I have to ask the House to agree to an Instruction on this Bill similar to one already passed in regard to other Tramway Bills. The clause in this measure regarding the provision of cheap fares for the working classes is very bad; only one car is to be run, and that at an inconvenient hour, and the fares are by no means right. The Instruction has been agreed to by the promoters, and I hope the House will offer no objection to it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether on the arrival of the Naval officers and men who took such a part in the defence of Ladysmith, he will afford the inhabitants of London an opportunity of giving them a public reception, and thus expressing their admiration and gratitude.

My right hon. friend asks me to say that no definite announcement can be made, but it is under consideration to have an inspection of the Naval Brigade by the Lords of the Admiralty in London.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a threat was made by the Boers to level or burn down Johannesburg; and if so, whether the Boers were informed that any wanton destruction of British property during the war would be charged to the Boers and the amount levied on their farms and other property.

The questions raised are outside the province of the War Office. I understand, however, that the Colonial Secretary intends to issue a proclamation on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War when it will be possible to give a decided answer to the offer made on 21st December last by the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital to take in twenty sick and wounded men of the Devon Regiment on their return from active service.

There has been some misapprehension on this point, and I should like, if the House will allow me, to explain it rather fully. It was apprehended that the accommodation of the military hospitals might prove insufficient for the number of invalids arriving from South Africa. A circular was accordingly sent by the War Office to the various town and country hospitals to ascertain what number of beds could, if need should arise, be assigned to military patients. Our intention is to use these beds only as a reserve, when the military hospitals are full. In many cases, including the Royal Devon and Exeter, we were met by the generous offer of a number of free beds. But the military hospitals are not yet full; only about 2,000 invalids have so far arrived from South Africa, and many of these have already been sent on sick furlough; so that it is impossible to say when, or whether, recourse must be had to civil hospitals. There is, however, no necessity for keeping beds vacant in any civil hospital, since we propose to give ten days' or a fortnight's notice in every case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether wines are included among the hospital stores sent to South Africa; and whether tenders are invited for these wines; if so, whether tenders for Cape wines as well as foreign wines are called for.

Champagne and port are sent for hospital use. Tenders are invited for them. Tenders for Cape wines are not called for, but if any should be required by the medical officers purchase could be made on the spot.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any and what sum has been allocated in these Estimates in respect of the expenses of courts martial in South Africa, and the payment of the Deputy Judge Advocate; and whether he can state the number of records of courts martial which have been remitted to the Judge Advocate General's Department in England from South Africa since the commencement of the war, and the name and standing of the legal adviser of the Acting Deputy Judge Advocate in South Africa; and whether courts martial, in all departments of Her Majesty's military and naval forces serving on land, including colonial contingents, are directed by one Deputy Judge Advocate in South Africa.

Provision for the expenses referred to in paragraph I has been made under Vote 1, sub-head A., for extra expenditure, occasioned by the war in South Africa. Since the commencement of the war the records of 458 courts martial have been sent to England. The Deputy Judge Advocate in South Africa is a barrister of nine years standing and has no legal adviser. Courts martial in all departments of the military forces in South Africa, including colonial contingents, are directed by the Deputy Judge Advocate—courts martial on Naval forces are outside his jurisdiction.

Do the figures include courts martial held under martial law on persons not serving Her Majesty in South Africa?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War the reasons inducing the War Office to prefer arrangements for loading in connection with the service rifle which necessitate the refilling of the magazine by the insertion of a single cartridge at a time to arrangements which enable the whole magazine to be recharged by a single movement of the hand, as in the case of the rifle in use by the Boers.

The present magazine rifle was adopted into the service on the recommendation of a special Small Arms Committee after trials had been carried out with all available magazine rifles. It would be impossible within the limits of an answer to recapitulate the reasons which led to the decision arrived at.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officers and men of the militia regiments, which have been embodied and sent to take the place of regulars in garrison, have been put to serious expense, which many of them can ill-afford; and that, in consequence, while they are anxious to go to the front, and prepared to take their place in manœuvre camps, they are desirous not to be called upon to incur the charges which a change from one home station to another would entail upon them; and whether he can meet the wishes of these officers and men.

The Secretary of State for War is not aware of any complaints on the matter. He fully admits the necessity of putting the units concerned to as little inconvenience as possible, but he cannot undertake to promise that Militia regiments shall not be moved.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the percentage of losses in horses on the transport "America" on her first voyage to the Cape; whether, upon her arrival at Southampton last week from Glasgow, where she had embarked horses for a second voyage, there was so much sickness among the horses that all had to be disembarked; and, whether it is intended to reimbark these horses on the same ship together with others, and if so, if he can state when the vessel will sail.

The "America," a vessel of 5,158 tons, carrying 276 horses, has made two voyages to the Cape; on the first the losses were 4 per cent., on the second 24 per cent., owing to heavy weather at starring. No complaints of any moment have been received in regard to her. About half the horses for conveyance on her third voyage (Lord Lovat's Corps) were embarked at Glasgow, and on the voyage to Southampton pink eye broke out among them, rendering it necessary to land them at Southampton and disinfect the ship. The outbreak was in no way duo to the transport, and it is proposed by the War Office to embark other horses as soon as the ship is ready to receive them. The date of sailing cannot yet be fixed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have now decided if the three-year men enlisted for the Army are to have the extra 3d. of pay recently granted to men enlisted on longer terms, and now extended to the Militia.

Yes, Sir. Three-years men will have the messing allowance issued to them on the same terms as other soldiers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War where the third and fourth battalions respectively of the Worcestershire and Manchester Regiments were raised; where they are now stationed; what is the strength of each battalion; what number of men in each battalion are effective soldiers, and of age and physique for foreign service; and whether there are any, and if so what, number in each battalion of non-effectives left behind when the first and second battalions went on active service.

The battalions referred to are at Aldershot. Their formation has only just begun, and they probably do not yet number 100 men apiece. If my hon. and gallant friend will repeat his question later in the session I shall be happy to tell him what progress has been made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of an infant, being a ward in Chancery, enlist- ing in the Army, and his discharge being demanded by the Court of Chancery, the War Office would discharge him.

A Ward in Chancery has, in regard to enlistment, no status differing from that of anyone else.

Is it not the case that the Court of Chancery possesses more authority over boys than their parents? Why do the War Office refuse to parents what they concede to the Court of Chancery?

I am not aware that they do.

What is the law with regard to the enlistment of infants?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, when the presence of men engaged in the Ordnance Survey Offices, who are members of the Volunteer Forces, is annually required in camp in order to promote efficiency, leave of absence is granted to them with the stipulation that they must make up the time lost; and, if so, whether, should the camp last for a fortnight as is probable this year, these employees will be necessarily engaged at work for an additional two hours per day for forty-four days to make up the lost time; and whether steps may be taken at once to place these men on the same footing as those employed by private individuals, who almost without exception grant the necessary leave of absence without deduction of pay.

The practice of the Ordnance Survey is substantially as stated by my hon. friend. The question whether Volunteers employed in the Government service on weekly wages should receive their civil pay when in camp or otherwise engaged on Volunteer duty is one which obviously should not be settled by reference to any particular Department alone, and I propose to bring the matter under the notice of my right hon. friend, with a view to ascertain what is the practice elsewhere and what are the wishes of the Treasury respecting it. My hon. friend will understand that whenever civil assistants desire to devote their ordinary leave of absence to Volunteer work, every facility is given to enable them to do so.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what progress is being made with the new floating dock for Bermuda, and when it will be at work.

The dredging of the berth for the floating dock is proceeding, and some other preliminary work has been done. Plans and drawings for the dock and basins are now under consideration. The whole should be finished by the date given in the Schedule to the Naval Works Act, 1899.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is proposed to take advantage of the presence of the Australian Federal Delegates in London to have an informal consultation, with a view to the extension of the penny postal system to Australia as soon as possible after the establishment of the Commonwealth.

The delegates are not, I understand, authorised to discuss such a question as the extension of the penny postal system to Australia.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state definitely when the Reports of the Royal Commission upon Indian Expenditure will be laid upon the Table.

I am informed that the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure is complete, and has been approved by a majority of members. But other members have signified their intention of recording their opinions, and these are not yet ready. There is, however, every reason to expect that the Report, with the usual supplements and appendages, will be laid upon the Table shortly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the undisputed claims of British merchants against the Persian Custom House remaining unredressed for more than two years; and whether, as such treatment prejudices British commerce and influence in that region, he will instruct our Minister at Teheran to take such steps as may be necessary to effect a speedy settlement of the matter.

It is presumed the question relates to the claims of Messrs. Sassoon and Company, as to which correspondence has been recently going on, and hopes have been held out that they will be settled before the end of the present month.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Papers on the subject of University Education Abroad, promised for the beginning of this week, are still delayed; and whether he is aware that there is great interest taken in the production of these Papers in view of the discussion on this subject next Friday.

Papers will be laid to-day and distributed to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the recent murder of Mr. James Lyall, of Darlington, who has been in the service of the British Consulate at Ciudad Bolivar; and whether the Government will make full investigation in regard to the circumstances.

The murder of Mr. James Lyall has been reported by the British Consul at Ciudad Bolivar. The matter has been placed in the hands of Her Majesty's Minister at Caracas, whose report there has not yet been time to receive. Full investigation into the circumstances will certainly be made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the wide difference of agricultural custom and nomenclature between England and Scotland, he will follow the precedent of 1882, and introduce a separate Agricultural Holdings Bill for Scotland.

