Commons Sitting of 17 June 1872

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. William le Poer Trench, for Galway County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Pawnbrokers, nominated.
Report—Tramways (Metropolis) [No. 252].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Admiralty and War Office Rebuilding * [200]; Victoria Park * [201]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment * [202].
First Reading—Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) * [198].
Second Reading—Courts of Law (Scotland) Agents * [135]; Review of Justices' Decisions * [190].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [171].
Committee—Report—Chain Cables and Anchors Act (1871) Suspension * [183]; Fires * [7–199].
Considered as amended—Customs and Inland Revenue [106].
Third Reading—Queen's Bench (Ireland) Procedure * [126], and passed.
Withdrawn—Municipal Corporation Acts Amendment * [24].

REGISTRARS OF DEEDS, &C. (MIDDLESEX).—QUESTION.
MR. CUBITTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Registrars of Deeds for the county of Middlesex have as yet adopted a uniform system of fees, and reduced the fees charged to the scale prescribed by their Act, and if the records are still deposited in a building which is not fireproof; whether he can state the amount of emoluments received by the two surviving Registrars and by the Trea-

1849
sury in the years 1870 and 1871, and whether the fees of the vacant Registrarship are still divided between the two Registrars and the Treasury; if he can inform the House that no steps will he taken by the Lord Chief Justice to fill the vacant Registrarship; and, if Her Majesty's Government, pending the re-introduction of a general measure for the transfer of land, and the consequent abolition of the Middlesex office, contemplate taking any steps to put a stop to the existing abuses in the office as reported by the Royal Commissioners?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had reason to believe that no alteration had been made in the system of fees for registering deeds in the county of Middlesex since a Question was put on that subject two years ago. The fees were regulated partly by Act of Parliament and partly in accordance with the advice of eminent counsel; and the records were deposited in a building which he believed was not actually fireproof, but for the security of which considerable expense had been incurred. He was informed that in all respects it was as fireproof as the building in which wills were deposited, and that every possible precaution was taken against fire. The emoluments of the Registrars in 1869 were £2,561; in 1870 they were £2,145; and in 1871, £1,911; and they were still divided in the same manner as that which he described when he answered the Question put two years ago. He might state, however, that one of the Registrars had recently died, and that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Suspensory Act which would deal with the matter provisionally, until such time as the whole matter came up for settlement under the Land Transfer Act.

ARMY—MILITIA CAMP, APPLEBY.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether his attention has been called to the arrangements made by the Control Department at the Militia Camp near Appleby; if it is true that the straw for the men's bedding, which was due on the 3rd of June, was not delivered until the 7th instant; that the bread was (for some days especially) of an inferior quality; that the wood supplied for cooking purposes was green and utterly
  1850
  unfit for use; that scales were sent without triangles upon which to hoist them; and that the pumps having failed to furnish an adequate supply of water, a water cart was sent, but no horses being provided or authority given for the receipt of tenders for that purpose until ten days after the arrival of the cart at the Camp, it could not be used, and water had to be brought from a considerable distance, thereby necessitating the employment of men upon fatigue duties when they would otherwise have been engaged at drill; and, who is responsible for these arrangements?
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If his attention has been drawn to the fact that of the three regiments that were camped together, one regiment ran away with a barrel of beer from the stores, and that complete disorder ensued; whether he has heard of a case, where the men being refused beer, they commenced an onslaught on the publican's premises, and broke the whole of the glass in the window with the exception of two panes; and whether it has been reported to him that there were a number of unlicensed houses selling liquor to the soldiers in addition to that provided by the canteens to a considerable extent—to the extent, as he lad been informed, in one instance, of several hundred barrels?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, my attention has not been called to the unsatisfactory nature, as alleged, of the arrangements made by the Control Department at the camp near Appleby, until my hon. Friend placed his Question on the Notice Paper, nor to the details quoted by the hon. Member for Kendal. Since then, however, inquiries lave been made into the matter, and as he result of those inquiries is not, in my opinion, satisfactory, a Court of Inquiry will be appointed to investigate he circumstances and complaints brought forward by the hon. Gentlemen. I shall be prepared to answer my hon. Friend's Question when the result of the Court of Inquiry has been communicated to me, of which I will give them notice.

EDUCATION—THE NEW CODE, 1871— EVENING SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. C. DALRYMPLEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council,

1851
with reference to an answer given by him on the 1st March last, Whether he is now in a position to state what decrease there is in the number of Evening Schools and Scholars inspected during the past owing to the regulations of the New Code?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that he could not state precisely what was the decrease in the number of evening schools and scholars inspected during the past year, owing to the regulations of the New Code, because the year for which the Returns were made did not expire till the 31st of August. But as the night schools were generally held during winter, he might state that the number of the schools had decreased from 2,100 to 1,300, but he could not give any information as to the number of the scholars. He would take that opportunity of stating what were the requirements with regard to night schools. The House would be aware that, under the Revised Code, before the passing of the Education Act, only 40 meetings were required to enable a school to receive the Parliamentary Grant, and each scholar was required to attend 24 times before coming up for examination. It was proposed, in the New Code, to make the number of meetings 80, and the number of attendances 50 for the year; but it was ultimately decided that the number of meetings should be reduced to 60, and the attendances to 40. That arrangement was to have lapsed this year, but Lord Ripon and himself had determined to continue it, believing that a less number of attendances would not give a school a right to receive public money.

WORKSHOP REGULATION ACT (1871).

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, looking to the fact that in many parts of the country, such as the nailing districts, the Workshop Act is at present a dead letter, owing to the insufficiency of inspection, it is his intention to take any steps to give effect to the Act by adding to the number of Inspectors in such districts, or otherwise?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he could not admit that the Workshop Regulation Act (1871) was a dead letter in many
  1852
  parts of the country, for since the Act was passed last Session there had been a great number of prosecutions instituted under it. In Mr. Baker's district alone no fewer than 70 such prosecutions had been instituted. Great difficulty was experienced owing to the fact that the Act applied to a much more ignorant class than the Factory Acts dealt with, and a knowledge of its provisions had to be brought home to that class. That was being done with the greatest possible speed, and an addition of eight sub-Inspectors had recently been made to the force whose duty it was to carry the Act into operation. He was informed that quite as much progress had been made in carrying out the Act as under the circumstances was possible. It was many years before the Factory Acts could be fully enforced, and therefore the hon. Member should not be surprised at some difficulty having been experienced in bringing the Act into working order, because the difficulty was far greater in dealing with men carrying on the petty trades to which the Workshop Act applied.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS) VICTORIA PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLMSasked the First Commissioner of Works, What steps have been taken since the 11th of March, when this subject was brought under his notice by a question in this House, to have the Bathing Ponds in Victoria Park cleaned out and improved; and, when he expects such work to be completed?
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that steps had been taken to obtain a supply of fresh water for the bathing ponds in Victoria Park by means of boring, and that the necessary works would be completed in a short time. It was not desirable to empty the lakes during the present warm weather, but when the proper season arrived they would be cleaned out. It was impossible to say how long the latter operation would take.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention during this Session to deal with the subject of Police

  1853
  Superannuation; and, if he will allow the system of commutation of Pensions to be extended to Annuitants under any proposed alterations he may be pleased to make?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he regretted that he would be unable to introduce a measure on the subject of police superannuation during the present Session; but whenever such a Bill was brought in, full consideration would be given to the suggestion of the hon. Member as to allowing the system of commutation of pensions to be extended to annuitants under any proposed alterations it might be found desirable to make.

CUSTOMS' DEPARTMENT—OUT-DOOR OFFICERS—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there were not sixty out-door officers of the Customs Department of the Port of London, from fifteen to twenty-seven years' service, who, after special recommendation, are employed to act as examining officers and gaugers for an average period of seven years, yet who are subjected, in respect to half the vacancies occurring in the examining officers' and gaugers' department, to a competitive examination with young officers of five years' service, who have never acted in the same capacity; and, if so, whether an arrangement could not be made by which the competitive examination would be limited to officers of practical experience, and thus prevent young and inexperienced officers from superseding tried men of many years' service?
MR. BAXTER: Sir, the facts stated in the Question of the noble Lord are generally correct, with the exception that the young officers who are allowed to compete must have not less than five years' service; but I think that the arrangement which he suggests would not be so beneficial to the public service as that which at present exists, and which, while it gives sufficient consideration to practical experience, at the same time is a great encouragement to young men of superior intelligence and ability,

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE LEGISLATION THE RESOLUTIONS—QUESTION.
MR. DODSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will
1854
make a statement of the steps which Her Majesty's Government propose to take to give effect to the Resolution of the House of March 22nd in favour of the reform of Private Legislation?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that this subject was under consideration and would not be allowed to drop. He would remind him that the share of responsibility which he had undertaken was mainly to ascertain whether the system of Provisional Orders could be improved and extended. He was engaged in carrying on that inquiry by all means in his power; but it was an inquiry which could not be confined to the Board of Trade, and for that purpose he was in communication with other Departments of the Government, but he was not in a position to tell the right hon. Gentleman positively when he could give him information upon the subject. He might add that there were Resolutions before the House proposed by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. E. S. Powell), which were of an interesting character, and that there was also the question how far the inquiry which had been conducted for so many weeks by the Railway Committee upstairs, which was now coming to a close, might have a bearing on the subject.

CRIMINAL LAW—FREEMASONRY—CASE OF DAVID FARRELL.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether on the occasion of an inquest held at Sutton, in he county of Dublin, before Dr. Davys, Coroner, on the body of the boy David Farrell, who was killed at Baldoyle Races, in consequence of falling under the railway carriages, a witness named Strahan gave the following evidence:—
"There was a very large crowd assembled on the platform, and amongst them five or six respectably dressed men, who had formed themselves into a kind of triangular wedge, and were pushing along the crowd, parallel to railway line. Their conduct, he believed, was monstrous, and, as the result of the pushing, he saw people thrown off the platform on to the rails. Almost directly directly afterwards he heard the shout that a boy was killed. He knew one of the men engaged in pushing, but as he was a brother Freemason, he could not reveal his name;"
whether the witness was justified in refusing to reveal the name of the incriminated person on the ground that he

1855
was a "brother Freemason," or whether there is any such legal privilege for Freemasonry; if not, whether the Coroner was right in not requiring the witness to state the name of the person whose improper conduct he stated led to the fatal result?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, reference was made in the Question of the hon. Member to a statement that had been made at the Coroner's Inquest held on the body of a boy named David Farrell, who was killed at Baldoyle Races in consequence of falling under the railway carriages. A witness stated that he knew one of the men engaged in pushing when several persons fell off the platform, but that as he was a brother Freemason he could not reveal his name. In reply to the Question he (Mr. Dowse) had to say that this witness was not justified in refusing to reveal the name of the person on that ground, neither had he ever heard of any such privilege being claimed before. The Coroner had placed himself in communication with the Government, and had pointed out that no evidence had been given incriminating any of the five persons who had been pushing, and to whom the witness Strahan referred, adding that it was on this account he had not thought it necessary to insist upon the witness revealing the name. The Report which had been received from the Constabulary substantially confirmed the Coroner's statement. He might add that the gentleman referred to by Mr. Strahan had written to the papers, giving his name, and admitting that Freemasons had no such exemption as had been claimed for them. The Coroner was not justified in declining to ask the name, and instructions had been given to the Crown Solicitor to see whether there was ground for proceeding farther in the matter, and no doubt, if there was, Mr. Strahan would see cause to state the name of the person he referred to at the inquest.

CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF JOHN RICHARD DYMOND.—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the case of John Richard Dymond, sentenced by the Aberdeen Circuit Court on the 26th April 1872, to penal servitude for five years for a fraud upon the
1856
Scottish Legal Burial Society; and, whether there is any objection to the production of the precognitions taken in the case, for the information of the Royal Commission on Friendly Societies?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, my attention was called some months ago to this case when the proceedings were originally instituted, and the matter was brought to trial in the ordinary Court of Justice, resulting in the conviction of the prisoner upon his own confession. I may say that it is against the rule for the Crown Office to produce the precognitions; but I have taken upon myself to order their production on some occasions where it might be done without detriment to the public service, and would serve some useful purposes. I have desired information in regard to this particular case, and I have to inform the right hon. Baronet that I think the present a suitable occasion for relaxing the ordinary rule, and therefore the precognitions for which he asks will be produced.

INDIA—DRAFTS ON LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give the House any information with reference to certain alleged purchases by the Bank of Bengal of a large amount of private Bills of Exchange drawn at Calcutta upon London, on account of the Government of India; and of Five-and-a-half Promissory Notes of the Public Debt of India in London under orders of the Bank of Bengal on the same account?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, no full and official account of the transaction alluded to by my hon. Friend has yet reached the Secretary of State in Council, but I know that certain purchases both of bills and of Government securities were made by the Bank of Bengal on behalf of the Government. For such purchases no sufficient authority had been given, but under the circumstances the Government of India did not consider it necessary to cancel them, although it clearly intimated that nothing more must be done in the same direction without explicit sanction. It may be convenient if I add that what has happened will not interfere with the regular drawings of the Secretary of State for India.

NAVY—THE "THALIA" STORESHIP.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. GUESTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Statement in the Public Journals, that the "Thalia" storeship has been selected to convey a large number of Supernumeraries to China, although her scuttles do not admit of being opened when at sea, and that the War Department on a recent occasion refused to recognize her as a vessel fit for the transport of troops, and if there is any foundation for this statement?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, in the first place, the Thalia was not a storeship, but a corvette of six guns, specially constructed to carry a certain number of supernumeraries, she having been designed, like her sister ship the Juno, to take the place of some of the old paddle steamers. The Thalia was a perfectly new ship, and had as yet scarcely done any service. She had not been selected to carry a number of supernumeraries, but to replace her sister ship, the Juno; and there had been no correspondence with the War Office on the subject of conveying supernumeraries. The lower deck of the Thalia was constructed precisely on the same principles as that of an ordinary frigate; her scuttles could be opened in the same weather, and the persons below would have the same amount of comfort or discomfort as the crew of an ordinary frigate.

POST OFFICE—THE TELEGRAPH CLERKS.—QUESTION.
MR. SYNANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the classification of Telegraph Clerks forwarded by the Postmaster General has been approved of by the Treasury; and, if not, whether it is likely to be so; and, when the new classification will be issued by the Treasury?
MR. BAXTERsaid, in reply, that a classification of the telegraph clerks had been forwarded by the Postmaster General to the Treasury, along with a very voluminous Report concerning other branches of the subject. That Report was now under consideration; but, at present, he was not able to announce that any decision had been come to.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. "PROVISIONAL USE."—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the United States have, since the signature of the Treaty of Washington, availed themselves of the provisional use of the privileges granted to them by that Treaty in the Dominion of Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland; and whether they will continue to do so in the event of the postponement of the Arbitration; and, whether the term "provisional use" does not imply that, in the event of the failure of the Treaty, the provisions of the Treaty with respect to the Fisheries must come to an end?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: As this question bears directly upon the Colonial Department, my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has requested me to answer it. I shall do so according to the best of my ability. My hon. Friend will really find the answer to the first part of the Question in the Papers which have been presented to Parliament. The Government of the United States applied for the provisional use of the privileges granted to them by the Treaty of Washington in the Dominion of Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland during the fishing season of 1871—that is, last year. In the exercise of her undoubted right Canada refused to allow that provisional use, and the fishermen of the United States have consequently been, and continue to be, excluded from the Canada fisheries. Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland granted the permission, and Newfoundland has continued to grant it during the present season. With regard to the latter part of the Question—which refers to the meaning and signification of a word in the English language—I should hardly presume to instruct my hon. Friend; but I think he and the House will probably concur with me in the opinion that the words "provisional use" mean a use which is temporary, and contingent on the occurrence of something else. That something else I take to be the legislation necessary to carry out the provisions of the Treaty by the Imperial Parliament and the Colonial Legislatures on the one hand, and the Government of the United States upon the other; and,

1859
if that legislation do not take place, I apprehend that without doubt the provisional use will fall to the ground.

INDIA—MISSION FROM TALIFOO.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State has received any communication from the Government of India respecting a mission which is reported to have been sent from Talifoo; and, whether any arrangements have been made for the reception of such mission?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my right hon. Friend, I have to say that we did receive such a communication, and that the arrangements proper under the circumstances have been made.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) ACT (1864).

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to bring forward any measure to relieve persons who, acting under an Act of Parliament passed in 1864, which declared "it is expedient to legalize the use of the Metric system of Weights and Measures," make use of the same, but who, according to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, are liable to be prosecuted if such weights and measures are found in their possession; and, whether he intends during the present Session to bring in a general measure for the regulation of weights and measures?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Question was to a certain extent founded upon a misconception of the Act to which it made reference, for, while the Preamble of the Act declared that it was expedient to legalize the use of the metric system of weights and measures, the enacting part only legalized contracts made in metric terms. The Standards Commission had, however, recommended the permissive legalization of the metric system, and he might say that any Bill he might bring in on the subject of weights and measures would endeavour to carry that suggestion into effect. He did not see, however, any prospect of introducing such a Bill during the present year.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—MR. JUSTICE KEOGH'S JUDGMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. P. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary of State for Ireland, When the shorthand writers' notes of the evidence taken at the trial of the Galway Election Petition and of the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh will be in the hands of Members?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that as the subject was one which did not officially come within his control, he had no power whatever over the time when the notes of the evidence taken at the trial of the Galway Election Petition and the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh would be in the hands of Members. He had, however, made inquiry of the printer, and he was informed that the Judgment would probably be printed and ready for distribution on Thursday next; but that the notes of evidence, which were extremely voluminous, might not be ready for three weeks or a month.
MR. O'CONORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the late decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, which introduces into Parliamentary Election Law the principle that a candidate at a contested Election may obtain a seat without having polled a majority of votes in a constituency; whether the introduction of such a principle was not disapproved by the Government and rejected by the House when proposed in a modified form by the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading on the 25th April last; and, what steps the Government are prepared to take to give effect to the wishes of the House, as expressed on that occasion?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my attention has certainly been called, in common with that of most hon. Members of the House, to the late decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland. I am very sensible of the great importance and even the urgent character of some of the considerations involved in that Judgment; but I do not see that any advantage would arise—and I hope my hon. Friend will be inclined to agree with me—from any fragmentary announcement with respect to a matter of so much importance. I think we should approach the question as a whole.
MR. O'CONORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment lately delivered by Mr. Justice Lawson, in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, in which that learned judge is reported to have stated that the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868 required amendment; if so, whether he still proposes to re-enact and make permanent that Act in a single Clause of the Corrupt Practices Bill, which by its form precludes the possibility of any amendment to it being placed on the Paper?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he had nothing to add to the intimation which had been given the other evening on this subject by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in answer to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen).

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—OUTRAGES ON MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.—QUESTIONS.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether any and what steps have been taken at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, or the Government of Ireland, in vindication of the dignity of the judicial Bench, on account of the outrages to which it has been subjected in the person of Mr. Justice Keogh for his recent judgment in support of freedom of election?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have had no communication from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Mr. Justice Keogh, or any one connected with the Government of Ireland on the subject, and I apprehend possibly that those who are interested in it will look to the circulation of the Judgment and Evidence in the Galway Petition Case among the Members of this House as the proper time for entering upon the question.
Afterwards—
COLONEL STUART KNOX, in reference to the answer just given by the Prime Minister to the Question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), said he desired to learn, Whether the Government of this country were not interested in the treatment accorded to the Judges in Ireland, and whether they viewed with indifference such conduct as burning them in effigy and otherwise
1862
insulting them? He should be glad to know to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred as "those who are interested in it," and whether an opportunity would be afforded to the House of discussing the matter.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in saying what I did upon the subject, I referred to the natural interest which my right hon. Friend behind me, and other hon. Members, no doubt, take in a subject of so much importance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would scarcely suppose I am to proceed upon the assumption that it is the business of the Cabinet to punish persons who burn Judges in effigy. For such offences I believe the ordinary process of law will be found sufficient.
COLONEL STUART KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct that process of law to be put into force?
MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that has already been done without any directions being necessary, and that the persons who took the liberty of burning a Judge in effigy have been proceeded against according to law.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). PROCEEDINGS AT GENEVA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I wish, Sir, to ask my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, Whether the statement contained in the telegrams from Geneva is correct, that the arguments under the Treaty of Washington have been put in by both Powers before the Court of Arbitration?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I may, perhaps, be allowed to ask another, of which I have given him private Notice. I wish to know, Whether, under the circumstances detailed in Mr. Fish's telegram to General Schenck of June 9, and Earl Granville's reply of June 10, the application for an adjournment of the Geneva Arbitration can with propriety be entertained by the Arbitrators without the assent and under protest of the United States Government? I ask this Question because there is a passage in Mr. Fish's telegram which I think is important, and which seems not to be easily reconciled with the statement made by Earl Granville.

