I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he hopes to be in a position to introduce the Truck Bill dealing with Fines and Deductions from Wages.

Either one day next week or quite early in the following week; and on Monday I shall lay on the table the memorandum, asked for by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, explaining the state of the law with regard to the truck question.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is now in a position to give the public the facility of entering and leaving Richmond Park by the gate at the end of Chisholm Road.

I am of opinion that this would be a great public convenience; and, after consulting the Ranger, I have given instructions that a suitable gate shall be placed there, to be opened for public use in the daytime, as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that strong representations have been made by the Glasgow and Govan School Boards against the provision in the Scotch Evening Continuation School Code, by which no grant under Section 10 (b) is to be made in respect of a pupil studying less than two subjects: Whether the Committee of the Privy Council will be prepared to modify this provision, especially in regard to advanced subjects and in respect of full-grown pupils; and, whether, in view of the pressure caused by the adjournment of the House, he can make any arrangements by which further time can be given for consideration of the Question.

I am aware that representations have been made with regard to the provision in the Evening Continuation Code referred to, but although not, prepared to say that, there are not sound educational reasons for the provision, the Department will give time for further consideration of the matter by submitting to Parliament a Minute modifying the Code in the desired direction, which will extend the opportunity for discussion, should the hon. Member desire to take advantage of it.

It would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House, if I were to withdraw the Motion which I have put down for to-night,

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether Irish grand juries are legally bound to advertise for tenders for the various contracts for the departments of the public service which they control, and which are paid for out of the public funds; whether he is aware that the grand jury of the county of Kilkenny recently gave a printing contract for a term of seven years without having invited tenders by advertisement in the local press, and at a cost of several hundred pounds to the rates more than the work would be done for if left open to competition; and, whether he proposes to take any and what action in the matter?

, asked that the Question should be postponed until Monday next.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been drawn to a proclamation published at page 215 of the Natal Government Gazette of the 25th February last, in which, under the heading "Rules and Regulations for the disposal of Erven," or sites, "in the Township of Nondweni, Zululand," at Clauses 4, 13, 18, 20, and throughout the proclamation, words are used which will effectually preclude all the British Indian subjects of Her Majesty from acquiring or occupying land within that township for purposes of business or residence, while enabling others, who are not subjects of Her Majesty but because they are "persons of European birth or descent," to do so; whether similar prohibitory provisions have been in force with regard to another township called Eshave, since 1891; whether he is aware that only two years before that time, in 1889, British Indian subjects were allowed to purchase land in the township of Melmoth to the value of nearly £2,000; and, if so, whether any cause has been shown for now precluding them from the exercise of a similar right in reference to the townships of Eshave and Nondweni; and, whether, as such prohibition is an interference with the right of British subjects to acquire property in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, based merely on the question of colour, thereby constituting a direct violation of the gracious assurance given by Her Majesty to the people of India in 1858, he will take immediate steps to arrest legislation of this description by the Governments of Natal and other parts of Her Majesty's dominions in Africa, and order the elimination of all such regulations with regard to the townships of Eshave and Nondweni as preclude British Indian subjects from acquiring property therein?

The proclamations relating to the townships of Nondweni and Eshave do, as stated by the hon. Member, exclude those who are not of European birth or descent from purchasing or holding land, but the purchase of land by British Indians at Melmoth in 1889 does not appear to have been reported to the Colonial Office. I have been informed that a petition on the subject from the Indian community of Natal, dated March 11th, is on its way, and I propose to give the subject my careful attention when the petition arrives.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that a resolution was unanimously passed at the recent conference of friendly societies held in London on Thursday, 26th March, urging upon the Government the abolition of the compulsory declaration now necessary before a Magistrate or Commissioner of Oaths when rules of such societies have to be amended; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the large amount of dissatisfaction caused to friendly societies owing to the necessity of this declaration; and, whether, in view of this resolution, the Government, in the Bill which they propose to introduce in order to consolidate the Friendly Societies Acts, will abolish such declaration?

I have not seen the resolution referred to, nor has it been communicated to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. If it is sent to me, I will, of course, consider it. But, as at present advised, I am not prepared, as I told the hon. Member on the 24th March, to abolish the declaration.

If the resolution is forwarded to him, will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider the first part of the resolution?

I have already stated why I do not think it possible to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether a sum of £10,000 was originally put down in the Estimates of the current year for the purpose of continuing the Exhibition buildings at South Kensington, and was struck out by the Treasury; and, if so, on what grounds; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed at an early date with the buildings for which plans have been long prepared, and which are urgently needed for the accommodation and proper exhibition of the valuable collections in the Museum?

The proposal to which I assume my hon. Friend refers was to submit an estimate of £10,000, as a first instalment of £97,000, for providing, not exhibition rooms, as he seems to suppose, but offices, a students' court, and an unpacking yard. This scheme, was postponed by the late Government on the ground of want of funds, and by the present Government for the additional reason that the question of offices in connection with the educational side of the Science and Art Department is materially affected by the proposals of the Education Bill which is now before the House.

said: A broad distinction ought to be drawn between the museum and the educational offices. The proposal that came before us referred principally to the educational offices.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will take steps to appoint two Labour correspondents for North Wales, one for the quarrying, and one for the lead-mining districts.

Arrangements have already been made with a local correspondent in North Wales for the supply of information with regard to both the groups of industries mentioned in the Question. The first report will appear in the Labour Gazette to be published on April 15th. It is not at present proposed to supplement these arrangements by a sub-division of districts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Guardians of the Rathdown Union have for a couple of years in hand the sum of £500, given to them for the express purpose of building labourers' cottages, and that the Medical Officer of the Union has reported that several cottages were required; and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board nearly a year ago wrote to the Guardians warning them that if the cottages were not built they would be obliged to exercise their rights under the Labourers' Acts and order them to be built, he will state whether any cottages have yet been built; and, if not, what action have the Local Government Board taken in pursuance of their expressed determination to have cottages built in this Union.

A sum of £537, representing the share of this Union in the Labourers' Cottages Grant of 1890, is available for the erection of cottages in the Union. The Guardians in November last made a scheme for the erection of cottages, but as the publication of the necessary notices, etc., under the Labourers Acts occupies some considerable time, the Local Government Board have not yet received the application for a Provisional Order confirming the scheme.

asked whether it was not the fact that the Local Government Board wrote to these Guardians threatening to build the cottages themselves.

It is perfectly true that they wrote to the Guardians.

I beg to ask the Uader Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the negroes enlisted in the Egyptian Army for the Soudanese service, imposed on all the Egyptian Army, are enlisted by force; and whether the negroes lately taken for service in British East Africa are volunteers?

The majority of the Soudanese troops in the Egyptian Army have enlisted voluntarily; but a certain number who were born in Egypt are conscripts, the conscription applying to them similarly with other natives. The Soudanese lately recruited for police service in British East Africa are volunteers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the experience of the past two years has proved that the Dun-cannon rifle range, county Wexford, which the Government holds under lease, is well suited for the new or Lee-Metford rifle; and, whether the companies of the 2nd Battalion East India Regiment, stationed at Kilkenny and Waterford, will be sent as usual to Dun-cannon for musketry practice; if not, whether he will take steps to prevent this range remaining unused when the recruits who are now practising there have finished their course?

The range at Duncannon is safe for the Lee-Metford rifle; but it is not suitable for all practices, and at certain states of the tide it cannot be used. Arrangements have been made for the 2nd Battalion East Kent Regiment (which is presumed to be the battalion referred to in the Question) to fire this year at Kilworth, where the ample space allows of several battalions carrying out military exercises together.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government have any reason to believe that it is contemplated by Italy to evacuate Kassala partially or entirely; whether the Government still attach supreme importance to the retention of Kassala by the Italian forces; and, whether any order has been sent to the Officer in charge of the Egyptian forces suggesting that any further forward movement should be delayed?

I must ask the hon. Member to excuse me from giving him the information he solicits. It is undesirable, and would, I think, be unprecedented to make any public statement with regard to intended operations either by the Italian or Egyptian forces.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not answer that part of the Question referring to the importance of the retention of Kassala by the Italian forces?

No, Sir; I am not going to be tempted to give a reply to a Question which I have already, in the public interest, declined to answer. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can state the date on which the complete form of the Colonial Office Dispatch in regard to affairs in the Transvaal was received by President Kruger?

I presume that the hon. Member refers to my Dispatch of February 4. I am unable to say on what exact date President Kruger received a copy of that Dispatch; but it must have been in his hands shortly before March 6, when it was commented upon in the Pretoria newspapers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what steps have been taken by the Imperial Government for the protection of the lives and property of British subjects in Matabeleland?

The authorities in Matabeleland have stated that they are strong enough not only to hold out for the present, but to take the offensive when the whites in the outlying districts have been brought in; but that they are not strong enough to put down the insurrection. As soon as the serious nature of the rising was known, Sir Hercules Robinson took prompt measures for preparing a relief force to be pushed up from the south. Colonel Plumer, D.S.O., is accordingly, with the assistance of other officers lent from the regiments at Cape Town and Natal, engaged in raising a force of at least 500 men at Mafeking, which will start as soon as it is ready, in charge of additional arms, ammunition, and food, of which there are ample supplies at Mafeking, and ought to reach Matabele-land within three or four weeks. Sir Hercules Robinson has hitherto been of opinion that this force will, in conjunction with the forces already in Matabele-land, be sufficient to cope with and crush the insurrection; but he has been informed that Her Majesty's Government will sanction any preparations which he may consider desirable for the prompt and effectual suppression of the rising, and that they are prepared, if he should deem it necessary, to reinforce the garrisons at the Cape and Natal. Up to this time Sir Hercules Robinson has discouraged any step of the kind, and has expressed his opinion that local forces will be sufficient for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1), whether it has now been brought to his notice that the case against Michael Hennessy was dismissed with costs; if so, will he state from whence he received the former information which misled him; and(2) whether, under the circumstances, he will advise the Lord Chancellor to remove the name of Mr. Farren, the gentleman in question, from the Commission of the Peace for the county of Galway?

