Commons Sitting of 12 May 1873

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Killigrew Wait, esquire, for Gloucester City.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties, appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [May 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Criminal Law Amendment Act (1871) Repeal* [161].
Second Reading—Law Agents (Scotland)* [150]; Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* [151]; ford Chapel Marriages Legalisation* [160].
Committee—County Authorities (Loans)* [134]—R.P.; Conveyancing Scotland) [108]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [77].
Considered no amended—Superannuation Act Amendment* [135]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* [139]: Crown Lands* [140].
Third Reading—East India Loan* [103]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [153]; Railways Provisional Certificate [156], and passed.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—PUITENHAM SCHOOL RATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DIXONasked the Secretary of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the parish of Puttenham, Surrey, where there is no School Board, the vestry, after completion of time formal business, decided to levy a voluntary school rate; and that such school rate has been actually collected along with the other rates of the parish without intimation being given on the demand note that the rate was a voluntary one; and, whether such a proceeding is not contrary to law?
  MR. HIBBERT: Sir, beyond the information the hon. Member has given, the Local Government Board have no knowledge whatever on the subject. The Local Government Board has no power to interfere in any way with the vestry; but if the collector collected such a rate without any intimation of its being voluntary, I apprehend he would be liable to a prosecution for extortion, and if the hon. Member shows to the Local Government Board that such a case has occurred, they will inquire into it, and take such steps as may afterwards seem proper.

SOUTH SEA ISLANDS—UPOLO AND THE NAVIGATOR ISLANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Sovereignty of Upolo and others of the Navigator Islands has been transferred to the United States; and, if so, at what date, and under what conditions the transfer was made?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, In February, 1872, our Consul in Samoa reported that Captain Meade, of the United States Navy, had signed a Treaty for the cession of the harbour of Pagopago, in the Island of Tutuela, to the United States as a Naval Station; and in April, 1872, he stated that the Chiefs and Rulers of Samoa had petitioned the President of the United States to annex the Navigator Islands to the United States. It does not appear, however, from inquiries made by Sir Edward Thornton in July, 1872, that such a Petition had ever been received by the President. Mr. Fish at the same time informed Sir Edward Thornton that, although an exclusive right was granted to the United States to establish a Naval Station and Coaling Depôt in the harbour of Pagopago, there would be no interference with other vessels frequenting the port, nor with their trading there, nor with any commercial transactions; neither would it prevent private Coaling Depôts from being established there. Mr. Fish, further on in the year, in November, stated that the Petition of the Chiefs for annexation had been received, but that it had been merely acknowledged. More recent Reports, in February and March of this year, from Sir Edward Thornton, state that the Polynesian Land Company has purchased a large amount of cotton-growing land in the Navigator Islands, and intends establishing in the harbour of Pagopago a trading and coaling station, in connection with a proposed line of steamers between San Francisco, New Zealand, and Australia.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT—THE DEVONPORT WATCH COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the last Report of the Inspector of Constabulary for the Southern Counties:—
  "That in the borough of Devonport the Head Constable cannot take any complaint against a publican before the Magistrates, without submitting the complaint for investigation by the Watch Committee, in which are persons interested in public houses;"
  and, whether such a regulation, if it exists, is according to Law?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, the powers of the Watch Committee, who are appointed by the Council, are defined by Sections 76–77 of the Municipal Corporation Act. It is their duty to appoint a sufficient number of fit men as constables, who must obey all the lawful commands they may receive from the justices having jurisdiction in the borough. The Watch Committee may also frame such regulations as they shall deem expedient for preventing neglect or abuse, and for rendering constables efficient in the discharge of their duties, and they, or two justices, may dismiss any constable whom they think negligent or unfit for his duties. It seems to me that these sections do not confer on the Watch Committee the power of deciding in what cases the police ought to lay an information before magistrates; and that if the police require advice on such matters, the proper persons to give it would be either the justices or the town clerk. I have received a communication from the Mayor of Devonport, who informs me that
  "All Reports of the police against persons not in custody are laid before the Watch Committee, and that after seine years' experience as a member of that Committee, he has found them to be invariably actuated by a desire to treat all cases brought before them without regard to any private interests."

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—MR. PLIMSOLL AND THE BOARD OF TRADE.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. BRUCE: I am desirous, Sir, of correcting a statement made by me on Thursday last with reference to the alleged cases of overloading at Cardiff, and the conduct of the magistrates with respect to them. I stated on the authority, as I explained, of a letter addressed not to me, but to an hon. Member of this House, by the stipendiary magistrate of Cardiff, that out of 60 charges against sailors for desertion, &c., in only two cases was the defence set up that the vessels were overladen or unseaworthy. I have this day received a letter from the stipendiary magistrate of Cardiff correcting that statement. There were only two cases in which overloading was alleged, and in one of these the defendants were discharged. But there were seven allegations of unseaworthiness. In two of these the defence was sustained, in four the sailors were punished, and

  1785
  in one repairs were ordered, and the sailors returned to their ship. Surveys of the ships were held in seven cases.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—DISTRESS SHIP SIGNALS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether, with the view of saving life at sea, steps will be taken, such as those recently adopted by the Lord Mayor of London in Hyde Park, to ascertain the best description of rockets to be used for distress ship signals; and, whether foreigners will be allowed to exhibit their inventions on the occasion of any competition which may take place?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the Questions asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are rather for the consideration of the Board of Trade than the War Department. I can only say that the Board of Trade has been lately in communication with us on the subject, and that at their request we are making for trial both "long lights" and "distress signal rockets." The only object in view being to ascertain the best description of both lights and rockets suitable for distress signals, I have no doubt that the Board of Trade will take every step for this purpose which they may think desirable, and that, in the event of any competition taking place, equal facilities would be given to inventors without regard to nationality.

ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY (WOOLWICH) EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether on all occasions of examinations for admission to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, thoroughly qualified examiners are present in each room during the whole period allotted to the papers; and, whether unfair practices, such as copying or by collusion, are impossible?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, The examinations for admission to the Royal Military Academy are conducted entirely under the directions of the Civil Service Commissioners. I am informed that on each occasion Gentlemen selected by the Commissioners are present in the several rooms during the whole period allotted to the papers; and though it would, of course, be impossible to say that a case
  1786
  of collusion or copying might not occur, the Commissioners feel confident that any unfair practices of the sort, if resorted to, would be very unlikely to escape detection.

  ARMY—CHARGE AGAINST A CAVALRY OFFICER.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been drawn to a statement in the "Manchester Examiner" of 2nd May, alleging that the commanding officer of a Cavalry regiment has been accused of misappropriating the lodging allowance of the riding master of the regiment, and falsifying a War Office Return for the purpose; and, if there is any foundation in fact for these statements?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, an anonymous letter was sent to me in January, extracted from a provincial paper, imputing the conduct suggested in the question, and I immediately instituted an inquiry, the result of which left upon my mind the impression that the charge was unfounded and malicious. If the hon. Gentleman has any information which would justify me in instituting any further inquiry, and would assist me in doing so, I submit that he ought to communicate that information to me before the name of any officer is mentioned in connection with a transaction which is improbable, and so far as I know, or have any reason to believe, unfounded.

  POST OFFICE—REGISTRATION OF RE. LIGIOES PERIODICALS.—QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked the Postmaster General, If he would state to the House on what grounds religious periodicals such as the "The Christian," and others of a like nature are refused the advantage of registration for transmission abroad, while monthly gazettes and magazines of fashion, and papers such as Mr. Bradlaugh's "National Reformer," are stated to have been restored to that privilege; and, whether a statement in the above-named weekly paper, "The Christian," is correct, viz, that no religious periodical unless it contain more news than religious matter is allowed full post office privileges?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, the Post Office Act of 1870, to which I would refer my

  1787
  hon. and gallant Friend, requires that a publication, in order to be registered as a newspaper, shall consist wholly or in great part of news. "The Christian" does not conform to the Act in that respect, and it cannot, therefore, be accepted for registration. All publications which have been registered as newspapers have been in conformity with the Act. I have not seen the statement in "The Christian," but, as I have already explained, "news," whether political or other news, must preponderate, in order to entitle the periodical to rank as a newspaper.
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: I may ask, Whether news such as the "May Meetings" and advertisements for servants do not come within the regulation?
  MR. MONSELL: I am afraid I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Legal Advisers of the Government. I am told the statement referred to does not come within the department of news, and I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Post Office, at least, has no tests.

  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—STAFF OF ATTACHES.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the Tinder Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the present Staff at each of Her Majesty's Embassies and Legations is sufficient for the duties that have to be performed; and, whether any application has been made during the last twelve months for an increase in the number of the Staff by any of Her Majesty's Ambassadors or Ministers abroad.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has no reason to suppose that, although in some Missions the number of secretaries and attachés is for a time below the ordinary establishment, there are not sufficient present to carry on the necessary duties with perhaps a little increased demand for their time and attention. Applications have from time to time been received to supply vacancies, but Her Majesty's Missions abroad, like the home establishment of the Foreign Office, are liable occasionally to have a reduced number of gentlemen at work in consequence of absence on account of ill-health, the ordinary periods of leave, and change of post.

  LOCAL TAXATION—COST OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOLKERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he would explain why in the accounts of the Treasurer of the County of Lancaster for the cost of Criminal Prosecutions for the half-year ending dune 30th, 1872, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have allowed the sum of 6d. only for the second class railway fare of witnesses from Manchester to Stockport, whereas the railway fare charged by the Railway Company and allowed by the Taxing Officer is 9d.?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, The Manchester Railway Guide shows the second-class fare, to which ordinary witnesses are entitled, to be 6d. from Manchester to Stockport. The first-class fare is 9d, but only professional witnesses can claim first-class fare under the scale fixed by the Secretary of State.

CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT (SALARIES).

  QUESTION.
  MR. TREVELYANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state to the House whether the salaries of the clerks in the Custom House Department have been materially increased of late years; and, if so, whether he could furnish the House with any information bearing on the subject?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the salaries of the clerks in the Custom House Department have been materially increased of late years. I find that since 1858 the average increase in 17 principal ports immediately below London and Liverpool is no less than 44½ per cent, and in six ports—namely, Plymouth, Grimsby, Cardiff, Belfast, Cork, and Glasgow, the salaries have been raised more than 50 per cent. I shall be glad to lay before the House, in the shape of a Return, any other information on the subject which my hon. Friend wishes to obtain.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR DICKSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he is now in a position to inform the House what course the Government intend to pursue with reference to the Dover Harbour Bill?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, that the Government had given very careful consideration to the Dover Harbour Bill, and while they were anxious to see improved channel communication, they would be reluctantly compelled to withhold their approval from the measure in its present form, as being calculated to injure seriously the great public work already existing at Dover—namely, the Admiralty Pier. At the same time they were anxious to see their way to the introduction of some plan for completing a public harbour at Dover, so as to combine both military and naval objects on the one hand, and the interests of improved channel communication on the other, and were in correspondence with the Dover Harbour authorities and the Railway Companies for the purpose of seeing what reasonable contribution they would be ready to make towards the work?

