Commons Sitting of 9 May 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Second Report—East India Finance [No. 194].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution reported—Ordered—First Reading—Canada Loan Guarantee* [159].
First Reading—Fulford Chapel Marriages Legalisation* [160].
Select Committee—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment* [81], nominated.
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental (re-comm.)* [153]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* [189]; Railways Provisional Certificate (re-comm.)* [156].
Considered as amended—East India (Loan)* [103].
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* [144]; Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment* [101], and passed.

RAILWAYS—COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PASSENGERS AND GUARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATNEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of the cord communication between passengers and guards in Railway trains having proved a failure, the Board of Trade, upon the 19th July 1872, signified that they would withdraw their approval of this system of communication from and after the 1st January 1873; whether any steps have been taken by the Board of Trade to enforce their order and to require the Railway Companies to adopt seine more efficient means of
  1712
  communication; and, if any and what form of communication has been approved of by the Board?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, the hon. Member for East Surrey had correctly stated that the Board of Trade intended to withdraw their approval of the present cord communication after the 1st of January of the present year, but in consequence of the difficulty the Railway Companies had experienced in agreeing upon an improved mode of communication to be submitted to the Board of Trade, he had determined to extend the time. Meanwhile, experiments had been made of an improved mode of communication similar to that generally adopted in the United States. The experiments were made on a train in the presence of the managers of most of the Railway Companies and some of the officers of the Board of Trade. The result was that the new system, which was a system of passing a cord through the carriages inside under the lamps, and about three inches below the roofs, had been submitted to the Board of Trade. He had not been able to give his positive approval to the system, but he had given it his sanction for three months in order that it might be fully tried.

BRAZIL—BRITISH EMIGRANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FLOYERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any and what communications have been received from Her Majesty's Consuls at Rio Janeiro upon the condition and prospects of the working men and their families who upon various representations have lately emigrated from this Country to Brazil?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD:Communications, Sir, have been received at the Foreign Office from members of Her Majesty's Legation at Rio Janeiro upon the condition and prospects of emigrants to Brazil; and it is at present under consideration as to what portions of those communications should be made public, due regard being had to the interests of the British public and the Brazilian Government. Of course, whatever portion is made public, will, in the usual way, be presented to the House. Under these circumstances, I cannot reply more explicitly to the

  1713
  Question just addressed to me by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire.

ARMY—THE 21ST R. N. B. FUSILIERS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the exigencies of the service required that the 21st R. N. B. Fusiliers should, after a long service in India, be brought home in mid-winter and at once stationed in the north-east of Scotland; and, whether, with the object of diminishing the loss of life and suffering to the troops and the women and children, caused by the sudden and extreme change of climate, it cannot be arranged that regiments should arrive at some other time of year, or at all events be stationed on their first arrival in the milder parts of the -United Kingdom?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the proper season for the Indian reliefs is not the hot time of the year, but the winter. The arrangements for the transports are made accordingly, and no battalion can be brought home at any other season. When the 21st Royal North British Fusiliers arrived in England from India during the last winter, they were sent to Stirling, in conformity with the usual practice, which was always to send Scotch regiments to Scotland, both for the convenience of men going on furlough, and because it was the natural inclination of the men to get to Scotland, an inclination which was always complied with, as far as the exigencies of the service would permit. No injury had, however, been done to the men by taking them into so cold a climate, and, according to the last Reports, out of 780 men in the regiment, there were only 27 upon the sick list.

  POST OFFICE—DETENTION OF MAILS AT CALAIS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the frequent detention of the Mails at Calais consequent upon the want of water to float the steamboats; and, whether it is possible to apply a remedy to obviate the serious inconvenience and delay thus occasioned in the transmission of the Mails?
  MR. MONSELL,in reply, said, he was quite aware of the grievance, but it
  1714
  was impossible for him to redress it. Her Majesty's Government did all they could. A harbour at great expense had been made at Dover; it was accessible at all times of the tide, and they had a small steamer at Calais to land the mails and passengers when the water ran low. But on the other side there was no good harbour, and the French railway trains convoying the mails only ran at the rate of 33 miles an hour, while the English trains ran at the rate of 46 miles an hour.

MERCANTILE MARINE—MR. PLIMSOLL AND THE CARDIFF SHIPOWNERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to a printed Circular signed by the honourable Member for Derby, dated 20th April last, and distributed amongst Members of the House of Commons, in which he states that certain information disclosing reckless overloading in ships sailing from Cardiff had been withheld by the Government from a Member of Parliament seeking to save human life, and supplied by the Secretary of a Company of Underwriters to whom it had been given by the Board of Trade to aid them in making their investments; and, whether he can give any explanation of the circumstances referred to?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: I am not surprised, Sir, that some hon. Member should ask me for some explanation of this circular, which has been widely distributed, especially, I believe, among religious congregations throughout the country. I have taken pains to ascertain accurately what are the facts, and the general answer I have to give to the Question is that the statement quoted from the circular is absolutely without foundation. The Board of Trade have never refused any information to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), for the simple reason that he has never asked them for any, in spite of repeated invitations on my part that he should do so. The circular reverts to the circumstance which I explained fully in the House some weeks ago—namely, that an agent of the hon. Member had applied to the Collector of Customs at Cardiff for voluminous information relating to ships sailing from Cardiff for the last three years. The

  1715
  answer was given without any directions from the Board of Trade and without their knowledge, but I think it was a proper one under the circumstances—namely, that it was not usual to allow the public to inspect the official books and documents, but that all their information was open to the Royal Commission or the Government. I may add that a large part of the information asked for could not have been given by the Customs, and what is more to the purpose of the present Question, the Reports of the draught of water of vessels leaving port were not asked for by the agent at all. These are what the hon. Member has photographed and published; and, as their very object is publicity and the exposure of cases of overloading, I find no fault at all with his photographs—the more public these things are the better. These are Reports, not from Cardiff merely, but from a large number of ports, showing the draught of water of vessels leaving port—a new thing, provided for by the Act of 1871. But the circular states that what was sternly refused to a Member of the House of Commons "seeking to save human life has been supplied to a Secretary of Underwriters from the Board of Trade itself in London, in order to aid them in making their investments," and supplied to the hon. Member for Derby by the Secretary of a Company of Underwriters. Now, this Secretary is Mr. Stephenson, the well-known Secretary of Lloyd's, who has protested against these Board of Trade Reports, which he had lent to the hon. Member for Derby, being used for the purpose of attacking the Board of Trade. The facts are as follows:—The Reports of draught of water are made daily, and are sent up daily to the Board of Trade. They are there, by an arrangement with Lloyd's, abstracted into a form which is at once sent to Lloyd's, and which is there posted and made known to the whole of the persons interested in shipping who have access to that public and well-known place of resort. Further, these Returns at the Board of Trade are open to anyone who chooses to inspect or apply for them, and would have been given freely to Mr. Plimsoll or his solicitor, had either so applied. As a general rule, short of paying for them as advertisements, there is no means of publishing information connected with
  1716
  shipping so effectually as by sending it to Lloyd's. In these Returns the words "deep" or "very deep" are of frequent occurrence. Sometimes these words are a comment added by the official reporter to his Report of the actual draught of water; but in general they are expressions only of the impression of the reporter where, from defective marking of the scale of feet upon the ship, or for other reasons, the actual draught of water cannot be given. I am happy to be able to add that careful inquiry has been made at Lloyd's into every one of the cases mentioned in the Returns heliotyped by the hon. Member for Derby in which the words "deep" or "very deep" have been added; and it has been found that every one of those vessels has made the voyage on which it was bound when the Report was made in perfect safety. The circular goes on to say that there is also a separate and worse list, specially reported to the Receiver of Wrecks, and that the hon. Member for Derby cannot obtain access to it. The fact is there is no such separate list made, or kept either by the Surveyors of Wreck or by any other officer of the Board of Trade; and I must repeat that the Reports on draught of water made to the Board of Trade are open to the examination of any one, and are invariably sent to Lloyd's. The only explanation of the circular I have been able to arrive at is, that there are a few exceptional cases in which the Secretary at Lloyd's exercises his discretion in not posting up every remark that may be made upon avessel in the Returns of the surveyors furnished by the Board of Trade. That is the case, I am informed, in very few instances: and, at all events, the Board of Trade have nothing to say to it, because every Return received is sent to Lloyd's for purposes of publicity. This is not the occasion to speak of the value of these Reports, though I am assured by high authorities that they are found already to have a very useful effect in checking the practice of overloading; but, at all events, their utility will be fully tested by the Royal Commission, because the Secretary of the Board of Trade has handed them in to the Royal Commission, and has given full explanations with respect to them. The notion that the Board of Trade wishes to keep these Returns back from the hon. Member for Derby, or from any one

  1717
  else, is really absurd, and I can only regret that the hon. Member did not think it right to obtain such information from the Board of Trade as would have made it impossible for him to publish the unfounded statements of the circular.

  CATTLE—IMPORTATION OF GERMAN CATTLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CLARE READasked the Vice President of the Council, If there is any truth in the reports which are current on the Continent, that the restrictions upon the importation of German cattle, by which they are now consigned to separate water-side markets, are about to be removed?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, there was no truth whatever in certain statements in one German newspaper, to the effect that it would soon be announced by the British Government that cattle might be taken to the Islington Market for inspection; or in another, to the effect that when the restrictions were removed cattle, though affected with foot and mouth disease, might be taken to the Old Market, after a few formalities had been gone through. The Government would in future, and had up to this time, retained these restrictions or relaxed them according to the information it might have obtained. At present Government had no information which would induce it to relax the restrictions. He could not at all imagine how the report had got into the German newspapers.

  SUGAR DUTIES—THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES.—QUESTIONS?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the report is correct that the Conferences held in Paris on the Sugar Duties have resulted in the conclusion of a fresh Convention; and, if so, what are the provisions of the new Convention?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Conference has agreed upon a Convention, which contains three terms, which are as follows:—1. That sugars are not to be assessed by colour only, but by strength, which may, if necessary, be ascertained by analysis, or by any means Government may choose to adopt, and that when so tested, if the strength prove sufficient, the sugar may be raised to a higher class. 2. That
  1718
  Belgium and other countries producing beet-root sugar, and charging duty thereon by the density of the juice, are to raise the charge for duty from 1,500 to 1,600 degrees. 3. That France is to put her Duties and Drawbacks into co-relation, as required by the Convention in 1864. There is no article relating to refining in bond.
  MR. J. B. SMITHasked how long this Convention would be in force?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: For something under two years.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANRS—INVESTMENT OF DEPOSITS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATNEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, at the end of the last financial year, all the money belonging to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks (with the exception of the balance in the banker's hands) was invested according to the Act 21 Vic. c. 14; and, if not, to state the amount uninvested, distinguishing the amount in the banker's hands?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, all the money belonging to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks at the end of the last financial year was invested according to the Act 24 Vic. c. 14, with the exception of the balance in the Bank of England to the credit of the National Debt Commissioners on account of Post Office Savings Banks, and the balance in the hands of the Postmaster General and his officers. The balance to the credit of the National Debt Commissioners at the Bank of England on Post Office Savings Banks account on the 31st of March last was £1,268,000, and of this amount £430,000 was received from the Post Office on that day. The estimated balance remaining due to the National Debt Commissioners by the Post Office on account of Savings Banks deposits on the 31st of March last, after payment of the sum of £430,000, was £88,900. This balance included Post Office Savings Banks cash in the hands of nearly 5,000 postmasters. It also included remittances in transit and bills not arrived at maturity. The balance ill the hands of the National Debt Commissioners on the morning of the 31st of March was only £838,000, of which sum £500,000 was reserved for an advance promised to the Irish Church

  1719
  Commissioners, and made on the 4th of April. Out of the remainder, the National Debt Commissioners were making daily advances under the Pensions Commutation Act, and were investing in stock at the rate of £50,000 a-day. The transfer of the £430,000 was quite unexpected.

AFRICA—WEST COAST SETTLEMENTS—THE ASHANTEE INVASION.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. M'ARTHUR,
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, we have to-day received Despatches from the West Coast of Africa up to the 16th of April, and I regret to say that the news is not of a satisfactory character. After two severe engagements, in which the Fantee tribes had fought bravely and maintained their positions, they had retreated along the whole line, and the Ashantees were reported likely to advance upon Cape Coast and Elmina. The Administrator, Colonel Harley, who in his last Despatches stated his belief, that the Ashantee force did not exceed 4,000 men, now tolls us that he had been misinformed, and that the estimate of 30,000 or 40,000 was probably nearer the truth. It is due to Colonel Harley to say that he has taken every step in his power, and has from the first rightly appreciated the nature and character of the invasion, which were misapprehended by Mr. Pope Hennessy. The cause of the invasion was placed beyond doubt by a letter from the King of Ashantee to the Administrator, which stated that the invasion was the result of the cession of Elmina, by the Dutch to the English Government, and that he was determined to re-take it. Every precaution has been adopted, and I trust that the next telegram will be of a more satisfactory character.
  In reply to Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY,
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that the Houssan police were engaged with the Ashantees, and he was sorry to say there had been some casualties, not very serious, however, and of no very great extent.

COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—REV. MR. O'KEEFFE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the Prime Minister with respect to the Order of Business on Monday night. I observe that last night, the noble Lord the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland placed a Notice upon the Paper of his intention to move on Monday night for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report to the House the circumstances of the dismissal by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland of the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe from the office of Manager of the Callan male, female, and infant National Schools and the Newtown and Coolagh National Schools by their order of April 23, 1872, and of the removal of the said schools from the roll of National Schools by their order of the 7th January, 1873. I wish to know, Whether it is proposed to bring the Motion on on Monday; and, whether it is intended that it shall have precedence of the Orders of the Day, or when it can be debated?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Such a Motion as that it is quite plain could only go on in the way proposed if it were received with general and unanimous approval by the House. If I am to understand from my right hon. Friend that there is a disposition to raise a debate upon that Motion, undoubtedly we must make some arrangement in the course of the evening in respect to the time of taking it; and before the House closes I shall be prepared to make a statement upon the subject.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I asked the Question, because I propose to give the following Notice of an Amendment to the Motion:—To leave out all the words after the word "That," in order to insert these words—
  "This House having already before it, and having partly ordered to be laid before it, Copies of all the Minutes of Proceedings and of all Correspondence with the Board of National Education in Ireland, relating to the school at Callan, and to the Rev. Father O'Keeffe, will pass to the Orders of the Day."

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  MERCANTILE MARINE—LIGHTS IN THE CHANNEL.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. EASTWICK,in rising to call attention to the state of the lights in the Channel, and to move—
  "That it is expedient that fog signals, either steam whistles or guns, or both, be added to the lights on the Skerries Island, the Codling Bank, and the Tuskar Rock, and that the light on the Codling Bank be improved; also that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire into the whole subject of fog signals before the desultory establishment of signals at various points makes it difficult to apply a proper system for the whole of our coasts,"
  said, he trusted he should not be thought to be stepping ultra crepidam in calling attention to a subject, which no one but a sailor could deal with satisfactorily. His only excuse for moving in the matter was that he had been asked to do so by those who were thoroughly conversant with the subject, and had in it a vital interest, being commanders of large steamers running between Liverpool and America. He was aware that very much might be said on the general question of lights and signals, but he should restrict himself to the matter he had been asked to bring forward, leaving hon. Members who had a practical acquaintance with navigation to deal with the subject more fully and accurately than he could pretend to do. He thought it likely that a landsman, on first taking up an Admiralty chart of the Channel, blazoned all over with yellow and red patches, which indicated fixed, flashing, and revolving lights, would be disposed to think it an easy thing to navigate a vessel in a sea so well lighted up. He would probably say, "There seems to be a light or a signal at every six or eight miles, what more could possibly be desired?" Unfortunately, however, facts proved that numerous as were our beacons and signals, and great as had been the expense connected with them, they were still too few, and serious losses of life and property every year, were the result of this insufficiency. In what he was saying, he was not speaking of losses and disasters which were occasionally caused by the fury of the elements; for example, the terrific hurricane of the 26th of October, 1859, in which the Royal Charter perished, and 446 human beings and property to the value of £1,000,000 sterling were swallowed up by the sea
  1722
  in a single shipwreck, was a calamity against which the precautions and efforts of man were unavailing. He spoke rather of such accidents as happened on the 17th and 24th of May, 1872, when the Cunard steamer Tripoli, of 2,000 tons burden, and the Halcyon steamer, of 700 tons, were lost on the rocks south of the Tuskar Lighthouse. The weather being comparatively fine, the 250 passengers and the crew of the Tripoli, and the crew of the Halcyon, were all rescued; but had the sea been high and the wind stormy, it was very probable that hardly a soul would have escaped, and as it was, the steamers themselves were totally wrecked. In these, and many similar cases, losses were incurred which might have been avoided, and it was to such cases that he wished to call attention. The east coast of Ireland, from the Saltees, at the entrance of the Irish Sea, to Dublin, was lined with a formidable series of dangers, both shoal and rock. There were first the Saltees and the Tuskar Rocks; then the Glassgorman Bank and the Wolf Rock, the Moulditch, Horseshoe, Fraser, India, Arklow, Kish, and Bray Banks, besides smaller shoals, while to add to these dangers, the tidal wave which swept round Ireland and entered the Irish Sea by the Northern and Southern Channels, ran at times with extreme velocity near the dangers on the eastern coast. During spring tides the velocity of the wave was six knots an hour near the Northern Channel, and might easily set a vessel beyond its reckoning. Although the lights were sufficient in fine weather, they were not so in fogs, which prevailed on the east coast more than on the other coasts of Ireland. There were at Liverpool 28 days of dense fog on an average throughout the year, being one day in every 13, and there were, he believed about the same number of foggy days on the east coast of Ireland. But hazy weather was still more prevalent and was hardly less dangerous. It was in hazy weather that the Tripoli and the Halcyon were lost. At such times as lights were hardly, if at all, visible, the sailor depended on soundings or on fog signals, and those who had read Mr. Beazeley's interesting lecture on the subject knew that signals by gongs and bells, which, with one exception, that of the fog trumpet at Howth Bailey, were the only fog signals on the Irish coast,

  1723
  were wholly inadequate, as their sound was lost in the roaring of the sea and the wind, and the noise of the paddle-wheels or screw. Therefore, let hon. Members picture to themselves the case of a Transatlantic steamer leaving Liverpool in foggy wintry weather. She would lay her course 50 miles W.S.W. Supposing the steamer left Liverpool at 1 P.M. she would arrive opposite the Skerries Island at six o'clock. If the weather were foggy the light would not be visible, consequently the steamer would probably run too far to the west, and her situation would only be ascertainable by sounding, which meant delay. His informants therefore recommended that there should be a powerful steam-whistle placed on the Skerries Island, and the Members of the Trinity House, in the Report of the 4th of November, 1872, which he held in his hand, also recommended that there should be a distinct fog signal upon the island, in the vicinity of which wrecks were exceedingly numerous, and he (Mr. Eastwick) was informed by a great authority in such matters, that it should be a steam-whistle, 8 inches in diameter, sounded at a pressure of 751b. Such a whistle had been adopted with great success in Canada, and, as appeared from the Elder Brethren's report of their visit to that country, such a whistle on the Manicouagan lightship at the entrance of the St. Lawrence was capable of being heard at a distance of 12 miles. The steamer, hearing this signal, would alter her course a point or so, and run 45 miles S.W. and by W., which would bring her nearly abreast of the Codling Light-vessel. This vessel showed a red light, revolving every 20 seconds, but the light, for some reason or other, was often mistaken for the light of an ordinary vessel, and steamers were thus sometimes led to run too far to the west into dangerous proximity to the Kish and Bray Shoals, where there was only from a fathom to a fathom and a-half water, though they were steep and therefore highly dangerous. The light on the Codling Bank, therefore, should be improved, and a powerful steam-whistle of 10 inches diameter, and sounded at a pressure of 601b., should be placed in the light-vessel, or if that were not approved, there should be a gun signal, to be fired every half-hour during fogs or
  1724
  hazy weather. On hearing the whistle or gun, the steamer would again alter her course and steer nearly due south past the north and south Arklow Light-vessels. From the southernmost of these to the Tuskar Lighthouse was 31 miles. The Tuskar was thus described in Findlay's "Sailing Directions for St. George's Channel:"—
  "The Tuskar Lighthouse is constructed on the principle of those on the Eddystone and Bell Rock. The ringing of two bells denotes the proximity of the rock in foggy weather. The rock is 15 feet above high water."
  In Staff Commander Hoskyns's "Sailing Directions for the Coast of Ireland," published in 1866, by the Admiralty, it was said—
  "The Tuskar Rock is the most out-lying danger to the eastward of Carnsore Point. Besides the principal rock which is elevated 15 feet above high water, there are several smaller ones, together covering an area of about 300 yards by 150."
  Well, on arriving at the Tuskar it was very essential, should it be too foggy to see the light, or should there be any doubt about the distance from the rocks, that the steamer's position should be known by hearing a fog-signal before she steered S.W. for the Fastnet, where, too, there ought to be a fog-signal, and. whence she would run out to sea and lose sight of the land altogether. He would suggest, therefore, that there should be a powerful steam-whistle at the Tuskar also; and had there been such a signal in 1871 it was his belief that the Tripoli and the Halcyon would not have been lost. He was unable to say whether there was space on the rock for a detached fog-signal house, or whether, if there were space sufficient, the site would be a safe one. If these conditions could not be insured, the engine and apparatus would have to be placed in the lighthouse itself. The Trinity House authorities had also recommended, though with some hesitation, a fog signal for the Fastnet Rock lighthouse, and he supposed, therefore, there could be no insuperable difficulty about having one in the Tuskar. The first expense of the three fog-signals he had suggested would be about £4,223, and there would be a proportionate yearly expense, which altogether would be a small amount to pay for increased safety to the valuable steamers running between Liverpool and America, to say

  1725
  nothing of the fleets of smaller craft continually passing and re-passing along the east coast of Ireland. But on the subject of expense, he wished to call attention to what was said at page 22 of Sir Frederick Arrow's Report—"The Americans do not consider the question of expense is to be weighed for a moment against that of safety." That principle ought to be adopted in this country, and all necessary expenses of this description should, in his opinion, be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund. As to the objection he had sometimes heard, that the more aids one gave the sailor the more reckless he became, and that losses increased at least in equal proportion to the augmentation of lights and signals, it filled him with astonishment. Had there been a fog signal at the spot where the Atlantic was wrecked the other day, would there have been that terrible loss of life and property? But the true answer to the objection was, that if this reasoning were carried out to the end there ought to be no lights and signals at all. But for the last three centuries we had been proceeding on the opposite principle. In the 17th century there were only five lights on the British coasts, and shipwrecks were more frequent then. In the 18th only 52 more were added; but in the 19th no less than 434 were added to the list. Besides the reason given in his Resolution for appointing a Royal Commission, he would observe that there had been no such Commission since that of 1858, which reported in March, 1861, and the subject had been growing immensely since then. There was a multitude of questions which required to be settled by a Royal Commission. Why, for instance, was an instrument of larger diameter, with a lower pressure of steam, used on board light vessels than at shore stations? Again, it had been asserted that the sound of Holmes's trumpet was equally powerful over a horizontal are of 90 degrees, and that four such trumpets grouped formed a holophone of 360 degrees, but that and the merit of Holmes's trumpet generally required to be tested. Some experiments with different instruments used as fog-signals were described in the Report of the Trinity House authorities of the 4th of November last, but far more exhaustive trials ought to be made in this country,
  1726
  and they might be made under the authority of the Royal Commission.
  MR. T. BRASSEY,in seconding the Motion, said, he believed the principal object of his hon. Friend the Member for Penryn (Mr. Eastwick) was to attract the attention of the House to the important matter which he had so ably handled, and that he had no intention of pressing the Motion, if he received satisfactory assurances from the Board of Trade. All that was asked was, that there should be no unnecessary delay in carrying out the recommendations of the Trinity Brethren, in favour of placing fog-signals of the most powerful description on points of the coast at present most imperfectly guarded; and the President of the Board of Trade and his able advisers on nautical subjects must welcome the Motion as justifying them in promptly adopting the suggestions of the Trinity House. When it was known that from 300 to 400 lives were lost every year from vessels stranded on our coasts—many of those shipwrecks occuring in foggy weather—enough had been said to justify the small expenditure which was required, in order to substitute a more perfect for the present imperfect system of fog-signals. It was not his intention to criticize the Trinity House, whose administration of their important and extensive business left little to be desired. Our lights were quite as powerful as the French, and superior to those of every other nation; and though the outlay of foreign Governments in the construction of lighthouses had been greater than that in England, the light-ships placed in numerous exposed situations on our coast maintained their positions in the most tempestuous weather, and had very rarely been driven off their stations. Our coasts, moreover, according to the Royal Commission of 1861, were better supplied with buoys than any foreign coasts, and these buoys were maintained in admirable order. In short, the Trinity system would appear to be nearly perfect and worthy of the greatest maritime nation in the world in every respect, except in that which formed the subject of the Motion. In the matter of fog-signals, however, the coasts of the Canadian Dominion and the United States were infinitely better guarded than our own, that superiority being due to the extraordinary difficulties with