  1863
  Mr. Fish, in his telegram of the 9th of June, says—
  "In my despatch of June 2, I said that, in the opinion of this Government, the Arbitrators have the power to adjourn either on their own motion or on that of either party, and that if the arguments be put in on both sides on 15th and Great Britain moves for an adjournment we will assent."
  Earl Granville, in his letter to General Schenck next day, says—
  "In the meantime, the High Contracting Parties not being in accord as to the subject matter of the reference to arbitration, Her Majesty's Government regret to find themselves unable to deliver the written Argument which their Agent is directed to put in under the Vth Article of the Treaty (although that Argument has been duly prepared, and is in the hands of their Agent), or to take any other step, at the present time, in the intended arbitration."
  It being doubtful whether the United States Government, under the circumstances, will or will not assent, I wish to know whether any motions of this kind can with propriety be made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will first answer my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bouverie) with reference to the latest information which we have from Geneva. It is not a correct statement which he has referred to in the newspapers of this morning, that the two Summaries of Argument have been lodged before the Arbitrators, so far as the British Summary is concerned. With respect to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), I may say that he is quite right in the reference which he has made to the telegram of Mr. Fish, dated the 9th of June, and also with regard to the reply of Lord Granville of the 10th. That reply does not give textually and verbally the effect of the proceedings at Geneva; but it is perfectly correct with reference to the point to which the noble Lord has referred—namely, the delivery or non-delivery of the written Argument. I have already stated that the written Argument has not been delivered by the British Agent; and I understand the Question of the noble Lord to be this—Whether it would have been possible for us to make a request for an adjournment without the delivery of the written Argument in full view of the declaration of Mr. Fish of the 9th of June, to the effect that the Arbitrators had power to adjourn on their own motion, or on that of either party; and also to the effect that if the Arguments on both sides were
  1864
  put in by the 15th, and Great Britain should move for an adjournment, then the American Government would assent. Undoubtedly, under that declaration of Mr. Fish we had no power whatever to hold the United States Government bound to assent to the motion for adjournment. But although the declaration of Mr. Fish stated that the United States Government would assent to the motion for an adjournment if the Arguments were put in, it did not state the converse—namely, that if the Arguments were not put in, they would not assent to a motion for adjournment. The application for adjournment was made by the British Government, in conformity with the announcement in the Papers in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday. The proceedings of the Arbitrators are secret, and it would not be consistent with our duty or respect to them to refer to that which they have not disclosed; nor, may I add, would it be consistent with duty, or with that sentiment of gratitude which we are all bound to feel towards Gentlemen who have undertaken labours of so important and delicate a character on behalf of the two countries. I may, however, say that we are given to understand that probably, the Arbitrators may again adjourn from their meeting to-day for the period of twenty-four hours.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I rise to ask another Question. The right hon. Gentleman having stated—when the Papers were laid before the House—that the Government would be anxious that the opinion of the House should be expressed in a discussion, I wish to know, Whether the Government propose to lay further Papers on the Table, and to ask the judgment of the House on the Papers submitted to it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend has referred to a declaration which he says I made; but I am not conscious of having made any declaration with reference to the Correspondence. That an opportunity will be given to hon. Members to express any opinion they may entertain is obvious from the presentation of the Papers; but I certainly have not made any such statement on the part of the Government. I do not know that any such statement would be necessary at any time; and, undoubtedly, it would be premature in the present circumstances of the case.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) 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."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in replying to several objections made the other evening against the expense incurred in the Mint prosecutions and against the counsel appointed to prosecute, said, that he must object to the statement made on that occasion, that the men employed were young and inexperienced hands, for, on the contrary, it appeared from a Return which he had had made, that the average standing of the counsel appointed to conduct those prosecutions was over seven years. Out of 60 or 70 members of the Bar appointed there was only one member of less than four years' standing, and in many eases the appointments were given to gentlemen who had been at the Bar 10, 12, or 14 years. According to the statement of the Solicitor to the Treasury, there was now no instance of two counsel being employed except in the case of the County Palatine and the Central Criminal Court. The whole matter had been under the careful consideration of the Government, and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) was perfectly welcome to see the confidential Report of the Solicitor to the Treasury with respect to it. The recommendations in that document were to the effect that, although it would not be right to take away those appointments from the gentlemen by whom they were at present held, no vacancies should be filled up, and that there should be only one counsel employed for the future. In the case of the Post Office, in which hitherto it had been usual to employ two counsel, he (the Attorney General), in conjunction with the Postmaster General, had agreed that there should henceforward, so far as depended on them, be only one counsel, and that no vacancies should be filled up. The hon. and learned Gen-
1866
tleman opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse) had referred to the scale of fees; but it was, he thought, scarcely worth while that the time of the House of Commons should be taken up in discussing so miserable a matter as the difference between two and three guineas given in that way. Seeing that the average cost of the prosecutions for the Mint was only £12 he could not think that the expenditure was excessive. The whole question of Government prosecutions was, of course, a very serious one. It had been the subject of very elaborate Reports, both on the part of the present and former Solicitors to the Treasury, and was under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as he could judge from the evidence before him, the appointment of regular counsel and the maintenance of a regular staff in the case of the Post Office and the Mint had resulted in making the prosecutions only slightly more expensive than others; while with respect to the number of convictions the results had been very satisfactory, showing that the cases had been very well got up. That being so, it would, in his opinion, be unwise to get rid of the present system.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he still contended that those appointments were given to gentlemen whose standing at the Bar did not entitle them to be placed over the heads of others. He did not complain that they should be given to men after seven or ten years' standing, but that young men of four years' standing, even though they might have a large Assize or Sessions practice, should have conferred on them, to the exclusion of their seniors at the Bar, the privilege of prosecuting briefs of the Mint and the Post Office. The matter involved one of those small economies which it was just as well to look after, and he could see no reason why three guineas should be paid for services the ordinary charge for which was one guinea. It was said that the Mint and Post Office prosecutions were generally successful; but then, seeing that the depositions were taken in the first instance, and then sent up to town, and that they were only proceeded upon when there was a strong case, it was scarcely to be wondered at that the percentage of convictions was large; in all other cases the prosecutions were abandoned. These matters might be miser-

1867
able; but hon. Members who had been returned to look after the interests of their constituents ought to be careful not to pay too much regard to the adage—"De minimis non curat lex."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if for nothing else, he thought it must be quite clear that the Committee was greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman who first brought this subject forward for extracting the declaration from the Attorney General, that the Government had the subject under their consideration.
MR. WHARTONexpressed a hope that these prosecutions would continue to be conducted by the same able gentlemen who had been in the habit hitherto of conducting them, and that proper fees would be paid for the transaction of the business.
MR. WESTsaid, he was of opinion that the conduct of these prosecutions ought not to be in the hands of the Government, but that they ought rather to fall into the common routine of ordinary prosecutions. The expenses in connection with these prosecutions were very great, and it was for the Government to show that they were more efficiently conducted than other prosecutions throughout the country. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,500, the expenses connected with the prosecutions relating to coin.
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. West.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the greater expense of the Mint prosecutions was caused by the fact that they were efficiently conducted, and it was important in the interests of the poorer classes that the Government should have the charge of prosecutions instituted for the purpose of keeping the coin of the Realm pure. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) spoke of a number of cases which were not prosecuted at all. Well, no doubt in those cases, according to the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor to the Treasury had exercised a very wise discretion.
MR. WEST, on the contrary, said, he thought the learned Gentleman had exercised a very unwise discretion in overruling the decisions of the magistrates.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must submit that if those cases had been in the hands of private individuals, the public would have had to pay the expense of prosecuting them in addition to those already charged.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £150,623, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, &c.
MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he had to complain of the capricious manner in which the expenses of prosecutions that had been allowed by the magistrate were cut down by the Treasury, and to express a hope that, unless legislation took place that Session on the whole subject, some clear explanation would be issued, for the guidance of the magistrates, of the principles on which the Treasury acted in the matter. The subject of complaint was the more remarkable, and the more to be regretted, as a scale of fees had been agreed upon by the magistrates, and was understood to have received the assent of the Secretary of State. In reference to that, the magistrates did not dispute the right of the Treasury to revise the fees and costs of prosecutions; deductions, however, should not be made haphazard, but on some understood principle. He knew of an instance in which the whole cost of prosecution had been disallowed, and on the ground that the name of the prisoner was not in the calendar, the reason being that he had been on bail. That was an illustration of the insufficient knowledge that was but too frequently to be observed in the officers of the Treasury, whose duty it was to certify the costs of prosecutions.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN, in confirmation of the remarks of his hon. Friend, said, that the greatest inconvenience was occasioned to the magistrates in the county he represented (Lancashire) by the system of deductions made by the Treasury, so much so that they had been driven to the necessity of communicating with the Treasury on the subject.
MR. BAXTERsaid, it was admitted on all hands that the present practice with regard to the costs of criminal pro-

1869
sections was not only not satisfactory, but had been very generally distasteful all over the country. On Wednesday next the Home Secretary would lay before the House the views of the Government on the subject in the shape of Amendments to the Public Prosecutors Bill; but the Government would not pledge themselves to make any alteration before that discussion decided the fate of the Bill.
MR. HUNTsaid, he thought that the Government were adopting a somewhat unusual course in tacking Amendments on to a Bill that was in the hands of a private Member, who might, if he chose, decline at any moment to proceed with it. It rested with them to say whether that Bill should proceed or not. The Government ought to take charge of the Bill and be responsible for its conduct. At present the right hon. Gentleman merely proposed Amendments to the Bill, which met with considerable opposition in the House.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the Amendments proposed by the Government had been put down on the Paper after full communication with the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill; and he believed that, on the whole, they met with his approbation, and that they would remove many of the objections to the Bill, especially with regard to the amount and uncertainty of charges. There was reasonable ground for hoping, therefore, that the Bill would pass through Committee on Wednesday.
MR. WHARTONsaid, he would suggest that the Vote should be postponed till the Public Prosecutors Bill came before the House, because that measure might be the means of introducing many material Amendments.
MR. BAXTERexplained that if any such Amendments were made the money asked for would not be expended.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £131,799, 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 such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
MR. WESTsaid, he was of opinion that the number as well as the salaries
1870
of the officers attendant upon the Lord Chancellor should be reduced. The Lord Chancellor's first secretary received £1,200 per annum, his second secretary £400 per annum, his third secretary £400 per annum, his gentleman of the Chamber £500 per annum, and his purse-bearer £500 per annum. He thought that these officers were unnecessarily numerous, that their salaries were by far too large, and though not familiar with the mysteries of the office, he thought that the Lord Chancellor's secretary should be content with the same amount as that given to the secretary of the Prime Minister, and the more so, seeing that he and his colleagues were constantly being promoted to high and lucrative offices in the State. The Lords Justices' clerks had only £500 a-year, the Premier's two secretaries £600 between them; and the Speaker's £500 a-year. As to the embroideress, the sum was paltry; but if they got rid of her they might get rid of the purse bearer too, although the latter deserved a salary if it were really earned, and if there were any work for him to do. Another curious item in the Estimates, which was increasing year by year, was the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy. They were gentlemen advanced in years, who were much respected, and to ask them to spend £1,200 a-year in travelling was simply inhuman. This was, in any view, a large sum, and ought to be reduced. He would accordingly move the reduction of the Vote by £3,470—namely, £2,400 on the salaries of the Lord Chancellor's officers, £1,000 on the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy, and £70 for the Lord Chancellor's purse.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £128,329, 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 such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. West.)
MR. BAXTERsaid, he must confess that, without some explanation, the Committee might fairly demur to passing the Vote. As for the Lord Chancellor's secretary, it must be admitted that important duties devolved upon him, as intimately associated with the highest legal, judicial, and political position. All these salaries had been taken over