OFFICE OF WOODS AND FORESTS—CROWN TEINDS (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If for several years past the average receipts on account of Crown Teinds in Scotland have been less than the legal expenses incurred by the Office of Woods and Forests in prosecuting parties whom they considered liable to pay?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the legal expenses incurred by the Office of Woods and Forests respecting Crown Teinds in Scotland for several years past have, undoubtedly, been very large in proportion to the receipts; but they have not exceeded them, and the Commissioners represent that it was necessary to incur this expenditure as the cases already decided were likely to rule others, and it would certainly decrease in future years.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. BOURKEinquired when the Judicature Bill would be likely to be brought on, if it were not reached that evening?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought it unlikely that the second reading of the Bill in question could be taken during the present month. Due Notice would, however, be given of the day on which it would be brought on.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked when the Navy Estimates would be brought on?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that next Thursday had been already disposed of for the Motion of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant relative to the case of Father O'Keeffe, and the second reading of the Bill introduced by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. He hoped, however, to be in a position to state on that day when the Navy Estimates would be proceeded with.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired after what hour the Committee of Supply would not be resumed?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was proposed to take Supply at once, and he had accordingly to move, that the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Order for the Committee of Supply be postponed till after the Notice of Motion relative to the appointment of a Select Committee on the Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties was disposed of. He hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would be able to make his statement on submitting that Motion at latest at half-past 10 o'clock, probably at half-past 9. There were not many Votes proposed to be dealt with, and if the Committee of Supply closed at an earlier hour than half-past nine, the statement would be then immediately made. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the postponement of the Orders, with the exception referred to.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought it would be much more convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board mad, his statement at once and Supply were taken afterwards.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his right hon. Friend was not then in the House.

  PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. BEDESFORD HOPEasked the right hon. Gentleman, when it was proposed the Whitsuntide holidays would commence?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, it so happened that this year there was a peculiar circumstance to be considered—namely, that a certain Wednesday had been commonly observed as a holiday of late years, although not with quite the

  1791
  unanimous assent of the House, and that that Wednesday came this year in the week before Whitsuntide. It seemed, therefore, almost a pity not to make a combination which would render that Wednesday available as a holiday, if it could be done. The usual practice was to adjourn on the Friday before Whitsuntide until the following Thursday. That being so, they would lose both Thursday, a Government night, and Friday, on which they had a chance of obtaining Supply, if they adjourned on Tuesday. However, if the House would consent to give them a morning sitting on Tuesday, it would be a substitute for the Thursday, and then they would feel justified in proposing an adjournment from Tuesday until the following Thursday week.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked on what day of the month the House would adjourn, and till what day of the month?
  MR. GLADSTONE: From Tuesday, the 27th instant, until Thursday, the 5th of June.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Order for the Committee of Supply be postponed till after the Notice of Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,279, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
  MR. DILLWYN,in opposing the Vote, said, he considered it was open to question upon grounds both of Imperial and financial policy. A person holding the high position of a Cabinet Minister ought to have a definite and responsible position, and to be at the head of a Department of State; and, unless he did hold such a position, he could not be considered to be as strictly responsible as he ought to be, either to the country or to Parliament, for the due discharge of his duties. No doubt, Ministers so situated had important duties; but they
  1792
  were responsible only to their Colleagues, for Parliament did not know what their duties were. There was no doubt, likewise, that Cabinet Ministers were underpaid, and that the Prime Minister ought, in the interests of the country, to have a much higher salary. They were, therefore, entitled to all the assistance they required, but this office was admittedly in itself almost a sinecure, and yet the Lord Privy Seal had a large staff to assist him in doing nothing. It had been suggested to him (Mr. Dillwyn) that he would obtain more support if he proposed striking off the subordinates; but, objecting to the whole Vote, he disliked attacking subordinates when the chiefs might be dealt with; and one reason why the economies effected by the Government had not gained due favour with the country was, that they had too much attacked subordinates, and left officials in higher positions untouched. Army colonels, for example, had been left while the effective service had been lowered, and dockyard labourers had been dismissed, while the same energetic reform had not been applied to the higher officials. He would move that the Vote be disallowed.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid he could impart no novelty to the discharge of a task which he had performed on several occasions before, when the same Motion had come before the House for its acceptance. He did not, and would not contend that the maintenance of this office involved the essence of the British Constitution, and he could conceive some arrangement hereafter of Ministerial duties which would allow it to be dispensed with. The House had from time to time shown considerable inclination to re-arrange Ministerial Offices, but a matured plan had never been arrived at. He did not attach exaggerated importance to the maintenance of Cabinet Offices in their precise form, but he joined issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) on the practical question involved. As a departmental office, he did not substantially question his hon. Friend's description of it as nearly a sinecure; there were, indeed, formal duties, but not duties in themselves constituting a sufficient reason for maintaining the office. He could not, however, agree with his hon. Friend that because the Lord Privy Seal had not departmental duties, he was not a re-

  1793
  sponsible officer. It was quite right that where important departmental duties were performed, heads of Departments should be responsible; but, after all, the greatest responsibility of every Minister in the Cabinet was his responsibility, not for mere acts in his Department, but for the acts and policy of the Government at large, acts for which the Lord Privy Seal was as responsible as any of his Colleagues, the House having exactly the same kind of hold upon him. There was a certain amount of objection to the practice, resorted to but rarely and only on special grounds—that of having a Minister in the Cabinet without a salary. It might, perhaps, be held that there was then a want of something substantial to mark the responsibility; but this objection did not apply to the Lord Privy Seal. His hon. Friend overlooked the vital point—namely, that it was undesirable for the departmental duties of a Government to be equally divided among its Members, so that every one should have a full allowance. That was not the case, and it was of great importance to have on the Cabinet a certain proportion of its Members with comparatively light departmental duties—for they brought a more free and disengaged mind to questions which, in an Empire like this, incessantly demanded the collective attention of the Cabinet, and they were also useful with regard to the incidental and unforeseen public duties continually arising. In addition to the duties performed in this House and in the Cabinet, many investigations had to be undertaken by certain Members of the Cabinet on the part of the rest, for which purpose it was well to have some Members comparatively free. His hon. Friend had fairly admitted that the Cabinet, on the whole, were underpaid rather than overpaid, and that were a demand made for additional assistance he would be disposed to entertain it favourably. He therefore quite understood that his hon. Friend raised the objection as one of principle; but he believed the prevailing conviction of the House was, that it was expedient, not, possibly, to maintain the present arrangements for ever in their present form, but to maintain the present arrangement of the responsibilities and burdens of the Government, because it was one which conduced to the efficient discharge of their duties.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 59: Majority 170.
  (2.) £33,685, to complete the sum for Government Prisons, &c., Ireland.
  (3.) £63,463, to complete the sum for County and Borough Gaols, Ireland.
  (4.) £4,409, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum,
  (5.) £1,960, to complete the sum for the Four Courts of Marshalsea, Dublin.
  (6.) £47,109, to complete the sum for Legal Expenses, Ireland.
  (7.) £85,061, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE,in moving the Vote, called the attention of the Committee to the numerous additions which had been made to the Museum since last year, and he pointed out that although there was apparently a great reduction in the amount, yet that reduction, as compared with the Estimate of last year, was due to the fact that a smaller sum was required for what were known as special purposes. The collection of Roman coins had been largely added to by a part of those special grants; the collection was now nearly complete, and he believed it was the finest in the world. The excavations at Ephesus were still being continued, and fresh excavations had been commenced in Assyria, the cost of obtaining which had been contributed to by the liberality of a private gentleman, the proprietor of The Daily Telegraph. He had also the satisfaction of communicating to the House that the Trustees had lately, with the sanction of the Treasury, purchased one of the finest collections of Works of Art ever brought into this country. Amongst them he might mention a bust of Juno, in a nearly perfect state, a bronzed head of Venus, supposed to belong to the time of Scopas, and an Etruscan sarcophagus of terra cotta. He thought that the thanks of the country ought to be given to the Treasury for their liberality in sanctioning the purchase of that unique collection.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, there was an impression abroad that, from the crowded state of the British Museum, there was no satisfactory accommodation for the Natural History Collections, so as to ensure their safe preservation pending

  1795
  the erection of the new buildings at South Kensington.
  MR. MUNDELLAsuggested that the Museum would confer a great advantage on country museums by sending interesting objects to them which were not of sufficient importance to justify their being placed in the National Collection.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that with respect to the accommodation for the Natural History Collection, they were taking an increased Vote that year for buildings in South Kensington, in which there would be ample accommodation afforded for the Natural History Collection. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), the Trustees had again and again considered the important question as to how far any duplicate works either of literature or art might be sent to other collections. At present the Trustees had no such power, and it ought only to be conferred upon them, in his opinion, with the greatest care; for many things, especially books which appeared to be duplicates, were in fact new editions, and in the interests of literature and science it was of the highest importance that distinct editions should be preserved.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £5,045, to complete the sum for the National Gallery.
  (9.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
  (10.) £10,450, to complete the sum for the Learned Societies.
  MR. M'LARENcalled attention to the sum of £10,000 annually given to the Committee of the Royal Society for the purposes of the English Meteorological Department. In Scotland they had a Meteorological Society, but it was entirely supported by voluntary contributions, and received no aid or money from the Government. It was a most important society, having stations in 50 different parts of Scotland, and it would be well if some arrangement could be made whereby a portion of that £10,000 could be given to it.
  DR. LYON PLAYPAIRsaid, he was very glad to second the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) that the attention of the Government should be
  1796
  drawn to the circumstances of this large sum—not too large for the purpose—which was given to the Royal Society for the promotion of Meteorology. He knew from personal observation that the money was well administered, but he thought the Royal Society was making a mistake in not availing themselves of the co-operation of the Scotch Society, which had observers in the Hebrides and other far-off places in Scotland, and who could give valuable aid to the English Society. He therefore hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would take means to impress upon the Royal Society the desirableness of obtaining the cooperation of the Scotch Meteorological Society. The object of that Society was an extremely useful one; but it was not one to inspire great enthusiasm, and the funds of private subscriptions were not obtained very readily.
  MR. MILLERalso supported the appeal of his Colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh for assistance.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, the Government were extremely adverse to multiply Votes of this kind. The sum granted to the Royal Society was a large one, and he had no doubt it was well spent; and the Government were very desirous that the English Society should arrange some mode of procedure by which the Scotch Society could have some assistance out of the Vote, without its being necessary for the Government to move any separate Vote for Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, Scotland did not want an additional grant; she was satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury had said—that the Government were desirous they should get something out of the £10,000.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £8,081, to complete the sum for the London University.
  (12.) £7,595, to complete the sum for the Endowed Schools Commission.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEexpressed a hope that the Vote would not again appear on the Estimates, because, in his opinion, the expenses of the Commission should be defrayed out of the income of the schools benefited by it, in the same manner as those of the Ecclesiastical Commission were paid out of the estates which it managed.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that as the Commission was to expire in the course of the present year, he scarcely saw the necessity for including the Vote in the Estimates.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, it would be better to pass the Vote now, on the understanding that it would not be appropriated unless it was absolutely required.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £16,428, to complete the sum for the Scottish Universities.
  (14.) £1,750, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, Scotland.
  (15.) £1,980, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, Ireland.
  (16.) £1,734, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy.
  (17.) £3,286, to complete the sum for the Queen's University, Ireland.
  (18.) £3,476, to complete the sum for the Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
  (19.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £231,203, 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 the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that in 1870, a Select Committee had been appointed to inquire into the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and he (Mr. Rylands), had been told that he was bound by the decision of that Committee. It was true that the Committee was appointed at his instigation; but he had no control over the nomination of its members, the majority of whom, from the first, were well known to be in favour of the interests of the services, and opposed to the views which he had advanced. He declined, therefore, to be bound by the Report of that Committee, and appealed to the evidence laid before them, and contained in the Blue Book, which he believed fully supported the opinion, that great economies might be effected. As a rule, Select Committees of that House had recommended increased expenditure upon the Diplomatic Service, and the Foreign Office were always ready to adopt such recommendations. The only Committee of late years which had reported in favour of economy in that department was the Official Salaries Committee of 1850, of which the right
  1798
  hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten) was Chairman, and if the recommendations of that Committee had been adopted, a very largo saving would have been effected. But the permanent head of the Foreign Office had invariably resisted reforms, and in his evidence before successive Committees, had used all his ability and influence to raise salaries and increase expenditure. Fortunately there had been some reforms suggested by the late Committee, in opposition to the expressed opinions of the permanent Under Secretary, which were likely, if adopted, to promote the efficiency as well as the economy of the service. The Committee had recommended, for example, that the junior secretaries should not be removed so frequently as every two years from one mission to another. Nothing could be more absurd than that just when a diplomatic officer had acquired a knowledge of the language and customs of the country, and had attained a position to render valuable service, he should be sent to another mission in a distant part of the world to begin over again. That system, by rendering the members of the staffs less efficient, raised a necessity for the number being larger than would otherwise be required, and it also entailed considerable outlay for travelling expenses. In the Regulations recently issued by Lord Granville, this practice was maintained, although there was reserved to the Secretary of State "full power to extend the term beyond the two years"—a power which it was to be hoped that in the public interest, he would largely exercise. Lord Granville, had, however, adopted an important recommendation of the Committee, to the effect that the Heads of Missions should be required to report annually to the Secretary of State upon the conduct and ability of the Second and Third Secretaries serving under them, and that—
  "Such reports shall be duly considered before any promotion or increase of pay or promotion is accorded to the persons to whom they apply."
  That was a most important improvement, and it was recommended by the Committee entirely in opposition to the Permanent Under Secretary, who seemed to imagine that chance reports received at the Foreign Office, possibly the mere tattle of people who had been abroad, were sufficient to enable the

