Commons Sitting of 12 February 1877

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Halifax, ?. John Crossley, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Edmund Severne, esquire, for Salop County (Southern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Lunacy Law, appointed; Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons, appointed and nominated; Printing, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Valution of Property [63]; Patents for Inventions [64]; Roads and Bridges (Scotland); Supreme Court of Judicature(Ireland); County Officers and Courts (Ireland); Sligo Borough (Ireland)* [68]; Kingstown Borough (Ireland) * [69]; County Courts Jurisdiction* [71]; Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (No. 2)* [72]; Thames River (Prevention of Floods)* [70]; County Training Schools and Ships* [73]; Protection to Growing Crops (Scotland)* [74]; Winter Assizes (Ireland)* [75]; Criminal Law Evidence Amendment* [76]; Judicial Proceedings (Rating)* [77].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [50].

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.—QUESTIONS.
MR. GOLDSMIDasked the Postmaster General, What steps have been taken with regard to the recommendations of the Committee which sat last Session to consider the management of the Telegraphs?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that in August a scheme for the re-organization of the Telegraph Department, based upon the Report of the Select Committee, was submitted by him to the Treasury, and it was still under the consideration of the Government. With respect to the Press, he had thought it inexpedient to do more than

167
simply adopt the suggestion made by the Committee, that each message requiring a separate transmission and delivery should be separately charged for at the rate of 1s. for one address, with a charge of 2d. for every additional address. Systematic inquiries had been and were still being made into the exact telegraphic requirements of each post-office, and in all possible cases steps had been taken, as suggested by the Committee, to diminish the force employed. The Committee had further suggested that a profit and loss account, of a commercial character, should be prepared in order to be laid before Parliament, and he had submitted an account of that nature to the Treasury for the purpose of being submitted to both Houses of Parliament.
MR. W. E. FORSTERasked whether the noble Lord would lay on the Table the new regulations with regard to the Press?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Certainly.
MR. GOLDSMID: Will the accounts submitted to the Treasury be laid before the House?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: That is rather a question for the Treasury when it has decided upon the subject.

TURKEY—THE ATROCITIES IN BULGARIA.—QUESTIONS.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to Lord Derby's Despatch of the 21st September last, about the outrages recently committed on the Christian population of Bulgaria, in which Despatch Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople is instructed, after demanding an audience of the Sultan, to "call for reparation and justice in the name of the Queen and of Her Majesty's Government," and to urge that the "rebuilding of the houses and churches should be begun at once," and "necessary assistance given for the restoration" of the native industries, and above all to "point out that it is a matter of absolute necessity that the 80 women should be found and restored to their families;" and in which Despatch His Excellency is further instructed at the same audience "to mention by name Shefket Pasha, Hafiz Pasha, Tossoun Bey, Achmet Aga, and the other officials" whose conduct had been de-
168
nounced in Mr. Baring's Report, and to urge "that striking examples should be made on the spot of those who have connived at or taken part in the atrocities," and that "the persons who have been decorated or promoted under a false impression of their conduct should be tried and degraded where this has not been done already," What steps have been taken by the Turkish Government to comply with the demands of Her Majesty' s Government?
MR. BOURNE: The hon. and learned Member asks me, what steps have been taken to comply with the demands made by Her Majesty's Government in the despatch of Lord Derby, which is contained in the Papers issued, of the 21st September last? Now, Sir, as nearly all the Papers are in the Blue Books which are before the House, I am afraid it would be rather difficult for me to give a satisfactory answer to my hon. and learned Friend without going into considerable length, and I do not suppose that the House would desire me to quote a great number of despatches which relate to the subject. They are all before the House, so far as they relate to matters which have occurred down to the date of the despatches in the Blue Books. At the same time I dare say it might be satisfactory to the House if I make a short statement which will show exactly what has been done since the date of the despatch which my hon. and learned Friend has alluded to. In the first place, I dare say hon. and learned Members who have read the Blue Book will see that a despatch was addressed by Lord Derby to Lord Salisbury on the 24th November last—at the time when at Constantinople—and there are two or three paragraphs in that despatch which, with the permission of the House, I will read. They will be found about the middle of that despatch.—
"It is with regret that Her Majesty's Government have learnt from the subsequent reports of Mr. Baring and Her Majesty's Consular officers, how little has been done to give effect to these assurances of the Sultan."
That refers to the assurances given by the Sultan at the time the despatch of the 21st of September was read to him by Sir Henry Elliot.
"Shefket Pacha has been retained in posts of honour, and although Achmet Aga has been at last arrested, his son, who is accused of being equally culpable, has been allowed to escape,

