was no longer in a public house, and who, conceivably, might entertain a grudge against the brewer, who, perhaps, had turned him out. As he had said, the mere fact that 70 per cent. of the houses were "tied" proved nothing unless it were shown that those houses, being tied, in principle and in fact the majority of them did harm to the tenants and also did harm to the public who were served by them. An Amendment, which, if he had the opportunity, he would move went only to this, that there should be an inquiry before a Select Committee to inquire into the facts. They were told by the Mover of the Amendment that licensed houses were said to be only 20 years old. What good, then, was the evidence of a Committee of 1817, referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, which sat before these houses existed? As to other articles which had been referred to, it was absurd to suppose that either the tenant or the public could be injured by the tenant being tied as to the purchase of his matches or his salt, or such like articles. The Amendment was not a proposition for legislation which was to be in aid of temperance. That was not suggested.

was understood to say that it was suggested.

said, he had not heard anything said to that effect. It was said that the object of the suggested legislation was to relieve the tenant from a burdensome bargain, and the public from buying bad beer. In point of fact, the country was not ripe for such legislation as this. He asked the House not to be in a hurry in regard to this matter, which affected 70 per cent, of the licensed houses of the country. He urged that a Committee was necessary to take into consideration all the necessary facts and to inform the House on the subject. Immediate legislation on the subject was not possible; there were many matters waiting for immediate legislation of far greater importance than this, and those measures did not look as if they were ever to become law. But if, perchance, this Amendment had the sympathy of the Government, he would invite them to propose the insertion of a clause in the Bill relating to Local Option, by which the localities should have the option of dealing with this matter. Let the Government do that if they believed there really was a grievance. He did not think hon. Members had dealt with that aspect of the matter.

said, that he had done so.

said, he fancied he knew what the answer of the Government would be to such a proposition. He would draw attention to the report of some licensing magistrates in the county of Surrey.

asked how many Conservatives, Liberals, and brewers were upon the bench the hon. Member was referring to?

said, he had not the remotest idea. He did not think that was quite a fair observation, because on the Surrey County Council, where he had sat as an Alderman, politics were never once mentioned in connection with business matters. The Report was dated 1892, and stated that the magistrates were of opinion that there was no ground for the common notion that tied houses were worse conducted than others, and that, on the contrary, the brewers had a greater interest in seeing that they were well conducted. The Report stated also that the very fact that the number of transfers of licences was greater with regard to tied houses than to others, proved how jealously they were watched by their owners, who, for their own sakes, would not incur the risk involved in the toleration of doubtful or careless managers. When they found that this was the case with a great county like Surrey, it was impossible to denounce the system in the wholesale way in which it had been denounced. He did not think that the case as to the selling of bad beer had been made out. It was not likely that a publican would continue to sell bad beer simply because he was told to do so, and it was still more unlikely that a brewer would continue to sell bad beer when, if there was anything like competition, it would spell his own bankruptcy. Surely, too, hon. Members must know that the tenant of a tied house had not the same charges and expenses which the tenant of a free house had. It was said that the brewer turned out the tenants of these tied houses too often, but, of course, if he found that the tenant did not do his work properly, and brought his house into disrepute, he was justified in making a change; and he would remind the House that some of the tenants of these houses, being men without capital, borrowed their money from the brewer, at better terms than they could get from a money-lender, and were sometimes not faithful to their trust. Again, there was a great difference between tied houses in the provinces and the tied houses in London. He had not got particulars of the custom in other large cities, but he had some interesting data with regard to London, and his point was that whereas the custom and usage which governed the tied trade in London was altogether different from that which governed principally the tied houses in the country, there was a great necessity proved for inquiry before they passed too hasty legislation. Roughly speaking, the tied houses in London consisted of three sorts. In the first instance there might be a freehold house owned by the man who held the licence, or a man who had a long lease from a person who was not the brewer. But the man who was in, and who often paid a large sum of money to go in, had sometimes occasion to go to a brewer for a loan to help him. The custom as regarded that particular form of house was for the man to buy beer of that brewer, as a sort of consideration for the loan to him, as long as the mortgage ran. But there was nothing in the mortgage. It was an ordinary mortgage containing the ordinary covenants, and the man was entitled to pay it off when he liked, and the brewer had nothing to say to it. The publican was a free man—when he had paid off the mortgage—to buy his beer wherever he liked. There was a second class, where a brewer granted a lease to a tenant for a long term, sometimes of 50 years. In such circumstances the lease contained a clause that the lessee should deal with the lessor for beer only; but the lease was not determinable, and must run until it expired. So long as the lease existed the publican had to buy beer of the brewer, and there was nothing in that detrimental to the interest of the tenant. Thirdly, there was the yearly tenancy under brewers, where, so long as the tenancy lasted, the tenant had to buy the beer from the brewer. Such a tenant was not the slave suggested by the mover and seconder of this Amendment, and he was nothing more than a man who, for good consideration, agreed to buy beer from certain brewers during the continuance of his tenancy. He hoped he had shown that the supporters of this Amendment had not made out a sufficiently strong case, and that there was not that evidence before them which should induce the House to call for immediate legislation in the matter. But there were surely other tied houses as well as brewers'. Were there riot tied houses where tea was sold? Were there not bakers' houses where the flour had always to be bought from a particular miller; jewellery shops where the goods had to be bought from one wholesale merchant; and boot shops where the boots had to be bought from a particular manufacturer? He quite agreed there was a certain difference between the two, but the principle was the same. If this House was going to interfere between the capitalist on the one side, and the man who was not a capitalist on the other, but who was a sane person making a voluntary contract, surely they ought to be very careful how they entered into an inquiry such as that with the view to saying that one man should not contract freely and voluntarily with another. There seemed, in such a course as that suggested by the Amendment, to be coercion and destruction of liberty between man and man. And unless one could put his case as high as this, that it was clear beyond reasonable doubt that the tenant was not acting as a free man, but was being unfairly dealt with by the brewer, and that in consequence the tenant himself suffered, and the publican in turn suffered also—unless the case could be put as high as this then he submitted the Amendment should not be accepted. He asked that the whole question should go before a Select Committee, who should take the facts as they were now found to exist, and report to this House, and having so reported, he, for one, should be perfectly willing to accept and act upon that report.

