CLASS II. (Hansard, 11 June 1877)

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had asked the Government to postpone this Vote until the present occasion. He now wished to get at the precise amount of the Secret Service money that was spent in England, Ireland, and Scotland, divided into these three heads. He observed that this Secret Service Vote came under the head of England, and there was no Vote of Secret Service for Ireland and Scotland. He had no objection to a secret service. He knew it was one of the necessities of every State to have herself secretly served in foreign countries; that she should have secret emissaries to demoralize the servants of other Sovereigns, such as the Emperor of Russia, for the sake of the supposed interests of the Empire. Although he might have no objection to the demoralization of the subjects of the Czar by the application of Secret Service Money, he had a great objection to the demoralization of the people of Ireland. They had always had a great suspicion that a considerable portion of this sum was devoted to payments in Ireland, or in connection with supposed services to the Government in regard to Irish matters. As a proof of this, during the years 1865 and 1868 the sum voted annually for the Secret Service was £32,000, and this year it was only £24,000. In addition to that Vote they were told that the sum of £10,000 was charged annually on the Consolidated Fund for the Secret Service. In the years he had named, it was considered necessary by the English Government, for her own purposes, to pay considerable sums of money not entirely for Secret Service, because a great deal of it was performed in open Courts, in giving evidence on the trials of political prisoners. He wished to say that if any of this money was paid to persons in the United Kingdom, the portion of the 1604 Vote paid to such persons should be defined, and it should be told how much was paid with regard to Scotland, Ireland, and England. He heard an hon. Member who represented an important Scotch constituency say that no Secret Service Money was paid for Scotland, but how did he know that? They had had informers in Ireland, such as Massey, Corrigan, and others, who were described by Mr. Justice Keogh as dangerous characters in society. Possibly, some such men might still be living, and in receipt of money from the Secret Service Vote. If so, how much had been paid them? To give the Government and the Committee an opportunity of stating their opinions on this question, he would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £4, 000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £16,000, lie granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—(Mr. Parnell.)

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he was exceedingly sorry he could not give the hon. Member the information he asked; but he did not possess it. Indeed, the Committee must see the sum would not be Secret Service Money at all if he was in a position to state exactly the purposes to which it was devoted. All he could say was, that the money was spent with the greatest possible care by the Ministers of the Crown, and as long as the necessity for a Secret Service unfortunately existed, the House must be content to leave the subject in the hands of responsible Ministers.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, all his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) asked for, and all the Committee asked for, and which they had a right to know, was an assurance on the part of the Government that the expenditure of the money was one that ought really to be considered a secret, and not for the purposes of compensation allowances and increase of salaries.

§ MR. CHARLEY
said, he must complain of the language of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in saying that the Government spent Secret Service money in demoralizing the subjects of the Czar. He did not think that that 1605 was language which ought to be used in the British House of Commons.

MR. J. COWEN
considered the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had a right to know how the Secret Service Money was expended in Ireland. In his (Mr. Cowen's) opinion it was paid to spies and informers, who went among the people, misled the innocent, excited them to insurrection, and then gave evidence against them. For his part he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend for a reduction of the Vote. He considered the course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury wrong in asking the Committee to give assent to the Vote without giving any explanation respecting its application. He thought the demand reasonable that a distinction should be drawn between what was spent in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

§ MR. RAMSAY
agreed that the Secretary to the Treasury, in asking a Vote for such subjects as those of Secret Service, was bound to give some explanation; and with regard to its application to England, Ireland, and Scotland, the question ought, in his opinion, to be answered. In addition to this Vote for Secret Service, the sum of £10,000 was charged on the Consolidated Fund for the same purpose. It therefore seemed something like a mockery of the Forms of the House to place this sum in the Estimates, if they were not supposed to discuss and obtain some explanation of it. The Committee might be told where the money was spent, without being told how.

§ MR. MACDONALD
thought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was perfectly right in drawing attention to this subject, because the House ought to know how the money was spent. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) knew that Secret Service Money used to be paid in Scotland for the promotion of revolt and rebellion. [Mr. M'LAREN: Forty years ago.] Although it was 40 years ago, it was no less true. He contended that there ought to be an understanding that this Secret Service Money should not be spent in promoting rebellion. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not know how the money was spent, then how could he state that it was well spent? The hon. Member for Meath was entitled to demand an answer as to how 1606 much of this money went to Ireland, and they ought to know how much was expended in England and Scotland.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, it would be a misnomer to call the Vote one for Secret Service, if the Government had to give full particulars regarding it. But he thought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had a perfect right to ask whether any of the money was employed in Ireland, especially if he believed it was being employed for other than legal purposes, and contended that this money was given as a bribe. He begged to say that he had taken an interest in public matters in Scotland for 40 years, and he did not believe that any of this money went to that country now; but there was a time when it did, and that was when the Sidmouth Government existed. The money was sent to Scotland to induce the people to become seditious; but of late years he had not heard a whisper in Scotland that any of this money was expended there.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the nature of Secret Service was really called in question by the discussion. If the money was given, it was voted in confidence that the Government would apply it to purposes that were proper and not to such as were improper, and that it would be used only for purposes which, in the judgment of the Government, it would be inconvenient to make matter of public discussion. The question whether a part of the money was applied to the increase of salaries must have reference to a discussion that occurred a few years ago; up to which time it had been the practice to make additions out of the fund to certain Foreign Office salaries. The result of the discussion was that that practice was discontinued, and the money was not now applied in that way, nor in the payment of compassionate allowances. He hoped that much would be satisfactory to the Committee. The Committee would do well not to press the question now put, because it would be obvious that if the information were given, either it would be misleading, or it would be followed up by further questions which would be of a character to destroy all secrecy as to the disposition of the funds. Suppose it were stated how much was given to one portion of the United Kingdom, questions would arise as to the services rendered, whether 1607 they were rendered within it, or whether the money was paid to persons residing there in respect of services rendered abroad, and the result would be a discussion, which it was the very object of the Vote to render unnecessary. He could assure the Committee that so far as the expenditure of the money had come under his notice, there had been nothing improperly done with it; at the same time, he felt that, though it had been properly applied, it would be very inconvenient to make that application public. He had no doubt each of his Colleagues would say the same for the part of the expenditure for which he was responsible. He hoped the Committee would not press for further information on the subject.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was not at all satisfactory. Was any Secret Service money applied in the United Kingdom, or was it all applied to purposes in foreign countries? If some portion was not applied in the United Kingdom, the Committee would not press for further information. If his memory served him, it was stated in a former debate on this subject that Secret Service Money was applied entirely to purposes connected with Foreign Affairs. If that were so, the right hon. Gentleman could surely state as much now without any breach of due official reserve.