169
and is in concealment among the Mussulmans. The Turkish authorities have only sent a sum of £7,000 for the rebuilding and repair of the villages, although the Turks themselves have estimated the amount required at £30,000; and at one place, Ali Bey, a notorious fanatic and a participator in the outrages, has been appointed to superintend the works. Nothing whatever appears to have been done to restore the industries of the Christian population. From the reports which have reached Her Majesty's Government it is doubtful how many of the 80 women have been restored to their homes. Sixty-eight women and children are stated to have been brought back to Batak, but others still remain in the hands of their captors or are otherwise retained, and the efforts of the Pacha of Salonica to recover those who had been taken to that Province have been impeded by the Mutessarif of Drama and other subordinates. Instead of examples having been made on the spot, the inquiries of the Commission under Sadoullah Bey have been conducted at a distance from the scene of the principal outrages, and witnesses have hail consequently to be summoned from a considerable distance, the proceedings being thus delayed, the effect of examples lost, and the ends of justice to a great extent frustrated. The conduct of the Commission has also been in many other respects most unsatisfactory. The few members of it who have shown any capacity for judicial investigation have been checked and hindered by the interruptions of their colleagues, and months after the massacre of hundreds of women and children and of unarmed men, the Commissioners are still considering whether such murders are crimes."—[Turkey, No. 2, 1877—p. 15.]
I think I have read sufficient of that despatch. I will read more if the House wishes; but I think that what I have read shows what was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the 24th November with regard to the progress made on the subject referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. Lord Salisbury executed the instructions he received under that despatch on the 8th December. I need not read what Lord Salisbury says in his despatch, which will be found in the Blue Book; but I may state generally the results of the Commission sitting at Philippopolis for the trial of the persons implicated in the events in Bulgaria. Achmet Aga and Melto Behtash have been condemned to death; Achmet Tchaousch of Kara Boulak to hard labour for life; Alish Pelwan to four years' hard labour; Fetha to eight years' hard labour; Abdullah Effendi, the Kaitik of the Mudir of Derbend, to three and a half years' hard labour; Kutchuk Halil to six months' imprisonment; and Achmet Tchaousch of Dorkovo to three months' imprisonment. The Vali of Adrianople
170
has also been dismissed, and Ali Bey, Mutessarif of Drama, has been recalled. Hafiz Effendi has been acquitted, it having been proved that he was not present at the massacres. Tossoun Bey, who, according to Mr. Baring's Reports, was one of the most deserving of punishment, has been acquitted, and Mr. Baring has in consequence been recalled by Mr. Jocelyn from attending the Commission at Philippopolis. When the Commissioners have finished the cases of Batak and Dervent, they are to proceed to Tirnova to make inquiries north of the Balkans. With respect to Shefket Pasha, a Commission has been despatched to the caza of Slimnia, to inquire into what occurred there last May; and when that Commission has finished its labours, if it appears that he ought to be put upon his trial the authorities have already promised that nothing shall be done to shield him from the consequences of his acts. With regard to that part of the Question relating to the re-building of the houses and churches, some progress, I am glad to say, has been made. Mr. Baring reports that none of the villagers are without some sort of shelter. Mr. Long—whose efforts we all know for bettering the condition of the Bulgarians—has also been endeavouring to give them what assistance he can. He states that the Turkish authorities are friendly, and he has every reason to be grateful for the support they have uniformly given him. Little apparently has hitherto been done to assist the restoration of the native industries, and with regard to the 80 women missing from Batak, 68 women and children are stated to have been sent back. Relief has also been distributed by the authorities generally, and agricultural implements have been supplied to some of the destitute villagers. I hope the House will be satisfied with this very meagre summary of some of the despatches which will be found in the Blue Book. I do not think I could have trespassed much further on the attention of the House. The whole subject is contained in the Blue Books, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes for any more Papers regarding any particular ease I shall be happy to lay them before the House. Under any circumstances Her Majesty's Government will continue to present to the House from time to time any information that may be received.
MR. GLADSTONE: If I may be permitted, I would ask a Question, or rather two Questions which strictly grow out of the answer just given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. ["Order!"] I apprehend it is quite common for the convenience of the House to do what I am now proposing to do, which hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to be aware of. It is quite agreeable to me to wait until the end of the Questions when my name is down on the Paper for that purpose. I agree with what was stated by the hon. Gentleman as to its being impossible for him to give in a summary or tabulated form the result of these proceedings. But there is one chapter with regard to which it appears to me that a Return might be prepared, if Her Majesty's Government would be kind enough to do it, that would be of great utility. First, will the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him, whether it is true that Shefket Pasha has been arrested, and on what date; and, secondly, whether it is true, as stated in the papers, that Shefket Pasha is a relative of Mid-hat Pasha? So much for that well-known individual. I think it would be possible for the Government, if they were so disposed, to prepare a Return of this kind, and I wish to ask if they will be good enough to do it. I shall be happy to give the terms in which I think this Return ought to be made. A Return, as far as it can be furnished from Papers in possession of Her Majesty's Government, of the dates, numbers, and particulars of judicial sentences; first, pronounced; secondly, executed, since the rising in Bulgaria down to the present time; first, on persons charged with complicity in the rising; second, on persons charged with the perpetration of outrages or complicity in outrages during its suppression, or with other misconduct subsequent thereto. ["Notice!"] I have no objection to give Notice; but I thought it might he convenient if, in connection with the Answer just given, I stated roughly now the kind of Return which it would be desirable that we should have.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, whether the Government have any information as to the execution of the sentence on Achmet Aga?
MR. BOURKE: We have no information as to the execution of the sen-
172
tence on Achmet Aga. Of course, if I had heard that Achmet Aga had been executed, I would have mentioned it. With regard to the Notice of the right hon. Gentleman, nobody is better aware than he is that it would be impossible for me to give him an answer without consulting my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. With regard to Shefket Pasha being a relation of Midhat Pasha, that has been asserted, but I am not in a position to say whether it is true or false. As to his arrest, we have also made inquiries on the subject; and, certainly, if he has not been arrested, I may say that he is under the surveillance of the authorities at Constantinople.