This matter has been brought under my notice by a letter received from the hon. Member for East Galway, and on further inquiry it now appears that the case referred to was dismissed with costs; the statement previously made that the case was dismissed without costs was supplied by Mr. Farren, who in making the statement seems to have confused "costs" with "expenses." Costs, I understand, in a County Court dismiss of this kind, follow the order as a matter of course, and not as in Petty Sessions, where a special application is necessary. It is absurd to suppose that Mr. Farren intended to wilfully mislead in the statement originally made by him, and upon the information at present before me I can see no reason for taking the course suggested in the second paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General, whether it is intended to proceed with the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that individual petitioners against Private Bills are not allowed to appear in person before Parliamentary Committees, but are compelled to retain Parliamentary Counsel at heavy cost; and, whether the Government will take steps to confer upon petitioners against Private Bills the rights which are enjoyed by private individuals in all Courts of Justice?

I think the hon. Gentleman has put down this. Question under a misapprehension. I am informed that there is no reason why persons should not appear themselves instead of by counsel.

Is it not the fact that there was a recent decision to the contrary?

No, Sir; I am informed that there was no decision contrary to what I have said.

On Monday I shall move with regard to morning sittings on Tuesdays.

asked whether the Motion would apply to next Tuesday.

Yes, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could state the name of the 24th Commissioner of the Royal Commission on the Liquor Traffic.

Yes, Sir. The 24th Commissioner will be Lord de Vesci.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the trade in Ireland protested against the names representing their trade on the Commission, and whether, therefore, he would either replace some of the present names or add other names.

It would be impossible to add other members without destroying the balance of the Commission, or so greatly increasing its numbers as to make it an unworkable body. Nor is it possible to change the names of gentlemen who have agreed to serve, and who have been appointed by the Crown.

pointed out that the decision in "Sharp v. Wakefield" did not apply to Ireland, and that the licensing law was entirely different from that of England, and asked whether the Government would not appoint someone on the Commission who would fairly represent the views of the licensing interest in Ireland, and who would be acquainted with the state of the existing law as distinct from the law in England.

I have endeavoured as far as I can to meet the views of all sections of opinion. It must be remembered that the Commission consists of 24 persons. Of those only eight can represent the trade in England, Scotland, and Ireland, a trade of divers branches carried on in divers localities. It is quite impossible that every branch in every locality should be as fully represented as I should in other circumstances have desired to see it. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the eight names representing the trade in every part of the United Kingdom, he will see that every effort has been made by the Government to represent the views which they entertain.

said the hon. member for South Tyrone would be better than Lord de Vesci, because he knew the subject.

Possibly, but Lord de Vesci is not one of those who represents the trade.

And he is absolutely ignorant of the subject.

said he wished to ask how it was that the one line of steamship companies which employed almost exclusively Lascar seamen got the whole patronage of the Post Office in the matter of over-sea mail contracts. There were other lines with equally good ships and equally capable of carrying the mails satisfactorily and who did not employ Lascar seamen, who were not so efficient as British seamen. He contended that the important mails to India and Australia should be carried on boats which were manned by the best sailors that could be got, and the Government could easily put in a clause in their contracts requiring that the mails should be carried only in vessels manned by English seamen. The "Fair Wages" Resolution required that a fair rate of wages should be paid by those who secured Government contracts, but these Lascar seamen were employed at a rate of wages which English seamen would not for a moment accept. He hoped the Government would give the Committee some satisfactory assurance on the point and that the P. and O. would not always have a monopoly of the mails. He was told that the P. and O. were almost entirely dependent for their dividends on the subsidies they got from the Post Office for carrying the mails. The Government were in a specially advantageous position for dealing with this matter, because they had a director of the P. and O. among themselves.

said that as far as he could gather, it was not the case to any extent that the P. and O. employed foreigners in the sense in which he understood the term. He would not call Lascars, who were fellow subjects and natives of Her Majesty's dominions, foreigners. To lay down any such doctrine would be to develop the Little England theory to an enormous extent. The point he wished to impress on the Committee was that the Government were asked to prevent the employment of British subjects. ["No, no!"]

It would save time if I point out that the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is not so large as his speech would indicate. I did not ask for the total exclusion of Lascars and coolies who were subjects of the British Empire. What I protested against was the proportionately large number of Lascars and coolies employed on British steamers which received subsidies from the Post Office.

said, that if the hon. Member confined his suggestion to the limited extent of the non-employment of persons who were not subjects of the Queen, he was with him. But he should not be prepared to draw a distinction between one British subject and another in a matter of this kind. He thought that a much healthier public opinion prevailed now than was the case some time ago with regard to those subjects. He did not think that they would be met by the old argument that the interests of the consumer and the taxpayer should be solely considered. He hoped it would be acknowledged that the duty of the Government was first of all to protect the interests of British subjects, and not the supposed interest of the taxpayer, at the expense of the larger interests of the Empire as a whole. He trusted that the Government would give an assurance that the spirit of the Fair Wages Resolution would be enforced in respect of shipping contracts and the employment of persons who were not British subjects. Was it the case that payments were made to shipping companies other than those which sailed under the British flag? If the contracts were knocked down to the lowest bidder, and foreign steamship companies were to obtain the money of the British taxpayer, he should look upon the policy as most mischievous. The Government should, therefore, take care that in the disposal of Government contracts the interests of British labour and truly British interests were jealously safe- guarded.

said, that the hon. Member for Battersea had raised a very important question, and he thought it was a matter on which Conservatives ought to support him. He had travelled on steamship lines on which English labour alone was employed, and by those, like the P. and O., which employed a great deal of Lascar labour. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: "British subjects?"] No, not all of them. At all events a great deal too many Lascars were employed, and it was little short of a scandal, when they were deploring the disappearance of British sailors all over the world, that as much encouragement as possible should not be given to their employment, at least in those steamship lines which received heavy Government subsidies. It had always appeared to him to be wrong that the P. and O. Company should have a large preponderance of contracts, and at the same time should be allowed, notwithstanding the protests of the colonies and other parts of the Empire, to employ a vast amount of foreign coloured labour on their ships. They ought not to exclude the labour of their fellow subjects, even if it be coloured labour. The P. and O. Company had contracts between this country and India and Australia. He could not see that it was a hardship to employ Lascar labour provided it was the labour of our own subjects carrying the mails to India; but it was a hardship if such labour was employed on ships going to Australia. The Orient line employed English labour only. Their ships were excellently managed and gave satisfaction to the colonials and others. The colonials held a strong opinion that the P. and O. ships should be manned by British labour only, exactly as the Orient ships were. He hoped that the next time the contracts were made the Government would insist, as far as the Australian contracts were concerned, that the views of the colonials were attended to. There should be a clause inserted that only British and Australian labour should be employed on all the mail steamships in future.

asked for information as to the position of the proposed Transatlantic service. A subsidy had been offered by the Canadian Government, and a supplementary subsidy by the British Government. Had the negotiations been concluded, and, if any terms had been come to, would the right hon. Gentleman say what they were? The present discussion showed that what was wanted was the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question. For years he had put a Motion on the Paper asking that a Committee should be appointed. More than once he brought the question under the notice of the House, but the last Conservative Government would not appoint a Committee, and the last Liberal Government had no contracts of any importance during their administration. But, inasmuch as the whole of the contracts expired in 1898, an opportunity would occur to revise them, though it was impossible for the House to express an adequate opinion on a complicated question like this without a Committee first investigating it. The last Committee sat in 1849; but the business of carrying mail contracts had been revolutionised since that date. All the House knew of them was that they were settled generally at midnight, though they might involve millions of money in their settlement. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a Committee without delay to take into consideration the whole question of these mail contracts. The Committee of 1849 said in their Report that when tenders for carrying mails were asked for, ample notice and full particulars of the terms and conditions of the service required should be given to the public, as that was the most likely way to secure real tenders by responsible bodies. In 1877, the then Postmaster General gave a pledge that ample time would be given to competitors to send in offers to carry out the service then required, but in flagrant violation of that pledge, when the tenders were asked for only a month's notice was given. No new firm could possibly prepare to tender in so short a time as that. It appeared as if the Post Office intended to pursue the same tactics now. In 1885 and 1886 the same thing was done but in another way. The Post Office first of all asked for a tender for seven years, and when tenders were sent in they altered the proposed seven years' contract to a ten years' contract. But they gave no notice of the alteration to the various tenderers, and merely notified it to one—the P. and O. Company. They asked that Company to tender again for the ten years' service, and of course, in the circumstances, no competition was possible. In the present case there was only an interval of two years before the new service must commence. There were, no doubt, some difficulties in connection with the tenders for the Australian service, because the colonial governments joined with us in paying the subsidy; but there were no difficulties of the kind in connection with the Eastern service to India and China, because that was paid for exclusively by ourselves. The new contract, if it was to be for ten years, would involve a very heavy outlay. At present the P. and O. Company received £1,000 of public money daily for carrying the mails. The subject was one which ought to be referred at once to a Parliamentary Committee composed of business men. A Departmental Committee would be useless; in fact, nobody would dream of paying any attention to the decision of a Departmental Committee, considering the way in which the Department itself had behaved on former occasions. Allusion had been made to the black men employed in P. and O. steamers. These came from Abyssinia and various parts on the Red Sea, and were not British subjects. At the Post Office simple business matters were transacted in a way that made one think that the officials had no business knowledge at all, and their methods were very bad for the taxpayers. The action of the Post Office in the past had resulted in the, establishment of a monopoly for the benefit of the P. and O. Company, and unless the Department invited tenders now under reasonable conditions, that monopoly would be maintained. If tenders were asked for and submitted to a Committee, they would then feel satisfied that they had done all that they could do to secure the best service in the interests of the taxpayers. It was clear, from the expressions of opinion which had been heard that evening, that there was a good deal of sympathy, even on the opposite side of the House, with the grievances to which the hon. Member for Battersesa had drawn attention. There was good reason to believe that a large number of the, supporters of the Government took the view that the Fair Wages Resolution ought to apply to the seamen employed. The only way in which the Government could satisfy the Committee was by the appointment of a Committee. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to advertise for tenders at once, and to refer them to a Committee.