  1727
  which those who navigated in American waters had to contend. While foggy days on our coasts did not exceed 60 or 70 in the year, the American coasts were enveloped in fog for one-half of the year or more. Hence since the organization of the Lighthouse Board in 1852, 33 powerful whistles or trumpets had been established on the coasts of the United States, which were sounded by machinery during fog. But if we had fortunately less fog than the American mariners, it did not follow that it was not worth while to provide the best description of fog-signals in order to secure the greatest possible safety for those who navigate in British waters. The Royal Commission recommended the more frequent adoption of guns, or any other more efficient means for indicating the locality of lighthouses during fog. The uselessness of bells had been pointed out by Mr. Beazeley, in a lecture recently delivered before the United Service Institution, in which he said that a bell weighing 2¼ tons had been heard only one mile to windward against a light breeze. Meanwhile the fog-signals in use on the American coast had been carried to a very high degree of perfection. The Trinity Brethren said that all the horns and whistles they had heard on the American coasts might be safely relied upon, when care and attention were used, to a range of from two to eight miles. Sometimes the sound would penetrate to much greater distances; for instance, he was informed by his constituents, the fishermen of Hastings, that the steam fog-horn at Dungeness could be heard at a distance of 14 miles with a light breeze off the land. As fog-signals, guns were equal to the apparatus in use in America; but the original cost of their establishment was not less than £1,000, as compared with an expenditure of from £600 to £1,400 for the horns and whistles worked by machinery, while the working expenses were considerably greater. To establish a light-vessel, at an original cost on the average of £5,000, manned with a numerous crew, and involving for maintenance an annual expenditure of £1,200, and then to hesitate to incur an additional outlay of £600 for providing the light-vessel with an effective fog-signal was an absurdity so glaring that the House would never sanction it. He could not but acknowledge that the
  1728
  efforts made by the Board of Trade from time to time to control the expenditure of the Trinity Brethren wore due naturally to consideration for the pockets of the ratepayers, or rather to the natural desire that the system should be as economical as possible; but it was quite possible, on the other hand, to carry that virtue to an excess, and he trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would not be led by any undue economy to expose himself to the criticisms which in that respect had been bestowed upon his predecessors in office.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient that fog signals, either steam whistles or guns, or both, be added to the lights on the Skerries Island, the Codling Bank, and the Tuskar Rock, and that the light on the Codling Bank be improved; also that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire into the whole subject of fog signals before the desultory establishment of signals at various points makes it difficult to apply a proper system for the whole of our coasts,"—(Mr. Eastwick,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he wished the House exactly to understand what the Motion now made by the hon Member for Penryn (Mr. Eastwick) really was. As for himself, he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had been by no means clear on the subject, for the hon. Member originally gave Notice that he would call attention to the state of the lights in the Channel, but the Motion actually made was to call attention to the state of the fog-signals in the Irish Sea, and, no doubt, of fog-signals generally. The Motion did not raise the question of the lights round the coast of this country at all, but was confined to the question—no doubt important in its degree—of fog-signals, and that with special relation to the coast of Ireland. The east coast of Ireland was described by the hon. Member as one of our most dangerous coasts. That he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) believed, was true, but it was also one of our best lighted and protected coasts, for no part of our coasts had received greater attention than the east coast of Ireland—the particular part of the coast to which the Motion applied—as a very few years ago the lights there were overhauled and revised, their numbers increased, and their whole condition

  1729
  settled by the Board of Trade and the Trinity House, in communication with the merchants of Liverpool, headed, he believed, by their late lamented Member (Mr. Graves). That, however, was no reason why improvement should not go further; but it showed that part of the coast had not by any means been neglected. There appeared considerable inconsistency in the Motion, because it first asked the House to resolve on certain questions of detail, quite unfit for a Resolution of the House—namely, that fog-signals should be placed on particular selected points of the coast—and then it went on to propose that the whole subject of fog-signals should be inquired into by a Royal Commission. The hon. Member would, probably, not desire to bind the House on each particular point, and he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) would show that the subject was entirely unadapted for such an inquiry, and also that such an inquiry was not really required. The Motion referred to three points on the coast. With respect to the first of them—the Sherries—the Trinity House had decided to place a distinctive fog-signal at that important point, which led up to Liverpool and the Mersey. As to the two other points, the question was still open, and was not decided in the negative; for with regard to one, the Tuskar Rock, the hon. Member was himself well aware that there was considerable doubt whether room could be found there for the steam machinery that would be necessary to drive a steam whistle; but the Commissioners of Irish Lights had, within the last few days, been to the Board of Trade on the subject; the matter was treated as one well worthy of consideration, and an inquiry would at once be made into it. As to the whole question of fog-signals, the supposition which seemed to underlie the Motion, and also the speech of the hon. Member who spoke last was, that they were very much behind hand in the matter; that they had been greatly outstripped by other countries; that they had shown no disposition to make up for lost time; and that delay had been caused by the excessive parsimony of the Board of Trade in refusing to allow the Mercantile Marine Fund to be drawn upon sufficiently for those objects. He was not ashamed of the economy of the Board of Trade in the
  1730
  administration of that fund, but so far as he was aware the question a the extension of fog-signals had not been allowed to depend upon considerations of economy. He was perfectly willing to sanction all necessary and proper extensions of a system which he admitted was not developed on our coasts to the extent which it deserved. We had, however, profited by the example of other countries. A Committee of the Trinity House had visited Canada and the United States for the purpose of examining into the value of fog-signals, and of making a Report, which now lay on the Table of the House. Since the return of those gentlemen the list of points on which it had been decided to erect fog-signals had been largely extended. In the opinion of the authorities of the Trinity House, however, fog-signals had been unduly multiplied on the American coasts, and it would appear that political and electioneering considerations entered there into the subject, and that lights were not always provided simply because they were needed. The example of America, therefore, required to be followed with great caution. The number of the fog-signals on the American Coasts had the effect, moreover, in the opinion of the Committee to which he had just referred, of inducing steamers to be run at a dangerous rate of speed. Those authorities were of opinion that such signals should not be too numerous, and that they should be set up at salient points, and it was upon that principle of selection therefore that they proposed to proceed at once in the erection of fog-signals. As to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter he did not think there was any necessity for the adoption of that course. The attention of the Trinity House and of the Board of Trade was earnestly directed to the subject, and important experiments with respect to fog-signals were about to be carried out at South Foreland. These experiments were fixed for the 19th of the present month, and would be conducted under the advice of a very eminent man—Professor Tyndal. They would be attended not only by the officers of the Board of Trade and the Trinity House, but by the professional officers of the Irish and Scotch Boards, and he was quite sure no better mode of inquiry could be instituted. He had full confidence in the Trinity House on this

  1731
  subject, and in the able Deputy-master Sir Frederick Arrow. A thorough examination would be made, and he undertook to say that there would be no undue delay in giving effect to the recommendations which might result from the investigation.
  MR. G. BENTINCKexpressed his regret that the Motion was of so restricted a character, and believed the real root of the evil complained of was to be found in the mode in which the funds for lighting our coasts were levied. There was, in his opinion, no such effective fog-signal as a gun, and although it might be expensive, he, for one, should advocate its use. He regretted his hon. Friend the Member for Penryn (Mr. Eastwick) did not move for an inquiry into the whole question, including the mode of providing the necessary funds. The present system was, in his opinion, entirely erroneous, for the placing of lights was left dependent on two things—the caprice of the owners of ships and exercise of an unwise economy. He should like therefore to see the expenditure for the lighting of our coasts made an Imperial expenditure, for otherwise it was impossible that an object which it was most desirable to accomplish could be fully carried into effect. The lighting of the coast of France was superior to the lighting of our coasts, because in the former country, it was under Government control, and the funds for the purpose were drawn from Imperial sources, and it was matter for shame that the first maritime Power in the world should have a less efficient system than that which prevailed in a neighbouring country. In the case of buoys, too, everything was left to the experience of the Trinity Board or the local authorities, and great loss of life and property was the result. He saw no hope of inducing the House to take action upon this subject at present; but he hoped that it would not be allowed to drop, and that they would have a recommendation made to the House that would induce the Government to deal with the question as one of Imperial expenditure.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he understood his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Eastwick) desired to deal with the whole question of fog-signals. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should have referred
  1732
  to the fog-signals on the coast of the United States as being used sometimes for political ends. Such an argument as that he thought came with a bad grace from him as a Member of the Government, and it would have been well if he had let it alone. The United States Government had always shown its willingness to co-operate with us in any works calculated to benefit the maritime interests of the two nations, and he thought we might well imitate America in matters of the sort, when they set us such a noble example. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman also when he said that this was a subject which it was unnecessary at the present moment to delegate to a Royal Commission. There were some persons who were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Trinity House in connection with the lights and signals, and in leaving the question in their hands now, they were making them judges on their own case. He thought it was necessary to appoint an independent authority to inquire into the question, and for that reason he would give his cordial support to the Motion.
  MR. PEELsaid, what his right hon. Friend said was that they ought not to do anything in connection with this question in a desultory way, until the Committee now existing had reported; but he never said that it was not a subject fit for a Royal Commission. The Trinity House had furnished the Board of Trade with an immense amount of valuable information; and upon that information he did not think any sufficient case had been made out for the adoption of the American system in this country. As long as the two systems were radically difficult, it was impossible to compare them with each other.
  MR. G. BENTINCKexplained that that he had advocated the adoption of the French, not of the American system.
  MR. PEELremarked that it had been reported that our lighting system was vastly superior to that of any other nation. The hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Eastwick) had complained about the state of the lighting on the eastern coasts of Ireland, and he had especially alluded to that between Dublin and the Tuskar Rock; but he had no hesitation in saying that the state of that part of the coast as far as lighting was con-

  1733
  cerned was admirable, no less than six lights having been placed there since 1867. It was certainly a most dangerous part of the coast, but it was most efficiently protected.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE POLICE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. EYKYN,in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the Metropolitan Police, of the Borough and County Police in England and Wales, and also the system of superannuation, pay, and pensions, said, the subject was one in which considerable interest was taken by the House and the public generally. For some time the attitude that had been assumed towards the Police was one that excited considerable dissatisfaction, and the period had now arrived when not only the ratepayers, but those who contributed towards the annual expenditure from the Consolidated Fund should come to a distinct understanding as to the best means of giving the highest value to the Force. In the year 1870 he had placed upon the Table of the House a Motion for a Select Committee. Acting upon the best advice he could procure, he withdrew that Motion; but a clear impression was left upon his mind, that such alterations should be made in the Force by the Home Office, as would lead to a better understanding for the future, and extend to the Police more favourable terms. It was not his intention to go into all the causes which had. brought about the state of circumstances which could not but have been impressed upon the minds of hon. Members during last year. In the year 1851 the Police Force was in the highest state of organization it had ever attained before or since. The late Sir Richard Mayne had fulfilled his duty as Chief Commissioner of Police in a way that gave considerable satisfaction. The only regret they had was, that towards the later period of his life his energies had become warped, and he was not able to perform his duties with such ability as in the first instance. Sir Richard Mayne died about the year 1868, and. from that time forth there was one continued course of dissatisfaction with
  1734
  regard to the Force. He was not saying that in any unfair spirit towards the Home Secretary. In the year 1868 a very influential deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, introduced by Professor Marks. The object of the deputation was to represent to the right hon. Gentleman that a great change was about to take place in the administration of the Police, and to impress upon him the importance of the new appointment. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the deputation was, that, in the choice of the gentleman who would succeed Sir Richard Mayne, attention would be directed to the qualifications of the person who was best acquainted with the habits of criminals, who would be able to detect crime, and protect the public peace. Since the appointment of Colonel Henderson to be Chief Commissioner, however, there had been a change in the tone of the Force which was much to be deplored. No doubt that gentleman was a most able, painstaking, and conscientious man; but it sometimes happened that even such men were unfit to discharge responsible duties such as the Chief Commissioner of Police had to undertake. The experience of Colonel Henderson had been chiefly of a military character, and. it was to be feared that the military system was made to override all the civil authorities of the Force. Thus, at the present time, the administrative appointments of the Force were, with two exceptions, held by military men. He admitted that in the management of a Force of 10,000 men it might be necessary to resort to something in the nature of military discipline, but it was quite possible that that military discipline might entirely override all the objects for which the Force had been instituted. The state into which the Police Force had drifted last year and the year before was the cause of much disquietude to the metropolis. So critical had the attitude of the Force become that in answer to a Question addressed to him the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir Henry Storks) stated, that an application had been made to the Horse Guards to allow the Reserve men of the Army to join the Police, and. that a number of men were thereupon placed at the disposal of the Home Office; but whether these men had been enlisted in the Police he had been unable to discover. The whole

  1735
  attitude of the Police had been altered, because of the non-fulfilment of the promises that the superannuation allowance would be considered and equitably carried out. Deductions amounting to nearly £100,000 had been made, and since the year 1857 it had entirely disappeared, and the men were naturally dissatisfied, because the promises of superannuation had not been fulfilled. Under the scale of 1862, a man serving 15 years got half-pay, and after 24 years two-thirds pay; but under the altered scale 15 years' service entitled him to 15–50ths of his pay, while service up to 30 years was a title to a totally undefined amount, but after earning a pension by long service he was not allowed to retire unless he proved incompetency from ill-health or worn-out constitution. Those were the matters which had occasioned discontent among the Police Force. They sent petition after petition for an increase of pay, and they were justified in asking for that increase by the increased cost of the commodities of life. Some small concession was made, but so great was the discontent at one time that the men remonstrated in a mass. On entering their meeting, over which he had been asked to preside, he feared they were on the eve of striking and leaving the metropolis without protection; but he exerted all the influence he could, and, like sensible men, they resolved to return to their duty, since which time matters had gone on much as before. But still the question of superannuation was undecided. It was not among the Police of the metropolis alone that there was discontent. The Reports of the Government Inspectors and of the heads of the Scotch Police testified to the anxiety which prevailed to have the superannuation system placed on a more satisfactory footing, and there was hardly a town in England or Scotland from which he had not received communications from the Chiefs of the Police. They urged the consideration of the question by the Government, and assured him that were it settled no cause for discontent would remain. He believed, too, that whereas the physique and intellectual capacity of recruits had of late been below the proper standard, men of a higher class would then join the Force. In what state, he should like to ask the Home Secretary, was the detective Force at the present moment? No
  1736
  doubt, crime had greatly diminished; but the authorities must not take to themselves all the credit, as much of that result was due to ragged schools and reformatories. Dissatisfaction did not exist among the Police and Police Superintendents alone, but also among the Police magistrates above them. It was a serious matter to have discontent among the Police magistrates of London—the men to whom they looked for keeping London in order. The accounts of the Metropolitan Police were very large, involving an outlay for supplying nearly 10,000 men, and it was necessary that some inquiry should be made into those accounts, and if a Committee were appointed they might be able to eliminate a great deal from the accounts which would go to increase the scale of superannuation. Not being sanguine of any application by an independent Member being fully met, he was prepared to accept small favours from the Treasury bench. There were in England and Scotland 25,000 Police, and £61,000 was annually voted to make up the deficiency in the superannuation fund. Had the matter been properly managed in the first instance, however, there would have been no necessity for seeking relief through a Committee. The fund was mainly supported by fines and deductions from pay. He should prefer the men being paid their hardly-earned wages in full without deductions, for a policeman at the South Kensington Museum told him 18 months ago that, after maintaining his five or six children, he was not likely to taste meat during the ensuing year—a position hardly fair on an officer expected to cope with strong healthy men and to repress rioting. He need hardly refer to the bad feeling that existed amongst the Police at the rate of pay they received before the agitation of last year, and though they must accept with gratitude the addition which the right hon. Gentleman had made to their pay at that time, he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a more uniform pay of the police throughout the country. He thought too, that some effort should be made by which the Borough, the County, the Metropolitan, and the City Police might be amalgamated under one system for the entire country. With the facilities which telegraphs and railways provided, he was satisfied that an im-