FUGITIVE SLAVES.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a fugitive slave, who sought refuge in one of Her Majesty's ships at Jeddah, was handed over by the commanding officer to the British consul, and by the consul given back to slavery; and, if so, whether these acts are in accordance with the instructions of Her Majesty's Government?
MR. BOURKE: As there is another Question on the Paper on this subject to be put by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), I wish, with the permission of the House, to answer both at the same time. The Government have heard, through the Admiralty, of this case, although they have not yet received any Consular Report upon it. Rear-Admiral Macdonald, writing from Her Majesty's ship Fawn, Jeddah, December 12, 1876, on this subject, says—
"I have the honour to inform you that early on the morning of the 10th inst., while the ship was lying in the harbour of Jeddah, in Turkish waters, a negro swam alongside, and coming on board stated through the interpreter that he was a slave and had run away from his master. Having ascertained that the fugitive was in no bodily fear whatever, I took him to the British Consulate, whereon the following day he was examined in my presence by the Acting Consul, Mr. J. Oswald, with the following result:—That he had been stolen from his home in Nubia some years since, and after an indefinite time had been taken from Berber, on the Nile, to Kosair, and thence brought in a dhow with eight other slaves to Jeddah, whore he was sold a few months ago to one Ibrahim Ijalan, a land-owner, who employed him in his boats. He was well treated and never beaten.