  1799
  Foreign Secretary to judge of the qualifications of junior diplomatists better than the confidential Reports of the Heads of Missions. Nothing could be worse in its effect upon the service than the old system. There was no encouragement for merit, no punishment for negligence, or inefficiency in the performance of duties. Except in flagrant cases of misconduct, the Foreign Office never interfered, and the service sank into a dull leaden state of mediocrity, in which promotion depended almost entirely on seniority. The late Lord Dalling, when Sir Henry Bulwer, stated before the Committee, that however inefficient or incapable a diplomatist might be, he would, if he lived long enough, rise to be a Minister Plenipotentiary, if not an Ambassador. Another recommendation of the Committee which had been adopted by Lord Granville was also an improvement—namely, an interchange between the Foreign Office clerks and the junior members of the Diplomatic Service. That would enable relief to be sent to any Foreign Minister, who might find his permanent staff unequal to an emergency; and if properly followed up, would lead to economy in the diplomatic expenditure, by keeping down the staffs of missions abroad, at a much lower point. He entirely agreed with another part of Lord Granville's recent Regulations, to the effect that—
  "The Secretary of State reserves to himself the power to recommend the Queen to name any person, even though not in the Diplomatic Service, for the higher and more responsible posts in it."
  If that course should be adopted it would enable the Government for the time being to select as its Representatives at the great Courts in Europe, distinguished statesmen from that or the other House of Parliament. It would be an opening for an honourable ambition which would secure the services of eminent politicians, and the mere question of salary would not be held to be of such vital importance. They heard very much of high salaries being necessary to obtain the services of competent men as Ambassadors, but the Prime Ministers of this country, far more heavily worked, and occupying a much more responsible position than a Minister abroad, received only £5,000 a-year. No doubt it would be urged that means must be provided for what were called the costs of repre-
  1800
  sentation at Foreign Missions. The Ambassador, it was said, was expected to give large balls, dinners, and other entertainments to those fashionable people from this country who crowd foreign capitals, and who had been introduced at the embassy, or were provided with what were known as "soup tickets" by the Foreign Office. That expenditure might be all very well, if borne by the Ambassador himself, but he entirely objected to its being thrown upon the taxes of the country. He quite admitted that Ambassadors should entertain the Ministers of foreign Powers, and also eminent statesmen and politicians abroad with whom it was no doubt necessary for them to be in friendly intercourse, and the expenditure on that account might fairly be considered in their salaries. In deciding what we should pay for diplomacy, we had a right to ask what did we expect to get for our money? What in these days did we wish to do by means of our diplomacy? During the last generation the character of our diplomacy and that of our foreign policy had entirely changed. Thirty years ago, such affairs as the Spanish marriages, the downfall of dynasties and of foreign Governments, or a small extension of territory abroad, were held to be matters of serious moment by the Foreign Office, and led to endless diplomatic notes and correspondence, but he supposed that now there was no notion on the part of the Foreign Office that we should interfere in such matters. As to many of those changes we had no concern in them; at all events, we had no control over them, and, practically, they had turned out for our advantage. Had Lord Palmerston been alive during the Franco-German War, he would have looked with the greatest repugnance and suspicion at the recent territorial aggrandizements of Prussia, and might possibly, by diplomatic "meddling and muddling," have involved this country in serious difficulties, and yet it was now evident that the consolidation of Germany furnished a great element in the maintenance of peace in Europe. It must be remembered also that the greater facilities of international communications in these days, coupled with the amazing power of the Press in obtaining and circulating intelligence, had affected materially the

  1801
  conditions under which diplomacy was carried on. The telegraph now flashed over the Continent messages containing the latest particulars of important events, or connected with matters of political interest. Lord Clarendon, in his speech in the House of Lords on May 8, 1866, fully acknowledged this great change. He said—
  "There is now little of that secret diplomacy which in former days so much prevailed. …. Despatches of the most important character, and entailing the gravest consequences, are no sooner delivered than they are published; and the telegram secures that there shall be no priority of information."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 572.]
  That was, in fact, the whole gist of the question. Public opinion—far more than private intrigue—determined the action of Foreign Governments. He (Mr. Rylands) did not contend on these grounds that diplomacy should be abolished, but he thought it should be limited to its proper functions, and that it was not needful for us to have so costly a system of representation in all parts of the world. The great States were foci of moral influence, and we ought to be properly represented there; but he noticed that the writer of an article in the leading journal, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) respecting the San Juan Boundary, remarked that the gentlemen who represent us abroad make an appearance of doing something, although, in point of fact, they had little or nothing to do. While, however, he did not intend to contest the propriety of our being represented by Ambassadors in the principal Courts of Europe and in the United States, he wished to point out that we paid those gentlemen considerably more as a rule than diplomatists in the service of other Powers received. For example, the German Ambassador at Paris received only 24,800, while our Ambassador there received £10,000 a-year. Moreover, the American Minister in the French Capital was paid only £3,500, though it must be confessed that during the last few years American diplomacy had been far more successful than ours. We paid for diplomatic services in 1869–70 £93,000, the French expenditure during the same period being £95,000, that of the United States £30,000, and that of the Prussians £55,000. As regarded America, he ventured to say that her diplomatists, with-
  1802
  out any of the adventitious circumstances which surrounded our close system, had completely beaten our Representatives. In addition to the great Embassies, there were in Europe a number of Missions to the smaller Courts; and although we, doubtless, ought to be represented there, it was absurd to maintain in Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland, Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary, with a staff of secretaries and under secretaries. At these Courts he would suggest that we should be represented by a Chargè d' Affaires, with an understanding that a special Envoy should be sent from this country in the event of grave difficulties arising. We had a Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne, with a salary of £2,500, whereas the Swiss Republic was content to be represented in London by a Consul General, with a salary of about £1,200. Again, we maintained several petty establishments which ought to be swept away, such as those at Coburg, Dresden, Darmstadt, Bavaria, and Würtemberg. The smaller German States formed part of the Federal Union, and we only magnified their importance unduly before the world by maintaining our Missions there. We encouraged Russia and France to do the same, and in that way we made those places centres of mischief and intrigue. We ought to support the German Emperor, who wanted to get rid of political and diplomatic representation at these small Courts. Nothing was done by these petty Ministers which was for the advantage of the country. Prince Bismarck, when a junior member of the diplomatic service at Frankfort in 1851, recorded his opinion that the diplomatic agents busied themselves about the merest trifles, and appeared to him more ridiculous than a deputy of a Second Chamber in his full blown dignity; and he said—"None of us know an atom of what is going to happen any more than we do of the next year's fall of snow." The abolitions or reductions which might be made in these smaller German Courts would effect a reduction of £16,000. In South America we kept up an unnecessary staff, by the consolidation of which we might effect a considerable saving. Under these circumstances he thought it a modest proposal to move, as he did, that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £5,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £226,203, 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 the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  MR. SALT,with reference to the Vote of £50,000 for the North American Boundary Commission, asked whether the half of that sum, which was to be paid by Canada, had yet been voted by the Dominion Parliament; and, whether any part of the expense would be borne by the United States Government? It seemed to him that the United States had the best of the bargain.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDdenied the assertion of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that the Foreign Office was extravagant in its expenditure, and that it had disregarded the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Diplomatic Service. He would quote a statement, showing the increase and decrease on the Diplomatic Estimate since the year 1869–70, excluding the sum taken for special services. In 1869–70 the estimate was £215,867, in 1870–1 the estimate was £208,919, being a decrease of £6,948; in 1871–2 the estimate was £203,876, being a decrease of £5,043; in 1872–3 the estimate was £193,326, being a decrease of £10,550; in 1873–4 the estimate was £197,203, showing an increase of £3,877. That increase was mainly accounted for by the provision made for carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Diplomatic Services with regard to the increase of the salaries of second and third secretaries. These figures showed that the decrease on the five years was £22,541; deducting the increase, £3,877, the net decrease on the five years was £18,664. Therefore, on the score of economy no strong case was made out. As to the removal of second secretaries every two years, the revised rules, confirmed by Lord Granville, reserved full power, for special reasons, to extend the period of service at one place beyond the two years. The heads of missions never failed to report upon the conduct of junior members. The practice of selecting Representatives for important posts from the Diplomatic service already had been broken through in the case of Lord Kimberley, when he was sent to St.
  1804
  Petersburg, and that of Mr. Layard, when he was appointed to Madrid. The hon. Gentleman said that reductions should be made in the diplomatic establishments in the small German States. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that at Stuttgardt and Munich they now had simply a Chargé d' Affaires. These States had votes in the German Federal Council, and it must be remembered that upon their votes might depend a declaration of war or the adoption of an important policy. In the Federal Council, Prussia had 17 votes; Bavaria, 6; Saxony, 4; Würtemberg, 4; Baden, 3; and Hesse, 3; and there were distributed among the smaller States 21, making a total of 58 votes. He was not sure that his hon. Friend had alluded to any particular item of increase, except in the matter of wages to servants, which had occurred principally at Constantinople and Teheran.
  MR. RYLANDSwished to have details of the increase separate from the Estimate.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDrepeated that the increase was in the amount of wages to servants at the two places mentioned.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, if the noble Lord would look at the Estimates for 1869–70 he would see exactly what he wished to be done in future.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he was afraid he could not very well gather from his hon. Friend's statement exactly what he wanted. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had asked him as to the sum required, £50,000, for the expense of the British North American Boundary Commission. Half of it was to be borne by the Canadian Dominion; and he was not able to say whether or not it had been already voted by the Canadian Legislature. The survey had only just begun. The United States would, of course, have to bear their share of the expenses. What we undertook was to pay half the Canadian Legislature. He earnestly hoped that the Committee would not consent to the reduction of £5,000 proposed in this vote by his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands). At the same time, he could assure them the Secretary of State was most anxious to make reductions wherever they could be made without detriment to the public service.
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands)

