Commons Sitting of 10 June 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Elementary Schools (Certificated Teachers), nominated; Public Petitions, Mr. Hastings Russell discharged, Mr. Arthur Russell added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Review of Justices' Decisions* [190]; Railways Provisional Certificate Confirmation * [192]; Board of Trade Inquiries* [193].
First Reading—Prison Ministers* [191]; Church Seats * [194].
Second Reading—Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation [137].
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue [106]; Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) (re-comm.) * [188]; Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) (re-comm.)* [189].
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental * [185], and passed.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN—CASE OF MARY ANN SMITH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WELBYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has had under his consideration the case of Mary Ann Smith, who died at Spalding, on May 10th, from the effects of an accident incurred while she was working upon a steam threshing machine; and, if so, whether he would take into his consideration the desirability of proposing some legislative restrictions upon the employment of females in work of this nature, as recommended by the coroner's jury in this instance?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he had received no special report upon the case of Mary Ann Smith, but he had seen a newspaper report, the accuracy of which he could have no reason to doubt; and he was afraid that accidents to women had in more cases than this resulted from their employment upon machinery used in threshing. From the representations made to him, he thought the subject of sufficient importance to have a special report made as to the manner in which women were employed upon these engines, and the means which might be taken for their greater safety. It was, however, no light matter to interfere with the employment of women in any sort of labour, or to interfere in any way without just cause with the working of such very useful machinery.

CRIMINAL LAW—COLLUMPTON MAGISTRATES—CASE OF JOHN WEBBER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the account given by Canon Girdlestone in "The Times" (June 6th) of the proceedings at the Petty Sessions at Collumpton last Monday, relating to the case of John Webber a farm labourer; and, whether he has made any inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates on that occasion?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had caused inquiries to be made with respect to the account given by Canon Girdlestone of the proceedings at the Petty Sessions at Collumpton on last Monday relating to the case of John Webber, and he had received voluminous papers on the subject. As, however, they only arrived a short time ago, when he was obliged to attend a meeting of the Cabinet, he must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his Question to-morrow.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL—COST OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS.—QUESTION.
MR. WESTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he will lay before the House the result of his inquiry with regard to the estimated cost of public prosecutors proposed to be appointed?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that the inquiry which had been instituted with regard to the estimated cost of the public prosecutors proposed to be appointed was a departmental one, which had been jointly conducted by officers of the Home Office and of the Treasury, and, as their Report was a confidential one, it could not be laid upon the Table of the House. The Public Prosecutors Bill stood upon the Paper as the first Order of the Day for next Wednesday, and when it came on the Government would be prepared to propose Amendments in it and to state what were the results of the inquiry in question.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—REPORT OF THE DIPLOMATIC COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any determination has yet been arrived at in respect to the various recommendations
  1508
  made by the Diplomatic Committee last year, which relate to the system of examinations for admission to the junior grades, the scale of remuneration of the junior servants of the service, and to certain pecuniary advantages which it was proposed to secure on special proof of specified qualifications, as also to the recommendations that the gentlemen now in the service who entered it before existing arrangements took effect for giving commissions to second and third secretaries should be entitled to reckon towards their pensions, when they retire, all the period of their service as Attachés without a commission, deducting four years from that period, and that, subject to the Secretary of State's approbation, it be allowable for Chiefs of Missions who have not taken their allotted leave in any one year to unite such leave with that of the following year, without incurring a reduction of salary during the period of such united leave?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, that as regarded the first part of the Question—What change would be made in the system of examinations for admission to the junior grades of the Diplomatic Service? he begged to state that candidates who had taken a University degree, or who had been at a public school up to their 18th year, would be required to pass only such examination as would prove that they had a correct knowledge of French grammar, could converse fluently in that language on ordinary topics, could translate accurately from English into French, and vice versâ, and could satisfy the examiner of their proficiency in handwriting and précis writing. With respect to the second part of the Question—Would the scale of remuneration of the junior members of the service be altered, and would certain pecuniary advantages be secured to them on special proof of specified qualifications? he had to state that the period of unpaid duty would be reduced to two years, whereof six months would be spent in the Foreign Office and 18 months abroad. At the end of two years they would receive commissions as Third Secretaries, with a salary of £150 a-year, and if, on examination, they showed a competent knowledge of public law, they would, as Third Secretaries, receive an additional £100 per annum; on promotion to be Second Secretary they

  1509
  would receive a minimum salary of £300 a-year, increasing by £15 a-year till it reached £450 a-year. The minimum salary of a Secretary of Legation would be £500 a-year. Any Secretary of Legation or of Embassy, Second or Third Secretary or attaché, who should possess a competent knowledge, colloquial or otherwise of the Russian, Turkish, Persian, Japanese, or Chinese language while serving at any mission where such language was vernacular, would receive a special allowance of £100 a-year over and above any other allowance he might be in receipt of. The third part of the Question was—Would those who entered the service before the present arrangements for giving commissions to Second and Third Secretaries took effect be allowed to reckon towards their pensions the period of their service as attachés with four years' deduction? To that he must say no; they would not be allowed to count such time, as no such benefit was promised on their entrance into the service. In reply to the fourth part of the Question—Would Chiefs of Missions be allowed, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to unite the leave of one year with that of the next without incurring a deduction of salary? he had to observe that the Secretary of State was not prepared to allow that alteration, as it was not considered advisable to establish a system which would sanction the absence of heads of Missions for four consecutive months from their posts every second year, thus depriving the country for so long a time of the advantage which British interests would derive from the weight and authority attaching to heads of Missions. He would further observe that the new regulations he had mentioned had not yet come into practice, and were at present only prospective.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will give a day for the disposal of the Irish business now before the House, and particularly of the Bills relating to the amendment of the Irish Grand Jury system?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington) was anxious to make progress with the
  1510
  measure referred to, and hoped before any long time elapsed to make a communication as to it. For the present, however, the right hon. Gentleman must be content with the answer which he recently gave as to the Public Health Bill—namely, that nothing would be gained by attempting to arrange the order of Business too long beforehand, and that when the Scotch Education and Mines Bill had been dispatched, which would be the case before long, the Government would consider anew the order of Business.

ARMY—BAND OF THE GRENADIER GUARDS.—QUESTION.
MR. WATERHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for War, What control the Officer in charge of the Band of the Grenadier Guards will have over his men in the event of insubordination or desertion from the ranks during their visit to the United States; and, whether he has any objection to place upon the Table of the House any Correspondence that has taken place between the War Office and the Military authorities on the subject?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, there is no novelty in the circumstance of an officer with soldiers under his charge going to a foreign country on a visit of this nature; and in the present instance the officer in charge will have exactly the same authority as was exercised, for example, by the officer of Royal Engineers in charge of the men who attended the Paris Exhibition. Under the present arrangements no correspondence passes between the War Office and the military authorities.
COLONEL STUART KNOXasked, Whether any instance had ever before occurred of a band or a company of soldiers being sent out of the country by order of the Secretary of State for War, and without any communication in the first instance with the Commander-in-Chief?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, it has not happened in any former case, nor am I aware that it has happened in this.
THE EARL OF YARMOUTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will be good enough to inform the House of the date on which the promise was given that the Band of the Grenadier Guards should proceed to the United

1511
States, and by whom that promise was given; also the date on which His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief was informed of that promise, and the date on which His Royal Highness received the sanction of Her Majesty for the band to proceed to America; and, whether the Secretary of State for War has not now ascertained that portions of uniform were served out to civilians to enable them to appear as bandsmen; and, if so, by whose authority?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the date on which a promise of permission was given was the 27th of September last, by a letter from my right hon. Friend the Surveyor General (Sir Henry Storks) to the Secretary of the United States' Legation. At that time the subject had been placed by His Royal Highness and by me in the hands of the Adjutant General and of my right hon. Friend. The completion of the arrangements having been notified to the Adjutant General, the formal submission to the Queen was made by His Royal Highness on the 29th of May, and Her Majesty's approval was received on the 30th. I have ascertained, not, indeed, that any novelty has been resorted to on this occasion in respect of civilians being permitted to wear the uniform of bandsmen in the Guards, but that an abuse, heretofore unknown to His Royal Highness the Colonel of the regiment and to the Adjutant General—and it was on their authority I made my former statement—has for some time prevailed of permitting civilians to supply the place of enlisted soldiers in the bands of the Guards. That abuse has been brought to light by the useful assiduity of the noble Earl, and directions have been given to prevent its repetition.
THE EARL OF YARMOUTHasked, at whose expense the cost of the uniforms worn by civilians would be defrayed?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, as the noble Earl, I believe, is an officer—[Cries of "Was!"]—was an officer in one of the regiments in which the abuse has prevailed, I presume he is better acquainted with the subject than I am. If, however, he wishes for information on the point, and will place his Question on the Paper, I will ascertain what has been done in the present instance.

IRELAND—REFORMATORIES AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Will the sum taken in the Estimates be sufficient to pay for as many children as it may be expected will be sent to Reformatory and Industrial Schools now certified, or which may probably be certified in the currrent year; how far the Circular issued in July last, on his own authority, by the Inspector of Industrial Schools, to the managers of Roman Catholic Industrial Schools in Ireland has been acted on, whether it has been cancelled, and whether in future the discretion entrusted to magistrates by the Act of Parliament will be left unfettered by any restrictions as to sending children to particular certified schools capable of receiving them; and, might not the number of children a school is fitted to receive be with advantage included in the certificate, as is done in England?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that he had reason to believe that a sufficient sum had been taken in the Estimates to pay for as many children as it might be expected would be sent to reformatory and industrial schools now certified, although it was just possible that the Reformatory Vote might not be sufficient. With regard to how far the Circular issued in July last, on his own authority, by the Inspector of industrial schools in Ireland had been acted on, whether it had been cancelled, and whether in future the discretion entrusted to magistrates by the Act of Parliament would be left unfettered by any restrictions as to sending children to particular certified schools capable of receiving them, he had to state that it had never been acted upon with any great stringency, and that for the last six months it had not been acted upon at all. He was not, however, aware that it had actually been cancelled. If his hon. Friend referred, as he imagined he did, to the Correspondence that took place between them in the autumn of last year, he had to state that he was not prepared to abandon altogether the position he then took up. Although the Act seemed somewhat peremptory on the subject, he considered that, as being responsible for the administration of the Act, Parliament expected

  1513
  him to exercise some control over the number of children placed at the public expense in industrial and reformatory schools. There was no occasion—nor was there, he believed, any such intention—for imposing any restrictions whatever on the discretion of magistrates in that respect. It would be an improvement, no doubt, if, as the hon. Gentleman had suggested, the number of children a school was fitted to receive was included in the certificate, as was done in England, where it was practicable to do so; and, if possible, it should be so done in Ireland for the future.