§ MR. A. MILLS
could not see how the information asked for would at all assist hon. Members to judge whether any part of the money was corruptly spent. -What would be the use of it, unless they got the names of every individual who had been paid some of this money?

§ MR. RYLANDS
I took a leading part in the discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, and I moved the Resolution by which the House declined to allow the payment out of the Secret Service Money of any sum for salaries or pensions. But the origin of the Resolution which was carried on that occasion was a little remarkable. I had on several occasions put Questions to the Treasury Bench as to whether it was not the fact that certain parties were receiving salaries and pensions out of this Secret Service Money, and it was positively denied. If I had not had very good authority for the course which I 1608 took, and if I had not resisted the representations of the Government, the facts of the case would never have come out at all. It was only by asking Question upon Question, and persistently meeting the denials given to me, that at last I forced from the Government the acknowledgment that a very considerable amount of salary was paid to an important officer of the Crown as an addition to the remuneration which he derived from his Department. And who was that official? It was the very official who had the management of this Secret Service. My complaint was that although this was done, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs knew nothing whatever about it. In fact, my noble Friend the then Under Secretary of State (Viscount Enfield) was put up to deny that there was any truth in my assertion. Of course, it was not categorically denied. My complaint then was, and it is the same now, that the political Under Secretary of State is kept in entire ignorance of the expenditure of this money. If my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will get up in this House and say he knows how this money is expended, and that he is prepared on his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown to say that it is properly expended, I will yield to his judgment. But he cannot say so. He knows nothing more about it than I do. I know quite as much as my hon. Friend in reference to this matter. And let me tell the House what course is taken in regard to this Secret Service Money. A large portion of it is expended abroad in connection with foreign affairs. I believe it will be found that the sum of £10,000 charged on the Consolidated Fund is the sum chiefly expended for Home purposes. A large portion of the £24,000 which we are now asked to vote is expended through the Foreign Department, and let me tell hon. Members how it is managed. A Minister of the Crown abroad or a Consul in some Foreign State applies from time to time to the Foreign Office for a certain sum of money for the purposes of Secret Service; and when he makes that application, if he takes care to keep within what is considered a fair and legitimate amount for the particular part of the world in which he is placed, and the position he occupies, there is no inquiry made. But if the Ambassa- 1609 dor or Consul asks for an unusual amount, the Foreign Office institutes an inquiry and calls the attention of our Representative at the Foreign Court to the fact that he is asking for an unusual sum of money, and that an explanation will probably be necessary. But so long as he keeps within certain limits, no explanation is called for, and there is nothing to show how the money is expended. I venture to challenge my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to show me within the last quarter of a century in all the diplomatic transactions which are recorded in the Blue Books, any instance in which the employment of Secret Service Money has been of value. I am speaking about transactions completed historically and diplomatically, and laid upon the Table of the House in the Blue Books, which record from time to time the varying action of Her Majesty's Government, and the varied information which they possess. I challenge him to show in any of these transactions during the last 25 years a single case in which important information was obtained by Her Majesty's Government in advance of the ordinary channels of information in consequence of the expenditure of this Secret Service Money. That is the very challenge which I made to the Predecessor of my hon. Friend in the office which he now fills. The challenge never has been met, and I do not think it can be met. I say, that if Her Majesty's Government get priority of information, it ought to be known; for, at present, there is no evidence of the fact. The Ministers and Consuls spend the money, no doubt; but you do not require them to give a detailed account of the way in which it is spent. They simply declare, on their honour, that it is spent for the benefit of the Crown. It is passed by the Foreign Office, and there is no check. The Secretary of the Treasury cannot check it, and it is admitted that the check is utterly insufficient to secure care and accuracy in the expenditure of the money. My impression is, that it is paid to persons who do not do the slightest good in return for it, and if a poor Consul's widow goes to the new Consul in distress, I have no doubt that he would put his hand into this fund, and make her a compassionate allowance out of it; because he would naturally say—"It is a hard case, and the money 1610 can go to Secret Service." There is a strong suspicion that a portion of the money is expended in that way. My complaint is, that Her Majesty's Government spend the money without getting any real and substantial advantage in return for it; that the mode in which it is spent prevents proper control; that the Representative of the Foreign Office in this House knows nothing about it, and has no control over it, but that it is left in the hands of the permanent Servants of the Crown who, as far as I know, may deal with the money in a manner that is not in accordance with the public interests. It may be that some of the objects for which it is expended are good. Perhaps they are, but they ought to be stated in the Estimate. The system is one which is very much open to abuse. If the money is employed in this country, it is used for the purposes of demoralization, and if used abroad, it is used in a mean and contemptible manner in bribing someone on the side of your enemy, or on the side of some State from which you have reason to expect opposition. You bribe him to give you private information that will damage the interests of his own country. I am of opinion that our policy in connection with this country should be an open policy, and that when we talk of British interests, we mean those interests which we can proclaim before the whole world. I shall vote for the Motion which has been made by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and I shall also be prepared. to vote for the rejection of the entire sum asked for.