  1805
  having alluded to him personally, he would beg to say a few words. It had often given him pleasure, while holding diplomatic appointments under Her Majesty, to see Gentlemen, Members of that House, and other persons of distinction, who were anxious to obtain information abroad, and which they could not have so easily obtained as when provided with what the hon. Member for Warrington called "tickets for soup;" and he had no doubt the hon. Member for Warrington himself, although so decided an enemy to the Diplomatic Body, if he applied to the noble Viscount for introductions before going abroad would receive them. If he did so, no doubt the hon. Gentleman would find our Diplomatic Representatives willing to aid him in every way in their power. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he had sat with him for two years in the same room on the Diplomatic Committee, and he would say the patience of the Committee had been severely tried by the numerous and lengthy questions which were put to some of the witnesses. The hon. Member further said he had sat two years on the Committee, and the result was, that everybody on the Committee was opposed to him; which reminded him (Mr. W. Lowther) of the juryman who complained that he was locked up with 11 obstinate men, none of whom would come to his opinion. The hon. Member complained that, although recommendations had been made by the Committee, they were not always followed. One of the recommendations of a former Committee was, that gentlemen employed in the diplomatic profession should be moved every three years. That recommendation had been carried out by Lord Malmesbury, and now, as he understood, the hon. Member complained of its adoption. The hon. Gentleman contended that our minor diplomatic establishments should be done away with, or left to Chargés d' Affaires, and when a difficulty arose a statesman should be sent to settle it. If the hon. Member was behind the scenes, he would know that questions could be often settled very quietly between an Ambassador and a Minister, without raising any alarm at all. Let them suppose that a difficulty arose in Germany, and that Her Majesty were to say to Lord Granville—"We must send out a statesman; there is the hon. Member for Warrington; he has not got any par-
  1806
  ticular hobby in the House at present; let him go and settle the difficulty"—persons who were not acquainted with the hon. Member would feel very much alarmed at seeing a gentleman coming out to settle a difficulty of which he knew nothing; and he (Mr. W. Lowther) did not know that the result would be satisfactory. With regard to the expenses of Foreign Embassies, the hon. Gentleman forgot that the arrangements with regard to the pay of Diplomatic Agents were not the same in all countries; for instance, in America their Representatives received an outfit, and in some cases there was not only an "outfit," but he might call it an "infit." English Diplomats did not receive any infit. It must be admitted, adopting the testimony of Lord Clarendon, Lord Derby, and others, that Her Majesty had a most efficient body of public servants in the diplomatic profession, and they sent home a great deal of most interesting information. No doubt, there was not that secrecy now in diplomacy there was formerly; but still there were secret things going on, and though the news might be flashed by telegraph, a great deal of it was excessively inaccurate. The hon. Member for Warrington appeared to think diplomacy might very well be carried on by telegraph; but after a service of 25 years, and knowing, as he thought, a good deal more of the profession than the hon. Member for Warrington, he must say they had on the whole a very economical, honourable, straightforward, and efficient diplomacy, and the evidence taken before the Diplomatic Committee all tended to prove this.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (20.) £40,030, to complete the sum for Governors, &c., Colonies.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had a few remarks to offer to the House, relative to the proceedings which were taking place on the Gold Coast, and which had involved this country in war. He wished, before agreeing to a grant in aid of West African government, for some explanations about the Ashantee War, the third of those wars in which we had been engaged. These were by no means contemptible affairs; they cost the country a good deal of

  1807
  money, and were very fatal to the troops engaged in them. The House was told the other day by the Colonial Secretary, that an action had taken place on the coast, with results disastrous to the English, and that Her Majesty's ships were engaged in support of the conflict. The Colonial Secretary also stated, what struck the House as being rather remarkable, that his own information about the incursion was so imperfect and inaccurate, that what he had at first supposed to be a force of only 4,000 men, turned out to be an army of 40,000. He wished to ask the Government what was the true state of the case. The occasion, as he understood, was the transfer of the Dutch forts on the Gold Coast to the English Government; a transfer evidently unfortunate, though as the convention was completed, it must be carried out. The last inquiry which that House had made into general policy on the West African coast was that carried on by a Select Committee of which he was Chairman in 1865. That Committee recommended non-extension of English territory on that coast. The inquiry lasted the whole Session, and the Committee consisted of many eminent men, and the conclusion which they came to was, that we had no interest in maintaining governments on that coast, and that our right policy was as soon as possible to enable the natives to manage their own affairs. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), then Secretary to the Colonies, carried out in the most significant manner the policy thus recommended, and so did all the Colonial Ministers since then, including those of Lord Derby's Administration. In fact, the feeling of the Committee was, that we had no longer any interest in holding territory in West Africa. We held those lands at first to promote the slave trade, and afterwards to extinguish it. But both those motives had now ceased, for the slave trade on that Coast was a thing of the past, it would have been put down much sooner had we operated on the demand rather than on the supply of slaves, and England had no longer any desire to send her forces to that pestilential clime. Our mercantile interest was also certainly in favour of non-extension of territory. Our merchants throve best on the Niger and those parts where they had no English
  1808
  Government or Force to help them to quarrel with the natives. Still, while we remained a better arrangement became necessary, as our intermixture of posts rendered a Customs' revenue impracticable, and the English and the Dutch had exchanged forts. No sooner had the negotiation been carried out, and was about to be put in force, than it was found that it was not so easy for the Dutch to go into English forts, although there was no difficulty in the English, who were more popular with the natives, going into the Dutch forts. These two Powers had allied themselves to different native tribes—the Dutch with the Ashantees, and the English with the Fantis. The Ashantees were a more powerful, half-Arab tribe, pressing the weaker natives towards the sea from the interior. Difficulties of no small magnitude arose, and blood was shed. At last, the Dutch and English considered it necessary on one side or the other to transfer the forts, so that one European Power or other should have all. It would have been fortunate for the English, if the agreement had ultimately been that she should transfer her forts to the Dutch. The result, however, was that in February, 1871, England acquired all the Dutch forts on the western coast of Africa, and took upon herself all the trouble, expense, and liabilities of Government; but the Dutch would retain all the advantages of trade with the country. Then a claim was made by the Ashantees to Elmina, one of the Dutch forts. The Dutch denied that they had any claim to sovereignty, but recommended the English to pay an annual sum of 900 florins, or £80, to the Ashantees, according to an old standing practice with the Dutch. It clearly would have been wise not to have refused to continue the payment, for the consequence of saving £80 a year might be very grave. In the year 1872, other things, complicated affairs, and negotiations had to be very ably conducted by Mr. Pope Hennessy, before they could be got rid of. There was a seizure of German missionaries, whom the King of the Ashantees refused to release until he had received a ransom of £1,000. There was also a question of allowances exacted from merchants at Elmina for Ashantee traders there, which the merchants sought to repudiate. The trade had ceased since 1863, and revived on

  1809
  the transfer of forts. Colonel Harley took the side of the merchants, while Governor Hennessy counselled submission to the exaction. This troubled state of things led to a Fanti Confederation, against which in October, 1872, Mr. Ussher, Administrator of Gold Coast, issued a violent proclamation, "to arrest and commit to prison all committing overt acts on behalf of confederation." Governor Hennessy ordered the recall of this proclamation. After this Colonel Harley seemed to have made an unfortunate speech to the chiefs at Elmina—"The Queen will not permit native customs to continue." Two Kings were arrested and imprisoned at Elmina, and afterwards on board Her Majesty's ships. The result was that the whole coast was under a British Protectorate of the most indefinite kind, and he hoped to hear the assurance of the Government that this country was not likely to be involved in further difficulty on account of such an anomalous state of things.
  MR. MACFIEdrew attention to the Vote of £1,800 for the Governor of Western Australia, and suggested that a Vote should be taken next year with a view to survey the land now in the hands of the Crown in Australia, so that we might know what was the extent of it, and how much was available for agriculture and for emigration.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKdeprecated any new war on the coast of Africa. As far as civilization went, we seemed to make no impression on the coast, and there seemed to be little advance in trade. It was painful, also, to send out Englishmen, who died off so rapidly in that dreadful climate.
  MR. KNATCHNULL-HUGESSENsaid, his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) was in error in supposing that our ships had taken part in the recent conflict on the West Coast, for the battle really occurred some miles inland. He was glad to say that the Houssas, or local police, who were engaged in it on the side of the Fantis, had behaved in a most creditable manner, and had exercised great moral influence over the Fantis, who in consequence had made a more strenuous resistance to the Ashantees than they had ever before been known to do. We had looked forward a long time to this local police force, upon which the defence of the West
  1810
  Coast must ultimately depend. The climate was fatal to white men, and hardly less so to the West India regiments; and the local police was a safer, a more economical, and more efficient Force than any other for the defence of the forts of the West Coast. The organization of such a Force, however, was a work of time. It was true that the number of Ashantees invading the Coast had been under-estimated; but there was great difficulty in obtaining accurate information among these savage tribes, and the tendency to exaggeration was such that Colonel Harley had in a previous despatch expressed his opinion that the number was much more likely to be 4,000 than 30,000; and as soon as more certain information had undeceived him, he had so reported, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had taken the earliest opportunity of making the correction known to the House. His right hon. Friend had alluded to the policy of the Committee of 1865, and seemed to think that the sooner we were out of West Africa the better. Now, it was quite true that one of the resolutions of the Committee on the West Coast was to the effect that all further extensions of territory, or assumptions of government, or now Treaties affording protection to the native tribes, would be inexpedient, and that our best policy was gradually to fit the natives for the administration of the government, with a view to our ultimate withdrawal from the whole coast, except, possibly, from Sierra Leone. But, however good such a policy might be, the publication of that recommendation had not been altogether fortunate. The effect of making known that our intention was to withdraw from the West Coast was naturally to place a weapon in the hands of those who wished to excite disquiet and stir up disaffection. In fact, there were many reasons why it would be better for us to withdraw at once than give to the native tribes the notion that we were only staying there as long as it suited our interest to do so. But were public opinion and the opinion of the House really in favour of any such withdrawal? Some time ago it appeared that France was ready to take the whole Settlement of the Gambia. An outcry arose, however, both in the House and in the country, and when, owing to the state of France, the negotiations were broken off,

  1811
  universal satisfaction was expressed with his announcement that there was no intention of resuming them. If, then, the House of Commons and the country were reluctant to part with the Gambia, he thought they would hardly be prepared to part with the other British Settlements on the West Coast. Nor did he admit that no good came from holding them, for during our occupation trade had greatly developed, the resources of the country had largely increased, and civilization and Christianity had made considerable progress. On the Gold Coast there was an intermixture of government between the Dutch and the English, and it was found inconvenient to have such a double government. The Treaty whereby the Dutch forts were ceded to us, stated that the mixed dominion of Great Britain and the Netherlands on the Coast of Guinea had done much harm to the native population, and that was why the Dutch forts were accepted by the British Government. The policy then pursued had never been challenged in the House of Commons, and he believed that the bringing of all the forts under one Government was advantageous to the locality and acceptable to the people of this country. His right hon. Friend found fault with the way in which the transfer was carried out, and stated that prior to the signing of the Convention, the King of Ashantee laid claim to the fort of Elmina. The printed Correspondence showed, however, that we refused to take the forts until the King of Ashantee had himself stated that the supposed advancement of his claim was wholly a mistake. He had addressed a letter to that effect to the Dutch Governor, who had replied in terms which informed the King that his letter was understood as a complete renunciation of his claim, and in such interpretation he had acquiesced. After that formal renunciation, surely, no one would argue that we ought to have put a stop to the negotiations, because this savage Monarch might, at some future time, again eat his words and advance his claim. As to the payment to the King of Ashantee, we declined to have anything to do with the forts until the Dutch Government had stated that it was intended solely for the encouragement of trade and not as a tribute, and the King had himself admitted that such was the case. Papers on all these
  1812
  matters would be shortly presented to the House, and it was desirable to abstain from discussing them more fully at present. He must, for that reason, abstain from expressing any opinion upon the general views of Mr. Hennessy upon these matters, but in regard to the speech Colonel Harley was said to have made, he must state that, in fact, it was never delivered, although, no doubt, Mr. Hennessy had been informed that it was, and as it had been asserted that the war was owing to Colonel Harley's bad management, he was bound to call attention to the fact, that the Ashantees had actually marched before Colonel Harley had even arrived at the Gold Coast. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the arrest of two Kings, but he did not seem to be aware that this was quite a separate transaction from the arrest of the King of Elmina—the two Kings, one of the Dutch and the other of the English native tribes, at Secondee, had been arrested on account of a quarrel between them, in which houses were plundered and property destroyed, but the King of Elmina's arrest was a different affair. The latter arrest was most fortunate, for there could be little doubt that he was in league with the King of Ashantee, and that he had taken an oath to destroy the British power. As to introducing the oath of allegiance, it should be remembered that exceptional cases required exceptional treatment, and that method had been resorted to before under similar circumstances as a test of loyalty to the British Crown. By his refusing to take the oath of allegiance, the King of Elmina showed to the Governor that the charges brought against him were probably not without foundation. The British Protectorate of the West Coast of Africa, which his right hon. Friend could not understand, was clogged and hindered by the existence of domestic slavery. Wherever territory was held by this country, slavery, of course, could not exist, but it was impossible to abolish domestic slavery among the native tribes, and that circumstance had been the main obstacle in the way of our acquiring territory on that coast. From this, too, arose the fact that the British Protectorate was of a somewhat indefinite character; but he believed the feeling of the people of England was that we ought to exercise a moral and beneficial