WORKING MEN'S CLUBS—THE EXCISE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Working Men's Clubs will in future have any security against prosecution by the Excise, such as that which lately failed in the case of the Surrey Club?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the prosecution to which the hon. Baronet referred took place at the suggestion of the police, who appeared to show a primâ facie case against the Surrey Club, but which was satisfactorily met by the club. He could not hold out the hope that anything would really be done that would prevent the possibility of proceedings being taken by the Excise against persons not guilty of the offences with which they were charged.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman's answer was unsatisfactory, he would take an early opportunity of bringing the subject under the Notice of the House.

INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX—TENANT FARMERS.—QUESTION.
MR. C. S. READasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether in his reply to a Resolution of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, his statement that the tenant farmers would this year be relieved by the reduction of the Income tax to the extent of £150,000, he included the allowance of £80 that will be made in respect of all incomes under £300; and, whether he can state the amount previously allowed under Schedule B by the deduction of £60 from incomes of £200 a-year?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his answer made to the Central Chamber of Agriculture that the tenant-farmers would this year be relieved by the reduction of the income tax to the extent of £150,000, did not include the allowance of £80 that would be made in respect of all incomes under £300, and that somewhat about £10,000 ought to be added on that account. He found that when the income tax was at 5d. the relief given in that way was about £10,000, and that was the last Return to which he could get access.

INDIA—STAFF APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for. India, Whether in appointing to military Staff appointments in India, a preference is accorded to such officers as had passed through the Staff College?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I have no means of knowing the exact grounds on which Staff appointments are filled up in India by the authorities in whose patronage they are; but have no reason to doubt that the rules respecting the qualification of applicants are duly attended to. My hon. Friend is aware, of course, that the great majority of Staff appointments in India are given to the Staff Corps whose members cannot in the nature of things go to the Staff College at Sandhurst.

NAVY—THE REPORT OF "MEGÆRA" COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. KAVANAGHasked the noble Lord the Member for Chichester, Whether he can name a day for proceeding with his notice to call attention to the Report of the "Megæra" Commission?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, the report of the Commissioners on the loss of Her Majesty's ship Megæra dealt out blame right and left. Naval officers of high distinction and public servants of long standing were included in that sweeping censure, and, in fact, almost the only persons who escaped blame were officers of that Department which hitherto had been held primarily responsible for the administration of the Navy of this country. Under these circumstances he asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps he intends

1515
taking. The First Lord of the Admiralty took the fair course of sending the Report containing this censure to the officers inculpated, asking what they had to say in answer to the Commissioners' charges, and last week, in answer to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), the First Lord of the Admiralty said he intended to lay the replies of these inculpated officers and public servants on the Table of the House. He (Lord Henry Lennox), however, thought it would not be fair to enter into this question until the House of Commons had before it the replies to the charges in question; and if the hon. Gentleman who was the first person to call attention to what turned out to be a great disaster would do him the favour of bringing the subject before the House in his usual lucid manner, he would be delighted to do his utmost to assist him in bringing the House of Commons to a fair, searching, and judicial decision on this question.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) COMMISSIONERS—SALES OF LAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland in their notices to immediate lessees or tenants, that they are willing to sell to them the fee-simple almost invariably demand thirty years' purchase on the rack-rent of the lands, although under the Act tithe rent-charge may be sold for twenty-two and a-half years' purchase, and perpetuity rents at five years' purchase; whether such a practice does not tend to destroy the right of pre-emption which it was intended the tenants should have, and to prevent the tenant-farmers from becoming owners of their lands in fee-simple; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONin reply, said, he was informed by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland that it was not their practice to demand 30 years' purchase, on the rack-rent of land which they had to sell. That was only asked in cases where the lands were extremely low let. Before
  1516
  land was offered for sale by the Commissioners, inquiry was made by them to ascertain the selling price of land in the neighbourhood, and the lands which the Commissioners offered for sale were offered to the tenants at that price. If the tenants declined to take the lands, they were sold by public auction, when the tenants had an opportunity of bidding for them in the market. Under these circumstances, he did not think there was any necessity of interfering with the course taken by the Commissioners.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £74,235, 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 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
MR. BOWRINGsaid, there were two items in this vote to which he desired to call attention. The first was with regard to the appointment to a permanent office of a gentleman who had been private secretary to the Duke of Richmond. At first this gentleman received a temporary appointment for 18 months, at a salary of £400, as corresponding clerk in the Railway Department, as stated in a footnote to the Estimates; but the very next year the footnote disappeared, and the appointment had since been treated as permanent, although sanctioned by the House originally as being temporary only; and this year that gentleman had been promoted over the heads of the whole staff of the officers to be a permanent staff officer of the Board of Trade—namely, junior assistant secretary to the Railway Department, at a salary of £600 a-year. His reason for bringing the matter forward was, that only a few nights ago he had called attention to a similar case in the Privy Council Office, where Parliament had been asked to make a nominally temporary increase to the Registrar's salary, and agreed to it on that understanding; whereas the precedent established in this Board of Trade case seemed to show that such increase was likely to be permanent. Then with regard to the library of the Board of Trade,

1517
which was very valuable. A few years ago, when the Board of Trade was transferred to Whitehall Gardens, the library, consisting of between 30,000 and 40,000 volumes of most valuable books, was left behind, and it was now placed in a wooden shed, and, beside deterioration from its comparatively unprotected condition, was in danger of destruction by fire. There were three ways by which this library might be disposed of—namely, by transfer to where the Department was now; or it might be usefully distributed among the several Departments of the Government; or, let the worst come to the worst, be sold, and the amount paid into the Exchequer, so as to prevent a large waste to the public. And yet there was a librarian with £600 a-year to take care of this library, which was of no use to the public service. The sum, moreover, annually voted in connection with the library, for salaries and minor expenses, was probably not less than £1,000, and if the Vote had come before the Committee in the early part of the year he would have moved that it be reduced by that sum. He would now move that it be reduced by £500, for the purpose of bringing the question to an issue, this being the third or fourth year that he had brought it forward; and unless he got some assurance from the Government on the subject, he would take the sense of the Committee upon it.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £73,735, 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 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."—(Mr. Bowring.)
MR. MACFIEsaid, he would urge upon the Government the erection of the Board of Trade into something like an international body, to settle questions that might arise between this and foreign countries in matters relating to trade; and he also thought it desirable that the Board of Trade, like other Departments, should furnish annual Reports, and the sooner it was done the better.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to call attention to two matters connected with the functions of the Board of Trade. He submitted that all questions relating to the copyright of designs should be
1518
transferred to the Patent Office, as an essential branch of that Department, and that the inspection of alkali works should be vested in the Local Government Board.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had to complain that not only had individual Inspectors increased in number, but there was a needless multiplication of the classes of Inspectors with every new restriction on the various branches of industry. He asked whether it would not be possible to economize Inspectors by referring kindred kinds of inspection to one class of Inspectors, and suggested that the cost of inspection of these alkali works might more properly be charged upon the proprietors than upon the public, on the principle which had lately been adopted in the case of Fisheries.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he hoped the duty of inspecting the proving establishment of chain cables would not be postponed till October, but would be fixed for the 1st of July, as originally contemplated.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the librarian and assistant librarian, to whom his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring) referred, had practically very little to do, and that he was perfectly justified in moving the reduction of the Vote.
MR. EYKYNsaid, he would call attention to the Joint Stock Companies Registration Office, the business of which he hoped would in future be transacted in a manner more satisfactory to the public.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie), said, the reason why the Board of Trade did not take a larger share in the transaction of international commercial business was, that it could not efficiently act in matters which implied a dealing between one Government and another, and which must always in the last resort be in the hands of the Foreign Office. He would also express his concurrence with the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. F. S. Powell), in thinking that the present distribution of work between the Board of Trade and other offices was open to improvement, and that, although the duties which were thrown upon it were well discharged, yet there were several of the duties performed by it which might be more properly given to other Departments

1519
of the State. In the remarks which the hon. Member had made with respect to designs he was very much disposed to concur, and the matter was under careful consideration. As to the inspection of alkali works, it had been decided that the duty should be transferred to the Local Government Board. He must, however, say that those duties, being of a very special character, and requiring special knowledge, could not safely be performed by persons who had no particular knowledge of the subject. As to the proving of chains and cables, the present Act would be left in operation, with the option of making use of the new tests in those places where the new testing machinery was provided. The same duties as before would therefore have to be performed till January 1. He had every reason to believe that the duties in the Office for the Registration of Joint-stock Companies had been performed more satisfactorily than they were last year; but he should like to have in black and white the exact grounds of complaint against the office, and would take care there was a searching inquiry. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring) raised the question of the appointment of a junior assistant secretary to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. That gentleman, Mr. Charles Peel, had been previously employed at the Board of Trade in a temporary capacity; he had been private secretary to a former President of the Board, and he had performed important duties connected with the Provisional Order system which had grown up so rapidly. That was the work for which he had been specially appointed. He was now put in a more permanent position than he had previously occupied, but the Treasury had decided that he should not thereby acquire any claim to a retiring allowance, or any claim to compensation if the occasion for his services ceased. As to the library of the Board of Trade, he admitted that it was in an unsatisfactory state, and that that state ought under no circumstances to be allowed to continue. The library itself was, in fact, too good; so good that the Board did not know what to do with it. Being so good, they desired that it should be more widely available for the public service; but it was not now in a position in which it could be comfortably consulted
1520
by any large number of people. The question of lodging it better had been under consideration by the Treasury, which some time back appointed a Committee, but it had not yet reported. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was anxious that the inquiry should be brought to a close at an early date, and to come to some decision upon the Report of the Committee.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he had always felt that the library was an unsatisfactory feature of the Board of Trade. When he was in office it encumbered all the rooms, and not being confined to the scientific works mentioned by the hon. Member for Exeter, sometimes attracted the clerks from their proper work. At the same time, he must say that he was conscientiously able to testify to the great ability and usefulness of the present librarian, who had, he believed, also other duties to discharge. With regard to the alkali works, he might explain that at first the owners of these works considered the Commission a hostile one, and it would have been difficult to carry the Bill if the owners had been saddled with the expenses of the Commission; those owners were now, however, by no means hostile to inspection; on the contrary, they acknowledged that the mode of working which they were obliged to adopt under the Act was extremely profitable and economical, and that they had benefitted largely by the suggestions of the able inspector. They could, therefore, well afford to pay for the inspection, and he thought it was well worth consideration whether the expenses should not be thrown on them. He also wished to know whether the attention of the Government had been turned to the condition of the oyster fisheries, and whether it was considered that the proprietors were now, or might shortly be expected to be, in a condition to pay for their inspection. He was glad that a beginning had been made in a fresh classification of the work in the different public offices, which had long been much required. With regard to Mr. Peel, he thought that no objection could possibly be taken to the appointment of that gentleman, the value of whose services had been acknowledged by two successive Governments.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, it was quite refreshing to witness the ability and intelligence