This was carefully considered by the Agricultural Department, in consultation with the Scottish Office. They came to the conclusion that the course actually pursued was the most convenient, and would lead to no difficulty or confusion.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to pursue this course, may I ask whether he will issue an intelligible translation of the Bill for the information of the Scottish members?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what progress has been made with the erection of the light-house at Tiumpan Head, and when does he expect it to be completed.

I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the tower of Tiumpan Head Lighthouse is practically completed, and that it is expected that the light will be exhibited before the end of the summer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the regulations forbidding the blocking of gangways in theatres and other places of public amusement are being ignored, and that it has become a regular practice to place the seats so close together as to preclude the possibility of their occupants getting out in case of emergency; and whether, having regard to recent examples of the rapidity with which theatres are destroyed by fire, he can take any steps to enforce the strict observance of the precautionary regulations.

I have made inquiry into this matter so far as concerns the Metropolis. I find that a strict observance of the regulations referred to is constantly enjoined on managers, and I have no reason to believe that they are being ignored. If the hon. Member will bring any specific complaint on the subject to the notice of the Lord Chamberlain or of the London County Council, he may be assured that immediate steps will be taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can lay upon the Table of the House extracts from the Reports of the factory inspectors between 1838 and 1850 on the results of allowing the employment in factories of women and young persons from 5.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. (the so-called relay system); and whether he will also cause to be reprinted and laid upon the Table the Reports of the present factory inspectors relating to the difficulty of enforcing the legal limitation of hours in laundries and non-textile factories and workshops, where the hours of beginning and ending work are not fixed so as to coincide precisely with the legal period of employment.

It is not usual to compile and reprint at the public expense extracts from such Reports for any particular purpose, and I am afraid I cannot undertake to do as the hon. Member suggests.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that omnibus conductors are not empowered by law to demand payment of the fare before the termination of the journey, will he state whether any steps can be taken to obviate the annoyance to passengers caused by the entering an omnibus, by ticket inspectors, which already contains its full complement of persons.

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Donegal on the 5th inst., to the effect that I have no power to interfere with this practice.^* I may add that I do not wish to be taken as accepting as a fact the view of the law expressed in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the dates and places when and where the five sentences of flogging were passed which in 1899 were wholly or partly remitted; whether he will state in each case the full sentence ordered and the sentence actually inflicted or served and the grounds for such remission, and whether upon grounds of law or mercy; and whether such remissions were upon the initiative of any and what official, or individual, or society.

On February 6th, at the Central Criminal Court, a sentence of twenty strokes and nine months with hard labour was ordered; the prisoner was discharged at the end of eight weeks and the flogging was not inflicted. On February 13th, at Liverpool assizes, a sentence of twenty strokes twice and four months with hard labour was ordered; twenty strokes were inflicted and four months served. At the same time and place a sentence of fifteen strokes thrice and six months with hard labour was ordered; thirty strokes were inflicted and six months served. At the same time and place a sentence of fifteen strokes twice and three months with hard labour was ordered; fifteen strokes were inflicted and three months served. On June 26th, at the Central Criminal Court, a sentence of twenty strokes and three years penal servitude was ordered the flogging was not inflicted, the prisoner

See page 37 of this volume.

is serving his sentence. It has always been my practice and that of my predecessors to deprecate inquiry in Parliament as to the grounds on which the exercise of the prerogative is advised. It would also be contrary to practice to give information about communications addressed to me.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that it has been the custom for post offices to telephone telegrams whenever a telephone apparatus is available instead of delivering by hand, and to forward the written telegram by the next postal delivery; whether, by recent instructions, postmasters have been ordered not to deliver written telegrams in addition to telephoning them; why was the system altered; and is he aware that dependence upon the telephone only is liable to error in certain classes of messages, and will he give instructions that the former system shall be resumed.

The custom mentioned in the first paragraph has not been the rule. The general rule has been to give delivery by telephone in lieu of other delivery; but, to meet special requirements, the Postmaster General some time ago arranged that any addressee might have each morning in a single express letter, paid for at the usual rate, copies of all telegrams delivered by telephone on the previous day. This arrangement is still in force. If the hon. Member will send to the Postmaster General particulars of the case he has in view, inquiry shall be made as to the circumstances. Special precautions are taken to prevent errors in the delivery of telegrams by telephone, and as a matter of fact the cases of such errors are very few. Delivery by telephone is entirely optional, and is given in all cases at the special request of the addressees.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has had any communication with the Smithfield Club, the Highland Society, the Chambers of Agriculture, or other associations, which passed resolutions in favour of compensation for tuberculosis confiscations; whether the Government have considered the subject; and whether it is intended to introduce legislation this session.

The reply to the first two paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. It is not proposed to introduce legislation on the subject this session.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether it is proposed to introduce a Bill to enable the Government to purchase land for the purpose of erecting a permanent Land Registry Office; whether it was stated at the time of the Land Transfer Act that its operations should be experimental for some years; and whether in these circumstances the Government will postpone the erection of offices until a larger experience of the working of the Act has been enjoyed.

The question is put under a misapprehension. New buildings are required for the Land Registry quite independently of the Land Transfer Act.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that last summer the Congested Districts Board had under consideration proposals for the creation of smallholdings in the island of Bernera, will he state what progress has been made with the scheme.

The Congested Districts Board hope soon to announce that the scheme has been carried out by the settlement of twenty-four crofters, with entry at Whit Sunday.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what progress has been made with the scheme for the encouragement of bee-keeping in the congested area of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and will he say how many hives have been distributed and to what districts they have been sent.

It has been found difficult to find crofters willing to devote attention to bee-keeping. Last spring three hives were sent to the Isle of Coll, where they have done well. Six hives are now about to be sent to Sutherland shire. The Congested Districts Board would be only too glad if crofters would interest themselves in the subject.

If the hon. Member will give me the names of any of his acquaintances who take an interest in bees—either in the bonnet or otherwise—I will certainly send them a hive.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether there is any prospect of the Port Ness Harbour Works being completed this summer.

There is at present no intention of spending any more money on Port Ness Harbour.

Will the funds now in the hands of the Scottish Office be expended on this harbour?

I have told the hon. Member there is no intention of spending any more money on the harbour.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that the packet services on the west coast of Scotland are stated by the Postmaster General, under letter dated 9th June, 1899, to have been established in order to afford facilities for trade and passengers, as well as to provide for the conveyance of the mails, and seeing that the boat which conveys the mails between Kyle of Lochalsh and Stornoway is forty years old, and provides most inadequate accommodation, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a more modern boat to be placed on the service.

Although in the letter quoted by the hon. Member reference was made to facilities for passengers, it is hardly the province of the Post Office to call upon the contractor to provide improved passenger accommodation. The contractor would no doubt demand an increased subsidy if he were requested to supply a more modern boat for the Kyle and Stornoway service, and in view of the loss already incurred in connection with this service, the Postmaster General regrets that he does not see his way to take any steps in the direction indicated. It is understood that the boat usually employed in the service is nearly forty years old, but that she was lengthened and fitted with new engines a few years ago, and is regarded as a good sea boat. It is stated that she is certified to be capable of convoying 360 passengers, with sleeping accommodation for forty-seven. The average number of passengers during the last twelve months was about twenty-five a day in each direction.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether the provisions of The Fine or Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1899, have yet come into operation in Ireland; and, what steps have been taken, or are proposed to be taken, to make known its provisions to prisoners committed in default of payment of fines.

The Statute referred to will become operative in Ireland when the General Prisons Board are informed that the Rules framed under the Act, which were laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament on the 5th February ultimo, have been laid before each House for a period of forty days. The Board have been informed that the Rules have been laid before this House for the proscribed period, and as soon as they receive a similar notification from the authorities of the other House, a circular will at once be issued to governors of prisons directing them to see that every prisoner to whom the Act applies is, without delay, made fully aware of its provisions.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will sanction a Return showing the comparative outlay in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively on foot of Government stores and supplies purchased since the beginning of the current financial year, April 1st, 1899, to present time, in view of the importance of this information in its bearing on the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, which is down for discussion on an early date.

I am unable to give the information in a detailed or complete form, but such information as I have is at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give it for the year, but only since the war began. I am informed that the value of clothing ordered from Ireland amounts to £113,000 out of a total of £580,000. The value of Irish orders for linen is £20,000 out of £84,000, and of cordite £9,166 out of a total value of £117,000. I ought to say that is for the Army alone, and that the Irish share of cordite for the Army and Navy together may be regarded as about one-third of the total supply. The only remaining item of importance is stout, which has been entirely ordered from Ireland.

I wish to ask, can the right hon. Gentleman give similar figures with regard to the neglected and benighted country of Scotland, which, I am afraid, has not received much attention.

Well, Sir, Scotland never puts in the same kind of claim as Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we take a different view of the relations between the various parts of the United Kingdom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much Scotch whisky is ordered?

Are we to understand that of all the millions spent in the course of this war the total sum expended in Ireland has been £130,000?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is to understand nothing but exactly what I have told him—namely, that of a particular supply ordered the amount sent has been what I have stated. We cannot order guns and armour plate in Ireland, because they are not made there.

