I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state whether any arrangement has been arrived at with the railway companies as to the sale to the public of the Airey Maps, as was the case prior to 1894?

I am happy to state that, after negotiations conducted by the Department, the following letter has been received from the Railway Clearing House:—

"I am instructed now to inform you that the Clearing House Committee have decided that, in addition to the general railway maps of England, Scotland, and Ireland now on sale, sectional railway maps and diagrams indicating the different lines of railway and showing distances between stations, shall also be placed on sale to the public."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been arrived at on the memorial addressed to the Secretary of State for War on 18th January last by the Second Division Clerks employed in the Royal Army Clothing Department; and whether, seeing that the hulk of the supervising work of that Department, is now performed by these officers owing to the number of subordinate clerical employés having been largely increased without any addition having been made to the number of officials of higher rank actually engaged on supervision, and that, notwithstanding this performance of superior duties, no Second Division Clerk has yet been promoted to the higher division, or to a permanent staff post, or to the higher grade of the Second Division for exceptional merit, the claims of these clerks to promotion will be considered?

The whole quest ion of the decentralisation of Army Clothing has been referred to a Special Committee, and the status of the civilian establishment at Pimlico is an element in the Inquiry. No steps can therefore be taken on the memorial referred to until the Committee reports.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will kindly state by whose authority a large stand has been built on the northern side of Trafalgar Square, whereby a large portion of the public is excluded from viewing the Royal Procession?

The permission for the erection of the stand in question was given by me. The stand is built in the well of the square on ground from which it would have been impossible fur anyone to have seen the Procession.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if all the detachments of Indian and colonial troops who arc visiting the United kingdom as the guests of the nation in connection with the Jubilee have now arrived; and, if so, whether the Colonial Office will publish a list of these Jubilee guests, setting out the localities from which they come, the name of the officer in command of each detachment, the name of the officer detailed by the Home Authorities to attend to each detachment, the total number of each detachment, the quarters where they are stationed, the arrangements which have been made for their entertainment during their visit, and any other information which may be of service to those who desire to offer hospitality to these national guests?

It is expected that the entire colonial contingent will have arrived at Chelsea Barracks by this evening. A list of the various detachments, and of the Colonies they represent, has already been published in the Press, and I will consider whether any further details may advantageously be added.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if arrangements will be made for the detachments of Indian and colonial troops who are visiting the United Kingdom as the guests of the nation to witness the Naval Review free of charge, and to be suitably entertained upon that occasion at the expense of the nation?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether steps can be taken to give the colonial troops now here an opportunity of witnessing the Naval Review; and whether the railway companies could be induced to grant free passes to those troops the colonial rifle teams now here, so that they might have an opportunity of seeing the places of interest in their Mother Country?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the dependence of the Colonies upon sea communication, and having regard to the Resolution of the Parliament of Cape Colony respecting contribution to the Fleet, any arrangements have been made for enabling the officers and men of the colonial forces now in this country to witness the Naval Review; and, if so, to state what is the nature of arrangements made?

Arrangements have been in progress front the first for the officers and men of the colonial forces (about 800 in number) to see the ships assembled at Spithead. A special train will be provided to take them to Portsmouth on the morning of June 30, and to bring them back in the evening. The party will be taken round the Fleet in dockyard steamers, and an opportunity will be given to them to visit certain ships. If time admits, the party will also be shown round the dockyard. Luncheon will be provided in the dockyard. The officers belonging to Her Majesty's Indian forces will have an opportunity of seeing the Fleet at Spit-head on Saturday, June 26. There are no troops in England.

Am I to understand, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that these detachments of Indian and colonial troops will not be entertained on the 26th, the day of the Review, and that no provision will be made for them?

I have stated the arrangements which have been made. All the Indian officers, 62 in number, will go down on the 26th, and they will be provided for as other visitors will be. The 800 troops will go down on Wednesday, the 30th, and the whole day will be appropriated to them, and they will see all the ships. ["Hear, hear!"] Individual attention will be paid to them, and I think they will come back realising not only the strength of the forces at Spit-head, but also the enormous resources of the dockyard. ["Hear, hear!"] I can assure the House and the public on the point that, in making the arrangements, we have been most anxious to give our colonial fellow-subjects even more special attention than they would have had if they had gone down with the thousands on the day of the Review. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can be made by which the colonial and Indian troops can visit the north of London?

The time has elapsed in which it would be practicable to make arrangements for other marches through London than those already decided on.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to enable Members of Parliament to witness the review at Aldershot on 1st July; and whether, in the event of stands being erected, seats will be allotted to the wives and families of soldiers quartered at Aldershot?

Arrangements have been made to enable Members of both Houses of Parliament to see the review at Aldershot. Information as to the conditions will be duly advertised. One thousand one hundred free tickets have been assigned to the general officer commanding at Aldershot, and the space for carriages has been placed under his control, to be apportioned as he may think fit, among residents in the camp and neighbourhood.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing how amply the other portions of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, and Wales) are represented by their national regiments at the Diamond Jubilee on the 22nd instant, arrangements can be made that the composite Irish regiment that has been brought over from Ireland, composed of detachments of which the Royal Irish Regiment is the senior, a corps which has a history of 213 years and no less than 64 engagements inscribed on its record, and which has always been considered the Royal Regiment of Ireland, may be retained here to march past at the Jubilee Review at Aldershot on the 1st July, and in the meantime may be allowed the privilege of furnishing a guard of honour to Her Host Gracious Majesty, as has been allowed to the Royal West Surrey Regiment for the 22nd instant?

The Question of my gallant Friend refers, I presume, to the composite battalion which is to represent the Irish Militia at the Jubilee ceremonial, of which battalion a detachment of the Royal Irish Regiment forms part. The period of training of the 3rd Battalion Royal Irish Regiment expires on the 26th inst., and therefore a special Order in Council would be necessary to keep the detachment under arms. Even if so retained it would not be large enough to furnish Her Majesty's guard of honour. I may add that the West Surrey Regiment furnishes the guard of honour for the Jubilee, not because it is an English regiment, but because it happens to be the senior line regiment represented on the occasion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, if the colonial troops are to be started two hours in advance of the general procession on Tuesday next, he would consider the propriety of keeping the colonial troops in the general procession and of sending, if necessary, some less representative part of the general procession in their place?

The object of starting the colonial procession earlier than the main procession is twofold. First; that the colonial troops shall themselves be seen along the whole route; and, secondly, that they shall witness the passing of the main procession of Her Majesty, which none of the troops forming the main procession will do. This h effected by starting the colonial procession early and using it to line Ludgate Hill while the Queen passes. It will them form again and march in rear of the main procession for the rest of the route.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if Hyde Park will be open for carriage traffic from the Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner on Jubilee Day?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have heard from the Commissioner of Police that Hyde Park will be open for carriage traffic all day on the 22nd inst., but the gates at Hyde Park Corner will be closed after 8.30 a.m. until the military are withdrawn from the route of the Queen's Procession.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the officers of constabulary forces will receive any recognition for long service, in commemoration of the Jubilee?

I am afraid that this is not a matter on which I am able to give the House any information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Members will be allowed their usual privileges on Jubilee Day in access to and from the House; and, if arrangements could be made for giving Members a special pass for use on that day?

I think the hon. Member will see that it would be quite impossible for the police to maintain a line for the procession if Members were to exercise their privileges as regards access to the House by or across the streets which form part of the route of the procession. The police have orders to afford every possible facility for the carriages of Members to reach New Palace Yard on the tickets of admission being shown; and if, as I hope, Members will, after the hours laid down in the regulations, approach the House otherwise than by the line of route, they will, I think, experience no difficulty. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the allowance to volunteers taking part in the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee in London having been fixed at 1s. for each volunteer for those corps whose headquarters are under 50 miles from London, and 2s. for those whose headquarters are over 50 miles distant, the Government will be prepared to take special consideration of the case of the Scottish volunteers, with a view of defraying to a certain extent the extra travelling expenses entailed on Scottish corps by their increased distance front London as compared with English corps?

The allowances (to volunteers) referred to are to meet incidental charges and are not for travelling expenses. Corps electing to attend the Jubilee Celebration will be expected to make their own arrangements for travelling.

On behalf of die hon. Member for the Ecelesall Division (Sir ELLIS ASHMED-BARTLETT) I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will arrange for Members of the House of Commons awl their friends to go on board the Campania on Friday night for the Naval Review?

who answered the Question, said: The time of arrival of the Campania at Southampton will net admit of the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member.

[who had in the meantime entered t he Home] asked whether it would not he possible, in view of the great convenience it would be to Members of the House to go on board the Campania on Friday night, to make arrangements for the vessel to be at Southampton a little carlier?

No, Sir. I regret to say it is absolutely impossible to make any arrangements to berth the Campania before Saturday morning.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. C. J. McLeod, Barrister-at-Law, was, on the 4th May, committed to the Kingstown Prison, in the Island of St. Vincent, for 14 days, with out the option of a fine, for contempt of court, by Mr. Geoffrey St. Aubyn, sitting as acting Chief Justice; whether he can inform the House of what the alleged contempt of court consisted; and whether, supposing the allegation itself to be true, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken on the legality of the procedure and sentence?