§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS
was reminded, by the challenge thrown out by the last speaker to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of the proverb—"Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." He was sorry the hon. Member for Burnley, who so strongly denounced Secret Service Money, had not commenced his opposition to it when his own political Friends were in office. He could not think that the Committee would refuse to confide in the present Government on this matter as previous Governments had been confided in. But if a vote were to be taken on the subject, let that vote be not upon the question as to how much Secret Money 1611 was spent in different parts of the Kingdom, but upon the broad question as to whether such money should continue to be voted at all.

§ MR. RYLANDS
explained that he had divided the House against that vote when the late Government were in office.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
expressed a hope that some information of a general character as to the proportions in which it was distributed, would be furnished to the Committee. The Motion before the Committee was not made with the object of abolishing the Secret Service Grant; and if it were conceded, and Parliament were informed what sums were spent in England, as compared with Ireland and Scotland, and other places, its object would be served. With regard to Ireland, it was impossible, without some further information, to satisfy the minds of the people as to how the Secret Service Money was approximated. They remembered that there had been men like Head Constable Talbot, who, being sworn in as officers for the preservation of the peace, had gone among the people, and, on pretence of taking part in the Fenian movement, had mingled among its supporters and obtained information against them. So far was this carried in Talbot's case, that, although a Protestant, he had actually disguised his real character, so as to perpetrate the sacrilege of receiving the Sacrament at the altar of a Catholic chapel. It was true that he was afterwards shot in Dublin; but had the people known of the sacrilege he had perpetrated, he would probably have fared much worse, by being burnt alive by the infuriated populace, whose feelings he had outraged. What was wanted, however, was not details as to particular sums, but the proportions of the total money expended in the Three Kingdoms; and then, if it were seen that there was not an undue amount spent in Ireland as compared with England and Scotland, they would be satisfied. At present no attempt was made by the Government to interfere with or put down any form of popular feeling; but the people were apt to exclaim that the disturbing element was prompted by the Government, who provided the means from the Secret Service Fund. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary knew nothing 1612 about the expenditure of the money, or had communication with men such as Talbot. No secrecy would be lost by consenting to the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), while it would create greater confidence on the part of the people in the Government.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not suppose that the Motion was brought forward in a spirit of obstruction to delay the Estimates, and contended that no more fitting opportunity could be found to discuss the Vote. Hon. Members had spoken of the spending of Secret Service Money in Scotland 40 years ago; but without going beyond 1848, the history of the Dublin Police Courts—when Lord Clarendon, then Viceroy of Ireland, was dragged into Court upon a demand by one Burch, the editor of The World, for the payment of the sum of £1,000, which he alleged was due from the Lord Lieutenant for the support of a paper which vilified the leading members of the patriotic Party as Infidels, Atheists, Socialists, and stigmatized them by the vilest epithets—would show how Secret Service Money was used in Ireland to bring the Young Ireland Party into contempt and discredit. It might be said that it was useless to raise the question, and make accusations against men no longer able to defend themselves; but these things were never known until they became matter of history. He wished to point out to the Committee that with regard to such men as Talbot, who had been alluded to, there was another way in which they were rewarded. Most of those employed as spies and informers were also inspectors or sub-inspectors, and were paid in another form. In addition to the £24,000 now asked for, it was more than possible that the House would be asked to vote another similar sum in the form of salaries to inspectors, or in some manner impossible to classify. MR. MONK regretted that the whole Vote was not to be opposed, as he had never heard any argument in favour of Secret Service Money. It was beneath the dignity of this country that it should purchase information in the way which it had been shown it was purchased.

MR. J. COWEN
supported the reduction of the Vote. Earlier in the evening, they had been discussing the case of the 1613 Fenian prisoners, and it should not be I forgotten that some of these men were placed in prison on information obtained in the manner described, and that it had been paid for out of the money voted by Parliament. We had instances also of the way in which this money was spent during the Chartist movement, and there was a well-known case of a man who had incited the insurrection which led to Thistlewood being hanged, who had lived for 39 years on a pension granted to him by Government out of the Secret Service Money.

§ MR. GRAY
adverted to the manner in which the Vote was brought forward, as being likely to deceive any hon. Member who looked at the Estimates casually. The Estimates were divided under the heads—England, Ireland, and Scotland; but in this item of Secret Service Money the whole was put down to England. The result of that—whether intentional or not—would be that it would not probably be challenged by an Irish or Scotch Member, unless the Vote were carefully examined. If the Government would give no information whatever, then the whole of the amount should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and not under the head where it now appeared. It appeared to him a justifiable thing to ask what portions of the sum were spent in each country, though he thought that if that information were given, the Vote would not be tolerated for an instant. English Members would resist such an expenditure in their country, and Scotch Members had emphatically expressed their determination not to tolerate such a means of corruption in their country, and if they resisted the Votes for England and Scotland, they could scarcely refuse to assist Irish Members against corruption in the same form in Ireland. It was usually, though vaguely, understood that the bulk of the money was for the purpose of acquiring foreign information; but, if that were so, why should not the Government say as much at once? He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), as he should vote for any Motion tending in the same direction. Not without reason he felt very strongly on the point. In 1847, his father, Sir John Gray, was intimate with the Young Ireland Party, and, with others, became acquainted with one Barney Malone. This Barney Malone professed to have most 1614 patriotic feelings, and to be very sanguine as to the prospects of an immediate rising in accordance with the views of the '48 Party. He produced plans, and sought to induce Sir John Gray, and others, to adopt his views. But in looking through some papers, to which he obtained access by a curious accident, Sir John Gray found that this same Barney Malone had been in receipt of a pension since '98, paid out of the Secret Service Money for services rendered to Government. In 1848 he was doing the same work, and but for the accidental discovery of those papers, he might have succeeded in entangling Sir John Gray, and many others, in a way that might have led to their execution. Government had improved on their agents since 1846, for Barney never went the length of swearing-in his countrymen and taking the Sacrament at the altar in order to win their confidence.