173
Having been latterly employed in digging sand for ballast on the reefs, he complained to his master that it was too cold for working in the water (N.B., the minimum temperature of the sea water has been 78 degrees), and that he wanted more clothes, and eventually he refused to work and ran away, swimming off to this ship. As there is no Treaty against slaves and there was no ground for complaint of ill-usage, it was decided to hand the fugitive over to the Governor of Jeddah, the Acting Consul undertaking that he should not be ill-used in consequence of his endeavour to escape."
As to the Fugitive Slave Circular issued for the guidance of naval commanders, the clause of it which applies to such a case as this is as follows:—
"It is not intended, nor is it possible, to lay down any precise or general rule as to the cases in which you ought to receive a fugitive slave on board your ship. You are, as to this, to be guided by considerations of humanity, and these considerations must have full effect given to them whether your ship is on the high seas or within the territorial waters of a State in which slavery exists; but in the latter case, you ought at the same time to avoid conduct which may appear to be in breach of international comity and good faith."
These are the facts of this case as far as we know them. We have not yet received the Report of the Consul, and until we have it would be premature to say what should be done in the matter.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that he would take the earliest opportunity of drawing attention to the case, and move a Resolution.

SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE "LARK" AND THE "OCTAVIA."—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made with reference to the claims against the Government of Spain on account of the seizure in the West Indies of the two British vessels the "Lark" and the "Octavia;" and, whether there is any prospect of an early settlement of those claims?
MR. BOURKE: Her Majesty's Government have protested against the seizure of the Octavia and claimed her release. A further representation had been made by Mr. Layard to the Spanish Government within the last few days, and it may be hoped that the settlement of the case will not now be long deferred. With regard to the Lark, a despatch was received from Mr. Layard on the 6th instant, enclosing a note from
174
the Spanish Government repeating their refusal to grant compensation in this case. The course which shall now be pursued is under consideration by Lord Derby, who will communicate with the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon it.

ARMY—COMMISSARIAT AND TRANSPORT OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, referring to a Question put by him early in last Session as to grievances of officers of Commissariat and Transport Departments, and the Secretary of State's reply thereto that the same could not be considered until a Committee then sitting upon a scheme for the re-organization of the Department had reported, whether any steps have been taken to redress the grievances complained of; and, if not, whether, looking to the fact that the majority of the appeals of officers have lain at the War Office for about twelve months, he will take early steps to redress those grievances, and thus put an end to a state of affairs disheartening to the officers?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that he expected in a few days to have the Report of a Committee on the organization of the department in his hands, and that he would give the subject his earliest possible consideration. At the same time, he might state that until the Surveyor General of Ordnance, who presided over that department, was back from his illness he (Mr. Hardy) would be unable to consider the matter fully.

TURKEY—LOANS OF 1854 AND 1855.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL MUREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have had to provide for the payment of the coupon of the 1855 Turkish Loan this month, and whether it is not a fact that there are funds in the Bank of England for that purpose, part of the annual Tribute of Egypt, which the Bank cannot release until the coupons of the 1854 Turkish Loan are paid in full; and, whether, in accordance with his statement to this House on July 21st

  175
  1876, "That Her Majesty's Government were not insensible to the gravity of the responsibility that rested upon them" with respect to the 1854 Loan, Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps in the matter; and, if so, what state the negotiations are in at present?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Her Majesty's Government have not paid the coupon due this month on the Turkish Guaranteed Loan of 1855, the Turkish Government having provided the full amount required. With regard to the loan of 1854, Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to fulfil the pledge which they gave to the House of Commons. On agreement between the Treasury and the Foreign Office, Lord Derby instructed Lord Lyons to ascertain whether the French Government would join in a representation to the Porte on behalf of the bondholders of 1854, adding a suggestion that the two Governments might, in the interests of all concerned, proffer their good offices to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement. The Due Decazes replied expressing the readiness of the French Government to instruct the French Ambassador at Constantinople to come to an understanding with his English Colleague and to secure their joint action in regard to the Loans of 1854 and 1855. Accordingly, instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople to give effect, on behalf of England, to the joint resolution of the two Governments.