  1737
  proved system might be established for the detection and suppression of crime. As an illustration of the bad effects of the want of uniformity now existing, he might state that if the Metropolitan Police had to arrest a criminal in the Borough of Heading, they would not receive the same facilities from the police of that borough as they would from the police of another division in the Metropolis, because the capture of a criminal in their borough would take away from their credit. In that way there was not absolute unanimity between the Borough and the County Police, and they did not work in that accord that they would if they were amalgamated. If such an improved system as he suggested were adopted, he would gladly see a Minister of Police sitting on the Treasury bench, and responsible to that House for duties of which he believed the Home Secretary would be very glad to divest himself, considering the enormous amount of work that was thrown upon his shoulders. He would suggest that that subject should be carefully taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentleman. There had been, as the Home Secretary well knew, great dissatisfaction in the Police, and he was sure that, unless steps were taken in the direction he had suggested, that dissatisfaction, instead of abating, would increase to an extent of which the House was little aware. It was clear to him that, though the Police were recently on the eve of a strike, the local authorities were not aware, nor did he believe the right hon. Gentleman himself was aware, of the danger of the position. If the authorities at Scotland Yard did not know the state of feeling then, how was it to be supposed that they would be any wiser in the future, when dissatisfaction was at work in the Force? It would be remembered that the Police had sent in a demand for an increase of pay, and the result showed how, when pressure was put upon the Department, the latter "caved in." The application was made in September, and a reply was sent from Colonel Henderson, who stated that after carefully considering the application of the constables of the N division, and with every wish to do all in his power for the welfare and comfort of the Metropolitan Police, he did not feel justified in recommending to the Home Secretary an increase of their pay; that it was only recently
  1738
  their pay had been augmented; that as regards the Police Fund it would be necessary to apply to Parliament before an addition could be made, and that he was not able to see sufficient ground to justify such an application to Parliament. What was the consequence? The extraordinary fact was, that though Colonel Henderson had written that letter, stating that he could not grant an increase of pay until Parliament met, when the men had broken into almost open rebellion, and had held a meeting at the Cannon Street Hotel, Scotland Yard became frightened, and increased the pay within a month of the application, without waiting for the meeting of Parliament. He should like to know under what circumstances, and by what authority, the Chief Commissioner of Police had dared to say to a large body of men, that he could not increase their pay until Parliament met, and then within a month granting their demand? The consequence of that sort of thing was that men ceased to have any confidence in the acts of those placed over them. He regretted that Colonel Henderson had ever written such a letter, and he much more regretted there had ever been any cause given; for, if Colonel Henderson had understood the situation as well as those outside the four walls of Scotland Yard, he would have known that the Police were in such a state of disaffection that London might have been at any moment deserted by them and left in a most dangerous condition. As a sample of the way in which business was conducted at the Home Office, he would refer to the period of the gas strikes, when the metropolis was on the eve of being left in darkness. At that time, the Chairman of the Imperial Gas Company communicated with the right hon. Gentleman, and informed him of the facts, expecting that the reply he should receive would be satisfactory; but the answer sent by Mr. Winterbotham, in the absence from town of the right hon. Gentleman, was that he could not in any way interfere between the company and their men. He must say that letter gave the Gas Companies much anxiety at the time, and he thought they had a right to expect something more than a mere refusal to interfere. He had occupied the time of the House at some length, and he would only say, in conclusion, that he wished a thorough in-

  1739
  vestigation should be made into the whole of the circumstances which had occurred with regard to the Police during the last five or six years, so as to prevent, as far as possible, a recurrence of the evidences of that disorganization which was very far from being settled yet. The right hon. Gentleman would only be doing justice to those acting under him, if he made a thorough investigation into all the circumstances of this important question, so as to relieve those who had ventured to bring the matter forward from further responsibility in dealing with the case hereafter. He begged to propose the Motion which stood in his name.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is right that I should inform the hon. Gentleman that, the House having already declared that the words—"That I do now leave the Chair," stand part of the Question, his Amendment cannot now be moved. Therefore, it is only open to him to call the attention of the House to the circumstances he has brought forward.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had expected that as the subject brought forward by the hon. Gentleman was important as affecting not only a large body of men, but also the preservation of order and the prevention and detection of crime, the House would have presented a very different aspect from its aspect at that moment. The fact, however, of the scanty attendance of hon. Members proved how little importance was attached to the criticisms of the hon. Member. The Motion, as it stood upon the Notice Paper, embraced the condition of the Police in counties and boroughs, as well as in the metropolis; and yet the speech had been confined almost entirely to the state of the Metropolitan Police; and, in the course of it, the hon. Gentleman had repeated a great many of the statements he (Mr. Bruce) had been under the necessity more than once of correcting—statements, he must observe, which were highly coloured and largely inaccurate, and which he must again meet with denial. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Metropolitan Police were in the highest state of efficiency in 1851; that they had somewhat deteriorated between that time and 1868, when the deterioration became rapid; and that deterioration he attributed entirely to the military character impressed on the Police. When the Police Force was in-
  1740
  stituted by the late Sir Robert Peel it was placed under the command of a military man, Colonel Rowan, and Sir Richard Mayne, a civilian. On the death of Colonel Rowan, another soldier was associated with Sir Richard Mayne; and on his death, in 1850, Sir Richard Mayne, having very considerable powers of organization and command, was left in sole management of the Force. It became a model Force, and was studied as such by many European Governments. Sir Richard Mayne, however, was, all through, most ably assisted by two Assistant Commissioners. In 1868, Sir Richard Mayne having died, it was quite true a large body of gentlemen did him the honour to wait upon him, 'and urged the necessity of appointing a civilian, in order to get rid of the military character of the Force. He remembered asking those gentlemen in what the military character of the Force consisted, and he found that they had the most extraordinary notions upon the subject. When he asked whether a Police Force in a population of 3,000,000 could be wholly devoid of a military character, they admitted that it could not, and said they only objected to the excess. When he informed them that the greatest amount of drill a policeman ever went through was only 14 days when, often a mere rustic, he first joined the Force; and that afterwards it was but 20 or 25 hours in the course of the year, the deputation expressed astonishment, and, as reasonable men, were obliged to admit that such an amount of drill could not be considered excessive. They also recommended that greater attention should be paid to the prevention of crime, and said that much might be done to increase the value of the Force as a detective body. Well, much of that recommendation had been carried out. The assurance which he gave to the deputation had been read by the hon. Gentleman, and he would ask the House whether he had not strictly redeemed the promises he had made. But here he must say that great and gross injustice had been done to a very valuable public servant. The hon. Gentleman did not question the military talents of Colonel Henderson, and said he knew he had acquired great reputation as a soldier. But if Colonel Henderson had acquired this reputation as a soldier, it was at a very early period of his

  1741
  life, for after six years he ceased to perform military duties, and from that period he had discharged none but civil duties. What were those civil duties? When Colonel Henderson had been some six years in the service, he and another military man were appointed by Earl Grey to trace the boundaries between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and that task he performed at great personal risk, his colleague having died from exposure and labour. He was then appointed with another Engineer officer to lay out the line of railway between Halifax and Quebec; and, with infinite labour, he did lay out a line which had since been adopted in every material respect. In fact, Earl Grey was so much struck by his abilities, that when he was founding a new convict settlement in Western Australia, Colonel (then Captain) Henderson was chosen to superintend it. He went out with 250 convicts, and, though no preparation was made beforehand, he carried out the project successfully, and for 13 years remained at the head of the settlement. During that time he was a Member of the Legislative Council, and obtained an amount of civil experience which could only be obtained in such a colony. After 15 years' service he returned, in 1863, to this country. At that time great attention was being paid to the question of prison discipline and penal servitude, and great complaints were made and many unjust aspersions directed against the late Sir Joshua Jebb, as to the working of the system he had superintended. A Royal Commission was sitting when Sir Joshua Jebb died, and the Chairman, Earl Grey, struck with the knowledge Colonel Henderson displayed of prison discipline, recommended him to the Home Secretary as successor to Sir Joshua Jebb. After five years' service in that capacity, during which he introduced many valuable reforms, he was appointed to succeed Sir Richard Mayne. That, however, was not done without the most careful consideration of the qualifications of all the applicants, civilians and others. It was Colonel Henderson's successful career that recommended him for the post of Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Now, let the House consider what the consequences might have been if he had overlooked the claims of Colonel Henderson, and
  1742
  appointed a mere civilian to the post. What proof could a civilian give of fitness to command a Force of 10,000 men? What opportunities could a civilian have of qualifying himself for such a position? There might, no doubt, be men with faculties for command lying unsuspected, like those of Oliver Cromwell, but how was he to discover them? It would have been a most flagrant violation of duty to appoint to the office some one who had not given proof of his ability to conduct such a department. The hon. Gentleman said that Colonel Henderson had imparted a military character to the Force to a degree unknown to Sir Richard Mayne. The hon. Gentleman, in his speech at a meeting of the Metropolitan Police, in October, 1872, said—
  "First, it is clear to me that the Police never was and never ought to be considered as a military power in this country. I repeat it again—it is a very serious matter when any transformation from a purely civil into a semi-military Force is attempted in this country. The difficulty that will naturally arise if this course is pursued is, that you in troublous times might be called upon to perform duties which belong to the military power behind you. It is not for you to assume the tone which belongs to that profession who are paid so to protect us. Yet the whole atmosphere which surrounds the police is one of a dragooning nature."
  Well, one might perhaps, conceive an atmosphere created by artillery, but an atmosphere of "a dragooning nature" was something new to him. But where was the proof? The hon. Gentleman could not produce any, and was it just, right, or fair, when statements of this sort had been publicly contradicted by the responsible Minister, to go on and repeat them as the hon. Gentleman had done? What wore the facts? What had been the principal changes made by Colonel Henderson? He had added nothing to the amount of drill through which the men went at the time Sir Richard Mayne was Chief Commissioner; but, while he had not altered the military aspect of the Force, he had, certainly, strengthened it as a detective Force, and with the best results. When Colonel Henderson came to the head of the Force, in 1869, he found at Scotland Yard only 17 detectives—namely, 1 Superintendent, 4 Inspectors, and 12 Sergeants. From that day to this he had been steadily increasing them—feeling his way, of

  1743
  course, because you could not create a Force of that peculiar character all at once. The present number of detectives was 252—namely, the Superintendent, 6 Inspectors, 40 serjeants, and 205 constables. And that Force had undoubtedly borne a large share in the reduction of grave crime which had been brought about in the metropolis. He fully admitted that the diminution of crime was due to more causes than one—and he had over and over again borne testimony to the happy effect of Reformatory Institutions all over the country. But for all that there could be no doubt that a very considerable part of the diminution was owing to the increased efficiency of the detective Force. In 1869, there were 163 detectives, and the convictions obtained by them were 1,533; in 1870 the number of detectives being still 163, the convictions were 3,263; in 1871, the detectives being 183, the convictions were 3,537; and in 1872, the detectives being 203, the convictions were 3,904; and there were now 252 detectives. In addition to that, Colonel Henderson had established, to the great satisfaction of the public, a system of what was called "fixed points." In 1869 108 constables were, for the first time, stationed at certain points in the metropolis, and there were now 211 who were always to be found at given places for the protection of the neighbourhood. Then there were 161 constables specially posted at hackney-carriage standings, and available if their services were required. More than that, Colonel Henderson had established, with the most remarkable results, what might be called brigades of policemen in plain clothes, who patrolled the districts in which night crimes, such as burglary and house-breaking, were most frequently committed. For instance, between Westminster and Kensington, a district which had been remarkably subject to such crimes, from last October up to the present time not one single case had been committed. He would give the House some remarkable statistics. Since Colonel Henderson and, he might say, the present Government had come into office—for both entered on their duties nearly at the same time—the statistics of crime were as follows:—In 1869 the indictable offences against property were 17,388; burglary and house-breaking, 479; robbery, 118; larceny up to £5, 956; larceny
  1744
  from the person, 1,597; receiving stolen goods, 277. In 1870 the same class of crimes were respectively 14,871, 453, 92, 775, 1,198, and 154. In 1871 they were 12,652, 433, 83, 733, 1,178, and 96. In 1872 they were 12,732, 344, 60, 575, 1,174, and 116. That list showed a diminution in crime to the extent of seine 4,500 cases. Since Colonel Henderson's appointment, therefore, the cases of burglary had fallen from 479 to 344; robbery, 118 to 60; the more important cases of larceny, 956 to 575; larceny from the person, 1,597 to 1,174; receiving stolen goods, from 277 to 116. The number of houses of bad fame had been reduced from 1,740 in 1869 to 1,148 in 1872; and the number of known thieves at large from 4,336 in 1869, to 3,115 in 1872. It did seem to him a monstrous charge to say that Colonel Henderson had done nothing but stamp a military character upon the Police Force, when he could point to such results as these. One argument used by the hon. Gentleman, which he apparently thought quite convincing, was based on an entire misapprehension of the facts. The hon. Member stated that Colonel Henderson experienced so much difficulty in recruiting the Force that application had been made by the Home Office to the War Office for permission to employ 600 soldiers of the Army Reserve in the Police Force. The fact out of which this fiction had grown pointed to an entirely opposite conclusion to that come to by the hon. Member. The application had come from the Secretary of War, who had requested that the men of the Army Reserve should not be excluded from the Police Force, and the application was made for fear that such exclusion might prevent men entering the Army Reserve. The application was considered, and it was determined that the members of the Army Reserve might be admitted to the Force, provided the number of men so admitted did not exceed 500. Since June last the number of Army Reserve men admitted to the Police Force had been 30, and it was upon this meagre substratum of fact that the hon. Member had seen fit to build one of his chief arguments. Out of a Force of 9,800 men, many of whom were employed in the dockyards and other public Departments, only 700 had formerly been in the Army. No one could doubt the advantage of having