§ MR. BIGGAR
had no doubt of the demoralizing effect upon the recipients of Secret Service Money. The information elicited was generally worthless, for the spy must be a liar, and, in most cases, a perjurer. He did not see how a Minister of the Crown could defend such a system before the House and the world, and certainly ought to be discouraged.

§ MR. WADDY
said, it seemed to him that some hon. Members desired that Secret Service should not be secret; but he would ask how could a great deal of the necessary, though unpleasant, work of the Government be conducted without it? It was, no doubt, a very sad thing; but so long as there were traitors, it would be one of the unfortunate necessities of the Government to take these desperate means to find it out both at home and abroad. They ought to confide in this Government as they had confided in others in times gone by.

§ DR. LUSH
said, he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy), as he was of opinion that the matter should be fully investigated. He hated the system of spying, and he thought it ought to be discouraged as much as possible. He thought it strange that the sum asked for should be the same this year as last—namely, £24,000.

§ MR. PARNELL
disclaimed any intention of asking for details of payments made to individuals. Had he wished that he would have made the demand 1615 openly. He was willing to withdraw the Amendment, if the Government would tell him that no money was spent in Ireland for improper purposes, or beyond the fair proportion of the expenditure in England and Scotland. Without such information, he must press the Amendment to a division.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 43; Noes 92: Majority 49. — (Div. List, No. 162.)

§ MR. ANDERSON
moved the rejection of the entire Vote. He denied that the opposition to Secret Service expenditure was a new movement, as he and others had been opposing it for years, and on a former occasion he and those who concurred with him succeeded to the extent of preventing Foreign Office clerks from receiving part of the money. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) did not object to that part of the Vote which was used in the prevention of crime, nor did he himself; but there was reason to suppose that no part of it was spent in that direction, and he believed that Secret Service Money was employed entirely in political purposes, often of the meanest and most degrading order. Such devices ought not to be had recourse to in a great country like this.
Original Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes 96; Noes 40: Majority 56. — (Div. List, No. 163.)
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,207, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
observed that in this Vote was included the sum of £200 for Queen's Plates in Scotland. He intended to take a division against it; but as he understood that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was going to move the reduction of the Irish Vote for the 1616 same purpose, he should be content to allow the Scotch Vote to pass for the present.

§ MR. DILLWYN
understood that a promise had been given that Queen's Plates should not again appear in the Estimates, and he hoped his hon. Friend would divide against the Vote. Some rather curious items were included in this Vote. There was the salary to the Secretary and to the Law Agent of the Bible Board; also the salary to Her Majesty's Historiographer for Scotland, who, it appeared, was also Manager and Secretary to the Prisons Board. He should be glad to have some information as to these items.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he might explain that the learned gentleman who filled the office of Historiographer in Scotland to Her Majesty at present was a well-known man, Dr. John Hill Burton, whose works, among which was comprised a history of Scotland, were a great credit to the age, and well known in the literary world. The office of Historiographer was well-known. It was in the gift of Her Majesty, and it was one of those old offices connected with the Royal Establishment in Scotland which all Scotchmen would be sorry to see abolished; and, although differing in politics from the gentleman who held the office at present, he must say it could not be better filled. The sum of £700 drawn for another purpose was well earned. Dr. Burton was Secretary to the Prisons Management Board, and the efficiency of the present arrangements was greatly due to the management of Dr. Burton. The other duty for which payment had not been fixed was not one that fell within his duties as Prison Manager, or Secretary, or Historiographer. In England some £10,000 a-year was spent in making known what was contained in the repositories of the Master of the Rolls and other dignitaries. A much smaller sum was sufficient for Scotland. So far, therefore, as Dr. Burton and those three items were concerned, he had given all the information which the questions put to him seemed to require. He was also asked the meaning of Secretary to the Bible Board, an office held by the Rev. Sir Henry Moncreiff, brother of Lord Moncreiff. The people of Scotland set very great store upon that office and the effective performance of its duties. Every 1617 copy of the Bible printed in Scotland was published under the licence of the Queen, and the duty of the secretary, with the aid of the reader, was to supervise every edition of the Scriptures before it was published. That work had been most efficiently performed, and Scotchmen would regard it as a very serious calamity if the office were done away with. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY asked what the Law Agent had to do He was not precisely informed as to what the duties of the Law Agent were; but no doubt the remuneration had been fixed, having due regard to the duties of the office.

§ DR. LUSH
thought the text of the Holy Scriptures in Scotland was so thoroughly understood, that it was unnecessary to continue any person to give his imprimatur, and he thought that it had been shown that it was worthy of consideration whether the office was more than a sinecure, and ought to be abolished. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not given a satisfactory reply as to the duties connected with the salary of Her Majesty's Historiographer in Scotland. The present occupant held the office at £184 a-year, and had the opportunity of earning £700 a-year in another office, and an unknown sum in another office. This was a question which must be considered by the House, and he could not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation was satisfactory.

§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK
remarked that there was the greatest unanimity among Irish Members as to the retention of the sum for Queen's Plates; but when the Scotch Queen's Plates were omitted it was the Scotch Members that did it. The year after the Vote was re-instated, because the Scotch people wished to have it.