Nothing but men from Ireland.

Is it not the fact that the cloth is made in England, and all that Ireland does is to stitch up the clothes?

I should think that is not so, but I must not be subjected to cross-examination. I have collected as rapidly as I could such information as was available, and I cannot answer supplementary questions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many generals come from Ireland?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether greyhounds, dancing and performing dogs are allowed to cross backwards and forwards between England and Ireland, while sheep dogs, sporting dogs, and dogs coming or going to attend dog shows are not allowed the same privileges; and whether he will consider the justice of making one uniform rule in all such cases providing such safeguards as he may think necessary.

The conditions under which dogs are allowed to be brought into Great Britain from Ireland have been somewhat modified in the case of coursing greyhounds and performing dogs, in order to avoid particular hardships which would otherwise have arisen, but it is not correct to say that they are allowed to cross backwards and forwards between the two countries. The propriety of the continuance of the concession is now under consideration, but if any alteration of the present practice is to be made it must be in the direction of the application to such dogs of the rules ordinarily enforced for the purpose of preventing the introduction of rabies into Great Britain.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the name of the contractor who is alleged to have been engaged to construct a line of railway between Rosslare or Wexford and Waterford, the exact date upon which the contract was signed, and the date fixed in the contract for the completion of the work.

The contract, which, as I stated on Friday, is only for about twenty-one miles of the line, has been concluded with Messrs. McAlpine and Sons, of Glasgow. I do not know the exact date on which it was signed, but I understand that the works are to be completed by 30th June, 1903.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to institute the office of Medical Referee to the Registrar General's office in Dublin, and what are to be the duties and emoluments of the appointment.

It is proposed to appoint a medical man to the office of Superintendent at present vacant in the department of the Registrar General. The salary attached to the post will be £350, rising by £15 annually to £500. The duties of the officer will be those generally of a superintendent, but particularly with regard to the preparation of vital statistics.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board sanction the appointment of temporary nurses with only one year's training; if so, on what ground do the Board decline to recommend the Government to recoup the Shillelagh Guardians half the salary which they paid to nurse Young as a temporary nurse in the Shillelagh Union Hospital.

The Local Government Board, upon the requisition of the medical officer of the Shillelagh Workhouse, offered no objection to the employment, as a purely temporary measure, of a night nurse with only one year's training. But the Board refused to refund half the salary paid to a Miss Young, who had been employed temporarily in this capacity, until they received from her the necessary evidence of her qualifications, and this evidence Miss Young, though, applied to on the subject, has omitted to furnish.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases there are in the Shillelagh Workhouse Infirmary that require special treatment by a trained nurse; and is the number above the weekly average; and, if so, is the excess due to an increase in the number of influenza patients, or to any other cause.

I am informed there are at present forty-six patients in this workhouse hospital, and that of these twenty-two require special nursing. The number of sick now in the hospital is somewhat below the average.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that on St. Patrick's Day last Irish flags were flying from Windsor Castle, Dublin Castle, London Mansion House, and the municipal buildings of Liverpool and other provincial English cities and towns, the Irish Government will now permit Irish County Councils to hoist the Irish National flag on Irish courthouses used by them as their places of meeting for the discharge of public business.

I am not aware whether flags were erected or not on all the buildings mentioned, or whether the flags erected were similar to those proposed to be erected on Irish Court-houses. It is a matter in each case for the consideration of the high sheriffs, who generally have determined, in my opinion wisely, that it, was undesirable that Court-houses, primarily erected for the purposes of the administration of justice, should be associated with political or party displays of any kind or character.

Will the right hon. Gentleman describe the kind of flag he objects to?

I do not know what flags were used.

I thought not.

Were the Court-houses built at the expense of the high sheriffs or of the ratepayers of the county?

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is intended to have the work of taking the Irish census carried out under similar regulations to those operating in the English census office; whether census enumerators will be taken from civilians; and whether the patronage system of task-work to Government clerks in Ireland will be discontinued and an adequate staff, with pay equal to the English employees, will be employed at Charlemont House.

It is not intended to have the work of taking the Irish census carried out under regulations similar to those operating in the English census office as the work of the two Departments is entirely different. Since 1841 the enumerators employed in Ireland have all been members of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police, and it is not proposed to depart from this practice on the present occasion. The officials in the Department of the Registrar General who, from their training, are specially qualified to be employed on task-work, will continue to be so employed. In addition to these a number of male and female outdoor task-workers will also be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. The rates of pay in 1881 and 1891 were found sufficient to secure a competent staff and the same rates will be paid on the occasion of the forthcoming census.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention. has been called to a statement made by the Rev. John Gleeson, P.P., in which he refers to an alleged failure of the Inebriates Act in Ireland; whether he is aware, at a case tried at Roscrea, county Tipperary, in the spring of this year, such a failure occurred; and whether, if it should prove necessary, he will take steps to have the Act amended.

My attention has been called to a letter of the Rev. Mr. Gleeson, published in the press, in which it is stated that a person cannot be committed to an inebriate reformatory unless he or she be found to be suffering from bodily infirmity. This view is quite erroneous; there is no such requirement in the Statute. The Government have provided a State reformatory for every inebriate who has been convicted of an indictable offence. The power of providing reformatories for habitual drunkards who have not been so convicted is, by the 5th and 9th sections of the Act, conferred upon the county and borough councils and private individuals, not on the executive. The Treasury are empowered to make a weekly grant in aid of 10s. 6d. in respect of each inmate so committed, I regret to say that most, if not all, of the councils have failed to put these powers in force. This is the real cause of any failure that has arisen in the administration of the Act.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it has been finally arranged that the discussion on the Roman Catholic University question shall be taken on Friday?

I am not quite sure that it rests with me to determine. The actual motion before the House will be "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair." There is a general understanding in the House that the topic to be discussed on that motion will be that relating to a Roman Catholic University for Ireland; but, of course, I am not able to ensure that that subject will be brought on. I may say now that tomorrow the first Order will be the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Bill—a purely formal matter.

Will the Committee stage of the Finance Bill be taken on Monday next?

I hope so.

reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures—Lord Balcarres—and had appointed in substitution Mr. Maclean.

I think this would be a convenient occasion to call attention to a matter which has of late engaged much public attention, namely, the question of defrauding War Office contractors and the method in which they are dealt with by the Department. The House is being asked to vote large sums of money raised by taxation mainly to meet the requirements of the war, and it is important to know whether proper steps are taken to protect supreme national interests. The other day a Return was moved for in regard to contractors struck off the War Office list for misconduct, but the way in which that Return was worded, as I ventured to say at the time, was scarcely calculated to afford the House the full information which it desires. It was so worded as to merely give the names of contractors struck off the Government list for misconduct in connection with the supply of stores for the use of our field forces in South Africa, and also the names of officers no longer employed by the Government who had passed those defective stores. Under the head of "Contractors who have been struck off the Government list for misconduct in connection with the sending of stores for the use of Her Majesty's field force in South Africa," the information given is singularly meagre. Two names—Messrs. John E. Bennett and Sons and Mr. John Brown—with the addresses are given; but that does not carry the House very far. It did not enlighten us much, but subsequent investigation pointed to a good deal that was behind. It turns out that the business of Messrs. Bennett and Sons was really conducted by a person called Underwood, who was an old offender, having some years ago been guilty of the grave offence of supplying bad hay for the consumption of the forces. The firm of Underwood was then very properly removed from the War Office list; and that might be supposed to be a heavy penalty. Indeed, an indignant country was left with the impression that persons caught red-handed in a serious offence would never again have an opportunity of plundering the taxpayers and endangering the safety of the forces. But this firm, finding themselves excluded from the privilege of supplying had hay, thought it would be a good idea to connect themselves with another firm already figuring on the War Office list. They therefore acquired the business of another firm which had the privilege of supplying the "War Office; and they were again caught red-handed in supplying defective stores. These facts ought to have appeared in the Return. If the form of Return which I suggested had been adopted, and the Christian names, surnames, and addresses of all the directors of the firms concerned had been given, the House would have had before it the facts which I think have been most improperly concealed. I do not make any charge against the Financial Secretary, though I do think he should have brought the Return up to date and should have granted my Return, which would have prevented him being the victim of this imposture, and would not have led him to deceive Parliament. I fear that persons other than those whose names appear in the Return are gravely compromised. This firm has got back on the list of contractors by a barefaced trick which ought not to have deceived anyone. Whose business was it to see that they should not get back under an alias of this kind? Is it or is it not the case that the business has been conducted in the old promises whence previous frauds had emanated? This has been stated to be the case, but I scarcely think it to be likely, for I think the War Office official responsible in the matter would have felt it his duty to report such a glaring imposition to his superiors. It may be, however, that the officers whose duty it was to see to this matter had some relations with this person. In 1888 the attention of the House was called to the case of a contractor who had been guilty of gross frauds in connection with the supply of leather. He, too, seems to have been taken back again, because the boots supplied to the troops in South Africa are of the most scandalous description.

No.