1521
now evinced at the Board of Trade. In the Estimates before the House work which had hitherto cost £400 was now charged £600, and a gentleman, it seemed, had been brought from the outside (Mr. Peel), passing over the heads of all the subordinates. That was a practice which ought rarely to be resorted to. With respect to the reduction of the expense of the library by £500, he might say that the expense of taking care of 30,000 or 40,000 books—not using them—was £1,000 a-year. That was pure waste, and if a division were taken he should support the Amendment.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he could bear witness to the willingness of the officials in the Board of Trade to assist all persons going to the Office on business. With regard to the library, he thought it would be well to unite it with the other libraries at the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and other Departments, and to make one good library out of them all. He did not see the use of having so many libraries, particularly as no one read the books. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Peel, he could not find fault with the Board of Trade selecting the best man for the purpose; and, as to Inspectors, he had no objection to their appointment, if those who wanted them paid the expenses. There was one thing, however, he did not like, and that was the Joint-stock Registration Department, for, in his opinion, it afforded too great facilities for making companies.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, the Provisional Orders with regard to tramways and gas and water pipes were increasing every year, and they were required to be carried out with very great care. Dealing as he (Colonel Hogg) did with them almost daily, he must say that he had found the gentleman who had charge of that branch of the office, and whose appointment had been somewhat questioned, in every respect an excellent officer, and he hoped the Government would confirm the appointment.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that although there was some ground for the delay which existed in the matter, yet he could assure the House there was some excuse in the fact that the Committee which was now considering in what way that library could be utilized for the public service had had various difficulties to contend with. No good, however, could
1522
come of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring) pressing his Amendment to a division, which would, indeed, only tend to hamper the gentlemen who, he hoped, would soon be able to present a Report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that would be laid before the House. With regard to the junior assistant secretary of the Railway Department, several testimonies had been borne to the ability and the valuable services of that gentleman; and the more the matter was investigated, the more the wisdom of his appointment would be shown.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he wished it to be distinctly understood that his complaint had not been made in any degree against any individual, but entirely against the system. He believed that Mr. Peel was an excellent public servant. With respect to the library, last year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the matter was then under consideration; and, surely, he (Mr. Bowring) was justified in thinking that the Committee might fairly have been expected by this time to have made their Report. He would leave his Amendment wholly in the hands of the House.
MR. C. S. READasked whether the reduction of the salaries of the Inspectors of Corn Returns would diminish the efficiency of those Returns; and whether the same Returns, under the head of Agricultural Statistics, would be continued this year?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the work in question was now done by the Excise officers, and not by those of the Board of Trade. He therefore could not give any information with respect to the last question of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. MONKasked for an explanation of an item for the expenses of the delegates attending the Metric Conference at Paris.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the Conference had not been held in consequence of the Franco-German War; but it was found that certain additional instruments were required by the Standards Department, and, with the sanction of the Treasury, a small unappropriated sum was devoted to the purpose of those instruments.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,011, 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 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
MR. DILLWYN, in moving the omission of the Vote, said, he, in common with many other persons, regarded it as a sinecure and useless office, which ought to be swept away; in fact, he had never heard the office itself defended on the ground that it was of any use. He knew that the argument used in favour of its retention was, that it afforded a convenient berth for a Cabinet Minister, whose services were required for the performance of other duties than those which were nominally or apparently attached to his position. He did not, however, think that was a sufficient justification for the maintenance of the office, for the decisions of the Cabinet sitting in Council were more likely to be of a practical and less of a political character the more their deliberations were conducted by Ministers who had real Departments entrusted to them. It appeared to him, therefore, it was desirable that the office should be abolished. When he brought this subject under the notice of the House last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the office on the ground that it was desirable to have a Minister in the Cabinet who could be sent from Office to Office to assist in those Departments the heads of which were overworked. It was also said that last year the Lord Privy Seal had rendered great service by enabling the Marquess of Ripon to go to America to negotiate the Washington Treaty, but the illustration was, in his opinion, not a very happy one, because had the noble Marquess remained at home, perhaps his services in this country might have been more valuable than they were in America. In short, it appeared to him that any relief to be given under such circumstances should be given in a more open and avowed manner, and that if Cabinet Ministers were overworked, it would be better to divide the work, and to appoint Ministers without portfolios to assist in getting through it. Here was a high official, with a salary of £2,000 per annum, appointed to an office which had no duties attached to
1524
it; and a chief clerk, with a salary of £250 per annum, a private secretary, an assistant clerk, and a messenger were appointed to help him to do nothing. Such an appointment was contrary to all principles that were supposed to secure efficiency and economy. The country ought to know what it got for its money, and at present there was no means of testing whether the staff of the Lord Privy Seal were under or overpaid for their services. When he brought the matter under the notice of the House of Commons last year, 44 hon. Members against 73 voted against the retention of the Office; and it was the duty of the Government to have taken some notice of this expression of opinion on the part of the House, instead of which they had sanctioned an increase of the expenses of the Office from £2,739 to £2,761. Under these circumstances, be begged to move that the whole Vote be disallowed.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if, in a full House, the figures on a division respecting the abolition of the Lord Privy Seal's Office had stood in the proportion of 44 to 73, he should have been willing to regard it as a warning that some change should be made in the Office; but so small a division as that of last year could not be accepted as expressing accurately the deliberate balance of opinion of the Whole House. He must also say that he thought it would be a great mistake—a mistake which must inevitably give rise to great public inconvenience—if the House were to adopt the Motion; indeed, that a greater mistake could hardly be made in connection with so small a matter. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea had said that if a Minister of State were overworked, the proper way to relieve him was to appoint a permanent Colleague to divide the labour with him; but he would point out that it was not alleged that the Members of the Government were overworked in respect to their departmental duties, but in respect of those other general duties that devolved on them as Members of the Government, and it was idle to suppose that the Foreign Secretary, for instance, could obtain relief from the pressure of business that rested on him by appointing two Foreign Secretaries instead of one. [Mr. BOUVERIE: It used to be done.] Yes; but that was at a time when the Cabinet was differently

1525
organized to what it was now, and when to see one Member of the Cabinet voting against another was a common occurrence. In our days it would be obviously impracticable to have two Foreign Secretaries. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that besides the departmental duties of a Minister he had, during the Session, to pass many hours every day in the House of Commons—a very serious duty; and allowance must also be made for the duties of the Cabinet, for those of Committees of the Cabinet, and for the preparation of Bills—because the latter was no portion of the distinctive duties of a Department. In fact, his hon. Friend would do well to open his mind to the fact that, as a whole, Ministers were not underworked but overworked; and the consequence was that their work was not so well done as it otherwise would be. There was no good policy and no economy in overwork; but it was an evil from which they suffered, and one that they could not escape from, but from which a partial escape and a very material alleviation were afforded by the existence of the office of Lord Privy Seal; indeed, he would assert that the presence of the Lord Privy Seal in the Cabinet was of the utmost value to the Government. How were Ministers, labouring hard in that House—take, for example, the Secretary for War last year—to perform the general duties of the Administration without the assistance of such a Minister as the Lord Privy Seal? The Lord Privy Seal brought a clear and disengaged mind to the general deliberations of the Cabinet—deliberations upon questions to be looked at in a multitude of different lights. Let them look back to the years 1869 and 1870, and say whether it was possible for Ministers to have discharged their business efficiently in the other House of Parliament without the able advice and assistance of Lord Halifax? The arguments against the office would also go to the extent of saying that when a Minister by temporary indisposition was unable to discharge the duties of his office he ought at once to resign; otherwise, when the head of a department became seriously ill—as in the case of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers)—the strength of the Cabinet would be seriously impaired. It was true that the Lord Privy Seal had no departmental
1526
duties to perform, but it was a great fallacy to suppose that he had no other duties. The departmental duties of a Minister were, no doubt, of great importance; but other duties performed by them were even generally of greater importance. The staff was generally so efficient and powerful that the whole available strength of the Ministers was able to be directed to those matters in which it was more needed than for the deliberations of departments, and it was to give assistance in those general duties that the office of Lord Privy Seal was of importance to the Cabinet; and the fact was, that the person filling that office could more efficiently discharge the general duties of a Minister from the fact that he was not burdened with the duties of a department. If his hon. Friend thought that the Government in regard to its aggregate weight was more powerful than the public service required, the most reasonable course to take would be to ask the House to take away some of the assistance they enjoyed. But if it were admitted that they were overweighted, then his hon. Friend might take his (Mr. Gladstone's) assurance—an assurance founded upon a long experience—that the assistance derived by the Ministry from the existence of an office of this kind was most valuable and important as regarded the discharge of the general duties of the Government.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he regretted he could not see the matter in the same light as that of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. There was no question but that the Ministers were hardly worked, and that it was a great benefit to them to have the assistance of an independent mind in their deliberations; but that formed no argument fin favour of a useless office being retained. The present Government, on coming into office, made the most earnest professions of economy, and it was in consequence of those professions that they obtained so large a majority; but in compliance with the requirements of those professions, his right hon. Friend had not given any substantial reason for the retention of this office, or named any important duty discharged by the Lord Privy Seal. All his arguments went to show that he was a sort of "handy man," and that it was important to have his advice and assistance.

