Commons Sitting of 16 June 1876

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—ARMY PURCHASE ESTIMATE.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Poor Law Rating (Ireland) [156].
Select Committee—Report—Waterford, New Ross, and Wexford Junction Railway (Sale).*
Committee—Notice to Quit (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [160]—r.p.
Committee—Report—Statute Law Revision (Substituted Enactments)* [183].
Considered as amended—Army Corps Training [182]; Local Government Provisional Orders, Bristol, &c. (No. 6)* [147].
Third Reading—Prevention of Crimes Act Amendment* [153]; All Saints, Moss* [172]; Burghs (Scotland) Gas Supply* [175], and passed.
Withdrawn—Imprisonment for Debt Abolition* [33].

QUEENBOROUGH HARBOUR BILL.—(by Order.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Mr. PEMBERTON, in moving that the Bill be now read a third time, said, that its object was to authorize the Corporation of Queenborough to improve their harbour for the benefit not only of merchant ships, but also of ships of Her Majesty's Navy. It had received the sanction of the Board of Trade, which had inserted clauses to prevent the tolls from being applied to any other than shipping purposes, to provide for a regular account of the income and expenditure, and for the reduction of the tolls, if they should at any time exceed the requirements. He considered the opposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea most unreasonable, when it was remembered it had passed through Committee, and had undergone the scrutiny of the Chairman of Ways and Means. His object was to prevent the improvement of the harbour, merely because the Commissioners appointed to

  1967
  inquire into the condition of Unreformed Corporations had not yet completed their inquiries. If the Bill passed it would not interfere with any alteration which the Royal Commission might propose should be made in the Corporation. With respect to the Memorial to which the Amendment of the hon. Member referred, it was merely a copy of the Memorial prepared as far back as the year 1839. The Corporation had replied to that Memorial, stating that it was devoid of a particle of truth. No doubt the Corporation was bankrupt 36 years ago, but its property had been sold under an Act authorizing them to dispose of it, and their only object was now to obtain powers to enable them to improve the harbour. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the third reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Pemberton.)
  SIR CHARLES W.DILKE, in moving an Amendment, said, that in 1836 the Corporation, which was still an unreformed one, consisted of a very small number of members, and in the year 1836 they possessed a revenue of £16,000 or £18,000 a-year. In 1839 they became bankrupt, and again in 1843. Their debts had never been fully paid, and they owed large sums at the present time. The Bill would enable them to impose taxes to a considerable amount, and in some cases would increase the tolls from 2s. to 8s. The inhabitants had no power in the election of the members of the Corporation. He considered several of the clauses of the Bill to be most objectionable, particularly that which extended the tolls to almost every saleable commodity brought into the town, and that which provided that no justice should be disqualified from acting on account of his being a member of the Corporation. The Commission referred to had only just commenced its inquiries, and had not yet had sufficient time to consider the provisions of the Bill, and under these circumstances he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "having regard to the fact that a Royal Commission has lately been appointed to investigate the affairs of Unreformed Corporations, it is not
  1968
  desirable to proceed with a Bill conferring fresh borrowing and taxing powers upon a Corporation which has been bankrupt under circumstances disclosed in a Memorial ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 30th July 1875,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. GORSTsaid, the question before the House was not that of the constitution of the Corporation, and whether it was bankrupt or not, but whether the harbour of Queenborough should be improved. The improvement proposed was necessary for the benefit not only of the borough, but of the surrounding country, especially in connection with the new route to Flushing, and if the opposition should prevail all improvements would be put an end to until the Commissioners should have presented their Report. It was most desirable that some authority should have the power of making the improvements required, and as there was no other existing body the Bill proposed to confer it on the Corporation. Every precaution had been taken to prevent abuses, and clauses for that purpose had been inserted by the Board of Trade. That Board decidedly approved of the Bill, and he hoped the House would not reject it.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: urged that the Bill ought not to pass until the Corporation of Queenborough had complied with the Order of the House calling upon it to furnish Returns and accounts. An examination of the abstract of the accounts of local taxation laid annually before Parliament would bring to light the fact that this place had never sent in their accounts to the Local Government Board, which had the responsible duty of making up the whole of the accounts of local taxation; and now, seeing the remarkable way that kind of taxation was increasing, it became a question of great importance to enforce the rendering of due accounts; and as that Bill gave great powers to a place to raise more taxes than hitherto, it was only just to refuse to use that power till the taxes hitherto raised had been accounted for. He also opposed the Bill because it gave rights to a little Corporation to put on additional taxes on our commercial and fishing vessels. These were already

  1969
  sufficiently burdened. Moreover, the duties entrusted to the new Corporation of Queenborough were of a national character, and ought not to be given over to any other but a national body of officers, and not to a local corporation. Indeed, all taxes and charges now laid on our ships ought to be inquired into and removed, in order to enable them to compete with foreigners not so heavily taxed.
  Mr. RAIKESthought the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea was under a mistaken impression with regard to the Bill, and that it would be inconvenient to delay a private Bill because it related to an unreformed Corporation which might or might not satisfy the Commissioners. Great injustice might be done to any body in the position of the Corporation of Queenborough, if they were denied the exercise of powers which would be accorded to other bodies, merely because the Commissioners had not yet exercised their powers with regard to Unreformed Corporations. Whatever the Corporation might have done formerly had nothing to do with the question before the House. Great improvements were contemplated in the harbour for the purposes of a new Continental route, in connection with which Queenborough stood in a singular position, being near the greatest depôt of explosive materials, and being frequented by vessels containing materials of that description; and therefore it was considered necessary that the Corporation should have the power of making regulations for the safety of the passengers in the vessels employed on the new route. The Bill, therefore, had been introduced with the simple view of effecting certain improvements, and to provide for the strict application to shipping purposes, and to no other purposes, of the harbour dues. It did not touch any question relating to the solvency or insolvency of the Corporation or its rating powers; it only touched the Corporation as the harbour authority, connected with which they had to carry out certain improvements which the passing of the Bill would enable them to do; and a refusal to pass it would prevent them making any improvement at all. The Bill came before them as an unopposed Bill; and it would be most unusual if the House, at the last stage, were to throw it out.
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that when the matter came before him for consideration, he did not think it his duty to interfere. To his mind the fact that an inquiry was being made into the affairs of Unreformed Corporations furnished no reason why the public improvement contemplated by the Bill should not be proceeded with. It would be some time before that Commission made its Report, and during the interval public interests must suffer.
  Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN:said, the harbour required improvement, and as no other body had the power to do so but the Corporation of Queenborough, the matter should not be delayed because the conduct of the Corporation had been impugned in respect to other matters. The Bill had nothing to do with Unreformed Corporations, and he thought it was unprecedented that a private Bill, which had passed through all its stages unopposed, should be opposed on the third reading for such reasons.
  Mr. DILLWYNsaid, that his hon. Friend (Sir Charles Dilke) gave timely Notice that he should oppose the Bill on the third reading, if it went through Committee as an unopposed Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 84: Majority 59.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ARMY—CAPTAIN ROBERTS, 94TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
  Mr. E. JENKINSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Captain Roberts, 94th Regiment, has been in arrest for more than a month at Newry Barracks without being brought to a Court martial; whether such arrest was not in consequence of a communication made to the Horse Guards by three Members of this House; whether the matter has ever been brought to the personal notice of His Royal Highness Commanding in Chief; and, what is the cause of the delay in bringing Captain Roberts to trial?
  Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I must answer the first part of the Question in the affirmative. It is true that

  1971
  Captain Roberts has been under arrest since the 20th of April. The arrest was in consequence of a communication, written and signed, which was delivered to the Military Secretary, by three Members of this House, and which contained very grave reflections upon Captain Roberts's commanding officer in his military capacity. The matter has been brought to the personal attention of the Commander-in-Chief, and the delay is attributable to different causes. First of all, time was given to withdraw the offensive imputations if it was thought proper; secondly, a considerable amount of correspondence has passed with respect to the Court martial; and thirdly, an opportunity was offered Captain Roberts to have the case brought on earlier, but he preferred the 27th of June, for which it was now fixed.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked when the opportunity was offered to Captain Roberts?
  Mr. GATHORNE HARDYbelieved the proposal was made recently.
  MR. E. JENKINSgave Notice that he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the time at which notice was given to Captain Roberts of the Court martial, and the time at which the offer was made to have the Court martial at an earlier period.

  CHINA—MURDER OF MR. MARGARY—REPORT OF THE MISSION.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to the general result of the Missions to inquire into the circumstances of the death of the late Mr. Margary in China?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he was sorry he could not give any information as to the subject referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. A Report had been received, but he did not deem it advisable to make it public before it had been under the consideration of the Government.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—LIGHT DUES.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is correct that, after 1st of July next, the Light Dues on ships over sea will be increased by five per cent, and, seeing that Govern-
  1972
  ment property on shore now contributes to local rates, whether there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make ships of the Royal Navy liable for Light Dues?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am informed that with regard to the first part of the Question it is correct that after the 1st of July the light dues on shipping will be increased by five per cent. Respecting the second part, there is no intention on the part of the Government to make the ships of the Royal Navy liable for light dues. I do not think there is any analogy between that case and the case of Government property on shore. It would offer difficulties which I cannot now enter into.

  HELIGOLAND.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What truth there may be in the rumour that the Government is contemplating the cession of Heligoland as referred to in the newspapers of Thursday, 15th instant?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there is not the slightest foundation for the rumour.

  SALMON FISHERY ACT—THE RIVER WYE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CLIVEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a Report from the Earl of March and Lord Winmarleigh on the subject of the bye-laws passed by the Conservators of the River Wye; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table; whether he proposes to act on the said Report, if any; and, whether the said bye-laws are not identical with those which were repealed, after a long and searching inquiry in the year 1875, by a Commission of which the Inspectors of Fisheries were members?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the Report in question had been received at the Home Office, and was now under the consideration of the Department.

  (ENGLAND AND WALES) THE NEW DOMESDAY BOOK.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is intended to issue a new edition of the "Return of Owners

  1973
  of Land in England and "Wales;" and, if so, whether his Department will receive from persons interested corrections of the numerous errors and omissions in the first issue of the aforesaid Return?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he had already stated in reply to a similar Question, that there was no intention of issuing a new edition of the Return of the owners of land in England and Wales. Some corrections, about 100, had been received, and others were coming in from time to time. It might be a question whether a supplementary Return giving these corrections should not be made; but, certainly, the whole book would not be republished.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SOLIHULL SANITARY AUTHORITY.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is intended to supersede the decision of the Solihull Rural Sanitary Authority in reference to the "Knowle Drainage Scheme?"
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, it was not intended to supersede the decision referred to. Indeed, he was not aware the Local Government Board possessed the power to do so.

  INLAND REVENUE (OUT-DOOR DEPARTMENT)—THE PLAYFAIR COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Playfair Commission respecting the out-door Department of Inland Revenue will be carried out; and, if so, when?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Report in question had been referred to the Board of Inland Revenue, and that he understood a Report from that Department to the Treasury was now under consideration, and would in all probability soon be made. As soon as it had been received, no time would be lost in dealing with it.