did not think any fault could be found with the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, who had, he considered, gone a pretty tolerable distance in the direction taken by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. This was a question as to which, as the hon. Member had very fairly said, there were two sides and differences of opinion, but he thought they should all agree on the point that the tied-house system had assumed a degree of prominence and was of a character which so intimately affected a very large class of the community, as to make it a subject well worthy the attention and consideration of this House. A year ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer first called attention to this subject in a speech on the 10th May in connection with the raising of the Beer Duty—a very unfortunate act, as he believed, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said—

''What destroyed the small brewers was not the additional taxation on beer, but it was those gigantic monopolies which have bought up all the free-houses and turned them into tied-houses, converting the publican from an independent tradesman into a mere agent for the brewers."

Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer used those words he thought all who had watched the course of events would agree that the buying up of free-houses and converting them into tied-houses was a process that had gone on with great rapidity. There had been a complete change in the supply of beer from the breweries to the population of this country during the last 25 years. There were now two classes of brewers—those who devoted themselves mainly to the supply of tied houses, and those who devoted themselves—and always had done, and, as he hoped, always would be able to do—to the supply of free houses. Belonging, as he and his constituents in Burton-on-Trent, to a large extent did, to the latter class, he knew that day by day and week by week the free houses were becoming less and less, and the tied houses were becoming one vast monopoly in this country. He was not giving an opinion as to whether this was right or wrong, but he would say that it was a question of sufficient importance to occupy the House, and that it was occupying the minds of the people to a much larger extent than many were aware of. It had been said that England did not like monopolies; and if they could be avoided, it was better not to have them. But was it desirable that this trade should fall into the hands of one great monopoly, and that there should be no free trade in beer at all? That was what things were drifting to. If it were not right, then perhaps some steps might be taken on the initiative of this Amendment which would arrest, before it was too late, that great absorption of trade which was going on—a trade on which the working classes mainly depended for their drink and luxury. He did not hesitate to say that if the beer supplied by the tied-house brewers and that supplied by the free-house brewers, whose business was competitive, was compared, it would be found that the free-house beer was by far the more wholesome and the better beverage. He might be supposed to speak with some personal bias, but he hoped that the Select Committee, when it sat, would, as Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen who had palates for beer, make it their business to take samples of the beer of both classes of brewers. An hon. Member the other night described some of the ingredients of beer. Some of those he had never heard of, and none of them he had ever seen. Those ingredients, he would undertake to say, were not used by the free-house brewers; but whether they were used by the tied-house brewers he could not say. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said on the previous evening that the great brewers were satisfied to pay the increased Beer Duty. He was surprised to hear him say so; but hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House regarded the right hon. Gentleman as an oracle who seldom spoke except with perfect accuracy; and he began to think that there was a great deal of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said. Where were the great brewers on the previous evening, when this increased duty on beer was being fixed for another year? And where were they that evening? It surely could not be that they thought the question not one which affected them; and, at I any rate, it was a question which affected I the country generally, and therefore required their attention. It was suggested that the brewers were comparatively indifferent, because they had an opportunity of doing that with the tied-houses which other brewers could not do with the free-houses—that was to say, they could regulate the price which was charged to the tied house for the beer and therefore were comparatively indifferent to the additional sixpence per barrel on beer. He could only account in this way for their absence from a discussion, which must so intimately affect their pockets, unless they could regulate the price to the consumer. There were, no doubt, two sides to this question, and it would be for the Committee to derive from the information which was put before them a solution of this question. This question affected not only the brewers, or one class of them, but the community generally; and there could be nothing