  1813
  influence over the native tribes. We had endeavoured to extend Christianity, to advance civilization, and to open up trade. We had already done much towards accomplishing these objects, and he hoped we should do more. The Government were taking active measures in order to put an end to the war, but it was their earnest desire in no case of this kind to use force if peaceable negotiations were likely to be available. In reply to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie), he had to state that in all those colonies where responsible government was established, the Ministers of the Government naturally had control over the waste lands, and we could only deal with the young colony of Western Australia in the same way as we had done with the other Australian colonies.
  Vote agreed to
  (21.) £3,016, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and St. Helena.
  (22.) £72, to complete the sum for the Slave Trade Commissions.
  (23.) £11,229, to complete the sum for Tonnage Duties, &c.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, according to a statement of Mr. Stanley, the discoverer of Dr. Livingstone, it appeared that captured slaves who were liberated had to serve an apprenticeship of five years, but the local Government received a small profit on this transaction. He suggested that any such profit ought to be given to the liberated Africans.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobserved that under the heading of "Clothes and Stores" he observed a sum of £10 taken for supplying clothes to liberated Africans. He desired to have some explanation as to that item. Full-dress in Africa was not a costly affair; but £10 to meet that source of expenditure seemed a very small affair indeed to appear in the Estimates.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that the clothing of an African was, as a rule, somewhat sparse, and for that reason the sum asked for was sufficient for the purpose for which it was taken. If it were not spent it would be repaid to the Treasury. He would admit that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) deserved attention.
  Vote agreed to.
  (24.) £4,429, to complete the sum for Emigration.
  MR. MACFIEregretted that there were greater facilities for emigrants to go to the United States than to our own colonies, and expressed his opinion that the Board ought to consider the matter with a view of retaining a larger proportion of the emigrants under the dominion of the British Crown. The Board was originally constituted to develop the lands of the British Empire, The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the colony of Western Australia asked for the control of their lands, it would be given to them in the same way as it had been given in reference to other colonies. This was to be regretted, because experience had shown that the effect of that policy was to prevent such lands from being available for the people of this country. In his opinion, this course should not be followed any further, especially as these lands in Western Australia were almost the only ones now remaining under the control of Parliament. In his opinion, the infusion of a little new blood in reference to the constitution of the Board would do good.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked why the Staff of the Emigration Commission had not been reduced, though an important part of their duties had been transferred to the Board of Trade?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENreplied, that there had not yet been an opportunity for a full revision of the Staff.
  Vote agreed to.
  (25.) £4,200, to complete the sum for the Treasury Chest.
  (26.) £317,996, to complete the sum for Superannuation Allowances.
  MR. WHITWELLasked to what extent superannuation had gone on for the last year?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not aware of any change which had recently taken place; there was very little difference from year to year.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that the name of the Rev. Thomas Thurlow appeared upon the Vote; but he did not know what office that gentleman had filled nor how long he had remained in it. His own opinion was that it had been a sinecure from the commencement, and the sooner they affirmed the principle of

  1815
  disestablishing such Votes as this the better. The gross sum which that Gentleman had received amounted to £493,000, and the matter was really a disgrace to the Government and to the country.
  MR. RYLANDScalled attention to the fact that in many cases of superannuation the amount simply was given without reference to the age of person or any particulars.
  MR. DICKINSONalso said, that no information was given in reference to the age of the pensioners. Last year there was an Act of Parliament granting the Accountant General in Chancery his full allowance of £4,200 a-year; yet they were not informed in the Estimates of his age or his period of service.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that there were important discussions in the House last year as to the Accountant General's case, when the decision of the Government was overruled, and he was granted his full pension. The omissions of information in the Votes would he hoped in future be supplied. The hon. Member (Mr. Mellor) had referred to a matter of very remote antiquity, and he (Mr. Baxter) was not able to give an account of it. The pension was given to Mr. Thurlow about 40 years ago.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, power was given last year to grant a pension amounting to the full salary under special circumstances, and he wished to know what the special circumstances were?
  MR. MELLORasked if the Government were perfectly satisfied that Mr. Thurlow was still alive?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: He is alive; I have made inquiries.
  Vote agreed to.
  (27.) £33,588, to complete the sum for the Merchant Seamen's Fund.
  (28.) £27,500, to complete the sum for Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
  (29.) £15,750, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
  (30.) £4,616, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
  (31.) £4,924, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland.
  (32.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,027, 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 the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of temporary Commissions."
  MR. BOWRINGremarked upon the niggardly character of the Vote for the expenses of the Royal Commission for the Vienna Exhibition as compared with the liberal grants of all other Governments, and said, that but for the spirited manner in which several gentlemen—notably Sir Richard Wallace—had come forward and lent Art productions for exhibition in Vienna, we should have been left behind. Great praise was also due to British exhibitors in the industrial departments for taking upon themselves the entire cost of the exhibition.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked as to when the Rivers Pollution Inquiry Commission and the Aid to Science Commission were likely to terminate?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, the Commission on the Pollution of Rivers was expected to conclude its labours during the present financial year, and the Aid to Science Commission to conclude its labour in the course of the following financial year. It was part of the duty of the Treasury to see that the various Commissioners brought their labours to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
  MR. RYLANDSobjected to the item of £300 for the salary of the English Secretary at the Vienna Exhibition. The gentleman sent to Vienna in that capacity received a standing salary of £600 per annum as Superintendent of the South Kensington Museum, and as he was to receive £150 for rent at Vienna, and also two guineas per day for his personal expenses, he was surely not entitled to £300 in the shape of additional salary. Moreover, his duties at South Kensington Museum had to be discharged by some one else in his absence. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by £300.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,727, 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 the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of temporary Commissions."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  MR. BAXTERadmitted that in principle it was undesirable to take men from their ordinary duties and pay them extra for other work, but this was an exceptional case. He maintained that there were occasions on which a person was pre-eminently fitted for discharging the duties of such a post as that of Secretary to the Vienna Exhibition Commission, and that was one of those occasions. He believed the gentleman in question, Mr. Owen, was the very best man who could be sent to Vienna for such a purpose. As he was the best man, it would have been unwise to have passed over him because of his position in the public service; while the extra pay was deserved for special duty, which, if performed by anyone else, must have cost much more.
  MR. BOWRINGalso thought Mr. Owen was the most fit person they could find to perform the duties attaching to his position. He said this from an intimate acquaintance with his character and attainments. If anyone else had been sent to Vienna, the country would have had to pay at least £1,000 a-year, instead of the small sum which the gentleman in question was to receive.
  MR. RYLANDSdid not for a moment dispute the eminent qualifications of the gentleman acting as Secretary to the Commission; but he objected to the policy.
  MR. SCOURFIELD,in reference to the sum of £5,000 in the Estimates, remarked that the words prefixed to it—"Commissions which may hereafter be appointed," left a good deal to the imagination.
  MR. SAMUELSONexplained that the Science and Art Commission had a very wide range of inquiry. It had sat only two years, and he believed it would finish its work next year. It had lost no time, and it had been exceptionally economical.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (33.) £2,545, to complete the sum for Oceanic Investigations.
  (34.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,165, 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 certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
  MR. MONKtook exception to expenditure for investing persons with the Orders of the Garter and the Thistle. Last year he gave Notice that he would move the reduction of the Vote, because he thought persons receiving Orders should pay any expenses connected with them; and he, therefore, now moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,165, he 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 certain Miscellaneous Expenses."—(Mr. Monk.)
  MR. BAXTERsaid, this item varied every year, and was fixed in the Lord Chamberlain's Department, it being a matter over which the Treasury had very little control. This year 25 badges of the Colonial Order of St. George would involve an outlay of £775; and you could not ask the recipients of these honours to pay for them.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 54: Majority 42.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (35.) £983,015, Customs Department.
  MR. MACFIEasked, whether any further consideration had been given to the proposal to consolidate the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, the question was still under the consideration of a Select Committee up stairs.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKpointed out that in this Vote there was an annual sum of £4,083 paid for the superannuation of three secretaries. He wished to know how it was that so many secretaries had been superannuated?
  MR. DICKINSONobserved that the superannuation allowances in question were £1,300 a-year each, though the working salaries were very little more.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he was quite unable to explain the matter; but he would obtain the necessary information before the Report was brought up.
  In reply to Mr. BOWRING,
  MR. BAXTERsaid, the supervision of the various outport establishments had been completed, and while the establishments at London and Liverpool were to be greatly reduced, the establishments at the outports would be

  1819
  considerably increased. A Return would shortly be laid before the House showing all the recent changes that had taken place in the Customs Department.
  Vote agreed to.
  (36.) £1,678,236, Inland Revenue.
  MR. MACFIEasked, whether there was any prospect of carrying out the plan, which had been approved, whereby the post offices throughout the country should sell stamps of every description?
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, in this Department there were also three secretaries superannuated, receiving £3,310 a-year.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsuggested the propriety, now that duties were levied on tea, coffee, sugar, and fruit only, that the Customs and the Inland Revenue Departments should be united, and a large number of solicitors, secretaries, Commissioners, and other high officers thus got rid of.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that whatever arguments might be used in favour of it, such an amalgamation would greatly add to the Estimates for a long time to come. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie), he might say that the system of selling stamps at the post offices was already in operation, and it was being gradually extended.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

LOCAL TAXATION—BOUNDARIES OF PARISHES, UNIONS, AND COUNTIES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR, STANSFELD,in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report whether the existing Areas and Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties may be so altered and adjusted as to prevent the inconvenience in matters of Local Administration and Taxation which now arises from the limited extent or subdivision of certain Parishes, or the overlapping of Parishes in two or more administrative areas, or from Parishes and Unions being situated in more than one County, with power to recommend whether any and, if so, what measure should be taken to give effect to their Report,"
  said, he ventured to state that the terms of the Resolution alone were a sufficient
  1820
  recommendation, or would be to those who were familiar with the question, for there was hardly any hon. Member of the House who was not fully conscious of the incongruities, and of the inconveniences consequent upon the incongruities, of the areas and boundaries of fiscal and administrative jurisdiction in this country. The Union was an aggregation of parishes, but the parishes sometimes overlapped the Union, and the Union overlapped the boundary of the county. The object of the Committee would be simply to take into consideration the inconvenience of the existing anomalies, and to advise the House and the Government whether it would not be possible, and worth while, to endeavour to accomplish some simplification of, and harmony in, the area of these boundaries. The first area with which they had to deal was the parish. Probably, most hon. Members were aware that there was a distinction between an ecclesiastical parish and a civil parish; but he did not know how many were aware that at present there were in England and Wales no less than 15,453 of these civil parishes. A definition of a civil parish, sometimes called a township, was this—that it was a place in which poor might be settled and overseers might be appointed for the collection of the poor rate. The House would also understand that if there were about 16,000 civil parishes in this country, a great many of them must be far too small, both as regarded area and population, to have any reassonable cause for their existence. Besides the smallness of many of these parishes, it was well known that many parishes extended into three or four or more counties; and the Ordnance Map afforded clear demonstration that a very great many parishes were subdivided, having outlying parts miles from the mother parish. Without troubling the House too much, he was bound to give some instances which he thought would be curious, and perhaps some of them unexpected, of these anomalies. In the first place, with respect to the area of parishes; some of them were very small: in the county of York he found that in the Union of Howden there was a parish called Cheapside, with only 7 acres, number of houses 15, and population 41. In the Union of Clitheroe, in the county of Lancashire, there was a parish called Clitheroe Castle, consisting of 6 acres,