  1745
  a small infusion of men who had been subject to the discipline of the Army enlisted among the Police; such men offered advantages over the raw recruit which no Chief Commissioner would fail to appreciate. Considering the character of the ordinary recruit, the time which must necessarily elapse before he could be allowed to go alone, and the delicate character of the duties the Police had to discharge, it was really satisfactory that the Force could be maintained in its present state of efficiency, and that complaints against the Force were not more numerous. The last charge brought by the hon. Member against Colonel Henderson was such as would shake public confidence in him if it could be proved; but the circumstances in which Colonel Henderson was placed were altogether peculiar. The force of 9,800 men under his control was maintained, not like other Police Forces, by a fund which could always be made equal to the demands upon it, but by a fixed rate. Any substantial increase in their pay, therefore, would necessitate an appeal to Parliament, and Colonel Henderson found that the increased pay which should be given, if any change were made, would necessitate an additional expenditure of £90,000. Believing that the proceeds of the fixed rate would not be sufficient for this increased charge, Colonel Henderson declined to recommend it, and the hon. Member had assured the House that it was through his influence alone that the decision did not result in something like a general strike. The hon. Gentleman, however, had calumniated the Police by that statement. The majority of the Force was loyal in the extreme, and viewed the action of those whose hasty conduct gave rise to the surmise of the hon. Gentleman with great dissatisfaction. But he (Mr. Bruce) had considered the rise of wages all over the country, and had come to the conclusion that the men were justified in asking for an advance of pay, and as soon as he found, on his return to town, that it could be granted without calling for the intervention of Parliament, he no longer delayed acceeding to their application. The refusal to go on duty which actually occurred was the result of a sudden resolution adopted without discussion, it lasted only two hours, and was confined to a very few men, and the whole Force had
  1746
  since been in sound condition. The hon. Gentleman, however, had taken the very responsible position of presiding at a meeting of the Police, held without the permission of the authorities. In such a position he was bound to use language of the most cautious description; but what did the House think of the following exhibition of discretion? The hon. Member said—
  "Why is it that in 20 months 2,000 Police have left the Force, and that an inferior class of men are now, joining? The question is answered simply—'Because of the shortness of pay, and the absence of any inducement to remain.' I believe that if the Home Office, during the last Session of Parliament, had drawn up a scheme of superannuation, this meeting would never have been called."
  The hon. Member had said he had taken great pains to ascertain the facts; but—from whatever cause—he had made a serious mistake, which an examination of public documents would have enabled him to correct. Now, what were the facts? He would refer them to the Reports, and instead of taking 20 months, would take the full two years. He found that in 1871 the number of voluntary resignations was 257; and in 1872, 383, making in all a total of 640. Well, considering the inducements held out to the Police to take other situations, he thought the number was not a very considerable one. Then, for comparison, let them take the years 1865 and 1866, when the Force was much less numerous than it was now, and they would find that the number of resignations was 803. Indeed, whether they judged by the number of voluntary resignations, or by the number of compulsory resignations, they would find that in recent years there had been a large decrease. He came now to what he considered a substantial grievance, not only in regard to the Metropolitan Police Force, but in regard to the Police of the whole country. He referred to the superannuation fund, and he admitted that if there were a chance of carrying it he would gladly submit a Bill on the subject to Parliament. The present scale of superannuation, which was that drawn up by Sir George Grey, had not yet come into operation, and could not come into operation for two or three years. It was, no doubt, possible to improve that scale. And in regard to the Provincial Police Forces greater security was needed in

  1747
  the fund out of which the pensions were payable. Unfortunately, however, it was impossible to deal with the question now, even for the purpose of procuring a better class of recruits for the Police Force, for both sides of the House were exceedingly sensitive as to anything relating to the increase of rates, and he thought Parliament would be disinclined to take up this matter until some understanding was come to as to the relative burdens that should be borne by the Local and Imperial Exchequers. Within certain limits, however, the Secretary of State was empowered to deal with the superannuation of the Metropolitan Police, and he hoped to be able to make some changes which would be no more than just, and would have a beneficial effect upon the future of the Force. The hon. Member asked for the appointment of a Select Committee. Now, the fact was that Select Committees at present sitting were 19 in number, and consisted of 275 Members, and these were Committees on public matters, and did not include a large number of Committees on Private Bills. Motions would also shortly be made for the appointment of three more Public Committees. Now, the question of superannuation would require the consideration of the most experienced Members of the House, and no doubt it would strengthen the hands of the Government if a distinct recommendation were made by a Committee so composed; but he feared it would be useless at that period of the Session to undertake such an inquiry. However, if the House genes rally wished for it, he would be quite disposed to consent to a Committee on the superannuation question, but he would view with something like alarm their entering into the larger questions which had been proposed. The hon. Member proposed that the whole body of Police throughout the country should be put under the authority of one Secretary of State. From that proposal he (Mr. Bruce) shrank with something like horror. He was old enough to remember the agitation caused by the proposal to institute a County Police; but it would be as nothing compared with the agitation which would ensue if the Government sought to take into their hands the management of the entire Police Force throughout the country, and it would be denounced on
  1748
  every side as an attempt at centralization. In conclusion, he must say that the hon. Gentleman had brought serious charges against the management of the Metropolitan Police, and especially against the distinguished man now at the head of that force; but he (Mr. Bruce) hoped he had shown that these charges were altogether unfounded, and that, judging by any criterion you pleased—in their detection of crime or general good conduct—the Metropolitan Police Force ought to stand as high as ever it stood in the good opinion of the country.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that there had been a great amount of dissatisfaction expressed throughout the Police Force in counties, in consequence of this scheme of superannuation having been dangled before their eyes for the last 10 or 12 years. There was a strong disinclination on the part of men to enter the Force, and when they asked the reason they found that it was generally connected with the superannuation fund. With regard to the military character of the Force, he trusted that it would never be drilled more than was necessary to make the men move in order.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he was of opinion, that if there was greater unity of action between the County and the Borough Police in the rural districts it would tend much to prevent crime. At present, owing to the want of proper combination and concert between the two parties, much crime escaped detection. As to the Select Committees he had made the same calculation, and had arrived at the same result as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and, in consequence of the number of Committees, it was difficult now to select Members for the discharge of those duties. Much of the difficulty that existed was owing to the practice of appointing more numerous Committees than formerly were appointed; for whereas no Committee used to consist of more than 15 Members, now there was one Committee of 17 Members, four of 19, one of 21, and one of 30. The result was—the subjects referred to the Committees were not better, but were less thoroughly investigated; and in a recent instance, the quorum had to be reduced because the Members did not attend. He called upon the Government to resist the appoint-

  1749
  ment of these largo Committees and keep as much as possible to the old rules.
  MR. PAGETsaid, he had hoped that the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) would have come down to the House in penitential garb and expressed regret for the part he took last autumn; for, of all the mischievous agitations, that affecting the Metropolitan Police was the most mischievous. It was very well for the hon. Member to say to the Police—"Do not strike," which was much like the advice—"Don't nail his ears to the pump." That was the Gentleman who would have the House believe that his interference was the sole reason why the strike did not assume greater proportions than it did. He (Mr. Paget) did not think it right that this debate should end without a distinct protest against that action of the hon. Member. The Secretary for the Home Department had distinctly proved that many of the statements made on the occasion referred to were utterly unfounded; he (Mr. Paget) himself had had opportunities of becoming acquainted with the facts of the case as they then happened, and was convinced that the operations of the hon. Member were most mischievous, and that his supposition as to military organization had no foundation, and was merely a fiction of his own brain. The Secretary for the Home Department had made a most able defence of a Force which was so thoroughly good in itself that he (Mr. Paget) thought it scarcely needed any defence; indeed, everyone who knew the Police Force and the immense difficulties of the duties they had to perform knew how well, as a rule, those duties were performed. With regard to superannuation, he was quite satisfied that an investigation was necessary after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and he only hoped the right hon. Gentleman would urge the Government to deal with the questions of rating and local taxation, so as to enable him to carry into effect those reforms with regard to superannuation which he was so anxious to accomplish.
  MR. EYKYNwished to ask whether the Home Secretary—[Cries of "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to make an explanation, but not to reply.
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman the
  1750
  Home Secretary's promise in regard to the Select Committee.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that with regard to superannuation his statement was this—that if there was anything like a general desire on the part of the House that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider that subject, he should not offer any opposition. But no intimation had been made that such an investigation was desired by the general body of the House, or by the more experienced Members.

  ARMY FINE FUND.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts on Army Services, and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the balance of the Fine Fund therein referred to, should be paid into the Exchequer," said, that the main object he had in view was to show that on a very important point the War Office had been retrograde. About four years ago a proposal was made by the War Office that the fines inflicted upon soldiers for drunkenness should go to form a separate fund, out of which the sober and well-conditioned soldier should be rewarded. That proposal was acceded to by the Treasury, although not without some hesitation, the requirements being that a public statement should be made as to the receipts and expenditure of the amount. It seemed, however, that from 1869, when the Fund was first established, no public account of it appeared until this year, and that account was produced in February last on the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot). The Fund amounted, on a balance being struck at the end of last year, to £45,000. He thought it was wrong, and contrary to the usual practice with regard to the Estimates, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to have withheld the Fund from the notice of Parliament for a number of years, especially considering how liberally Parliament had voted money for the Army; for, on looking back to the Army Estimates for the last three years, he found that certain sums of money had been paid on that account, and that £7,000 had been proposed and voted as gratuities for long service and good con-

  1751
  duct, to soldiers on their discharge, and a further sum of £1,000 to enable soldiers to settle in the Colonies. That sum was voted in 1869, and a similar amount in 1870 and 1871; and this year a similar sum was inserted in the Estimates which they were about to vote. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War had been unable to expend the whole of the Fund, because at the end of three years he was in possession of a balance of £45,852, the calls upon the Fund having been extremely trifling. In fact, there was no object to which the money could be applied in consequence of the soldier's position having been of late so greatly ameliorated. By the Resolution he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had intended to move, had he not been prevented by the forms of the House, he proposed that the balance accumulated on the 31st of March, 1872, should be paid into the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman would probably say that the soldiers had believed that that would be a Fund set apart for soldiers' uses, and that they would feel aggrieved if the fines were diverted from the purposes to which the War Office intended to devote them. But why should the soldier object to the money being paid into the Exchequer, any more than the civilian objected to the fines imposed on him for drunkenness being paid into the county or borough rate for the public good? All the soldiers' wants were provided for by the public, and he would have no right to complain if this Fund were appropriated in the way he suggested. He did not desire, on that occasion, to question the policy of the arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that of inflicting fines on soldiers for drunkenness, and of rewarding others for sobriety; but he would remind hon. Members of the great dangers and difficulties which arose from the fact of balances remaining in the hands of persons who were not directly responsible to Parliament, and would point out that the able gentleman who represented the War Office before the Committee on Public Accounts stated, that in his opinion the public rather gained by this money being left at the War Office, and that it would be a great advantage if the balance should very largely increase. Such was not the spirit which characterized the House of Commons, and he hoped that the right
  1752
  hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Government, would give them a full explanation of the whole matter, and the course they proposed to take. If that was not done he should reserve the right, at a suitable opportunity, of moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTremarked that, of course, for the same reason as assigned by the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last he should be precluded from moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper to the effect—
  "That the balance of the Fines Fund may equitably be applied to the provision of gratuities for those non-commissioned officers and soldiers, whether still serving or discharged, who, though eligible for the same under Royal Warrant 27th December 1870 (paragraphs 896–905), have not received them, owing to the insufficiency of the amount voted by Parliament for that purpose."
  He believed the fund amounted to no less than £45,000 in 1872, and was probably now £60,000. That large sum, he ventured to submit, might reasonably be employed in the interest of the well-conducted men of the Army. He wished to guard himself against being supposed to approve of the principle of rewarding well-conducted soldiers with sums of money obtained from the pay of ill-conducted men. He objected to that on military grounds, on which it was unnecessary for him to dwell; but the question did not arise in this case, as his proposal only went to this extent, that the sum of money of which they had unexpectedly found themselves in possession, accumulated from the Fine Fund, and not the amount realized by the Fund in future, should be applied in the manner suggested in his Amendment. In the Treasury Minute, their Lordships appeared to treat this Fund as if it stood on the same footing as the pay of soldiers who absented themselves. This was not the case. The pay of absentees was stopped, but in addition further military punishment was inflicted. In cases of drunkenness the fine was usually the only penalty. "My Lords" declared that it was not desirable to "offer public rewards for sobriety." But a civilian might get drunk in his own house without offending the law, whereas the mere fact of a soldier being drunk anywhere was a punishable offence. Up to three or four years ago the small book furnished to every soldier contained ex-