INLAND REVENUE—THE MALT TAX.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STORERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering
  1974
  the depressed state of British agriculture in consequence chiefly of foreign competition, he will consider the advisability of giving relief to the cultivator of the soil by some modification or relaxation of the Malt Tax in his case, so as to allow him to use his barley, when malted, free from tax in the production of corn, meat, butter, &c., that he may be able to compete on more equal terms with the foreign producers of those articles, who are subjected to no such impost?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Question of his hon. Friend involved three or four assumptions which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be disposed to deny if he had an opportunity of debating the question. As, however, he was debarred from doing so, he would only say that it was not in the power of the Government to make any proposals with regard to the malt tax other than those which were already embodied in the statutes, with which, no doubt, the hon. Member was familiar. The cultivator was at present allowed to germinate grain for feeding cattle free of any tax, or if he wished to use the grain dry he could do so. Such was the present state of the law, and the Government were not prepared to make any alterations in it.
  MR. STORER: gave Notice that he would take an early opportunity of moving a Resolution on the subject.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—GRANTS TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS—KEYNSHAM BRITISH SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Council, If he will state under what Act of Parliament the Education Department considers itself authorized to refuse a grant to any efficient Elementary School, as in the case of the Keynsham British School?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, we have been advised that the Department has the power to refuse annual grants to any new schools which are not needed to supply the accommodation of a place; and, on the merits of the case, it would appear absurd that we should be compelled to contribute to the support of, say, some half-dozen schools in one small place, a case which might easily arise in the conflict of opinions on these matters. In the Education Act of 1870 a provision

  1975
  is made where there are school boards, even if they have no board schools, for the refusal by the Department of an annual grant to a school, if the Education Department considers such school unnecessary; and in the Scotch Code a like provision is made respecting all cases. As far as principle goes, there can be no distinction between these cases and one like that of Keynsham. As the hon. Gentleman, however, has raised a doubt as to the power of the Department to act as they have done, we shall be most happy to refer the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I will inform him of the result.

  TURKEY—ASSASSINATION OF MINISTERS.—QUESTION.
  Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with respect to the news which has just arrived as to the occurrence of a fresh tragedy at Constantinople. The statement is that the tragedy which has there been enacted is one arising from private revenge. If that be so, it has of course no great public or European importance. It is possible the Government may have information confirming that statement, and, if so, I am sure the House would be glad, to hear it. If they have any information of a contrary and more unpleasant character, still I think the House and the country would be equally glad to hear that information. I have waited, thinking it probable that the Question would be asked by some of my Friends sitting near me, but, the Question not being asked, I take on myself the freedom of asking the right hon. Gentleman, If he wishes to say anything in regard to it which may be interesting to the House and the country?
  Mr. DISRAELI: Sir, from information which we have in our possession there appears to be no doubt of the occurrence of the dreadful event to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Two of the Turkish Ministers were assassinated; a third was wounded, and one of their attendants was shot dead. It is said that the deed was prompted by private revenge against the Seraskier, Hussein Avni Pasha, who was the first victim. It is, however, impossible for me to pretend at present to offer an opinion to the House on such a subject
  1976
  as the real motives for the deed. If of course any information of an authentic character reaches me, I shall not fail to take an early opportunity of communicating it to the House.

  THE FUGITIVE SLAVE COMMISSION—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked, When the Report of the Royal Commission on the Fugitive Slave Question would be in the hands of Members? The purport of it was stated in the newspapers several days ago.
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Report, as usual, was laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament on Tuesday, and how any portion of it got into the newspapers next morning he was utterly unable to explain. As to the distribution of copies of the Report among Members, he should give instructions that that should be done as soon as possible after it was printed, which was now being done.

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

  TAXATION IN MALTA.—RESOLUTION.
  Mr. POTTER: Sir, according to the Notice I have given, I beg to call the attention of the House to the Taxation at present levied in Malta; and to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient in policy and mischievous as an example to other Nations on the shores of the Mediterranean, to continue to levy ten shillings a quarter on wheat imported into the island of Malta, and other high Duties of a protective character on grain and cattle."
  My attention was first called to this subject when in Rome last year, and when I was discussing the question of our new Commercial Tariff with Italy. From an Italian point of view, the Maltese Tariff appeared altogether inconsistent with English professions of Free Trade principles, and was calculated to do harm as an example, particularly when the Italians were called upon by England to adopt a policy so different. By a Return laid before the House of Commons in August, 1875, it appears that the main feature of the Maltese Tariff is a

  1977
  tax of 10 s. per salma (7¾ bushels) on wheat, and similar duties of a protective character on other grain. There is likewise a tax of 10 s. per head on imported cattle, and a considerable duty on light wines and on oil. Fully one half of the revenue, or abont £85,000, is raised on corn, wine, and oil; in fact, on the necessaries of the people. It appears to me to be an entirely false principle, especially in the case of Malta, which is so densely populated. After reading this Return, I put a Question to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies; and his Answer appeared to me so unsatisfactory that I placed the present Notice on the Paper. I was not, however, prepared for the larger question, which involves the whole system of the English government of Malta. The hon. Gentleman spoke of Malta being a fortress, and drew a parallel between it and Gibraltar. I wish he could have carried out that parallel and told me that Malta was a free port like Gibraltar. Had such been the case, it is probable that I should not have put down my Motion. It is true, doubtless, that Valetta is a great fortress, but the islands of Malta and Gozo cover an area of 115 square miles (according to an authority now recognized in this House, Whitaker's Almanack), whilst Gibraltar is a great rock covering only 1¾square miles. The Maltese population is 150,000, whilst Gibraltar contains only 25,000, including the garrison. Malta and Gozo produce a considerable quantity of grain, on which a protective duty of more than 20 per cent is levied in favour of the Maltese landowner. To show the anomaly of the Maltese Tariff, I am told that in the spring of 1875, 10,000 tons of new potatoes were sent to the London market, which so completely cleared the market in Malta that the inhabitants and garrison were obliged to draw their supplies, on which a considerable import duty was levied, from foreign countries. In reference to the Maltese Tariff, it must be remembered that it was enacted when England was Protectionist, in the year 1837, nine years before the repeal of the Corn Laws. Protectionist England was clearly responsible for what was done, as Malta had no representative institutions whatever at that time. It is not probable that Free Trade England, after 1846,
  1978
  would even have sanctioned such a Tariff. Malta has been in the possession of England since 1800–76 years; and it had previously enjoyed a certain amount of representation. But it was not until 1849 that England gave it any sort of representation. In 1849, a Council was formed to assist the Governor, who acts as President, consisting of 18 Members, 10 official and 8 elected, the official Members being bound to vote with the Governor. That is the present system; and practically the Governor has the power to do what he chooses. I am not going to urge a full and fair representation of the people such as in England. It may not be suited to the present condition of Malta. Malta, as a fortress, is of first-rate importance to England, and military necessities must be the first consideration. But I hold that every liberty consistent with these necessities should be conceded to the people; and if the Government must, to some extent, be despotic, that despotism should be enlightened and worthy of England. Such a heresy and anomaly as a bread tax should not be continued, and the initiative of some other alternative tax must rest with the Government, who can, if they choose, having all the power, levy a tax on property and income, and make Malta a free port like Gibraltar. There can be no reason why municipal rights and self-government in local matters should not be conceded. From information which I have received from Malta, I find that it is desired to have a civilian instead of, or in addition to, a military Governor. On this point I express no opinion; but I hope that every reasonable wish of the inhabitants will meet with a favourable consideration. I am told by some in England that the Maltese are disloyal to the British Government. If this be so, which I trust it is not, there must be some grievous fault on our side. A wise and enlightened policy on the part of England should bind the interests and inclinations of 150,000 Maltese to us; and that wisdom and enlightenment the Maltese have a right to claim at our hands. I am fully aware that it maybe said this is a small question to bring before the House of Commons. But I firmly believe that the association of the name of England with a policy of retrogression on the subject of Free Trade never can

  1979
  be of small importance. In conclusion, I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  MR. ANDERSON: Sir, in rising to second the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Potter), which I do with great pleasure, I must also express some regret that his Resolution had not been of a broader character, because it appears to me that, though my hon. Friend has decidedly hit upon a blot, still the iniquitous bread tax which he denounces is only one of the symptoms of a deeper disease in the administration of Malta, the real cause of the evil being a Government entirely despotic and irresponsible to the people governed. We have held the island since 1800, previous to which there was a Consiglio Popolare, which ensured some approach to popular government, but under our rule that entirely vanished, till in 1849, under Letters Patent, a Council was instituted consisting of 18 Members, of whom the Military Governor, along with other 9, are official, and 8 are elected, and in this way the official element at any time swamps the elective. But even the elected Members are only the representatives of a very narrow constituency, as I believe the franchise is equivalent to an £8 ownership or a £40 occupancy, and there are only about 2,300 electors in a population of 150,000. The natural result of this state of matters is bad government. The military and official elements everywhere override the civilian, the people are treated with disrespect or indifference, and even the native nobility, dating from as old as the Norman Conquest, is nowhere. I propose to give a few illustrations of the bad government of which I have spoken. The bread tax, of which the hon. Member for Rochdale has just spoken, is one of them. He has told us that it was imposed in 1837; but he omitted to tell us that, in its imposition, there was a stipulation that it should be used only "for purposes of unquestionable public utility." Now, it appears that this has been interpreted to mean utility to the town of Valetta only, and the money that is raised generally, is expended locally, in decorating Valetta and making it a healthy and pleasant place of residence for the garrison and the officials. I am informed that about £60,000 has been spent on an opera
  1980
  house, about £40,000 on a cemetery, the corridors of the Governor's palace have been lately paved with costly marble, half the cost of an extension of the harbour for the British fleet—some £100,000—and £6,000 a-year for lighting the streets of Valetta, while the smaller towns are not allowed the cost of a paraffin lamp. There are no municipalities and no local authorities, so that outside Valetta local government is entirely neglected. There is no attempt to check mendicity, and the schools are neglected. There is one good point about the schools—they are cheap, the fees are almost nominal, but unfortunately along with that the education is bad. Out of 28,000 children of school age—five to fifteen—only 7,400 are at school, and, even after our rule of three quarters of a century, there is little provision for teaching our language. Only in the higher schools is it required, and at the primary schools only about 800 children are subjected to even a pretence of learning it. Yet another instance of misrule. Lord Cardwell, on the 19th September, 1864, sent a despatch instructing the local government that "no money Vote was to be passed against the opinion of the elected members." But that despatch has just been set at nought in the most flagrant manner. It seems the Chief Secretary wanted his salary raised from £1,000 to £1,300; so having got the consent of Lord Cardwell, he moved it in the Council on the 23rd February last; and notwithstanding that every one of the elected members opposed it—the whole 8 voting against it—the official members carried the increase by a majority of 1, that one being actually the vote of the Chief Secretary himself. It seems to me that open corruption could not go much further than this; and when such an act can be done openly and unblushingly, what may not be suspected of more secret acts? It is even alleged that justice can hardly be had, if that justice happens to be invoked against an official. Sir Adrian Dingli, the Crown Advocate, has held his office for 23 years, during which he has appointed all the Judges and heads of Departments, and has concentrated in his own hands pretty much the whole power in the island. With so long a tenure of office it could hardly be otherwise, and to a certain extent this is the