No official report of the matter has been received, but the Governor of the Windward Islands has been asked to furnish one, and, in the meantime, I cannot express any opinion upon the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India why the Government of India maintains colleges for the higher education of Hindus and Mahommedans in India, and why no similar provision is made for Europeans and Eurasians?

The Government of India does not maintain colleges for the higher education of Hindus and Mahommedans. The Madrissa schools were established for Mahommedans requiring to be instructed in Persian and Arabic, but the students in the college department of those schools attend lectures in the Presidency College. With this exception Government colleges and higher schools are open to all classes without distinction.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the postage of Foreign letters is higher in England than in any other country in Europe; whether the proposal of Great Britain to reduce the postage for Foreign and Colonial letters from 2½d. to 2d. has been rejected at the Postal Union Congress at Washington; and, what course the Government intend to take in consequence?

As the hon. Member is aware, the standard rate of postage is fixed by the Union in centimes, and where centimes enter into the coinage, as in France, Belgium, and Switzerland, the postage is exactly that which is sanctioned by the Union. In this country there is no exact equivalent, and the practice has been to collect 2½d., which is undoubtedly a little more than is charged in most of the other European countries. The Postmaster General has not yet received the report of the British delegates, and he is not, therefore, in a position to state what has taken place at the Congress at Washington or what course the Government will adopt.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Austria sent 120 letters to England against 94 letters sent from England to Austria.

The charges on letters from Austria to England are considerably below 25 centimes. There are other countries—I think Russia., Sweden, and Norway—where the charges are above that sum.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department have ever refused to recognise any association of Voluntary Schools which comprises less than 200 different schools; and, whether the Education Department have any intention of refusing to recognise associations of schools comprised in a civil area, so as to force them into an ecclesiastical area against the wishes of the managers and supporters of those schools?

The Department has laid down no hard-and-fast rule as to the number of schools which should comprise an association. The Department have in no case refused to recognise a civil area, if sufficiently large and generally desired by the managers of schools within such area.

I beg to ask the Attorney General (1) has his attention been called to the fact that, on the mainland in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar, British subjects are administering the law which acknowledges the legal status of slavery; (2) whether there are Orders in Council applying to the mainland opposite Zanzibar the claims of the Indian Act against slavery; and (3) whether it is lawful for a British subject to detain a slave against his will in territories under British administration?

My attention has not been called to the facts stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, but I believe that it is the fact that on the mainland dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar officers of the British Protectorate superintend the administration of the native law as affecting his subjects. There are no Orders in Council applying to them when acting in this capacity. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative; but I am not aware that any case of the kind has arisen.

asked the Secretary to the Colonies whether the arrangements which had been made to enable the colonial troops to see the Naval Review and for their entertainment otherwise, applied also to the men of the colonial rifle teams who had come over here for the first time to compete at Bisley?

I am sorry to say my right lion. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has left the House. The Question should be put to him, because the arrangements are being made by the Admiralty. I am unable to answer the Question.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to consider the advisability of including the men of the rifle teams?

I shall be happy to speak to the First Lord of the Admiralty about it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he could give the Committee any explanation of Item A, which referred to foreign refugees.

said there was only one Spanish refugee left—[laughter]— and special care had been taken to Lind Hut what he was actually about. When he came into office he had special inquiry made at once With regard to all these persons, and there was no doubt that at that time they were all in existence. Vote agreed to.

said the Vote for commissions was one he always viewed with good deal of suspicion, and was one which had been frequently mentioned on formar occasions. On the present occasion he should like the Secretary to the Treasury to tell them what the Colonisation Board did. Personally, he believed it hail been a total failure.

presumed that, in using the word "failure," the right hon. Baronet referred to the failure of the effort to colonise certain people from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland who were settled in Canada. A good deal of money had been lost on this scheme, but the expenses of this Board hail little to do with the actual expenses of the scheme. The sum in the Vote was a payment to the Board to report as to how that scheme was going on and to watch, as it were, the progress of the colonisation scheme, and to trace, as far as possible, the history of the various emigrants. It was a very small charge in comparison with the very large sums which had been spent on this rather unfortunate scheme, but it was absolutely necessary, while the scheme existed, to have somebody to watch it and to report to the Government.

was of opinion that it would be a foolish thing to throw tiny more money away on this foolish scheme. For the last ten years they had been spending from £300 to £800 a year upon two sets of crofters that they sent out. Some two or three years after they were sent out he went himself to look at the Colonies, and at the first one he went to see he found that every one of the houses hail been deserted. They had all given up their holdings, and the men were working as labourers in the neighbouring timber yard. This Board was appointed for the purpose of getting back some of the two sums of £10,000 which had been spent, but they had got none back. It had been all lost. In the place where some of the people did remain he believed they were ultimately sold up for arrears of taxes, so that the experiment both at Killarney and Saltcoats had been dead failure, and to keep up this Board and to pay for the officials seemed to him to be the height of folly. The experiment hail been a failure; why not leave it alone? Unless the Secretary to t he Treasury were prepared now to let the thing drop altogether he should be compelled to take a Division against the Vote.

said it had been rumoured that it was intended to bring the Scottish Universities Commission to an end, but he wished to point out that that Commission had not yet completed its work. Hon. Members might have seen in The Times recently an article referring to "the academic crisis in Scotland," as it was called. The University Commission passed certain ordinances confirming an agreement for affiliation between the University College in Dundee and the University of St. Andrews. The college in Dundee was established under a recent and most handsome endowment of £130,000. It began its work under most hopeful auspices. Its professors under that endowment were men of eminence, several of whom had been promoted to the first professional seats in the country. The establishment of the college was especially looked forward to with hope on the scientific side, and also as a means of setting up a medical school in Dundee. They had a splendid hospital, with a large number of beds, and no better hospital could be found in the country for medical students to attend. It would also be a great relief in some respects to the overcrowded classes in Edinburgh. Unfortunately, although the scheme of affiliation was entered into on the part of the College authorities, after very considerable negotiation and correspondence between them and the University, the medieval party in the latter resolved to oppose association with the new college in the town—a comparatively old town with very large modern developments. On technical grounds the University obtained a decision in the House of Lords against the strict legality of the first ordinance. The matter then came before the Committee of the Privy Council, and the decision of the Privy Council, although not in all respects favourable to Dundee, yet cleared the way for a joint agreement between the old University and the new College. But the University party determined, with all its wealth at its back, to worry and harass the Dundee College by protracted expensive litigation. Practically refusing to recognise the decision of the Privy Council, they again, on technical grounds, brought an action in the Court of Session, Edinburgh, which opened a vista of long-continued litigation. There might be an appeal to the House of Lords, a second decision might be appealed against, and litigation might go on for years. In the meantime, the purposes for which this admirably administered college at Dundee was established would be practically frustrated, and funds which should go for the improvement of the college were diverted by this expensive litigation, and the council of the college, consisting of authorities of the town, professors, and representative men of the district, were continually- worried and harassed. The Ordinance, which had been appealed against in the House of Lords and brought under the notice of the Committee of the Privy Council, was the work of this Universities Commission, and, as one of the Representatives of Dundee, he made bold to say that the work of the Commission would not be completed until it had framed and was able to enforce its own order for the affiliation of Dundee College with the University. It would be most unfortunate if the Commission were not maintained until it had completed this work. If the Commission had shown more firmness, perhaps litigation might have been averted, but he did not blame the Commission; it was composed of a number of eminent and able men, who, no doubt, had done what they considered best under the circumstances. But they would not have finished their work until they had established the validity of their own order. He therefore brought this matter under the notice of the Treasury, and, not seeing the Lord Advocate in his place, he hoped the Secretary would be prepared to give an assurance that the Universities Commission would be maintained at least until this work was fully completed.

referred to the Historical Manuscripts Commission. No doubt the Commission had done useful work, and historically useful material had been published, but he suggested that a little more care might be exercised in the selection of matter for publication. He would like to know the conditions under which these manuscripts, when printed in book form, were distributed and sold; whether there was any return for a large public expense. He had read most of the publications, and his personal opinion was that too much of the matter consisted of historical gossip of no great value. He also desired to know how far the researches of the Commission extended. He observed that most of them were private papers, but he believed there were a great many valuable manuscripts in the House of Lords. Would they conic within the purview of the Commission?

hoped the advice would not be taken to invite the Commission to be more restrictive in their selection. Their work as carried out was most useful.

understood that the Universities Commission would be continued for some months longer until the Commissioners could deal with points yet remaining unsettled, including the matter referred to by his lion. Friend the Member for Dundee. It was quite time the relations between the University of St. Andrews and the Dundee College were settled. Much money had been spent in litigation, and the position of the college remained uncertain in relation to the Universities grant. The Commission had to determine the proportions of the grant to the Scottish Universities, and it would be an unfortunate thing if the Commission should cease while its work was incomplete.

without going into the whole question as between the University and the College of Dundee, said the statement of ins hon. Friend behind him was amply justified by the facts. So far as he understood, the college at Dundee was admirably situated, had an able staff, and it was much to be regretted that means had not been found to stop the costly litigation to which it had been subjected. He hoped that the Commission might be continued in order that the college of Dundee might be relieved from this litigation and assume its proper place as a college affiliated to the University.