  1753
  tracts from a Royal Warrant which led them to believe that after 18 years of irreproachable service they would be entitled to a medal, carrying with it a gratuity which they would receive on quitting the service. Since then, however, another regulation had been inserted in the soldiers' books, in which it was provided that the amount should not exceed £40 for 900 men. How inadequate that sum was would appear from the case of the Royal Artillery. That force consisted of 36,000 men, and £40 among every 900 would give £1,600 for the whole regiment. For several years 100 men had been on the average discharged who had qualified themselves to receive these gratuities, but had never obtained them, mid this year there would be about 1,000 men serving in the Artillery alone who were never likely to get a shilling of their money though actually qualified. But it did not end there. In many regiments where the soldiers were very young, the sum of money to which the regiments were entitled was not taken up, and the surplus, instead of going to the benefit of other regiments, went back to the Exchequer. He believed an inquiry had taken place, or was taking place, into the subject of pecuniary rewards and bonuses to soldiers. He had not much faith in War Office inquiries; but he hoped that in this case he might not be disappointed, and that some comprehensive scheme for settling the matter would be adopted. If not he reserved to himself ate opportunity of moving for a Select Committee, perhaps not until next Session, to inquire into the whole subject of medals and gratuities.
  MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMANsaid, that before the present Government took office—namely, in 1867–8—representations reached the military authorities complaining of the system then in existence for punishing drunkenness. Those representations were made by military men of high position and great authority, including Sir William Mansfield, who as Commander-in-Chief in India pointed out that the existing punishment was ineffectual, and advised that a system of fines should be substituted. Sir William Mansfield's letter was remitted to Mr. Mowbray, then Judge Advocate General, who cordially endorsed his suggestion. The Duke of
  1754
  Cambridge thereupon appointed a departmental Committee, which after taking evidence, recommended that the crime of drunkenness should be dealt with by a system of fines, laid down a scale of fines, and said they considered that it was—
  "Essential to the success of any such system, that the fines should he formed into a separate fund, and should, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War, be applied towards increasing the rewards to well-conducted men, or to other objects for the general improvement of the soldier's condition."
  Sir John Pakington referred the Report of this Committee to the Royal Commission then sitting on Court Martials, which was not composed only of soldiers, but of which many civilians of high authority were members, Colonel Wilson-Patten being Chairman. The Royal Commissioners in their first Report expressed their agreement with the Committee, in the opinion that the existing system of punishments for drunkenness was not only ineffectual, but that it demoralized the men subjected to such punishments. They also expressed their concurrence with the Committee in the recommendation already quoted from their Report, and in the belief that such an application of fines would tend materially to secure the general concurrence of the Army in the alteration. In their second and final Report they again recommended that the fines should "constitute a fund for the benefit of the Army generally." Upon that Report of the Royal Commission, in 1869 the necessary alteration was made with the concurrence of the House in the Mutiny Act and in the Articles of War under the Mutiny Act. In April, 1869, a General Order was issued to the Army, which was as usual read to the troops, and which declared that—
  "The amount accruing from the fines for drunkenness should be formed into a General Fund, to be applied under the Secretary of State to objects tending to the benefit of the soldiers of the Army generally."
  On the 1st of May, 1869, the new system came into operation. It then became the duty of the Secretary of State to find out how he could best apply these Funds for the benefit of the Army generally. His right hon. Friend appointed a Committee, which made a Report. That Committee made certain proposals for a system of gratuities under which they

  1755
  estimated the expenditure at £11,000, but it turned out to be only £5,923, while the receipts had been greater than they anticipated; but it must be remembered that it was absolutely necessary that a large sum should be kept on hand to meet the case of any sudden falling off in the income. The disbursements did not commence until January, 1871, when the balance already in hand was £27,000, and that it was a wise precaution to be under the mark in calculating expenditure was shown by a passage of the Treasury letter sanctioning the new system to the effect that—
  "Under no circumstances will my Lords sanction any expenditure in aid of the Fine Fund should the rate of distributing it prove greater than it will support."
  The whole thing was, of course, purely tentative, and as to the accusation which had been brought against his right hon. Friend on the score of delay, he could only say that the delay was premeditated. He could not possibly have known until the beginning of this year what the amount of the accumulation would be, and the moment he got the necessary information on the subject, his right hon. Friend gave instructions that, the Fund being so large, it should be shown on the face of the Estimates, in order that nothing might be done in the matter without the cognizance of that House. In the next place, he had referred the subject to the Military Secretary, the Deputy Adjutant General, and to himself (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) in order that they might see in what way it was desirable that the Fund should be expended, so as to keep pace with its income. Although it was said that it would be found impossible to spend it, he could assure the House that there were various ways in which it could be expended, and the Committee of which he was a member had been looking into the question. It was one, however, which required great consideration, and the two distinguished officers with whom he was associated had been procuring all the requisite information from those who were connected with the working of the Army, with the view of ascertaining in what way the money could be best laid out. Nothing had been done in this matter by the War Office without the full authority both of a Royal Commission, of the Treasury,
  1756
  and, so far as it was required, of Parliament. A somewhat similar arrangement had, he believed, been made a short time ago in the case of the Navy, and the Regimental Debts Act of 1863 provided that the unclaimed effects of soldiers might, after the lapse of a certain time, be formed into a fund to be bestowed in a certain way for the benefit of the soldier. There were precedents, therefore, for the present case, and both the Treasury and the House of Commons had authorized the adoption of a similar course. It was not desirable then, he contended, under those circumstances, to break faith with the soldier, and to go back on what had been done when the money could be expended in the way originally intended, and in accordance with the promise which had been made to the Army. The system of fines had been most advantageous to the Army, and it was only by maintaining this fund that that system could be continued.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to look on the question as a financial and not as a military one, and contended that it was irregular to depart, even with the assent of the Treasury, which had been expressed in a very hesitating manner, from the long-recognized rule that all extra receipts should be paid into the Exchequer. It was an evasion of a national obligation to supplement votes of Parliament from irregular and unknown sources. Parliament would not for a moment hesitate to vote money for the reward of deserving soldiers, and he hoped the House would set its face against the practice to which attention had been called. He could not regret with his hon. Friend the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), the increase in the Army Estimates. However widely on many points of military policy he differed from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office, he could not help acknowledging that, so far as the re-organization and consolidation of the Army were concerned, he had done more for the service than any Minister of our time.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he thought that any change in the present mode of distributing the money would cause great discontent after the General Order which had been issued, and which bad been well received by the Army. Under

  1757
  these circumstances, he could not support the Motion.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to divert them from the real point at issue. No one wanted to go back to the punishment of imprisonment in the Army, nor did they object that the fines imposed should find their way back to the Army as rewards for good conduct. All they wanted was that the fines should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the money given for rewards should be voted by Parliament.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought that this was a very important matter, utterly irrespective of this particular discussion. The question was, whether they were to revert to the old system of Departments having special funds to deal with, without the control of Parliament, or without the sums appearing upon the Estimates. It was formerly the practice for every Department to endeavour to obtain a fund which they could dispose of without the matter being brought under discussion in the House. The House had, for a series of years, set its face against this practice, and when he was Secretary to the Treasury he brought in a Bill, which was carried, to enable the Treasury to require all extra receipts to be paid into the Exchequer; and he considered that in that way, he had put an end in principle to this system of special funds. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to divert the issue, by giving an interesting account of the change in the mode of punishing drunkenness in the Army; but the question was, whether the fines should be carried to a special fund, or paid over to the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman said, that the attention of Parliament was called to the alteration in the Mutiny Act, which enabled the fines to be employed in the way mentioned; but they all knew that the Mutiny Act was passed in blank; that the usual clauses were not even printed, and probably no one but the officials of the War Office knew of the introduction of these particular clauses in the Mutiny Bill. There was nothing in Hansard to show that the subject had ever been mooted in the House. But even if attention had been called to the new clauses, it would only amount to this—that the House had sanctioned drunken soldiers being fined instead of
  1758
  imprisoned, and not that the fines should be employed in rewarding well-conducted soldiers. The hon. Gentleman said, that it was the intention of the War Office to present to Parliament an account of these fines; but down to the present time, he believed that no such statement appeared upon the Estimates. It had been suggested that the fines should be applied for the benefit of the Army. Now, that had nothing to do with the proposition before the House. If rewards were to be given for good conduct, they ought to be voted by Parliament. As to the question of policy, it had been stated that this policy had received the sanction of Parliament. That, no doubt, was true; but the question of the payment of bounties for good conduct had never been brought before Parliament. It was a radical fault that to a certain extent, Parliament had been kept in the dark as to the policy of the War Office on this point. In his opinion, the policy of the payment of gratuities for good conduct and sobriety under the Army Circular of 1872 was deserving of notice. He considered it an inducement to every soldier in the Army to make every other soldier in the Army drunk. Clause 1 stated that—
  "The fines inflicted upon soldiers for drunkenness are appropriated for the purpose of giving gratuities to well-conducted soldiers on receiving their discharge from the Army.
  The 2nd clause stated that—
  "The scale of gratuities will be regulated annually, according to the state of the general fund, and will be known by the Army from time to time."
  Therefore the larger the fund obtained from fines for drunkenness, the larger would be the distribution of gratuities to well-conducted soldiers. If every well-conducted soldier saw his way to making all his fellow-soldiers drunk the larger would be the share of the fund at his disposal upon his discharge if he had conducted himself well and soberly. Such a system might be productive of great inconvenience in the Army. That was a matter well worthy of discussion, and if there had not been a special fund it would have been discussed before. But the question was, whether the special fund should cease, and the money should be paid into the Exchequer. It had been said that we ought not to commit a breach of faith with the soldier. It was not proposed to do any

  1759
  such thing. The only question was, whether these gratuities should be voted by Parliament.
  MR. CARDWELLremarked that the question had been brought down to more rational proportions by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Although the right hon. Gentleman was so jealous of any Minister having the command of any fund without its being under the control of Parliament, yet, during the period when he was Secretary of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had not thought it necessary to bring the Army Reserve Fund under the control of Parliament. When he (Mr. Cardwell) went into office, and found that the Secretary of War had the power of administering the Army Reserve Fund without the control of Parliament, it appeared to him necessary to put an end to that state of things; and he included that fund in the Estimates, for the express purpose that it should always be brought within the control of Parliament. With regard also to this particular fund, he had lost no time in giving directions that it should be dealt with in the Estimates. He therefore agreed with the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and claimed credit for giving them practical effect. The reason why the item for good conduct rewards had not been included in the present year's Estimate was because, the sum expended under the advice of Colonel Stephenson's Committee not being as large as the soldiers were entitled to, a new Committee had been appointed to advise on the proper scale of expenditure, but it had not yet reported. It was intended to reprint Vote 17 for the purpose of bringing that fund, as in the case of the Army Reserve Fund, under the control of Parliament. It would really be very difficult to conduct the Government, if, after Royal Commissions consisting of the most distinguished men had been appointed by one Government, and their Reports laid before Parliament by their successors, and Parliament had been amply informed of every step that had been taken, it were to be said that Parliament had no knowledge of the matter whatever. In his judgment, it would be unadvisable to pay in the amount of this fund to the Exchequer, because the effect of such a course would be to swell both the Army Estimates and the Treasury receipts by a
  1760
  sum that was really paid with the one hand and received by the other. It would also be a dangerous matter to take possession of this fund, as it would give rise to suspicions in the soldier's mind which it might be difficult to remove. That, however, would be entirely obviated by the course which he (Mr. Cardwell) had suggested of bringing the matter before Parliament in the annual Vote, exactly in the same way in which he formerly brought forward the Army Reserve Fund.
  GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTconcurred in the general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary of State for War, although he thought reasons might be adduced for departing from them on certain occasions. As to the objections made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) in respect to the undue accumulation of this fund, the answer just given to him by the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly sound and complete. He (Sir Percy Herbert) certainly thought, now that some idea could be formed as to its average receipts, it exceedingly objectionable that any large sum should be allowed to accumulate in the fund referred to. It would be most objectionable to pay this fund into the Exchequer, because soldiers and sailors were very sensitive upon all matters that affected their pay and allowances, and any dealing with this fund might affect recruiting. It was quite possible if this Fund were dealt with in the way proposed that soldiers might receive the impression that this system was a mere dodge by which the recent increase in their pay was to be balanced by means of fines. For that reason, it was, in his opinion, quite right that the annual receipts and disbursements in relation to this subject should be placed annually before Parliament in a clear and distinct manner.
  MR. HUNTwished to correct an error the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into in regard to the Army Reserve Fund. The right hon. Gentleman thought he (Mr. Hunt) had had an opportunity of dealing with that fund. It had been reported on by the Committee in 1868, but he went out of office in that year.