MR. M' LAREN
said, as to the Queen's Plate question, the House disallowed the Vote; but an opposite feeling was got up, not by the people of Scotland, but by some busy Members of the House attached to horse-racing, and the Government not only re-instated the Vote, but paid the Vote which the House of Commons had disallowed. As to the offices mentioned, the appointment of Historiographer might be regarded as another way of giving a literary man a pension. He could not imagine that the office was held with a view to the performance of any specific 1618 duty. On the other hand, £700 a-year for practically managing the prisons in Scotland was very small, considering the salaries that were paid in England. With respect to the other duty, the salary was no salary at all. Certain State papers had to be calendered. Very few men could do that, and Dr. Burton had to be paid for editing a particular volume, but the amount he was to be paid was to depend on the Treasury, and was not to be a salary at all. With the explanations that had been given, and the little he had added, he thought the Vote might be passed.

§ MR. RAMSAY
approved of the Vote, and held that in no part of the Kingdom were the prisons so economically managed as in Scotland.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
suggested that, by a little alteration, the office of Historiographer might be made a useful one without withdrawing the Vote. With regard to the Bible Board, the office at present was scarcely defensible. So far as the Law Agent went, they had no information whatever with respect to him. The explanation of the hon. and learned Lord Advocate was, financially speaking, unsatisfactory, and he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was prepared to vote with the Scotch Members on the subject.

§ MR. MARK STEWART
trusted hon. Members opposite would see there was good reason for passing the Vote in its entirety.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, the difficulty was how could you preserve the purity of the text of the Bible? If you allowed everybody that chose to print it, all sorts of errors would get into it. This plan was hit upon—that any person in Scotland should be allowed to print the Bible, subject to this condition—that they should first of all get permission of the Lord Advocate, and engage that his permission should be printed on the first page of the Bible. Another condition was that there should be a secretary appointed, and that when the edition was printed a perfect copy should be sent to him, and if an error was found in it the whole edition should be cancelled—not that the secretary should revise it. Nobody could legally print the Bible in England except the Queen's printers or the Universities, and this office was fixed as a security for the purity of the text in Scotland. He never could find out that the Law Agent had anything to do.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
was satisfied with the explanations given on the other Votes, but not with that for the Queen's Plates. To that he had a decided objection.

§ MR. DILLWYN
was also opposed to the Vote for the Queen's Plates, and should move that the amount asked for be reduced by £218, the amount proposed for that purpose. The House in a former year had refused to grant money for this purpose, and he did not know why the item had been re-introduced into the Estimates.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £218, for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—( Mr. Dillwyn.)

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
hoped the Vote would be agreed to. The work done either directly or indirectly by the Historiographer in return for the small sum of money paid him was very ample, and he thought it mere cheese-paring economy to object to it. He hoped the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not divide the House on the question. He believed that when the House previously withdrew the Vote for Queen's Plates, the feeling in Scotland was so strongly expressed against that course that the Government had replaced it.

§ MR. MARK STEWART
said, he did not support races generally, nor did he in the least care for races carried on in Scotland. But he found that the Vote was given for Ireland, and he could not see why it should not be given to Scotland also.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that it was because they intended to vote against the item for Ireland which would come on presently that they would now vote against it for Scotland, and he did not believe that any feeling existed in Scotland in favour of the Vote.

§ MR. YEAMAN
expressed himself in favour of the Vote, considering that the three countries should be treated alike in this matter. He was surprised that the Committee should waste so much time upon so small a matter.

§ DR. LUSH
said, it was very clear that whatever might be the case on other occasions, Scotch Members showed that there was a wonderful unanimity among them when there was any advantage to be gained for Scotland. He should vote against the item for the Queen's Plates.

§ SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY
said, that with regard to the Vote which threw out the item for the Queen's Plates some few years ago, that Vote gave mat dissatisfaction in Scotland. He had a strong recollection of the dissatisfaction that was created when the item was not allowed. He should vote against the reduction, on the ground that equal justice should be done to Scotland, Ireland, and England.

§ MR. M'LAREN
denied that Scotch Members combined on all occasions to support Votes of Money for Scotch purposes. On a former occasion a large number of Scotch Members voted against these Plates. He was one of those who so voted, and he intended to do so again.

§ MR. DILLWYN
declined to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that he intended to vote against the item, not because he did not think it was the duty of the State to encourage the breeding of horses in Scotland and Ireland, but because the sum of £218 was so small as to be perfectly useless for that purpose. He should, however, vote in favour of the Vote for Ireland.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
wished to ask the Committee, whether they intended to do anything to make progress with the Estimates? The Government did not at all desire to cut short discussions upon any Vote; but he thought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was going a little beyond the necessary line of argument which might be used on that occasion. He thought that the subject was one upon which a great amount of discussion was hardly needed, as they were presently coming to the question of the Votes for Ireland, and then they should hear what the Irish Members had to say.

§ MR. BIGGAR
was of opinion that these Queen's Plates did nothing to improve the breed of horses. That object would be much better effected if the Government passed a law not to allow two-year-olds to run before a certain age, and not to allow light weights.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN,
who spoke amid continued interruption, said, if the Committee would allow him, he wished to say that he had come to the conclusion that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with reference to ample time being given for the discussion of Votes in Supply was entirely wrong, for 1621 not one-tenth sufficient time was devoted to the discussion of these Votes. He should vote with the Scotch Members, because he was of opinion that unless the Irish Members supported the Scotch Motions they could not expect to obtain the support of Scotch Members when Irish subjects were discussed.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 53; Noes 141: Majority 88. — (Div. List, No. 164.)
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,513, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland.