Is it or is it not the case that the firm of Ross and Co. was struck off the list in 1888? In 1894 the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he would restore Messrs. Ross and Co. to the list of contractors entitled to supply the War Office. A gentleman named Tomlin was mentioned in connection with the business, and he was really the person who conducted it. The right hon. Gentleman, properly as I think, declined to restore the name of the firm to the list, and he pointed out it was a very gross offence. The firm had been detected red-handed in dishonest practices which were injurious to the public service, and he said he could not restore their names to the list. I would like to ask whether that firm is employed now? The Financial Secretary says the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs stated that they could not be restored to the list "at present." I suppose he thinks that sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. I have been told that Mr. Tomlin's firm was again employed. Perhaps this case is like that of Mr. Underwood and Mr. Bennett. The partners of the firm, having been caught, probably thought it prudent to make some pretence of retiring. They probably assigned their interests for a valuable consideration to persons whose withers were unwrung so far as the Department was concerned. The difficulty of detecting these frauds is very great. Messrs. Ross and Co. took precautions to prevent the public conscience from being again offended by revelations of this kind, for they succeeded in obtaining the position of the viewer or inspector of the goods they supplied for a man who belonged to their own firm; practically the officers of the Department were ex-employees of their own. Is that the case now? Have they brought back with them their viewers to relieve the War Office of the invidious task of selecting persons to see that they are not again robbed by persons caught red-handed in the act on a previous occasion? The Return which has been supplied is worded in the most restricted manner. It speaks of officers no longer employed by the Government, but, on the other hand, I asked for the names and the ranks of the officers responsible for passing the defective goods. The narrow limits which have been imposed on the Return leave a suspicion in the public mind that there is a great deal more behind. The manner in which these serious charges have been met is not calculated to disarm the grave public suspicion which prevails. Why were attempts made to give no information at all, and then only to give it in a form which conceals the fact that old offenders have been trading under another name, and have been for the second time detected in fraud on the public service? The information has been extracted with difficulty from the Department, and this fact lends colour to the suspicion that, anxious as the War Office may be to protect the public interest and to expose fraud, it has been prevented by its surroundings from showing up all the persons connected with these nefarious practices. A good deal had been heard of a War Office arrangement, but I think it is evident that there is a contractors' ring. The viewers are appointed by the contractors themselves, and yet the House is face to face with this meagre Return, which conceals the essential facts. I contend that the Return ought to be so amended as to include a period of exclusions and restorations for the last ten or twenty years, and give that complete and unreserved information on the subject to which the House is entitled. No person, however influentially placed, should be screened, and the evidence should be produced in so complete a manner as to convince the public at large that they have heard the absolute truth and the whole truth about the matter. I hope we shall have a full explanation from the Financial Secretary.

The action of the War Office in this matter passes all comprehension. It has been admitted that there have been serious malpractices, but instead of the War Office taking the obvious remedy of publicity it appears to have persistently acted the Christian part of turning the other cheek to the smiter and of concealing the offences of those who have swindled the Department. A clear explanation is needed why the facts should have to be extorted from the War Office, and why the Department should not have taken advantage of the medium of publicity to expose the malpractices of which it has been the victim. Every effort made by Members of this House to get information in regard to the cheating of which the War Office has been the victim has been constantly met with obstruction. I placed upon the Paper two weeks ago a motion for a return on certain Departmental matters in the War Office. I was asked to postpone my motion. I did so, and put it in a form which I thought would easily give me the information I asked for. What was the result? I was told that no such Return could be issued. If the House will bear with me I will say what the Return was. We know now that in the case of Underwood it was only by accident that the hay was found to be bad and inflammable; but we never hear of those cases in which the War Office officials, doing their duty, detect the efforts of contractors to swindle them The Return I asked for was, in the first instance, for those cases in which the contractors supplied articles 50 per cert. of which had been rejected by the War Office. I was told that my inquiry would probably be met by a nil. I subsequently asked for a Return which would include cases in which 30 per cent. had been rejected as bad. I think it must be admitted that in any ordinary case of business any contractor who supplied goods 30 per cent. of which were not up to the standard cannot have been doing his duty. I am quite prepared to admit that there might be cases in which 100 per cent. was rejected through no fault of the contractor. A big gun might be detected in a small defect, and the whole gun might be returned to have that defect remedied. I do not want to conceal from the House what was the reason for my asking for this Return. It had come to my knowledge that one of the largest contractors for ammunition—Kynoch's—had, in fulfilment of a recent contract, tendered to the War Office some millions of cartridges which were defective owing to the nickel of the cartridges being of improper' quality. That is the story I wanted to get out, and I should be extremely glad if the hon. Gentleman is able to tell not only myself, but those who informed me of this matter, that the information was inaccurate. There were other cases in connection with the supply of khaki, for instance, in which direct suspicion of malpractice has been suggested against officials of the War Office. In all those cases, surely it would be of immense advantage to the public service if the Departmental representative of the War Office were to take the House frankly into his confidence, and not to leave us to extort from him by pressure the information we desire.

The matter which has been brought forward by my right hon. friend is certainly important, and I have nothing to complain of in the manner in which he has stated it to the House. I wish to say emphatically on behalf of the War Department, and especially of that branch of it with which I am more immediately concerned, that there is not the slightest intention or desire on our part to shield any guilty contractor. So far from wishing to do that in relation to the two men whose names appear in the return to which my hon. friend has referred, the Secretary of State himself directed that if it were possible to take criminal proceedings against them such proceedings should be taken, and he obtained the opinion of the Treasury Solicitor, as to whether or not such a course could be followed.

When was that step taken?

It was long before any notice whatever of the matter was taken in this House. In point of fact, at the time my right hon. friend moved for the Return the question whether or not they could be prosecuted was under consideration, and it was that fact alone which led me in the first instance to hesitate to give the information which the Return sought for. Even at the present moment I am a little embarrassed in dealing with the question so far as it concerns Underwood, who has been dealing with the War Office under the designation of Bennett, because further fresh circumstances have come to light, and the Secretary of State has only to-day asked the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to whether, in view of these further circumstances, it is possible to take legal proceedings against the firm. I do not feel myself free, therefore, to deal with all the facts that arise in the case; but, speaking for myself, and from recollection, perhaps the House will allow me to say that since I have held the office of Financial Secretary I have not restored to the War Office list one single contractor who had been struck off, and indeed, if inquiry were made, it would be found that contractors with the War Office would be very far from telling the House that they receive unduly lenient treatment at the hands of the present administration in Pall Mall. As far as Underwood is concerned, he was struck off the War Office list, not for any dealings in regard to forage, but for fraudulent transactions in regard to coal. To this fact it was due perhaps that we did not discover we were dealing with him as promptly as we ought to have done. Although we were looking out for him in regard to coal, we were not looking out for him in regard to forage. It is very difficult in dealing with an enormous number of contractors to ascertain whether or not a contractor is trading under an alias. We do not ear-mark any gentleman, but we try to make certain that they do not deceive us. At the same time, I do not disguise that possibly a little more vigilance on our part might have detected the fact that we were dealing with a man who had been struck off the list. Two or three years after Underwood was struck off the list in relation to coal he formed his business into a private limited liability company, and he applied to the then Secretary of State for War, the late Mr. Stanhope, to have the name of the company put on the War Office list. The application was promptly refused, and we heard no more from him. But early in 1892 or 1894—I was not aware this question was going to be raised, and consequently I can only speak as to the facts as they are present in my mind—Underwood purchased the business of Bennett and Son. The Department have ascertained that since. The firm of Bennett and Son was on the War Office list, and no fault had been found with the manner in which they had conducted their transactions with the Department. They were not under suspicion, and we were not aware of the fact that Underwood, Limited, had acquired their business. Of course, it is now perfectly plain that one of Underwood's objects in acquiring Bennett's business was to get on the War Office list again. In that he succeeded. Had the Department known that Bennett had become Underwood they would have declined to have dealings with them. Bennett, however, has now been struck off the list. In these circumstances, admitting as I do that possibly we might have discovered what was going on earlier, I do not see what more we could do. I ought to add that at the present moment there are proceedings pending between Brown and Underwood, and that makes it a little more difficult to give a full account of all that has taken place. All I can say is that Brown assures me that he is going to come out of these proceedings white as the driven snow. In regard to the Return asked for, I think it is rather a strong order, where a limited liability company has been dealt with in relation to contracts by the War Office to publish all the names of the directors in a black list of the House of Commons. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why?" and "No, no."] The directors of the company may be perfectly innocent of any fraud which has been perpetrated by their subordinates. All I take exception to is the form in which the notice for the Return appears on the Paper; but I am authorised to say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable that a Return should be made the Government will not object. I earnestly hope that the House will not believe that anybody at the War Office desires to conceal anything.

You have mentioned nothing about Ross.