CARLISLE PLACE ORPHANAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the infant mortality of 98 per cent. at the Roman Catholic Orphanage at Carlisle Place, Westminster, as officially reported, Whether it is his intention to cause inquiry as to like institutions where children are taken under Roman Catholic care, at the public cost or otherwise, but not now subject to public inspection or control?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, when this matter was first brought under my consideration some two months ago, I asked the Local Government Board to allow one of its Inspectors to make
  176
  inquiries into the state of the orphanage. That Inspector was met by the ladies who had charge of the institution, who showed him over the place, and offered to avail themselves of any suggestions he might make for the better protection of infant life. The Inspector made several recommendations with the view of carrying out that object. I thought it right a few weeks ago to ask the Inspector to go again, in order to see whether his recommendations were carried out. I have not yet received his Report, and I do not know what it may be. But it is right I should state, on behalf of those ladies who undertook the management of this purely charitable institution, that I have this morning received a Report from the sanitary authority of the Westminster Board of Works, who had sent their own medical officer to make a report for their own satisfaction. The conclusion of that Report is as follows:—
  "I cannot speak too highly of the general cleanliness of this institution, and of the devotedness of those ladies who have undertaken to conduct it."
  As to that part of the Question of the hon. Member which asks me whether it is my intention to cause inquiry as to like institutions where children are taken under Roman Catholic care, at the public cost or otherwise, I have to say that I thought it right in consequence of what was brought under my notice, to ask for particulars not of institutions of this kind conducted by Rom an Catholics alone, but of institutions conducted by persons of all creeds and classes, as far as possible. I may say that of these poor children who are taken into this institution out of purely charitable motives, one-half would have died if they had not been admitted. They are generally taken into such institutions in a state of the most miserable destitution, and are deprived of the proper nourishment they should receive. It is a question whether such institutions may not require to be put under certain regulations, for medical men are of opinion that the bringing together of too many infants in one place is likely to increase their mortality. But that is a question to be afterwards considered. The matter is under the consideration of the Local Government Board as well as of myself, but without regard to any question of creeds or religions.