more unwise on the part of the brewers than to look with indifference or hostility to the awakening of public opinion upon a question of this kind. Brewers ought to be able to forget their own interests, because on this question there was a very strong public opinion formed and being formed, which would not settle the question in the interests of the brewers, but in the interests of the general community. He should like to see the brewers of this country set aside their private interests and contribute as far as they could to the solution of the question. There was the proposal before the House that there should be immediate legislation on this question, and an Amendment to the effect that there should be a Select Committee to inquire into it. He felt some hesitation in voting for a motion which recommended immediate legislation, because he did not know how it was possible to expect immediate legislation. If the Government would say that they had plenty of time for another odd Bill or two, that they would take up this question, and had the information upon which to act, then he would vote for the motion. But in default of that assurance he thought it would be a prudent step to appoint a Select Committee to investigate this question, and that indeed, seemed to be the only practicable thing to be done.

said, that as he had been connected with the brewing trade for many years, and had also sat on the licensing bench of magistrates in his division of Essex, he might claim to know something about the system of tied public-houses. He should like to be allowed to contradict the statement of the last speaker that the beer supplied in free houses was far superior to the beer supplied in tied houses. It was to the interest of the tied-house brewer to supply good beer, because if his beer was bad he injured his trade and the value of the property which he supplied with the beverage. The number of tied houses in the country was sometimes underestimated, the fact being that about 95 per cent, of the existing public-houses were tied practically to different breweries. Many houses that were popularly supposed to be free were really tied, their goods being supplied to them by some particular brewery. As to houses being tied in respect of soda water, sawdust, matches, and other commodities, he believed that the practice was very exceptional. Houses tied in respect of the sale of beer and spirits were, it was true, tied in different ways, but in all cases it came to the same thing in the end; the brewer or wholesale tradesman supplied the publican or retail tradesman with the capital necessary for carrying on his business. In London, no doubt, the leases often belonged to the occupiers, but the brewers had supplied them with capital for the purchase of the leaseholds and of the fixtures, and in return the houses were tied. The practice in the country was not essentially different It might be said that the London tenant who borrowed what money he wanted on mortgage could go out of his house when he liked, his loan being paid off by another brewer; but the same thing was also quite possible in the country. The public-houses were undoubtedly too numerous, but the consequence was that competition was so keen that any publican who considered that the beer supplied to him by one brewer was bad, could have no difficulty in removing into another house where better beer was provided. It was easy for publicans to go into those houses where the best beer was supplied. Judging from his own experience, it was not the case that country brewers compelled their tenants to keep no beer besides their own in stock. Certainly, the tenants of the firm with which he was connected could always have Allsopp's ales or Guinness's stout in stock if they wished. Tenants, instead of paying full fixed rents, paid rents regulated as to their amounts by the quantity of beer sold. The hon. Member for Leicester said that the effect of this system was that the ratepayers were robbed. If less was paid in the shape of rates than ought justly to be paid, it was the fault of those whose duty it was to protect the interests of the ratepayers, because a house ought to be rated according to the sum for which it would let from year to year as a free house. This supposition that the ratepayers were robbed was really mythical in his opinion; but if such a state of things existed anywhere, it was not the fault of the brewers or of their tenants, but of the Assessment Committees. He did not know much about the system prevailing in the North of England, but he believed that houses there were tied by putting managers into them. That was a system which brewers could not like, for it was, perhaps, the worst possible for their interests. There was another way of tying houses, and he should like to know whether the hon. Member for Leicester objected to it. Three or four licensed victuallers, holding more than one licence apiece, combined and set up a brewery, and supplied their houses with their own beer. Inasmuch as they had set up a brewery and supplied themselves with liquor, their houses were as much tied as the houses bound to a great brewery. The Mover of the Resolution said the tied-house principle was a perfectly new one. The brewery at Portsmouth with which he was connected did not hold a single house to-day additional to or in excess of the number they held 100 years ago.