Oh, yes. Well, the case of Ross is peculiar. He had nothing whatever to do with boots, and my right hon. friend is in error in supposing that he was guilty of supplying bad boot leather. I did not put him on the list, for the name was back on it before I took office. There was on the list of contractors for accoutrements a firm called Hepburn and Gale, who informed my predecessor in office that they had bought the business of Ross. They proved that all the original partners who were concerned in the transactions which resulted in Ross being struck off the list had been done away with. The House may take it as it likes, but two of them were dead, and the only one remaining was proved to have no further connection with the business. Messrs. Hepburn and Gale were allowed to remain, and to use the name of Ross and Company, my predecessor being satisfied that it was merely a name, and not a reality. When I came into office I investigated the matter, and can now assure the House that not a single individual connected with the old firm of Ross and Company has any interest in the firm of Hepburn and Gale. The list asked for by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire is of the nature of a black list. It would contain the name of every contractor whose deliveries have been rejected up to 30 per cent. If the Return were given in the way it was originally asked for it would contain only one word, "nil," because although many contractors may have their deliveries rejected on account of some small defects, those defects would afterwards be remedied, and the goods passed. I am not quite sure that such a list would not include every contractor with whom the War Office deals. I know a case in which a firm delivered two large guns. These guns were rejected for some trifling detail, which was corrected, and the guns were then accepted. The list, if presented in the form asked for by the hon. Gentleman, would include that firm, and it would be manifestly unfair to include in ablack list contractors who had honestly done the best they could. Inclusion in such a list would cast a reflection on a firm, and it might do it serious injury. I therefore hesitated to grant it. The right hon. Gentleman has also referred to the firm of Messrs. Kynoch, and to the fact that they had not been so successful recently in getting their deliveries passed. It is only fair to Messrs. Kynoch to say that some time ago they were the only persons—not excluding the Government factory itself—who could successfully pass the small arms ammunition test, and the War Office were actually obliged to go to them to ascertain what their process of manufacture was, and what detail they insisted upon, in order that the War Office might at the Ordnance Factory be as successful as Messrs. Kynoch. It would not be right to gibbet firms like that who tried to serve the War Office well, because, owing to some exceptional circumstances, the cause of which they are as anxious as we are to ascertain, they have not been able to get some ammunition passed.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us something about the officer whose duty it is to view the goods?

The officers who inspect the goods are as a rule Army officer's, and their inspection is extremely strict. If those contractors who fail in the first instance, but who, after a trial or two, satisfy the inspectors are to be placed in a black list, one of three things would be certain to happen: there would be additional difficulty in placing contracts, the price paid would nave to be greatly raised, or the inspection must be relaxed. I do not think any of these things is desirable.

Was there not a very serious forage scandal at the time of the Crimean War?

Yes, Sir, I believe there was.

May I suggest to my hon. friend that many of his difficulties would be obviated by refusing tenders from men who accept contract sat sweating prices for their goods. The way to attract the best class of manufacturers and the best class of firms as contractors to deal with the War Office, is to give a reasonable price for a good article, and not insist upon a minimum price at which a good article cannot honestly be supplied. That is, I think, one of the fundamental principles that should be acted upon by the War Office, and, indeed, by every other Government Department that has to make contracts with manufacturers. I quite sympathised with my hon. friend the Financial Secretary when he described so pathetically to the House that at one time Mr. Underwood approached the War Office in the form of a sack of coal and on another occasion in the shape of a truss of hay. Well, it is very difficult for my hon. friend to recognise one and the same person in two different forms. As an illustration he gave the case of the two guns, and stated that was a technical error. If it was an attempt to defraud, the name of that firm was quite as much entitled to be published as the name of Underwood's. A technical error—there was some oversight in not finishing the guns. If it was an attempted fraud, then your argument for keeping the name off the list falls to the ground. I can understand articles being delivered with a technical error in their finish or in their equipment, but it is easy for any man who is acquainted with business to know that it is not an attempted fraud, and, therefore, no penalty ought to follow that neglect, but where acts are evidently committed by a contractor and intended to defraud, then the name ought to be published without reservation. There is one other point I should like to remind the Financial Secretary about, and it is this—whether he could advise the War Office not to punish a workman who gave information to the Government as to fraudulent transactions not only in material but in workmanship. I remember a case only a few years back where a gross case of fraud was attempted in the saddlery department at Woolwich. What happened was that a highly-skilled workman there employed exposed this attempted fraud, and he was promptly discharged. In consequence of representations made in this House he was reinstated in his position, but he was discharged a very short time after that. A pretext was made of certain irregularity on his part, and the man was sent about his business. Those who have worked in Government works know that the Government is subjected to fraud in connection with the work it engages contractors to do, as much or even more than a private person. I have seen frauds enough committed on the Government. What is the consequence if a workman, who has technical knowledge, and knows the quality of material and the quality of workmanship that should be insisted upon according to the specification, reports to the Government or anyone in authority? Why, the workman would be black listed so effectually as never to get employment again with the firm concerned, and his name would be sent round. I am speaking in this respect of what I know. I have seen it done, and no man who has had experience in these matters is going to risk losing his employment, and losing his living almost, by making reports to the Government regarding matters of this nature. I wish the Government Departments would give more consideration to those who are willing to give this class of information in the future than they have done in the past. The Admiralty, I have no doubt, has very similar experience. It is a matter within the knowledge of all or most people, that the War Office is an institution peculiarly liable to frauds of this kind. I am not going to say that my hon. friend the present Secretary is more liable to fraud than any other Secretary that has preceded him or that will follow him. It is desirable when the public mind is in a receptive condition to deal effectively with fraudulent contractors, and the War Office should show an example to other Departments by setting its own house in order to such an extent that it would terrorise those who live by fraud and fatten on the sufferings of the men and horses who are supplied with their respective fares. I can scarcely imagine a more wicked crime than to send bad food for horses on foreign service. It is a great crime to send bad boots with rotten leather for men in the field and on long marches. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paper soles."] Paper soles, my hon. friend says. I don't know that of my own knowledge, but we do know that very bad material has been sent on the occasion of great warlike undertakings such as we are now in the midst of. I repeat once more that the complaint is that you insist on the cheapest goods, and your contractors believe that you insist upon the cheapest class of article. Your schedules of prices are, I am informed, so put that first-class articles cannot be supplied by respectable firms. You cannot have the best cloth at shoddy prices. The whole thing is a question of price, and if you will give a respectable price and have men who really know how to examine the goods supplied, whether it is hay or cloth or any other article, you will have the best firms in the country at your command. Until you do so you will not get the best firms. A man who is liable to have his goods rejected by a person who really does not understand them is not very likely to bother himself, losing his time and incurring the expense, sending tenders to the War Office. I do hope the Government will mend its manners in this respect. Having reached the limit of human endurance on this question of fraud, I hope that the present Secretary will see to it that he will make one sweep of the whole of these people from the War Office list once and for ever. If he will now undertake to do that I think we shall have some reasonable hope that other departments of the Government will follow the good example that is set.

I do not think the Financial Secretary has failed to realise the popular anxiety that is felt on this important sub- ject. I rise to call attention to the fact that no doubt without his knowledge the Department has made an untrue Return to the order of the House. On the face of the Financial Secretary's story it appears that at the time the hay was delivered they were not aware that Bennett's hay was Underwood's hay. I understand, however, that at the time the Return was made the War Office knew that Bennett's business had been bought by Underwood's company. If that was so, the registered statutory name of this company was Underwood and Co., Limited, and, knowing that, the Department had no right to return any other name. This is not a mere matter of form; for, but for this, we should not have been left to learn from a casual letter in the newspapers that this defaulting contractor was one who had already been struck off the list for a like default.

asked whether criminal proceedings would be instituted by the War Office against the persons implicated in supplying the goods.

I am advised that if criminal proceedings can be taken they will be taken. The deliberations of the law officers of the Government on the subject are not yet concluded.

I rise not so much for the purpose of entering into the question of the frauds which have been practised in regard to certain Government contracts as to repeat a protest I have made from time to time during the present session against the expenditure.

I think one point has not been satisfactorily cleared up by the hon. Member as to which the Members of the House must entertain considerable curiosity, to put it no higher, and that is about the two officers who are named. What was the nature of their offence? What were the circumstances that led to their retirement? Were they retired on account of this, or have they retired in the ordinary course of nature? We want to know a little more as to what the nature of their conduct was. Upon the whole question I feel that it rather does good to exaggerate these matters. I do not agree with a great deal that has been said as to the probability of great frauds taking place in the public departments. I do not think it is a good thing to run down our public departments too much, and I am not aware that we have any evidence of great frauds having taken place. But that does not make it the less necessary for those in charge of those departments to be constantly watchful. I do not think in this instance there is any sign on the part of the hon. Member who spoke for the War Office or his colleagues of having neglected any reasonable means of protecting the public interest. When a firm changes its name two or three times over, it is very difficult to identify it. But what I would press upon the hon. Member is that the real remedy of the Government in such a case is the power they possess to a greater degree than anyone else of giving publicity to, these malpractices—of letting the world know what has happened. That is the powerful instrument we have over contractors. Therefore, I do not look upon this proposal that certain names should be published as at all in the nature of a "black list," as the hon. Member put it. There may be a great many articles rejected without any discredit whatever to the contractor. An hon. Gentleman spoke of the guns which had to be returned because of some slight defects which were discovered. But that was not a final return. What we want to know is—What articles were finally rejected because of some really serious defect in contravention of the conditions of the contract? If that information was published—if the hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestion and see whether it can be done—I think it would give great satisfaction to the House and be a very considerable protection to the country. Some reference has been made to the well-known case of the saddlery makers in Bermondsey, with which I do not think anybody is so thoroughly acquainted as the present Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman nursed that case for years, and I have listened to speech after speech of the most eloquent nature from him with reference to the celebrated case of Messrs. Ross and Co. That was a case which was complicated in a singular way by the fact that if they did not get a share of the Government contracts the whole industry would perish in Bermondsey. I remember I was in office, and appeals were made to me of the strongest kind in the interest of the trade and of the employment of people in that part of London. I was told that trade was not very good, and that the whole trade would go to Walsall, the centre of the saddlery manufacturing industry, if Messrs. Ross and Co. did not get a contract. I managed to steel myself against that appeal, touching as it was, but it appears that afterwards my hon. colleague, whose absence I regret, did make the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman describes, and subsequently restored, not that firm, but their successors, to the list. Cases such as these with which we are dealing appear to show that there is a suspicion in London that the contractors work in and out with each other. We all remember a case a year or two ago in connection with a large hotel in the West of London, where it was discovered that the contractors had been fleecing the company for years, and it was ultimately found that all really centred in one man or very nearly so. There may be cases of that sort among contractors whether for private employers or for a Government department. But, as I have said, the one remedy which the Government has, which is not open to a private firm, is that of publicity. I would, also urge upon the Government that publicity is the cure of suspicion. If you wish to got rid of any suspicion, either against the officials of a department or against contractors, publicity is the cure, in small things as well as in great. Although I do not see in what has happened in this case any disposition or intention on the part of the hon. Gentleman of concealing anything, still I think we should always bear in mind that concealment or attempt at concealment is the very worst policy that can be pursued in such a matter.