desired to emphasise what his hon. Friend had said with regard to the period of time during which this Commission had existed. Three or four years ago he got a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman who occupied the position now occupied by the right lion. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, that this Commission would probably report within the succeeding few months. Now the Commission for some extraordinary reason had gone on year after year, and the House had been asked to vote money for rather high salaries for certain officials, and as far as lie had been able to see, the public had obtained no corresponding advantage front the expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman himself, if he were on that side of the House, would make some strong remarks as to the period during which the Commission had existed, and lie was sure lie would not recede from the position he took up at that time. Rightly or wrongly, there was a feeling in Scotland that the Commission had gone on a little too long. No doubt there were some points still unsettled but every Commission could find points to settle if certain officials were anxious that the Commission should not be dissolved. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would take care, if the Commission Were to go on any longer, to see that some work was done. ["Hear, hear!"] it was very nearly time, in his opinion, that the Commission came to an end, and lie hoped the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate that as soon as possible. [Hear, hear!"] With regard to the Did Age Pensions Commission, he wished the right lion. Gentleman could tell them if there was any information of what the Commission was doing. Since its appointment there had been no public intimation whatever of the proceedings of the Commission, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to tell them what it had been doing, and when they might expect some report. ["Hear, hear!"]

entirely agreed that it was time the University Commission came to an end. The Treasury had done their best by cutting down the Estimates last year to four months' salaries, and this year to three months'—a pretty clear indication of their view as to the continuation of the Commission. They had even gone further, and had turned the Commission out of their old quarters. But until the pending litigation was concluded—and he believed the question between Dundee and St. Andrews was the only one really left open—he was afraid the Commission must be continued. The staff and salaries should be cut down as much as possible, but it was absolutely necessary that the skeleton of a Commission should be kept in existence, until a decision was come to upon the one point not yet settled. With regard to the Colonisation Commission, he hoped the hon. Member for Caithness would not divide the Committee. The Government were as anxious as himself to bring the Commission to an end; but it was of real importance, as long as there were any settlers whose interests had to be guarded, that they should have the means of doing so. He agreed, however, that the expenses should be cut down as much as possible. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had put questions with regard to the Historical Manuscripts Commission. In the first place, he had asked whether the work of the Commission extended to the House of Lords. Up to the end of last year there was upon the Vote a charge fur calendaring, the MSS. of the House of Lords; but he thought the charge ought properly to fall upon the House of Lords Vote. The work was done by the officials of that House, and of course the cost should be paid out of that Vote. There had been a parallel instance in the case of the Council Office. His hon. Friend had also asked a question as to the distribution of what he ventured to describe as the very valuable Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. It had been suggested that a little more care might be exercised in selecting what was published. He did nut profess to have read the Reports, but lie had occasionally looked into them, and he regarded them as most valuable historical records, and he should be sorry to see their volume diminished. But it did strike him that such valuable documents ought to command a fair public sale. They ought to do something, in the first instance, to make the Reports more popular. He hail suggested to the Master of the Rolls that, as this was a work that would go on for a considerable time, it might be handed over to the Record Office, instead of leaving it in the hands of what was called a Temporary Commission. But he was bound to say the reply of the Master of the Rolls on this point was convincing. There were a number of persons of considerable influence on the Commission who were able to get private owners of manuscripts to give permission for their being calendared, which permission might not be so readily given to permanent officials. The hon. Member for Oswestry, at the beginning of the Session, put a question as to the order of publication and the numbering of the volumes. He had arranged that this should be altered, so that manuscripts belonging to any particular collection would follow each other in consecutive order. There was an idea also of printing them on a little better paper. There was a certain amount of waste arising from the fact that because technically these volumes were Reports of a Royal Commission they had to be circulated gratuitously to Members of both Houses. He thought Members should in future be required to pay for copies if they required them. [Dissent.] He could not see why, on a merely technical ground, these Reports should be distributed wholesale. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only on application!"] The applications had been very considerable; nearly everybody had applied for them.

said the reply of the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the Colonisation Commission was extremely unsatisfactory. He said the matter would be settled as soon as possible. But when would that be? It was quite ten years ago that the Commission was appointed. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to tell him what the Secretary to the Commission did for his £100 a year? What, also, did Mr. Borrowdale, the agent in Canada, do for his salary? He was paid £250 a year for attending to the interests of a few settlers, and £75 was allowed him for travelling expenses. He pressed for a promise that these salaries should be reduced. If any useful work were being done he should not object. But as practically no work was done by these persons, unless the right hon. Gentleman would promise to take immediate steps, not in the far future or as soon as possible, but immediate steps, for a substantial reduction of these salaries, he should go to a Division on the Vote.

remarked that fresh information had been supplied by the hon. Member who had just sat down, who assured him positively that nothing was being done by the Commission; but he might say that the information was very different from that which lie received officially. He did not want to throw doubt on the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement; but naturally he looked into the Vote carefully before submitting it to the House, and he could assure the hon. Member that his statement that no good work was being done by the Commission was a surprise to him.

would like to know what had been done. He had been watching the Commission for the last ten or a dozen years, and he did not know that at present anything at all was being done. Some eleven or twelve years ago several gentlemen, including the Lord Provost of Glasgow, formed themselves into a Committee, subscribed money, and asked for powers to enable them to try an experiment in colonisation; and a considerable sum was given them for the purpose of aiding that experiment. What had been the result of the experience of ten years? Several years ago he was himself upon a Select Committee of that House to inquire into the matter. He found the evidence so conflicting t hat he thought it best to go over to Canada and sec for himself what the condition of things was. He went over there seven or eight years ago. He first went to Saltcoats, and he found, as he stated at the time, that everyone of the cottiers who had gone there had given up his place arid gone away to labour in the timber trade, in which they were doing much better; so that the place was abandoned years ago. As far as Killarney was concerned, which had been the most successful settlement, a number of people were still there; but the last information he had was that they were going to be turned out for not paying their rates. They got credit from the merchant, took expensive teams, and bought expensive machinery, and for years they had been hopelessly crushed by debt, and a large number of them had given it up for something else. There were very few of the settlers left to look after, so that it was practically useless paying an agent £5 a week to look after half-a-dozen people. The Government should recognise that this money was practically lost, and agree to wipe it off.

entirely agreed with what had already been said, that it appeared desirable that, if possible, the present state of things should come to an end. But there was still some work to be done in Canada, owing to the very fact that the matter had been such a failure. There was, as had been said, Government money and Government payments to be recovered from the settlers, and the Government were doing their best to get the money. Those settlers wanted very careful watching indeed; they were bolting in every direction, and this money was employed in keeping a careful watch.

They could not give you a penny in the pound.

observed that he had had occasion to investigate the position of the litigation over the Ordinances with the view of seeing what could be done to bring to an end this lamentable state of affairs. No doubt the litigation was a very serious difficulty in the way of achieving the end which the Member for Kirkcaldy and lie desired. The litigation had for its object the setting aside altogether of some Ordinances that were passed by the University Commissioners. The Secretary to the Treasury had said that the litigation had been going on for some time; unfortunately that was not so. If it had been going on for some time they would have cherished a reasonable prospect of its speedy termination. But the present state of the litigation was only commenced this summer, and so far as he was aware no progress had yet been made in the Court of Session. If a decision were obtained before the Court rose, which it did on the 20th of July, the case would no doubt, judging by past experience of litigation, be taken to the Appeal Court. The judgment of the Appeal Court would be obtained some time in the winter session, and after that the unsuccessful litigant had a period of two years during which he might consider the question whether he was going to appeal to the House of Lords. That was a very lamentable prospect. Was there no remedy for the mischief? Some time ago the Member for South Edinburgh asked the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Government had been directed to this matter, which was virtually a public calamity in Scotland, and whether anything could be done. The Lord Advocate said the attention of the Government had been directed, and something would be done, but they had heard nothing further. So far as he could see, if the litigation were to proceed, all that the Government could do was to pay the expenses of the people on whose side their sympathies lay. But even if they came to the assistance of the offenders, that long vista of legal proceedings would have to be gone through, and they would still have a prolonged delay before an end was brought to the business. If unfortunately the pursuers were successful, the Ordinances would be set aside, and some body would have to be brought into existence to pass Ordinances. He would suggest as a remedy that the Government should bring in a Bill of a, single clause, validating all the Ordinances that had been passed by the Commissioners. If that were passed the University Commissioners might be dissolved, and the affiliation between the College of Dundee and the University of St. Andrews would be completed. Some Members might say that that would be an unwarrantable interference by Parliament with a court of law. That might be so, but if they were all desirous that the Ordinances should be sustained, why should the course he suggested not be taken? The challenge of the Ordinances was made upon purely technical grounds. ["Hear, hear!"] On their merits nobody disputed that the Ordinances were calculated to bring great advantage both to Dundee and St. Andrews, and he said advisedly that the challenge was on purely technical grounds. Therefore this House ought to have no hesitation in interfering to bring to an end a most unfortunate state of matters and to a speedy conclusion a serious litigation which had been going on for long, and which might otherwise go on for years more.

trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would reconsider his decision with regard to the circulation of historical manuscript Reports. The expense of circulating a copy of each such Report to Members of Parliament could not be very great, and he hoped steps would be taken to secure this being done, so that the Reports might reach public libraries and similar institutions.