1871
by Act of Parliament some years ago, when they were transferred from the Suitor's Court, with the distinct understanding that the gentlemen then holding the offices should hold them for life. It was a principle on which that House was very slow to act to reduce salaries when they were transferred from one fund to another. Power had been taken by section 14 that when certain vacancies occurred the Treasury was to determine whether they should be filled up or whether the salaries were to be continued at their old figure, and that power would be exercised at the earliest possible opportunity. The same thing held good with respect to the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy. As to the embroideress of the Lord Chancellor's purse, Lord Hatherley, on being communicated with some time ago, replied that the purse, being exhibited on State occasions and on the Woolsack at the sittings of the House of Lords, it was necessary that it should have a respectable appearance, adding that the lady employed was upwards of 70 years of age, and that she had received £64 7s. for the work. The Treasury thereupon expressed a desire to be consulted, on her death, before any new arrangement was made.
MR. HUNTsaid, with reference to the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee last year, that the Treasury should obtain the control of the salaries in the Court of Chancery, he had expected from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the Lord Chancellor, whose consent was necessary, would be likely to co-operate, and that action would be taken to carry out the recommendation. At the beginning of this Session, however, the right hon. Gentleman, when questioned by him (Mr. Hunt), spoke of difficulties which would prevent anything being done at present. Now, difficulties were sure to be raised to the transfer of control from lawyers to the Treasury; and, presuming that they consisted in obtaining the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Colleagues, he would advise Parliament next year, unless the Government initiated legislation in the matter, to make a considerable reduction in the Vote, so as to bring those gentlemen to their senses.
MR. BAXTERsaid, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1872
had not lost sight of the recommendations of the Select Committee, for the legal officials of the Treasury had been deputed by his right hon. Friend to make a thorough inquiry, and in a few days their Report would be presented, when it would be the duty of the Government to deal with the matter. It was not intended that things should remain as at present.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthanked the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. West) for breaking fresh ground in the interests of economy, for he (Mr. Lusk) was satisfied that the money paid for law charges was too much. The embroidery of the purse showed how even in small matters things went. He wished to understand the nature of the Petty Bag Office, and he felt convinced that the Masters in Lunacy did not require travelling expenses to the extent of £1,200 a-year each.
MR. HERMONsaid, he hoped there would not, as last year, be a Supplementary Vote of £14,000 on this head. He was glad to find that the 316 persons included in the Vote had mostly reached their maximum salaries, so that the increase could not exceed £5,074 per annum.
MR. BAXTERexplained that the Supplementary Vote of 1871 had been rendered necessary by the changes effected in the dates of payment.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he did not think the officers of the Court of Chancery generally were too highly paid. The registrars had most important duties to perform, and the principal secretary to the Lord Chancellor had no sinecure; but he would admit that some of the other salaries of the secretaries might be reduced. With respect to Masters in Lunacy, he supposed that the charges for their travelling expenses were not made when they were not incurred, and that the charge was not allowed without the production of proper vouchers.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should like to know whether the charge for travelling expenses would be made the subject of inquiry? He did not think it would be fair to sweep away all these offices of ancient date at once.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the 19th section of the Act made it imperative on the House not to alter these salaries and expenses. But the Government were so much struck with the enormity of these

1873
charges that they were now conducting a correspondence on the subject with a view to their reduction.
MR. DICKINSONsaid, whatever might be the fact, he did not think that any Act of Parliament justified an addition to the salaries of the Masters in Lunacy. He, therefore, thought the best course would be to strike off a lump sum from the Estimate until the Government could see their way to some reductions.
MR. WESTsaid, the Secretary of the Treasury was under a misapprehension in supposing that the Committee could not reduce the salary of the secretary to the Lord Chancellor because three years ago that salary was guaranteed to the secretary. The fact was, that the secretary of the Lord Chancellor had been changed many times, and was removable any day. He quite agreed with what had been said with reference to officers for life, and would not press that matter further. In fact, he had limited his proposition to a reduction of the salaries of the officers of the Lord Chancellor. The answer given about the Masters in Lunacy was unsatisfactory. Their scale of charges was probably the same as at the time when a Master in Lunacy travelled with four post horses from London to Carlisle, and returned to London with four post horses; and, surely, the amount charged then was far in excess of their actual travelling expenses now.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Member intended to take a division on any particular items, or whether it would not be desirable to propose the reduction of a moderate lump sum. He should like to know what the Treasury were disposed to do in that case? Many of the offices which had been referred to were sinecure offices. If they were life appointments they could not be got rid of without compensation on their abolition. If the holders were entitled to their full salary it would be better to let these officials disappear from the Votes, even if they should appear on the pension list.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the charge for the Lord Chancellor's private secretaries was excessive, and hoped his hon. and learned Friend would follow the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), and take the division on the Vote to cut off a lump sum.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he should vote with his hon. and learned Friend whether the division was taken on a lump sum, or on some special item. There were 316 officials employed in the Court of Chancery, and though he knew nothing about the requirements of the Court, he could not for a moment suppose that such an army of retainers would be necessary.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had listened with some surprise to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, who admitted that he knew nothing whatever about the matter, and yet assumed that the 316 officials who were employed could not be wanted. The hon. Member had not the least idea of the nature of the duties they were called upon to perform, and seemed to consider the number employed a sufficient ground for reducing their salaries by a lump sum, but he altogether differed with the hon. Gentleman in that view of the matter. It was said, first, that the Lord Chancellor's secretary held a sinecure; and, secondly, that he was overpaid. But the Committee did not want "the secondly" if the first were true, because any man would be overpaid by receiving any salary for a sinecure office. The fact was, however, the office was no sinecure, and the holder had very important duties to perform. The salary paid to the private secretary of the Prime Minister had been compared with that of the secretary to the Lord Chancellor. But that was a mistake, for the private secretary to the Prime Minister, in addition to that office, held a very important office in the Treasury, and also an office at Court, the duties of both of which he was bound to discharge, and for all of which he was paid. Therefore, if the Committee wanted to know what the country paid to the private secretary of the Prime Minister, they must add up all the sums which that gentleman received, and not take simply his salary of £300 a-year as private secretary. Gentlemen in the House of Commons considered £1,200 a-year for the salary of the Lord Chancellor's secretary as something very extravagant; but the Lord Chancellor could not be a bad judge of the amount required to secure a fit man for the office. A gentleman from the Bar was taken for the office, who was expected to be so highly qualified that it was usual, after a cer-

1875
tain period of service, to appoint him to a judicial position, and he had to assist the Lord Chancellor in judicial and quasi-judicial matters. He did not think the salary in any degree too large, or that a competent man could be obtained for a less sum.
MR. WESTsaid, he would endeavour to meet the wishes of the Committee by taking the Vote on a lump sum. He therefore would move to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £129,799, 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 such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. West.)
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that the suggestion made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) had been misunderstood. What his right hon. Friend had suggested was, that if the Government would undertake to legislate on the whole subject at an early date under the cognizance of the Treasury, it would be better not to divide now. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to give a pledge to that effect; and therefore, although he thought that some alteration should be effected in the Vote, yet as it might cause hardship to some innocent persons, he should not be disposed to vote for the Amendment.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that although he agreed to a certain extent with some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he yet thought it essential to go to a division. The Vote for the Court of Chancery was the scandal of the Estimates, and it was a scandal which ought to be abated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the case had been put a little too widely, and he must remind the Committee that, with regard to a great many of the salaries in the Court of Chancery, the faith of Parliament was pledged. The whole Vote was not, therefore, available for reduction, and the Committee must judge for itself what salaries were open to its jurisdic-
1876
tion. As far as the Treasury were concerned, he should be happy to give a pledge; but many of the judicial salaries were by statute in the patronage of the Judges, who had the power of resisting effectually any reduction suggested by the Treasury. Therefore, the mere interference of the Treasury would not effect what was desired, and the Committee must consider what effect might be produced on the minds of the Judges by any vote which it might give. If he led the Committee to suppose that the Treasury could reduce those salaries, he should be simply misleading them.
MR. MUNTZsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite convinced him of the necessity of dividing, because it was evident that the Government were not in a position to pledge themselves on the subject.
MR. HUNTsaid, an inquiry had taken place into the subject of the salaries of the Court of Chancery, and that inquiry would result in a Report. Would the right hon. Gentleman, when that Report was completed, undertake to lay it upon the Table of the House? If so, the House would be in possession of all the information which was at the disposal of the Treasury; and then the House would be very likely to give an expression of opinion which would greatly strengthen the hands of the Treasury.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as he had not seen the Report, he could make no promise on the subject.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 89: Majority 27.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £46,616, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts.
(5.) £29,318, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £324,954, 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 County Courts."
MR. WEST, in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £9,160, on

1877
account of the travelling expenses of the County Court Judges, said, the Government had promised three years ago to look into the subject; but he found that, notwithstanding that promise, the item for these expenses had been increased. The gentlemen who filled the office of County Court Judges were gentlemen of the highest position, receiving £1,500 and £1,800 a-year each, and the amount they received for travelling expenses raised their salaries on an average by more than £200 a-year. On the Whitehaven Circuit, for instance, the Judge, who only sat for 128 days in the year, received £450 a-year for travelling expenses; and on the Salford Circuit the Judge, who had only to go to Bacup, Oldham, Rochdale, and Saddleworth—and only to those places on 45 days in the year—received £500 for travelling expenses, or over £10 a-day; while, as a matter of fact, a first-class return ticket from Salford to Oldham could be purchased for 1s. 6d. Then, again, on the Liverpool Circuit there were two Judges, and they had only to go to Ormskirk and St. Helen's, neither of which places was more than a 25 minutes' railway journey from Liverpool. To those towns they went on 44 days in the year, and yet one of the Judges for his half share of the work received £220 for his 22 days' travelling. Another gentleman sat 79 days; he had not a yard to travel, and yet he was paid £150 for travelling expenses, and that was a recent appointment; whilst the gentleman who had to travel from Brompton to Brentford 15 times only received £50. Another gentleman, who had to make 16 journeys, received from £50 to £60 for travelling expenses. His proposition was to equalize these charges. He would give those who travelled £100 a-year each extra, and those who did not travel would be paid no travelling expenses; and he should, therefore, take the sense of the Committee upon the subject.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £315,794, 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 County Courts."—(Mr. West.)
MR. JAMESsaid, he was unable to appreciate the self-sacrificing spirit of the hon. and learned Gentleman who
1878
had brought the subject forward, seeing that he had received so many distinguished marks of favour, that he should now turn his hand against his brethren. He had no doubt it must have grieved the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich to make the Motion, especially as he had told them that he was living on terms of friendship with many of these learned Judges; but it would have been much better if his hon. and learned Friend had made some personal inquiry of those gentlemen before taking taking them en bloc, for the way in which he had treated those gentlemen was scarcely the way one would have thought he would have treated his official brethren. It showed that he probably wished to chasten those he loved, and punish them for their unanimity of feeling with himself. A greater injustice than that the Judges who travelled should all be paid an equal sum could scarcely be conceived. Mr. Ingham, on the White haven Circuit, was paid £450 travelling expenses; he attended 15 Courts, travelled 5,000 miles a-year, and he was occupied 128 days; and yet his hon. and learned Friend proposed that he should have no more allowed than the gentleman who travelled from Brompton to Brentford 15 times a-year. The same objections applied to Liverpool, Manchester, and other places where the Judges did not reside on their circuits. He would contend it was to the advantage of a County Court Circuit that the Judge should not reside on it, because he went to discharge his duties without any political or private bias, or from any particular acquaintances or friendship with those who practised before him. It was, moreover, a most inequitable proposition to put these gentlemen on the footing proposed; for every day heavier and more important duties were being put upon these gentlemen, and it would be false economy to cut down their remuneration. Without they were treated liberally men of ability would not undertake the discharge of the duties.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that whatever argument might be drawn from the insufficiency of the pay of the County Court Judges, all that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich complained of was that travelling expenses were allowed where they were not incurred. He (Mr. Neville-Grenville) therefore