1527
He (Mr. Otway) would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the country had often the advice and assistance of great statesmen in the Cabinet without salaries. He might name, for example, a former Lord Lansdowne, the late Duke of Wellington, and the present Earl Russell. He confessed he was much disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Otway) had never been an advocate for diminishing salaries, or for depriving men of the remuneration to which they were fairly entitled; but the present case was one which stood on a different footing, for in the face of those professions of economy the Government were retaining an office to which no duties attached, for the mere purpose of retaining the services of a "handy man" in the Cabinet, who was capable of affording them his advice and assistance in their general deliberations. He fully recognized the high qualifications of Lord Halifax, and believed it would be difficult to find a nobleman better versed in the duties of an Administration—indeed, he had a great respect for the noble Lord—nevertheless he saw no reason why the office of Lord Privy Seal should be retained. As to last year's division, there was a strong feeling 14 or 15 years ago for the abolition of the office, and he believed Mr. Wyse once obtained a majority, or very nearly a majority, on the question. In conclusion, he must say that he could not for such insufficient reasons as had been advanced vote with his right hon. Friend, whom he otherwise willingly followed, in favour of a useless and expensive office.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he had heard with great surprise the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham. He would, however, at once admit that some years ago there was a strong feeling for the abolition of the office, and that the question was once carried against the Government. That feeling, however, had changed, owing to such arguments as those urged by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, for many strong economists and advanced Liberals had seen the force of those arguments. He himself was one of them, and changed his opinion on the subject long before he became a Member of the Government. Lords Lansdowne and Russell had sat in the Cabinet without
1528
office or salary, but at that time there was a Lord Privy Seal also, the work of the Cabinet being so onerous that even his assistance was insufficient. He ventured to submit to his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea that the duties performed by the Lord Privy Seal were of a most onerous and important character, and that his hon. Friend advocated a false economy on this subject, for if his view were adopted by the Committee, the consequence would be that the country would soon have to pay for assistance to the Cabinet a much greater sum than the amount of this Vote.
MR. A. GUESTsaid, he quite concurred in the justice of the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that it was of great importance to the Government that they should have the benefit of the advice of such a high authority as the Lord Privy Seal. As there were no departmental duties to be carried out in the office of the Lord Privy Seal, it might have been reasonable on the part of the hon. Member for Swansea to move a reduction of the Vote by £600, the salary of the secretary and other officials; but it was most unreasonable to move the rejection of the Vote altogether.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, that there was one aspect of the case which had not been alluded to by any hon. Member, and therefore he must trespass on the Committee for a few moments. He should be the last to deny that Ministers were overworked, or that it was desirable to have one or two Members of the Cabinet practically without portfolio, to relieve their Colleagues of a portion of their burdens. But who were the Ministers who were overworked? Were they the Ministers in the House of Lords, who, except on rare occasions, adjourned at 7 o'clock, and went home to dinner, and in due time, he hoped, to bed? No; they were the Ministers on that bench, who were all day at their Departments, and all night in the House of Commons. And yet what was done? Few had these sinecure offices—the Privy Seal and the Duchy of Lancaster—and they gave them both to Peers! He was bound to say that as long as the overworked Ministers were in that House, and the means of relieving them were carefully kept in the other, he should vote with his hon. Friend.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 57: Majority 136.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £14,133, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, the Vote had been condemned by economists, the Government, and the Opposition for the last seven or eight years, and yet it was still retained. It was a disgrace to their consistency and ingenuity—if not their honesty—that they should still annually pass this Vote, simply because they could not decide on a practical scheme for getting rid of it. The difficulty in dealing with it was the mode of meeting the necessary expenses, and a Resolution had last year been carried on his (Mr. A. Johnston's) Motion to the effect that the imposition of an income tax on the endowed charities of the country would furnish a fit method of meeting that difficulty. There were, however, certain objections to that method, because those beneficially interested in those charities were persons having under £100 a-year, whom it was not fair to call upon to pay income tax. But he would suggest to the Committee that it was competent for them to fall back upon a tax against which no such objection could be alleged—he meant the legacy and succession duties. The Vote which the Committee was asked to pass constituted in reality a very small portion of the cost of the Commission, which was not to be computed at less than £50,000 a-year, and if the legacy and succession duties were extended to those, and also to other corporate properties, a large amount of property would be reached which had no pretence to be called a charity of any kind. For instance, the halls and other property belonging to the City companies escaped the succession duty. It was true they claimed to hold a portion of their property for charitable purposes, but there was really no pretence for claiming exemption under such a ground. He begged in conclusion to say that he should oppose the Vote.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was unnecessary then to go into the broad question of taxing charities, still less the imposition of any income tax on their property. There was an increase in the Vote this year of £677 which required explanation, and also why the Resolution
1530
with reference to this subject passed in 1868 had not been carried into effect. He should like to know from the Government whether they had any proposal to submit to the House on the subject?
MR. CADOGANjoined in the hope that the Government would be able to reduce this Vote, if not abolish it. There was no reason why charities representing such enormous sums of money should get their work done at the expense of the country.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not at all surprised at the objection to this Vote, for he himself was opposed to it strongly, and he was sorry that his official position rendered it necessary that he should defend it. The increase in the Vote arose from the additional work of the office, from the fact of there being upwards of £4,000,000 to be dealt with. He admitted that, after the strong opinion pronounced by the House of Commons, the Government, when time and opportunity offered, were bound to propose a scheme for throwing the expense of this Charity Commission upon the charities themselves; but, at the same time, any scheme of that sort was not likely to pass through the House of Commons sub silentio, and time and opportunity had not yet offered for a measure on the subject—a result at which he confessed his own personal disappointment. If the hon. Member for South Essex would have a little more patience, he had no doubt that before long the hon. Gentleman would find that his views would be carried out.
MR. HUNTsaid, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman would have to exercise a great deal of patience on the subject before that event would take place. He (Mr. Hunt) had brought forward this question in 1869, when a debate of a somewhat acrimonious character occurred; he hoped, however, that the spirit of that debate would not be imported into the present one. It was then pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had pledged himself in 1868 to the principle now assented to by the Secretary to the Treasury; but the present Government had been in office for some years, and if they had done nothing hitherto, when could any measure be hoped for from them? This was not a question of putting an income tax on charities, but of making charities pay for their own administration

1531
—a much smaller question. Any such measure should have his hearty support, and he did not believe the House generally would dissent from it.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury was rather given to feel strong objections to things, but he never removed what he objected to. If the Government would only turn their attention to the subject, he felt certain they would be able to find some remedy. His objection was not to the office, but he thought the State ought to have, at least for management, a commission on the £4,000,000 and upwards which the Charity Commissioners managed at an expense to the State of £18,000 a-year. Such an office did a great deal of good, but it ought to be self-supporting.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question was narrowed to a single point, and it was but natural that hon. Members should express their opinion upon it as they had done. They had to consider how best they could make the charities for which the Commissioners did their work, pay for it themselves, and not the taxpayers of the country. The subject had been well considered, but descending from generalities, he had not been able to see—nor did he know anyone who had been able to see—how it could be done. The Charity Commission was a very peculiar office. It really did the charity business formerly done by the Court of Chancery, conducting this business in the most simple and patriarchal manner. It was guided by no rules of evidence; it obtained its information though letters, or inquiries made by its own Inspectors; it heard no counsel; there was nothing formal in its proceedings; and it was exceedingly difficult to see how you could fasten a system of fees upon a procedure of this kind. Again, that being a voluntary jurisdiction, if they were to load it with fees, they would stop the immense amount of good which was being done. It rested generally with the trustees of charities whether they would go before that tribunal or not; and the effect of its action being frequently to limit the power of trustees, and force on them things which they did not like, if a tax were put on those proceedings, it would always be in the power of trustees to say they could not find the money for them. With regard to the £4,000,000 placed in the hands of the Commissioners,
1532
for instance, that was entirely a voluntary proceeding on the part of trustees. It was most desirable for the sake of the charities that that money should be placed in safe custody; but supposing the money so placed were to be taxed while those who did not put it in such keeping were untaxed, that would counteract the very object for which the Board was established. Therefore, he was most unwillingly driven to the conclusion that it was not in the way of fees upon the money or property administered under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners that they could possibly raise the sum which was required. The only mode of doing it was, as suggested by the hon. Member for South Essex, by putting something in the shape of a succession duty, or an income tax on charities. They had had some experience of the difficulties of such matters; and if the Government, with the numerous other subjects they had in hand, had not embarked on that further sea of troubles, they might, he thought, be pardoned, because there was no question in the whole region of politics on which the opinion of the country was so far behind, and so little prepared to grasp true principles as that of dealing with charities, and there was none, too, on which they were so sure to receive from all quarters—no doubt from the best feeling and with the utmost sincerity—a blind, bigoted, and pertinacious opposition. Therefore, there was nothing for them but to go on a little longer, hoping the public would come to take a sounder view of that subject, and until the mind of the community arrived at the conviction that the world was made for the living and not for the dead, he despaired of carrying any large or reasonable measure on that matter.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought the Government, with so ingenious a Chancellor of the Exchequer, might easily discover some mode of getting rid of a tax which was of no particular credit to the nation. He trusted the hon. Member for South Essex would not divide the House, but would, early next Session, move for a Committee on the subject.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government were perfectly in earnest in the opinion they had expressed; but they felt that the House could not now spare the time which would be required for giving effect to them; at the proper time,