was in favour personally of distributing volumes of Blue-books of interest even more largely than, they were among public libraries and similar institutions in large towns. He would point out that the calendaring of manuscripts and the issue of the calendars would go on for a very considerable period. It was by a mere accident that they happened to be the Reports of a Royal Commission, and that they were treated as ordinary Blue-books and distributed to Members of that House. They were valuable documents, which might very well be distributed among the constituencies, but he did not see why they should receive exceptional treatment which was not extended to any other volumes. There was really no reason whatever for putting the historical Reports upon the same footing as ordinary Blue-books. The latter were required for the ordinary business transactions of the House, but these historical documents stood on a totally different footing, and were entirely unconnected with the business of Parliament. He did not, therefore, see why the Treasury should be called upon to incur expense in connection with the distribution of such documents.

observed that this was an exceedingly small matter for the Treasury to concede. The right hon. Gentleman said he was perfectly desirous of assisting Members to circulate these valuable documents among their constituents, but he wanted hon. Members to do this at their own expense. The way the right hon. Gentleman could give practical effect to his desire on that point was by allowing, at any rate, one copy of such Report to each hon. Member for circulation. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100 in respect of the Historical Manuscripts Commission.

held that the Secretary to the Treasury should be supported in this matter. There was much less to be said for distributing the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission free than for distributing free the Reports of "Hansard." The Reports of the Commission had nothing to do with the business of the House, but "Hansard" was part of the equipment of a Member of Parliament, and Members of Parliament who were not well off could not afford to pay for it.

said that one consideration that should not be forgotten was that these Reports had been distributed for many years, and their production and distribution was pretty nearly the only service the Government did for history. The House of Commons was not much addicted to history beyond a certain limit, the usual time limit being the earlier speeches of the Colonial Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition. [Laughter, and "Hear, hear!"] This, however, was a year of historical retrospect, and the Treasury should not signalise it by the great innovation of denying to the House one of the few privileges of the kind it possessed. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that if the Committee divided he should support his hon. Friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. The expense to the Treasury in connection with the distribution of these reports was not the printing of a few additional copies for distribution among Members of the House. The real expense to the Treasury was the Commission itself. It could not materially add to the expense of the Commission to distribute 670 additional copies. It was absurd to say that they would cost ten shillings each. Let the Treasury not make itself more unpopular in historical and scholarly circles than it was at present.

said he had long been in favour of the distribution of "Hansard" to Members free, and he hoped that on some future occasion he would have the support of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. If the Secretary to the Treasury were not careful he would be known as an enemy to art and literature. He had already distinguished himself with regard to South Kensington in respects that had not commanded approval, and he regretted that he should object to the free distribution of these Reports.

said Parliament had to vote money for this and other Commissions, and its Members had a right to have Reports of the Commissions to see what they were doing and whether Parlia- ment were getting value for its money. If the Report of one Commission were to be denied them they might as well be denied the Reports of all Commissions. Every Blue-book they sent to their constituents cost them 5s. or more, and the cost of sending Blue-books and Parliamentary Papers was governed by the number of institutions and constituents applying for them. Nothing like 670 additional copies would be required, and the cost would merely be that of paper.

opposed the Amendment, saying, that pleasant as was the privilege of studying the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, it was purely a privilege which they could not say they had a right to as Members of the Legislature. He contended that the Reports of the Commission were not in the same category as reports relating to the condition of different industries, populations, or public questions.

defended the Secretary to the Treasury as merely practising in office the economy in these matters which he advocated when he was in Opposition. The prices of the volumes issued by the Historical Manuscripts Commission were low, and, as they did not relate to proceedings that formed any part of the business of the House, there was no reason why Members who were interested in them should not buy them themselves. He commended his right hon. Friend for the course he had taken. It was strictly in accordance with the principles of economy which both of them had always preached when in Opposition. [Laughter.]

pointed out that the price of the last volume issued by the Commission was 2s. 6d. Therefore, even if every Member applied for a copy the total cost would he only £84. Every one must admire the spirit of economy which was beginning to show itself on the Treasury Bench, but it was somewhat belated, and was exhibited on a rather small scale. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 138.—(Division List, No. 239.)

said he would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to be still more definite with regard to the item to which he had called attention. He would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to give a pledge that it would not appear on the Paper again. There were no more honest people in the world than the Highland Crofters, and he bad the facts from them. These poor men were taken nut at a time of year when they were unable to plough the hind, and so lost a year, and food had to be provided for them during that time. An agent of the Colonisation Board encouraged them, and took them out a year too early. He hoped the Committee would have an intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that this expenditure would be reduced or abolished. If they did not get such an intimation, he would be under the necessity of moving the reduction of the Vote.

desired to point out that the Congested Districts Board for Ireland was included in this Vote. Surely there was not a Temporary Commission? Then the last item was £7,500 for Commissions not specifically provided for. What were those Commissions? It was very extraordinary that out of a sum of £30,000 there should be so large an item as £7,500 without any explanation at all. There was also an item of £12,500 for other Departmental inquiries also unexplained. He would be glad to know whether it was not possible to prepare the Vote with greater care, so that every item included might be fully explained.

said that the Vote covered a great number of Temporary Commissions appointed merely for the purpose of delaying or preventing legislation. He especially referred to the Licensing Commission. He would like to ask when the Sugar Commission was likely to report.

said he was told that every effort was being made to enable the Report to be issued. With regard to the Congested Districts Board, it was a Commission to all intents and purposes, and he did not think it was at all unusual that Commissions of this character, even when they lasted as long as this one, should be treated as Temporary. With regard to the unexplained item of £7,500, to which the hon. Member for Islington had called attention, a margin was always allowed under this Vote to meet expenses of Commissions which were not otherwise provided for.

wished to point out that there was a great increase in the expenses under the item Lord Chamberlain's Department, namely, from £2,900 last year to £5,050. He would be glad to know the reason of this.

said he believed it was in connection with the Jubilee.

said that a note explained that it was required to meet the cost of preparing Orders of the Garter, Thistle, Distinguished Service Orders, and other similar matters. He always understood that the fees paid by the recipients of these Orders compensated for the cost.

This is in connection with forthcoming Honours in connection with the Diamond Jubilee.

said there was a Scotch item which he had thought would disappear, namely, the salary of the Printer's Reader to the Bible Board of Scotland. He believed there was a pledge some years ago that the expenditure on this Board was to be abolished. He thought the Board ought to be abolished altogether. At any rate, the gentleman who acted as Clerk to the Board surely could not have very much to do, and might also do the work of the Reader. He would like to know why the Board was still going on?

suggested that the hon. Gentleman should raise the question on Report, as the Lord Advocate was not now in his place.

then referred to the practice of giving Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland. A number of plates used to be voted for Great Britain, but the money was now devoted to a much better purpose by the Royal Commission on Horse-breeding. An Irish Commission had now been appointed, and he thought it would be wise to do in Ireland what had been done in Great Britain.

said provision was made in another Vote for money to be devoted to horse-breeding in Ireland.

said a Commission had been appointed in Ireland, and they would report. The change was made in Great Britain after the Commission had reported.

Yes but the Irish Commission has not yet reported, so the occasion has not arisen.

said he proposed to call attention to a matter of t he greatest importance. The Treasury was the guardian of the financial purity of t he public service. It was the overseer or schoolmaster, as it were, of all the other Departments. If the smallest irregularity were committed by any Department it was the Treasury that always descended on it to have the matter put right. The charge he had to make against this watchdog of the public service was that it was itself habitually and shamelessly guilty of the very practice which it existed to prevent in other Departments. The Controller and Auditor General had told the Public Accounts Committee that there was nothing to prevent the Treasury from remitting sums which were due to the public, and which ought to be levied, and that such remissions need not ever be discovered. Among the remissions granted by the Treasury without authority were remissions of Income Tax and of Customs Duties, and there had been one astonishing case, at any rate, of remission of Death Duties. This was the remission of duty on cash and bonds for £213,273, belonging to the late Czar of Russia. When he died in November, 1894, these bonds and moneys were in the custody of the Bank of England, and under the Finance Act of 1894 the duty payable thereon at 6½ per cent. was £13,800. The question of liability was raised by the Russian Ambassador in this country, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue reported to the Treasury that ditty was payable. They said:—

"The only instance which we have been able to foul of a foreign Sovereign dying possessed of personal property in this country is that of his late Majesty Dom Luiz I. of Portugal, who died on the 19th October, 1889, and to whose estate administration was granted to Dom Antonio y D. Nazaret, as attorney of the present King of Portugal, on June 2, 1890. Probate duty at the rate then in force was paid upon the affidavit lending to that grant of administration. The Russian Bonds of which the late Emperor died possessed are securities transferable in this country, and the bonds themselves were -here; consequently they are, in law, locally situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice in England, and no one is allowed to recover them without obtaining a grant of representation to the deceased Emperor. The affidavit to be made leading to this grant must accordingly be stamped to recover the bonds and the two sums of cash. The only person whose estate was, under the former law, free from probate duty was the reigning Sovereign of this country. That was because the King does not pay taxes to himself. The estate duty is subject to similar rules. All tile Royal Family of England, except the Sovereign, were subject to probate duty, and will be subject to estate duty. A foreign Sovereign stands in this respect on no higher footing than a member of the English Royal Family."