I have only to say that the two persons whose names appear in this matter were removed from their appointments in consequence of negligence in respect of this particular matter.

I do not propose to add much to the debate on this aspect of the question, which is now, I suppose, drawing to a conclusion. But I do desire to express the strong feeling which the Government have that there is no subject which more deserves the careful vigilance of the House of Commons than this question of Government contracts. No one can have the most elementary knowledge of the military history of this and of other countries—I am glad to say even more of other countries than of this country—without seeing what incalculable harm to the national interest has been done in the past by the frauds of contractors. The number of valuable lives that have been sacrificed, the number of military operations whose success has been imperilled, the loss of all kinds which great Imperial interests have suffered from the admitted frauds of contractors on whom successive Governments have relied, is one of the most painful chapters in the military history of the last century and of the beginning of this century. We certainly ought to exercise all the vigilance in our power to prevent the repetition of any such crime against the public interest. I think we ought to distinguish between two very different cases which have been, to a certain extent, mixed up in the present debate—the case of fraud on the part of the contractor and the case of error on the part of the manufacturer in producing goods for the public service. I confess I am not convinced, even by what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the moderate and interesting speech he has just delivered, that as regards this latter class that publicity which he desires would do any good. I think it would certainly produce great hardship, and I am not sure it would produce any great public benefit. He endeavoured to answer the objection made, I think, by my hon. friend near me with regard to the case of two guns which had been returned and afterwards altered and accepted. He tried to evade that by saying "I do not want a list of those goods which are finally accepted after having been returned and remedied." But it is impossible for us to distinguish in all cases goods of that kind. In the case of two large pieces of ordnance the identity could, no doubt, be followed through the manufacturing departments of the firm which produced them and remedied the defects which had been found in them; but in regard to many other articles it clearly would not be possible for the manufacturer to remedy the defects in every case. But is it a crime for a manufacturer who is trying to produce the goods the Government desire to find he has not succeeded in one particular instance? It is not a crime, and ought not to be punished as a crime. Yet the publication of a "black list," showing that such and such a firm which was asked to produce such goods as the Government could accept had failed to produce those goods, would inflict very serious injury.

I think I used the words "I do not look upon it as a 'black list,'" by which I meant to imply that I did not intend that any slur should be cast on the firms whose names appeared thereon.

I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's view, but I think he himself will feel that if he does not call it a "black list," if he does not wish it to be treated as a "black list," it would in effect be a "black list" in the sense that it would greatly injure that firm's position in regard to its foreign market. It is to our interest that these great firms should not merely manufacture for us, but should have a market in foreign countries, because one result of that is that we have a large surplus power of production to enable us to meet a great national emergency. But if you insist that every error of this kind is to be published abroad, not merely to the British public but to the foreign consumer, I cannot help thinking that such publication will be treated by the foreign consumer as ground for distrusting the British manufacturer, and the British manufacturer will suffer as compared with his foreign rival. And with the loss which the British manufacturer suffers is bound up a certain national loss on our part—in fact our means of rapid production of warlike material might be seriously diminished.

No one asked for that.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I am dealing with a procedure which is distinctly asked for. The hon. Gentleman did not ask for it, but he is not the only gentleman who has taken part in this debate this afternoon. I think the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to these errors in manufacture is, perhaps, too severe a one. I do not think any course too severe in the case of detected fraud, and I think no vigilance on the part of the War Office can be too energetic to prevent such frauds taking place. That there is a difficulty in preventing these frauds has been sufficiently evidenced from the debate this afternoon. The authorities at the War Office have not merely to inspect the goods, to find out by inspection if they come up to the Government standard, but they have also got to pursue the tortuous windings of anonymous companies, to follow them under one name or another name, and through the ramifications of ingenious mystification. Well, that is rather a large operation, but it is one which certainly ought to be undertaken by the War Office, and I hope it will be undertaken in a spirit of the most careful inquiry; for I am one of those who think that when a firm has committed a fraud by palming off on the War Office or on the Admiralty goods which are not up to the standard and which are evidently intended to deceive, and which are produced and brought over for the purpose of deception, too great publicity cannot be given to their acts, and no punishment which the laws of the country can inflict can be too severe. I hope, therefore, most heartily that the investigation of the law officers to which my hon. friend has referred, will result in the Government's being able to take criminal proceedings, and bring to a criminal trial the contractors who have endeavoured to commit so great a public crime as to pass off on the public service stores of bad quality. I trust that after this declaration on my part, which, perhaps, was hardly necessary after the statement of my hon. friend, nobody, either in the House or in the country, will think that the Government are indifferent to a matter which is of the very first national importance. Let it not be said that in connection with this war, or any other subsequent operation in which we may be engaged, there has been any repetition of the gross scandals which disgraced the public service through the whole of the last century, and which I am afraid might be found in the earlier history of the present century. One hon. Member referred to the Crimean War, and I am afraid that in the Crimean War very scandalous cases of this kind occurred. I hope that no such gross scandals will be elicited by the most searching inquiry into the case of the present war which will be undertaken, and on behalf of the Government I say that we shall welcome such an inquiry, and any assistance that can be given to us by the House or the public in seeing that the goods supplied to our men in the field are of the first quality will be welcomed by my hon. friend and by all those who are responsible for War Office management.

After the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not intend to discuss further the contract question, although there are still many hon. Members who are not fully satisfied. I rise for the purpose of protesting against the expenditure of public money upon this disastrous war, and it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Irish Members if we did not avail ourselves of every opportunity of protesting against such expenditure. From the very commencement of the war Ireland has signalised in the most unmistakable manner that she considers this war cruel and unnecessary. It was elicited this evening by the First Lord of the Treasury's reply to a question put by an Irish Member that the amount expended in Ireland out of the sum of £60,000,000 taken under the Consolidated Fund (No. 1 and 2) Bills for this war was a paltry £150,000. Surely, under these circumstances, we are justified in complaining—even if we approved of the policy of the Government—of the very meagre and miserable share that Ireland has got of this large sum of money. If the Government think it right to provide employment at Government works in large industrial centres in England, why should they not do the same in Ireland? If a private firm can go to Ireland and establish factories for the manufacture of such substances as cordite, why cannot the Government go to Ireland and manufacture other things? A complaint was made last night with regard to the expenditure upon Colonial troops as compared with British troops. The Colonial troops are paid 5s. a day, while the pay of the English, Irish, and Scotch troops is only 1s. 4d. per day. I asked the hon. Gentleman why this preference, is given to the Colonial troops, and he gave me an unsatisfactory reply. He spoke about the Colonial troops being called upon in an emergency, but that was not a complete answer. If the service of the Colonial troops is of a voluntary character, why should their pay be three times greater than the Regular troops coming long distances from all parts of Scotland, Ireland, and England? This is a point which deserves full consideration by the Government. As to the contract question, I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, that we shall continue to protest against the system which is growing up by which military officers on active service are employed in trade, and against this huge and enormous expenditure upon a war which we believe to be unjust and unnecessary.

said the Leader of the House had stated that if he gave the information asked for in regard to the contractors it would injure British manufacturers. He sympathised not with British, but with Irish manufacturers. As regarded the hay supply, the best hay in the world was grown in Ireland, and could be got as cheap there as it was being supplied at the present time to the War Office. He believed that there was only a difference of about 2½d. per ton between good Irish hay and the rubbish which the Goverment were importing from abroad. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division as a protest against the stinginess of the miserable policy which had been adopted by the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Government. If the Government were as kind to the people of Ireland as they were to the people of England they would have factories in Ireland, and thus assist to give employment to the people of a poor country which had to find a large portion of the money required for the war. He hoped that the experience which the hon. Gentleman had had of British contractors would open his eyes and induce him to buy hay in the future from Ireland. He had been informed on good authority that even in Ireland foreign oats and hay were imported for the feeding of the horses of the British Army stationed there, and if that were so it was a disgrace to this country. No wonder the Irish people had no sympathy with the war when the Government passed over the people of Ireland who could supply them with forage almost as cheap as the present contractors were doing, and of a much better quality. It seemed to be the rule at the War Office that "no Irish need apply." Irish soldiers were good enough to carry the trenches in the Transvaal, and to be put to the front in battles, but when it came to buying Irish produce Ireland was ignored. He was very pleased to see the humiliating position in which the Government had been placed owing to the rubbish which had been supplied to them.