1533
however, they would be prepared to do so. If the hon. Gentleman could forward the matter through a Committee, however, the Government would give him every assistance.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he did not wish to cut down the expenses of the Commission—in fact, they ought to be very much increased, and the Commission made more powerful and effective; but he objected to the way in which they were raised.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £12,166, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked for explanation as to the amount, as he had some doubt as to whether the number of Civil servants employed by the Commission was not too great.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that no fewer than 18,022 persons applied to be examined last year by the Civil Service Commission, and on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Cubitt), a circular was was sent to each of the disappointed candidates; but as they numbered upwards of 12,500, a considerable expense was incurred. He could not hold out the hope that the expenses of the Department would be reduced.
MR. CUBITTsaid, that the complaints which had induced him to make the proposition had since ceased; but inasmuch as each candidate paid, he believed, £1, he did not think that the Minister could grudge 2d. to him to inform him of the result of his application.
MR. BAXTERsaid, it added greatly to the work of the office.
MR. RYLANDSpointed out that if each candidate paid £1, it would more than cover the whole expense of the Commission.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that it was a mistake, 5s. only being paid.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that even that fee would make a large portion of the Vote. He would recommend the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to look a little more carefully into the Votes for the future. Putting all that on one side, however, he must say that he believed the Commission to be a very efficient one.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £14,083, to complete the sum for the Office of the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commissions.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he must complain of the manner in which the accounts relating to this Vote were kept, which prevented the receipts of the Commission being compared with its expenses, so that no one could tell whether or not it was self supporting.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he must complain of the long delay in producing the promised Enclosure Bill. He would like to know whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a measure dealing with enclosures during the present Session?
MR. LEEMANsaid, that while there were at that moment no less than 8,000,000 acres of unenclosed land existing in the country to its great loss, yet the Office of the Enclosure Commissioners had been practically shut up during the last two years. It was, therefore, urgently necessary that some immediate steps should be taken by the Government towards legislating on the subject.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he concurred in the remark just made, and thought that while it was desirable the waste lands in country districts should be enclosed, great care should be taken in the enclosure of commons in the neighbourhood of large towns, that ample ground should be appropriated for the recreation of the people. In the Fell country, there was the greatest confusion among agriculturists from want of enclosures, no man being able to claim his own rights.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, that enclosures had chiefly been resisted, because a disposition was shown to deprive the labouring classes of recreation grounds. For that reason, he thought that in the enclosure of waste lands provision should be made so as to enable the labourers to obtain a portion of them for cultivation.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that when the Government had introduced Bills on this subject they had met with considerable opposition in some quarters, on the ground that the measures did not do enough for the people, and in others on the ground that they did too much for them. The only reason for the delay in the introduction of a measure on the subject during the present Session was, that it was impossible to put aside larger measures in order to make way for an Inclosure Bill. The Government intended

1535
to bring in a Bill on the subject as soon as possible.
MR. LEEMANsaid, he would suggest that the subject was one to which the other House might beneficially turn their attention.
MR. CUBITT, said, he regarded the want of accurate information on the subject as being the great obstacle to the passing of an Inclosure Bill, and thought they could deal much better with the question when the promised Bill came before them.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the Government would take care in Inclosure Bills of the interests of the great mass of the people.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £7,750, to complete the sum for the Imprest Expenses under the Inclosure and Drainage Acts.
(7.) £28,506, to complete the sum for the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that the recent defalcation of about £8,000 at South Kensington ought to have been discovered sooner.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) £48,538, to complete the sum for the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c. in England.
MR. F. S. POWELLasked when the further Report of the Census would be published?
MR. BAXTERsaid, he could not give a precise answer; but believed the Report would not be long delayed.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £11,181, to complete the sum for the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England.
(10.) £13,377, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
(11.) £20,428, to complete the sum for the Charges connected with the Patent Law Amendment Act.
MR. HINDE PALMER, in commenting on the £3,450 paid to ex-Law Officers of Scotland and Ireland as compensation, said, that while the Patent Commission consisted nominally of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Law Offiers of the Crown for
1536
England, Scotland, and Ireland, in consequence of the numerous engagements of the Commissioners, the duties devolved practically on Mr. Woodcroft, the Secretary to the Commission. The Master of the Rolls had himself stated that the present Commission was worse than nothing; and the Select Committee which had lately inquired into that subject had recommended that some practical and scientific men should be added. There was £60,000 a-year available for the establishment of a good, permanent Museum of Patents, instead of the temporary shed at South Kensington, where they were kept in such a state that it was impossible to make any use of them. In fact, the Museum of Patents was in a most disgraceful condition, having regard to the eminence this country had attained in practical inventions. Models of inventions were huddled together at the Museum in such a manner that inventors or people of science could not discover the nature of those inventions or the machinery by which they were carried into effect, and, therefore, could not obtain from them any guide whatever as to the taking out of patents for the future. As one of the Members of the Select Committee, he had thought it his duty to call attention to that state of things.
MR. F. S. POWELLregretted that on the subject of the Patent Museum the Government still halted between two courses. He feared, however, the Government would find it impracticable to establish in this country such a Patent Museum as the very valuable one at Washington, in consequence of the vast number of English inventions.
MR. BAXTERsaid, the Government had been waiting for the decision of the Select Committee, whose Report, he believed, was not printed till last month. It would be the duty of the Government carefully to examine that most valuable Report during the summer.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he hoped the Government would consider how the Commission could be made a real working Commission; not merely in the interest of inventors, but of the trade of the United Kingdom.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it was extravagant to vote so much money for the Patent Office, when the Master of the Rolls said the whole work could be done by one clerk. He also thought it

1537
desirable that the Patent Commission should consist of practical men connected with manufactures.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £18,841, to complete the sum for the Department of the Paymaster General in London and Dublin.
In answer to Mr. RYLANDS,
MR. BAXTERexplained that formerly certain officials connected with the assessing and collecting of the income tax in Government Departments were paid by poundage; but it was now proposed to alter that system, and pay the officials by salary only. That had rendered it necessary to make an addition of 8 per cent to the present rate of remuneration.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £239,849, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to call attention to the reduction of the salary of the Medical Officer of Health from £2,000 to £1,500, and to the valuable Report of Dr. Buchanan upon the health of the operatives employed in the weaving trade. Other factory operatives suffered from the dust scattered through the rooms, and their health was also affected by the emanations of gases and other impurities generated during the process of manufacture. He therefore trusted that the medical men at the disposal of the Department would be directed to make other investigations of the same useful kind. It was, he added, of vital importance to the artizan population in manufacturing districts that the system of inspection of workshops, &c., should be efficiently carried out; but, by making unnecessary exemptions and otherwise, the Government had, during the last two years, inaugurated a policy in this matter which was inimical to the interests of the labouring classes.
MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he must deny that the policy of the Government had been unfriendly to the factory operatives. The exemptions granted under the Workshops Act were not granted without cause. He could only meet a general statement by a general denial; but not one exemption was ever allowed, except after careful inquiry by the sub-Inspector, the Inspector, and, at all events, the Under Secretary of State. It was necessary that some elasticity should be given to the operation of the
1538
Workshops Act, which would otherwise be wholly unworkable.
MR. STANSFELDexplained that the salary of the Medical Officer of Health had been raised two years ago from £1,500 to £2,000; but the Treasury on a subsequent consideration of the Act of Parliament under which he was appointed, thought it desirable to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the legality of the increase, and they were ultimately advised that it was contrary to the Act.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £16,467, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.
MR. PIMsaid, he would suggest that means should be taken to render the interesting publications issued by this Department more generally useful.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he thought that any surplus copies of the public statutes should be sent to our public libraries in large towns.
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he wished to express his extreme gratitude to the Master of the Rolls for having devoted his careful, determined, and learned attention to our ancient records, with the view of making the country acquainted with them. If copies of these records were sold by the Government even at a loss, the result would be a gain to the country.
MR. BAXTER, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), said, he could promise that the subject should not be lost sight of.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £2,993, to complete the sum for the Establishments under the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the West India Islands Belief Commissioners.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would suggest that the Department should be made self-supporting.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was apprehensive that mischief would arise from an attempt to make the Department self-supporting.
MR. BAXTERhaving pointed out how small a sum was now asked for compared with the amount of work done.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £1,619, to complete the sum for the Offices of the Registrars of Friendly Societies.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. CANDLISH, said, that the Commission on Friendly Societies, which was appointed in 1869, not having yet made their Report, the Government were not in a position to introduce a measure on the subject.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) £297,658, to complete the sum for Stationery, Printing, Binding, &c.
MR. PIMsaid, he would suggest that a considerable sum might be saved by printing the Reports of Committees without the minutes of evidence.
MR. MACFIEsaid, that a large profit was derived from The Gazettes. Having regard to the object of those publications, and the splendid field they opened up as an advertising medium, he thought they should be sold at cost price, and that they should be issued more frequently. He would suggest that The London, Dublin, and Edinburgh Gazettes should form one national Gazette; and that before waste returns were sold as waste paper they should be advertised, so that some bookseller might purchase at a low rate those documents which were most valuable to the public, but of which the public were not aware in consequence of their not being advertised. He must say that the steel pens supplied to that House were the worst supplied anywhere.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £18,727, to complete the sum for the Offices of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that the promised information with reference to the New Forest had not been given this year. The gross receipts were put down at £12,824, and the expenditure at £12,081, leaving the net receipts at £743. Minute details were given of the expenses of management of the office connected with land revenue and mines, but there were no details of the revenue derived from the rents of houses. He wished to know under whose management the Department was, because the office of Woods, &c., had never been very celebrated for the advantageous leasing of property belonging to the Crown in the neighbourhood of the
1540
Thames Embankment. He should like to know what plan had been adopted for turning to good account that most valuable piece of land lying between the Thames Embankment and Whitehall, and extending nearly from Northumberland House to the Duke of Buccleuch's, the leases of the houses on the land having already expired? It had been suggested that a new street should be constructed from opposite the Horse Guards to the Thames Embankment; but as the Woods and Forests said it should be constructed at the expense of the public by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and as they declined to make it, it had not been made. There ought to be a searching inquiry into the system of management by the Woods and Forests, who ought not to be allowed to act without reference to public improvements. So large was the amount of property under the care of the Commissioners that the House ought to inquire whether they really afforded facilities for making public improvements, instead of simply endeavouring to realize as much money from the estates as they possibly could. They were, in fact, a subordinate department of the Government, though they acted as if they were independent of the control both of the Government and of that House.
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he was often asked what the "Woods and Forests" were, but he was never able to tell. He was always being told what mischief the Woods and Forests were doing, and he replied that perhaps it was so. He would at once admit that the Thames Embankment was a grand improvement, but he could not refrain from telling what he heard outside the House respecting a lease which it was said the Crown had granted to a great personage who had a river frontage, and whose house, to the astonishment of the public, had lately been very much improved. That river frontage was nothing but a mud bank; yet he was informed that £18,000 had been paid as compensation to that great personage, and that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests represented the Crown in the matter, and granted the lease. He feared that the Woods and Forests would always obstruct any improvement which might be beneficial to the public, in consequence of its peculiar constitution. It was not the duty of those who represented