Thus it appeared from the Commissioners' Report that the only precedent bearing upon the case showed the existence of liability, and it also appeared that if the claim had been insisted upon the money would have been paid without demur. But the Treasury, recognising that it had no power by law to remit the duty, sought about for a way of rendering evasion of payment possible. One of the persons responsible in this matter was the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire. Sir E. Hamilton, a high permanent official of the Treasury, told the Committee of Public Accounts,—

"Sir W. Harcourt (the then Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted the force of the Russian Ambassador's contention"

—which was that the exaction of duty in respect of property belonging to a foreign Sovereign was hardly consistent with the rules governing international courtesy—

"but it was not clear at the time how the difficulties could be surmounted. It then transpired that in the special circumstances the Bank, which had the custody of the bonds, was prepared to hand them over to the representatives of the late Czar without requiring a grant of administration to he presented, provided that the Treasury would take no exception to that course. Accordingly it was intimated to the Bank that, as far as the Treasury was concerned, the Bank was authorised to transfer to the present Emperor the property belonging to his late Imperial Majesty. Consequently no duty was paid or was payable in respect of the bonds."

The Treasury thus construed an Act of Parliament—as it was so fond of doing—its view being that if no grant of administration was taken out no duty would be payable. That was absolutely false law, and the course taken was an evasion of the law. It was surprising that the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire should have been a party to so shabby and mean an expedient. He had, however, felt convinced all along that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand his own Act, and he supposed that the right hon. Gentleman had been misled. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue had said that nobody could take possession of this money except by a title founded upon probate or letters of administration, and the suggestion of the Treasury to the Bank was that it should commit what was an illegal act. It was a curious circumstance that there was no written record of this transaction at the Treasury. Everything was done secretly, and the communication to Sir A. Milner that he was not to levy the duty was verbal, as was also Sir A. Milner's communication on the subject to Sir W. Karslake. There was not a trace left in any paper or book of the Department connected with the remission of the duty. When the Committee came to inquire into the transaction, they found that not even the accounting officer who was responsible for, and presumably acquainted with, the whole of the accounts of the Department, had any knowledge of the transaction that had taken place with regard to these duties. The same observation applied to the sub-accounting officer and the Auditor and Controller General, and if it had not been for the existence of the Public Accounts Committee the transaction would have been buried in secrecy to the end of time. The Committee were probably aware that the Inland Revenue acted under the orders and directions of the Treasury in all it did in the collection of revenue. It was bound by Statute to obey the orders of the Treasury in what it did, but the conception of the kind of obedience which the Department held itself bound to render was to him a strange and new conception. When Sir William Karslake was being examined he put to the witness these questions:—

"I will put this case to you: Supposing the Treasury instructed you not to take any steps to recover duty which was undoubtedly due from a private estate, would you consider your self bound to follow out those orders?—Certainly. I think the section I have read would bind the Commissioners, and therefore would bind me.

"Then you do hold that even unlawful orders should be obeyed?—I do not think it is for me to question whether they are lawful or unlawful."

It would thus be seen that the Treasury could get any commands obeyed which were issued to the Department. Let the Committee go one step further and convict the Treasury out of its own mouth as to the impropriety of its conduct. In 1382 the Treasury was considering the misdoings of the Accounting Officers among other persons, and it sent forth a solemn minute. It said that:—

"Accounting officers will understand that if they are desired by their superior officers to order a payment which, under Act of Parliament, Order in Council, Queen's Warrant, Treasury Minute, or otherwise, they believe to he wrong, they must represent their objection, and the reason for it, to such superior officer in writing. If the order is then repeated in writing they must obey without further responsibility; but if the officer direction the payment is not the supreme chief of the Department they should ask to obtain the authority in writing of such chief before obeying. The responsibility is then transferred to the directing officer, who will he held personally liable."

Here then was the Comptroller of Legacy Duties, hound hay Statute to collect the duties, directed not to collect them. Sir William Karslake's duty was to take his orders in writing; he did not do so; he took verbal orders; and if Sir William Karslake and Sir Alfred Milner had complied with the terms of the Treasury Minute, each would have had from the other an order in writing from the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire (Sir W. Harcourt), and the right hon. Gentleman would have been held personally liable for the £13,800, [Laughter.] But none of the proper steps laid down by the Treasury in a transaction of this kind had been taken, and the failure to take them was due to the action of the Treasury itself. It was the Treasury that authorised this thing to be done by verbal communication, and the responsibility rested with the authorities there. Why was this thing done? The reason given was that it was done in order to act according to the comity of nations with regard to a foreign sovereign. When he asked the Treasury official who gave this answer whether he understood what "comity of nations" was, the gentleman replied that he did not understand it. He then gave to the official the definition of Phillimore, that comity of nations "consists in the foreigner and the native being entitled to a like measure of justice," and he suggested that this was the proper meaning of comity, which after all meant courtesy. Comity would require, therefore, that the Czar and the Hereford washerwoman should lie treated in the same way; but in this instance the one was treated in one way and the other in a wholly different way. But the plea of comity having disappeared, it was next suggested that the duties were irrecoverable. But he reminded the Committee that the Comptroller of Legacy Duties told the Committee that had the duties been insisted upon they would have been paid, and thus the issue of civil process could never have arisen. Under the Finance Act it could not have been a question of civil process, because the charge lay on the Treasury. Both the plea of comity, moreover, and the plea that the duties were irrecoverable failed when it was considered that only a few years before, in precisely similar circumstances, time duty was levied on the King of Portugal. The transaction was thus left in its naked proportions as a complete and inexcusable violation of the law perpetrated by order of the Treasury. What the final motive was he did not know. He had hoped that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been present to tell the Committee; but so far, he could not understand what it was. He could easily understand that a Sovereign of this country who had power to do so before the Revolution—say a Plantagenet—might have excused from duty a poor relation; but in this case the relation was not poor; and there was no power, not even in the Sovereign, certainly not in the Treasury, to make the remission. Pascal said that the great casuist. Escobar took the view that "if you saw a thief going to rob a poor man it was lawful to divert him from his purpose by pointing out a rich man whom he might rob instead." [Laughter.] But the modern casuist of West Monmouth, when he saw the tax collector ready to mulct a poor Czar of £14,000, diverted attention by pointing out that he might console himself by taking £5 from the Herefordshire washerwoman. He could see no authority and no justification for what had been done. It seemed to him to be absolutely necessary that sonic change should be made in the system under which the Treasury conducted its business. Remissions made in contravention of the law should cease once and for ever, and he believed that if they had not been made secretly and without the knowledge of the House of Commons they would have ceased long ago. Whenever the Treasury made any remission, he maintained that it should inform the Auditor and Comptroller General in order that the attention of the Public Accounts Committee should be called to the matter if it was thought fit, and the House of Commons should insist that every year a list should be presented of every remission, great or small, which t he Treasury thought it desirable to ["Hear, hear!"] In his opinion no Department was to be trusted with the dispensing power over the laws; no Department ought to be enabled to issue either general or particular declarations of indulgence—to its friends, perhaps. Consider the openings to favouritism and to every kind of abuse this would give rise to; but, if it were done, then it should be done no longer in secret, but under conditions which would enable Parliament to judge of each remission made, and so to prevent the recurrence of any such abuses in future as he had ventured to describe.

said he thought there should be some declaration from the Treasury in reply to the serious charges made.

expressed surprise that no reply was forthcoming either from the Treasury Bench, or, what would perhaps be even more satisfactory, from some one on the front Opposition Bench, explaining the proceedings in question. There ought to be some assurance that it would not be possible for such a transaction to take place again in such a clandestine and secret manner. Differing from his hon. Friend, he held that a dispensing power must reside in the great Officers of State, but he contended that there should be furnished to the Public Accounts Committee and in a proper manner to the House a return showing any case in which taxation had been remitted.

I am sorry I was not hero when the hon. Member for Lynn Regis brought this matter before the House. The hon. Member who spoke last has used the word "clandestine." I must protest against that word. There was nothing clandestine about the matter at all. The practice in the Treasury for time out of mind has been that in regard to Sovereigns and their representatives a relaxation is made in respect of duties of various kinds which are levied upon everyone else, and that without statutory authority. There was a celebrated case in the reign of William III., when the Custom House officers confiscated the riband of the St. Esprit of the French Ambassador; and there was an Act passed in the time of Queen Anne at the instance of Peter the Great, who demanded the immediate execution of all the officers who had been concerned in a transaction of a like sort. That was the origin of the statute of Anne which forbids process to be taken out against foreign Ambassadors, and, still more, against Sovereigns. It is perfectly true that, literally speaking, there is no statutory authority with reference to Customs or income tax or duties on Ambassadors' houses, and so on, for not levying the imposts, and the consequence is that Ambassadors, time out of mind, have had their tobacco, wines, and other articles free of duty, and they are passed and no questions are asked. When the Czar visited the Queen at Balmoral the other day, an absolutely "illegal and clandestine" operation took place. The Customs, even without the instruction of the Treasury, gave orders that the Emperor of Russia's luggage, containing possibly cigarettes and caravan tea, should be passed, and this violation of the statutes of the realm took place, and, I am afraid, in a "clandestine" manner. [Laughter.] That is really the state of things which has existed ever since Queen Anne, and ever since the celebrated Act, of which an illuminated copy was presented to Peter the Great, and the present Czar of Russia has derived an hereditary benefit from that protest of his ancestor 200 years ago. Now the enactment of the statute of Anne is that no process can be taken out for the recovery of moneys from foreign Sovereigns or their representatives, and when it was represented to me by the Russian Ambassador that there was this money, there was no process of law by which the duty could be levied, and there cannot be a process of law—

We were told by the Controller of Legacy Duties that if the duty had been insisted upon it would certainly have been paid.