  1981
  case with the permanent officials in our Departments at home. The Governor having only a five years' term of office, knows and can do little. If there is an appeal to the Governor, he refers it to the Crown Advocate. If there is an appeal to the Chief Secretary, he also refers it to the Crown Advocate. If the appeal be to the Secretary of State at home, the Crown Advocate writes the despatch that accompanies the appeal; and if the appeal be to the Law Courts, again the Crown Advocate appears and defends the Government—that is himself—before Judges who have been appointed by himself. Now I do not say that wrong is actually done under all that; there maybe no wrong done—but the circumstances indicate a system under which wrong is possible, and therefore suspicion is warranted. I believe that Malta, if well governed, would be a very flourishing place. I understand its imports from England come to near £1,000,000 sterling annually, those from other countries only a tenth of that. I understand that about 4,500 steamers touch there annually, and I do not doubt that if the suggestion of my hon. Friend, for making Malta a free port, were adopted, it would soon become a great entrepôt of trade. At present its revenue, as regards the amount, is in a satisfactory state. It appears to be about £170,000, while the expenditure for the coming year is estimated at about £160,000, leaving a surplus of £10,000, besides which there is a sum of about £9,000 invested in Consols, derived from some former land sales and held to meet any pressing emergency. Malta pays the whole of the military Governor's salary of £5,000 a-year, and besides that I believe it keeps up a regiment of fencibles. When a few days ago I asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies, if Government had considered the policy of appointing a civilian Governor, and would do so on the expiry of the present appointment in June, 1877, he said—"No, they would not change, because Malta must be considered as a great fortress, where we keep British troops." But, Sir, that fortress and those troops are not kept there for Maltese purposes, but for national ones; and I question the fairness to Malta of having a highly-paid military Governor and making Malta pay his whole salary. In my opinion the Governorship ought to be
  1982
  divided, both salary and duties. Let there be a military Governor to look after national interests and paid for by us, and also a civilian Governor to look after Maltese administration and paid for by Malta. Were that done, the interests of the people would be looked after as they are not at present, and a great deal of the improper expenditure would be saved. Besides that there ought to be local rating for purely local purposes in Valetta as elsewhere, and if these changes were not enough to get quit of the bread tax, there should be a change to direct taxation, exactly as we, in 1846, adopted the income tax in order to abolish the Corn Laws, the best thing Great Britain ever did for her own prosperity. My hon. Friend has pointed out the iniquity of the Maltese bread tax; it amounts to a farthing on every pound of bread; and, as the poor are the great consumers of bread, it falls with the greatest hardship on the poor. A man's consumption of bread does not increase as his wealth increases, but rather the contrary, and on no principle of justice can such a tax be defended. Even the Crown Advocate of Malta, in defending his Financial Statement the other day, was obliged to admit that it was "a very ugly tax," though, in some measure, he tried to justify it on the old exploded fallacy that wages were regulated by the price of food, and therefore that dear bread assured higher wages. It would be insulting the common sense of the House of Commons even to argue against that fallacy, and, in truth, the only ground on which the tax can be in any way justified is the difficulty of arranging for a substitute. That difficulty might, I think, be overcome under a better form of government, that is with the military and civil rule separated, the constitution of the Council changed, and an enlarged constituency to give that civil rule a more truly representative character. But as Government seem to have decided against present change, there is another proposal which I would urge upon them, and it is one that, in many other matters, they have shown great readiness to adopt. Let them send out a Royal Commission to inquire into the civil administration of Malta; and I feel confident that the result of that inquiry will show the necessity of some such changes as I have pointed out.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient in policy, and mischievous as an example to other Nations on the shores of the Mediterranean, to continue to levy ten shillings a quarter on wheat imported into the island of Malta, and other high Duties of a protective character on grain and cattle,"—(Mr. Potter,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had passed many years of his life in the Mediterranean and at Malta, and would remind the House that Malta voluntarily undertook to pay the expenses of the Government, which he thought very moderate. The corn tax was no doubt, as it had been called, a very "ugly" tax, and one that it was impossible to defend; but in a small community like Malta it was exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to raise revenue by direct taxation, which would cause greater discontent among the population than the present system, bad as that might be. When he was Chief Secretary at Corfu, under the late Sir Henry Storks, they were anxious to reform the system of taxation in the Ionian Islands, and appointed a Commission to investigate the matter; but it was found to be perfectly impossible to raise anything by direct taxation. Therefore, with every desire to see a better system of finance in Malta, he knew how difficult it would be to have there anything but a system of indirect taxation, especially as a great part of the inhabitants of Malta were a seafaring population. He felt certain that if the hon. Member for Glasgow were to go to Malta, and examine for himself into the local conditions of Malta, he would see how difficult it was to have anything but that existing system of taxation. As to the present system of government in Malta, it was that recommended by the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who was one of the Commissioners sent out to inquire into the subject, and the Maltese were quite satisfied with our rule. With regard to the increase of the salary paid to the Chief Secretary of the Governor, that increase did not involve any addition to the taxes
  1984
  paid by the people of Malta. The Chief Secretary for several years received £1,000 a-year. This year the Governor thought it right to increase his salary. The Governor had a private secretary, who received£300 a-year. The Governor gave up the private secretary and added £300 to the salary of the Chief Secretary.
  Sir GEORGE BOWYER, in contradiction of a statement that the people of Malta were disloyal, said they were thoroughly loyal. Although, no doubt, there was a small revolutionary party, they were of no importance, and they only served to bring into more prominent relief the feelings of the majority of the population. He trusted that the time would come when the financial condition of the island would render it possible to deal with the question raised by the Motion, but he did not see what the present Government could do with it. It was a question which would be debated much more appropriately in the Council of Malta than in Parliament. The present Constitution of Malta was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Much might have been done for ameliorating the state of the population had not military concerns engrossed the attention of the Government of Malta. In the Council of Malta there were eight persons who represented the people of Malta, and there were nine persons who held official positions in the island under the Government, and who were bound to vote as the Governor chose. Moreover, the Governor himself had a vote. Therefore the Executive Government could carry everything their own way, and the Constitution was a mere mockery and delusion. This condition of affairs had caused great discontent. Those who represented the population ought surely to have a majority, even if it was only a majority of one, and he trusted that something would be done to satisfy the people of Malta that those who represented them should have a due preponderance on all matters relating to taxation in the island and to the expenditure of money. With regard to the increase of the Chief Secretary's salary, he observed that the salary of the Judge, who was a very able man, was only £600 a-year, and the salary of the Queen's Advocate was £600 a-year. The Chief Secretary had the highest salary in the island, except the Governor. The people

  1985
  of Malta had a right to derive some benefit from the abolition of the office of private secretary. The private secretary was disposed of, he (Sir George Bowyer) assumed, because his services were not required. The elected members of the Council who represented the taxpayers ought to have had an opportunity of deciding on that matter. On a recent occasion, the nobility of Malta had met with anything but proper treatment, and he thought they ought to look with favour on the people of Malta, and that their complaints should be listened to with respect, the more so as they were under a military, and not a civil administration. It should be remembered that the Maltese aristocracy was very ancient.
  Mr. J. LOWTHERsaid, that no apology was necessary, for he (Mr. Lowther) should be the last person to call in question the propriety of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Potter) bringing this subject under their attention. But although his hon. Friend had brought forward the subject of which he had given Notice and confined himself to it, other hon. Gentlemen had, very naturally perhaps, taken the opportunity of travelling very far beyond the terms of the Notice originally given. His hon. Friend having stated that the revenues of Malta were derived almost exclusively from indirect sources, it would probably be convenient to the House to point out briefly what the facts were. The population of Malta was set down roughly at about 150,000. The estimated expenditure for the past year was £160,000. Of that sum £40,000 was revenue derived from the rent of land; and that was an item which in no way fell on the bulk of the population, as it was paid by the occupiers. Upwards of £6,000 was derived from interest of Consols and other Stock, and £1,200 from reimbursements from the Imperial Funds. His hon. Friend would thus see that out of £160,000 required for this expenditure, about £48,000 was met from sources to which the bulk of the population in no way contributed. That left about £113,000 to be made up by general taxation. Of that amount some £52,000 was derived from sources to which his hon. Friend had more especially referred—the tax upon wheat, barley, and other grain. His hon. Friend would therefore see that the
  1986
  items of revenue against which he had directed his attacks formed a very considerable element of income, being two-fifths of the entire revenue of the colony. There were other items to which he had referred—namely, £3,500 for the import duty on cattle, and some £200 from a duty on horses and mules. He had shown the House that the sum of £55,000 odd was derived from those sources which were more particularly attacked in the Resolution. How did his hon. Friend propose to meet the deficiency which he would create? His hon. Friend might have followed a distinguished example offered to him not long ago, when a large remission of taxation was proposed, and no substitute sketched out. His hon. Friend had declined to follow the example, though he had adopted a course which certainly was not inspired from the source to which he just alluded. His hon. Friend suggested the imposition of an Income Tax. He confessed he was rather astonished to find his hon. Friend in 1876 advocating the imposition of a tax which his political Friends had so frequently denounced. Another source of revenue suggested as an alternative by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. Anderson) was the transfer from Imperial sources to local rates of a considerable item of expenditure incurred in the town of Valetta. The hon. Member for Rochdale was a zealous apostle of Free Trade, and they were all indebted to him for a valuable addition to their library. But he would point out to his hon. Friend that there would be some incongruity in English public men propounding the doctrine of Free Trade as a cardinal principle applicable in all conceivable circumstances and cases. There might be some incongruity, for instance, in advocating that doctrine on the shores of the Mediterranean, while a few miles distant a different system was upheld under British rule. He therefore thought his hon. Friend might easily convince himself that Free Trade, though advantageous in certain cases, would not be so in exceptional ones. The English Government presided over many communities who were by no means of one mind on this subject. His hon. Friend proposed that the Government should take advantage of the majority it possessed in the Council to overrule the elected element,

  1987
  His hon. Friend, however, must be perfectly well aware that the Natives of Malta were by no means well versed in the doctrines of political economy. He would express no opinion on the subject; Her Majesty's Government were not called upon to do so. But if it was the duty of the Government to constitute themselves the champions of Free Trade, and force it on every community over the destiny of which they were called to preside, what reception, he would ask, would such a policy be likely to meet with in Canada or Melbourne, for example. The hon. Member for Glasgow, in seconding the Amendment, had suggested that a civil as well as a military Governor should be appointed for Malta. He might, however, remind the House that Malta was not only a colony of some importance, but that it was also an important fortress, and the question, therefore, would be how far the appointment of a dual government would conduce to the military efficiency of the fortress. The subject the hon. Member for Glasgow would doubtless himself admit to be one of some difficulty, which Her Majesty's Government would be justified in considering before arriving at a decision with regard to it. Looking at the subject abstractedly, he confessed that he could see no objection to the appointment of a civil Governor, provided such an appointment would be consistent with the military efficiency of the fortress; but it was the opinion of competent authorities that the retention of the present system was more likely to maintain that efficiency than the scheme of the hon. Member for Glasgow would be if it were carried into effect. Some 30 years ago a gentleman whose name was not unknown to many hon. Members (Mr. More O'Ferrall) was appointed Civil Governor of Malta, but that result of that appointment was not in favour of a repetition of the experiment. The hon. Member for Glasgow objected that the cost of the Governor was thrown upon the population of Malta, and suggested that the salaries of both should be defrayed out of the Imperial revenues; but he (Mr. Lowther) should have thought the Estimates were already sufficiently high, and he was therefore surprised at the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  MR. ANDERSONobserved, that he did not intend that the Governors should
  1988
  receive £5,000 a-year each, but that the Military Governor should receive £3,000, and the Civil Governor £2,000 a-year.
  MR. J. LOWTHERdoubted whether, under those circumstances, the hon. Member would find the efficiency of either improved, and was afraid that the dual government would in the end prove far more expensive than the present system. At all events, it would certainly require great consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government before it could be adopted. Men of great experience were opposed to such a system. The experiment had been tried in another colony some years ago, and had failed, and Sir George Cornewall Lewis expressed an opinion decidedly hostile to such an experiment. The hon. Member was wrong when he termed the government of Malta an enlightened despotism. On the contrary, the wishes of the inhabitants were most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, whenever they were not inconsistent with the efficiency of the fortress. It had been said that the tax was an exceptional hardship upon the working classes; but in his opinion it pressed very lightly upon the general community, while the imposition of any substitute for it would inevitably lead to great discontent. In his opinion, it would be most unwise to attempt to interfere with the fiscal arrangements which had commended themselves to the general approval of the Council.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowther) had been very successful in his reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale. The story about such taxes pressing lightly was the familiar one which had always been urged in favour of this form of taxation, and he could not entertain the opinion that the officials of the Colonial Office, and one of the ability of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) himself, could not devise a substitute for the taxes of which the hon. Member for Rochdale complained. He did not think that any fair parallel could be drawn between Malta and Canada, because in the former there was no popular representation.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was of opinion that the duties referred to were not imposed for the purpose of Protection, but were mere fiscal regulations for