1541
the Crown interests, which were no more than public interests, to look at the "cost money principle;" but they should consider what was for the benefit of the public, whom they really represented.
MR. GOLDNEYcomplained that no adequate information was furnished to the public as to what the land revenues of the Crown, consisted in, and the nature of the duties performed by the Woods and Forests. Some alteration ought, he thought, to be made in that respect. He also wished to call attention to the last item in the Vote—namely, the expenses of the Office of Land Record and Enrolments, and would ask for some information on it, the last Report having been made in 1796?
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked whether any plan had been made for the purpose of laying out the property opposite the Public Offices for the benefit of the Crown and the Land Revenues?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there was no plan at present, and it was uncertain how long the Government would retain it. He would adopt Mr. Goldney's suggestion, and give some information in the Votes next year as to the work of the Land Record Office.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEremarked that Mr. Pennethorne had made a plan before he left office which had not been carried out.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) £29,757, to complete the sum for the Office of Works and Public Buildings.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked for an explanation as to an order which it appeared had been issued by the First Commissioner of Works, not to light the Library of the House with candles. Gas, he said, might do very well for youthful, but might be found inconvenient to old, eyes.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had issued no order on the subject himself. An experiment of lighting one room of the Library with gas, on an improved principle, was being tried, but if hon. Members could not see to read, it was very little consequence what light they had. He believed that the new gaslights enabled people who were blessed with good sight to read the smallest print.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENthought that gaslight was somewhat objectionable to many persons who had to read or write under it.
MR. WHITWELL, referring to the sum of £2,000 for the cost of the Solicitor's department, asked whether a considerable saving might not be effected by consolidating the legal departments of the several public offices?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he was afraid it was impossible to decrease that expenditure. A vast deal of legal work had to be done in consequence of the power vested in the Office of Works to acquire land by compulsion, and the advice of counsel had constantly to be resorted to in the investigation of titles, conveyancing, &c., and many questions arose in reference to the settlement of contracts. If they had one legal staff to do the legal business of all the Government Offices, questions would arise as to the precedence to be given to the work required for particular Offices, and he feared such a system was hardly practicable. The legal adviser of that Department and his clerks were very fully occupied.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he objected to the employment of Government writers at so small a payment as 5s. a-day. He wished to ask whether, if these writers were unemployed for a day, their pay of 5s. was deducted? It must be remembered that no pension was allowed to them—no provision of any sort; and he should be glad to know how the matter stood in reference to the deduction of the day's pay?
MR. AYRTONsaid, that these writers were persons who copied. They were not clerks, but mere mechanics. Their occupation was mechanical, and, whether they were paid by the day or by the folio, they were usually paid simply according to the amount of work done. They were not on the permanent establishment of the Government, and, of course, when not employed they were not paid, just like other workmen.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was not quite satisfactory. The real fact was, that many of these writers—whatever the nominal tenure of their office—were employed from day to day, and from week to week, and from year to year, and had been so employed for many years. It was not surprising,

1543
then, that these persons—whom one was not accustomed to hear called "mechanics"—should feel aggrieved at their present position.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought that the simplest way would be for the Government, when it required the services of these persons, to contract with any law stationer for the number required at the regular price of 5s. per day.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that not only had many of the writers entered the public service with the expectation of regular employment, but that lately the salary of various writers of whom he had personal knowledge had actually been reduced, and if they had declined to accept it dismissal was their only alternative.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply to the observation of the hon. Member for Exeter, said, the salaries of the writers had not been reduced.
ALDERMAN SIR JAMES LAWRENCEsaid, on the contrary, that instances had been communicated to him of writers whose salaries had been permanently reduced, and who were now paid less than they were paid some time ago. He could inform the right hon. Gentleman of three instances in confidence, and withholding the names of the persons.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that he had information similar to that of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He must say also that he had never heard the term "mechanic" applied before to educated gentlemen who discharged duties in Government Offices. These writers used to be allowed a certain portion of leave, which was now withheld, and he did think that that indulgence might be restored to them, for they were a class least able to protect themselves, and their case was a very hard one.
Vote agreed to.
(20.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,100, 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 1873, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he might remind the Committee that this Vote stood now in a different position from that which it had occupied in former years.
1544
The expenditure of Secret Service money had been brought under the operation of the Exchequer and Audit Act, and in consequence of pressure put upon the Foreign Office, the unexpended balance of former years, amounting altogether to £27,000, had been surrendered to the Exchequer. In the present Estimate, also, there was a reduction of £900, in consequence of the salaries paid to Mr. Hammond and the Oriental Interpreter having been withdrawn from the Vote. That was, no doubt, an improved state of things; but he considered the expenditure of Secret Service money so objectionable in practice, that he should ask the Committee to put a stop to it. It appeared to be the custom of the Foreign Department for Ministers abroad to draw bills from time to time on account of Secret Service money; and so long as they kept within the usual amounts, no inquiry was made, but for any extraordinary expenditure some explanation would be required. That system was obviously open to abuse, and, no doubt, led at the various Missions to unnecessary and wasteful expenditure, within the limits in which the payments would be passed without check or inquiry. He asked the Committee to consider what were the objects for which Secret money might be required. There were objects which might be openly avowed—the salaries, for instance, of naval and military attachés appointed to make inquiries—about which there need be no disguise—respecting the naval and military operations of foreign Powers. So, also, inquiries as to any matters of general interest connected with public proceedings of foreign Governments, upon which special agents might be engaged, ought to be placed on the Estimates without any attempt at concealment. But it would no doubt be urged that our Government might properly seek to obtain information likely to be of importance to our interests, but which it might be the policy of foreign Governments to keep secret. He did not think that in the present state of our foreign relations, and of our avowed foreign policy, there could be any secret plans of foreign Governments that it was necessary for us to take extraordinary measures to find out; and even if it were necessary to take any such extraordinary means, he was quite satisfied that we should never succeed by spending

1545
£10,000, or £20,000 a-year of Secret Service money. With our present foreign policy, Secret Service money was an anachronism—it belonged to the days of the "meddling-and-muddling" policy of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell. We now professed the doctrine of nonintervention in the dynastic arrangements of Europe, and we did not seek to interfere with the domestic policy or territorial changes of any of the States. If any secret intrigues on such matters existed, they did not concern our interests. So also with trade questions. We now rested upon a Free Trade policy. We had no favour to ask, and had no interests to promote as opposed to other nations. The Prime Minister in his speech at the Mansion House had held forth the great object of our foreign policy to be to create in the minds of other people the belief that we were impartial, and aimed at the noblest and highest objects, and that our policy was not governed by base or narrow motives of selfishness. Nothing could be more calculated to create this confidence than to let foreign Governments know that we seek to promote no objects by intrigue, or secret corruption, or by immoral means. If we were unfortunately involved in a European war such as that against the First Napoleon, no doubt there might be some reason for expending Secret Service money. But he believed that even at that period of our history, there was great abuse and peculation, and that the value of Secret Service money had been exaggerated. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) said the other evening that the £40,000 paid out of the Secret Service money for a copy of the Treaty of Tilsit was well expended. It was supposed that that large sum of money was paid by the British Ambassador to the mistress of the Russian Minister for a surreptitious copy of the Treaty—but he was not aware that the alleged transaction was authenticated in history. He suspected that the account was mythical, except in relation to the £40,000, which was, no doubt, drawn out of the Secret Service money by some person. But what he contended was that, even if the account were true, the early possession of the copy of the Treaty could be of no use to England, when the great fact of the submission of Russia to Napoleon must have been immediately
1546
known to all the world. He should like to know how the possession of the copy of the Treaty of Tilsit enabled England to oppose with greater effect the results necessarily flowing from the alliance of Russia with France. But he need not press further the consideration as to the use of Secret Service money in times of war—they were fortunately not at war, and not likely to be—and he contended, therefore, that there was no excuse for spending Secret Service money, because there was nothing for us to find out that would not come to us in other ways. The late Lord Clarendon said in the House of Lords, in May, 1866, that—
"There is now little of that secret diplomacy which in former days so much prevailed. There is on the part of every Government—such is the force of public opinion—so great an anxiety to appeal to it, and obtain its support, that despatches of the most important character and entailing the gravest consequences are no sooner delivered than they are published. "—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 572.]
That was, in fact, the whole gist of the question; and he (Mr. Rylands) went further, and said that, tested by experience, it had been proved that the employment of Secret Service money had during the past 20 years been a failure. He challenged the Foreign Office to show that during that period they had obtained priority of information by the employment of Secret Service money, or gained by it any single important object of national interest. Let them grant a small Select Committee of that House to make a secret and confidential inquiry into the expenditure, and the whole thing would be exploded. He could tell them what they had not done. They had never found out the negotiations between France and Prussia several years since, which were continued for some time, and which culminated in the draft treaty drawn up by Benedetti and Bismarck, the existence of which was never suspected by the Foreign Office until the intelligence in The Times one morning startled the country, and no one more so than the Foreign Secretary himself. Probably it might not have been very material for them to know what Benedetti and Bismarck were plotting; but, at least, it would have prevented Lord Stanley convening the Conference in London in 1867 on the Luxemburg question, and being entrapped into joining a Treaty of Guarantee