No; I beg pardon.

He said so.

The hon. Member has been wrongly informed. What might have been done was this—the money might have been impounded until the duty was paid. The hon. Member is wrong in supposing that the Committee have stated that some illegality has taken place. The Committee have not said anything of the kind. The Committee said that they were not called upon to formulate an opinion on the question of the propriety, in view of international comity, of securing the transfer, without payment of duty, of the property held by the Bank; the point taken by the Committee was whether the transaction should have been recorded and published. This was not a remission, because a remission, properly speaking, is the paying back of a duty which has been already paid, and the Treasury Minute of 1883, which is referred to in the Report of the Committee, deals with remissions of that character. You might lay on the Table of Parliament, if you chose, the details of those transactions. You might lay on the Table of Parliament a statement of how many cigars in the course of the year the Spanish Ambassador and his suite smoked, and how many gallons of wine each Ambassador or Minister has consumed. I do not know that that would add to the grace of the comity, because in Committee of Supply you might discuss whether the Spanish Ambassador smoked too much, or whether the French Ambassador had too much claret and champagne. [Laughter.] That, I have no doubt, is the reason why the practice which the hon. Member has condemned has been pursued. If you are going in future to lay on the Table of Parliament a return of such things, it may be a very strict financial proceeding, but it would destroy the comity of the transaction; and, of course, hereafter you must examine the Czar's luggage when he conies over in order that you may make a return to Parliament of what it contains. That is not my view of the comity of nations. Now, in the case of this particular remission, what happened was this. The Bank of England, having this money in their hands, had power perfectly legally to hand it over to the Emperor of Russia, and they might have done so at their own risk without letters of administration. I do not speak positively upon this, but the information I have is that the Emperor could not take out letters of administration, for lie becomes possessed of the property of the late Emperor, whom he succeeds, immediately. Therefore it was his property without letters of administration. Consequently what was really done by the Treasury was to inform the Bank that if they chose to do what they did perfectly legally the Treasury would not object. That is the whole history of the matter, and when it was said that this was done clandestinely, I do not know how the hon. Member would desire that it should have been revealed to the House. The Treasury simply followed in this case the practice they always follow. I hope I have made a frank statement to the House. [Cheers.] I do not desire that any responsibility should rest upon the Treasury or upon any of the officials. The responsibility was mine. I regarded it as an act of State—the dealing of one Sovereign State with another; and I think that the proceeding was justifiable and proper under the circumstances. [Cheers.] That is not really disputed by the Committee of Public Accounts. They remark, not on the propriety of the transaction itself, but on the necessity for further publicity in these matters. That does not rest with me. But it seems to me that when you are doing an act of grace and favour you do not want to publish it to all the world. ["Hear, hear!"] There is a Latin epigram which says, "A man conferred a favour upon me, and published it to all the world, and therefore we are quits." These are never matters of great moment or serious consequence; and if you are to keep the character of this country for observing a comity which has existed for many generations, I do not think it is desirable to depart from the practice which has hitherto been pursued. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the other case quoted of the king of Portugal, there was no claim for the extension of this comity. But in this case the claim was made and was admitted. [Cheers.]

said that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the Public Accounts Committee did not report the thing done as unlawful. They said,—

"Your Committee are of opinion that when the Treasury decided to countenance what was not only 'extra-statutory' but actually against the law—"

Of course. Every cask of wine and every box of cigars for the Ambassador which is passed is against the law in that sense. That is to say, the law orders that the duty shall be collected, and it is not collected.

But the right lion. Gentleman said that the Committee had not reported that this was against the law.

They state that it is against the law, but they say that they are not called upon to form an opinion on the question of propriety in view of international comity." They recognise the comity, though it is not sanctioned by statute.

said that no question of comity was raised with regard to the estate of the King of Portugal, on which duty was paid. He could not understand that the comity depended upon an application being made for its extension. If the payment of the duty was against comity, and it was tendered, it ought to have been refused. It was the fact that this remission in the case of the Czar was done secretly, instead of being done in writing, and the direction of the right hon. Gentleman being given directly. From the moment the decision was taken to excuse the duty not a word in writing passed, and there was nothing from which the Auditor General could have discovered the transaction.

I have pointed out that in the case of the Czar's visit to Balmoral the Treasury was not consulted. You may call that clandestine, if you like. The order was simply sent down. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that lie did not attach the greatest blame to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the officials of the Treasury who undertook to construe the Act of 1894. In declaring that it was unnecessary to take out letters of administration, and, therefore, that no duty was payable, they misled the right hon. Gentleman. The Report of the Inland Revenue to the Treasury was that no one could be allowed to recover the property without taking out letters of administration.

The whole of the responsibility is mine.

insisted that the right. hon. Gentleman had been ill-advised, and hoped that in future these remissions would be laid before Parliament.

I do not think that the Committee will desire to pursue the particular case of non-exaction of duty from the Czar of Russia. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman has made a fair and plain statement of the case; and I think that in all probability the country obtained a greater advantage from the act of courtesy than it would have gained from the exaction of the duty. [Cheers.] Some members of the Committee perhaps desire that we should give some expression of our views with respect to the general recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the impossibility of laying before Parliament a statement of the remissions of duties to Ambassadors or foreign Sovereigns in cases where it has been the rule for generations past that such remissions should be made. Further, I will say that to make a remission to a foreign Sovereign in some exceptional case, and then bring it before Parliament for discussion, might very possibly result in detracting greatly from the grace and courtesy of such remission. [Cheers.] But what Parliament may be jealous of is the action of the Executive—whether the Treasury, the Inland Revenue, or the Customs—not in regard to foreign Sovereigns or Ambassadors, but in regard to Her Majesty's own subjects. ["Hear, hear!"] I entirely accept, as far as Her Majesty's present Government are concerned, the view of the Committee that where the action of the Treasury, or the Inland Revenue, or the Customs, in these matters with regard to Her Majesty's subjects involves some new question of principle, the matter should be frankly submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General, to be reported by him, if he so desires, to the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"] That is only in accordance with the old Treasury Minute. But the Committee must not carry that principle too far. Every day, it is not perhaps too much to say, cases of trifling amount occur in the ordinary administration of the Customs and the Inland Revenue—cases in which some claim for duty is made and is not pressed, or perhaps some penalty is waived. In some sense these are remissions. Are they to be reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General? I do not think that it would be the view of the Committee on Public Accounts that matters of that sort should be brought unnecessarily before the notice of Parliament or of the Comptroller and Auditor General. But I fully accept the view that where any remission is made by the Treasury or a subordinate Department involving any new principle or any important amount, that such remission should be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

who was received with cries of "Oh!" asked whether the Secretary to the Treasury intended to continue his dual office as representative of the Treasury and of the Post Office? The right hon. Gentleman's salary of £2,000 was too large while he was dividing his time between the two Departments. [Laughter.] Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman were devoting eight or ten hours a day to the work of one Department only the salary might not be excessive. [Laughter.] It was too great a strain on any one man to, fill two offices, and he thought they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to stick to the duties of Financial Secretary and not to take up the other duties. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would give him any information as to what his intentions were. [Laughter.] He also desired to call attention to the salary of the non-resident British director of the Suez Canal. According to the Vote, he received £800 this year, as against £500 last year, and, in addition, lie received £950 as late Deputy Master of the Mint. A footnote stated that this rate of salary would be reconsidered on a vacancy. Did that mean that the office was to be abolished, or that the salary was to be reduced? He hoped some satisfactory explanation might be given of this matter.

congratulated the Treasury on the course they had taken in regard to this matter of the Suez Canal directors. Hitherto, they had always sweated "these unfortunate directors, and had themselves appropriated the fees they got from the Canal. Now they were paying the directors a sum equivalent to what they got from the Canal.

said the explanation given by the hon. Member for Caithness was the true one.

drew attention to, the matter of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund, and asked that something should be done in the matter of the deficiency which existed.