  1989
  revenue purposes. The House had at present no satisfactory information with regard to the taxation of Malta; and he thought that those who proposed a change in the existing system ought to show how the change was to be effected. With regard to the question of imposition of income tax on the Maltese, he considered that was the very last means that should be resorted to, and until he heard of some better scheme of taxation than that which at present existed he could not vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 84: Majority 46.

ARMY—SPECIAL ALLOWANCES TO THE BRIGADE OF GUARDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. A. MOORE, in rising to call attention to the special allowances to the Foot Guards, said, that he did not wish to make any attack upon the administration of the War Office, or upon the brigade of Guards, but simply to call attention to certain abuses which had existed for some years. For instance, he found from Returns which he had obtained that while £13,190 was allowed to the Foot Guards as special allowances, £8,008 only were allowed to the Infantry regiments of the Line. He also found, among a variety of other items, that £11,079 were voted for hospitals and recruiting, whilst only £5,692 were spent upon those services; so that it would seem that £5,387 should be returned to the Treasury. This, however, was by no means the case, but, instead, £1,360 per annum were given in aid of the band expenses of the regiments, which was indirectly an allowance to the officers, who would, otherwise, themselves have to pay the band expenses. There was also £907 for Staff allowances for non-commissioned officers, and £6,278 for "profits" to field officers and captains; or in all a total of £8,545. He wished to know where the money came from. He did not wish to destroy any vested interests which the Guards had enjoyed for many years; but he thought the system was a bad one, because the money was voted under the wrong name; in the next place, it was not devoted to the purpose for which it
  1990
  was voted; and, thirdly, it was impossible to audit the accounts. Whenever the "profits," to which there was no legal title, were less than usual, there was simply added to the bottom of the account a sum that would bring it up to the usual amount. He thought they were entitled to know how these accounts passed the Controller at the War Office, for he could not conceive any system which would be more loose or irregular. For instance, a sum of £77 was paid for haut boys, which most certainly did not exist, and it was in order to end such charges as those that he desired to see the accounts placed on a proper and correct footing.
  MR. STANLEY, in replying on behalf of the Government, said, he should like to point out the footing upon which the brigade of Guards stood. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Moore) had put the case in a manner which told equally well both ways. Whether these allowances were right or wrong, they were payments which had been made from time immemorial, going back even to that remote time when the country did not possess a standing Army; and no public account of their disbursement has ever been rendered or asked for in connection with the Estimates. He did not say that that alone was an infallible argument for their continuance, but he had a right to point out that there had been many and careful investigations into the pay and allowances of the Army by Committees of very high class, both in that House and in "another place;" and notwithstanding alterations had been made, these allowances had been continued. The brigade of Guards had been allowed to remain upon the same footing; and that mere fact went a long way to prove that there were strong reasons for the continuance of these allowances. The Committee which satin 1850–1 took a considerable quantity of evidence, and made a carefully-drawn and valuable Report, from which it appeared that the cost per man in the Guards was £48 11 s. 3d., whilst that of the regiments of the line was £46 19 s. 6d., showing a difference of something like a penny per day, which was the actual amount of increased pay received by a soldier in the Guards. With respect to the form of accounts, there could be no doubt that it was not

  1991
  quite what was to be desired; but the subject was gone into with some care by Ms Predecessor (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) and the late Sir James Lindsay, and they came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to interfere with the matter without entering into much wider questions. He believed it would be in accordance with the feeling of the officers of the Guards that there should be an inquiry into the stock-purse expenses, and such an inquiry had been contemplated for some time past; but the question up to the present moment was not ripe for investigation. With respect to recruiting, the system of recruiting for the Guards—a full account of which would be found in the Report of 1851—had always been carried on upon a different principle from that of the rest of the Army, but under the new system of recruiting through the brigade depôts the Guards did not wholly depend upon their own recruiting resources. Then, again, other regiments had paymasters—at all events, up to a certain date—but in the Guards, owing to their regimental arrangements, the duty was performed by the quartermasters, who received £20 for each battalion, which was the extra allowance shown in the Return. However desirable it might be to place these Guards' allowances upon a footing more in accordance with modern methods of account-keeping, immense difficulty had been found in dealing with these questions without recognizing the fact that the officers of the Guards found their own lodgings and did not receive allowances which were made in kind or in money to officers in the rest of the Army. If put on the same footing they would probably require the same allowances at large cost to the public. There was also the difficulty of deciding whether the officers of the Guards had any, and, if any, what vested rights to the property in the regimental hospitals. These were presumably built out of public money, and yet the officers contributed to the hospital fund and received proportionate sums on retirement, and these sums had even been paid to the heirs of deceased officers, which appeared to show that they might be legally claimed. He should not like to express a strong opinion on the question until he had the results of an inquiry to guide him. Substantially, then, while there was room for improvement in the
  1992
  form of the accounts, there had been no misappropriation of money in the sense of diverting it from the purpose for which it was granted by the State, and there had been no undue expenditure upon the brigade of Guards as compared with the general expenditure of corresponding branches of the Army.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was impossible to examine the accounts and history of the whole question as it had been his duty, when at the War Office, to do, without coming to the conclusion that the present arrangements were in a most anomalous condition; though, at the same time, he did not know that the country lost much, or that it would gain by a change if it had to provide barrack accommodation. The form of accounts was most extraordinary, and they were made more complicated from the circumstances which occurred during the Crimean War. Up to the date of that war, there was an annual sum of £158 odd per company granted to the Guards, which was supposed to cover their recruiting and hospital expenses; but during the war the battalions became so diminished in numbers, that the recruiting expenses to replenish the numbers were exceptionally heavy, and the officers complained that the sum allowed—£158—was not sufficient, and an arrangement was made by which they agreed to render items of their account, and that if they had a surplus, the balance should be paid over to the country, whilst, on the other hand, if there was a deficiency, it should be made up by the country. The items had remained stereotyped exactly as they were at that time, and that was the origin of the payment of £1,600 to make up the deficiency. But this was a small matter compared with the question of administrative efficiency, and in that respect he believed the system to be indefensible. With regard to the hospitals, they were not so efficient as the hospitals of the Army generally, and the claim set up by the officers that the hospitals belonged to them was one which could scarcely be allowed without considerable hesitation, because although they had given liberal contributions the public had also rendered considerable assistance. He trusted that these matters would be further inquired into—that a thorough and complete inquiry would be instituted,

  1993
  and that there would be associated with the officers of the Guards, to whom his hon. Friend had alluded, a certain number of outsiders, so that the country might be satisfied that the interests of the public would be duly cared for.
  Mr. WHITWELLhoped the matter would now be thoroughly investigated. With regard to recruiting, the present system was certainly not so efficient as it ought to be; and as to the other point, if it could be said that the officers of the Guards had a vested interest in their hospitals, the sooner they were compensated for them the better. It was absolutely necessary that the question should be dealt with.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he did not think that the public suffered in the matter, but there were certainly points connected with it which appeared to be anomalous. There were difficulties in the way of coming to a practical conclusion on the subject. When it was known that money had been paid to the heirs of deceased officers, it certainly looked as if they had a vested interest in their hospitals. All he could say was that, having had his attention called to the subject, he would undertake to look very carefully into it, and see what was the best way of arriving at a satisfactory solution. But he might add that if he felt it his duty to institute inquiry it would be an impartial one, and not be by the Guards alone.

CRIMINAL LAW—ADMINISTRATION IN SUMMARY CASES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  Mr. HOPWOOD, who had a Notice upon the Paper which he was precluded from moving—
  "That the law regulating the appointment, jurisdiction, and duties of Justices of the Peace, and the administration by them of the Criminal Law in summary cases in England and Wales, needs speedy and thorough investigation, with a view to its amendment,"
  said, there could be no doubt of the imperative necessity of the inquiry referred to in that Resolution. In November last he introduced to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary an influential deputation of the working classes, who expressed their feelings on the subject. They did not offer any detailed scheme, but urged their conviction that the existing law was in a most unsatis-
  1994
  factory condition, and pressed with undue and unnecessary harshness on the poorer classes of the community. Premising that no man ought to be tried excepting by his peers, they suggested that an extension should be given to option of trial by jury, as illustrated in the recent case under the Conspiracy Act and other instances; a clearer separation of criminal from civil offences, as had been done in the case of workmen's contracts; and a re-consideration of the whole question of imprisonment, which among certain classes had become too common, they said, and had in a great measure ceased to be regarded either as a punishment or a disgrace. They stated that the greatest dissatisfaction was felt with the way in which many of the magistrates discharged their duties, and urged that no reform of the laws of summary jurisdiction could remove the suspicion with which the local administration of justice was unhappily attended, unless it were accompanied by some remedial measure with regard to the appointment of the local magistrates. Having these objects in view, they desired an inquiry. The Home Secretary, while combating their views on certain points, gave the deputation on the whole a favourable reception. With regard to the law regulating appointments, as it stood at present it was most unsatisfactory, especially with respect to the appointment of magistrates. It was also a scandal and a reproach to both political Parties in the State, the sole ground on which those appointments were made being that the persons receiving them had rendered services to their Party in their respective neighbourhoods. That kind of patronage was a public trust, and the manner in which it was administered by Lords Lieutenant of counties was often a disgrace to those high functionaries. The qualification now required for holding the office of a justice of the peace did not include any knowledge of the law, or any fitness for the discharge of the important duties to be performed, involving the administration of hundreds of Acts of Parliament; indeed, for all the precaution taken, he might be a man who could neither read nor write, and it might be possible to find that there had been magistrates who could do neither. The present qualification as regarded the counties, which dated as far back as the reign of George II., was that the person appointed