said, he stated that the great majority of the houses had been tied within the last 20 years.

said, that at Portsmouth the number of licensed houses was rapidly decreasing owing to the action of the magistrates. He thought there were too many licensed houses, but the great difficulty with the trade was how to fairly and equitably reduce them. At Portsmouth the magistrates had for several years past refused to grant new licences. If that course were generally adopted in England, and accompanied by a fair system of reducing the licences, either by purchase or otherwise, in a few years' time there would not be that excessive number of public houses of which complaint was made. It was well reference should be made to the Radical clubs in the East End. He had made inquiries concerning those clubs. [Mr. DALZIEL: "Is there no Conservative club?"] There was no Conservative club in London which indulged in Sunday performances of music-hall songs and so forth. He did not think the Gentlemen who were in favour of the free-house principle need be proud of the way the clubs in the East End were conducted. They were not under the control of the police, they did not pay licence, they were open all hours of the day and night, and on Sunday afternoons there were given in them performances of music-hall songs and dances which were advertised in the newspapers and which frequently led to disgraceful gatherings. That was the free-house principle. In conclusion, he had only to say he hoped a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the question. He was satisfied and the trade were satisfied that if a Committee were appointed the already often contradicted statements with reference to tied houses would be absolutely and completely exploded. Brewers and owners of public houses wished to do to the tenants and the public only that which was right. If a fair and impartial inquiry were held they were persuaded a stop would be put to this agitation, and they would be left in peace for, at all events, several years to come.