said, that Her Majesty's Government last year undertook to give £100,000 per annum for 20 years, or £2,000,000, to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company for carrying the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown. The House had practically no opportunity of considering the transaction, for the Post Office brought forward the Resolution sanctioning the contract just before the Dissolution, when most Members were away in their constituencies. The Department made a private bargain with the Company, saying, "We will give you £100,000 for 20 years for a particular service." He held that it would have been better to put a notice in the London Gazette, saying, "We are prepared to give £2,000,000 for this service, and we wait for offers from syndicates and steam ship companies. £100,000 a year—what offers?" That would have been the right thing to say. He recognised that the present service was adequate, and that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company's work under the contract was not open to criticism. A proper bargain, however, ought to have been made, and the transaction ought to have been conducted more in accordance with ordinary business methods. With regard to the employment of Lascars, he would remind the Committee that in a sailor pluck and courage were desirable. Something more was wanted than mere readiness to serve for eighteenpence a day. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury when they would have the accelerated service across the Channel, and also whether there was any reason why, in the meantime, the London and North Western Railway Company could not be induced to put on an accelerated service over the land portion of the journey? He did not see why the acceleration should be made to depend on the building of new ships. He trusted that the Government would press on the North Western Company the desirability of putting the acceleration into effect.

said, that as regarded the Fair Wages Resolution, he was entirely at ore with his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea; but questions of fair wages had nothing whatever to do with questions of nationality. He noticed with some concern that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet seized hold of the Fair Wages Resolution to bring in the question of the employment of foreign labour. His own opinion emphatically was that this question of fair wages had nothing in the world to do with the employment of foreign seamen, though, of course, administrative considerations might arise in connection with the subsidising of a great line of Mercantile Marine ships. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not say that those on his side of the House, at any rate, desired that the Government should embark on a policy of excluding in all its contracts the employment of any sort of foreign labour. At the same time he hoped it would be made perfectly clear that there was no disposition in the House of Commons to go back on the principle of the Fair Wages Resolution.

said, that in the first place he wished to disabuse the minds of hon. Members who had listened to the hon. Member for Battersea, with regard to one question—namely, that mixed crews were made use of from a motive of economy. He could assure the House that that was not the case. As a matter of fact, mixed crews were in reality considerably more costly than entirely European crews. The type of vessel which carried the mails to India or Australia, would carry upwards of 200 hands, about 220. Of that number upwards of 80 would be Europeans or Englishmen, and the balance would be composed entirely of Lascars or Africans.

Portuguese.

Are you including stewards?

Yes; stewards and engineers. The cost of such a crew would be actually greater than the cost of an entirely European crew, which, however, would of course be smaller in point of numbers. This matter had to be dealt with from the point of view of practicability, and those who had to deal with it were confronted with the fact that in navigating the Eastern seas European labour was by no means so efficient as that which was made use of. To show that what he said was not spoken without experience, he might mention that when the Company with which he was connected began to run their vessels through the Suez Canal, they manned their ships with European crews; and the reason why they abandoned that practice and took to employing mixed crews was that they found the European crew in the Indian and China seas were not nearly so efficient as they were in European waters. He did not say it would not be possible to secure efficient European crews in the case of ships navigating the Australian seas; but the reason why ships so engaged were run with mixed crews was that they could not be retained for service with one particular line, and must take their share in all the work the Company had to do. The experience of his Company with British seamen was very unfortunate, for it was by no means a rare thing, when first they began to run through the Suez Canal, for a ship to arrive at her destination, Calcutta for instance, with half her crew in gaol. If the House of Commons chose to pass a law to prevent the employment of Lascars, it would not be of the smallest consequence so far as his interests were concerned; but so far as the navigation of ships in the Eastern seas at a high rate of speed was concerned, it would be a matter of the greatest possible importance. He could not conceive how the House could possibly attempt to interfere with the employment of British subjects as sailors any more than as soldiers. He contended that the training of the Lascars was as good, if not better, than the great majority of men now employed in steam vessels. It was a well known fact in maritime history that when the Charter of the East India Company came to a close, the vast trade then existing, and which had increased so much now, fell into the hands of a class of vessel which was manned exclusively by Lascars; and the Company with which he was connected, when it first started on its very considerable enterprise in the Far East, obtained its whole staff from these ships. He trusted he would do no harm by thus stating what were the actual facts of the case—namely, that motives of economy had nothing whatever to do with the employment of Lascars, and that the system of entirely European crews had been tried and found unsuccessful.

said, that the House had the considerable advantage of hearing the expert opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and 0. Company on the employment of Lascars on board of the vessels of that Company, and he himself had had some practical experience on the subject. What he had said last night was that while the lines of steamers which ran through the Red Sea and which received State subsidies for the conveyance of our mails, should not be compelled to exclude Lascars or coolies from their crews, they should be required to give the British sailor a fair share of employment in consideration of their receiving such subsidies. He further said that the P. and O. Company, above all other companies, had no right to receive £1,000 a day, or £365,000 a year, from this country as a subsidy for the conveyance of the mails, which enabled them unfairly to compete with other companies in the same line of traffic who did not employ Lascars to the same extent that that company did. He could not understand why the P. and O. Company were, chartered libertines in that respect, unless it was that one Postmaster General in that House was a large shareholder in the Company, and that a noble Lord in the other House, a member of the Government, was another. Of course, it could scarcely be said, in the circumstances of the case, that those I we gentlemen were altogether disinterested in the question of the employment of Lascars on board of the Company's vessels. The hon. Member for Glasgow had very properly remarked that it was not right to allow contracts for the conveyance of the mails involving subsidies of front half to three-quarters of a million of money annually to be rushed through that House at half-past one o'clock in the morning without explanation and without notice. They should insist that all contracts for the mail service should be deposited upon the Table of the House for a certain time before they became binding, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of examining into their terms and conditions. He was convinced that if such a course had been followed in the case of this contract with the P. and O. Company, it would have not been entered into, and that Company would not have had the advantage, which they now possessed, over other companies who were more patriotic and who paid the British sailor higher wages than the. P. and O. Company did. He would deal with one of the points that had been put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and C). Company. That hon. Gentleman had said that Lascar seamen and mixed crews were not employed on the ground of economy. Then why were they employed at all? It could not be that they were employed on the ground of patriotism. He understood that it was the desire of the hon. Gentleman, other things being equal, to free the British sailor from the competition of the yellow man, and yet the hon. Gentleman said that Lascars were not employed on the ground of economy. The British sailors and stokers were certainly under the impression that the Lascars were employed because it was cheaper to employ them, but they had heard from the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and O. Company that night that that was not the case, and the hon. Gentleman had even gone further, and had said that the cost was greater in the case of mixed crews. On that point, however, the hon. Gentleman differed from the, opinion of every sailor and fireman in the kingdom, who believed that it was in consequence of the Company employing Lascars on board their vessels that they were enabled to tender at a lower price for the conveyance of the mails than other lines which did not employ Lascars to the same extent that the P. and O. Company did. But it was said that the Lascars were more efficient in the stoke holes than British stokers were. He had had the advantage of working in the engine room on board steamers in the Bed Sea with English, Scotch, and Irish stokers, and with Lascars and coolies, and the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and O. Company might talk until he was black in the face before he could make him believe that Lascars and coolies were more efficient in the stoke hole than white stokers were. The truth was that Lascars and coolies were not employed in the stoke hole—those who were employed there being known as "seedy boys," who came from the coast of Africa, and who were not British subjects. It was said that the crews of the P. and O. Company were mixed, being composed partly of Lascars and partly of Europeans. But what was the fact? They got their stokers from the, coast of Africa, and they got their stewards and waiters from Portuguese Goa, while they employed Lascars upon deck, and these men were employed because they worked at a cheaper rate than white men. He knew the three hottest places in the world from practical experience. One of them was the Straits of Malacca, another was Goree, which was separated from the nether kingdom only by a sheet of brown paper, and the third was the Red Sea in hot weather. Was it not an extraordinary thing, if the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and O. Company were correct, that British stokers and not Lascars were employed on board ships in the Straits of Malacca. It was found that white stokers stood the heat better than Lascars or coolies or "seedy boys" in the Red Sea, the coloured stokers being frequently drawn up from the stoke holes in buckets in a fainting state. British South African steamers running into Liverpool and round the Cape employed British stokers exclusively. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and O. Company had given his case away when he said that British sailors were now only exclusively employed on board ships conveying troops—why even that would not have been the case had it not been for the conditions of the Board of Trade certificate, because that Board required that English sailors should be employed when large numbers of troops were to be embarked. He, however, was willing that the British sailor should be on good terms with the British capitalist, and therefore he was willing to make a bargain with the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and O. Company. The hon. Gentleman had said that in 1874–5 the British sailor was demoralised to a large extent. He himself had always taken this line—namely, that when the British workman was in the wrong he had never attempted to shield him, but had pointed out to him the error of his ways. From 1871 to 1875 very high wages were paid in the Mercantile Marine, with the result that the British sailor, under the influence of the crimps and the boarding-house keepers, became the victim of spirits and syphilis, and in consequence was prevented from efficiently discharging his duty in hot climates. At the present time, however, those high wages had disappeared, and the consequence was that the men were more steady, more sober, and were better educated than they were in the years he had indicated. He, therefore, would ask the hon. Gentleman if there was no reason on the score of economy to employ Lascars on board the P. and O. Company's ships, not to exclude the Lascar altogether, but, in consideration of the subsidy which they received from the State, to give the British sailor a fair share of employment. He was glad that this subject had been discussed, not from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division of Kent, who was certainly not going to rope him into the Protectionist doctrine which he advocated, but on the ground of justice to both the British sailor and the Lascar and coolie. He thought he had proved that the spirit of the Fair Wages Resolution of that House had been evaded by the P. and O. Company to the detriment of the interests of the British sailor. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury not to be led away by the sophisms of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the P. and O. Company, and that he would not admit that

"Two sweaty Lascars, and one Portugee

Are not going to drive the British Sailor off the sea."