  1995
  should possess £100 a-year from land or have £300 a-year from land in reversion. Justices appointed were young or old. As regarded the former, in counties it was considered a sufficient passport to the magisterial office that the person chosen should be 21 years of age, if he were the representative of landed estate in the county. It was monstrous that a mere property qualification should suffice. In the case of the older men who were selected, a knowledge of the world and of the habits of the community among whom they had to administer justice might help to qualify them for the office, but surely some amount of legal knowledge was also necessary? According to the Commission of justices of the peace, they had to inquire, among other things, "into enchantments, sorceries, arts of magic, forestalling, regrating, engrossing," and other obsolete matters. He knew it would be said that the magistrates, so far as a knowledge of the law went, relied on their clerks, and in seven cases out of ten the clerk was practically the magistrate, and being in practice as an attorney might decide eases in which his clients were concerned. But would the House believe it there was no legal obligation even for the clerk to be a lawyer; any magistrate might appoint his butler, and although there could be no doubt clerks ought to have some legal knowledge; and as a rule they had, yet he had known more than one instance of a mere attorney's clerk being appointed to the office, with nothing to recommend him but his cheapness. The clerk, again, might be the confidential solicitor of half the country round, and might and did advise magistrates while cases, political or otherwise, affecting their own clients, were under consideration. Indeed, he knew a case in which the magistrate's clerk, being also a political agent, advised the dismissal of a charge of offence against the Ballot Act at an election, but which on the very same evidence the grand jury sent for trial, and justice was not defeated. That injustice was known and keenly felt. He should, no doubt, be told that he was attacking a respectable body of men. That was a parrot-cry in such cases. But he had yet to learn how justices or justices' clerks or any body of men could be insulted by a statement that there were some unworthy men among them against whom the pub-
  1996
  lic ought to be protected by legislation. Magistrates had to deal with 34 large classes of offences, and in addition they were called upon to inflict punishment for breaches of prison discipline. The lash was not very popular in England, but any felon, or other person, sentenced to hard labour could be whipped by order of the magistrate. He found from the judicial statistics just issued that in the year 1874 there had been 163 cases of whipping in the gaols of England and Wales; putting in irons, 60; confined in solitary cells 16,300 men and women; stoppage of diet, 40,000. He found in some gaols the whipping was extravagantly done, in others very sparingly. In Manchester, where there was a daily average of persons imprisoned of 467, there had been 39 whippings, while in Liverpool, where the daily average was rather more, only 8; and in Wandsworth, with a much larger number of prisoners, 14, which was also the figure at Salford. At Coldbath Fields Prison, with four times the number of prisoners, there had been 40 whippings; but at Maidstone, with a daily average of 312, there had been only 2, and at Wakefield, Durham, and Stafford, none at all, although the daily number of prisoners in each of those prisons was much larger than in Manchester. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) was proposing to transfer these powers by his Prisons' Bill from local to national jurisdiction, and it would be a nice point how to regulate these floggings. Were they to go up to the Manchester level, or come down to that of Wakefield, Durham, and Stafford? Then, as regarded the other punishments in the gaols, he found that at Coldbath Fields no females were punished at all, while at Liverpool there were 1,193 women put into solitary cells, and only 813 men. The total number of cases dealt with by the magistrates in 1874, by summary jurisdiction, was 622,000 out of which 486,786 were convicted, and against those convictions there were but 107 appeals, of which 51 were in cases of bastardy and 28 as regarded the Beer Acts. Deducting only the bastardy cases from each side, that would give in round figures one appeal to every 8,600 convictions. That, however, was not a proof that justice had been done in all the other cases, because in nine out of ten cases there was no appeal. It was

  1997
  monstrous that that should be the fact, when they reflected how many thousands of these cases were assaults, and subject to any amount of perjury. They all knew that the police frequently made charges of assault, and yet the magistrates had the power of sending a man to prison for six months on the word of a policeman, without an appeal. These were things not to be borne, and fully justified his demand for investigation. Some of these cases were so outrageous that the Home Secretary was called upon to overrule decisions like these. There was the case, much commented on, of the captain who the other day was sent to gaol for keeping a refractory seaman in irons for an excessive time; but if the captain had had an appeal the case might have been calmly discussed; it would have been decided whether the magistrate was right or wrong, the captain would not have been wronged by injustice, and his right hon. Friend would not have been obliged to interfere. He complained that although magistrates were not allowed by law to pass sentences of more than six months' imprisonment, yet by dividing charges they often exceeded that amount. Thus if a man were charged with assaulting two policemen, the man would probably be sentenced to six months for the assault on each, the second sentence to commence at the expiration of the first, the result being that the punishment of a year's imprisonment was inflicted while the law limited the magistrate's power to six months only. He found, too, that there were a great number of imprisonments for the non-payment of costs. There were at the present moment several prisoners in Salford Gaol who, unless they could find sureties, in a Very short time would be going through six months' imprisonment in addition to three to which they had been first sentenced for night-poaching. Doubtless there were many similar cases. Often when the magistrate assessed the breach of the law at 6d. the unfortunate delinquent would be sent to prison for seven or 14 days, or a month, for non-payment of the fees or the costs; and that also was a point into which there ought to be an inquiry. In making those observations he wished it to be understood that he was attacking the system, and not the men by whom it was administered, and he did so, because the subject was an
  1998
  important one, and one in which he took much interest. But while he made no attack on individuals, he contended that the law as it stood was objectionable, and protested against the present mode of appointing magistrates as monstrous, maintaining that an inquiry ought to be instituted by the Government as to how they were to be appointed in future, so that some evidence of fitness for the office might be secured, as well as the proper administration of the criminal law in summary cases. He also thought the right of appeal should be multiplied wherever personal liberty was affected. A crying evil existed; but he was sure that the subject could not be in better hands than those of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not disposed to find fault with the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hopwood) had laid his case before the House, or to deny that it was deserving of the utmost attention. The general tone of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech might, however, lead to some misconception out-of-doors, inasmuch as the inference might be drawn—he would not say correctly—that he had brought a great indictment, not against any individual justice, but against magistrates as a body. [Mr. Hopwood: No, no!] He knew that was not the feeling of the hon. and learned Member. Standing as he (Mr. Cross) did, in a certain sense, at the head of the magistracy of the country, he was bound to say that, for his part, he believed there were no men who, as a body, acted more fearlessly, more honestly, with more care, with more patience, or with a more thorough determination to do what was right than the magistrates of this country. They gave an enormous amount of time, and took infinite trouble, for which they got no thanks—at least he had never got any himself—to discharge properly the duties which devolved on them. Having, however, said this much on behalf of the magistrates—and he could not speak too strongly of them in thatway—he was willing to admit that the system which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought before the House was one which required alteration, and it had been his intention, if the state of Public Business had admitted of his doing so, to introduce a measure with a view of correct-

  1999
  ing many of the anomalies which existed in the present state of the law. He hoped, however, early next Session, if not before, to be able to deal with one or two matters in it which required amendment. He did not, he might add, think that there was need of much inquiry for the purpose, because all the facts of the case were, he believed, already very well known, and whenever he brought forward his measure he would, he imagined, be able to show how certain mischiefs had crept into the system which it was desirable to remove. Act after Act, for instance, had been passed, into which, whether owing to the action of the draftsman or some other cause, a clause relating to summary jurisdiction had in some shape or another been introduced, and the result was that, a number of those clauses having got into Acts of Parliament one by one, it was impossible to obtain a bird's-eye view of the whole of our criminal law, except in some big book which was scarcely ever read. He, however, had, with the assistance of several able persons, taken the trouble to get a somewhat complete view of all those ugly clauses, and he certainly was of opinion that they wanted re-arrangement, and that they could easily be re-arranged without making a revolution in the practice of the criminal law. He was also quite willing to admit that it was a great hardship that out of 140,000 sent to gaol there should be as many as one-third to whose cases the statute law was not applicable, and that great relief might be given by the amendment of the part of the law relating to costs. He could not, however, assent to the statement that there was throughout the country great disatisfaction with the decisions of the justices. Their decisions, he believed, on the contrary, though they might not in many instances be learned in the law, carried with them very great weight with the people themselves. The hon. and learned Member found fault with the mode of their appointment, but he seemed to have much more knowledge, he (Mr. Cross) might add, of their apointments of justices in boroughs than in counties. He was quite aware that in the county with which he was connected the appointment of the magistrates was at one time extremely political. He was not blaming one side more than another; but he was happy to
  2000
  say that the system had been changed, and that the appointments were now practically non-political. With regard to the counties, he believed that the Lords Lieutenant generally made the appointments fairly; and the Lord Chancellor was responsible for the selection of borough magistrates. If we could not trust the Lords Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor it would be rather difficult to find any one in whom confidence could be reposed. The hon. and learned Member talked about the qualifications of justices, and suggested that they should know a little law. Now in the administration of justice he (Mr. Cross) thought that a little law was a dangerous thing. What they wanted, with, of course, some knowledge of law, if possible, was a great deal of sound common sense. Look at the great body of the people from whom the justices were selected. They were persons who had spent a great number of the years of their life in active employment and in building up their fortunes or promoting the honour and renown of their country. It was in the same class which supplied them with Members of Parliament that they practically found their magistrates. They could not put them through any examination. The examination which these men had passed had been the work of their lives; they had raised themselves to a position which qualified them for appointments to the magistracy. In his own country they had a magistrate for every policeman, 800 in number, but he did not say that they had too many magistrates—and it was quite right that they should be in the commission of the peace. He might here remark that he would alter the terms of the commission with regard to witchcraft and enchantments, if the change would give any satisfaction to the hon. and learned Member opposite. Undoubtedly one of the oldest laws which could be found provided, and it was no doubt desirable, that there should be on the commission of the peace gentlemen learned in law. So far as they could that was carried out by the practice which almost invariably obtained of making use of the County Court Judges, and he could speak of the immense services which were rendered by the County Court Judges, not only at petty, but at quarter sessions in all cases of appeal. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the absence of any

  2001
  qualification in the justices' clerk, and had said that they might appoint a butler to the office. The magistrates' own character was at stake in the administration of justice, and they would take care to appoint the best man they could get. He admitted that the clerks ought to be paid by salary, and not by fees, and he hoped to be able to persuade Parliament to make the Act which was now permissive compulsory. With regard to terms of punishment, there were a good many old statutes, and they found that in these the punishments were more severe than in the modern statutes, and it was one of the great evils of Consolidation Acts that the severer penalties were almost always retained. With regard to the differing amounts of punishment awarded by the justices as stated by the hon. and learned Member, he wished to have their administration in prisons as uniform as possible, for, although they did their duty there as honestly as they did elsewhere, they were apt to get into particular grooves in particular localities. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the question of appeal. Now, from the decisions of the justices, there was a short, cheap, and easy appeal to the Secretary of State, and he had been perfectly astonished at the comparatively few cases in which complaints had been made to him of the decisions of the justices. As to the question of costs in criminal appeals he knew that there was a feeling in some populous places that persons were sent to prison so that the clerks might get their fees, and he should like to see some legislation by which the clerks would be paid by salary, and, secondly, that power would be given to the magistrates to give time to parties so that they might find sureties for payment. He did not think that any inquiry into the subject was necessary, and in conclusion be desired to repeat his testimony to the admirable way in which the magistrates of this county performed their duty.