§ VISCOUNT MACDUFF,
in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,000, said he did not do so from any feeling of parsimony, but simply to raise that part of the question which referred to the system of Government brands, and which had been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the North of Scotland both among fishcurers and others. The feeling there was opposed to the continuance of the branding system, which had already been condemned, both by Royal Commission and by Treasury Minute. It had been condemned by those interested in the herring trade, both in Germany and in Scotland, as being practically of no use whatever, while the trade itself was injuriously affected by it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £7,513, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland."—(Viscount Macduff)

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
also thought that in the interest of the large curers, as well as of the small, and likewise in that of the general fishing of Scotland, it was now time that the branding of herrings by the Government was abolished. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government would, if the noble Lord withdrew his Motion, 1622 give the Committee assurance that the Vote would not be brought forward in future years.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
thought that the Committee should clearly understand that if the Estimate was reduced by £3,000, with an understanding that in consequence the brand was to cease, the effect would be not a reduction, but a considerable augmentation of the expenditure—because its effect would be that the £6,000 or £8,000 which the brand now produced would come off the receipts, and the Vote would remain the same. He trusted that the Treasury would not consent to the reduction of this Vote. The subject of the brand had been investigated by three Commissions in 1848, 1857, and 1870. All of these recommended its continuance. It was true that the Commission of 1866 reported against it. While it was a tax upon the producers of salt herrings, it was a tax which they desired to pay, and for which there were no Petitions for removal. And the reason of this was that the brand enabled small producers to sell as readily as large producers. It did not act like a protective tax, for it was only used for the export trade.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
complained, with reference to the Vote before the Committee, that the sum put down for the express purpose of repairing and building piers and quays injured by storms was applied to the building of new piers. For three years the sum granted had been applied to one port. Further than that, he did not find that those in whose favour that expenditure was made had, as the Act of Parliament required they should do, expended for the same objects one-fourth of that amount. They evaded the Act by borrowing the required portion from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, instead of drawing on their own private resources for it. The Act of Parliament also required that the accounts should annually be laid on the Table 14 days after the meeting of Parliament, and that had not been complied with. With regard to the noble Lord's Amendment, the estimate of the brand fees was £2,800 less than last year, whilst herring fishing was increasing considerably. This required explanation. While admitting that there was a great deal of truth in the remarks of the noble 1623 Lord as to the present system of branding, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition bench (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it was not desirable that the Vote should be reduced as proposed.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
asked whether it was for the interest of the herring trade on the Coast of Scotland that the brand should be continued? The Commissioners of 1867 came to the conclusion that the brand was objectionable, as it prevented improvements being made in the trade. The curers, too, who were formerly very much in favour of the system, now began to see that it was injurious to their trade. There was a large herring trade on the West Coast of Scotland, and in England, and he had never heard that the curers had found any difficulty in disposing of their herrings which were not subject to the brand. He thought that the brand should be abolished.

§ SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY
knew that three or four years ago the great foreign merchants of Russia and Germany were favourable to the continuance of this brand. It would be most unwise upon a mere assumption without proof that these merchants had changed their opinions to disturb a trade of so much importance to the North of Scotland. He therefore hoped that until further information was obtained on the subject the Committee would maintain the branding.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, that since the Reports made to that House on the subject, additional facts had come to light, and a great change had taken place in Scotland upon the question of branding. He believed that it was expedient that the brand should be abolished, and as the Dutch had agreed to its abolition, he hoped the Government would consider it expedient to put an end to the system. As to the Board of Fishery at Edinburgh, it was no Board at all; it had been severely censured by the Treasury, in connection with harbour works, and the time had come when it ought to be abolished. In fact, the sooner the better.

§ MR. YEAMAN
also supported the Motion of the noble Viscount (Viscount Macduff), and contended that it was the duty of the Committee to abolish the system of branding and the Board of Fishery.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that neither the present nor any other Government would wish to maintain the system of branding, if all those who were concerned in the trade desired to have it abolished. But it appeared to him that the published Reports of the Commissioners were in favour of the system, and it was still believed by many that if it were abolished there would be a great disturbance to the trade. Acting upon the advice which they had received, the Government did not venture to propose the abolition of the brand. With regard to the repair of the piers or quays, it was his opinion that the Act of Parliament was complied with if the parties borrowed the portion of the expenditure, seeing that they would have to repay the loan out of their private purse.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
wished to explain that his father, who was a Member of the Commission of 1848, condemned the brand in principle, though he did not see his way clear to abolish it.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
read from the Report presented to the House of Commons, which showed that the abolition of the brand would cause a great disturbance to the trade, and recommended that it should be retained.

§ VISCOUNT MACDUFF
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
drew attention to an item of £350 paid in respect of certain Government cruisers employed to protect the fisheries. There was a general complaint against these vessels that they did not sufficiently aid the fishermen in case of storms, nor effectually protect the Scotch fishermen from the Dutch and French fishermen, and that the nets of the former were frequently stolen without proper action being taken by the gunboats. He could not see why £350 should be given to the gunboats for acting as police, and unless the Secretary to the Admiralty gave some explanation, he would move the reduction of the Vote by that sum.

§ MR. A. F. EGERTON
was not prepared with any very minute information. He believed that the whole charge the hon. Member referred to was not £350 but £150, the sum which was paid to the Vigilant. He could assure 1625 the hon. Member that the Government were only anxious that everything should be done to assist the fishermen on the coast.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
expressed himself dissatisfied with the answer, and intimated that unless some more satisfactory statement was made, he should be compelled to divide the Committee against the Vote.