, replying first to the right hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. James Lowther), said no subsidies were paid to foreign lines. Letters carried by those lines were paid for at the rates fixed by the Postal Union Convention. Negotiations were going on to establish a fast Atlantic service between English and Irish ports and ports in Canada, and tenders were about to be invited by the Canadian Government. No definite arrangement had been come to as to subsidies. As to the complaint of the hon. Member for Wexford with regard to the contract with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of mails between Holyhead and Dublin, he reminded the hon. Member that the contract was entered into by the late Government. It was a private arrangement between the late Government and the company. He had always maintained that such contracts should be given out as publicly as possible. The hon. Member for Glasgow asked for a Committee to consider the giving out of mail contracts between this country and the East. The hon. Member said the present system took away all control over the contracts from the House of Commons, and that contracts ought to lie on the Table of the House.

, interposing, said his point was that the tenders when received should be submitted to a Committee of the House, which should consider them with the Post Office and settle the terms. His complaint was that the House knew nothing of the contracts until they were laid on the Table the night before they were voted on, and the Votes were taken in the middle of the night.

said, one of the hon. Member's complaints was that the contract for mails for the East was so often given to the P. and O. Company. The forms of tender had been the same for some years and must be known to the hon. Member. It should be known that effect could only be given to the mail contracts by a Resolution of the House, and therefore he did not see how the House could have greater control than it already possessed. With regard to the employment of Lascars, he was glad that the hon. Member for Battersea did not raise the question as one of prejudice against coloured races. The Government could not agree to the exclusion of coloured labour. He believed that no coolies were employed on the P. and O. boats, and as to Lascars, it would be unjust by any direct action to exclude from the privileges of the trade of the Empire men who were equally the fellow-subjects of the Crown with ourselves. The hon. Member for Battersea did not directly propose that Lascar labour should be excluded under the mail contracts, but the course he suggested would have the effect of excluding them indirectly. It was said that they worked for lower wages than Englishmen would. But they were kept and fed all the year round instead of being discharged at the end of a voyage as English sailors were. Because they were not paid exactly the same wages as English sailors, were they to be excluded from the benefits of the service? They were of entirely different race, habits, and mode of life, and therefore they could not be treated as Englishmen might be who received less than the current rate of wages paid to Englishmen. The hon. Member based his case on the Fair Wages Resolution of the House. But it was a little doubtful how far Lascar seamen were affected by that Resolution. The railways of the country received heavy subsidies as well as the mail packet service, and if the Fair Wages Resolution was to be applied to every service in any way subsidised or paid by the Government it must be applied to the railways of the kingdom. If they were to deal with this question from the point of view of the Fair Wages Resolution, how would it work out? The vessels started in one direction from England and in the other from India, and the English sailors (if any) were no doubt paid the wages current in their trade. The point was whether the wages current in the trade in England should apply to men starting from India and who were natives of India. If that were done, it must shut out all the latter from employment in this service. Would it be fair in this way indirectly to exclude their British fellow-subjects? ["Hear, hear!"] They must recollect, too, that a large portion of this subsidy—namely, something like £72,000 —and, therefore, a large part of the wages of the sailors, was paid by India. In these circumstances, it would not be fair to lay down a rule which would shut out of the service of these vessels their fellow-subjects in the Indian Empire. ["Hear, hear!"] He had been asked how it was that the P. and O. Company often got these contracts. He believed they were open contracts, and the P. and O. Company got them because they were the most efficient and sent in the cheapest tenders. A sort of hint had been given of malignant influences being brought to bear to enable the contracts to be given to the P. and O. Company. He was not aware of any influence of the kind, and he did not believe any such influence existed. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggested that these contracts should be divided among all the companies running to the East. He thought that would be an expensive process. If they had open contracts, they were entitled to give the preference to the lowest tender, provided the service offered was efficient. It would be neither to the interest of the public service nor to that of economy to do as the hon. Member suggested and subsidise all the steamboat lines. ["Hear, hear!"] He had answered all the points that had been raised, and he appealed to the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken.

observed that there was one point upon which the Secretary to the Treasury had been silent in his reply, and that was as regarded the military argument. No doubt it was not the right hon. Gentleman's business; but it was the business of the House, and the First Lord of the Admiralty ought to be consulted on the matter in that respect before the tenders were settled. The country had a reserve of really good British seamen, only in the passenger lines, which were very largely mail contract companies. The Cunard and other lines running across the Atlantic, and great lines such as the Orient, were the homes of good British seamen, and the nominal force of British sailors in the world was merely a nominal force except as far as these great companies were concerned. They were told they had great numbers of British seamen, but the numbers included stewards and all classes of people and even loafers. He believed he himself had once figured in these returns, because if a passenger travelled by a steamer which was not a passenger steamer, he was bound before he could so travel to ship as a member of the crew. He knew that on one occasion a distinguished Times correspondent, Miss Shaw, had been borne as a British seaman because she had to ship in a non-passenger steamer in travelling to a distant part of the world. The real reserve of British seamen was to be found in the great passenger lines. As regarded the further East where, undoubtedly, they might need many of these fast cruisers suddenly in the time of war, they would have to face the Messageries steamers, which were manned almost exclusively by French men-of-war men. He was bound to say, with all respect to the very high qualities of Lascar crews, that they could not look to a Lascar crew to man one of their fast steamers in time of war so as to enable her to compete on equal terms with French steamers manned by men-of-war men. The officers of the mail carrying steamers in most cases belonged to the Naval Reserve, but the crews under them were composed of Lascars. The Chairman of the P. and O. talked about mixed crews. They were not mixed in the usual sense of the word. The Europeans on board were the officers and the quartermasters, but there were no European seamen on board the ships at all which were manned by Lascars. He hoped before the contracts were renewed some arrangement would be come to between the Admiralty, the Board of Trade and the Treasury as to what, in future, should be the composition of their crews. He quite agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury, it was impossible to make any rule excluding Lascars, and no doubt this matter would be settled by a compromise of some kind on that head. But when the Secretary to the Treasury suggested that the P. and O. got these contracts, as against the Orient Line, because they were cheaper, then he had to reply that that cheapness was affected by the extent to which the P. and O. relied on exclusively Lascar crews, and the military argument was one which, in this connection, ought not to be excluded.

observed that the Secretary to the Treasury had not, in his reply, stated, so far as the different companies were concerned, that the P. and O. got the particular contract after competition with opposing companies.

I believe that is so.

hoped that they would hear, before the Debate closed, whether the right hon. Gentleman adhered to that statement, and that it was not a matter of private influence and private arrangement. Another point was whether it was desirable that Lascars should be so employed. There was a very curious contradiction between the statement of the hon. Member for Greenock and that of the Secretary to the Treasury. The former said it was not on the ground of economy these men were employed, but the right hon. Gentleman on following entirely threw over the hon. Member and said that undoubtedly there was economy in this matter, and that the Lascars were cheaper.

explained that his statement was that on these ships a far larger number of Lascars were employed than if the ships were manned by European seamen; and that the total amount of wages paid on one of the steamers manned by a mixed crew was larger in twelve months than if it were manned exclusively by Europeans.

observed that after this explanation he could not, he was afraid, alter the view he had expressed. The hon. Member said the employment of these men was not defended on the ground of economy, while the right hon. Gentleman said that undoubtedly the wages paid to them were less in proportion than those given to British seamen. The right hon. Gentleman wisely said that as India contributed a certain amount of the subsidy it would be unfair to prohibit the employment of natives of India. Quite so, but as the right hon. Gentleman was willing to pay some deference to the opinion of India in the matter, why did he not carry out that view with regard to Australia? Whilst Australia contributed her proportion in the same way as India, the Australian people complained that their workmen were practically prevented from being employed on board these steamers. He thought there was a still more important view of this question, which was that the Secretary to the Treasury in a Conservative Government returned as the representatives and champions of British labour, should give a special pleading in favour of the employment of Lascars, because he could not come to any other conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman did not give one hint that this subject would be reconsidered or that anything would be done when the contracts came to be considered. Thus they had the Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists, who in every constituency throughout the country issued bills containing the words "British Seamen, British Boilers, British Ships," when a question was raised affecting British seamen remaining silent in this great cause.

I distinctly stated that coolies were not employed, that all these were British subjects, and I am not aware of any Member on this side having said anything against putting our fellow British subjects in India in possession of a share of privileges which we enjoy.

said that he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Battersea did not claim that an undue exception should be made on behalf of British seamen, but what he asked was that an undue preference should not be given to Lascars simply because they worked for less wages than did British seamen. It was not a question of preference. All they asked was that they should have fair consideration in this matter. They had not only not had fair consideration, but they had not had anything approaching it. He was told that, so far as the P. and O. were concerned, two-thirds of the men employed were actually Lascars; and here they were asked to vote a sum, some £360,000 of which went to this Company, without a word of promise from the representative of the Government that this matter was going to receive attention. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division, and then they would see how some of the hon. Members opposite who, thoughout the country increased their majorities and won seats on a "British platform," would vote on this particular matter.

said he could inform the hon. Gentleman at once how he should vote. If the hon. Member for Battersea went to a Division, he should vote against him. He was sorry that for the first time for a great many years an effort should be made from the opposite side of the House to import Party spirit and Party considerations into purely a question of administration. He was not at all afraid to meet the hon. Gentleman fairly and squarely on the issue he had raised. So far as he knew it had never been one of the planks of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist platform that they should seek to exclude from employment by the State the subjects of any portion of Her Majesty's dominions. It had been, perhaps almost exclusively, the doctrine of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Party to advocate Imperial interests as distinguished from anything which would tend to disruption and separation. If there was any Vote in respect of which special consideration should be given to Lascars, surely it was the Vote for that particular Company—in which he was not directly or indirectly peculiarity interested—which had done so much, by the improvement of the communication between the Indian Empire and the United Kingdom, to better the lot of the hundreds of millions of Her Majesty's Indian subjects. He understood his right hon. Friend to say spontaneously that, although they could not, should not, and would not consent to the exclusion of Lascar labour, they did recognise that the subjects from the Australian colonies should receive their due share of employment on the lines engaged in those services. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had instituted a comparison between the Orient line and the P. and O., but he did not seem to know that the Orient line carried no mails to India; while the P. and O. not only carried mails to India, but a large portion of the mails for Australia were carried on those vessels which were destined for Calcutta and Bombay. On the general question, he would like to say that he thought it was a little dangerous, quite apart from the question of Lascars or British seamen, for the Government of this country to interfere too much in matters of administration between employers and employed. These subjects should be left to the contracting parties. He believed the duty of the Government was to let their contract on terms most advantageous to the British taxpayer, having regard to all the considerations which surrounded the granting of those contracts.

said he thought he was entitled to correct one or two statements which the right hon. Gentleman had attributed to him. He said that he had complained of the contract being given many times to the P. and O. On the contrary, he did not complain of that at all; though he said that, if there had been complete competition, it was very likely that the P. and O. would have secured the contract. What he did complain of was that, in giving out contracts in 1877 and 1885, the Postal authorities had totally disregarded the recommendation of the only Committee of this House, and even considered the question, which was that ample notice and full particulars of the terms and conditions of the service required should be given to the public as being the means most likely to secure real competition by responsible parties. The right hon. Gentleman furnished them with another case, for he stated that a private arrangement was entered into between the Government and the Holy-head and Kingstown steamers just before the House rose last June.