Order, order! The general question with regard to the Teachers' Pension Fund does not arise on this Vote. This Vote relates solely to the office.

said he did not wish to press the matter unduly, but he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that something should be done.

assured the hon. Member that a large sum was going to be voted to make up the deficiency in the Teachers' Pension Fund.

asked when the deficiency was; made known.

said the deficiency was made known, he thought, some three or four years ago. To a large extent it arose through some actuarial miscalculations. The deficiency, no doubt, did represent a very large sum, to which the Government were going to contribute several hundreds of thousands of pounds.

referred to the scale of fees they were paying in England, Ireland, and Scotland. On this Vote they had got three Exchequers, and, as usual, the Irish sum was an extravagant one. Take the principal clerks in three offices. In London and in Dublin these officials began at £700 a year and went on increasing to, £800 a year. He could understand that in London the official might be paid a little more than they paid in the other capitals, but he could not understand why the chief clerk in Edinburgh should begin at only £500 a year, increasing to £600, while the same official in Dublin began at £700 and went on to £800. He thought that at any rate the Edinburgh official ought to be paid an equal amount to the Dublin official. He thought the Treasury ought to see the injustice of the present arrangement. They had been able to level up, to a certain extent, the salaries of the Lord Advocate, the Scotch Solicitor General, and the Scotch Judges, and now they had got to level up the others as well, or give some decent reason for the course they had pursued. This was a national grievance, for every Department in Scotland was underpaid. He seriously objected to having the Scotch Civil Servants in every Department underpaid compared with the Irish and English servants, and getting no compensation for the disparity. It was only fair that the Treasury should give Scotland this money in a certain sum as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in 1888. It was a most beneficial Measure passed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty when, in lieu of grants he substituted a share of the taxes. He hoped the Treasury would do something in the matter he had referred to.

desired to call attention to two classes of Civil Servants humbler than those the lion. Member for Caithness had referred to, who did not revel in salaries of £500 or £600 a year. One of these was the class of second division clerks who received their appointments under the terms recommended by the Royal Commission as distinguished from those appointed under the Playfair Commission scheme. These clerks, he was told on good authority, had much lower pay. No doubt the State was entitled to obtain its servants on the most reasonable terms, provided that 'those terms were not so low that for them good service could not be rendered. On the terms of their contract these clerks had technically no right to complain, but he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to examine the grievances of these men, and if it should be found that some of the State servants received remuneration so small that without private means they could not fulfil their duty, or without using their spare hours for extra service, thus rendering their service to the State less valuable, would it not be worth while to offer remuneration that would secure their entire service? In addition to pay there was the question of holidays. For five years after they entered the Service they only had 14 days' leave in the year, besides Christmas Day and the usual public holidays, and in these days of stress and strain this was not sufficient. He hoped if now the larger question of the pay of the Services could not be raised, yet the Secretary to the Treasury would in this appropriate Jubilee year consider whether something could be done for this deserving class of public servants. Another humble class of Civil Servants were the "abstractors," of whom there were a large number in the various Departments. The increment of their pay was at the rate of £2 10s. per annum, the lowest rate of any class of Civil Servants, and after many years they arrived at the maximum of a little over £100. Boy messengers and boy copyists received a larger increment, to the extent of half as much again, and in some cases twice as much. He hoped a promise would be given that these grievances should be considered.

said the Ridley Commission dealt with the whole question of Civil Service establishments, but he did not think his hon. Friend was correct in saying that the Ridley Commission recommended lower salaries than existed under the Playfair scheme. No doubt they started from a. lower minimum, but during the whole of his years of service, supposing a man served after 60, as many men did, he would receive more in salary than a clerk under the Playfair scheme. While Salaries were lower in the early years of service, when they were not so much wanted, higher salaries were paid as men advanced in position in the service. There was great desire to enter the second division, and he thought the Ridley Commission had acted wisely in establishing the new scale. As to holidays, it was true that until they had served five years these clerks only received 14 days at one time, but there were public holidays to the number of about 7 in the year, and in addition, every alternate Saturday, and in some Departments every Saturday was a half holiday. These regulations were framed on the suggestions of the Ridley Commission, which went into the whole question. On the whole they had worked well. There were a good number of applicants for the second division, and he believed those in the Service were thoroughly satisfied. As to the class of "abstractors," his hon. Friend was not quite right in his facts. The maximum pay was not limited to £100, it extended to £150. What was the position of these "abstractors"? Under the recommendations of the Ridley Commission this class of copyists were to be done away with without compensation. The Treasury took a more lenient view, and selecting a number of the best men, put them in a better position than they had ever held before. Up to that time the men had been employed at 10d. an hour. They were not in any way on the permanent establishment, and were not entitled to a pension. A new class of assistant clerks was appointed, and these were allowed to enter the Service at the salaries they were receiving as copyists, with the addition of certain bonuses rising to £150. His hon. Friend had compared the increment they received with that of boy copyists and boy messengers, but it was not a fair comparison. Boy messengers were dismissed when they ceased to be boys, and boy copyists started at a much lower initial salary. The hon. Member for Caithness made a comparison of the salaries paid in Scotland and Ireland; but so far as he had been able to study these matters he was inclined to think that in many instances the difference arose from salaries in Ireland being too high, not those in Scotland too low.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that time after time there had been memorials and deputations from Scottish Civil Servants, complaining that they were paid so much lower salaries.

said, of course, the hon. Member knew the general principle upon which salaries were apportioned, No doubt they were calculated on the cost of living in the different countries. But lie would promise to look into the matter and see if the salaries were duly proportioned.

said he was responsible in 1894 for a Motion for the reduction of the Home Office Vote in reference to the position of junior clerks, and he recalled the fact that on that occasion the then Under Secretary (Mr. G. Russell) expressed the opinion that a holiday of 14 days was totally inadequate for junior clerks. An extra week was almost promised by the late Government, and it might be appropriately granted in this Jubilee year.

said there were one or two remarks lie had to make upon this Vote. In the first place he would ask the Secretary of State to look into the condition of one of the burial grounds under his authority, which was such as to constitute a grave public scandal. The matter concerned both the Home Office and the Treasury. It was the case of the Brompton cemetery. It concerned both the. Treasury and the Home Office, because the Treasury received the fees for interments, and the Home Office had statutory power to act if the ground was unfit to be used for burials any longer. The case had been frequently mentioned in the House, but instead of getting better things got worse. In private cemeteries interments within 100 yards of dwelling houses could be forbidden by the Home Office, but at Brompton interments were made right under the windows of houses in a crowded neighbourhood. Such an intra-mural cemetery afforded a flagrant example of all the evils which the Statute administered by the Home Office was intended to prevent, and the scandal was all the greater because of the fact that the country was making money out of it. ["Hear, hear!"] The other matter with which he wished to deal at a little greater length concerned the administration of the Factory laws by the Home Secretary. As he should have one or two criticisms to offer, he would say that those criticisms were all on side points. Generally speaking, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for, and to congratulate him upon his administration of his office. He thought he had admirably carried on the traditions of his predecessor, and had made no changes in the general conduct of the office. There hall been a continuity of policy in regard to factory and mine inspection, and all other Departments, which was worthy of admiration, and if he said one or two words by way of criticism on a few points of detail, he did not wish to be understood as making any sort of attack on the general administration. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished to point out that in one or two directions there had been a notable tendency to vary what seemed to be the law by a sort of private arrangement between the Home Office and certain great firms. Generally speaking the firms concerned were firms which did a large amount of contract work for various Government Departments, and he could not but think that in some cases the influence of other Departments had been brought to bear—probably without the knowledge of the Home Secretary—upon some of the officials of his Department. It had been represented, perhaps, as being important for the Army or the Navy, or for reasons connected with other Departments, that certain firms should have their work facilitated by occasional relaxation of the law. There seemed to have been instances of this in the cases of the great firm of McCorquodale, and certain firms which contracted with the Government for the supply of tinned meat and tinned provisions. In the stationery works of Messrs. McCorquodale, at Newton-le-Willows, Lancashire, there was a large department called the "stores" department. Many examples had been referred to in that House, some in the last Parliament, of the difficulties in administering the Factory Laws caused by the inability of any one to draw a very strict line between what were warehouses and what were factories. They were familiar with the difficulties in this connection with regard to the bottling of beer and the printing of newspapers and other matters. This was a case of the kind. There was a large department at McCorquodale's called "stores," in which work was done which appeared to him plainly to bring that portion of their works within the definition of "factories" in the Factory Acts. As a matter of fact the hours of work in that large department were not the hours prescribed by the Factory laws. Sixty or seventy hours a week had been done by young persons, and in some cases children, and overtime had been worked on more than the statutory number of occasions, namely, 30 days. It was admitted, he thought, that the departments were not brought under any regulation with regard to hours. He believed it was understood in the Home Office that these "stores" departments were not under the Factory Acts, and therefore were not subject to regulations as to hours. But there was in Messrs. McCorquodale's works another department called the "label" department, employing a large number of people, which was admitted to be under the Factory Acts, the work done in which appeared to him to be indistinguishable on any principle from the work carried on in the "stores." What he had to complain of was that the. Home Office must be aware that these portions of the works were on the dividing line between factories and warehouses, because he understood that an arrangement had been come to, a sort of private arrangement outside the Factory Acts, that not more than a certain number of hours were to be worked in future in those departments. That seemed to show that there was a doubt in the minds of the Home Office whether or not these works did come within the Factory Acts; and he was bound to say that he thought these arrangements with regard to hours outside the Act most unsatisfactory. He should not have attached much importance to this case if it stood by itself. But what had occurred with regard to the fishing industry went to show that there was a tendency somewhere in the Home Office to assume to vary the provisions of the law. In the case of the fishing industry the Factory Acts contained a special exception with regard to the gutting of fish on its arrival by boat; but the exception did not apply to the process of tinning or preserving fish. There were great works at the East End of London which did an immense amount of work for the Government. A great deal of fish was tinned which did not come to London by boat at all, but which came by train. These works undoubtedly came under the ordinary factory laws. Yet the Home Office for some time past had refrained from enforcing the law as against them. Questions were put in the House which induced the statement that a private Member was bringing in a Bill on the question, and that, pending legislation, there was to be some arrangement for holding over the cases. He submitted that a private Member's Bill, which had not the remotest chance of becoming law, was not sufficient ground for the Home Office suspending action on the existing law. He believed that several cases had been held over, and no prosecution had been carried through because of some suggested legislation. It appeared to him, as he had said, that these arrangements were most undesirable. The words of the law were perfectly plain. The exception distinctly referred to industries dependent on the arrival of fish by boats, and the language was so clear that it could not possibly apply generally to the tinning and preserving industry at large, and the law ought to be allowed to take its course, and the restrictions as to hours should be applied in the usual way. This was a case of some importance, because a large number and an increasing number of people were employed in these industries, which were working largely for the Government under contract. It was not a matter of the rate of wages paid, because the rates of wages were satisfactory, and in some cases high. But it was a question of the hours of work, which in this fish industry were very cruel hours. Women were employed, some of them all day on Sunday, and the hours were very long; yet the whole of these fish tinning places were treated as outside the provisions of the Factory Acts. To refrain from enforcing the law seemed to him to be a great mistake, entailing serious consequences to a large number of workers. ["Hear, hear!"] Lie would not press the matter any further, but would ask the Home Secretary to inquire into the facts he had mentioned in the case of the McCurquodale works; and with regard to the fish tinning industry he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the House that he intended to allow the law to take its course in future. He wished to conclude, as he had begun, by expressing his warm sympathy with the general administration of the right hon. Gentleman, and his conviction that in the greater portion of his administration he had been guided by the principles which most of those on his (the speaker's) side of the House wished to see carried out. ["Hear, hear!"]