  AUDIT OF ARMY AND NAVY EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. J. HOLMS, who had a Notice on the Paper to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, in order to secure the due appropriation of Army and Navy Expenditure to the purposes intended by
  2002
  Parliament, it is expedient that the system of independent audit which, since the passing of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, has been successfully applied to the accounts of the Annual Grants for the Miscellaneous Civil Services, should be extended in its leading principles, to the Grants for Military and Naval Services,"
  said, that at a time when the House of Commons was called upon to vote a sum almost unparalleled for the Army and Navy during peace, it might not be inappropriate to draw attention to the manner in which a sum of £27,000,000 voted for those Services was audited on the part of the House. Fortunately, the principle involved in the Motion he was about to submit was not one upon which there was any controversy. On the contrary, the principle was admitted by financial authorities sitting on both sides of the House as well as by financial authorities outside the House. The duty he had to perform was to show that the House and the country had some reason to complain that the system which had worked so well with regard to the Civil Service expenditure had not been applied to that of the Army and Navy. The Act of 1866, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was intended to give the Controller and Auditor General substantial authority by making him independent. But in that measure a distinction, was drawn between the accounts of the several Departments, and while the Auditor General was required to guarantee that the Civil Service accounts had been expended in accordance with the wishes of the Legislature, he was merely called upon to audit the Army and Navy accounts in gross, to see that the sums for each vote had not been exceeded. It was clear, however, both from speeches made at the time and from the terms of the Act itself, that such an arrangement was only tentative; that a larger application of the principle was contemplated; and that it was intended to extend the system of examination by the Controller and Auditor General to the Army and Navy accounts. Why, then, had not the provisions of this Act, which had worked so well in relation to the other great spending Departments, been applied to the Army and Navy? There was hardly a year since the Act passed that it was not in the power of the Auditor General to draw the atten-

  2003
  tion of the Select Committee on Public Accounts to some case or cases of misappropriation of public money. As early as 1868 the Select Committee on Public Accounts suggested in their Report that the system for which he contended should be applied to the accounts of the Army and Navy, and in 1869 they again drew the attention of the House and the Treasury to the subject. In 1871, on the examination of the Inland Revenue accounts by the Auditor General, a discovery was made which the Committee characterized as a "grave impropriety," that grave impropriety being that some gentlemen in a public office had divided £2,385—the accumulation of income tax—among themselves. These remonstrances at length had some effect, and it was suggested to the Auditor General that as regarded the Army and Navy accounts, he should put the provision of the Act of 1866 into operation himself; but he did not like to do so without the authority of the Treasury or of the House of Commons. Perhaps he thought it impossible to act unless the Treasury moved first and gave him the means. The Treasury, in a letter to the Auditor General, dated March 6, 1872, yielded the whole of his case. He thought that the suggestion in the Treasury letter that expense should not be allowed to stand in the way of the establishment of a proper system of audit was a very wise and proper one. He must remind those who objected to his proposal that Mr. Scud more had objected to an independent audit of the Post Office accounts, on the ground of the expense of such a system; but five years afterwards that Gentleman had to give evidence with regard to a sum of £830,000, which had been misapplied by the Post Office, which misappropriation had been discovered through the vigilance of the Auditor General to whose appointment he had objected. The Select Committee on Public Accounts had reported favourably on the establishment of an independent audit of the accounts of these great Departments, and their last Report on this subject was made in March, 1875, and in it the statement appeared that a plan had been sketched for the audit of the War Office expenditure, and the same principle was to be applied to the Admiralty accounts. It was similar to that then in process of application to the accounts of the Revenue
  2004
  Department. He could assure hon. Members opposite that he had brought forward this subject in no spirit of antagonism to Her Majesty's Government, but merely in the hope of obtaining from them the fullest and most complete information which they could lay before the House on the subject. He was willing to believe that the Financial Secretary desired to place this question upon a proper footing; but, at the same time, he thought that some explanation should be given with regard to the delay that had occurred in arriving at a determination with regard to it. Doubtless he should be told that the matter was still sub judice, but it was that very fact that he complained of, because a decision should have been arrived at with reference to it long ago. It would be disrespectful to the House were he not to refer to a Memorandum which was appended to the Report of the Select Committee by the Accountant General of the Admiralty, which contained several objections to the proposal which he might as well answer at once. The Memorandum raised the objection, in the first place, that the departmental examination of the accounts was so perfect that it was a mere waste of time and money to do the work again. In his opinion the more perfect the work was done in the Departments the easier would be the task of the Auditor General in auditing their accounts; and, indeed, the same objection might be urged against auditing the accounts of those Departments which were subjected to the supervision of the Auditor General. Besides, it was scarcely correct to speak of an internal examination of accounts as an audit. A person of authority, with an independent judgment, ought to make the audit, and report impartially upon the state of the accounts. The purpose of an independent audit was not so much to control the officer who recorded the expenditure as the head of the Department who ordered it. It had been objected that the heads of the Naval and Military Departments, being responsible for their administration, would not wish to be hampered by external supervision; but in fact they were not more responsible for the expenditure of their Departments than were those who directed the Miscellaneous Expenditure, and could not possibly be hampered in their action, seeing that the audit did not take place for

  2005
  months after the expenditure. If the audit were good for the other Departments, why should it not act well in the case of the Naval and Military Departments, with their vast expenditure of £27,000,000? Either the system of audit was wise or unwise; but if it was good in the one case, why should it not be adopted in the other? He could see no reason why it should not, and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some reason for hoping that the Army and Navy Departments would be placed under the Auditor General, and that they would be careful not to incur any expenditure for which they could not account to the House of Commons.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that no question could be raised in that House which was of more importance than that which related to the audit or examination of the expenditure of the country. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that the vouchers used for compiling the accounts of the Military and Naval expenditure were not audited or examined with the same care that was bestowed upon the vouchers used in making up the accounts of the different Departments in the Civil Service. His own practical experience with reference to the matter led him to the conclusion that the system of audit in the Military branch which he believed to be formed in assimilation with that at the Naval Department left fewer openings for jobbery in respect to missapplying monies than were to be found in the Civil Service. He submitted that as regarded the auditing of all the accounts of all branches of the Service, there might be, as had been pointed out, great improvements made, as much at the Treasury as at the War Office and Admiralty. The examinations of the vouchers of expenditure at the War Office and Admiralty were conducted by civilian officers formed into a distinct branch in those two Departments of Army and Navy, and this examination being made by one set of Civil servants specially set apart for that duty, he considered that the public had a good right to consider the interests of the country fairly protected, whereas the Civil Service expenditure was examined by the officers of the several individual branches which expended the money, so that for as many branches as there were in the Civil Service there were so many sepa-
  2006
  rate sets of examiners, and all intimately connected with the head of that one branch and with the other officers of that branch. The Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866 appeared to give to the Auditor General the power of auditing the Civil Service expenditure, but it was one merely of vouchers, whether the Civil Service expenditure was supported by vouchers or proofs of payments—that was to say, whether the total charge was vouched for; that was a mere City kind of verification practised by every company, it was no examination as to the propriety of the outlay, and the accounts laid before Parliament only showed totals without any details of separate payments. The mode in which the expenditure of the Army and Navy was recorded in the accounts was well-calculated to indicate misapplication of funds from the special and particular purposes intended by Parliament. But there was no such security in respect to the Civil Service outlay, for the accounts thereof were lumped up in large amounts, aggregating different kinds of expenditure into one item, and so entered in the accounts and laid before Parliament; so that there was no such useful check as that afforded by the accounts stated in detail of the Army and Navy, by which the fact could be ascertained as to misappropriations—that was, using the monies voted by Parliament for a different purpose from that for which granted. There could be no second opinion on this point—that sums of money which had been voted for one purpose of the Civil Service might be expended for another. The best and only check for that was a clause in the Appropriation Act requiring the outlay to be specifically accounted for under the very heads, and in the form in which the funds were stated in the Estimates. The Treasury, however, had full power to direct inquiries as to the public expenditure in the Military and Naval Departments. Every figure of expenditure in the Army—and he had no doubt in the Navy too, though he could not speak with equal certainty on that point—was carefully scrutinized by officers of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who were always in the War Office, and to whom every voucher was submitted, in order to see that the entries had been duly verified by the responsible examiners, and that proofs

  2007
  thereof were given by the initials of the examiners and supervising officers being affixed; these vouchers were then posted into the great ledger of the War Office under the eyes of the officers of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whereby the Army expenditure was thoroughly well-accounted for in the most satisfactory manner, and every voucher and entry was initialed so that falsification was impossible. The 29th clause in the Exchequer Act, which was supposed to be so effectual in protecting the public in regard to the Civil Service expenditure, was, in fact, the course followed for nearly 35 years in respect to the expenditure of the Army and Navy; and, in addition the outlay was initialed in the books so as to ensure the preparation of a correct account. The really best and most effective foundation for a proper examination of the accounts were clear and distinct Estimates, and in order to prevent misappropriation, the more fully and complete the items of expenses were stated, the greater would be the scrutiny of the expenditure entered in vouchers. The Estimates were now presented in great detail by some of the Departments, whilst by others the items were lumped together in a most unsatisfactory manner. The contrast between the Civil Service accounts and those of the Army was great. The real examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Civil Service outlay was a mere test as to whether the total sums which the Heads of each of the many branches of the Civil Service were supported by vouchers. It was no examination as to whether that total was rightly spent for the exact purpose which Parliament intended. It was a mere audit of totals in vouchers, and not of the items entered therein. No doubt the Treasury had the power under the Audit Act to remedy that great defect by ordering more detailed examinations of vouchers, but as yet no such order had been given; and as the Act declared that the Civil Service Expenditure should be made up in the lumping way that was now practised, and that the existence of sufficient vouchers in proof of the total outlay so entered in the appropriation account should be the course to be followed, it was naturally to be expected that the Civil Servants would follow the course which freed them from that kind
  2008
  of check which arose from having every penny expended subjected to an inquiry as to whether it was applied for the very use for which Parliament granted it. The great defect in the Civil Service outlay was the large amount given over to each branch to spend in a way that could not properly be checked, under the form of "Incidental Expenses," "Miscellaneous Expenses," "Allowances" of various kinds, "Gratuities" of various kinds. No doubt, those all looked to be small, because they were small by being so greatly divided into separate parts; but if these were aggregated from the 146 Votes over which they were scattered, then, indeed, the whole of those uncontrollable charges would swell up to a very considerable sum, and all of it at the disposal in the main of the several heads of each of the many Votes, in a way which could not be found in the expenditure of the Army and Navy, while expenses could not be incurred so likely to lead to jobbery in a small way as in the Civil Service. The real remedy was the abolition of the present defective mode of making an officer of each Department the accountant for the voted funds, and to have a paymaster to pay on voucher the various payments of the Civil Service, and for that paymaster to render his vouchers for his several payments direct to an examining office of competent Civil servants, to verify the several sums in each voucher, and to draw out the accounts of outlay as now practised in the War Office, and then for the Comptroller and Auditor General to test their accuracy in any way he might see fit. That was now nearly the course followed in respect to the Army, and it could be perfected with great ease.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that nobody could doubt the importance of the subject which the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) had brought before the House. It was most important not only that the accounts of the very large expenditure incurred in this country should be properly audited and controlled, but that the public should be satisfied that they were so. The hon. Member was therefore perfectly justified in bringing forward his Motion. Since the year 1866, in which the Exchequer and Audit Act was passed a more perfect system of audit had been carried out for the Civil