The hon. Member is not entitled to repeat over again statements which he made a short time ago, or the statements which were made by another hon. Member. If the hon. Member has any fresh light to throw on the subject, he is entitled to detain the House.

said, he was merely mentioning that as an illustration, given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, in support of the very complaint he made that there had been no proper competition before. The other complaint he made was of the absence of opportunity, and the right hon. Gentleman himself stated, without giving any particulars, that a few days ago advertisements were inserted asking for tenders. Would he tell them what those tenders were for? In reference to the observation of the hon. Gentleman opposite about Party feeling, he would remind him that he had distinctly stated that he had had as much to say about those who sat below him as those who sat on the other side. He was only complaining of no proper competition being possible, because the Government in previous years had not sent out their notices in time to give all the different companies and interests the opportunity of tendering for the mail service.

said, he quite agreed with what fell from his right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, that they should do nothing to prevent the employment of all British subjects in every part of the Empire, whatever their colour might be, but he should have been glad to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury a rather more emphatic declaration that the Government would do all they possibly could to discourage the employment of foreign—that was, non-British—labour upon mail steamers receiving Government subsidies. This was not a question entirely confined to the employment of Lascars, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) showed when he brought forward the case of the Naval Reserve. It was of great importance that ships receiving a subsidy as Naval Reserve steamers should be manned by British sailors. He held in his hand a Return which showed that last year 10,000 foreign sailors arrived at eastern ports, and found employment on British ships. This showed that the Government ought to do all they possibly could to discourage the employment of foreign labour upon vessels with which they were connected, and it also showed emphatically the necessity of dealing with this subject on a broader basis, and of the Government introducing their Alien Bill as soon as possible.

said, that in the Debate on this Vote dealing with mail packet service one part of the British Empire had escaped consideration altogether—Mauritius and its dependencies. The mail service with Mauritius was at present a monopoly of the Messageries Maritimes Company, which was subsidised to the extent of £6,000 a year by the colony, in addition to the large subsidy which it received from the French Government. At present the postal service was by no means of a satisfactory character, and he wished to know whether arrangements could not be made between the British Government and the Legislature of the Mauritius, with a view to improving, in the first place, the postal service, and in the second place to securing the employment of a larger proportion of British vessels in the transmission of the mails in question.

said, he should like to know exactly what the Committee were going to divide upon if a Division was to be challenged. If they were to divide on the question of the entire exclusion of Lascars from the crews of the mail packets, then he could not support the reduction of the Vote. After the representations, however, that had been made to the Government in the course of the Debate that had taken place, he could not see any advantage in dividing the Committee on the Vote.

understood that the hon. Member for Battersea discouraged the employment upon mail steamers of persons who were not born in the United Kingdom. For his own part, he only desired to discourage the employment of persons who were not British subjects, and further than that he could not go.

explained that his motive for moving the reduction of the Vote was that in the subsidised mail packets equal service did not receive equal pay, irrespective of nationality, and that the Fair Wages Resolution passed by the House of Commons was not observed in connection with the Government mail contracts.

put the Vote, and declared in favour of the "Ayes."

No, no, Sir. We challenge the Vote on this side. Besides, I think it would be unfair and unsatisfactory if a Vote on an important matter like this could be shuffled through in such a way. ["Cries of" Order!"] I moved a reduction of £100——

The hon. Member is in error. No reduction has been moved at all. I put the Vote and gathered the voices from both sides, and there were no "Noes," upon which I declared that the "Ayes" had it. ["Hear, hear!"]

Last night I moved the reduction of the Vote by £100. You accepted that Motion; the Debate upon it has been continued, and I respectfully submit that the "Noes" did challenge a Division. [Cries of "No, no!"]

But the Amendment which the hon. Member moved last night lapsed in the ordinary course. It was not repeated to-day, and I again say that when I called upon the "Noes" there was no voice against the Motion, and therefore I was compelled to say the "Ayes" had it.

On a point of order, Sir, I apprehend that we continued the discussion to-day on the Amendment. I think it was generally understood that a Division would be taken on the reduction of the Vote, and I submit that that Division should now be taken. [Loud cries of "No, no!"] Well, then, if I am permitted, I will further move that the Vote be reduced by £50.

The hon. Member cannot move that, as the Vote has been passed. The discussion to-day has not been on any Amendment, but upon the whole Vote. The question now before the Committee is that a sum not exceeding £2,009,281 be granted to defray the charges in respect of the salaries and working expenses of the Post Office Telegraph service.

said, he had one or two points to raise on this Vote. The first had reference to the exemptions granted to shepherds in respect of their dogs. He understood that in some Welsh counties the Inland Revenue officers exercised their discretion with considerable leniency, in fact, sometimes they were too lenient. In Cardiganshire, however, the case was exactly the reverse. There were a number of small cottiers there who were able to keep a few sheep and one or two cows, and they were just the men in whose cases a great deal of leniency ought to be exercised. They could not afford to employ a manservant, or even a boy, and their cattle and sheep strayed unless they kept a dog to watch them. As a rule, the men were employed away from home during the day, and the wives had to depend entirely upon dogs to keep the cows and sheep from straying on the neighbouring farms. It was formerly the practice to grant exemptions in such cases, but within the last few months prosecutions had been instituted against the cottiers for not taking out licences. The magistrates, who were thoroughly acquainted with all the circumstances, refused to convict, and the Inland Revenue officers appealed. The view they took was that the magistrates had no discretion, but were bound to convict. The Divisional Court who heard the appeal upheld that view. He did not think legal expenses ought to be incurred, in order to enforce such a very stringent view of the law as was taken by the officers. Those officers, he thought, ought to have accepted the view of the magistrates, who were perfectly competent to judge of the whole circumstances. Upon the next point he feared he would have to move a reduction of the Vote. He found that there were three central Inland Revenue Offices, one in London, another in Edinburgh, and another in Dublin. He thought there ought to be a central office for the Principality of Wales. He did not raise the question for purely sentimental reasons, though they would appeal to him, but he did so on grounds of general convenience. He found that the Welsh counties were not getting their fair share of the excise and probate grants, indeed, his hon. Friend the Member for the Flint Boroughs, had gone carefully through the [figures, and he estimated that the Welsh counties had been deprived annually of as much as £60,000, which really ought to be allocated to them. That was attributable to the fact that there was no central office to attend to the interests of the Principality. At present probate grants and excise revenue which was really derived from Wales was allocated to England. He did not think there was anything of the nature of national prejudice, or that the English officers had wilfully done anything to injure the Welsh counties, but he thought there ought to be an office in Wales to see that fair play was meted out to Wales in this respect. Owing to one reason or another, the Welsh counties were deprived of £60,000 a year of grants in aid, and that had been going on ever since the Act of 1888, and the sum which ought to be paid over amounted to £480,000. That was a substantial grievance, and he could only attribute it to the fact that there was no office to protect the Welsh counties, to see that the proper sums were allocated to those counties. The change would be a simple one, and could be brought about, he believed, at, on the whole, an expenditure of £500 or £1,000 a year. It would he a great convenience, for it would save coming up to London over matters which could be dealt with by correspondence. They had now these offices in Dublin and Edinburgh, and he did not think that it developed any dangerous Separatist tendencies, or proved destructive to the integrity of the Empire. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would meet their request. The hon. Member then moved to reduce the Vote under Sub-head A by £400.

desired to instance the case of a man who claimed exemption from the dog tax on the ground that the dog was used not for his pleasure but agricultural purposes. The Inland Revenue made inquiry into his case, and in consequence of that inquiry he was required to take out a licence. Of course, all they could discuss was matters of administration, but he could not conceive how, under the existing law, it would be right to compel a man to take out a licence in respect of a dog which was used for farm purposes alone. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not go into this particular question alone. It was one of wide and general application, and he hoped he would go into the question as a whole, for the state of the law in this respect was not satisfactory. He was not making any harsh complaint of the officers, because they felt that they were simply doing their duty, but he hoped that in such matters the law would not be administered in any harsh spirit. With regard to the other question raised by his hon. Friend, the subject was discussed four or five years ago in connection with the appointment of the Committee on the financial relations between England and Wales. It was then shown that it was possible to keep accounts showing how much was received and how much was expended in connection with Wales. He had gone carefully into the figures, and without troubling the Committee at any length, he might say that the conclusion at which he arrived was that Wales, out of £6,000,000 grants in aid to England and Wales, received £209,000, whereas, according to population alone, Wales ought to receive £389,000. Therefore, since 1888 Wales had lost a sum not falling far short of half a million sterling. In the discussion in 1888 this was actually foretold. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take this into his consideration.