TURKEY—SIR HENRY ELLIOT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhad a Question on the Paper asking, Whether Sir Henry Elliott, after being ordered to leave Constantinople as a mark of the high dissatisfaction of Her Majesty's Government at the conduct of the Turkish Government, had received addresses from certain deputations, &c. The hon. Member explained that in adopting these words he had assumed as a fact what on referring to the Blue Book he found was not established, and he accordingly wished to put his Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this form, Whether in fact Her Majesty's Government did, like the other Powers, mark the high dissatisfaction of Her Majesty with the Porte by the withdrawal and non-replacement of Her Ambassador; whether Sir Henry Elliot was still in the service of Her Majesty; if so, whether there was any truth in the statements made in the public prints that he had received addresses from certain deputations and made replies of the character attributed to him; and particularly whether it was true that after Lord Salisbury had left Constantinople with a solemn warning that the conduct of the Porte involved "dangers near at hand which would threaten the very existence of Turkey," Sir Henry, on the contrary, expressed great confidence in the future of Turkey; and that he further expressed an expectation of seeing those who addressed him again in a few months, thereby conveying the impression that his absence was to be quite temporary.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is very difficult to answer Questions of this kind, which really involve a good deal of controversial matter. I trust the House and the hon. Member will allow me, in answer, to confine myself to a statement of facts, without entering in any way into any argument such as this Question seems to point to. Sir Henry Elliot is still in the service of Her Majesty, and the circumstances under which he left Constantinople are to be found recorded in the Blue Book. I may mention, though it is a little beside the Question, that Sir Henry Elliot some short time ago requested permission to go on sick leave,
  178
  his health being affected by the strain of his duties, but that he was requested to remain in consequence of the pressure of business, and especially with regard to the Conference. He was, therefore, still at his post when, on the 22nd December, Lord Derby addressed to Lord Salisbury a telegraphic despatch which will be found in the Blue Book. In that despatch these words were used—
  "In the event of the Porto persisting in its refusal, and the Conference failing, your Excellency (that is Lord Salisbury) will, of course, come away, and it will be desirable in that case that Sir Henry Elliot should also come to England to report upon the situation, leaving a Secretary in charge of the Embassy."
  Nothing was said in those instructions as to dissatisfaction or non-replacement of the Ambassador or anything of that kind. The Conference, as is known, did fail, and Sir Henry Elliot, accordingly, did place the Embassy in charge of a Chargé d'Affaires and came to England. With regard to any deputation he may have received, we have had information that certain deputations did wait on him. But I am not sure whether a record has been kept of his replies. Certainly nothing which has reached the Foreign Office on this subject requires, in the opinion of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), that any notice should be taken by him of anything that has been said by Sir Henry Elliot.

IRELAND—THE CONSTABULARY—CASE OF SUPERINTENDENT HILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CLIVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will produce the Correspondence relating to the dismissal of Mr. Hill, late Superintendent of Constabulary in county Mayo, including the Memorial of the Grand Jury of the said county?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that if the hon. Member would be good enough to specify the correspondence he referred to, he would see whether it could be produced. He thought it right to add that Mr. Hill had not been dismissed, but had retired on a pension.

  QUESTION.

    OYSTER FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES LEGARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home De-

    179
    partment, If he proposes to bring in a Bill this Session dealing with the Oyster Fisheries of England and Scotland?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: In accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Oysters, we had an inspection of the oyster fisheries established under orders of the Board of Trade, and the result was laid before Parliament on the first day of the Session, and will shortly be in the hands of Members. It is intended to bring in a Bill on the subject in the course of the Session; but pending the Report of the Inspectors of Crab and Lobster Fisheries, I cannot say whether the Bill will include both subjects.

    SCOTLAND—PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF TEINDS.—QUESTION.
    MR. MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill to amend and simplify procedure in the Court of Teinds, Scotland, and to provide for the commutation of Teinds?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Question put by the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs involves two questions, one relating to procedure in teind cases, and the other, I rather think, intended to comprehend the general question as to the law of teinds. My attention of late has been very specially directed to that law, but it is one which involves numerous and complicated interests, and doubting as I do whether a mere Procedure Bill would remove all causes of complaint, I cannot undertake that a Bill dealing with both these questions will be introduced this Session.

    THE WAR OFFICE—SANITARY CONDITION.—QUESTION.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the deaths of Lieutenant General Sir James Lindsay, of General Egerton, of Colonels Middleton and Jennings, and to the mortality and sickness among the officers and civilians employed at the War Office and Horse Guards in Pall Mall; whether complaints have been made at various times relating to the supposed pestilential condition of these buildings if so, whether he will lay Copies of those complaints upon the
    180
    Table of the House; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Royal Commission lately appointed by Her Majesty?
    MR. GERARD NOEL, in reply, said, the attention of the Government had been called to the deaths of the officers referred to by name, and he was glad to be able to state that they were not in any way to be attributed to the unhealthy condition of the War Office. From a War Office Return issued on the 19th of January last, it appeared that out of the total number of employés—namely, 630—there were nine absent owing to sickness. One of the illnesses was typhoid fever, and the others were bronchitis, congestion of the liver, stoppage of the bowels, rheumatic gout, sprain, and a disease of the mouth, During the year 1876 there was only one case of typhoid fever. Complaints had been made with regard to the condition of the building, but these formed part of the Departmental Minutes and could not be laid on the Table of the House; but these complaints had been attended to by the Board of Works, who had in every case endeavoured to remedy the evil. A Committee—not a Royal Commission—consisting of Sir William Jenner and others was appointed to inquire into the sanitary condition of the War Office, and their Report was ready and would forthwith be printed. He could assure the House that every exertion would be made on the part of the War Office and the Office of Works to carry out stringently and effectually the recommendations of the Committee.

