one; and this, no doubt, was a matter which might fairly again occupy the attention of the House. An attempt had been made by Lord Granville to enlarge the field of selection, and, on the average, 11 or 12 candidates had competed for each of the latest vacancies. Most of the men who came in passed a brilliant examination, and he believed they would have come in under a system of unlimited competition. This was a matter which, from time to time, would come under revision. He believed his noble Friend had gone as far as public opinion was prepared for at the present moment in opening the doors as widely as he had done, and in enabling 11 or

12 candidates, on the average, to compete for a single vacancy.

MR. NORTHCOTE asked whether the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive smaller salaries in consideration of the fact that the Office was not thrown open to public competition; and whether the question of throwing open the Office to competition was not decided by the Secretary of State on his own responsibility, and not by the Department?

MR. LABOUCHERE asked whether, on the other hand, the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive larger salaries than those paid in other Offices? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, that the Foreign Office clerks received usually low salaries, and that, in particular, the junior clerks were paid only half as much as clerks of the same grade received in other Offices.

MR. CARINGTON asked whether the Queen's Messengers could not be appointed by open competition?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he would take care that the point was brought under the notice of the Secretary

of State.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked the Under Secretary if there was any way by which economy could be effected in the cost of printing for the Foreign

Office?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, that two months ago, when a discussion took place on this subject, he had engaged that the question should be again considered.

Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again this day.

Question, "That the word 'nineteen' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'twentyone be inserted instead thereof," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill do consist of twenty-one Members.

Select Committee nominated :-Mr. DODSON, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. PEEL, Mr. HARCOURT, Sir ANDREW FAIRBAIRN, Mr. REGINALD YORKE, Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD, Mr. FELLOWES, Sir ROBERT CUNLIFFE, Mr. COMPTON LAWRANCE, Lord EDWARD CAVENDISH, Mr. PELL, Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Sir RAINALD KNIGHTLEY, Mr. MAGNIAC, Mr. STANHOPE, Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, Mr. LEVETT, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. PUGH, and Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR:-Five to be

the

quorum.

MR. E. STANHOPE, in moving the Motion of which he had given Notice, observed that the Bill had been 21 times on the Orders of the Day, and he was anxious to expedite its progress. The examination of witnesses by the Select Committee was most desirable; and though it would slightly prolong their work, it would enable them, by means of the evidence they obtained, to settle many points of dispute. As the Bill stood, it contained no definition of uplands, with regard to which most important proposals of taxation had been made. some such definition the Conservancy Board that would be created by the Bill would have dangerously excessive. powers. A few witnesses would enable the Committee to define this difficult and important term, and would make it

Without

possible to settle the question in an equitable manner. He moved that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

MR. DUCKHAM seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records." -(Mr. Stanhope.)

MR. DODSON, while admitting the perfect fairness with which that Motion had been made, felt bound to say it was one which he could not accept. The hon. Member thought that its adoption would not long delay the Bill, and that the hearing of a very few witnesses would suffice; but he entirely differed from that view of the matter. Looking at the number of rivers in this country, and at the variety of interests concerned in them, he believed that if they once opened the door to evidence it would be impossible to stop at the examination of so very few witnesses as the hon. Gentleman supposed. If they admitted witnesses from one part of the country, they must admit them from other parts, and to attempt to do that at this period of the Session would be fatal to the Bill. Moreover, the Bill was based on the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords, which took a great deal of evidence; and, further, it was only an enabling measure-that was to say, it would give to each locality which desired them facilities for legislation in its own way for its own requirements. Before, however, any river basin or part of a river basin could be legislated for there must be a local inquiry, at which evidence must be given; then the scheme thus originating must be considered by the Local Government Board, who would hear arguments for and against the scheme; and, lastly, before any scheme could acquire the force of law, it must be embodied in a Provisional Order, which had to come before Parliament, when, if opposed, it would be treated like a Private Bill and sent to a Select Committee, who would take evidence. Therefore, to take evidence on this Bill would not only be a waste of time, but also a waste of power and of expense. He thought he had now given sufficient reason for not agreeing to that proposition, more particularly at that period of the Session. Of course, there would be

Mr. E. Stanhope

no objection, he apprehended, on the part of the Committee to any Petitions being laid before them.

MR. HENEAGE said, there were several rivers which were in no way represented on the Committee; and a the Humber Conservancy Board asking Petition had come, among others, from to be heard by counsel and by witnesses. If it could be arranged that the Committee should take cognizance of the various Petitions sent to the House in regard to that measure, he did not think that the present Motion would matter so very much; but as he doubted whether they could do so without powers being given them as proposed by the Motion, he should support his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire.