said, with regard to the first point, the dog licence, the only thing they had to consider was a question of administration. He gathered that there was no complaint with regard to any particular officer. The only complaint was that the law was differently interpreted by different officers in different parts of the country. Of course, if that was proved, it was a charge which ought to be met. But there was no evidence of that produced. The complaint was, he believed, that the law had been interpreted in a different way in different localities. If the hon. Member had any further points in connection with this matter which he would like to bring to his attention he would see that they were brought properly before the Department. In regard to the plea for a central office of Inland Revenue for Wales, it was argued in justification that Wales had not had its fair share of the probate and other grants. He was not able then to go into the details, but, if the hon. Member would bring his facts before him, he would have a careful inquiry made into them. He would point out, however, that there had always been some doubt as to which was the real capital of Wales, and he thought it would have been much better if the hon. Member had given his suggestion some practical form. He was not so sure whether under such an arrangement the separate counties of Wales would be any better off than they were at present, nor was he so sure that if a place were selected in South Wales, such as Cardiff, the population of North Wales might not object to it. They often heard in that House strong distinctions drawn between North and South Wales. The hon. Member had really given no practical shape to his suggestion, and the argument which had been used might be put forward, perhaps, more strongly on behalf of a central office in Cornwall. If the hon. Member for Flintshire would supply him with the facts, he would be willing to ascertain whether Wales had suffered any injustice in the past, and, if so, to remedy that injustice in the future, but he did not think the suggested step would be a practical remedy for such a grievance as had been complained of.

said that if the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter as he had promised he would find that there were serious complaints as to the harshness displayed by the Revenue Departments towards some of the poorer farmers. He was certain that the statement of his hon. Friend was right in every respect, and that Wales had been deprived of a sum of £60,000 a year. How long was this to go on? He thought the time had come when their constituents would insist on something being done to stop it. There was such a thing as national sentiment in Wales, and that had been outraged. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to accept the suggestion which had been made, instead of pleading a non possumus.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to give them a more satisfactory reply on both the points which they had raised. Their case in regard to the first point was that the officer did not interpret his duty according to the spirit of the Act of Parliament, and that he ought to have granted an exemption to these shepherds. Their complaint was not based on their belief as to what had happened, but on the evidence given before the magistrates by the Inland Revenue officers and the cottiers themselves. Repeated instances of this nature had occurred. It appeared that the practice of the Inland Revenue officers had been to allow the shepherds to keep the dogs without making any complaint, until the officer in question suddenly, about a year ago, refused these exemptions. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would grant an exemption to these men. As to the question of a central office, the right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no capital for Wales. That was a question which the Inland Revenue could surely settle for themselves, and they could decide which was the best centre from their point of view. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a considerable distinction was drawn between North and South Wales; but they never heard of these distinctions except from the other side of the House, and he was not aware that they had ever been drawn by a Conservative Member even who represented a Welsh constituency. If Cardiff were selected as the centre by the Inland Revenue, there would be no objection from the north of Wales. He spoke as representing a northern constituency in the Principality. They knew that the largest revenue was derived from Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, both of which counties were near to Cardiff, and there would be no grumbling from any part of North Wales if Cardiff were suggested. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. He felt it his duty to carry his protest to a Division. When the question of the financial relations of the different parts of the kingdom was discussed in 1891, one of the objections made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extension of the Inquiry to Wales was, that there were no means of ascertaining what amount of revenue was derived from the Principality. For Ireland the revenue and expenditure were ear- marked, and the same observation was applicable to Scotland; but Wales had no separate account, and the amount of Probate and Excise duty received from Wales could not be stated. That surely was an answer to justify the claim put forward now. If it was impossible to earmark the revenue of the Principality because practically there was no separate administrative office for the collection of the revenues of the Principality, then he suggested this should be a preliminary to an Inquiry into the financial relations between England and Wales.

said the Welsh counties were quite able to take care of their own interests, and endeavours had been made to obtain a joint conference of Welsh County Councils, but the Local Government Board had always opposed this proposition. If the eight hon. Gentleman would use his influence to remove this objection of the Local Government Board, no doubt a conference could be arranged, and the Welsh counties would present their case fully and effectively. Meantime, all that Welsh Members could do was to bring forward this question, and protest as strongly as possible against a continuance of the present state of things.

said he took the opportunity of bringing forward a somewhat small question, which he had already brought to the notice of the Secretary to the Treasury privately, and he had been very courteously met by the right hon. Gentleman. The point was this: A licence to sell game could not, according to the present state of the law, be held by a retailer of drink. He agreed, of course, that it was perfectly right that a keeper of a public house should not sell game, but what constituted a grievance was that when a man held a grocers licence and could sell almost everything else, he was prohibited, from the fact of his retailing drink, from dealing in game. That undoubtedly was the interpretation of the law, but what some of his constituents desired to press was, that the Treasury should take into consideration whether the law should be relaxed or altered to meet what was felt to be a grievance. If it was not considered desirable that a man should sell game and retail drink at the same time, then he ventured to suggest that a man holding a grocer's licence might be allowed to deal in game wholesale, not selling game over the counter, but acting as the agent of those who had game to dispose of, supplying others who wished to sell retail. Or, again, he suggested that a man holding a grocer's license might be permitted to sell game provided that he carried on the business upon separate premises from his drink trade. He did not expect an answer now, but he submitted the suggestions to the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to a modification of the law to meet cases of hardship that sometimes arose.

asked why the Vote was taken out of its regular order? The Votes were usually taken in the order in which they were printed, and to take them out of their order in this way, without full notice, was inconvenient to Members.

said, he stated the reason for the alteration to the Committee last night, and no objection was raised. The reason was that it was necessary to start some buildings as soon as possible, and of course that could not be done until the House passed the Vote. Besides, this was one of the Votes that were generally passed without discussion.

said, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory so far as he was concerned. But as the point had been raised, he desired to emphasise the desirability of a day's notice being given, if possible, of the Votes to be taken, for otherwise Members might come down to speak on some particular Vote they thought would be taken, and find that other Votes occupied the whole evening.

said, such notice was given. In order to oblige hon. Gentlemen who had made representations to him that it was desirable to proceed without delay with the building of certain local post offices, he agreed to take Post Office Building Votes out of the regular order.

desired to say, as he had raised the point, that he thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman perfectly satisfactory.

said, that the contractor of some new works in connection with the General Post Office, London, had failed, and the Board of Works, without having obtained the sanction of the Treasury, employed workmen and went on with the buildings, exceeding the original estimate of the work by thousands of pounds, instead of entering into a contract in the usual way. He thought there ought to be some explanation of the circumstance.

said, there was nothing in this year's Estimates on account of those buildings, the money for them having been voted last year.

said, he noticed that a rent of £90 was paid for the Probate Registry Office at Bangor. He thought that was rather a high rent for such a small town, and would like to know by whom it was fixed, and to whom it was paid. A rent of £50 only was paid for a similar office at St. Asaph.

said, that that was a matter of detail, in regard to which he had no information; but he could give the hon. Gentleman an explanation either personally or on Report.

No, no!

said, the hon. Member for Battersea naturally objected to that suggestion. He would probably like to have the Welsh, Scotch, and Irish people pay all the rates of London.

No.

said, that those Royal palaces and gardens were places of popular resort for the people of London, and therefore the people of London ought to pay for them, just as the people of Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, and the other large towns paid for their parks and museums. He could not see, either, why the cost of maintaining Marlborough House should be placed on the taxation of the country. The country paid enormous sums of money to the Prince of Wales, and he did not see why the country should have to pay £2,000 a year also for maintaining his house. The Prince of Wales ought to do what every gentleman had to do—maintain his own house out of his own pocket.

said, that he did not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down, in his remarks about the maintenance of Marlborough House from public funds. He thought the Prince of Wales had quite as good a title to be well housed as any other member of the Royal Family. Indeed, he had a better title, because he did more work. But at the same time he must protest, as he had always protested in previous years, against the increased expenditure for alterations.

said, that on Tuesday last he went down to Hampton Court Palace, in which he took an artistic interest, in order to obtain information for criticising this Vote. He found that there was an increase in the cost of maintenance to £9,700 from £8,800, and if that money were going to be spent on the repair of this ancient and beautiful structure, he trusted that the æsthetic tendencies of the First Commissioner of Works would prevent any vandal architect from making restorations which would render the original building unrecognisable, and that the alterations would be effected in harmony with the rest of the building. ["Hear, hear!"] An "improvement" had been made in the stables of the Hussars, which opened up a very unsightly and offensive receptacle for refuse. That detail might be attended to. Just in the entrance arch to the palace there was the shop of a greengrocer and florist. That could not be an attraction; and he wished to know how that greengrocer obtained the right to open a shop there—whether he paid any rent. Could not the First Commissioner of Works give that greengrocer immediate notice to quit with 10 per cent. compensation? ["Hear, hear!"] In the gardens there were a number of outbuildings and club-houses—apparently used for golf. Why were these allowed to impair the beauty of the gardens? And why had the Duc de Nemours been allowed to enclose from the public some 10 or 15 acres of beautiful lawn? By the gates of the palace there were several refreshment stalls. If these stalls were allowed to enjoy so favourable a position, why was not some supervision exercised over the price of the refreshments? Hampton Court was more and more becoming the resort of the poorest of Londoners on Easter Monday; and yet they were charged 2d. a glass for milk at these refreshment, stalls at the palace gates, when the charge was only 1d. in St. James's Park, or even in Bond Street. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that as to the general objections of the hon. Member for Carnarvon to the Royal palaces being paid for by the country, he could only remind the hon. Member that all these arrangements were made at the commencement of the reign, and that it was impossible now to change them. As to the increase for new works, the chief reason for it was the new pumping power and main for improving the water supply to Windsor Castle. This work was absolutely necessary. The present water supply at Windsor Castle was very inadequate, especially for protection from fire. It would be remembered that this was one of the finest national monuments in the country, and it was necessary to maintain proper provision against its being injured by fire. There was no increased Vote in respect of Marlborough House. The Vote was £210,000, the same as was asked for last year. The arrangement under which the country was called upon to pay for this was rather different from that which governed Windsor Castle and the other buildings. In August, 1878, the Government decided, having regard to the great expenditure incurred by the Prince of Wales on Marlborough House, that in future the cost of ordinary maintenance and repair should be cast upon the Votes. The expenditure was not excessive and was easily justifiable. The grievance to which the hon. Member for Battersea had called attention with regard to the refreshment caterer at Hampton Court he should certainly inquire into, and he would not allow it to remain unless he found, as possibly he might, that the man had acquired a right, and that it was impossible to deal with him at once. He had himself taken great interest in seeing that the food and refreshments sold in public parks and gardens over which he had jurisdiction should reach the people as cheaply as possible. The other points to which the hon. Member had called attention would also receive his careful attention. He had authorised the erection of a golf club-house at Bushey Home Park, but he had taken the greatest care that it should be placed in a position where it would be as little seen as possible, that it was of a sightly description, and should be easily moved if necessary.