  1821
  1 house, and a population of 9. In the county of Cumberland, in the Union of Carlisle, there was a parish called Eagles-field Abbey, consisting of 5 acres, 11 houses, and a population of 49. In the Union of York there was the parish of Mint Yard, consisting of 4 acres, 11 houses, and a population of 59. In the Union of Bristol there was the parish of St. Werbergh, consisting of 3 acres, 5 houses, and a population of 18. In the Union of Belford, in the county of Northumberland, there was the parish of Monks' House, consisting of 1 acre, 3 houses, and a population of 3. In the Union of York there was the parish of Davey Hall, consisting of a quarter of an acre, 4 houses, and a population of 14. He hail taken these figures from the Census Returns; but on referring to a Return made for the Local Government Board, which was slightly irregular and somewhat incorrect, it stated the population of such and such a parish to be one old woman, a pig, and a donkey. These were, no doubt, exceptional cases; but he would now refer to a number of inhabited houses and the population of a certain number of parishes. There were 880 parishes containing less than 10 inhabited houses in each; there were 515 which contained less than 10, 92 contained 4 each, 89 contained only 3 each, 18 contained only 2 each, and 96 contained only 1 each. The Returns of population were still more curious. There were 782 parishes in which the population did not exceed 50. The number of parishes containing 40 inhabitants and not exceeding 50, was 173; the number of parishes containing 30 inhabitants and not exceeding 40, was 189; the number of parishes containing 20 inhabitants and not exceeding 30, was 168; the number of those containing 10 and not exceeding 20 inhabitants, was 150; while 98 parishes contained only from 1 to 10 inhabitants, and 14 parishes were positively uninhabited. He had spoken of the number of parishes which traversed the boundaries of counties. It was not so large as that of the Unions, but still he found no fewer than 150 parishes which were in more than one county, and no fewer than 400 which were partly within, and partly without, the urban jurisdictions and borough districts. With reference to the detached parts, perhaps that constituted one of the greatest anomalies
  1822
  of the present system. He would mention a few of the cases taken, not exceptionally, but at random, which were extremely remarkable and instructive. In the Northern Division of the county of Durham there were four townships, each of which had one detached part, and the extent of area of the detached portions of these four parishes varied from one acre to 10 acres. There were two townships, each of which had two detached parts, the area of such detached parts varying from one acre to 27 acres. Three townships had each three detached parts, with areas varying from one acre to 55 acres. There were four townships, in each of which there were four detached parts, the areas of the detached parts varying in area from 0·38 of an acre to 392 acres. One township had five detached parts, varying in area from four to 67 acres. Another township had seven detached parts, varying in area from three to 52 acres. Then there was one township with no fewer than 19 detached parts, which varied in area from 0·29 of an acre to 258 acres. He would now give one or two more instances in other localities. In the ancient ecclesiastical parish of Holme, in the county of Cumberland, the number of townships and the numbers of the detached parts were 7, 22, and 46 respectively, and a marsh common to three of the townships. In Durham there was the parish of Lanchester. It contained 17 townships, only one of which was entire, the remainder having from one to 19 detached parts. Again, in the West Riding of the county of York there was the ancient parish of Whitgift, in which one township—Swinefleet—happencil to have no fewer than 97 detached parts. To a certain extent, that question of parishes and their detached parts had been already dealt with by legislation, though not with reference to the subject-matter of the present proposed inquiry. What he proposed now to do was to consider areas and boundaries purely from an administrative point of view; but he wished to draw attention for a moment to the Boundary Act of 1832, which followed the passing of the first Reform Act. At that period 42 of the political counties contained detached parts of parishes which were themselves in other counties. Of those 42 counties, 26 were dealt with by the Boundary Act of 1832, which annexed the de-

  1823
  tached parts of the parishes for political purposes to the counties by which they were surrounded. Sixteen counties were not dealt with, he presumed on account of political reasons affecting the minds of those who had to deal with the question at that time. In 1844 another Act, founded on the statute of 1832, was passed. It dealt only with those parishes and detached parts which had formed the subject-matter of the previous Act, and it made them a part, for all county administrative purposes, of the counties in which they existed. The question, therefore, was in this position—There were a great number of parishes with detached parts in some counties, and with detached parts in other counties; consequently, where the detached parts of a parish lay in another county, they formed a part of that county for political and for county financial purposes, while for parochial or Poor Law purposes, the detached parts remained as they were prior to the passing of the Act of 1832. Again, many parishes crossed the boundaries of administrative boundaries. With regard to these a different state of things existed, because the Union was built up out of the parishes by the labour of the Poor Law Commission in 1834. He had been satisfied that the Poor Law Commissioners of that period felt that they were bound to construct the Unions by an aggregation of parishes mainly with respect to questions of administrative convenience—namely, such as the most convenient town for building the workhouse, and the assembling of the guardians for the discharge of their duties; and in many cases they were compelled to transgress, in the composition of their Unions, the boundaries of the county proper. The result was that out of 647 Unions, 177 overlapped the boundaries of counties; 133 of those Unions were in two counties, 31 were in three counties, and three Unions were in four counties. There were only two counties, Cumberland and Northumberland, the areas and boundaries of which coincided with the Unions which were contained in them. Now, his purpose was simply to deal with the question from the point of local taxation and local government and administration, but he wished to state that the Registrar General had referred, in 1851, in reference to the Census Returns, to the inconveniences and perplexities caused by
  1824
  the variety of ecclesiastical, military and civil, judicial, ancient and modern, municipal and Parliamentary subdivisions of the country, and had suggested that in any future Census all administrative arrangements would be greatly facilitated by the adoption of an uniform system of territorial division, and a similar opinion was again expressed in 1871. To secure, on that data, what he hoped the Committee would undertake to consider and report, was, first of all, whether it would not be possible to endeavour, it was of the highest importance to have by consolidation, to reduce the number of these 15,416 civil parishes, and a large proportion of which he had indicated to be of too small a character to justify their separate existence for purposes of taxation. In the next place, the Committee might consider whether an end should not be made of all these subdivisions, and of the existence of these detached portions—whether, in fact, each parish should not be its own ring-fence. That would not be a work of insuperable difficulty, but it would involve a certain amount of labour for which hon. Members familiar with the work of local government would be qualified. Another question would arise in this way—When we had to form a local government district under the Sanitary Acts we were bound to form it with reference to certain conditions. We could not look to Union boundaries; we had to look to the actual and probable future growth of the nascent urban population. It was a common thing to be called upon by the inhabitants of a town which was not yet a borough to define boundaries with reference to this expected growth, and to define municipal boundaries with reference to the same considerations. It might, therefore, be very advisable, when districts of this kind were constituted, to have the power of saying that those parts of rural parishes which had been made urban should be either attached to the town or constituted into parishes themselves. The next question would be, whether it was not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that every parish and every Union should be brought entirely under the same administrative jurisdiction. It was also a matter of serious consideration whether it would not be advisable that for all administrative purposes there should be the same county area. In the next place, having arrived at a

  1825
  conclusion on these various topics, it would be for the Committee to report its recommendations, and how they could be best carried into effect. There were many matters which could be managed by the ordinary Staff of the Local Government Board; but one of these subjects was, however, exceptional, and that was the assimilation of the area of boundaries of parishes, Unions, and counties, and that he thought, would be best investigated by an independent Commission. Amongst all these questions that was the most important and the only difficult one, for there were 150 parishes which crossed the boundaries of counties, and 177 Unions which did so. There were three methods by which that object might be accomplished. It might be done by simply altering the boundaries of parishes and Unions. When the present First Lord of the Admiralty instructed the Inspectors of the Poor-Law Board to study the question in their respective districts, the general result of their inquiry was to the effect that such a scheme would not be feasible, consistent with the necessities of the case, and certainly not consistent with the burdens of the Boards of Guardians. The next method would be to deal with the boundaries of counties, and not to touch the boundaries of parishes and Unions. He however did not think that was a course which the House was likely to adopt, for as far as he was concerned, he confessed he thought the boundary of a county was the last that ought to be touched; that we ought to try every other method to accomplish our object, and that we ought to be satisfied, by independent inquiry, of the necessity, if it should prove to be one, of changing the boundaries of counties to any serious extent. The third method would be to combine both the measures named, in what proportions would have to be defined; and he thought it might be possible to alter Union boundaries more than the Inspectors thought advisable, without detriment to local administration and without an unnecessary alteration of the boundaries of counties. The House would sympathize with the general object that every smaller area should be embraced entirely within a larger one, and he did not think he could guarantee that that object could be attained, without in the last resort dealing in some eases with the boundaries of counties
  1826
  themselves. Whether the political boundary of a county should be dealt with was a question entirely beyond the scope of the subject, and he did not propose to touch it. He should be able to prove to the Committee, if it were appointed, that we could alter the administrative county without trenching upon the county political, though he had no objection to the Committee discussing the boundaries from the political as well as the administrative point of view. He was conscious of the advantage of the uniformity and identity of boundaries for all purposes; but he could undertake to show that no serious inconvenience would follow from leaving the political counties exactly as they were, and altering the boundaries for administrative purposes; but that if we did not reconcile and harmonize boundaries for administrative purposes, we should incur serious disadvantages in future legislation. Suppose boundaries altered for administrative purposes, there would be an alteration of the area of county taxation for all purposes. County rates, however, were comparatively the lightest, and the variations in them were slight compared with the differences between other rates in different counties. Another effect would be the changing of highway districts conterminous with existing boundaries; and a third effect would be the alteration of petty sessional divisions. The latter, supposing the alterations of county boundaries to be trifling, would not be a matter of serious inconvenience, and it would be attended with positive convenience, by enabling Unions to transact their business at one petty sessions instead of two. Justices in the commission for one district could; if necessary, be placed in a second commission. His first object, therefore, would be, as far as possible, to make boundaries of parishes and Unions without touching counties in any case; and, in the second place, if he were driven, in certain cases, to impose modifications of county boundaries, it should be for administrative purposes only, leaving the political county where it was. These were the proposals he should have to make to the Committee if the House should grant it. He had argued the question so far simply on the ground of convenience, supposing they had no further measures of constructive legislation to propose. But he should fall very