    TURKEY—THE PAPERS ON THE AFFAIRS OF TURKEY.—QUESTION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to put to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, relating to the Blue Books on the Eastern Question. In the second of the Blue Books, under date January the 2nd of this year, Lord Derby wrote a despatch to Lord Lyons, in which it is stated—
    "I told the French Ambassador so long ago as last summer that I had warned Musurus Pasha that the Porte must not expect material assistance from England in the event of a Russian War."
    I do not think any such despatch is to be found amongst the Papers of last

    181
    year; and I wish to ask whether that document is amongst the despatches, and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to produce it? If there be such a despatch—and I imagine there is, for it was publicly stated by Lord Derby last Thursday that some such despatch had been written—I do not doubt that the Government will think it right to explain why it is not included in the despatches given last year, being of a very important nature, and being also, I may add, of a nature which must have somewhat surprised every unofficial Member of this House.
    MR. BOURKE: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that the despatch would naturally have been in the Blue Book presented last year, unless it appeared to the Secretary of State that at that time it was inexpedient to produce it. At present the circumstances were changed, and Her Majesty's Government would be happy to produce it when called for by the right hon. Gentleman. Whether it will be necessary for me to state any reason why it was not produced last year I am not sure; but I think hon. Members, on reading that despatch, will see that there was very good reason for not producing it last year.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Will it be necessary that I should move for its production?
    MR. BOURKE: I will lay it on the Table.

    HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL— [BILL 23.]
    (Sir Henry Wolff, Sir Charles Russell, Sir Charles Legard, Mr. Onslow, Mr. Ryder.)
    HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL— [BILL 23.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to remove certain electoral anomalies. It had already been before the House two Sessions, and had on several occasions been approved by large majorities.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolf)
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Bill had not been delivered, and
      182
      therefore the House could not proceed with the discussion of it. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
      MR. DILLWYNseconded the Motion.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Charles W.Dilks.)
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet must know it by heart by this time. It was by some gross negligence that it had not been delivered, for it had been given to be printed on Friday, and other Bills sent in that day had been delivered that morning. The fault had lain with the printer, but copies had been sent to the House in the course of the day, and were now lying on the Table. He thought the objection taken was merely a pretext, and, believing himself to be quite in Order, he would not withdraw the Motion.
      MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENknew nothing of the Bill, and could not therefore discuss it. But he appealed to the Government not to support the inconvenient precedent of reading a Bill a second time before it had been printed and delivered to hon. Members. This Bill might be approved by hon. Gentlemen opposite and it might be an excellent Bill, but he would warn the Government that in future Parliaments there might be in a similar position some Bill which they and their friends greatly disapproved, and they might find the precedent quoted against them. It was an almost invariable rule of the House to insist that a Bill should be printed before it was allowed to be read a second time, and he hoped there would be no departure from this salutary rule.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsympathized with his hon. Friend on the hard fortune he had experienced in connection with this Bill on former occasions, and which seemed to be still pursuing him. The Bill was short, and might have been printed and distributed in a few hours, and it was so well known that, had it been circulated, there could have been no objection to proceeding with the second reading at this early period of the Session. He was bound, however, to recognize the force of the objection taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had to choose between a general convenience and a particular in-