§ MR. A. F. EGERTON
said, he had every reason to believe that the instructions given to the cruisers were fully carried out.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the Government had intimated the other day that they intended to appoint a Commission to inquire into the condition of the fisheries; and he wished to know whether the Commission should be a new one, with large powers, or simply a local one; and whether, if it was to be a local inquiry, it ought not to be conducted through the Fishery Board, instead of by an independent Commission? The Royal Commission of 1865 had dispelled the idea that there had been a great falling off in the Scotch fisheries, and since then there had been a steady increase of the "take" on the coast of Scotland.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Departmental Commission to inquire into various complaints which had arisen, not only in Scotland, but in certain other parts of the coast of the United Kingdom. The inquiry would be conducted, as the inquiry was conducted during the last year, by the Fishery Inspectors for England united with the Inspectors of Fisheries in Scotland. The inquiry was made last year with satisfactory results at no great amount of cost, and he believed it would be the same in the present case.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
observed that there had been three separate inquiries instituted of late years into the Scotch fisheries, and there was no good reason why the question should so soon be re-opened by a speculative investigation, unsettling the minds of the fishermen. It was not a justification of legislation that there had been a bad season last year. When the temperature of the water was high in summer herrings migrated to colder waters; and when it sunk too low in winter they sought warmer places. These climatic changes produced constant fluctuations in the 1626 fisheries; but legislation could not determine the migration of herrings.

§ DR. WARD
asked whether the contemplated inquiry would extend to the Irish fisheries?

§ MR. BRUEN
expressed a hope that the Irish fisheries would be included in the proposed inquiry and that the question whether the "branding" system, which had been so beneficial to the Scotch fishermen, should not be introduced into Ireland would also be fairly considered.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
hoped that the inquiries would be extended to Ireland. When last Session he introduced a Bill on the lines of the Scotch system, it was attacked piecemeal by the Government, but now they expressed approval of the very same principles.

§ MR. BUTT
urged that greater encouragement should be given by the Government to the promotion of Irish fisheries.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, when the inquiry was resolved upon, it was not contemplated that it should be extended to Ireland, inasmuch as no complaints had been made to the Home Office with regard to the fisheries of that country. He would consult the Home Secretary as to the advisability of including Ireland in the inquiry.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £4,625, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
(5.) £5,401, to complete the sum for the Register Office, General, Scotland.
(6.) £63,828, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor and Public Health, Scotland.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,798, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
objected to the item of £1,562 for Queen's Plates. He supposed he might infer without fear of contradiction that in theory at least Queen's Plates were given as prizes from the State for the improvement in the breeding of horses through the medium of races, They 1627 were not given by the State as a subsidy to the turf as an institution, excellent though it might be. How far had the Queen's Plates in Ireland fulfilled those conditions? So far as he was able to gather they had not attained their object. Year after year money was poured into a perfect morass of inutility. For many years prior to 1860 Queen's Plates in Ireland were won by English horses. Since that time a condition had been imposed that the money should only be given to horses which had been trained six months in Ireland; but that provision had not altogether stopped the practice, and still year after year the Queen's Plates were won by English horses. One gentleman in England—a Mr. Coppin—in five years carried off from Ireland Queen's prizes amounting to no less than £3,400. In 1876 there were 17 Plates, with 50 runners, and only 19 horses. Queen's Plates were not valued, and had never attracted much attention. From the smallness of the amount and the length of the course, they were not competed for by the owners of good horses; in fact, they were, when not the subject of arrangement between the various stables, run for by most wretched "platers." In 1874, a most wretched animal of that description called Hookey was successful. Only three sires had been winners of Queen's Plates in the course of many years, and this was a proof that these races did not develop the qualities which they were intended to produce in horses. In reply to the assertion that the Turf in Ireland would suffer if these Plates were no longer given, he contended that the people of Ireland were too much attached to horse-racing to let it drop because these paltry sums were withdrawn. At only 5 out of the 90 different race meetings held annually in Ireland were these Plates run for, while the "added money" subscribed at those meetings amounted to upwards of £7,000. As to the effect that these Plates had in improving the breed of horses in Ireland, it was the unanimous opinion of those best competent to judge that the breed of horses in that country had very seriously deteriorated during the last few years and that it was still rapidly deteriorating. This was a matter that should command the attention of Parliament and of the country, inasmuch as it most vitally concerned our Cavalry, which, with the exception of one regiment, was mounted 1628 on Irish horses exclusively. Good troop horses which could formerly be obtained in ample numbers at £25 each could now scarcely be purchased for £40. The Irish export horse trade, which at one time brought into the country £700,000 annually, and which in 1873 amounted to 32,000 horses, had largely fallen off, until last year it only amounted to 18,000, and thus a most important source of national wealth was being destroyed. The cause of this deterioration in the horses was undoubtedly due to want of blood—he did not believe that there was a single good stallion in Ireland. Those stallions which went about Ireland were notorious for hereditary unsoundness, and such wretched animals ought, he maintained, to be prevented by law from perpetuating their miserable species. He might quote pages of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. Now, the remedy which he would propose for that state of things was, that the money which was voted every year for Queen's Plates and absolutely wasted should be capitalized, and that alump sum of, say, £25,000 should be given to the Irish Government with which they might purchase one or two first-class stallions and half-a-dozen or more good ones, to be sent to various parts of the country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) would, he was sure, welcome one of them in his locality. If some such plan were adopted, there might be a Royal Irish stud which would be extremely popular in Ireland, as indicating that that House was interested in maintaining the prestige of their ancient breed of horses, and which would be productive of great practical advantage. He begged, for these reasons, to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,562, the item for Queen's Plates.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £1,562, for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