1879
trusted that the Committee would not allow their attention to be withdrawn from the real proposal before them, but would make progress when they had the opportunity in the way of a reduction of expenditure.
MR. BAXTERsaid, it would be quite out of place for him to enter upon the general question at the present time, seeing that the Vote, as a whole, would have to be reconsidered when the Commission appointed to inquire into matters of this kind made its Report. He thought it would be improper to make a fixed allowance to Judges for their travelling expenses; because if such a course were adopted, some Judges whose travelling expenses were very small would be large gainers by the transaction; whereas others whose circuits were very extensive would be equally large losers. The Committee, moreover, must bear in mind that in that sum was included subsistence allowance when the Judge was away on circuit from his home. Since the pledge given in 1870 there had been a careful investigation into every new case that had come before the Treasury, and the question of travelling expenses had been carefully looked into and placed on a more equitable basis. He found that the arrangement for the travelling expenses in Cumberland was made in 1858, for Liverpool in 1862; and at Manchester the amount was fixed in 1869, and the Government had not gone back and altered what was done so many years ago. In the case of the County Court Judge of Salford, which was the only one of those referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, for which the present Government were responsible, the travelling expenses had been reduced from £500 to £100, a sum that could scarcely be regarded as excessive.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must repeat the question he had put to the Government during the discussion upon the last two Votes—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government considered that County Court Judges had a vested interest in the sum annually allowed them for travelling expenses, or whether those expenses were liable to revision during the time those offices were held by the present Judges?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government did not pretend for
1880
one moment to countenance the assumption that County Court Judges had any vested interest in their travelling expenses; but, at the same time, he could not approve the proposal for giving Judges a fixed sum all round for travelling expenses. All that the Judges and the public had to do in the matter of travelling expenses and maintenance was, that the Judges should be fairly indemnified in those respects.
MR. R. SHAW, in expressing his objection to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, said, that he was informed by Mr. Ingham, the Judge of the Whitehaven County Court, that he had to travel 5,000 miles annually on his circuit, and that every 6d. of the £450 allowed him for his travelling expenses was actually expended for that purpose. The 15 s. a-day allowed Judges for hotel expenses obviously did not cover what they had to pay.
MR. WESTsaid, he was quite satisfied with the result of the discussion and the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had been quite prepared for the personal attacks made upon him, and should persist in his attempt to cut down legal expenses, none of his figures having been controverted. He wished to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it had been shown that sums of £3 and even £10 a-day had been made for these travelling expenses. These charges ought to be exposed, and he therefore thanked the hon. and learned Member on having preferred the interests of the public to those of his own profession. He was prepared to contend that if each County Court Judge received £100 a-year for travelling expenses, that would be ample remuneration.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYcalled attention to the late hour sittings of County Court Judges and Recorders, which he hoped the Lord Chancellor would put a check to. He thought they ought to be restricted from sitting later than 8 o'clock in the evening.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(7.) £68,460, to complete the sum for the Probate and Divorce and Matrimonial Courts.
(8.) £9,938, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court of Registry.
(9.) £3,830, to complete the sum for the Land Registry.
MR. BOWRINGcalled attention to the fact that, whilst the salaries and expenses of this office—which more than any other ought to be self-supporting—amounted to £5,330, its receipts were only £650, and he saw little prospect of any change in this respect. He would ask the Solicitor General if he could hold out any hope of an improvement in the case of this office, from which so much was at one time expected?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was sorry to state that the office had proved a very great failure, and that the salaries were paid for next to nothing; but it would be impossible to abolish the office without giving compensation to the officers to an extent which would be little less than their salaries; and it was hoped that within another year there would be established an effective Land Registry Office, in which their services would become valuable to the public.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £10,117, to complete the sum for the Police Courts (London and Sheerness).
MR. WHEELHOUSEexpressed a hope that something would be done to make these Courts convenient to the suitors. At present their state was disgraceful.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he would make known in the proper quarter the representation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £168,234, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he must call the attention of the Home Secretary to the strain which was put on the Registrar of Habitual Criminals. That gentleman, he said, was extremely overworked. He had never had more than one or two days' vacation in a year, and he was now very ill through overwork; and, moreover, he thought the time had come when he might be made a permanent servant of the Crown, instead of being temporary, as at present.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished the Home Secretary would state how the superannuation fund of the metropolitan police was managed. When would the measure which had been promised on the subject be introduced?
1882
They were a class of public servants which should not be forgotten.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he thought it was desirable that the City police and the metropolitan police should receive the same pay; because in consequence of the difference between the pay of the City police and that of the metropolitan police the men were constantly moving from one force to the other.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the Habitual Criminals Registry was established only two years ago as an experiment, and had proved exceedingly useful, and he thought that it would every year become more and more useful. While it was merely an experiment it would not have been judicious to appoint a permanent officer; but he would see whether a more permanent character could now be given to the department. He could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which the Registrar had performed his duties, and was exceedingly sorry to hear that his health had suffered so much from his assiduity; and he would see whether something could not be done to lessen the pressure of the duties. As to the superannuation fund of the metropolitan police, it was in a much more satisfactory condition than that of the City police. He fully admitted the necessity of dealing with the question of superannuation by a Bill; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lusk) must admit that the Government had introduced a sufficient number of measures. As to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse), he believed the metropolitan police was never more popular than now, if he might judge from the small number of resignations and the large number of applications for admission into that force. He presumed that the difference between the two forces was this—The City was very full in the daytime, but at night it was very much deserted; enormous treasures were collected there, and the portion of the municipal police who were engaged during a part of the night as watchmen was larger than that portion of the metropolitan force who were engaged in similar work. He had nothing to do with the management of the City police; it now worked in perfect harmony with the metropolitan police, and he did not think it was his duty to take any steps towards equalizing the rate of payment of the two forces.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he hoped he was not right in thinking that his right hon. Friend had said it was his intention to place the police of the counties and boroughs generally on the same footing with regard to superannuation as the metropolitan police.
MR. BRUCEexplained that what he had said was—"on a more satisfactory footing than they were at present."
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £289,500, to complete the sum for the County and Borough Police (Great Britain).
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction that there had been some decrease in this Vote, especially in the victualling department, for there was a strong opinion out-of-doors that the diet of convict prisoners was very much better than it ought to be—better than that of the poor or lunatics, for example.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that Colonel Henderson, when at the head of the convict establishments, effected a reduction of £30,000 a-year, and Captain Du Cane also had greatly reduced the expenses. But it should be remembered that our three chief convict establishments—Chatham, Portsmouth, and Portland—more than paid their own expenses through the labour exacted from the men. It would be impossible, however, for men to work unless they were treated tolerably well.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £336,895, to complete the sum for the Convict Establishments (England and Colonies).
(14.) £252,220, to complete the sum for the County and Borough Prisons, &c.
(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £22,045, 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 Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England."
MR. MITCHELL HENRY, in moving to reduce the Vote by £15,545, said, that the expenditure at the Broadmoor establishment was absolutely excessive, and when compared with that at other similar asylums was positively enormous. Till 1849 criminal lunatics were either sent to prison or to county asylums.
1884
In that year the Irish Government agreed to the establishment of a separate asylum to which persons acquitted of crime on the ground of insanity might be sent. That was the origin of Dundrum Asylum, which had been conducted with the greatest benefit to the country and also with the utmost economy. The whole Vote for it was only £5,573; whereas that for Broadmoor, including repairs, amounted to £32,000. The latter contained 471 patients, at an average cost of £60 each; whereas Dundrum, with 167 patients, figured for only £33 each. In the former the charge for diet was £16 5s. per head; in the latter it was only £13 6s. Broadmoor had 125 male and female attendants, or one to every 3½ lunatics, Dundrum having only 22 attendants, or one to every 7½. The Superintendents of these two asylums were paid respectively £900 and £400 a-year each. The chaplain at Broadmoor had £400, and £18 18 s. for a substitute when he took a holiday, and there was a Roman Catholic chaplain, who received £50; whereas only £100 was allowed for the religious services at Dundrum—a Protestant chaplain at £40, and a Roman Catholic one at £60. There was a steward at Broadmoor with £290, while a similar officer at Dundrum had only £45, and the chief attendants at each received £150 and £40 respectively. At the larger establishment there were four clerks, with salaries amounting to £565; at the smaller there was only one, with a salary of £80. The fact was, that the attendants at Dundrum were disgracefully underpaid. The Report of the Commissioners of Lunacy of October, 1868, clearly showed that Broadmoor was not successful while Dundrum was. The Commissioners pointed out that at the former place there were not those amusements which were suitable to the condition of the patients, and that some were isolated in separate cells for many months together. The Report, in fact, showed that the large expenditure in Broadmoor was one of which the country had no reason to be proud. On the contrary, the asylum at Dundrum was shown to be efficient beyond all precedent in the history of lunatic asylums. Broadmoor, he might add, would never be efficiently conducted so long as it was under its present management—that of the Directors of Convict Prisons, It