  1827
  short of expressing the motives which impelled Her Majesty's Government in the action they proposed to take, if he confined himself to a statement of that kind. The three Bills which had already been read a first time dealt with matters of considerable practical importance. They dealt with the abolition of exceptions from rating; with uniformity of assessment for all purposes, whether of Imperial taxation or local rates; and the third Bill dealt with the consolidation of rates. His next proposal was to enable the Government to address themselves to a matter of far greater importance and interest, and for which a Committee was in their view a necessary preliminary—namely, the reform of the system of local self-government itself. Now, the reform of the system of local government meant, inevitably in the first instance, the reform, the reconstruction, if necessary, the simplification, the harmonization of the areas of local government, and when they had prepared the way by simplification of areas, then the time would come when they might address themselves to the question of the construction and functions of the local government that should preside over and administer local government law within those areas. Now, the construction of these bodies must in their view be based on the principle which pervaded almost all the institutions of this country, and which belonged to its oldest traditions—he meant the representative principle. The problem of the best government, to his mind, was the problem of the best self-government. From the smallest local government that existed—from the vestry of the smallest parish to the High Court of Parliament itself, they found the principle of self-government, and of representative self-government, had obtained throughout the history of this country. There was only one exception to that rule, and, strange to say, that exception was to be found in the very largest and most important area of local government which the country possessed. In the counties the functions performed by the justices were insufficient; he thought much more might be done from an administrative point of view; but whether these functions were sufficient or insufficient, it was a remarkable fact that what he might call the missing link in the chain of representative self-government was to be found in the area
  1828
  of the county, where local government assumed its highest functions in the widest extent, and came into direct contact with Imperial objects. The recent history of the government of counties was somewhat curious. He found in 1850 Mr. Milner Gibson introduced a Bill for the formation of County Boards. It was referred to a Select Committee, which reported against it and it was dropped. In 1861 a Bill with similar objects was introduced by Sir John Trelawny, Sir John Shelley, and Mr. Barrow, which after some discussion was also dropped. But in 1868 a Select Committee reported in a very different sense on the question of the constitution of County Boards. That Committee was appointed to inquire into the present mode of conducting financial arrangements in the counties of England and Wales, and whether any alteration ought to be made in the persons by whom or the manner in which those arrangements were conducted. It recommended, that in order to give satisfaction to the ratepayers, Boards of Guardians should elect representatives, who should be admitted to take part and vote at all meetings of magistrates held in their counties for the consideration of questions of county expenditure; that in Poor Law Unions a representative might be elected for the county where there were at least six parishes, and where there were a less number, the parishes might be added to the adjoining Union for the purpose. The House would, therefore, see that that Committee had attempted, though by means which he thought imperfect and insufficient, to overcome the incongruity of the boundary line between Unions and the county. Subsequently, a Bill was founded on the Report of that Committee by the present Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and that Bill also was not passed. There had been considerable difficulty in dealing with the question; he had experienced it himself; but, since the House had of late years given attention to sanitary legislation and administration, it had begun to perceive that there were many duties which a County Board might perform, besides the administration of taxation and expenditure. Last year, when he introduced the Public Health Bill, he explained to the House that dealing with the question of County Boards implied

  1829
  also that of county boundaries; that that question was a delicate one, and could not be approached with any prospect of success, except through the medium of a Committee of the House of Commons, probably to be followed by a Commission of Inquiry. Those considerations, he thought, went in favour of the re-construction of County Boards. It would be premature for him at the present moment to endeavour to suggest what functions should be assigned to such bodies. Whether those functions were attributed to them at once, or were accorded to them by natural growth, he had no hesitation in expressing his conviction that they were destined to become great institutions in the country. He ventured to remind the House that in the administration of the Department over which he had the honour to preside, he had given some evidences of the importance of enlarging the areas of local administration, and, if possible, of considering the question of administration within even the smaller area of counties. During the last year or two he had done his best to promote county conferences of Boards of Guardians, to discuss, among themselves, the principles of Poor Law administration; and the meetings which had taken place for that object had, he believed, been productive of great good. Local administration in these matters would, he felt convinced, tend to render easy and to simplify the relations between local and Imperial government; and he trusted that the most qualified men in the country would be induced to take part in bringing that result to pass, and would make it the object of an honourable ambition. When the time came to make proposals on the recommendations of the Committee—and he did not think that time would be far distant, the time would also come for considering the financial aid to local burdens which Her Majesty's Government would give, and in moving for the Committee, which, unfortunately, the state of his voice compelled him to do in fewer observations than he should otherwise think desirable, he wished to be allowed to record this conviction. He believed when the time came that we should have a complete system of local government, that financial assistance which the House desired, might be afforded without those dangers which were likely to arise if that aid were given
  1830
  at the present time. He believed it might be afforded then without any danger of enervating the spirit or relaxing the fibre of local government. He believed that aid might be afforded so as to stimulate its spirit, to add to its independence, and especially so as to minimize that detailed interference, that supervision of Government departments which he could assure the House was as objectionable to the minds of the Members of the Government as it could be to those of any other persons. Lastly, he believed that aid could be rendered under such conditions as not to make local expenditure careless, extravagant, or lax, but so as to stimulate that spirit of efficiency and economy which ought to be inseparable from the administration of local government in this country. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report whether the existing Areas and Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties may be so altered and adjusted as to prevent the inconvenience in matters of Local Administration and Taxation which now arises from the limited extent or subdivision of certain Parishes, or the overlapping of Parishes in two or more administrative areas, or from Parishes and Unions being situate in more than one County, with power to recommend whether any and, if so, what measures should be taken to give effect to their Report."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the country would be somewhat disappointed at the measures which Her Majesty's Government offered on the subject of local taxation. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that they only touched the very fringe of the question; but after the Resolution of the House passed by such a large majority last year, every one had a right to expect that Her Majesty's Government would have gone a great deal deeper. The House had a long explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the other night, pointing out the difficulties of this really difficult subject, and saying a great deal about the want of information on the part of the Government, and how they did not feel justified in laying before Parliament propositions dealing with the whole matter, until they had made more inquiries with a view to obtaining complete information. That might be all very well; but the House

  1831
  and the country would not forget that, some years ago, Her Majesty's Government stated that they were prepared to deal with the question; and not only that, but the present First Lord of the Admiralty laid before the House a series of propositions for the purpose of giving certain relief. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government were either now delaying what were really useful practical measures on the plea of want of information, or two or three years ago they were guilty of laying before the House measures with regard to which they had not that information which was required. He did not see how Her Majesty's Government could escape from the horns of that dilemma. Having said so much, he was by no means averse to the appointment of the Committee; but the right hon. Gentleman must expect great difficulties when the Committee met in re-adjusting the boundaries of which he had spoken. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the counties, of the highway districts, of the towns, of the Poor Law districts, of the petty sessional divisions, and so on. But it should be remembered that those various divisions had all been formed, because they appeared the most suitable for the special purposes for which they were designed. It was all very well to carve out England into a certain number of squares, but when the Committee came to deal with the question, they would find a great number of interests, some pulling one way and some another. Take, for instance, the question of municipal towns and Unions. It might be very convenient that the boundaries of the two should be identical; but everybody knew that persons living in the country, just outside the town, derived great advantages from their position, and that the town was entitled to call upon them to contribute something to the poor rates. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it would be wise to have the same administrative county—or, in other words, that the boundaries of the present county should be enlarged in order to take in some of the adjoining townships. But by doing that, they might entirely change the incidence of the county rate, they might be bringing a set of ratepayers who had hitherto had a small county rate into a county where the county rate might be very large. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to revise the municipal boundaries. Un-
  1832
  fortunately, there was scarcely a single borough in England which was not very deeply involved in debt; and he could not help thinking that the debt was multiplying at so rapid a rate that some day or other it would be found to be a great evil. Indeed, in many cases the rates of the boroughs were so heavy that people were leaving them and going into the country to live in order to escape the burden. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, in order to make a nice arrangement on paper, that everybody within a given red square should contribute in the same proportion.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood him. He would explain that he had simply suggested it would not be advisable that some portions of a parish in a given area should be severed from other portions remaining outside, and he had endeavoured to show it was advisable to make the area of parishes coincide with the municipal boundary.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that practically the injustice he deprecated would be done. If certain parishes at present suburban were joined to a municipal borough, the ratepayers in those formerly suburban parishes would be called upon to contribute for the liquidation of debts they had no voice in incuring. He did not for a moment object to making the boundaries intelligible; but would say it must not be forgotten that all these modern divisions for highways, for petty sessions, and for Poor Law Unions had been made for some special reason, and that the object in view had been a just distribution of burdens. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it would be easy to alter the boundaries of counties; he trusted, however, that the House would not consent to disturb those boundaries.—[Mr. STANSFELD dissented.]—The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he had distinctly contemplated altering the boundaries of counties, and that he (Mr. Cross) trusted the country would not permit. The boundaries of counties were well understood, and any alteration in that respect would result in endless confusion. The proposed changes were suggested by an increase or decrease of population in particular parts, but population was very fluctuating. For instance, the discovery of a mine near any particular town would materially increase its size; but

  1833
  the increase might be only temporary. Why, then, should historical divisions be upset, for what might be a merely temporary condition of things? With regard to the proposal for establishing County Boards, the right hon. Gentleman would find no jealousy existing among the magistrates respecting the proposed method of administering the funds. The justices had existed many years, and as they did the work for which they were originally appointed well, other duties had been cast upon them. The administration of certain local funds arising within the limits of their jurisdiction had been left to them, and they had discharged the obligation as best they could; they were not to blame if they had not done this additional work as well as they did that for which they were originally appointed. He feared the same course was being adopted with regard to the Boards of Guardians. They were appointed for a specific purpose and did their work well; it seemed as if there was now a determination to break their backs as a reward for their diligence. Although there would be no jealousy on the part of the magistrates with reference to the proposals on that head, he felt convinced from what he had seen of the administration of local funds that administration by the county justices was far more economical than by Boards of Guardians or by municipal authorities. In conclusion, he would hope that we should not have anything like the system of centralization which was growing up at the Home Office and the Local Government Board, and remarked that if any of these measures tended to decentralization, he should rejoice at the appointment of this Committee.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, for he could not allow that a boundary once fixed would be the proper one for all time to come. If he had any fault to find with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, it was, that his Motion did not include within its scope the boundaries of the municipal boroughs. He considered that if it was necessary, and if they wished to review the area of taxation, this should be effected completely and on a just and proper basis. In this there need be no insuperable difficulty. In the borough of Middles-
  1834
  borough, the area of the town had been considerably enlarged, and by negotiation and compromise, the taxation had been adjusted, in such a way that the area was increased without injustice being done to the outlying districts. But this should not involve, as it does at present, all the trouble and cost of a private Act of Parliament; there should be some public authority which could be appealed to, and which, after proper inquiry, should have power to enlarge the boundaries of municipal boroughs. To show how much this was required, he would, as an example, point to the municipal borough of Banbury, forming a part of the Parliamentary borough represented by himself. It contained 4,000 inhabitants, whereas the urban population was 12,000. Three police rates were levied in the town—one by the municipality and the others by two counties. It was the same with the poor rates, but the three districts were, for all purposes of residence and occupation, a single town. There were many instances of streets with one side in the municipal borough, and the other side in the county; others with the front-doors of houses in the borough, and the backdoors in the county. Such anomalies required to be rectified, and he thought the Committee for which the right hon. Gentleman had moved ought to have power to remedy them. He would, therefore, move the insertion after the word "parishes" of the word "municipal," so that the Committee might be empowered to consider the area of municipal boroughs.
  MR. RATHBONE,in seconding the Amendment, said, that a growing evil in the present day was that rich persons carrying on business within a borough resided outside the borough, and so withdrew themselves from the natural area of taxation to which they ought to be subject. That was a matter which must be considered soon, and ought to be considered now.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "Parishes," to insert the words "Municipal Boroughs."—(Mr. Samuelson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdid not object, neither did he suppose that the House would be disposed to object to