said, his hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Leicester were to be congratulated upon having elicited from a most competent judge, the hon. Member for Burton, emphatic testimony in favour of the virtue of beer sold in free houses as against that of beer sold in tied houses. That testimony, however, was contradicted by no less an authority, the hon. Member for Mid Essex. Who should decide when brewers disagreed? They must leave hon. Members who had technical knowledge to settle the issue between themselves. But his hon. Friend the Member for Burton made a pointed appeal to him or whoever should in this Debate represent the Government. The hon. Gentleman asked if the Government were in a position to guarantee that they had sufficient leisure this Session, and sufficient gaps in their Programme this Session, to enable them to bring in a Bill dealing with the question introduced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He was afraid the Programme for the present year was pretty near as full as it would hold, but, after all, they had to consider the Programme of next year and of the year after that; and if his hon. Friend and those who sympathised with him would extend and continue their confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers during that prolonged period, he had no doubt some opportunity might be found to give legislative effect to the desire of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had made an interesting and able speech, characterised by the dignity and severity which belonged to his years and experience, and one which had made a deep impression on his own mind. He regretted the absence from the Debate of many of his colleagues, and of one in particular, whose interests were peculiarly concerned. Incidents had been graphically narrated which clearly deserved, and would, no doubt, receive, the best attention of the right hon. Member for Derby. Another interesting point in the speech was the refreshing novelty with which the hon. Member laid it down as an axiom that licences were granted to public houses for the well-being of the community. He had heard a different doctrine from the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth; but for his own part he agreed with the hon. Member that the theory was that they were granted for the well-being of the community, and it behoved us to take means to secure that they were issued on such conditions as were consistent with the attainment of that object. His hon. Friend would say that this were a movement in promotion of Temperance, because it was a movement in favour of pure beer. He would not discuss the merits of beer drinking, or of the use of alcoholic stimulants, but, assuming that it was desirable and permissible that we should drink beer, it must be conceded it were better we should drink pure beer than that we should drink that made from the extraordinary chemical compounds which had been referred to, and it were better we should drink the original and unsophisticated article than we should drink the dregs, leavings, and rinsings which were said to be supplied in tied houses. Another serious and practical point named was the rating question. The hon. Member had rendered a public service by calling public attention to the curious device of letting a house at less than its market value, and recouping the rent by a trade arrangement, with the object of lowering the assessment, to the detriment of the rates. It was a melancholy condition of things described by the hon. Member for Leicester, that the occupancy of a tied house should involve a publican in the obligation of attending a meeting with the object of which he did not sympathise, and of holding up his hand for a resolution of which he did not approve. But Britons, even though publicans, never will be slaves, and this publican, when he went to the ballot-box, was a free agent, and, if he were a Leicester elector, he would vote for the hon. Member at the next election. While sharing the desire of the hon. Member for Epsom for more light on the subject, he must say that the Amendment on the paper covered too wide a field, for the hon. Member wanted to inquire about boots and shoes, drapery, bread, jewellery, and indeed, everything sold by shopkeepers who were said to be tied to certain manufacturers. This was a very far-reaching Amendment. They did not want an inquiry into every trade and industry, because, for one reason, it would be interminable. They were discussing a Resolution, not a Bill, and before they legislated on the subject two or three years hence there would be abundant time to accumulate the evidence which the hon. and learned Member for Surrey desired, that they should not legislate in the dark. So the hon. and learned Member should not hesitate to vote for the original Motion. He understood the hon. and learned Member to suggest there should be local option, and that the community should say whether there should be tied houses or free houses.

said his observations had been misunderstood. He asked, if the Government had such sympathy for the Motion as it was said they had, why did they not suggest the inclusion of a clause in their Bill for local option?

said he did not think it mattered in what Bill it was included. But he suggested its inclusion in the Bill his hon. Friend had in his mind's eye. His hon. Friend threw some douht on the testimony of the hon. Member for Leicester on the ground that the letter read was avowedly that of a man who no longer was the occupant of a public house, and the hon. Member assumed it might fairly be taken for granted that because that man did not hold a licence he had lost it for some good reason. There might be a thousand reasons why he had given up his licence which were not to his discredit or would lessen his value as a witness. He might have made his fortune, have wished to qualify as a magistrate, or have been converted to the view that all traffic in alcohol was wicked. Because he had ceased to be a licensed victualler it did not follow that he was a man of bad character. He was not in a position to speak for any one but himself in this matter. He should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, as embodying the principle of Free Trade, tending to secure the reasonable independence of the publican, and likely to conduce to the supply of a better commodity to the consumer.