1885
ought to be placed under the Lunacy Commissioners, who would visit it unexpectedly and frequently in the year, instead of only once, and whose recommendations should have some authority with the Secretary of State. In England criminal lunatics were treated as prisoners; whereas in Ireland they were treated as patients, and the result was in the latter case efficiency, and in the former the reverse. A considerable improvement, it was but fair to add, had of late, he believed, been made at Broadmoor; but in the last Report of the Commissioners they stated that, although the mortality there was small, the health of the establishment was not satisfactory, chiefly because fever, which had existed there for some years, continued to prevail. He would impress upon the Committee that, if these insane persons were treated as criminals, their affliction would be greatly aggravated. At Broadmoor some of the patients were, until quite recently, kept almost like wild animals, while at Dundrum every endeavour was made to soothe their temper. He was aware that some years ago the Superintendent of Broadmoor Asylum received a fatal injury; but that was an accident to which all persons attending upon the insane were liable. He moved to reduce the Vote for the Lunatic Asylum at Broadmoor by £15,545—namely, from £29,545 to £14,000, being an amount calculated on the same scale as Dundrum.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
MR. BRUCEsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member had brought this subject forward that night, because when the same statements were made some six weeks ago, without Notice, he was not then prepared to answer them. He would now, as shortly as possible, traverse every statement made by the hon. Gentleman, with the exception of one. He would not deny that the expense at Broadmoor, taken all in all, was greater than at Dundrum; but he broadly denied that the difference was anything like that stated by the hon. Gentleman, and he also specially denied that the
1886
patients at Broadmoor were treated as criminals. The Broadmoor Asylum was constructed in 1860 under the superintendence of Sir Joshua Jebb, and it certainly was not a fortunate construction, for it had ever since been a source of considerable expense, and was only now brought into a good condition. The hon. Gentleman said that the asylum was under the management of the Directors of Convict Prisons, and that the inmates were treated as criminals. The fact was that a special Act of Parliament was passed, placing the asylum under the supervision of persons chosen by the Government. The most active of these managers were Sir William Hayter, who lived close by; Lord Hylton, formerly a distinguished Member of that House; and he might add that he had had the satisfaction of appointing his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) to take part in the conduct of the asylum. Under these circumstances, it could not be credited that the management would be so bad and vile as had just been described to the House. The hon. Gentleman had taken the amount of the Estimate for the present year, and divided it not by the number of persons proposed to be admitted in this year, but by the average number for the last 10 years; for the fact was that the hon. Member stated that Broadmoor Asylum contained 471 patients, and Dundrum 167, and that the cost of the former was £29,545, and of the latter £5,547; whereas the number of patients which it was proposed to receive at Broadmoor during the present year was 563, and at Dundrum 180. Again, in the expense for Broadmoor was included cost for rent, taxes, fuel, light, and furniture, amounting to £1,089, together with the proportionate cost of controlling the expenditure borne by the Office of Works, giving a further sum of £199 15 s. 9d. If similar items for the Dundrum Asylum were taken into the account, the cost of that asylum would be £7,141 15 s. 6d., and that made a considerable difference in the comparative cost of maintaining the inmates. The difference of the annual cost of maintaining a lunatic at Broadmoor and at Dundrum would, therefore, be not £27, but £14 16 s. The Treasury allowance for the maintenance of a Broadmoor patient was £20 a-year, and for a Dundrum patient £13 6s.; but to the latter must be added the produce of

1887
the farm and garden, amounting to £2 9s. The contract price of meat also was less at Dundrum than at Broadmoor. The hon. Gentleman had contrasted the salaries at the two places; but in fixing the salaries the Government had to look at the professional remuneration prevailing at those places. As to the chaplain at Broadmoor, the hon. Gentleman forgot that the chaplain lived entirely among the patients; whereas the chaplain at Dundrum lived at Dublin, or wherever he liked, giving only occasional attendance at Dundrum. Whereas the offices of steward and matron at Broadmoor cost respectively £290 and £175, the same offices only cost £110 and £90 at Dundrum. Then as to the wages of the warders. He found that the wages of those persons had been reduced to the lowest rate for which the services of competent men could be obtained. The hon. Member had brought a charge against the management of Broadmoor that, in spite of a very high rate of payment, they were unable to keep their attendants for any long time. It must be borne in mind with regard to that, that while the Report on Dundrum was drawn up by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, under whose management that prison was, the Report on Broadmoor was made by the Commissioners of Lunacy, who had no official connection with that prison, and who, therefore, had no motive for extenuating any imperfections that might exist; and, under these circumstances, it was not surprising that there should be more criticism in the one case than in the other. In spite, however, of this fact, the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland had attributed the constant change of attendance at Dundrum to the low rate at which the warders at that prison were paid. The truth was, that the picture of the state of affairs at Broadmoor was almost too favourable, and he left it to the hon. Member for Berkshire to verify the vivacity and expression in which the Commissioners of Lunacy had indulged with reference to it. The hon. Gentleman had argued that because the class of persons confined in both these asylums were criminal lunatics, therefore their treatment must be the same in both instances, and that the same difficulties of management must be met with equally in both asylums. There were, however, many important dif-
1888
ferences that distinguished the two cases. In the first place, Broadmoor, large as it was, was unable to receive all our criminal lunatics, a large proportion of whom were, therefore, confined in the county lunatic asylums, the worst cases only being sent to Broadmoor. It was a singular circumstance, and it had been commented on in the last Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, that the most dangerous class of lunatics were not those who were acquitted on the ground of insanity, but those who became insane after they were convicted, and it was principally these latter who were sent to Broadmoor. Thirty or forty of such lunatics had been sent to Broadmoor in the course of last year, while not one single such case had been sent to Dundrum last year, and only one in the year before last. There was thus at Broadmoor a class of lunatics incomparably more dangerous than those at Dundrum, and consequently it was necessary to employ a much greater proportionate number of warders for their care. The larger number of warders at Broadmoor was also partly attributable to the original defects in the building, which rendered it necessary that the number of attendants should be larger than usual. The hon. Member had stated the other day that the health of the criminal lunatics at Broadmoor was wholly unsatisfactory—as bad as it well could be; owing to deficient drainage and the general defective construction of the asylum, the mortality was greater than that in any similar institution in Great Britain. But he (Mr. Bruce) was fortunately in a position to show from statistics he held in his hand that the death-rate at that lunatic asylum was far below the average of such institutions. He begged to call the hon. Member's particular attention to the following figures:—
"The number of deaths to 100 of the daily average numbers resident in each year from 1864 to 1869 inclusive, was in county and borough asylums, 10·85; in registered hospitals, 7·63; in metropolitan licensed houses, 10·97; in provincial licensed houses, 8·27; in naval and military hospitals, 11·02; and in the Criminal Asylum, Broadmoor, 2·96."
Those figures were taken from the Lunacy Commissioners' Report of 1870, and they proved that Broadmoor was far more healthy than Dundrum, where, according to the hon. Member's own statement, the mortality was 3½ per cent per annum. Had the hon. Member ever been to

1889
Broadmoor? It was situate on the summit of a hill of loose sand; it was about the most healthy spot in England, and the only subject for astonishment was why anybody should ever die there at all. The hon. Member said that the Lunacy Commissioners' Report found fault with the treatment of the criminal lunatics confined at Broadmoor. He entirely denied that the language of the Commissioners was such as to allow of such an inference being drawn. Their remark applied merely to a particular class of criminal lunatics; and even on that point their views were completely opposed to those of Dr. Meyer, who lost his life in consequence of injuries inflicted upon him by a lunatic, and who was celebrated for his knowledge and skill in the treatment of lunatics. It was not for him to decide when dectors disagreed, but it was clear from the language of the Commissioners that they referred not to the treatment of criminal lunatics generally at Broadmoor, but to a particular class of them only. In a passage in their very last Report the Commissioners said—
"We have had every evidence at our visit that Dr. Orange is discharging with great ability the very important and anxious duties incident to the superintendence of this asylum."
In fact, through the whole of that Report there was not one single word of censure upon the management of this asylum. In conclusion, from the facts he had stated, he maintained that the expense incurred in the management of Broadmoor was not larger, as compared with Dundrum, than the difference in the cost of labour and provisions and in the class of persons confined in it would fully account for; that the death rate was lower in the former than in the latter; and that the inmates were properly treated in the former. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that the charge made by his hon. Friend was greatly exaggerated, and based upon insufficient grounds, and he believed that the House would do well in refusing to reduce the Vote.
DR. LUSHsaid, he must exonerate the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) from having improperly brought forward this subject, he having been misled by the figures contained in Government Papers. On the contrary, he thought the hon. Member deserved great credit for the boldness with which
1890
he had brought this subject under the notice of the Committee. It was clear that the dangerous class of criminals sent to Broadmoor had not in former years been treated with the humanity which was elsewhere shown towards such patients, and which the scientific acumen of the present day proved to be the most effectual treatment; and there could be no doubt that bad sanitary arrangements had at one time produced an exceptional rate of mortality at that establishment. The right hon. Gentleman had shown the necessity for a considerable staff; but the proportion of the staff to the patients appeared excessive. As to the mortality, it was not fair to compare a place with selected lives to pauper asylums like Hanwell. He remembered an asylum containing 300 patients of the same class, which was under his observation, in which during four months there was not a single death. It did not appear on the Estimates that anything was charged for rent; but if there was, the cost of other items would, of course, be reduced. With regard to the expense of the patients, expense ought not to be an object in such a case to a country like our own. The unfortunate persons who were confined at Broadmoor ought to be regarded not so much as prisoners, but as persons afflicted with mental aberration, and as such the most careful attention should be paid to them, and the most elaborate means should be adopted to restore them, if possible, to health. Holding that opinion, he could not support the reduction of the Vote.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it was difficult for anyone not acquainted with lunatic asylums to understand the magnitude of this Vote. The cost of patients at Broadmoor was nearly £1 a week per head, while in county lunatic asylums the average was about 9s. 6d., and at Dundrum it was only 12 s. He might be told that the patients at Broadmoor were of a peculiar class, and no doubt they were; but he was not so certain that they required more attention than a great many of the helpless and troublesome patients who were to be found in general asylums. At Broadmoor there were 563 patients, and at Dundrum only 180, and everybody knew that as the number of patients increased the charge for the staff ought to diminish. In the Irish asylum the proportion of the staff