§ MR. GREENE,
in supporting the reduction, said, he fully concurred in everything that had fallen from the noble Lord, for the deterioration in the breed of horses was beginning to assume a very serious aspect, and as matters at present stood there were stallions going about Ireland which propagated a race of animals hardly fit for a cab. That was the more to be regretted, as he knew 1629 from his hunting experience that there was something in the soil and climate of Ireland favourable to the breeding of horses, for he had found them sounder and capable of more work than those bred in England. He was all the more glad to support the noble Lord, because he was always anxious to vote in favour of anything which he thought would really benefit Ireland, although he often felt it to be his duty to resist legislation which he believed would be prejudicial to that country. If they meant to do anything to improve the breed of horses they must do so otherwise than by Queen's Plates. With the same money they could introduce stallions into Ireland that would breed a race of really strong and useful horses.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
thought that the arguments which had been urged both by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene) were somewhat inconsistent with themselves, for he spoke of the Irish horses as better than those bred in England, while they condemned the present system of breeding in Ireland as bad. Beyond that, the scheme propounded by the noble Lord was a chimerical one. If stallions were distributed over the country it would require a Vote of £2,000 or £3,000 a-year for men to look after them. It was right to continue the Vote in the first instance for military purposes; and, in the next place, because these Plates were given to amuse the public, and he thought the money ought not to be diverted from that purpose. The present system of running all the Queen's Plates at the Curragh was not satisfactory. The native population there was very thin. If they gave Plates to one or two of the larger towns, it would go much more towards improving the breed of horses than any fanciful scheme of distributing stallions.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
had no doubt his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) was animated by a sincere desire to improve the breed of horses, and had done good service by bringing the matter before the House, but he hoped he would not press his Motion. Whatever might be said from the noble Lord's point of view, the Committee should remember that Queen's Plates were given for two reasons—to encourage the breed of horses, and to promote a sport that was very popular 1630 in Ireland. He was satisfied that the gift did effectually accomplish the latter object, and although he would not go to the extent of saying that it had very much influence upon the breed of horses in Ireland he was satisfied that the loss of this £1,500 given in Queen's Plates in Ireland would be much more keenly felt in that country than the loss of the same sum in England. Some fairer distribution than that which now prevailed was, however, possible, and the Committee would find attached to the Vote a note to the effect that the subject of the Queen's Plates was under revision. The distribution of Queen's Plates in England had recently been revised by the Master of the Horse, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had had an interview with the Earl of Bradford on the subject of the altering the distribution of the Irish Plates. He (the Earl of Bradford) advised the Irish Government to wait a little before they took any action in the matter; but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) hoped that in the ensuing year they would be able to propose some alteration in the existing system. Perhaps by giving fewer Plates of larger value and changing the locality they might be able to do more to promote the sport of racing. The suggestion of providing stallions for improving the breed of horses in Ireland was recently fully discussed in that House, and the whole subject was thoroughly-considered by a Select Committee in "another place;" but that Committee did not recommend that the Government should interfere in any such way, nor had the proposal made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) met with a very favourable reception. The breeding of horses for the Army was, of course, very important; but there was no difficulty in getting a sufficient supply, and he could not think that under these circumstances sufficient grounds had been shown for calling on Government to undertake what was probably much better done by private individuals. He admitted, however, that the clear and able statement of the noble Lord showed that much might be said on the other side, and if the Amendment were withdrawn, it would give time for considering the whole question.

§ MR. ANDERSON
did not object to the Vote on account of its amount, but solely as to the manner in which it was to be applied. The evidence before the 1631 House of Lords Committee proved that the money was thrown away both as regarded improving the breed of horses and amusing the people. So far from assisting the amusements of the people, it was well known that in Ireland many of these Plates were run for at races where there were no people to amuse.

§ MR. BRUEN
preferred prizes for the produce of good animals rather than for animals which were merely bred to be exhibited. He would not sanction the reduction or abolition of this Royal grant, but must admit that the conditions under which it was run for might be varied with advantage. The question had been mooted over and over again at most of the agricultural societies in Ireland, and it had been generally agreed that it was better to give these moneys in prizes for the produce than to the animals from which that produce was reared.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
thought the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) was a better one than giving these prizes as Queen's Plates. He objected to the doctrine that this was money spent on popular sports, and it would be far better to withdraw these Plates and lay the money out at agricultural shows, which would really result in improvements in the breeds of animals.

§ MR. MORRIS
thought that for the last 70 years this had been a perfectly useless Vote, and suggested that the same sum should be applied in importing into Ireland good English racehorses.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
said, he was much obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) for the admirable manner in which he had brought the subject forward, but he was quite mistaken. Ireland had 1,500 guineas to run for. Let them keep it. If Irish Members once parted with this money, they would never see it again. The noble Lord was mistaken in saying that there were no good stallions in Ireland, which possessed better stallions than were to be found in England. The Committee might depend upon it that if they left the people of Ireland to look after the breed of horses for themselves they would attend to it. In Ireland they had Tom King, the sire of Umpire, one of the best horses in England at the present time. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Tom King was sent to 1632 Australia 10 years ago.] He knew what he was talking about, he was talking about Tom King, and not about King Tom. Then they had Jack O'Lantern, and Fenian, and he was splendidly bred. His sire was High Treason, and they could not beat the breed of that horse. They had also Ivanhoe and Lothario, such horses as Englishmen would give all the world for, but Ireland would not part with them. If the Committee said to the Irish Members that they did not improve the breed of their horses because there were not many horses which ran for the Plates, and the time taken was very long, he would say that was the fault of the stewards and of the Earl of Bradford. Let them start the horses, and if they did not get over the course in a certain time let them disqualify the lot, and let another lot run. At Manchester he had seen jockeys smoking while they were taking part in a race, and the horses had been walking in some part of the race. He would come back to his old argument. Let the Committee leave them alone, for they in Ireland knew more about the breeding of horses than did the Englishmen.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
admitted that under the present system a very limited number of horses competed for the Plates at the Curragh, and suggested that the money should be so divided that there would be a prize of £700 to be run for in two of the four Irish Provinces alternately each year. By that means a better class of horses would be brought to the post.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
having expressed his regret for having used on a former occasion an expression with respect to Dublin being a seditious capital, and having stated that he had since learned to know Ireland better, offered to withdraw his Amendment, as his purpose had been served by the discussion which had been raised. ["No, no!"]
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 45; Noes 153: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 165.)
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHRQUER
said, he had no objection to the Motion for reporting Progress when this Vote was agreed to.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.