I desire, before the Irish Members introduce the question on which they are interested, to point out one very serious defect in the administration of the War Office which tends in some degree not perhaps to the grosser forms of fraud, but to defective fulfilment of contracts, which is very serious. I refer to the difficulty in getting the Government Departments to put into force the fair wages resolution passed by this House in 1891. I make no complaint against the Financial Secretary, who is not responsible. It is the system that is in fault. That resolution was passed, not only to satisfy the workmen, but to protect the fair employer, who is prepared to produce a good article, but who is unable to do so when brought into competition with men who flagrantly violate the resolution. It is notorious, and many manufacturers will agree, that the Government Departments often go to the worst contractors, who are given to the shadiest of tricks in their transactions, rather than enforce the resolution; and although the promise given by the Financial Secretary to investigate the matter holds good, the investigation is carried out by a routine which precludes a just conclusion being arrived at. The nation is not getting value for its money simply through the neglect of the Government to see that the fair wages resolution is carried out, with the result that the work is being done by shady firms and the best firms of contractors are prevented from contracting at all. It is only by competition that the best is obtained, but the game to be fair should be played according to the rules, and the Government have laid down certain conditions which are not observed and consequently the best contractors often decline to enter into competition. I trust that the Government will see that the fair wages resolution is adopted and that facilities are given to obtain the necessary details. The Government offices are so bound up in red tape, and routine is so rampant, that it is absolutely impossible to obtain from them details which an ordinary firm would get to know in twenty-four hours.

complained of the high rate of interest which was inserted in the Bill for the purpose of borrowing money. He pointed out that it was absurd to insert a rate of 5 per cent. when it was perfectly well known that the war loan now being raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had been subscribed for ten or twelve times over, was only to bear 2¾ per cent. He also pressed the Government to increase the penalty for illegal trawling, and penalise those who covered their lights while trawling to the great danger of the line fishermen who prosecuted their calling in the stormy seas off the coast of Scotland. He assumed he would be in order in calling attention to the serious inconvenience to Scottish Members owing to the absence of the Secretary of Scotland from this House.

Order, order!

Very well; if he was not in order on that point he would leave it. He was sorry the Lord Advocate was not in his place, because he would have brought under his notice the great need there was of spending the £10,000 which the Scottish Office had placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board of Scotland in 1899 for the purpose of providing a fishery cruiser. Such a boat was very much needed on the coast of Scotland to guard the fisheries, the present cruiser being of no earthly good in these stormy seas to put down illegal trawling. He had asked for a return of the deer forest area in the Highlands, and the return made was inaccurate. The Scottish Office owned that it was inaccurate, and promised another one. He had a letter from the Scottish Office in which it was stated that considering the difficulty and trouble involved—

The hon. Member is not in order in discussing a Return on the deer forests.

Am I not to be allowed to discuss the inaccuracy of that Return and the in competency of the Scottish Office? We pay high salaries to the Secretary for Scotland and other officials, and they should take some steps to get an accurate Return.

There are various opportunities of discussing the matter of the deer forests; but this is not one of them.

Well, there was another question, that of salmon. The Office of Woods and Forests were disposing of salmon fishing rights, and the reason they gave was that litigation had been raised in various cases. He should have thought that the Crown would have been able to hold their own in all cases of litigation. These salmon fishing rights ought not to be parted with, but should be retained by the Crown, and he asked the Secretary to the Treasury to see that the Office of Woods and Forests do not go on in their mad career of selling the salmon fishings in the way they were doing.

said that, although the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had dealt with a great variety of subjects, yet some of them were of considerable importance, and it was unfortunate the Lord Advocate was not in his place to speak on these. They could not get any attention from the Treasury in regard to the construction of more fishery harbours, and they complained of remissness in the administration of the laws relating to the protection of the line fisheries against trawlers. What he complained of was that the Government passed Acts of Parliament and declared that these were effective for certain purposes, but they did not take steps to put these laws into operation, as was shown all over the north, east and west coasts of Scotland particularly during the last fortnight. He saw in the newspapers only the previous day that the fishing community of Portessie would have to migrate to another locality, and the whole population of another of the most ancient fishing villages in Aberdeen shire, Old Slains, had last week migrated bodily, and taken up their habitation in Aberdeen. There was no complaint against the lady superior of the village, who was one of the best proprietors in that part of the country. But the inhabitants found that they got absolutely no assistance in building a fishery harbour either at the villiage or in the immediate locality from the public authorities who ought to grant some assistance and relief. There was no country whore so little was spent upon what was regarded as essentially a national object: the construction of fishery harbours. Then there was the: old grievance of the non-enforcement of the laws against trawling. Trawlers were constantly found working within the three-mile limit night and day, and nothing was done to stop it. He regretted that the Lord Advocate had not had the courtesy to attend in his place to listen to the complaints which were raised in regard to these subjects.

complained that Ireland was completely boycotted in regard to contracts for the Army, and yet in a shipment of supplies from Southampton, which had been brought from the Continent, no less than 15,000 lbs. were found to be rotten. An English soldier—mark, not an Irish soldier—had written a letter describing the food served out on board a transport during the voyage to South Africa. They had had fresh meat only once in twenty-one days,

in moving, "That the exercise of the powers of the Treasury in governing every Department of the Government is not for the public benefit; that by exercising the power of the purse it claims a voice in all decisions of administrative authority and policy, and that the position which through many generations it has occupied has resulted in much delay and many doubtful resolutions," said: I require no small amount of nerve to raise this question, considering the sacred nature of the Department of the Treasury. Other Departments one may raise questions about, but the Department of the Treasury is held to be sacrosanct, because, I suppose, it is the Department which carries the purse. The Treasury has grown from being the guardian of the strong box to becoming the universal controller of every Department of Her Majesty's Government. It regards all other Departments as inferior to itself; it looks upon them as licentious spendthrifts, as prodigal sons from whose voracious maw it is the province of the Treasury to snatch the fatted calf. When a question arises which needs the exercise of high skill and great knowledge, it has to be decided, not by the Department itself, which possesses all the knowledge required, but by the Treasury, to whom the knowledge has been revealed in some manner from on high. The result is that all the Departments labour under a more than Egyptian bondage, to being called upon to make their bricks without straw, to being subject to a "Mikado" system of duality which requires that the War Office, the Admiralty, and other officials shall be looked after by a member of the Treasury. Who is at fault for the charges set out in the Resolution if they are well founded? We are told it is not the Cabinet. We are told it is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer (although he did write a letter), it is not the Permanent Secretary, Sir Francis Mowatt, and it certainly is not the Financial Secretary. At first I came to the conclusion that it must be the three Junior Lords who were at fault; but I am now of opinion that nobody is at fault, that it is the usual scapegoat we always fall back upon and which is called the system. A thousand years ago the Treasury was a box and the officials were the persons who sat on the box, and they have been sitting on it ever since. The difficulty is that they sit upon it too tightly. The Treasury consists of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the three Junior Lords, and the Financial Secretary. The First Lord is not arraigned in this indictment, because he has no public duties in connection with the Treasury. The three Junior Lords are not included in the indictment because their duties seem to consist of sending to members letters giving inaccurate information and making presumptuous requests for their attendance. For what purpose does the Department, as constituted in modern times, exist? I conceive that the most important of its duties is to look after the high finances of the country and to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer with its knowledge and advice, but it is for that purpose less adequately manned than perhaps any other Department of the State. It should know all about the capacity of the country to bear taxation, and it should know something about taxation. It, however, is so little competent to deal with outside financial matters that it scarcely ever takes a step without making a mistake. I need only recall to the recollection of the House the abandonment of the stamp duty on contract notes in respect of sales of produce, and the fact that every English subscriber to the Greek loan had to pay 1 per cent. more than the subscribers in either of the other two guaranteeing countries. One official who pretends, I believe, to understand these matters, is no doubt a very able man—Sir Edward Hamilton—but he does not suffice for all purposes in which the Treasury should be qualified. The powers of the Treasury are partly derived from Parliament and partly by oral traditions. The powers derived from Parliament are immense and very dangerous. It has power to establish rules for keeping accounts. All objections to items in the accounts must be referred to the Treasury. It may prescribe forms of accounts, and I have seen forms of accounts prescribed by the Treasury respecting the purchase of Salisbury Plain, which are of the most unsatisfactory character. It has to sanction expenditure and to direct what accounts, other than the appropriation accounts, are to be examined by the Controller and Auditor General. Under the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, the Treasury has power to make every extra receipt to the State what is called an appropriation in aid, the effect of which is practically to entirely withdraw it from any effective control by the Departments. But the claims of the Treasury go far beyond this. Giving evidence before a Select Committee on public moneys in 1856, Mr. Anderson, principal clerk, said that the source of all administrative authority for expenditure was the Treasury, Mr. Anderson, added—

"The right of the Treasury to determine what the civil departments may spend and what they may not spend, though modified occasionally by certain special enactments, is incontestable and rests upon an unbroken prescription which has, accordingly, the force of law."