1891
was 1 to 5½ patients, but at Broadmoor it was 1 to 3½; and the only way in which he could account for the difference was by supposing that the Irish, who had the reputation of being less manageable than the English when sane, became more manageable when insane. In county asylums the proportion of attendants was 1 to every 8 or 10 patients, and it was clear that either the county asylums were not doing what they ought, or else Broadmoor was doing a great deal more than it ought. At the same time, he did not think the hon. Gentleman opposite would be justified in reducing the Vote by one-half; but the matter was one which the Government ought to look carefully into, with a view to seeing whether some reduction could not be made, for at present the expense of the Broadmoor Asylum seemed to be almost profligate.
MR. WALTERsaid, he regretted to hear the expression "profligate" applied by his right hon. Friend to Broadmoor, for, as one of the Visiting Board, he might be supposed to have some little responsibility for its management. His right hon. Friend, who was or had been a visitor with himself of a county asylum, was mistaken in supposing that the attendance required by criminal lunatics was of the same kind as that required for ordinary asylums. Ordinary pauper lunatics were of a more helpless, imbecile class, including many old and many very young persons, and what they chiefly required was good nursing, and a nurse could obviously manage more patients than a warder could manage criminals. The class of lunatics at Broadmoor, on the contrary, required not so much good nursing as strict superintendence. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) had conclusively shown that the hon. Member for Galway was mistaken in supposing there was a material difference—indeed, he doubted whether there was any—between the cost of maintenance at Broadmoor and Dundrum. Including items not taken into account by the hon. Member, it was almost exactly the same. Considering that out of the Vote of £29,545, £11,629 was for victualling, and £9,671 for attendance, there was clearly only a very small margin for reduction. A more serious item than rates and taxes was the cost of fuel and light, which was no less than £2,400, whereas Dundrum was
1892
not credited with sixpence on this head. Be did not know whether among the other facilities possessed by Dundrum was the ability to do without light and fire; but if not there must be some omission in the Estimate, or these necessaries must have been obtained from unknown sources. Any Member comparing the two accounts would remark that at Broadmoor there was a reduction on the current year of £651, while at Dundrum there was an increase, though a very small one. He was not unwilling to see the salaries of the officers of the Dundrum Asylum raised to what might be deemed to be a sufficiently high standard; but there was no margin, in his opinion, for making any reduction in the expenses of Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. The authorities were at the present time doing all in their power to reduce the expenses of that establishment, and had only recently introduced Australian beef as part of the prisoners' food, thereby effecting a very large saving. Broadmoor, no doubt, was expensive, and always had been; but then it should be remembered it was one of the finest places in England, and, moreover, the prisoners had many miles of beautifully-gravelled paths to walk in, which greatly tended to restore their health. No doubt it was a much more expensive establishment than Dundrum; but Broadmoor had not one item of expenditure that Dundrum had—namely, £16 a-year for the services of a bandmaster. He should likewise be very glad to see such an item in the Vote for Broadmoor, as music, no doubt, tended very much to humanize and amuse the inmates. He would not recommend the House to make any alteration in the amount of expenditure incurred for Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum.
MR. PIMsaid, that the allowances in respect of the patients at Broadmoor were far more liberal than the allowances in respect of the patients at Dundrum, a fact, which he thought was clearly proved by the Estimates, proving that £3 6s. was the amount for clothing an inmate at Dundrum, whilst at Broadmoor £4 5s. was required.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought the Secretary for the Home Department would admit that, though he had traversed, he had not successfully traversed, all the statements he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had made.

1893
What he had said was drawn from actual knowledge of the case, and was without error; and what he wanted to show was, that the asylum at Broadmoor was based on an entirely different and more expensive system than that which had been carried out with so much good effect at Dundrum; and he did not wonder that such was the case when it was remembered that the management of the asylum was carried out under a special Act of Parliament by gentlemen who knew nothing whatever of matters relating to the treatment of lunatics. He would not divide the Committee on his Amendment, but hoped the Home Secretary would investigate what had occurred at Dundrum and what had ensued at Broadmoor.
MR. STACPOOLEhoped that the Royal Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the condition of the Civil servants in Ireland would also inquire into the management of Dundrum Asylum.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that the sum for the lunatics at Broadmoor was most extraordinary and extravagant, as anyone acquainted with lunatic asylums, exceedingly expensive as they were, must know. While it was admitted that it was absolutely necessary that more expense should be incurred for lunatics than other persons, that only showed clearly and conclusively that the charge for these asylums ought to be removed from local to public taxation.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that all those who had any experience as local authorities in the management of lunatic asylums must be astonished at the enormous expense at which lunatics were taken care of by the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that a conclusive proof of the necessity for removing the charge for lunatics from local to Imperial taxation. He could concur neither in the conclusions nor the premises of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. His inference was quite the opposite—namely, that it was much better that the expenditure should be under the charge of those who had the deepest interest in keeping it low, than in the hands of the Government, whose interest was comparatively remote.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that under the existing law the Home Secretary had the right, which he frequently
1894
exercised, of removing from Broadmoor criminal lunatics whose term of sentence had expired, though they still continued lunatics. Many of those persons were of a dangerous character, and the staff of the county asylums was not adequate to their superintendence and control. The establishment at Broadmoor had ample means of taking care of them, and what he would ask was that, instead of removing dangerous lunatics to the county asylums when their sentence had expired, the Home Secretary should retain them at Broadmoor, and charge the counties with the cost of their maintenance.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had not overlooked that point; but unfortunately the establishment at Broadmoor was not large enough to take in all that wanted admission. It was, therefore, impossible to retain those who ought to be sent away when they were constantly refusing those who ought to be admitted.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £16,850, 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, of Miscellaneous Legal Charges in England."
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that there were 85 Revising Barristers, of whom 84 had sat 797 days, or an average of less than 10 days each man, notwithstanding which 15 assistant Revising Barristers had been appointed at a cost to the country of £2,055 this year, £2,398 last year, and £3,330 the year before. He was told that the Judges had by statute the power to appoint assistant Revising Barristers, and if they did that the House of Commons was bound to pay them. But he had shown that these assistant Revising Barristers were unnecessary, and therefore he begged to reduce the Vote by £2,000, the sum inserted in the Estimates to pay for additional aid.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,850, 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, of Miscellaneous Legal Charges in England."—(Mr. Neville-Grenville.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was quite true that the Judges had by statute the power of appointing a certain number of assistant Revising Barristers, and the persons so appointed were to be paid by the country. He was not going to deny that in many cases that power of appointment had been exercised in a manner which he should be sorry to stand there to defend, and, therefore, the Government were quite prepared to take by Act of Parliament a control over that power of appointment by the Judges, should Parliament think fit to confer it. But to refuse the Vote would be to interfere with the power which the Judges at present possessed, and if the Committee chose to do that, the Government would be prepared to ask Parliament to pass a Bill on the subject. If Parliament refused to pass such a Bill hereafter the Government would have no alternative but to introduce a Supplementary Estimate.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if the money were not voted, it was unlikely that assistant Revising Barristers would be appointed.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that as they had a Bill before them for improving the manner in which the registration was made, which would leave the Revising Barristers little or nothing to do, and as they were told that if that Bill were thrown out the Government were prepared to adopt any measure that would reduce the expenses by improving the preliminary stages of the registration, and rendering the Court of the Revising Barrister merely one of appeal, it would be better to wait the result of such legislation before they reduced the Vote.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, it was an unsatisfactory thing for a constituency to be handed over to an assistant Revising Barrister. In the constituency which he represented 2,200 voters had been struck off the register through a decision given by one of these temporary assistants.
Question put, and agreed to.
(17.) £53,858 to complete the sum for Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he begged to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that, while in Scotland, where there was a Crown prosecutor, the cost of criminal prosecutions for, say, 3,500,000 people was £71,000, the expenditure in England, if the same system were es-
1896
tablished there, would be at the same rate upwards of £500,000, instead of about £200,000, as at present. He hoped that the Ministers would consider the cost of Crown prosecutors, before they introduced the system proposed by the Bill to be debated next Wednesday.
MR. MUNTZmoved that the Item of £700, "to meet the expenses of Procurators Fiscal about to be appointed," be omitted from the said Vote.
MR. HERMONcomplained that the Government gave no explanation with regard to this Vote.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would remind the House that the principle adopted in Scotland was to pay for the performance of public services by public money. When the accounts of the Procurators Fiscal were beyond a certain sum, their fees were commuted to a salary at a considerable saving to the public Revenue.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he doubted, looking at the Estimate, whether justice was not done in England as satisfactorily as in Scotland, and at a less cost proportionately.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he wished to add that in Scotland the community were released from any expenditure for private prosecutions. The real question was, whether it was expedient on the whole that the expenditure of a prosecution should fall on the individuals who suffered from crime. At all events, it had been the custom for some centuries in Scotland for the State to pay; whereas in England a man who had suffered already by robbery was sometimes obliged to go to great expense to punish the depredators. There was a very great public economy effected in the manner in which these matters were managed in Scotland, and so far as the community was concerned probably no money was better spent than that expended in the department of public prosecution.
MR. WESTsaid, that before Wednesday, when the Public Prosecutors Bill would be brought forward, the Government ought to be prepared with an estimate showing the cost of adopting the system in England.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £42,121, to complete the sum for Law Courts, Scotland.
(19.) £22,574, to complete the sum for the General Register House, Edinburgh.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation as to what had been done by the Treasury to fulfil the duties imposed upon them by the Act passed some years ago? The total Vote was put down at £30,000, but it appeared that there was some £5,000 or £6,000 a-year received more than was expended, taking it at its lowest amount. That had long been a crying grievance in Scotland, and the people were anxiously looking forward for the time when the transfer of land in Scotland would be relieved from the burden, for it pressed very severely on small transactions in land. The surplus arose, no doubt, before the Act of 1868 was passed, but owing to the changes then made, it was necessary to construct a scale to cover the emoluments of the register in the smallest places in Scotland. In Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other large towns in which there were a large number of transactions, this enabled matters to be dealt with so economically that there was a large surplus; so much so, that people were led to expect that when the whole of the registries were concentrated in Edinburgh, the Government would receive a much larger surplus, and be able to carry on the transactions with such economy that they would be able to reduce the amount of the fees payable throughout Scotland. They had been waiting patiently until the different offices had been absorbed, and the compensations had been awarded to the various officers who held these offices in different parts of Scotland. As he understood, the transactions were all closed, and they were awaiting in anxious expectation to hear from the Treasury what result had been arrived at. It was a duty under the Act specially imposed—and not as a mere power—upon the Treasury to fix the scale of fees for the future. He trusted his right hon. and learned Friend would be able to explain what steps Her Majesty's Government had taken in fulfilment of the just expectation of the people of Scotland, and when he was doing so, to take notice of a very important question which had been raised by those who were watching these transactions in Scotland—namely, the question how far the compensation for the different offices which had been absorbed was to be
1898
thrown upon the fees in future, and how far they were to be paid by the Treasury? Legal opinions on the subject had been taken, and laid before him, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had been consulted, as well as Mr. Anderson, who had given a distinct opinion that it was not in the power of the Treasury to charge in future upon the fees received. It was, they said, undoubtedly a charge upon the Treasury, and it was one on which they were entitled to claim and levy taxes to provide for compensation. He believed that the accumulation received by the Treasury would be more than a hundred times sufficient to pay for the compensation; but whether that were so or not, he held in his hand the highest legal opinion on the subject, and trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would inform Scotch Members what relief Her Majesty's Treasury were prepared to afford in this respect.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not surprised at the question having been asked. His hon. Friend had understated his case. Since 1846 a sum of £145,372 had been paid into the Exchequer from the fees of the Register Office in excess of expenditure. It was obvious that Government had no right to obtain a profit from this source, and a pledge had been given some time ago that the fees should be reduced so as merely to cover the expense of the office. The delay in arriving at a decision had been caused by the necessity of taking advice as to whether the new scale of fees should be fixed so as to provide for the superannuation of the district Registrars of Sasines. The Treasury had concluded not to do so, and they had directed the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland to make out the new scheme accordingly.
Vote agreed to.
(20.) £17,700, to complete the sum for Prisons (Scotland), &c.
(21.) £58,411, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland).
(22.) £33,525, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery (Ireland).
(23.) £20,612, to complete the sum for the Superior Courts of Common Law in Ireland.
(24.) £6,350, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland.
(25.) £9,216, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.
(26.) £8,643, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate in Ireland.
(27.) £1,310, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court of Registry, Ireland.
(28.) £11,240, to complete the sum for the Office for the Registration of Deeds in Ireland.
(29.) £2,227, to complete the sum for the Registration of Judgments, Ireland.
(30.) £75,323, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, Dublin.
(31.) £658,139, to complete the sum for the Constabulary Force, Ireland.
(32.) £32,500, to complete the sum for Government Prisons, &c. Ireland.
(33.) £45,855, to complete the sum for County and Borough Gaols, &c. Ireland.
(34.) £4,073, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
(35.) £1,610, to complete the sum for the Four Courts Marshalsea, Dublin.
(36.) £43,920, to complete the sum for Legal Expenses, Ireland.
(37.) £45,568, to complete the sum for Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c. in certain Colonies.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he must express his extreme satisfaction with the general aspect of the Colonial Votes this year, as an evidence that they were carrying out the policy long ago recommended and pursued by parties on both sides of the House. They were getting the colonies gradually to take their share, in common with those at home, in the expenditure necessary for their own affairs, both civil and military. He should like the Under Secretary for the Colonies to explain what progress was being made in that line of policy, as regarded the concentration of government that had been happily inaugurated in the Leeward Islands, inasmuch as practical measures of that character were much more valuable than the vague discussions on abstract colonial questions which were too frequently introduced in that House. It was a fair thesis for a debating club, whether Colonial Representation could be introduced in that House, or a Congress formed of all the Empire, on common concerns. No one wanted more than discussion to disabuse his mind of such vagaries. The scatter-
1900
ing English troops to maintain the British flag in all quarters of the globe, in distrust of British colonial troops, was a sentiment which experience dissipated. But the concentration and self-support of colonial governments was a practical concern of great importance. It had been proposed by Mr. Pope Hennessy that the government of Labuan should be united to that of the Straits. Labuan was now in a flourishing condition, and the reason for uniting that island to the Straits had been clearly pointed out by that Governor who had made it so. Labuan having been formed into a government at the request of a number of English merchants, had been so well presided over by that gentleman that it had, at last, after much failure, paid its own expenses, and the recommendation in question was based on the fact that the colony was too small to furnish adequate materials en permanence for its administration or for the formation of a Legislative Council. It had been said, on the contrary, that if Labuan was a flourishing colony, why not leave it alone? But it appeared to him that the more the people showed that they could manage their own affairs, the more incumbent it was upon this country to see that they should not be needlessly and extravagantly burdened, and that no unnecessary government should be imposed upon them. He believed that if the proposed union should be effected the salary paid to the Governor might be reduced by one-half, which would amply suffice for the local secretary of the Straits Governor. He wished to know whether the Government intended to act upon the recommendation of Mr. Pope Hennessy, the carrying out of which would not only reduce the expenditure of the colony, but greatly improve the efficiency of its government?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that after a careful perusal of Mr. Pope Hennessy's Minute, he had come to the conclusion that there was much that he proposed that might be effected by a judicious arrangement between the two colonies without imposing a union upon them. He did not, however, pledge the Government against this union; but certainly the wishes and interests of the Straits settlements should be consulted in the matter as well as those of Labuan. It might be that as time progressed, and as the circumstances