suggested that when the House rose for Whit Monday, the First Commissioner and himself might ride round Richmond Park and Kew Gardens together, with any other Members who might like to form a small break party, and observed that by doing so they might subsequently save the House a great deal of time. If the First Commissioner of Works were to go down to Hampton Court Palace and Kew Gardens and other places, he would see with regret that some of the occupants of the Royal palaces had built a stable here, an outhouse there, or additional quarters for servants at another place, without any regard whatever to the architectural surroundings of that which they got rent free.

complained of the charge of 6d. made for admission to Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh; and contended that it was an indefensible thing that while places like Hampton. Court Palace were open free, the State should exact a charge for visiting Holyrood.

pointed out that Holyrood was open three days a week free, and that the charge only applied to the other days.

said, that was the very point of the grievance, because many of the trades and other holidays were on the very days when the charge was put in force. What advantage was it to a man whose only holiday was a Wednesday, to say that Holyrood was open free on Saturday? He would move a reduction of the Vote by £32, the salary of the man who issued the tickets of admission, unless he got a satisfactory assurance on the subject.

did not object to the expenditure on Windsor Castle and other buildings, but contended that it ought to be placed on the rates of the particular locality.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he would promise that no charge would be made as to admission into Holyrood?

said, that he could not make any definite promise, but he would consider the point between now and next year.

said, that in order to make his protest effective, he would move to reduce the Vote by £32.

said, that a Motion had already been made to reduce the whole sum.

said he would then move to reduce the whole Vote by £100.

pointed out that in so much as the hon. Gentleman said that he dealt with a particular item, he did not think that he ought to put the reduction just moved. The hon. Member could Divide in respect of the whole Vote.

commented on the objectionable nature of these admission charges, pointing out that the revenue earned was not in proportion to the inconvenience inflicted on the public.

asked whether a kiosk was to be erected in Hyde Park?

said, that there was an item in the Estimates for the erection of a kiosk in Hyde Park. The sum asked for was £1,400. The kiosk would be placed somewhere near the band-stand. It would be an improvement and its erection was generally approved. He had thought right to defer choosing a site until the House should have sanctioned the expenditure. To the hon. Member for Carnarvon he must point out that all these parks were Royal parks. They were not parks under the control of local authorities. These Royal parks were used by the inhabitants of the whole kingdom, and any attempt to burden the ratepayers of London with the cost of their maintenance would meet with very great opposition.

contended that this was a question of principle. In justice to the country generally the expenses of these Royal parks ought to be borne by the towns where they were situated. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to meet the objection of the hon. Member for Carnarvon by repeating the legal fiction that these parks were Royal parks. Of course they were once Royal parks, but they had been surrendered to the nation, and he had no doubt that in some form or other the nation had given a quid pro quo for them. There was no good reason why they should not be treated as belonging to the towns in or near which they happened to be. This question had been raised year after year, and he trusted that it would be raised anew in the future in spite of the fact that the old school of Radicals who objected to this kind of expenditure had, he feared, disappeared to a great extent.

complained of the unreasonable extent to which the general public of the country were compelled to pay for parks for the benefit of the people of London. He would like to know on what ground a park like Battersea was kept up out of local rates, while Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens were kept up out of Imperial taxation. There were public parks kept up in towns like Liverpool and Glasgow for the benefit of the inhabitants out of the local rates. The First Commissioner argued that people used the parks when they came up to London from the provinces. So they did when they went to Paris; and if Londoners went to provincial towns they used the parks in them, but they were not asked to pay anything. If all the parks in the country were kept up out of Imperial taxation, the right hon. Gentleman's argument would apply. If the people of Battersea kept up their own local park, why should they be called upon to pay towards the maintenance of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens for the benefit of a wealthier section of the community? He thought it was unfair to the provinces, that they should have to keep up their own parks and also to contribute to the maintenance of these Royal parks. Therefore he should support the reduction that had been moved.

sincerely trusted that this question would not be approached in the narrow and somewhat pettifogging spirit displayed by some provincial Members. He would point out that Scotland was a particular sinner in this respect, as the palaces of Holyrood and Linlithgow were kept up out of Imperial taxation; but they were used in the same way as Hampton Court. One of the few good things this country had got from Royalty was the excellent Royal domains and gardens which had been handed over to the people. Objection had been taken to Kew. Surely that could not be construed as a local park or gardens! The main object of Kew Gardens was to promote classes in botany and other scientific subjects, and it would be unfair to impose on a small village like Kew the up-keep of gardens which were devoted to national purposes. He agreed that Battersea Park was a local park, but Hyde Park was the centre of an Imperial city, where foreigners and provincials could go and enjoy themselves, and, therefore, it ought to be provided for out of Imperial funds. £10,000 a year was devoted to Battersea Park, but the Office of Works did not hand over the £12,000 or £14,000 which they derived from ground rents, a property which was formerly a part of the park. If he were asked to vote, say £8,000 of these ground rents, for a museum, or some institution of the sort, for Cardiff or Carnarvon, so as to teach the rising generation in Wales to hold a more generous spirit on matters of Imperial taxation, he should be delighted to do so, if it would remove the darkness that prevailed in gallant little Wales. He trusted that hon. Members would not impose on London the disadvantage of always having to pay out of its local pocket for things which were used nationally, and should be regarded as the first objects of National Expenditure. He appealed to the hon. Member who had moved the reduction, not to cast discredit on the nation to which he belonged by wasting the time of the House in taking Votes against what were really Imperial institutions.

regretted that he could not agree with his hon. Friend, though he would be perfectly willing to base his Motion on the speech he had just made. With regard to Kew Gardens, he had not moved any reduction in that case. Kew Gardens could be fairly described as a National institution. He had never objected to that. His reduction was simply moved in respect of the Royal parks, which did not serve any national purpose that he could see. His hon. Friend had referred to the provincial Members as narrow and pettifogging. He might quite as well say, "you have got a great city here and how very narrow you are not to keep up botanical gardens and places of that kind, for the benefit of poor people who live in Carnarvonshire." He contended that inasmuch as these gardens and parks served only for the enjoyment, of Londoners, London ought to pay for them. Hon. Members opposite were asking for £100,000 a year, not for the purpose of maintaining the Royal parks and pleasure grounds, but to gratify their prejudices against the London County Council.

said that the provinces had had not only to provide their own parks, but to maintain them, whereas London, who had her parks given her, now asked for £100,000 a year to keep them up.

referred to the item in the Vote for the cost of policing Hyde Park, and suggested that as a compromise it should be borne municipally and not imperially. The amount was only between £7,000 and £8,000, and, having regard to the fact that the rest of the country paid for the policing of the parks, it was only just that London should pay for the cost on this head for Hyde Park.

expressed the hope that the First Commissioner of Works would see that Linlithgow Palace was kept in a proper state of preservation.

said, he hoped the hon. Member who had raised the question of the cost of policing of Hyde Park would not press the matter to a Division. They had divided two or three times already on exactly the same question. The police looked after the parks under an arrangement that was made years ago, and the proposal of the hon. Member was one which he was really not prepared to consider. In reply to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, he had to say that, as a Scotchman, he was himself much interested in the preservation of Linlithgow Palace, and he would take every care that the recommendations of the hon. Member were, as far as possible, carried out.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could see his way to ornament the terrace of the House with a number of orange trees or rubber plants from Kew Gardens.

said, the question of the hon. Member was one which he had been considering. The same point was put to him a little time ago by another hon. Member, and he promised then to consider it. He was doing so, and he would see how far he could meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.

said, he observed on the Estimates a certain expenditure on the ventilation of the House. Though he held that this was about the best ventilated building in the world, nothing was so perfect that it could not be made better, and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could justify the expenditure. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them in detail what he had done, and he was quite sure the House would approve what he had done. He saw an item of £100 on the Estimates for the frescoes. He should like to ask how this money was to be expended. He was very glad indeed to think that the right hon. Gentleman was carrying on the policy of his predecessor, who, with great judgment, invited the advice of the late lamented President of the Royal Academy, who, in turn, recommended him to go to Professor Church. Professor Church not only made a report on the pictures, but he did a great deal of valuable work gratuitously, which he thought, could hardly be estimated in money, for the improvement of the frescoes in the Houses of Parliament. Those wretched articles in the upper Lobby had been taken away, and their places supplied by a decent painting. Professor Church had also, with great skill and care, removed the film of silk from the works in the other House, and had brought them to what they were in former years. In the Robing Room of the House of Lords, too, a marvellous transformation had been effected as a result of Professor Church's operations. This House and the country owed that eminent scientist a debt of gratitude for the work he had so freely and ungrudgingly and gratuitously given to this artistic decoration. In the outer Lobby of the House of Commons they had a tine work of art in Mr. Poynter's "St. George," but they had got three other places occupied by an inferior wall paper. He had brought this question before the House in former years, and Mr. Cavendish-Bentinck then told the House that there was no school now in this country for reproducing that kind of art. But they had got in St. Paul's mosaics of the most majestic and splendid description carried out by Professor Richmond, and in the Royal Exchange, they had a number of artists who, for moderate terms, were giving their powers to follow out a certain treatment there. He understood that many of the panels of the Royal Exchange were being filled up at the expense of members of great commercial houses, and, if it was beyond the riches of that House to decorate these three vacant places, he would make an appeal to some of the more richly endowed Members, or to a syndicate of Members, to come forward and complete the scheme of decoration, for these three wretched blank spaces were, he thought, a disgrace to the House.