1547
which might have involved this country in some complication, under the impression that the dispute as to Luxemburg was the only occasion of difference between France and Prussia, whilst, in fact, it was the mere fringe of a much wider divergence of interests, and of a serious antagonism of policy. He would ask, in conclusion, why these payments for Secret Service should be continued? They might be used as bribes to unscrupulous persons, whose information was very unreliable; or they might be given to people in exchange for no value at all. In any case, he thought the existence of such payments was discreditable to the Government of this country, and that they ought to be discontinued. With that view he would beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £8,100, 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 1873, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—(Mr. Rylands.)
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington had adopted a somewhat different course with regard to the Secret Service Vote from what he did in the previous Session. Last Session his hon. Friend said that if he (Lord Enfield) could assure him that the money was properly expended, he would never question the Vote again, and he was good enough to accept his assurance. This evening he took a different line on a very fair ground—namely, that the expenditure of Secret Service money was altogether alien to the spirit of the age, and asked him whether during the last 20 years the Foreign Office had derived any advantage and information from the expenditure of the money. He need hardly remind his hon. Friend that he had occupied his position in the Foreign Office only 18 months, and therefore he could not give any account on that subject with reference to a period before he became connected with the Foreign Office. But during the time had been in the Foreign Office he believed that some valuable information had been obtained through the expenditure of Secret Service money, and that the same thing could be said for the other 18½ years. The question
1548
before the Committee was a very simple one. For many years past the Secretary of State had thought it not unfair to demand that he should be entrusted with a certain sum of money for the purpose of being expended in obtaining such information as he thought advisable from different parts of the Continent. At the end of the financial year the Secretary of State had to render an account to the Treasury of the money that had been expended. It rested with the Treasury to decide how the money should be expended. This Estimate had been reduced during the last three years by £10,000. He believed the amount that would be required this year by the Secretary of State was £15,000. If the Committee thought that money ought not to be entrusted to the Secretary of State, in order to obtain most valuable information and for the management of his Department, let it be so. He merely asked the Committee to remember how often the House of Commons had entrusted Secretaries of State with money for these purposes, and hoped the Committee would support the Vote.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 166: Majority 131.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,667, 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 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers' in Scotland, and other Charges formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue."
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he should like to know how it was that this year they were asked to vote a sum for Queen's Plates in Scotland, seeing that a similar Vote was struck out of the Estimates two years ago? He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £197 13 s.—the sum asked for a Queen's Plate to be run for at Edinburgh, and a Queen's Plate for the Caledonian Hunt.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £218, for the Queen's Plates, be reduced by the sum of £197 13 s."—(Mr. Lusk.)
MR. BAXTERsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury asked him why this Vote had been struck out of the Estimates. It was struck out in consequence of the representations made by the Scotch Members who were present in the House two years ago. The Vote on that occasion received no support, and the then Secretary of the Treasury withdrew it; but since then it had been represented to the Government by a considerable majority of the Scotch Members, that they did not approve of the statement which was then made in their name, and the Government, considering that it was a small matter, and that a sum of money was voted annually for a like purpose in Ireland, acceded to the wishes of the majority of the Scotch Representatives, and restored the Vote in the Estimates.
MR. A. JOHNSTON, referring to a sum of £719 for the Lyon King at Arms and Heralds' Office, wished to know whether it was really the case that they were asked to vote this money to facilitate rich gentlemen, who had made money at Glasgow and Galashiels, being granted coats of arms, or whether any of this sum was returned into the Treasury in the shape of fees? He had been weak enough once to write to the Lyon King at Arms in Scotland to ask some question respecting his family bearings, and he immediately received a demand of 12 s. for an answer, so that he supposed there really was a return of fees; but, if so, why was it not stated on the Vote as in the case of other Votes?
MR. M'LARENsaid, he should support the Amendment which had been moved to reduce the Vote by the amount asked for the Queen's Plates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had said that a considerable majority of the Scotch Members had asked that this Vote should be restored, because they did not agree with the statement made in their name when it was first struck out of the Estimates. Now, he (Mr. M'Laren) was present when it was first struck off. He took part in the discussion on that occasion, and he was not aware that any statement whatever was made in their name. All Members present from Scotland who spoke on that occasion spoke against the Vote. There was no person lifted his voice in favour of it, and there certainly was no statement
1550
made by any person professing to have authority from any other person, but all present disapproved of the Vote, and it was withdrawn. He held there was no reason whatever for putting it in again; and assuming it to be a fact that a majority of Scotch Members had asked that this Vote should be restored, he was quite sure that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury would not venture to say that the majority of the people of Scotland or the majority of the people of Edinburgh—where one of the plates was run for—were in favour of it. He believed that if heads were counted in Scotland a very small minority indeed would be found to support this Vote. He objected to it as a waste of public money.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that the Government had gone a little too far, for the Vote having been once withdrawn, a better reason than that alleged by the Secretary of the Treasury should have been given for its re-appearance in the Estimates.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he should like to know how the Government arrived at the conclusion that the majority of the Scotch Members were in favour of this Vote. His objection to these plates was that they were granted out of money voted by Parliament, whereas the English plates came out of the Civil List, and were really Queen's Plates. He had not the slightest objection to the Queen giving plates in Scotland and Ireland also; but he entirely objected to the Queen giving plates in England, and making Parliament give them in Scotland and Ireland.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he had to thank Her Majesty's Government for what they had done in this matter. There was a feeling amongst the Scotch Members of something like indignation, that what they had enjoyed for centuries, and which was formerly paid out of the hereditary revenues of Scotland, should have been suddenly withdrawn. If the Queen's Plates were taken away from Ireland, they would have no objection to cast their lot in with the sister country. He thought it particularly his duty to thank Her Majesty's Government for restoring this Vote, inasmuch as for one or two years the Queen's Plate had been run for within the limits of the burgh which he had the honour to represent.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he objected to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) for proposing to discontinue the Vote for Ireland. If this Vote were so very distasteful to the people of Scotland, let the money be given to Ireland, where it would be received with gratitude.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 116: Majority 38.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he would move to reduce the whole Vote by £719, that being the amount required for the office of Lord Lyon King-at-Arms in Scotland.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,948, 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 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue. "—(Mr. Andrew Johnston.)
MR. BAXTERexplained that the fees paid into the office and received by the Treasury were quite sufficient to cover the expense, and that therefore no reasonable ground of objection could be stated against the Vote.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he was satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(22.) £7,178, to complete the sum for the General Register Office and Census, Scotland.
(23.) £4,471, to complete the sum for the Board of Lunacy, Scotland.
(24.) £13,366, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Scotland.
(25.) £4,907, to complete the sum for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, &c.
(26.) £20,539, to complete the sum for the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
(27.) £250, to complete the sum for the Expenses of the Boundary Survey, Ireland.
(28.) £1,608, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
(29.) £25,375, to complete the sum for the General Register Office and Census, Ireland.
(30.) £76,580, to complete the sum for the Poor Law Commission, Ireland.
(31.) £3,576, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office, &c., Ireland.
(32.) £20,399, to complete the sum for the Office of Works, Ireland.
Resolutions to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £37,255, 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 1873, for Law Charges, and for the Salaries, Allowances, and Incidental Expenses, including Prosecutions relating to Coin, in the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury."
MR. WESTsaid, he should move to reduce the amount by £2,500. Twenty years ago the Solicitorship to the Mint was abolished, but the patronage in respect to it was maintained. Not only that, but the Mint prosecutions carried on of recent years were very small indeed, and badly conducted, and it was recommended by a Committee that those coin prosecutions should be given up. He proposed, therefore, to reduce the Vote by £2,500, charged for legal expenses.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £34,755, 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 1873, for Law Charges, and for the Salaries, Allowances, and Incidental Expenses, including Prosecutions relating to Coin, in the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury."
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he had also to complain that the conduct of the Mint prosecutions was usually given to young men, who practically had no experience whatever at sessions, and that the remuneration they received was excessive as compared with what they would receive for other cases.
MR. CRAUFURDdefended the manner in which Mint prosecutions were conducted, and thought that it was rather for the Attorney General, and not for the House, to determine the amount of fees that ought to be paid to the counsel who were engaged in them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Attorney General was the person who could give the most satisfactory account of the matter; and as his hon. and learned Friend was not here he would move that Progress be reported.
Motion agreed to.
To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

BISHOPS RESIGNATION ACT (1869) PERPETUATION BILL [Lords]— [BILL 137.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [4th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and the importance of the Question must be my excuse for putting it at this late hour (5 minutes past 12). I wish to ask him, whether he is in receipt of any intelligence upon the American question? ["Order, order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have another opportunity of putting the Question when the usual Motion is made for the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. OSBORNE: I am not going to put the Question upon the Bishops Resignation Bill. I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in receipt of intelligence on the American question? There is a statement to be made in "another place," and it is only proper that this House should have an explanation upon this most important subject. ["Order, order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in putting the Question at the present time.
  MR. OSBORNE: Then I will put it on the Order of the Day.
  MR. MONKsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) to withdraw his Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, and would suggest to the Prime Minister that the operation of the Bill should be limited to three years. He had also an objection as to the amount of payment to be made to the diocesan of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would state that the diocesan acting for the Archbishop of Canterbury would receive £4,000 a-year for performing not primatial, but diocesan duties. He would at once admit that there were one or two points on which the Bill wanted consideration, and that, therefore, he should be perfectly willing to limit the operation of the Bill, but not, he thought, to so short a period as three years. He would suggest that the Bill should be read the second time, and that the Committee upon it should be postponed until there was time to consider those matters.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he hoped it was not intended to make the Bishops and clergy a distinct class by such measures as this. The Bishops and clergy taught the laity that it was their duty to provide for their old age out of their incomes, and he was sure they would be the last persons to say that the same rule should not be applied to themselves.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 20th June.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baxter.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  [BILL 106.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. OSBORNE: I believe, Sir, that I am now in Order. I wish to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is in receipt of intelligence, and whether he can conveniently communicate it, with