1901
of the two colonies came to be fully considered, this union might be found to be desirable. But the course which the Government had thought it right to take had been this—Labuan had only lately become a self-supporting colony, and it had hardly yet been sufficiently proved that the self-supporting nature of Labuan would continue to exist. They had therefore thought it desirable that a little time should be afforded in order that the true condition of Labuan might be ascertained, and they had instructed Sir Henry Ord, the Governor of the Straits settlements, to consult with the present Governor of Labuan, and report upon the whole bearing of the question. When the Government had seen that Report they should be able to take a broad and just view of the question, and to decide whether or not a union was desirable. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire had alluded to the increase in the Estimate for the Leeward Islands. The fact was, that for future economy and the better management of these islands it was thought desirable that they should be confederated, and it had been found necessary to make sacrifices at first in order to secure a permanent benefit. One of the items of cost had arisen from the necessity to providing the Governor with a steamer to visit the different islands, and that steamer had cost £13,200. The islanders had also asked that £4,000 or £5,000, the salaries of governors and administrators hitherto, should be voted to them for five years as a grant in aid to enable them to make the necessary arrangements. The Treasury had not pledged themselves to this for five years, but he hoped they would do so, believing that federation would result in economy and good management, and that the charges on the Imperial Revenue would gradually disappear. As to the federation of the Windward Islands, the Government thought it would be well to wait and see the experiment of the federation of the Leeward Islands carried out before they proceeded any further in that direction.
MR. RYLANDSwished to know why a salary of £2,200 was paid for a governor of the Bermudas, seeing that the Bermudas were only a military station? He also wished to know what reason there was for a continuance of the Vote of £2,500 for clergy in North
1902
America, and whether that was an expiring Vote?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that Bermuda was a naval station of great importance to England, and it was not so much for the colony as for ourselves that this salary was paid to the Governor.
MR. R. N. FOWLERwanted to hear some explanation of the reduction of £8,000 in the Vote for Malta, and of £5,158 in the Vote for St. Helena.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, the Vote for clergy in North America was an expiring Vote, diminished £238 by the death of some of the recipients. The charge for Malta of £8,000 last year, which did not now re-appear, was owing to the construction of waterworks from which Imperial interests received benefit, and in respect of which a charge upon Imperial funds was therefore justified. The Vote for St. Helena was in respect of charges—including Governor's salary and mail subsidies—which the local revenues had lately proved quite unable to meet, and which therefore the Treasury had paid, to be repaid according to the directions of the Secretary of State.
Vote agreed to.
(38.) £2,976, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and Island of St. Helena.
(39.) £79, to complete the sum for Mixed Commissions, Traffic in Slaves.
(40.) £8,906 to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties and Bounties on Slaves, &c.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he objected to the system of allowing the Navy to claim bounties. He believed many of the claims were questionable.
MR. BAXTERsaid, the hour was too late to allow of so large a question being discussed. Every claim went before a Court.
Vote agreed to.
(41.) £7,410, to complete the sum for the Emigration Board.
MR. MACFIEurged the propriety of adding some Members of Parliament, colonists, or friends of the working classes to the Board, in order to carry out its original purpose of directing a flow of emigration and utilizing the tracts of land belonging to the Empire.
Vote agreed to.
(42.) £4,500, to complete the sum for the Treasury Chest.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

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

  [BILL 106.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved the addition of a clause exempting from the duties on inhabited houses any tenement occupied for the sole purpose of any trade or business, or of any profession, vocation, or calling, when inhabited as to part thereof by a servant or other person employed for the protection or care of such tenement and not being otherwise an inhabited dwelling-house. The clause proposed was in substance identical with one previously approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which had only been rescinded by a majority of 1, upon a division taken quite unexpectedly.
  New Clause (Enactments in Schedule repealed, and in lieu thereof exemption from inhabited house duty of trade and business premises under care of servant only,)—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsupported the clause, which would be a great boon to the City of London.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the duty of the Government to propose taxes, and it was the function of the House to consider the propriety of exemptions. The House, after full debate, had rejected the clause by a majority of 1. He did not propose to go into the merits of the question, but the Government thought it their duty not to press the matter again on the House.
  MR. CRAWFORDsupported the clause, and expressed his surprise at such a decision, and contrasted it with the conduct of the Government in the case of the Accountant General of the
  1904
  Court of Chancery. He hoped the House would show that it did not approve of such inconsistent behaviour.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that the question required further attention.
  MR. GLADSTONEdefended the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was in such cases very nearly an established rule for the Government to acquiesce in the judgment of the House unless some strong public necessity rendered it imperative to disturb the decision. The decision arrived at the other night was not a surprise, but the spontaneous expression of the opinion of the House. At the same time he must admit that the question was not in a satisfactory position. It required a further investigation, but on a somewhat larger scale. In omitting one anomaly it might have rendered more glaring other anomalies. It would, therefore, be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his careful attention to the subject before he could be called on again to make financial proposals to the House.
  MR. BARNETThoped the House would still adhere to the decision they formerly gave on this subject, and adopt the clause of the hon. Alderman.
  ALDERMAN SIR JAMES LAWRENCEsaid, this question affected not London alone, but also Liverpool, Manchester, and every large town in the kingdom, and it was not fairly submitted to the House when it was previously under discussion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 80: Majority 29.
  MR. MACFIEmoved an Amendment in Clause 4, page 2, line 34, to leave out after "goods," as far as and including "accordingly," in line 37, and insert "absolutely prohibited to be imported," the result of which would be that articles which professed falsely to be of British manufacture would be prohibited from being imported even for exportation. He made that proposal in justice to British manufacturers and as a testimony to the truth.
  MR. MUNDELLAsupported the Amendment.
  MR. BAXTERsaw no objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE. REBUILDING BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill for the acquisition of property for the purpose of erecting thereon a new building at Whitehall for the Admiralty and War Office, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 200.]

  VICTORIA PARK BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill to confirm an Agreement for the purchase by the Metropolitan Board of Works of certain land adjoining Victoria Park, and for the appropriation of such land as part of the same Park, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 201.]

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to amend the several Acts relating to the Drainage and Improvement of Lands in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and The Marquess of HARTINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 202.]

  PAWNBROKERS BILL.
  Select Committee on the Pawnbrokers Bill nominated:—Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Sir WILLIAM BAGGE, Mr. CARTER, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. RICHARD ARKWRIGHT, Mr. PLIMSOLL, Mr. ARTHUR GUEST, Mr. GRIEVE, Mr. CHARLES HENRY MILLS, and Mr. WHITWELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That the Report and Evidence laid before Parliament by the Select Committee on Pawnbrokers, in Session 1871, and the Report of Dr. Hancock on the Law of Pawn broking in Ireland, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.