  RUSSIA—BRITISH GRAVES IN THE CRIMEA.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to call attention to the Report of General Adye and Colonel Gordon, that had been issued with regard to the condition of British cemeteries in the Crimea. It appeared that the French cemetery at Scutari was placed in the charge of a serjeant of Royal Engineers, who resided in a cottage in the vicinity. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) thought that a similar appointment should be made by Her Majesty's Government in the Crimea, in order to protect the cemeteries of Sebastopol, which had suffered considerable damages from the cattle that were allowed to browse over them, and still more from the wind and weather. His own observation, when recently at Sebastopol, where he was most kindly taken over the cemeteries and battlefields by Colonel Himmelman, the Chief Engineer there, led him to confirm the statements of the Report, that the monuments had suffered rather from time and weather than from the desecrations of the Tartar population, though he was sorry to learn from a letter which had been given him since he came into the House that the grave of General Strang-ways had been opened by robbers. He would give the House some extracts from the Report of General Adye and Colonel Gordon, showing the gradual destruction of the British monuments. The Russians had built a magnificent church in connection with the cemetery where their soldiers were buried, the French had collected their remains in one cemetery, and the Report had recommended that a monument should be constructed in England and sent out for erection on Cathcart's Hill, there being every reason to believe that the Russian Government would offer every facility.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. R. N. FOWLER,in continuation, said, he very much regretted that more interest was not shown in the subject by hon. and gallant Gentlemen who had fought in the Crimea, and by the House at large. He had only called attention to this subject because no Gentleman who had served in the Crimea had
  1762
  done so. He would impress upon them the contrast between the way the Russians and the French provided for the protection of the monuments and graves of their gallant dead, and that in which the British Government had acted towards the cemeteries of their fallen heroes in the Crimea. Some expense must, of course, be incurred in the matter, but neither the House nor the country would begrudge a small sum to be expended in putting the graves of those whose memories were dear to many in the land in a proper condition.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that the Government fully recognized the importance of the subject, and the interest attached to it by the nation, and especially by the families of those who fell in the Crimea. The Report had been carefully considered—first by the War Office, and then by the Treasury—and the Government would speedily come to a decision upon it. The matter, however, was not free from difficulty, for the preservation of the monuments must be secured, as well as their repair in the meantime; and the conflicting proposals made would require some little time for consideration. At that moment, moreover, Correspondence was going on between the Foreign Office and the Russian Government, until the close of which a decision would be premature; but he hoped that decision would shortly be announced.
  COLONEL LEARMONTHsaid, he was as anxious that as little delay as possible should occur in carrying out the recommendations of the Report, since the cemeteries were falling into great dilapidation. The proposed monument on Cathcart's Hill would be a graceful act on the part of the Government, and would be grateful to the Army and to the friends of those who fell, over some of whom he read the Burial Service under circumstances of such pressure that it was impossible to raise any monument.
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSexpressed a hope that while, in concert with Russia, we took steps to commemorate the magnificent services of our Army in the Crimea, the state of the monuments erected at Landguard Fort, in Harwich, to record the services of our officers and soldiers in former days would not be neglected.

  CRIMINAL LAW—SHROPSHIRE MAGISTRATES—CASE OF GEORGE WHITEFOOT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR,in rising to call attention to the case of George White-foot, lately sentenced to a month's imprisonment for laughing before the bench of magistrates at Shifnal, Salop, said, the statement appeared in various newspapers a fortnight ago, calling forth much criticism and a good deal of indignation, and, if the fact was true, he thought hon. Members would agree with him that a very impolitic, and probably an illegal, act had been committed. At any rate, the judgment was most impolitic and much to be regretted, for it was of great importance not only that justice should be fairly administered, but tempered with mercy; and that more especially, where the party administering the law was dealing with a class not his own. He thought, then, that he was in no degree exceeding his privilege as a Member of Parliament, when he ventured to ask the Home Secretary whether the case had been brought under his notice, and what course he was disposed to take in regard to it? He had reason afterwards to believe that another hon. Member had previously made a similar application, and the right hon. Gentleman had addressed himself to the bench of magistrates to ascertain whether they had acted with "their usual virtue and discretion." The magistrates no doubt answered that they always did act with due discretion, but that on this occasion they had even exceeded themselves both in virtue and discretion. The right hon. Gentleman had rolled that answer up into the consistency of a bullet and discharged it at his head. The magistrates were not discreet enough to content themselves with saying that the man who was condemned for being drunk had been guilty of something like contempt of Court; it did not appear whether they went so far as to deny altogether that there was any laughing in Court; but they distinctly said there was no re-call of the prisoner, and no second sentence. The man had been condemned at the first to one month's imprisonment; not to the payment of a fine, because it would be paid out of the earnings of his mother. He felt
  1764
  that the good nature of the right hon. Gentleman had been imposed upon, and that his popularity in that part of the country would be endangered by the extreme facility with which he had swallowed this most improbable story, amounting to the invention of a whole romance by the reporters for the Press, which should have been recommended to the consideration of that body traditionally notorious for their credulity—the Marines. He therefore resolved to interpose for the right hon. Gentleman's protection, and, applying a large phrase to a small question, to send down a "Special Commissioner" to the disturbed district, who might obtain the real facts on the spot. He would now state them to the House. The hon. Member then proceeded to read a letter from a gentleman of the neighbourhood, a member of the school board, who filled several important local offices, to the effect that he knew Whitefoot well; that he had been twice before the magistrates; that he was summoned before them in March last, and that instead of attending he sent his mother, whom, although it was a common practice in that Court for relatives to appear, the magistrates would not hear in his absence. However, since the death of his father he had become a steady fellow; and on the day in question, expecting to be heavily fined, Whitefoot was so much pleased at being only condemned to pay 30 s. and costs that he smiled at his brother, upon which Colonel Slaney called him back and said—"You are treating the Court with contempt; I will see if we cannot send you to gaol for six months." That, however, he found they could not do, but they sent him to gaol for one month with hard labour. The hon. Member then read a statement from Mr. James Turner, the reporter to The Shrewsbury Chronicle, to the effect that Whitefoot smiled—not at his mother—but at his brother. He also read the statement of the mother to the same effect, and that the money was the son's, as she lived on his earnings; and he likewise read the statements of two gentlemen of the neighbourhood that the man only smiled at his brother. There was no charge more frequently made against Members of this side of the House than that they were continually setting class against class. But bethought nothing they could say or do could have a more decided tendency to produce that

  1765
  result than such a judgment as this. It had every bad element of classism. In the first place there was the great positive severity of the first punishment. If one of themselves played the fool and made night hideous in the Haymarket, they were not mulcted of a twentieth or a thirtieth part of their income. Still less were they sent to gaol if they smiled as they paid the fine. Then, secondly, the class assumption involved in sending a man to gaol because he laughed, or was supposed to laugh. They were told, the hon. Member proceeded to say, that a cat might look at a king; but it appeared that a labouring man should think twice before he smiled in the face of such a mighty man as a county magistrate. But last, and worst of all, what was the moral of this case to the sufferers under such harsh and unjust decisions? What could it be but of their hopeless helplessness under the infliction? When a case of this kind happened, which got into the papers—and there was some troublesome Member of Parliament who gave Notice of his intention to ask the Home Secretary a Question regarding it—the magistrates concerned had nothing to do but to draw up an inaccuracy, and it would be swallowed by the official mind, and be applauded to the echo by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In this instance, the result was, that the feeling of the neighbourhood was one rather of disgust than astonishment, because they regarded what had been done in this case as characteristic. Those on that—the Ministerial—side of the House were frequently charged with setting class against class, but nothing could have a greater tendency to produce that result than such a case as he had stated. He hail done his duty, painful though it was, in bringing the matter forward, and he now left it to the Government and to the wholesome influence of public opinion.
  MR. BROWNsaid, he had received very many letters, all confirming the original statement which he had made, that there had in this case been a miscarriage of justice. And not only that, but the Press of the Metropolis and of Birmingham had taken the matter up and cited it as an instance of "Justices' justice." The ease was a very painful one, one that had created a very deep and painful feeling throughout the county of Shropshire, and one which
  1766
  was not at all creditable to the magistracy of this country. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who had stated only what had been put into his mouth; but he would beg of him to make further inquiry.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALregretted it had become his duty to address the House on this subject instead of the Home Secretary, for by the rules of debate the Home Secretary, having spoken on the Motion before the House, could not reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and therefore it was that he (the Attorney General) had undertaken to do so. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, moreover, had declined to accede to his right hon. Friend's request to postpone the Question until an occasion when the Rules of the House would permit the Home Secretary to reply himself; but the House would no doubt bear with him although he failed to speak with the authority of his right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Leicester had said he was discharging a painful duty in bringing forward this matter. Some men possessed great power of concealing their feelings, and apparently the hon. Member was one of them, for he had succeeded admirably. The hon. Member had spoken of the Home Secretary as prone to believe improbable stories, but really there seemed to be no story reflecting on the magistracy, however improbable, which the hon. Member would not credit. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman, instead of dealing in strong insinuations, had studied the facts. He ought to have known that the Home Secretary was not the constitutional superior of the magistrates, but that the Lord Chancellor was, and all that the Home Secretary undertook to do was not to defend the magistrates from attacks made upon them, but, as the organ of that House and as a matter of courtesy, to receive what answers the magistrates charged had to make, and communicate it to the House. The Lord Chancellor being entrusted with the power of appointing magistrates, it was to hint that recourse should be had whenever there was a case of gross misconduct on the part of magistrates that called for his interference. A complete review of the facts, too, would show that a great deal had been made of a very little, and that the

  1767
  errors which had been committed were trifling, and had not been committed by the magistrates. The young man White-foot was described by the hon. Member as being gifted with qualities seldom found united in the same person—as a decent and tidy fellow who occasionally got mad with drink; and he had been four times before the magistrates in consequence of having got mad with drink. [Mr. P. A. TAYLOR: In four years.] He did not know whether the hon. Member thought a decent and tidy fellow might reasonably be expected to get mad with drink once a-year, but, however that might be, Whitefoot, it appeared, had been from time to time fined by the magistrates for being mad with drink. It appeared, also, that his mother had paid the fines, but it was now ascertained that the money the mother paid was first handed to her by Whitefoot. The magistrates, however, could not be blamed for supposing that the person who actually tendered the money was the person who paid the fine. There appeared to have been a little reticence on both sides in this matter. The information furnished to the Home Secretary had not been as full as it should have been; but, on the other hand, the newspaper writer who had inspired the hon. Member had indulged in the artistic style which some of those writers affect, and in a very luminous and striking paragraph had omitted the fact that this young man had been from time to time mad with drink, and had been taken up and fined. Nobody who read the statement in the newspaper would suspect that this decent and tidy young man had been dealt with before, but would assuredly believe he had been atrociously treated in this instance. On the first occasion upon which he was brought up he was described as having been wild with drink, but the writer went on to observe that though a cat might look at a king this youth might not look at Colonel Slaney. That was all very well as a piece of smart writing; but in this case it was not unfair to observe that the cat certainly seemed to have been a wild cat. Upon the Home Secretary applying to the justices for information on the subject of the hon. Member's question, the following reply was received on the 26th of April—
  "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd inst., calling for
  1768
  the opinion and observations of the committing magistrates in the case of George Whitefoot, and to inform you that he was not sentenced to a month's imprisonment for contempt of Court, but upon a charge fully proved against him of being drunk and riotous on a highway. George Whitefoot had on several previous occasions been convicted and punished by fine for similar conduct, and his demeanour in the Court of Petty Sessions fully satisfied the justices that no fine they could inflict upon him would be any punishment, as it would be paid, as heretofore, by his widowed mother, who is little able to afford it."
  His right hon. Friend was justified in assuming from this that the sentence was a single sentence upon a single offence. When the Home Secretary found the subject was to be discussed that night, a suspicion appeared to have crossed his mind that he had not been put in possession of all the facts, and he telegraphed for fuller information. The following reply was received—
  "I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram, and, in reply, I have to inform you that the charge 'drunk and riotous' having been proved against George Whitefoot, the bench, with some hesitation, in consequence of the previous convictions recorded against him, imposed a penalty of 30 s. and costs. His widowed mother producing the money, the prisoner showed by the levity of his behaviour that the fine imposed was no punishment to him. The bench instantly rescinded their decision, and desired him to await their further consideration. After deliberation, and before entering upon any other business, the bench committed him for one month's imprisonment."
  He (the Attorney General) withheld the name of the writer because he considered that these two communications were not creditable to him. His right hon. Friend was in the hands of those of whom he asked information, but it was plain that although the first answer might be true by the card, it was not true in spirit, and his right hon. Friend was naturally misled by it when answering the hon. Member. It was also due to those who had espoused the cause of Whitefoot to say that the second communication put a different colour on the case. It was only fair to separate the magistrates from the writer of those letters. It was not his business, or the business of anyone, to say more. He did not suppose that the magistrates had any intention whatever to mislead the right hon. Gentleman. The facts were before them, but they were not candidly represented by the writer of the letter, and under the Licensing Act they had a perfect right to do what they

  1769
  did, Section 12 leaving it to their discretion to inflict either a fine or a month's imprisonment. In their opinion, a fine was not an adequate punishment under the circumstances, and they did what was not an uncommon thing—something passed which at the last moment induced the Court to alter the original sentence and pass another. At any rate, the punishment inflicted was within the law; and though magistrates did go wrong sometimes, and, like other people, had their feelings and might sometimes inflict punishments which were too severe, still in the main they did their duty and meant to do their duty; and the hon. Member might rest assured that, by taking up cases of small importance in an exaggerated spirit, a re-action was produced in every fair mind, which only did mischief to the cause of fairness and justice, which no doubt the hon. Member, in common with himself (the Attorney General) had sincerely at heart.
  COLONEL CORBETT,in justifying the magistrates, said, that they had not acted from the motives which seemed to be imputed to them by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and it was most mischievous to hold up the administrators of the law to ridicule and contempt. From what the magistrates had told him, he was satisfied they only acted for the best in the interests of justice in the neighbourhood, and in the interests even of the young man himself, for a punishment like that they inflicted was far more likely to bring him to his senses than a mere fine.
  MR. DILLWYNthought that when one sentence had been passed upon a poor man, and another and heavier one was substituted for it on account of some supposed levity shown by him, that was the way to set class against class. The case was a serious one, and the Home Secretary, in the answer he gave to a Question put on a former occasion, had misled the House on the subject, though quite unintentionally. Therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would thoroughly investigate the circumstances under which he had been misled into giving the answer he had.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, there was no evidence to show that the additional sentence was imposed upon the prisoner for levity, and there was quite as much reason for supposing that he was im-
  1770
  prisoned because the money was paid by the mother, and not by the prisoner. At the same time, while giving the magistrates in this case every credit for acting honestly in the discharge of their duty, he thought it undesirable that when one sentence was passed it should be altered for another of greater severity.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, that in his experience sentences were often altered by Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and by Judges. The magistrates acted entirely within their power here in sentencing the man to a month's imprisonment.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, no one disputed the right of magistrates or of any Judge in a Criminal Court to alter, for good cause appearing at the time, the sentence passed on a prisoner; but as to the sentence of which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) complained, a more injudicious—he was about to say a more cruel—sentence he had never heard of. Because the man, having been fined for being drunk, smiled when his mother handed him money to pay the fine, he was sentenced to a whole month's imprisonment—a sentence which he had often seen inflicted at Quarter Sessions for much more serious offences. He was pained at the tone of the Attorney General's speech, and thought that there was no foundation for imputing to his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester in bringing forward this question, the desire to set class against class.