  2009
  Service than for the Military Departments. The origin of that system might be, however, attributed rather to the Military than the Civil Departments, because up to that period the former had a more stringent and efficient system of audit than the Civil Service. The Act of 1866 was therefore brought in and made to apply to the weak part of the Civil Service system, and was not brought to bear on the Military Departments. He had the honour of serving upon the Public Accounts Committee when the late Sir James Graham, Sir Francis Baring, and other authorities examined into this subject, and they thought the audit of Military accounts was a model to be followed in the Civil Service accounts. A clause was afterwards introduced into the Bill giving an optional power to the Treasury to apply the new system of audit to the military service also. Now that the very great advantages of the kind of control and audit exercised by the Controller and Auditor General had been ascertained, he agreed that within certain limits and upon certain conditions the same test should be applied as far as possible to the Military Departments. That had been the opinion not only of the Treasury, but of the Committee of Public Accounts which had given much time and attention to this subject. He believed that it would be found when the next Report upon this matter was laid before the House that considerable progress had been made. He would rather not then go into details, but he would say generally that they appreciated the importance of having a control and audit that would have the advantage not only of being efficient, but they also thought that the audit that took place in the War Office and Admiralty was a very efficient and valuable audit, and ought on no account to be superseded or weakened, because it would be absurd and extravagant to do all the work over again. But they also saw that there was advantage in bringing the eye of some one who was independent of the Departments to bear upon the accounts; some one who was in the habit of examining the accounts of different Departments; and who could bring his experience in testing the accounts of one Department to bear upon another Department. It was not in checking computation and addition that they were to look to find
  2010
  out anything that was irregular, but they were to look to find out irregularities—which though perfectly honest might exist in opening new accounts and in appointing sums to one account that should be placed to another. It must not be supposed that in these irregularities there was anything in the nature of a fraud upon the public. In talking of irregularities it was not meant that there was anything like embezzlement, but rather that money had been paid in a way that Parliament did not intend, or that there had been given a wrong impression of the accounts of one service or another. Such things a departmental auditor would not perhaps see, because he would have been always accustomed to them, whilst they would be detected by a person who was accustomed to audit the accounts of different Departments. He thought that it was of the greatest importance that they should, considering our enormous expenditure, bring as many cross lights to bear upon it as they conveniently could; and that the bringing in the assistance of the Controller and Auditor General was very desirable. It was a subject to which they were directing their attention. They all desired to have a searching audit, and the only question was as to the mode in which the work should be done. The Government hoped in the course of the present Session to arrive at a conclusion that would go to a certain extent in the direction to which the hon. Member (Mr. Holms) had adverted.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, having paid much attention to the subject of the Estimates, was desirous to say a few words in relation to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there should be a concurrent audit. If the accounts were audited at Somerset House, that would bean independent audit; but in the War Office, where the accounts were audited, that was not an independent audit. This was also the case at the Admiralty. The question had been brought before the House year after year, and he himself had brought it before the House three years running; but great tetchiness existed on the part of the Departments in question. If there was a sum which was not used, say, for bridge building or otherwise, that sum should be surrendered to the Treasury. It was a great blot on our system of

  2011
  audit that in the War Office and at the Admiralty the excess of one Vote might be applied to the deficiency of another, and all attempts to alter this had failed, because Ministers liked to handle the surpluses they created and devote them to the deficiencies they produced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, like a man skating over bad ice, passed lightly over the difference between auditing for the Treasury and auditing for the House of Commons. There were two kinds of audit. One was the audit presented to the Treasury, the other to the House of Commons. The audit for the Treasury merely consisted in the examination of the vouchers for money spent, and if that was correct there the matter ended. The audit for the House of Commons meant proof that the money had been expended for the purposes for which the House had voted the money, which was a very different thing. In the first case, the House had no guarantee that the money had been spent as it was intended to be spent. In the second, there was a direct check upon misappropriation—he did not mean dishonest misappropriation, but merely application to different purposes from those for which the money was granted. The wisdom of the House of Commons had devised these two checks on expenditure—that of the Treasury before it and that of the appropriation audit afterwards; but the two things were now mixed up. ["No, no!"] They used to be. When was a change made? ["Four years ago."] The Auditor General had to report to the Treasury, and in one instance an objection he took was resisted by the Treasury and did not appear in the published Report. The Auditor General could not be an independent officer when he was appointed by the Treasury. If we desired to have correct accounts we must make the office independent of the Treasury, and the Auditor General, instead of being a petty clerk at £2,500 a-year, ought to have a position equal to that of a Secretary of State. Until this was done the House of Commons would never attain to the economy it desired.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had for so many years taken an interest in this question that he intended to have made some remarks in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms). The remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which
  2012
  he had listened with great satisfaction, showed that he was fully aware of the importance of an independent audit, and that he sympathized with the object for which the Motion had been brought forward. He hoped that in a short time they would have the accounts of all the Departments placed before the House in a proper manner. Accepting the assurance he had given, he thought it unnecessary to prolong the discussion.
  Mr. W. H. SMITHsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) was mistaken in supposing that the Controller and Auditor General Reported to the Treasury. He did not send his Reports to the Treasury; he was in no sense an officer of the Treasury; he reported directly to the House of Commons; and although it was true the Treasury had the power of appointing officers in the department, the Controller had full power under the 9th clause of the Act, constituting the department, to make orders and rules for its internal regulation, and to promote, suspend, or remove any officers, clerks, or others employed therein. The Treasury had no power whatever over any clerk or officer after he was once appointed. The internal regulation of the department in every respect depended upon the Controller, who had as high a salary and an official rank as any permanent official of his class in the public service. He was fully conscious of the great responsibility of his office; he communicated with the Treasury only when it was necessary to obtain information, and he fully maintained the dignity and independence of his position.

NAVY—NAVIGATING OFFICERS.
  QUESTION.
  Mr. HANBURY-TRACY, who had intended to call attention to the subject, said, he would content himself with simply asking the First Lord of the Admiralty, What steps he proposes to adopt to enable Officers of the Navy to obtain adequate knowledge of pilotage and practical navigation; and if he will state what course he intends to take with the view of improving the position of the present Navigating Officers?
OFFICERS OF MARINES—RETIREMENT.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that before the preceding Question was answered, he

  2013
  wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that there are at the present moment several Officers of Marines who are entitled to retire on a pension; and, whether the Treasury has been required to make provision for pensioning these Officers during the current year; and, if so, whether he has taken into consideration the advisability of creating an immediate flow of promotion by applying the sum so provided by the Treasury in extending the privilege of retirement to other Officers, or in granting increased pensions to a limited number of Officers who may be willing to retire immediately?

NAVY—ENGINEER OFFICERS AND ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  Mr. GORSTsaid, he had a Question on the Paper which, perhaps, it would be well that he should put, in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to reply to it as well as those which had just been put to him. He wished to call attention to the present unsatisfactory position of the Engineer Officers and the Engine-Room Artificers of the Royal Navy, and to the urgent necessity for taking some immediate steps to improve the same. There had been an increase of duties thrown upon the chief engineers, and a decrease of rank and pay. When they compared the position of these officers in the British Navy with officers of the same rank in the American Navy, it would be found that in every class the American officers were paid double, and in some cases treble, the amount paid to engineer officers and engine-room artificers in the British Navy. By the substitution of engineer officers in large vessels, which ought to have been under the command of chief engineers, there was a stagnation in the promotion of chief engineers, and altogether it would seem they had made a serious mistake in selecting the British instead of the American Navy for the exercise of their profession. He was not disposed at that late hour to enter into a lengthened statement, but he reminded the House that last year the First Lord of the Admiralty promised to appoint a Committee to investigate the grievances of these officers. He had done so; and he (Mr. Gorst) wished to know whether it was true that that Report had been
  2014
  made, and that the Committee recommended a large increase in the pay of engineers and an increase in the pay of engine-room artificers? It was of the utmost importance that the control of the machinery of the Royal steamships would come into most efficient hands.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that without any pressure on the part of his hon. Friend, or any other Member of the House, he appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject. He had therefore given an earnest that the subject was being properly considered by the Admiralty, in order to see what improvement could be devised. It was quite true that the Committee reported some two months ago. The Committee recommended some sweeping changes as to the engineers, and very important changes as to the service and the financial aspect of the question. Under these circumstances the recommendations of the Committee could not be accepted without careful consideration. When he was asked to present the Report and the evidence to the House, he stated that he was not willing to do so until the Admiralty had determined whether the recommendations of the Committee should be accepted. When that Question was put to him he had not had time even to read the evidence; but in the Whitsun Recess he had a certain amount of leisure, and he read a great part of the evidence. He was, therefore, better informed now on the subject than when that Question was put. The matter was engaging the attention of the Admiralty, but he could not undertake to say that their decision upon it would be come to while Parliament was sitting. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had asked him a Question as to officers of the Marines—namely, whether the sum taken did not provide for all the officers who were entitled to retire if they chose, though some of them had not elected to do so. The sum taken provided for the number who were expected to retire, and not for all who might retire if they wished; because it was known by experience that many who had the option of retiring did not choose to avail themselves of it. He was desirous of remedying, if possible, the present stagnation of promotion; but he felt great difficulty in doing anything in the matter until the Report of the Army Commission was presented, which he was led to hope it