in reply, said that though it might be that better ventilation was required in other portions of the building, so far as that chamber was concerned, it was certainly one of the best ventilated rooms that could be found anywhere. ["Hear, hear!"] He could bear witness to the very great care which was taken by the officials in charge of the ventilating department. He had taken a personal interest in the matter since he was appointed to the office he now held, and had made a point of constantly visiting the ventilating rooms, and hon. Members who had accompanied him had been greatly struck with the enormous staff and the appliances which were provided in order to secure the comfort of Members of the House. He had, in accordance with a promise which he made when the Estimates were under discussion last year, gone carefully into the subject, and he thought he had met the different complaints and remedied the various grievances which were then alleged. Alterations had been made in the Clock Tower exhaust shaft which would prevent any possibility of down draught in future. Ventilating shafts had been placed in the Victoria Tower, and ventilation improvements carried out also in the kitchen, dining, and smoking rooms. As to the smoking room, the complaint was not so much of want of ventilation as of the heat in the room, and as long as the smoking room was immediately over the kitchen there would be a difficulty in always maintaining one temperature at all seasons of the year in it. But further ventilating appliances had been introduced, and hon. Members had admitted that an improvement had certainly thus been effected. ["Hear, hear!"] He had taken pains to see that the ventilation of the House was carried out as effectively as possible, and on the whole he did not think that there would be so much to complain of in future. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the work which Professor Church had done, he had had an opportunity of inspecting the work during its progress, and he could bear testimony to its value and thoroughness, as any hon. Member who had inspected the frescoes since would admit. The country was under a deep debt of gratitude to Professor Church for the services he had gratuitously rendered in regard to them, and he could only say that he did not yield to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire in his appreciation of the Professor's services. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the empty spaces alluded to, he was as anxious as any First Commissioner of Works could be to see it done, but the question was simply one of ways and means. However, he could only say that if the effort to carry out the idea by voluntary means failed, he would sufficiently harden his heart to approach the Treasury for a grant for the purpose. ["Hear, hear!"]

suggested that the empty places should be filled by representations of St. Patrick, St. Andrew, and St. George in English mosaics, and said he thought the suggestion was warranted by the success which had attended the English mosaic work at St. Paul's. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he had placed a notice on the Paper to move to reduce this Vote by £100, and he had done so in order to call attention to the case of the temporary civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey Department, for those men, who were excellent public servants, had just cause to complain of the position in which they had been placed. They had, in fact, been hardly treated, and had a real grievance in the fact that pensions were denied to them. Under the Superannuation Act of 1889, the Ordnance Survey was recognised as a permanent Department of Her Majesty's Civil Service, but by a decision of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, persons who joined the service of the Ordnance Survey subsequently to the 29th of September, 1870, were not allowed to participate in the benefits of the Act. This was modified by a circular in January 1873, by which since that year the temporary civil assistants were not permitted to participate in the benefits of the Superannuation Act as they had been able to do before. If the pay of the men for whom he was pleading had been sufficiently high for them to be reasonably expected to do without pensions, he should not have brought the matter before the Committee, but the pay was not sufficient to warrant that expectation. The result was that the men were liable to be dismissed at any moment, and at any age, without any provision whatever for the future. He had known temporary civil assistants who had worked for over 20 years in the Department, and who, owing to the difficulty and minuteness of the work they had had to perform, had become very near-sighted, if not blind, and yet those men were liable, under existing conditions, to be dismissed, without any provision, on account of old age, infirmity, reduction of staff, or any other reason that might arise. On many occasions the matter had been brought before the House, and he believed the same answers had been invariably given to the representations made in behalf of the men. He could only hope that an answer of a different kind would be given on the present occasion. One of the answers given was that the men knew well when they joined the Ordnance Survey Department that they would not be entitled to pensions. But that statement was not correct. One of his constituents, who was a temporary civil assistant in the Department, had assured him that when he joined the service in 1873, he did so with the distinct understanding that he would receive a pension when he was 60 years of age. Then, on this point, he had seen in Colonel Leech's own handwriting that this was an intimation to the Director, not intended for publication, but which had been laid before Parliament. The whole mistake arose through the Director General stating that the work of the Ordnance Survey would be completed in or about 1880. It was now 1896, and the Ordnance Survey was not complete, and never would be complete, because it was absolutely necessary that the work should be a constant work; every one of the plans and maps should be kept up to date by constant revision. Many of the men joined the service as boys of 14. They were now middle-aged men, and unable to obtain work elsewhere. Another answer given on previous occasions was that the pay was so good that no pension was necessary. After a man had worked 38 years he got 5s. a day, or 30s. a week, and after he had worked 24 years he received 8s. 4d. a day, or 50s. a week. By that time he was very nearly 40 years old. He did not think a man who received 8s. 4d. a day after he was 35 years of age could be expected to save a great deal of money for his old age. But supposing he managed to save £1,000, which was about an impossibility, that would only bring him in 13s. 6d. a week. He trusted the present Government would see their way to be a little more generous towards these hard working and deserving men than previous Governments had been.

said, the allegation was that a great many of these civil assistants were led to believe that they would receive pensions. Of course, it was possible there might have been some misapprehension in the minds of some of them, but there was little doubt that the salaries and the conditions of work of the men were fixed upon a scale which carried with it an intimation that no pension would be paid. He did not think that these men were underpaid; they were paid certainly as well as any other employés in the public service. Already there had been some concessions made to some of these civil assistants, and he was afraid that he must adhere to the replies given on previous occasions.

said, he did not now intend to raise the general question of the non-rating of Government properties, although he thought it was still, both in principle and practice, in some respects in an unjust position. He acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had shown every disposition to deal fairly in the matter by making concessions in order to reduce the inequalities which had hitherto existed. The Government ought, he thought, to have an opportunity of fairly considering the matter, and bringing about some of those reforms which were desired. Two Returns had recently been given to the House upon this Motion, the one dealing with Government properties in London, and the other dealing with similar properties in the provinces. He was glad to be able to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had every reason to believe that in respect to London nearly every one was satisfied. In Islington he found that the valuation of the Government property had, since he and others had moved in the matter, been increased from £4,000 to £11,000. A similar state of affairs occurred in Clerken well. He would only say that the increase in the valuation was the measure of the iniquity to the ratepayers and the local authorities in the past, a system which had continued notwithstanding the Treasury Minute of 1874. He had also to acknowledge that in ceasing to keep a large amount of arrears in hand, the Government were again behaving more fairly. There was an increase of £60,600 in these Estimates, and in the Supplementary Estimates £92,000 was provided for the purpose of paying the rates at once instead of always keeping six months' rates in hand. But the provinces had still great reason to complain. In Hull it was felt that the Government properties were still valued 50 per cent. below what they ought to be, and he had a letter from the Town Clerk of Portsmouth, in which the writer expressed the opinion that the valuation of Government properties there was totally inadequate, and wholly inconsistent with the valuation put by the Government on the properties for other purposes. He had also a letter from the Town Clerks of Plymouth, Crewe, and other places to a like effect, and the last complained of the non-rating of police stations and other public properties. He trusted that this longstanding grievance, which had become almost tedious in its repetition, would be put an end to. The question of principle ought also to be put on a more correct footing. It was utterly indefensible that the Government should value their own property for these purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to allow an assessment to take place, as in other eases, he ought at least to grant to local authorities the right of access to inspect the various properties, and to have them valued independently for their own information. Some right of appeal against the Government's own valuation to the High or to County Courts ought also to exist. He thought that a great improvement had been made in London, but that in the provinces there was little improvement—at least there was still much to be desired. Steps, however, were being taken to remedy this matter; and, under the circumstances, he should not move to reduce the Vote.

complained strongly that whereas there was an increase for London and England, in order to meet that increase, the amount for Scotland was reduced. Here in London they had Government property accessible to the people of London, but they were not satisfied with that, they wanted the rates for them paid out of public funds. London got its police buildings kept up at the expense of Imperial funds. In every other place the people paid for these things out of their own pockets. Whilst there was an increase of £62,000 for England out of the public money, there was a decrease for Scotland of £2,500. That he thought was most unreasonable.

said, this question of the rating of Government property had been discussed for a considerable time, and he was glad to think that his hon. Friend the Member for Islington was satisfied with the considerable alteration that had been made. They had now endeavoured to carry out what was the intention of the Memorandum on the subject. They had gone further; they had a Supplementary Estimate to pay all arrears. There was a complaint made as to the provinces. One of the great difficulties was the want of any revaluation for many years. A revaluation had taken place with regard to the whole of London, and as to the provinces, the revaluation had been going on steadily and constantly. They were going to treat the country exactly the same as London was treated, and the Estimates were based on that principle. With regard to the somewhat vexed question of the Government Valuer, the Government property was so different from other property he thought it would be seen that it was necessary there should be a Government Valuer.

asked that some explanation of its provisions should be given to the House.

said that he could do that in a few words. A Debate took place in Committee of Supply in the Session of 1894–95 on a sum of £1,800 charged for the maintenance of a quarantine station near Portsmouth. This station was for plague and yellow fever. One disease was extinct and the other was very rare, and an undertaking was given that a Bill should be brought in to abolish the station, putting things under the port sanitary authorities.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it had been brought in to settle a difficulty which had arisen under the Local Government Act of 1888. It appeared that a difference had arisen between two local authorities as to the charges in respect of main roads, and that the Local Government Board had appointed their own arbitrator to settle it. The case, however, had been taken to the High Court, who had held that, under the Act, an outside arbitrator ought to have been appointed. Of course, all the decisions that had been given by the arbitrator might be held to be illegal, and the Bill had been introduced with the object of legalising them, and to enable disputes in the future to be settled in the ordinary way by the arbitrator to the Board. ["Hear, hear!"]

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that its object was to improve the accommodation of the Register House at Edinburgh. Read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection. Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill. Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That three be the quorum.— (Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

appealed to the House to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill.

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, on the ground that private Members had so few opportunities for passing their Measures.

regarded the Measure as being a very important one. and hoped that the Government would allow it to be proceeded with, seeing that it had passed through a certain stage before a Select Committee upstairs.

explained that it had been understood that when the Government business had been disposed of the House would adjourn.

said that the understanding referred to had been arrived at under the impression that the Government business would occupy the time of the House up to Twelve o'clock. In his view the Bill ought to be discussed.

also appealed to the Government to allow the Bill to proceed.