  1555
  reference to the American negotiations? ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: On going into Committee of Supply, Supply Bills, or Ways and Means Bills, the hon. Gentleman would be quite in Order in putting his Question; but this is the Committee upon a Bill relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, and it is not in Order to raise a discussion not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.
  MR. OSBORNE: The question is, that you, Sir, leave the Chair.
  MR. HUNT: I believe that this is a Bill to impose taxes on Her Majesty's subjects; and I thought it was the constitutional privilege of the Members of this House to satisfy themselves on such an occasion of the state of public affairs. Now this is, I understand, an important matter between the United States Government and this country; and on that principle I should have thought that the Question of the hon. Gentleman might be put. I do not wish, Sir, to question your ruling, but I should like to have the principle laid down.
  MR. OSBORNE: There is a new tax involved in Clause 5. I am extremely unwilling to embarrass the Government by putting my Question, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will only say that it is not convenient to answer it, I will not press it. I wish to ask him whether he is in receipt of intelligence as to the present state of the American negotiations?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that I am not at liberty to enter into that subject; but my hon. Friend will have an opportunity by-and-by, and I do not think he will lose anything by postponing his Question till the adjournment of the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Exemption of husbandry carts and horses used on Sunday, &c., from duty under 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14).
  MR. BROGDENmoved, in page 3, line 30, to insert the words "trade or" before "husbandry," to meet the case of those persons who required the use of their horses and carts on Sunday to convey their families to church.
  MR. MACFIEproposed to alter the Amendment by introducing the words "or trade carried on in country places."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the purpose of the clause was to give effect to the wish that had been so frequently expressed in that House—that horses used in the country for conveying the owner's family to church should not be taxed, but it was now proposed to extend it to trade horses. The same reason for exemption, however, in the latter case did not exist, because generally speaking persons engaged in trade lived in the immediate places of Divine worship which they attended.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he hoped that next Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer would exempt horses engaged in trade. The employment of horses in manufactures was equivalent to their employment in husbandry.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Exemption when income is under £100 and abatement where income is under £300).
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that in 1842, during the administration of Sir Robert Peel, when the income tax was imposed, incomes under £150 per annum, were exempted from the tax, and that sum was fully equivalent to £200 per annum at the present time, for the great pressure of taxation, and the rise in prices of every article of food, fell most heavily on persons whose incomes ranged from £150 per annum downwards. The very prosperity of the country by causing labour and all articles to rise in value, seriously diminished the means of living of those who depended upon salaries and incomes under £150 per annum. There was no principle involved in the matter. He therefore moved an Amendment to the effect that the tax should not be extended to persons whose incomes were less than £150 per annum.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 25, to leave out the word "continued," and insert the words "extended to any person whose income is less than one hundred and fifty pounds."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must question the statement

  1557
  of the hon. Gentleman that no principle was involved, for the principle involved in the Amendment was, whether the Committee—the financial arrangements of the Government having been already assented to—should adhere to those arrangements, or alter them so as really to take away all responsibility for the financial results of the year from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The consequence of the adoption of the Amendment would be to make a change in the financial arrangements of the year to the extent of £250,000,; and to take such a step would not, he contended, be a wise mode of proceeding. There was no good reason, he maintained, why the decision of the House in 1853, altering the minimum income which should be liable to the tax from £150 to £100 should be reversed, especially seeing that great concessions had already been made in the way of making deductions from the lower class of incomes on which the tax was paid.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that although not supporting the Amendment, he must protest against the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to lay down—that the present was not a fitting opportunity to raise such questions as that which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he should support the Amendment, and would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had admitted in answer to a Question which he (Mr. White) put, that there then was a sum of quite £750,000 in the Treasury receipts of the current year, due to the exceptional and unexplained postponement of the usual annual contribution from the Revenues of India for military and other charges, thereby diminishing to that extent the (otherwise) actual surplus of the year ending the 31st of March last. Hence he (Mr. White) urged that should the Chancellor of the Exchequer remit £250,000 of taxation by accepting the proposed Amendment, he would still have fully £500,000 more to the good than he anticipated when he made his last Financial Statement. Persons with incomes of £150 a-year were—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more than once admitted—a class on whom the pressure of the income tax bore most heavily. It seemed to be wholly ignored by the right hon. Gentleman that our present
  1558
  system of indirect taxation did substantially impose an income tax of the most burdensome and unequal kind. The recipient of an income of £150 a-year ordinarily consumed quite as much tea and sugar as the possessor of ten times that amount—say, £1,500 per annum. If so, whilst the latter individual would pay to the State on the two dutiable articles before-named not more than three farthings in the pound of his income, the former, with one-tenth of such income, would be mulcted to the extent of an income tax of quite eightpence in the pound by our present system of indirect taxation. On those grounds he (Mr. White) held that the existing liability of incomes of £150 to the income tax was a glaring inequality and injustice, and he earnestly supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman. W. Lawrence).
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must contend that when the general financial scheme of the Government had been approved as it had been that year, it was not convenient to raise such important questions as the present in Committee on a Bill as if it were matter of small detail. His hon. Friend was, of course, no doubt entitled to move that the exemption be extended to incomes of £150 a-year, or to move the repeal of the tax altogether; but the question was one of very great importance, and, as he thought, entirely beyond the scope of the business immediately in hand, for the sum involved was a large one, and such as would nearly exhaust the surplus estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must also be borne in mind that the amount of income which would be absolutely exempted from the income tax raised questions of very great delicacy. The tax was one which was attended with considerable social dangers, and the House having evidently arrived at the conclusion that it might be necessary to continue it, at all events for a considerable time, thought it desirable that its basis should be made as broad as possible. Great questions of financial policy should not be decided in passing a measure such as this, which simply settled details; but should have been brought forward in discussing the Budget arrangements of the year.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he should like to know what time was so fitting for a discussion of the question under notice as

  1559
  on the Bill for re-imposing the income tax, while with regard to the time, he thought no one could be blamed for raising the question at this hour. If the exigencies of Public Business required that the Bill should be considered at a quarter to 1, hon. Members could not be blamed if they discussed the question involved in it. The strongest argument urged against the Amendment was that it would result in a deficit of £250,000.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he trusted in future the Customs Bill would be considered simultaneously with the Budget. Upon the question at issue he must say that the small incomes were most heavily taxed, and those who received them were the last to participate in a season of general prosperity, because such seasons made workmen extravagant and caused prices to rise even before the clerk at £100 or £150 a-year benefited by the prosperity of the country. The anomaly of the present system, moreover, would be increased if the Amendment was carried, because whereas a man having an income of £149 would pay nothing, a man in receipt of £151 would pay on £71. The proper method was, that the sum upon which nothing was paid should be the sum subtracted from the gross income, so that if incomes of £100 were exempt incomes of £105 should pay on £5. He could not, therefore, vote with his hon. Friend, although he sympathized with him; and he expressed his disbelief in the statement commonly made on popular platforms, that workmen were the most heavily taxed, because the people upon whom taxes fell with most crushing effect were men such as clerks at a fixed salary of about £150.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he should like to know what had become of the £750,000 referred to by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) as the military contribution from India.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he did not think this an improper time to bring forward the question. It was not his intention to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he should certainly introduce the subject again on some future occasion.
  Question put, "That the word 'continued' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 65: Majority 43.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Enactments in schedule repealed, and in lieu thereof exemption from inhabited house duty of trade and business premises under care of servant only).
  MR. HUNTsaid, he objected to the proposed exemption from house duty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSsaid, he had proposed it not because he was enamoured of its principle, but because he had thought the House wished for some relaxation of the duty.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should move the rejection of the clause, on the ground that it would benefit the richer trader, who could afford to live away from his shop.
  ALDERMAN SIR JAMES LAWRENCE, in support of the clause, urged that exemptions already existed, and that the clause simply defined them more precisely.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he would remind hon. Members that this was the clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 79: Majority 1.
  Additional Clause.
  MR. F. S. POWELLmoved the following clause:—
  "No person shall be chargeable with Duty in respect of any dog bonâ fide and wholly kept and used in the care of sheep and cattle, or in driving or removing the same, provided no such dog shall be a greyhound, pointer, setter-dog, spaniel, lurcher, or terrier."
  New Clause (Exemption of certain class of dogs,)—(Mr. Powell,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he hoped the exemption would not be granted.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he must urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he must strenuously oppose the clause, for the reason that formerly the exemption in favour of sheep dogs led to much dishonesty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSsaid, he was waiting to hear what the author of the tax had to say in favour of it.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that when he was Secretary to the Treasury, in 1867, the dog duty was reduced from 12 s. to 5s.,

  1561
  and exemptions abolished. Previously, there was a large number of dogs which never paid duty at all. He did not think the reduced duty was any hardship upon the farmer, though it might be complained of by those who bred sheep dogs for exportation. The reduction of the duty had increased the pleasure of many who could not have kept dogs at the higher duty. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he should support the continuance of the tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could add nothing to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 86: Majority 31.
  MR. GREGORYmoved a clause to interpret the term "horse-dealer."
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. GREGORYmoved another clause repealing section 3 of Income Tax Amendment Act, 1870.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA)
    THE NEGOTIATIONS.—NOTICE.
    MR. BRUCE, in moving the Adjournment of the House, stated on behalf of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that he would to-morrow, at 2 o'clock, make a statement with regard to the progress of the negotiations as to the Arbitration at Geneva.
    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (CERTIFICATED TEACHERS).
    Select Committee on Elementary Schools (Certificated Teachers) nominated:—Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, Mr. FRANCIS SHARP POWELL, Mr. MELLY, Mr. CLARE READ, Mr. BRISTOWE, Mr. SCOURFIELD, Mr. PEASE, Mr. PEMBERTON, and Mr. WHITWELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

    REVIEW OF JUSTICES' DECISIONS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HUNT, Bill to amend the practice of Courts of Law with respect to the Review of the Decisions of Justices, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUNT and Mr. STAVELEY HILL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]

    RAILWAYS PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE CONFIRMATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm a Provisional Certificate made by the Board of Trade under "The Railways Construction Facilities Act, 1864," and "The Railways (Powers and Construction) Acts, 1864, Amendment Act, 1870," for the incorporation of the Widnes Railway Company, and for the construction of the Widnes Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 192.]

    BOARD OF TRADE INQUIRIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill for regulating inquiries by the Board of Trade, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 193.]
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.