  2015
  would be before long. When the Report was received, he would lose no time in devising some plan for dealing with that subject. With regard to the navigating officers, some anomalies were inseparable from a system of transition; but he hoped that some of the difficulties that were anticipated might be got rid of by a proposal for enabling sub-lieutenants to go upon the Executive List. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) had suggested the other day that there should be a school for the instruction of officers undertaking navigating duties. It was proposed that those who went on the Executive List, or who were selected for navigating duties, should undergo the same examination as had been in operation for some years for navigating officers proper. He should be happy to consider whether any instruction should be given them.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—SCOTCH BUSINESS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I must say a word or two on the conduct of Scotch Business, according to the Notice I have given. It appears to me that it is becoming more and more evident that Parliament is not in a position to cope with the whole of the legislation of these Three Kingdoms. Whatever may be the case with regard to Ireland, some kind of Home Rule really seems to be necessary for Scotland. I was told before I entered Parliament that there was a small Scotch Parliament that met in the Tea Room, or in some corner of the House; but even that little fragment of Home Rule has been taken from us, and now it has come to this—we are either to go without legislation, or we are to submit to the mild despotism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate for Scotland. My experience is that we must take what the Lord Advocate is pleased to give us, without discussion, or have nothing. We have heard something to-night of an enlightened despotism being fit for the island of Malta; but I say that despotism, whether enlightened or unenlightened, is not fit for Scotland, and this is a despotism which it appears to me is not fully enlightened. The feeling on this subject is growing very strong indeed in Scotland. If we are likely
  2016
  to have nothing from Parliament, it would be better for Government not to come as they have done to place several large measures before the House. As it is, the Government have succeeded in bringing a nest of hornets about their ears. London is at present full of deputations from Scotland—London is positively swarming with Scotchmen who have come up aggrieved, and justly aggrieved, by the proposals of Government. I see that the Home Secretary is beset everywhere. In passing through the House of Lords' Lobby recently I saw a large assemblage. I thought a fight was going on, but it turned out that the Home Secretary was beset with Scotch deputations. There is only one way of clearing them away, and that is by enabling Scotchmen to return peacefully to their homes, by giving a due share of the attention of this House to Scotch Business. I must remind the Government that in this island most successful rebellions have originated in Scotland, and if the Ministry, strong as they are, succeed in irritating the feelings of the people of Scotland, I think it likely they will fall from that strong high position they now hold. A Scotch Member recently inflicted a crushing defeat on the Ministry. They did not resign on that occasion. Her Majesty did not then see fit to send for the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but if this sort of thing goes on, my hon. Friend will have to be sent for before long. Let us look what is the actual state of affairs in regard to Scotch Business. Last year one important Bill was passed in absolute silence; and this year only one very infinitesimal Scotch Bill, because, I suppose, on the principle of de minimum, nobody cared to take any notice of it. Not only has no Bill of importance been passed, but, so far as I can see, there is no prospect of Government making any arrangement for discussing Scotch Bills. There is the Scotch Poor Law Bill, in regard to which I may say there is a strong feeling in Scotland. There is so much bad in that Bill, they would rather have no Bill, ["No!"] We would only have it like the Irishman's gun, when it was fitted with a new stock, a new lock, and a new barrel. It would certainly require considerable discussion before it can be made acceptable. It is a Bill which proposes to destroy local government. ["Order!"]
  Mr. SPEAKERhere intervened, reminding the hon. Gentleman that it was out of Order to discuss the principle of a Bill not before the House.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I bow to your decision, Sir; but perhaps I may name the Scotch Bills now pending respecting which we have had no proper discussion. The Poor Law Amendment Bill has been smuggled through two stages without discussion. The Roads Bill, which we are more anxious to see passed, has been waiting for the appointment of a day, and there is not the least chance of its being brought forward. I saw from the Minutes that the Roads Bill was read a second time last night, but that I am now told was a mistake. It either has been read a second time without discussion, or it is not likely to be read a second time at all, because there is no day on which it is likely to go on. The Sheriff Courts Bill is another important Bill, and so is the Agricultural Holdings Bill; and the Ecclesiastical Assessments Bill raises some difficult questions in regard to the incidence of local taxation. Then we have the everlasting Game Bills, Liquor Bills, and other smaller measures. What prospect is there of these being discussed? I say the Government have made no arrangement to lead us to hope that they will give us time to discuss them. We must take them in silence or not at all. I say we are greatly ill-used in this matter. Last Tuesday we were given to believe that one of the Scotch Bills would be brought forward. I thought it likely that the Government would have taken a Morning Sitting to-day, and devoted it to a Scotch Bill; but they have not even fixed next Tuesday for that purpose. I hope that now we have been so often told that the Government hope to dispose of Scotch Business, they will be able to tell us something definite, and to say whether they really are going to do anything or nothing; because if they are going to do nothing, it is time these deputations should be enabled to go home to attend to their own affairs, instead of dancing in attendance here in a hope which is not likely to be fulfilled. I trust we shall have definite information given to us.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It is only with the permission of the House that I am entitled to speak at the present moment. I have spoken before; but if
  2018
  the House will allow me, I have two or three words to say as to what the Government will do. I think the hon. Gentleman could not have been in his place last night, for it was then stated that we had fixed certain days for these Bills, with the intention then of naming some day when it would be practicable to bring them forward. It was our intention that the Bills the Government could bring forward should then have a day specially appointed for them, so that they should not be brought forward on a day when there was no opportunity of discussing them. As to the deputations, I am extremely glad to see them; and, more than that, the fact of their having been here has, I believe, greatly contributed to the solution of the Roads question. Having said that, I can only say further that I think it is likely that the Roads Bill and the Poor Law Amendment Bill will be arranged for this Session.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was quite sure that no one could have been less satisfied with the manner in which Scotch Business had been conducted, not only that Session, but during the present Parliament, than the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate himself. The Bills that passed last Session were passed by the Clerk reading their titles at the Table. There was no opportunity for discussion, and they were told they must either take the Bills as a whole or reject them altogether. That was not the mode in which the Business of any section of this country should be treated. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer received Scotch Members with great courtesy and attention, but more was wanted than these courtesies—the people of Scotland wanted that their circumstances and feelings should be considered. That had not been done. The only important measure that received any discussion was one the passing of which was not now regarded with pride, but rather with regret—that was the Bill for creating a new franchise for the election of ministers in the Church of Scotland. He felt, therefore, that they were justified in taking an opportunity of the present kind to say that they must receive not only the courtesy they had already received from the right hon. Gentlemen, but that the Business of Scotland should be treated with

  2019
  the respect paid to the legislation of every other portion of the Empire. He did not think it would be a satisfactory mode to substitute the Tea Room for the House; but he thought it was worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman that some means should be devised by which, without impeding general legislation affecting the Empire, the Business of Scotland should receive greater consideration than had yet been given to it.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to say two or three words on this subject. In the earlier days of his Parliamentary experience, the Lord Advocate was good enough to assemble Scotch Members in a convenient place, and from them received not only information as to Bills brought before the House, but as to the support he would receive in conducting that Business to a satisfactory and rapid conclusion, and he ventured to say that it would be of great advantage to Parliament if that process were re-introduced. If the Lord Advocate would consult the Scotch Members upon Scotch Bills, and would accept not the votes of the majority, but would form his own opinion, and then introduce his measures into Parliament so shaped that he would have a reasonable prospect of carrying them through, as had been the former practice on Scotch measures, he would do good service.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £109,194, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."
  Mr. RYLANDSobjected to their proceeding at so late an hour with so important a matter. There had been a promise given that the details of the Estimates would not be taken after half-past 11.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that was what he certainly had promised, but they had
  2020
  been taken by surprise by a "Scotch invasion," which, however, had only lasted until three minutes beyond the hour he had fixed upon. If it was thought he should not go on, the time arranged only being exceeded by three minutes, of course he must agree to report Progress; but if the Committee was willing to go on he should be glad.
  Mr. RYLANDSthought half-past 11 was too late. The Navy Estimates should be brought on at an earlier hour. Several of the Representatives of the Dockyards—Members who wished to take part in the discussion—were not present, and he should therefore move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  Mr. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, some of them who represented Dockyard towns had sat there for hours waiting for these Votes to come on, and it was hard that, after what was called a "Scotch invasion," and the discussion of questions of no very great interest, those Members interested in the Navy Votes should be prevented discussing them.
  Mr. GOSCHENsaid, they had not interposed in the discussion, wishing to save time, but he thought it must be admitted half-past 11 was a late hour to go into Committee. He therefore thought there was reason in the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley; but, at the same time, he sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HUNTfelt obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his friendly remarks; but he must feel that at that late period of the Session it was difficult to arrange the Business. He thought after the previous discussions on the Navy Estimates the Committee might be willing to continue them, but he could not object to the Motion. He would try to arrange that the Navy Estimates should come on upon a future day at an earlier hour. But his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War wished, before Progress was reported, to propose a Vote for the Army.
  Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: I hope the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ramsay), who is anxious to promote Scotch Busi-

  2021
  ness, will see that he has taken up another day which they might have had for Scotch Business.
  Mr. RAMSAY: I may fairly say I did not know that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was about to mention this matter, and I was no party to any delay. I wish to say, however, that no Scotch business should have been treated in the way the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) has spoken in this House of our business. I do not see that Scottish business should be spoken of as a "Scotch invasion," or that such remarks should be made on Scotch affairs. I feel it necessary to make a protest against being treated in that fashion. It will not tend to allay the discontent already existing if we are told we must stand over until the dockyard constituencies' affairs are discussed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had no desire whatever to interfere with naval Business. He did not wish to do so, though he felt there was a risk of that result, and took counsel on the subject, and was led to believe that there was an objection to taking the Naval Votes at so late an hour. He understood the English Poor Law Bill could be taken any time before 12 o'clock, and hoped it would be taken.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it would be a mistake to suppose that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy had taken counsel with him or any of his Friends sitting on the front bench.
  MR. ANDERSONthought the Home Secretary had gone out of his way to taunt the hon. Member for Falkirk as having taken up one of the nights which might have been available otherwise for Scotch Business, merely because he made some remarks about Scotch Business. No time had been lost in making those remarks, except the time the remarks took in being delivered. They were not going away. There were more than 24 Orders on the Paper, and he had no doubt the House would sit till 2 o'clock, using the whole of the time in other work.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: feared that in consequence of the time which had been lost by English and Scotch Members it would be impossible that night to go on with the Poor Law Rating (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would withdraw his motion, in order that, as had
  2022
  been suggested, the Secretary for War might take a Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY PURCHASE ESTIMATE.
  £364,200, to complete the sum for Army Purchase Commission.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that a more irregular Vote had never been presented. It was of that bad kind of Votes which carefully concealed the information by which you could verify the actual expenditure with the estimated outlay; and consequently no one knew whether the mode in which the money was spent was right or not. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would give a distinct account of the manner in which the money had been spent in the past, and state clearly the names, ranks, and corps and regiments of the various officers who received the money voted by Parliament as well as the sums paid to each.
  MR. DILLWYNalso asked how the money was to be expended. There was no information in the Estimates.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYremarked, that the Estimate was laid on the Table of the House three months ago. The money had been voted, and there would be no difficulty whatever in stating to the House what commissions had been purchased.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, no information had been given respecting the particular commissions which had been bought. It was only right to those who advocated the abolition of purchase to have the information given in a clear way, so that they might be able to judge whether the recommendations they offered, and which the House followed in abolishing Purchase, were right. Already millions had been spent, and many more millions had yet to be spent, but no other accounts had been given except lump sums. But as the Treasury was charged with the duty of issuing instructions as to the accounts to be rendered, he hoped that the controlling Department would not fail to require the Commissioners of Purchase to submit to the Comptroller and Auditor General a detailed account of every item, and that that account, when audited with the vouchers, would be laid before

  2023
  Parliament, to enable Members and the country to form right views about the outlay of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 for buying back the Army from the officers.
  Mr. STANLEYsaid, a Return giving the information required by the hon. Gentleman would be laid on the Table by his right hon. Friend.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

ARMY CORPS TRAINING BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Hardy, Mr. Stanley, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
ARMY CORPS TRAINING BILL.

  [BILL 182.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: moved the addition of a new clause providing for the appointment of special Commissioners by the Lords Lieutenant of the counties of Surrey, Sussex, Hants, Wilts, Gloucester, and Somerset, one for each county.
  Clause (Appointment of special Commissioners by Lords Lieutenant,)—(Mr. Secretary Hardy,)—brought up, and read a first time.
  Sir WALTER BARTTELOT: suggested that it would be as easy to appoint two Commissioners as one for each county, and that two would increase the confidence of the public in the decisions.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: concurred in the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: undertook to consider the point before the Bill reached the other House.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  General Sir George Balfour

POOR LAW RATING (IRELAND) BILL.
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
POOR LAW RATING (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 156.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, stated its provisions shortly, and intimated that the House would have full opportunity to consider it in Committee; and with regard to the clause providing for a re-valuation of Unions in certain circumstances, to which he understood there was an objection, he might state that he did not consider it essential to the Bill. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he was not disposed at the late period of the Session to throw any obstacles in the way of the passing of the Bill. He hoped that in Committee any objectionable clause might be amended, so that the Bill might pass this year.
  MR. MORRISalso took exception to portions of the measure, but would not offer any obstacle to the second reading.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: agreed to the second reading, with reservations as to certain clauses in Committee.
  Mr. STACPOOLE: regretted that the right hon. Baronet had not extended the principle of Union rating to Ireland in the same way as it was applied in England.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next