said he thought that this matter would have to be dealt with before the expiration of two or three years. As to clubs, he knew several in Essex and the East End—Radical and Conservative—and they were not at all good institutions. But the worst of them all was a tied club. If this subject were referred to a Committee, what evidence would be obtainable? Those who had been tied tenants would come forward, but their evidence would not do. Men who were in tied houses at the present time would not risk the displeasure of their employers by giving evidence against them. This was the grave difficulty of inquiry by way of Committee. One evil of tied houses was deterioration in the quality of the beer. It had been said that there was no fear of the sale of bad beer in tied houses, because competition would prevent it. It had been urged that there was no fear of tied-houses selling bad beer, because they would be prevented from doing so by competition. But in many instances in country districts there were no other public houses within a mile or two of these tied houses, and therefore there could be no competition. In most instances all the bad beer that the brewery owners had was mixed up with other beer, and the mixture was sent to the tied-house having no competition, the tenant having to pay handsomely for it. That was where the bad beer came in. Then he came to the subject of the complete subjection of the tenant of the tied-house. The tenant of such a house was placed in a position that no trader ought to occupy. In the first place, the tenant could not send back bad stuff, and, secondly, he was bound to accept all sorts of stuff that the brewer might choose to supply him with. In his opinion that was an abuse by the owner of his position. He would touch upon the temperance side of the argument. Of late years an enormous amount of capital had been put into brewing concerns, and a large portion of that capital had been spent in buying houses, and the result was that public-houses were fetching enormous prices. He knew of one case in which a little more than two years ago a small public house was rated at £100 per annum. It had only a short lease—about nine years—to run, but the other day it was sold for £2,500. The interest upon that sum had to come out of the pockets of the customers. The result was that the tenant would have to make people buy beer and to encourage them to drink small beer at a high price. That was not good either for the neighbourhood or for the community at large. In order to eke out a living the tenant had to go out into the highways and bye ways and compel people to come into his house and drink beer. Well, perhaps he had gone a little too far in saying that he had to compel them, he should rather have said that he had to entice them in. He did not mean to suggest that either the tenant or the brewer did anything illegal in the matter. In his opinion that was the cause of too much beer being drunk. He meant, of course, in the country, not in the House of Commons, nor by the upper class who had no such temptation put before them, but by the working men in the rural districts. The tenant must either induce them to drink or be turned out of his position, and perhaps be ruined for life. He did not think that this question was a Party one in any sense, and he denied that either Party derived benefit from the system. He hoped that both sides of the House would take this subject into their serious consideration, and that they would pass the Motion before them by a large majority.

said, that he had sat upon a Committee some time ago, which had been appointed to inquire into the law of licensing, and into the condition of the licensed houses of Cheshire, and he ventured to think that the Report of that Committee was of equal authority with that which had been presented from Surrey. The method by which brewers avoided the transgression of the law in Cheshire was by putting very stringent conditions into the leases. One great firm which had licensed houses in eight out of the fourteen licensing divisions of the county, and which owned over 1,000 tied houses in Lancashire and Cheshire, insisted that every tenant should bind himself to go out of the house at three days' notice, not if he had committed an offence, but if he had done something which might bring him within the reach of the law. It was the brewers and not the magistrates that decided whether an offence had been committed. It might be thought that in this way brewers secured due obedience of the law, but that was not his experience, or that of many of his colleagues in Cheshire. They found that a man was put out before he was accused by the police, and a new tenant was, of course, accepted by the Magistrates, with the result that on matter how badly the house was conducted, it had always a clean license. Therefore it was evident that there was less security for good order, and for the character of the tenant in the case of a tied house than in the case of a free house. With regard to the question of rating, the licensing justices of Crewe the year before last, and again last year, refused to renew licences to a number of managers in the service of the great brewing firm of Walkers'. Thereupon Messrs. Walker turned these men into tenants, and raised their rents to the market value of the house, with the result that the assessment of these houses had gone up £2,640.

claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that what was dealt out to one trade should be dealt out to the other. He thought the tied-house system had been of great benefit to the country, and on broad principles he for one was quite prepared to argue in favour of that point; but, with all due respect, he could not help remarking on the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion of such a Debate as they had that evening. Why were they discussing this question, and why was it necessary that they should have a Committee to inquire into the question of tied houses? Why was it necessary to bring two Bills before the House the previous day, both of which were withdrawn, if the tied house system did not go to the root of the licensing system? The Session was already overburdened with Select Committees, but why was it necessary to ask for a Select Committee on this question? If they wanted information on this subject why was the Government bringing in the Local Veto Bill? That Bill was going to deal with the whole of the licensing system of this country. [Cries of "No."] It was going to make a very great change in the whole of the licensing system if the Government would ever dare to bring it in. Why, then, was this question to be dealt with piecemeal by a Resolution that night? Why did not the Government take it up, if they were in favour of restricting or abolishing the tied-house system? He respectfully submitted that what was dealt out to the publican ought to be dealt out to the ironmonger, haberdasher, and a hundred other trades. There were just as many tied houses in other trades as in the liquor trade, and the Amendment of his hon. Friend was just as worthy of support as an Amendment dealing only with one particular trade. He hoped the hon. Member would press his Amendment to a Division.

withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.

declared that the question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order 25, and that the Debate stood adjourned.