In 1866 Sir William Dunbar said that, generally speaking, the Treasury made the appointments in all the offices. Now the House will see what it comes to. These are the rights that the Treasury claims. The powers of the Treasury are indeed immense. They are so large that I imagine that in all they extent they have scarcely yet been known to the Members of this House, but they are known and felt daily by every one of the public Departments which is striving to do its duty. Every one of the Departments tells you again and again that it is hampered by the Treasury's exercise of these enormous powers, with no small degree of prejudice to the public interest. I will quote one extract in which it is shown how this power works. Sir R. Knox gave evidence on this subject in 1877, and being asked whether in the public interest he would object to an increase of the Treasury control over the War Office expenditure, he replied—

"That is a very large question; I think the Treasury control is increasing every day, and I cannot say that I think it has been of any advantage to the public service; rather the reverse as regards small matters. I think the Treasury control, from a large point of view and upon large matters, might be strengthened, but as regards small matters I think that, organised as the department is, it would be much better to leave more to the discretion of the Secretary of State; we are frequently by the action of the Audit Department and the Treasury led to make rules and regulations to meet special cases which have a general effect, because it is thought necessary by the Auditor General, and the Treasury that wherever any payment is made there should be a rule for it. I think we have been driven into excessive expenditure by over-regulation, and that over-regulation has been brought about by the action of the Audit Department and the Treasury. In large matters I think that the control of the Treasury Department might be increased; in small matters I think it is a pity that it has increased; it has given rise to much work and much expenditure and no advantage."

Then Sir R. Knox was asked if he agreed that the Treasury control had increased in the sense of looking after expenditure, and he replied—

"It has increased in looking after the twopences; it would be better if it looked more after the hundreds of thousands of pounds."

I think so too, and hundreds of thousands of pounds are allowed to slip through the net. When it is a question of controlling the Foreign Office, the Treasury makes no question at all. It passes the proposals from that quarter without a word, but when it is a question of stopping a few pounds in other Departments, the Treasury puts its foot down and stops the whole thing. I have shown, and I have endeavoured to do it very briefly, what are the powers claimed by the Treasury. I have shown in the case of one important official what he knows to be facts in relation to the exercise of these powers. I say with regard to the control of expenditure by the Treasury, that it is neither more nor less than the fifth wheel to the coach. I would ask you to remember the authorities and consents which must be obtained before any expenditure whatever can be authorised. First of all, there is the Department itself and the Secretary at the head of the Department. In the case of the War Office, that Department is not likely in any of the various authorities before whom it must come to propose expenses that are not necessary. No Department likes to expose itself to the reproach of being extravagant. Let us suppose that the Department is enormously extravagant, and that the Secretary of State is enormously extravagant, the matter has still to go before the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has to decide the relative claims of the different Departments. If a Department puts its claim too high, the Cabinet has the country before its eyes. Then there is this House, and there is nothing this House revels in so much, and especially some of the excellent Scotch Members, as in dissecting the items of expenditure. On one occasion, I remember, I actually saved the country £500 a year for ever by obtaining a reduction of salaries of the officers of the House of Lords. Then you bring in the Treasury in addition to all these authorities. You bring in what I have called the fifth wheel of the coach, which at various stages interposes its authority and rights in order to stop expenditure. It may be thought that I ought to give instances of this interference with expenditure. I could but for the fact that my mouth is closed. Ministers of State—I will not look at the Treasury bench lest suspicion should fall on some one—and heads of Departments have imparted to me the most awful instances of the interference of the Treasury, but it has always been with the addition, "You must not quote me." The fact is they are afraid; they tremble at the idea of a Treasury clerk. When they see a Treasury minute they hoist the white flag, and consequently I am precluded from telling the story that otherwise I could tell. I am able to mention one or two relatively small matters, but I think they will suffice. It is in the small matters that the interference of the Treasury is most felt. If a policeman is wanted in the West of Ireland for an urgent purpose the Treasury will prevent it. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Never."] If money is required to whitewash Bethnal Green Museum the Treasury will prevent it. If the War Office says that a military attaché is required at some new European centre which has developed a military interest, suddenly the Treasury refuses its assent. The Treasury some years ago withdrew the police from West Kensington Museum, with the result that a large and valuable gold collection was stolen, and this year the Treasury has had to restore the police. Again, in the case of the National Portrait Gallery they withdrew the police, and the result was that many portraits were damaged and defaced. I am only at liberty to mention these small matters. If hon. Members will give me a Committee and enable me to calm the fears of great Ministers and officials, and to make them disclose their secrets, I can assure the House that I could make your hair stand on end. I maintain that it is nothing but mischievous. You must trust somebody. The Treasury theory is that the only person you can trust is a Treasury clerk. I think they are much less to be trusted than the officials of the other Departments. If you refuse to trust the officials of a Department, they are discouraged when they enter on a new project requiring expenditure. You destroy to a certain extent their sense of responsibility, because they feel that their decisions are not final. They know that the Treasury will still have to decide, whatever decision they may come to, and that their decisions may be entirely over-ridden by that Department. Suppose for a moment that this Japanese dual system of trusting only two people is the proper one, is the Treasury a good Department to exercise it? I think it is the worst. As soon as ever a man in the Department arrives at years of Treasury discretion he is at once planted out in some other Department. Treasury officials become the permanent heads of the Post Office, the Customs, the Inland Revenue, the National Debt, and even the Exchequer and Audit Department. The result is that the Treasury is chiefly composed of young and inexperienced persons, some of them fresh from the universities, with a small and inadequate knowledge of life. Being so young and inexperienced, of all others they are least fitted to control other Departments whose officials have greater experience and expert knowledge. Now, I want to show that the Treasury power is not always exercised in restraint of expenditure. The Treasury assumes and has power to sanction expenditure incurred without any previous knowledge of Parliament. I can give one or two instances of it. In 1898–99, for example, it sanctioned, in the case of the Admiralty, expenditure to the amount of £60,335, not a halfpenny of which ever came before Parliament. The purposes to which the money was applied were all very proper and necessary matters of expenditure, but why call in the Treasury? Another illustration is the case of Wei-hai-wei. The Admiralty took possession of the bay there, and it suddenly occurred to them late in 1898 that they had not got Wei-hai-wei itself. The applied to the Treasury for permission to buy the wall of the place, and without any knowledge or permission on the part of Parliament the Treasury gave their sanction to the expenditure of £14,897 17s. 4d., and the Admiralty bought the walled town of Wei-hai-wei. The Treasury also to an enormous extent withdraws expenditure from the purview of Parliament. The Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866 laid it down that the gross revenues of the State are to be paid into the Exchequer, but that principle has been gnawed away by successive statutes until at last by the Public Accounts and Charges Act of 1891 the most complete power is given to the Treasury to say that anything it liked in the way of extra receipt is to be considered an appropriation in aid. The effect of that was that the Treasury passed a comprehensive minute declaring almost everything that could be conceived to be an appropriation in aid, and at this moment £8,000,000 was in this way entirely withdrawn from the power of that House, and in respect of this large sum they could not move a reduction even of a halfpenny. You must leave them as they are. You cannot increase or diminish them. Those appropriations in aid do not appear, as they should, on both sides of the public accounts; they are deducted from the total, and it is the net amount that is set down in the account. Now I come to the end of my attack. I have endeavoured to cut it short, and I have omitted many interesting circumstances I otherwise should have mentioned. I now appeal to my right hon. friend the Secretary of the Treasury, who was once a candid critic of the Treasury, and who in one of the best and last of the speeches he made while he was still a Member of the Commons of England, and before he became a placeman, was filled with sadness and sorrow at the misdoings of the Treasury, which he complained hampered people who were endeavouring to do their duty in the public interest. I beg him to remember that this is not my indictment. It is the indictment of his own self. I have done nothing more than elaborate imperfectly and inadequately, no doubt the indictment made against it by his own self. I have heard him described in this House as an old poacher turned gamekeeper. I hope that on this occasion he does not propose to take off his velveteen and turn squire. That would be truly sad. Is he going to say that "all's for the best in this best of all possible worlds," or is he going to admit, as I hope, that even the Treasury is not absolutely perfect, that even a Treasury clerk is a finite being capable of being improved, and that the Treasury system did not come down from heaven absolutely complete and perfect?

In seconding the motion, my only feeling of regret is that the question is one that cannot be properly dealt with on the motion. The practice by which the Treasury regulates all expenditure is so deep-rooted, that a change in its operation must be brought about with difficulty. The Treasury system just now is very detrimental to the best interests of the country. As exercised it encourages extravagance and waste, and it really destroys all incentive to originality in the administration of Departments. It disheartens those who have ideas which are apt to conflict with those of the Treasury. I think it is well known to many that a gentleman not long ago felt very deeply the helplessness of the position in which he found himself placed at the head of the Post Office. He conceived reforms and amendments and improvements which with a little latitude he might have given effect to, but owing to the control which the Treasury exercised he was absolutely prevented from attempting. Perhaps I may say at once on the question of remedy that I do not myself think that there is any one remedy which would cure the defects of the present system of control over all Departments. Departments should be taken by themselves and considered on a businesslike footing, and then consideration should be given to the question how in the individual Departments Treasury control may be modified, so as to give to the heads of the Departments the liberty required to carry out the reforms they desire for the benefit of the country. We all know that the Departments at Somerset House are very crammed and wanting for room. There was a corner which was advertised for sale. Obviously it would have been for the advantage of the country that that corner should have been acquired for the purpose of extending the accommodation, but the Commissioners were prevented from carrying out what was contemplated on account of this system of Treasury control.