NATIONAL EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS—THE CALLAN SCHOOLS—DISMISSAL OF REV. ROBERT O'KEEFFE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL TAYLORsaid, it would be convenient to the House, If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would previous to going into Committee of Supply, state when the Notice of Motion which had been given by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland was intended to be brought forward?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My noble Friend gave that Notice on Monday, with the view that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of examining the facts of the case, and thus enabling the House to pronounce a right judgment on it; but if there is a disposition to discuss the Motion for the appointment of a Committee, the discussion

  1771
  could not conveniently come on on Monday, as arrangements are already made for that clay. I think the best course will be that the Motion should be taken the first thing on Thursday, and with the view of its being brought on on Thursday I will move the postponement of the Orders for that Day.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £44,925, to complete the sum for Salaries of Law Officers, Law Charges, &c.
  MR. WESTsaid, he thought it unnecessary to discuss this Vote at the present time, inasmuch as there was a Select Committee on the subject sitting upstairs.
  MR. RYLANDScomplained of the difficulty that there was in investigating these charges, and called especial attention to the Vote of £2,000 for the Legal department of the Foreign Office. He could not understand how it was that, while the legal charges of the Home Department and other Departments were put under their respective heads, that charge was not. He suggested the possibilty of the legal work of the several Departments being consolidated and the expenditure materially reduced, and complained there was no Minister responsible to the House for the Estimate, while the system was so complicated that it was impossible for Members to deal with it, and made some of them wish for a Dictator for three days to sweep abuses away. He trusted the Committee now sitting would be found to lead to considerable economy.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that when the late Queen's Advocate resigned, Dr. Deane was appointed at a salary of £2,000 a-year, to assist the Law Officers of the Crown on subjects relating to International Law, and as the sum paid to the Queen's Advocate for the performance of the same duties used to be £5,000 a-year, there was a clear saving of £3,000 per annum.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, they never heard of economy in connection with legal expenditure.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £158,275, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions at Assizes, &c.
  MR. SCOURFIELDpointed out that great dissatisfaction had been created by the arbitrary disallowance by the Treasury of prosecution expenses. Complaints had been made about the course adopted not only in that House, but in some of the highest Courts in the land, but there was every reason to believe that the same system was still being pursued. To show that they were arbitrary, he mentioned that in his own county, there had been alternations as to the allowance and disallowance of certain items on different occasions. The amount saved to the country by these disallowances was insignificant compared with the vexation they caused; and the total expenditure for prosecutions was not large, considering that the public welfare made the repression of crime a primary duty of the State.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the Government had conferred with the Judicature Commission on the subject, and had prepared a Bill, which he hoped to introduce very shortly. The Bill would deal with all these matters, and would, he trusted, remove the objections which had been so strongly urged to the present system.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he observed an item of £3,883 in the Estimates for the Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts, who exercised the arbitrary power of cutting and carving them. The Committee was therefore asked to vote money for a system which had been condemned. He thought the Committee ought, without further delay, to know what the Government intended to propose.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not help thinking that the hon. Member who had last spoken was somewhat unreasonable in demanding the details of a Bill which he (Mr. Bruce) had not yet asked leave to introduce. He admitted that the present system was unsatisfactory, but the examiners had important functions to perform. Time was when these accounts amounted to £300,000. They were now only £145,000, and economies had been introduced for which the House ought to be grateful. It was not necessary to spend this money when voted; but the House must make some provision until the Bill which he was about to bring in was passed.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £143,778, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery in England.
  MR. MONKcomplained of the number of salaried officers. He objected to the expenses of various personal attendants of the Lord Chancellor—such as the gentlemen of the chamber, messengers, &c. The Master of the Rolls also had a gentleman of the chamber. He wished to know whether in the new arrangements that were to be made these offices would be held as sinecures?
  MR. WESTsaid, that this matter might safely be left to the Committee upstairs, who had gone into this question at great length.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had shown his foresight when he objected that whenever exception was taken to any Vote it would be said—"Oh, the Select Committee have approved it." There had been to-night two or three of these exclamations. He never regretted his absence from the House more than he did when this Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Civil Service Estimates. It was the duty of the Government, and not of any Committee, to look to the expenditure. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt) was acting the part of a great economist in that Committee, but he for one did not anticipate much good from its labours.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, all the Judges had principal clerks, and the gentlemen of the chamber to the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls were really the principal clerks to those Judges under a grander name.
  MR. HINDE PALMERthought that great good would result from the Committee on the Civil expenditure.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that as the Committee upstairs was to consider the whole question, he would not proceed with an Amendment to reduce the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that there were very good reasons for this expenditure, and he thought the hon. Member bad adopted a wise course in not proceeding with his Amendment.
  MR. STOPFORD-SACKVILLEasked, whether it was necessary to vote salaries for the officers of the Master of
  1774
  the Rolls when the Mastership was vacant, and seemed likely to remain so?
  MR. RAIKESwished to take the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee sitting upstairs, as to the course they should take in the House when Votes were under discussion which were before them upstairs.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it would be very unbecoming in him to give an opinion what course hon. Members in such a position should take. He had not intended to speak on this Vote; but he might state that it had been several days before the Committee, and that it was not impossible that before very long a Report would be presented upon it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALstated that the officers of the Master of the Rolls were almost without exception officers of the Court of Chancery, and did their work just as well while the Mastership was vacant as when it was filled.
  MR. HUNTasked what the Master of the Rolls' trainbearer did when there was no Master of the Rolls? The Solicitor General had said the officers were almost without exception officers of the Court of Chancery.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsuggested the postponement of the Vote.
  MR. HUNTasked whether it was intended to appoint a new Master of the Rolls?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to forget that he (Mr. Gladstone) explained a short time ago that as the Judicature Bill was pending it was expedient, as long as arrangements were made for the efficient discharge of the duties, to postpone the appointment. The vacancy could not, of course, last very long, not, he thought beyond the beginning of the Long Vacation, and there was a full intention of appointing a new Master, which would be done with a full understanding as to the re-consideration of all these offices. A postponement of the Vote would be inconvenient, for as much might be said for postponing many others which were before the Select Committee. That would not be a rational procedure, unless the labours of the Committee were likely to terminate in time to enable them to report and to enable the Government to consider the Report, and the House to consider the recommenda-

  1775
  tion of the Government before the end of the Session. This was not possible, but the passing of the Votes would not absolve the Government from the duty of giving effect to the Committee's Report wherever practicable, without waiting for the close of the financial year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £51,837, to complete the sum for the Superior Courts of Common Law in England.
  MR. WHALLEYmoved that the Chairman do report Progress. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to refer to the expenditure for the Common Law Courts, but—
  MR. CHAIRMANstated that the hon. Member could not discuss a Vote that had already passed.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £31,478, 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 1874, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Loudon Bankruptcy Court as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  MR. WHALLEYagain rose, and said, he wished to obtain from the Attorney General some explanation of this most extraordinary Tichborne case. It affected the Estimates for all these Law Courts. They were denied explanations or answers to Questions put specifically on that subject. But more than that, they were rebuked. He had been most severely rebuked and charged with impropriety by the Home Secretary for presuming to raise a discussion on this Tichborne case.
  MR. DILLWYN: I rise to Order. I want to know whether all this is in Order with the Question before the Committee?
  MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been endeavouring to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman would connect his remarks with the Vote before the Committee, but so far I have been unable to ascertain the connection.
  MR. WHALLEY: Amongst other offences which the Claimant has committed he has come under the Bankruptcy Law. I connect my observations with this Vote because this man is, amongst other things, a bankrupt. I venture to think, therefore, that this
  1776
  would be a favourable opportunity for the Attorney General to explain to the Committee something of the nature of the difficulties of the Tichborne case. We have been told on a former occasion that it was an insult to common sense to suppose that this man—["Order!"]—
  MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to have again to point out to the hon. Member that in the remarks he is making he has departed from the ordinary rules and practice of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (6.) £364,984, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
  (7.) £76,424, to complete the sum for the Courts of Probate and Divorce, &c. in England.
  MR. WHALLEYagain rose and said, that Tichborne was also in the Probate Court. Therefore, the Vote offered another opportunity for explanation at the hands of the Attorney General.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £10,499, to complete the sum for the High Court of Admiralty.
  (9.) £4,450, to complete the sum for the Office of Land Registry.
  (10.) £11,693, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
  (11.) £191,482, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
  (12.) £315,000, to complete the sum for Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain.
  (13.) £374,593, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments, England and Colonies.
  (14.) £90,820, to complete the sum for Maintenance of Prisoners in County and Borough Prisons, &c. Great Britain.
  (15.) £186,000, to complete the sum for Reformatories and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
  (16.) £25,492, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
  (17.) £14,850, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges, England.
  (18.) £56,290, to complete the sum for Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
  MR. MONKasked the Prime Minister, whether it was proposed to make any change in the mode of paying the Law Officers of Scotland? Those of England were now paid by salary instead of fees, but those of Scotland were still paid by fees.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the cases were not parallel. The remuneration of the Lord Advocate came from a variety of sources, and he was not paid by fees in the same way the English Law Officers had been. In fact, the Lord Advocate's was almost a fixed salary.
  Vote agreed to.
  (19.) £47,754, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, &c. Scotland.
  (20.) £26,113, to complete the sum for the General Register House, Edinburgh.
  (21.) £19,793, to complete the sum for Joint Departments of Prisons, Judicial Statistics, &c., Scotland.
  (22.) £65,231, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, &c., Ireland.
  (23.) £37,550, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery, Ireland.
  (24.) £23,552, to complete the sum for the Superior Courts of Common Law, Ireland.
  (25.) £6,761, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Ireland.
  (26.) £10,931, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.
  (27.) £9,663, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate, Ireland.
  (28.) £1,775, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
  (29.) £13,650, to complete the sum for the Office for Registration of Deeds, Ireland.
  (30.) £2,620, to complete the sum for the Office for Registration of Judgments, Ireland.
  (31.) £94,967, to complete the sum for the Dublin Police Courts and Metropolitan Police.
  MR. MONKcomplained of the increase of £13,120 for extra pay and allowances.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, there was an increase in the Vote duo to an increase of pay caused by the extreme difficulty of getting suitable men.
  Vote agreed to.
  (32.) £819,729, to complete the sum for the Constabulary Force, Ireland.
  MR. CANDLISHthought the enormous amount of the Vote could not be satisfactory to the Prime Minister, and required the grave attention of Parliament. He should like to know whether there was any prospect of decrease in its amount? There was an increase this year of upwards of £100,000.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, the Irish Constabulary was to a large extent a military force, appointed and controlled entirely by the Government, and therefore properly supported out of the Imperial Exchequer.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the increase in the cost of the police had been made in accordance with an official Report sent through the Irish Government. He did not think that the frequent perpetration of serious crimes in Ireland could be at all attributed to inefficiency on the part of the police.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was not a healthy state of things that the cost of the local police should be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, and it might be hoped the time would come when they would see the people of Ireland exercising control over their own police. The whole subject required consideration.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  CANADA LOAN GUARANTEE BILL.
  Resolution [May 8] reported;
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to guarantee the payment of a Loan to be raised by the Government of Canada for the construction of Public. Works in that Country, and to repeal 'The Canada Defences Loan Act, 1870.'"
  Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. KNATCHEBILL-HUGESSEN, and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 159.]

  TITHE CONIMUTATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Select Committee on Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment Bill nominated:—Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. HARDY, Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Mr. MOWBRAY, Sir MICHAEL, HICKS-BEACH, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. CROSS, Mr. JOHN TALBOT, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Mr. CUBITT,

  1779
  Mr. MAGNIAC, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. STONE, and Mr. ARTHUR P. VIVIAN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, 'till Monday next.