  1835
  the appointment of the Committee which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The question of the rectification of boundaries was, no doubt, a very important question, but it was not one that was prominently incumbent on the House to initiate. He believed that the Government, in its Poor Law Department, possessed all the knowledge and information on the question which they required, and if the Committee were appointed, it was incumbent on the Government to point out what were the alterations and rectifications which they wished to suggest. So far as the rectification of Union boundaries was concerned, the subject had been in the hands of the Poor Law authorities for the last 30 years, and they had had the power to make rectifications, but they had neglected to do so; and, therefore, he thought it was rather hard upon that House at so late a period of the Session, and at the termination of a Parliament of long duration, to begin a process which required the new energy of a new Parliament. The difficulty in rectifying Union boundaries arose out of the registration, which applied to the Union, so that if any change were made in the Union the registration would no longer be available for the purposes of comparison. That, however, was not a fatal or insuperable objection. The present First Lord of the Admiralty would remember that when he was at the head of the Poor Law Board he had the opportunity of rectifying the boundaries of the Unions that lay between adjoining counties when the Gilbert Unions were broken up, but he did not use such opportunity. So far as regarded the boundaries of Unions, if anything could be done in the way suggested he thought it would be a great advantage, but he was not sanguine on the subject; and if all the controvertible points were referred to a Committee a long Session would be spent before the inquiry was concluded. With regard to the proposal to aid local expenditure out of the Votes of Parliament, the great bugbear was that it would interfere with local self-government. The sanitary legislation of last year, however, provided for that very assistance. The proposal made by his hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) was to increase the contribution from the Votes of the House towards the police expenditure of coun-
  1836
  ties and boroughs. Now, he contended that whether the contribution of the State towards that expenditure was to the extent of one-quarter or one-half, it would make no difference with regard to local administration, for the tendency of the local authorities as to police administration was towards economy, while the tendency of Government interference, as shown in the requisitions of the Government Inspector, was towards extravagance. The case of the lunatics was an analogous one, so far as any experience had been obtained. The lunatics might be said to cost 9s. a-head against a pauper expenditure of 4s. ahead; but would anyone affirm that the influence now exercised by the visiting justices in behalf of economy would be interfered with if Imperial aid were given to the county expenditure? Only yesterday, he received the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners upon the lunatic asylum in his county. They reported it to be in an admirable and satisfactory condition, but the apartment appointed for Divine service was scarcely adequate to the number capable of attending public worship; and so it was hoped the visiting justices would lose no time in building a new chapel in a convenient situation for the accommodation of the lunatics. That was the sort of pressure exercised by Government Inspectors upon the visiting justices; and so long as the Government gave these large powers to the Inspectors, it was quite reasonable that Parliament should assist in bearing the expenditure. The Government interference, in fact, was altogether in the direction of additional expenditure, while the distinct desire of the local authorities was for economy. He believed that if the Government, avoiding the difficulties which beset a plan for the re-organization of the whole of our local government, had been content to accede to the terms of his hon, Friend's Motion, they would accomplish all that was desired by the ratepayers, and save themselves and the country a great deal of embarrassment and delay.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made no mention of the metropolis, although it was included in the terms of his Motion. He wished to know, therefore, whether it was intended to include the metropolis in the reference to the Select

  1837
  Committee. There were several different areas in the metropolis for different purposes. There was one area for the Metropolitan Local Management Act, another for the police, and a third for Poor Law administration, and although the metropolis had been frequently dealt with, in reference to Poor Law management, there had been no attempt to simplify its local administration. In fact, the only municipal government possessed by the metropolis was in an area of 709 acres, and containing about 100,000 of the population, out of about 3,250,000 souls. The metropolis, moreover, extended over Middlesex, and parts of Essex, Kent, and Surrey. Was it intended that the inconvenience arising from the overlapping of areas and of administration in the metropolis should be dealt with by the Committee, and were they to have the power of recommending some system of local administration? Some vestries and local boards had control over the streets, while others had not; and were they to be subordinate to the Metropolitan Board of Works or the City of London? These were questions that had been carefully avoided by successive Governments during the last 10 or 12 years, and he wished to know whether they were to be met by any special reference to the Committee?
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he was very glad to hear the question which had been put by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). When this Committee was first referred to, it was supposed that it was to supply further information for the purpose of carrying out more effectually the three Bills which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced, and not for the purpose now disclosed by the right hon. Gentleman. He would certainly vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Banbury. Boundary Commissioners were appointed under the Municipal Corporations Act; but the subject was found to be so difficult, that the Government of the clay shirked the question. If the question of boundaries was to be tacked on to the subject of local taxation, it was not the present or even the succeeding Parliament that would be able to grapple with relief from local burdens. He was at a very great loss to understand what all the talk about small parishes, small number of houses, and small number of inhabitants had to do with the object for
  1838
  which the Committee was to be appointed, and he complained that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to bring forward any measure for reforming the rate. The Imperial taxation for the purposes of the property tax and house duty was based not upon the Union, but upon the old system of tailings, and these tailings often ran into two or three parishes, so that unless the word "tithing" was introduced into the remit of the Committee it would be impossible for the Committee to accomplish anything. He was not at all certain that any great benefit was to be obtained from defining the boundaries of parishes. The parish, as a parish, had nothing to do with the amount of rating, or the mode of expenditure, for they had to a great extent been superseded by the Unions. Every overseer was bound to take the Union Valuation List as the basis of the rate, and he had nothing to do but to obey the orders of the Board of Guardians. If they wanted a basis for a consolidated rate, they must take some area according to which Imperial taxation was levied—such as the parish, Union, or county. Areas, under Local Improvement Acts, were constantly shifting their boundaries; in many cases they extended simply as the area of lighting extended. In his opinion, collectors should be appointed for a Union instead of for each parish—a proceeding which led to increased expenditure. He hoped the House would vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury, because its adoption would delay the progress of the measure.
  MR. CORRANCEthought that they could scarcely hope to discuss the matter in a satisfactory manner at present; and, indeed, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) was singularly general, and he proposed to refer all matters of detail to a Select Committee. The scope of the present measure would be very large—indeed, immense; and one objection to it was this:—they had usually given to the various local authorities borrowing powers, which had been liberally exercised; and what a task the Committee would have to consider all these financial matters. He supported the proposal for forming County Boards. Such local Boards furnished the only guarantees they had against the centralizing power, which

  1839
  was so much increasing. The right hon. Gentleman's speech appeared to hint at the relief of local taxation by subsidies; but he (Mr. Corrance) deprecated that mode of relief, believing there were many better ways in which the relief might be given. At the same time, he was inclined to agree to the Government proposal, if it could be carried out; and he thought that they were quite right in asking for a Select Committee, for it would be a great boon if, by means of that Committee, the Government should be able to master the subject.
  MR. COLMANsupported the Amendment, and hoped the Government would in some way consider the question of municipal boundaries. It was true that the persons living outside towns had, in many cases, had no voice in the expenditure incurred therein, but that was also the case with many urban inhabitants, the expenditure having been forced upon them by external authority. He did not think that it would be so very difficult to settle taxation between county and borough.
  MR. ASSHETONthought the House would not consent to an alteration of the boundaries of counties, and yet that was one of the subjects proposed to be submitted to the Committee. The Union boundaries also had been carefully fixed by the Poor Law Commissioners with regard to the local demands of the country, and more harm than good was likely to result from tampering with them. If he had an opportunity he should certainly vote both against the Amendment and the Motion for the appointment of the Committee.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTthought the object of the right hon. Gentleman in moving for the Committee was to shelve the question of local taxation for a considerable time. [Mr. STANSFELD dissented.] At all events, the practical question was, whether the House meant to act in pursuance of the Resolution passed by a large majority last year, in favour of relieving local taxation of the burden now unjustly imposed upon it, or whether they intended to allow the Government to proceed with the Bills, which were to be read a second time on Monday next. He appealed to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon to know whether he was satisfied with the proposed measure. He (Colonel Barttelot) was opposed to it, particularly as they had not had placed before them the three
  1840
  Bills concerning local taxation, which the right hon. Gentleman had already introduced into that House. He wanted to know whether the Government were going to avoid the responsibility cast upon them by the vote to which he had referred, respecting a measure for the relief of local taxation. [Mr. STANSFELD stated that the Bills were out.] They were not out when he came down to the House, and, certainly, they had not yet been delivered to hon. Members. Local authorities were most economical in managing the funds entrusted to their care, and even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom many persons considered the most economical Member of the House, might learn a lesson in that respect from some of those county Members, whom he regarded with a compassion that was almost akin to contempt. He should be glad to divide, if he could, against the Motion for the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. HIBBERTrepudiated the idea that his right hon. Friend's Motion was intended to shelve the question of local taxation. The Committee, he submitted, was a practical one for its purpose. He entirely agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), that the local authorities were far from being extravagant with the moneys they got from the State; indeed, he did not hesitate to say that if County Boards were established, they would not manage the county finances more economically than they were managed at the present time. But his right hon. Friend wished to establish County Boards, because he considered that they would be of great advantage in the case of licensing and other administrative questions. With regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) the time had come when overseers were less needed than formerly, but to abolish the office would necessarily involve the expense of paid collectors. It had been suggested that the metropolis should be included in the inquiry. But the Government thought that the inquiry as now proposed would be sufficiently long, without including an additional 3,000,000 of people.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid he believed the desire for these County Boards had sprung up from the idea that the whole amount of the county rates was disposed

  1841
  of by the magistrates. But recent Returns had dissipated that notion, and had shown that out of the £2,000,000 of rates little more than £250,000 was at the magistrates' discretion. He confessed he did not feel any very keen interest in this matter, because, not being a very young man, he did not expect to see the end of the inquiry, or any legislation founded on it.
  MR. STANSFELDassured the House that no efforts of his should be spared to bring the proceedings of the Committee to a successful and speedy issue.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONexpressed himself favourable to the extension of municipal boundaries, but at the same time, would advise the hon. Member for Banbury to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire and report whether the existing Areas and Boundsries of Parishes. Unions, and Counties may be so altered and adjusted as to prevent the inconvenience in matters of Local Administration and Taxation which now arises from the limited extent or subdivision of certain Parishes, or the overlapping of Parishes in two or more Administrative areas, or from Parishes and. Unions being situate in more than one County, with power to recommend whether any and, if so, what measures should be taken to give effect to their Report."
  And, on May 22, Committee nominated as follows:—STANSFELD, Sir MICHAEL HICKSBEACH, Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. CROSS, Sir JOHN ST. AUBYN, Colonel BARTTELOT, Lord. GEORGE CAVENDISH, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. CANDLISH, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. RIDLEY, Mr. WOODS, Mr. WELBY, and Mr. HIBBERT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Winterbotham).

  [BILL 108.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Interpretation).
  MR. GORDONobjected to proceeding with a Bill of such serious importance at so late an hour. Most of the learned bodies of Scotland—the Writers to the Signet, the Solicitors of Dundee, and the Advocates of Aberdeen—had condemned the provisions of the Bill. He thought time should be given for the introduction of Amendments to give effect to the resolutions of those bodies.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not wish to press the measure forward at any untimely hour, but at the same time he thought some progress ought to be made. He was not prepared to adopt the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, nor to make any material alterations in the provisions of the Bill, which had had his attentive consideration.
  MR. GORDONthereon moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Mr. Gordon.)
  After a short discussion,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 67: Majority 21.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Estates of superiority and property to be separate).
  MR. GORDON,in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, he did not know why they should depart from the Report of the Law Commissioners on this matter. The Lord Advocate proposed to deal with this matter by abolishing all relation between superiors and feuars; while he (Mr. Gordon) proposed to give the superior certain rights under the statute, but he provided for the forfeiting of fens after two years' non-payment. This provision he thought a very essential one, not because the fens were ever forfeited, but the power to raise a declaration of forfeiture was useful to secure for the superior the payment of feu-duties. It was quite contrary to the Report of the Commissioners to take away the rights of superiors, and then to re-enact them. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving in page 2, line 39, after "Act," to leave out to "the" on page 3, line 3.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Amendment. The words proposed to be omitted simply provided that the holder of the land should have a real right with respect to the superior, and therefore gave to the real holder of the land an independence of tithe—and that was the very object of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CRAUFURDmoved an Amendment, of which the object was to secure the priority of the superior with respect to the heritable right.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 1, after "shall," insert "as from the date of the creation of the feu, whether before or after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Craufurd).
  Amendment agreed to.
  After short further consideration, House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1871) REPEAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill to repeal "The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871," ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. CARTER, and Mr. EUSTACE SMITH.
  Bill presented, and. read the first time. [Bill 161.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.