wished to draw attention to a matter which was a grievance of some importance to some 15,000 men, hundreds of whom he had the honour to represent. In order to make the matter clear to the Committee, he was compelled to traverse old ground, which he did very reluctantly. The constables of the Metropolitan Police force had laboured lot a number of years under the disadvantage of being supplied with contract boots. Some years ago he drew attention to this fact, and the Government of the day declared that there was no grievance of the kind. But lie proved that the grievance existed, inasmuch as these boots, for which the Government paid 30s. a pair, would not realise in the open market when new one half that value; and he showed that other boots, namely, boots supplied to the troops, and which cost a very much smaller figure, were sold in open market for two-thirds of their value. The Government then gave way on the point that there was no grievance; but they then declared that it would be impossible to carry out his suggestion that the men should receive a bout money allowance instead of contract boots.

said the question should be raised on the Police Vote; he did not think it could be raised on the Hume Office Vote.

respectfully submitted that when he moved on a previous occasion, he dealt with it on this Vote.

I am not aware of that. I am aware that the matter was dealt with on the Police Vote on a former occasion, and that was the proper place to deal with it.

I assure you that I did deal with it on this Vote, as the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Mr. Asquith) will allow, for I moved that his salary be reduced on that occasion.

I am sorry I did not object on that occasion. [Laughter.]

I took opinion at the Table as to which Vote I should bring the matter forward upon, and it was suggested that this was the proper Vote.

I must follow the precedent set myself when I allowed the question to be raised on the Police Vote. I must hold, therefore, that this is nut the proper place to raise it.

said that perhaps the- Chairman would permit him to say that the Question just referred to by the hon. Member for Newington was raised this Session by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich upon the Police Vote. What had been done was intended to be for the advantage of the men, who, according to his information, wished to have a money instead of a boot allowance. He was much indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for what he had said about the administration of the Factory Acts. He believed there ought to be continuity in the administration of such important Acts, and he was glad to think he had achieved some small measure of success in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. The circumstances of the Brompton Cemetery had not been brought to his notice, but he would inquire into them. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think there had been some influence at work which had induced the Home Office to relax the administration of the Factory Acts with regard to certain establishments. He was not aware of anything of the kind, and certainly he, personally, had never been called upon to decide whether any portion of McCorquodale's works was more properly a warehouse or a factory. The right hon. Baronet illustrated his point by what had been done with reference to some of the fish-curing industries. Directly he entered office his attention was called to what appeared to him to be a slip in the language of the Factory Act of 1878, and a Bill was introduced last Session for the purpose of amending the Act. The workers of the trade, employers as well as employed, have expressed the desire that there should be some slight amendment of the law which would make it clear that they may continue to work certain overtime in cases where it is necessary.

remarked that what he had said he had said at the wish of the Trade Councils of Grimsby and Aberdeen, who represented a very considerable industry, and they were not at all in favour of any relaxation.

said he had not had a single representation made to him except in favour of retaining the relaxation which had always been allowed. He did not understand that any harm had been done, but he would look into the matter.

trusted that the Home Secretary would, through his inspectors, see that cruelty was not inflicted upon dumb animals by means of vivisection experiments. He quoted from a letter written by a well-known medical officer, Mr. Edward Berdol, a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, etc., Tyne-mouth House, Victoria Park Gate. That gentleman wrote under date June 10, 1897,—

"Certificate A is special for experiments without anæsthetics, and although it is never allowed except for inoculation and similar trivial operation, the licensee does not allow himself to be baulked by such obstacles. He proceeds simply and effectually in the following manner: He desires, let us say, to bore boles in a dog's skull, to tear open the chest and disclose and experiment upon the heart. He gives a whiff of chloroform, enough to swear by, but not enough to interfere with the results of his research. He next gives a little morphia, which he has lately taken to call an anæsthetic. Thus Messrs. Bayliss and Hill in the Journal of Physiology (Vol. xviii. p. 357) say: 'Throughout the experiments morphia was the anæsthetic used.' Everybody knew that morphia was not an anæsthetic at all, but merely a stupefier (nobody would have a tooth extracted under morphia when he could get nitrous oxide gas). Before the preliminary stupefaction had passed off, curare was given, and then no noise, no biting, no scratching, no movements followed; nobody but the experimenter could tell that the creature was not really anæsthetised; and then the vivisector set to work, tearing away bones and muscles, cutting and stimulating nerves, and doing his work without fear of Home Secretary or anyone else. He could swear he had used anæsthetics, and as the animal had no power to express any pain, although suffering unutterable and unimaginable torments, his torturer could go on with his work for six hours and 12 minutes under curare, as was done in the new Museum, Cambridge, as recorded in detail in the Journal of Physiology, Vol. xv., pp. 1–89, 1893."

admitted that it was very difficult to accurately define a workshop, but contended the reply the right hon. Gentleman gave him earlier in the Session in respect to places where newspapers were folded and beer bottled was not quite satisfactory. He noticed that the superintendent-inspectorship in the women's department was vacant. Perhaps the Home Secretary would inform the Committee whether it was intended to appoint a new female factory inspector, and, if so, whether it was intended to appoint one of the present inspectors as superintendent. With regard to the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, it appeared to him most undesirable for a Government Department to enter into any private arrangement with any private firms.

There has been no arrangement whatever.

understood there was an arrangement that the firms should carry on their business in a particular way.

There was no arrangement at all.

said that in that case he would not pursue the subject.

remarked that, with regard to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for North Monmouth as to the definition of a workshop, he could not add anything to the answers he had already given, and which were founded on the best advice that could be supplied him at the Home Office. With respect to the vacancy which had occurred on the staff of the factory inspectorate, they had lost a very valuable public servant by the retirement of the present lady superintendent-inspector. ["Hear, hear!]He was now engaged in going through a formidable list of the names of ladies who were desirous of becoming inspectors. His present intention was not to appoint a superintendent-inspector, but there were two or three points he was considering with the chief Inspector before deciding finally whether there should be a superintendent-inspector or five inspectors of the same grade. He proposed for the present to fill up the vacancy by the appointment of an ordinary inspector. With reference to the allegation as to cruelty in connection with vivisection, he could not believe that the statements which the hon. Member opposite had quoted from a letter were in any degree accurate. On the contrary, he believed they were entirely inaccurate, and he should be extremely sorry to think that such a thing as had been suggested was possible. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to let him have the statement of his correspondents he would take care to examine very closely into the truth of the matter. During the course of the last year or two he had had only one or two complaints as to the way the operations were carried on, and as to alleged cruelty and irregularity under the Act. Those charges, however, were not substantiated in any case, and he had reason to believe that the Act was humanely and properly administered; that the two inspectors—one in the south and one in the north—were thoroughly up to their work; that they did pay surprise visits; and that they took every means to secure the efficient carrying out of the Act. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Secretary of the Treasury had postponed to that stage some explanation of the increase in this Vote. The increase was considerable, and in one particular it was an increase in salaries. He remembered the Secretary of the Treasury being very strong against such increases. Now for the first time there was an additional extra allowance to a clerk of £100 a year.

said he had generally opposed personal allowance, but this was an exceptional case. They had to feel their way as to the salaries in the Department, and under the circumstances there was no other course to be pursued than the one adopted. The Sunday opening had led to increased expenditure, and it was the wish of the House that no increase or pressure of any kind should be brought to bear on the ordinary attendants and servants in regard to work on Sundays. He had, however, in some instances, representations from the attendants that they wished to do the extra work themselves, and they were allowed to do it.