MR. HICKS said, he should support the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). In his opinion, no Bill had ever been brought before the House which was of greater importance than the present one, because it dealt with every river in England and taxed every acre of land under the name of lowlands, middlelands, or uplands. He did not say that many of their rivers were not in a bad state and did not require improvement. They had got into that state, in a great degree, in consequence of a falling off in the navigation, and through there being no funds to carry out the works which the Navigation Commissioners in former times executed. No doubt, some great Corporation should be established to execute such work; but he greatly questioned whether a skeleton Bill like that, to be carried out by means of Provisional Orders, was the best way of effecting the object in view. They ought to have the question thoroughly sifted by a Committee, and a measure brought down to them in a shape in which it could be accepted. Those who were liable to be taxed under the Bill should be allowed to state their case before the Committee. The great level of fens had been, in fact, created by the owners at great cost. They covered about 500,000 acres; but for these works these acres would have been covered with water. Was it just that these works should be handed over to a new body, or that the owners should should be taxed to clean out rivers? Then, again, the uplands were not affected in any way by drainage and would not be

so severe, and it had the same amount of interest then as it had now. For instance, he did not think there was a more favourable season than that of 1871, and the question was discussed then, and acknowledged to be in need of a remedy; and in September of the same year, Lords Derby and Leicester made the remarkable statement that, were our cultivation what it should be, we could double the gross produce of our soil. Therefore, it was clear that complaint was made of defective cultivation long before our present difficulties arose. Bad seasons only brought up the defects of the law. It must, however, be plain to anyone who considered the question that foreign competition afforded a strong reason for removing all hindrances and restrictions in regard to the letting of land in this country. There could be no doubt as to the danger of foreign competition with home producers when it was remembered the imports in corn and similar products from America amounted to about £62,000,000, and of cattle, butter, and cheese, &c. to about £50,000,000, making altogether £112,000,000 imported into this country in one year. They were therefore in this position-of not merely importing half our wheat and corn, but absolutely importing half the agricultural produce that we consumed. That could not be said to be a satisfactory state of things, and could not be looked upon with satisfaction, for it was clearly our duty to get as much as was possible out of our own soil. There were several reasons, apart from any question bearing directly on the Land Laws, which bore upon this point, and these had been stated at some length by Sir Edward Sullivan in his paper on joint-stock farming, where he calculated that from the absence of one simple expedient-the use of covered yards-the English farmers incurred a loss in manures which was to be reckoned by millions-he thought he put it at £40,000,000 a-year; and by Mr. Caird, a most competent witness. But it might be said that farming would not pay even if the farmer expended capital and skill on his land. Well, he had a letter from Mr. Prout, one of the most able and intelligent of modern farmers, in which he said that, taking from the year 1868 to the year 1878, during which period Mr. W. Fowler

there were several bad seasons, the average price on the whole farm was £10 168. 9d. per acre, while the expense was about £8 per acre, leaving a net profit of over £2 an acre. He was, however, willing to admit that recent times had been very adverse to the farmer; but all the more important was it, then, that the laws should not be adverse as well as the seasons-that good laws should counteract the adverse influence of bad seasons. He had always thought that the grand remedy for the present state of things was freedom for the owner and freedom for the occupier. The question might be divided into the two heads of occupiers and owners. He should not refer to the former to-night. They had lately discussed compensation for improvements, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin); and they had passed a Resolution, without a division, condemning the Law of Distress. Sooner or later, they would have to deal with local taxation, though, if he was not mistaken, farmers would be disappointed if they expect to obtain any very important relief by any change in that direction; but as to the system of perpetuation of life ownership in the land, he thought the defect of the law as regarded that matter might be considered in three points of view-first, as to the owners of the land for the time being; secondly, as to the future owner; and, thirdly, as to the cultivator. As to the owner of a life estate, it was obvious that he was in a very awkward position unless he were a man of wealth. But, taking the ordinary life owner, his position was a very difficult one. However burdened he might be by the acts of his ancestors or by his own, he could not sell an acre of the land. The law prevented the natural dispersion of the land which would enable a man in that position to sell his land in order to pay his debts. Moreover, tenant for life had not only to bear the interests on old charges and jointures and the like, but also all reductions of rents arising from bad times. The charges were fixed, but the rents fell. But even if a man had some means to spare for the improvement of his estate, honesty often forbad him from doing it. It was impossible that an ordinary life owner could improve his estate, not for want of means to do so, but because he was bound in