      183
      convenience, and they must bear in mind that hard cases made bad law. This seemed to him a hard case; but if they were on this occasion to infringe the unwritten rule which forbade the discussion of a Bill before its delivery, they would, he thought, be setting a very bad precedent, and he must therefore advise his hon. Friend to consent to a postponement of the Motion.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, out of deference to the House, he had no alternative but to yield to the appeal; but he hoped the Government would give him a day.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 50.]
    (Mr. Richard Smyth, The O'Conor Don, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 50.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. RICHARD SMYTH, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: I am happy to think that it will be hardly necessary for me to address myself to the provisions of this Bill, as happily the principle of it may now be regarded as generally admitted. When the Bill was read a second time last year there was an appeal against it on the ground that as soon as the masses of the people of Ireland became aware that the House of Commons was thoroughly in earnest in its desire to pass a Sunday closing law, an agitation would be at once set on foot in that country in opposition to the measure. We were then told that this House would be flooded with Petitions, that loud protests from all sides would be heard, and that indignation meetings would be convened in all parts of Ireland. I did not myself think that there was much force in those appeals. But notwithstanding the opposition which my Friends gave to that proposition a delay took place, and what has been the result? Indignation meetings, if we may so call them, have undoubtedly been held; but, instead of these meetings being convened for the purpose of protesting against the Bill,
      184
      they have, so far as I am aware, in every instance been convened for the purpose of passing resolutions expressive of deep regret that the Bill did not become law last year. In fact, I think I am within the limits of strict accuracy in saying that in Ireland there is no public opinion whatsoever against this measure—at least, no public opinion against it has been expressed. Then, on the other side, Petitions unprecedented in number, and in the number of signatures attached to them, have been already presented to this House, and I may state that to-night Petitions signed by 89,000 persons in various towns of Ireland have been presented in favour of the Bill. This is, of course, only a small instalment of the Petitions likely to be presented. Large and enthusiastic meetings have been held in the great centres of population in Ireland which have passed resolutions in its favour; and, so far as I am aware, no resolution at any public meeting in Ireland has been passed against it. A canvass of the 19 large towns which the Government last year proposed to exempt from the operation of the Bill has been instituted with the following results—I shall merely give the aggregate without entering into details:-96, 934 householders have expressed their opinion in writing in favour of the Bill, and only 11,331 against. Of those same towns the licensed traders in liquors who have voted have expressed their opinion in the following proportion:—1,255 of these licensed traders have given their opinion in its favour, and only 1,037 against. Several elections have taken place in Ireland during the Parliamentary Recess, and in every instance an avowed supporter of this measure has been returned. The late Member for Sligo (Sir Robert Gore Booth) was a consistent opponent of this Bill. He has been succeeded by a friend of the measure. Of the five candidates who at first announced themselves for the representation of the county of Waterford, one gentleman proclaimed himself a strenuous opponent of the Sunday closing of public-houses. The electors of the county made short work of him, summarily dismissing him from the candidature, and he found no one to place his name on the nomination paper. In fact, in all the history of legislation in this House I believe no stronger case

      185
      has ever been made for the passing of any measure, if we are to take public opinion as a test and guide of what ought to be done in the matter of legislation. I have only, Sir, to say that I have selected the earliest day at my disposal for very good reasons; at least, I think them very valid reasons. I was unfortunate in the ballot on Thursday last. I believe I was the last but one, my Bill coming out, I believe, No. 50 or 56, at all events very low down. I saw at once that it was quite impossible for me to obtain a day by deferring it to a distant part of the Session, and in consequence of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford county (Mr. O'Clery), I was led to take the first available day of the Session for this Bill. The Chief Secretary, with that perfect frankness which has always, so far as I can judge, characterised his management of Irish business, and of all matters that come under his control, has stated to the House that it was not the intention of himself or the Government to offer any opposition to the principle of this measure, reserving to himself the right of taking the best means at his disposal of placing before the House certain evidence, which, in his opinion, was of a weighty character, against the application of the Bill to some of the largest towns in Ireland. After that frank statement of the right hon. Gentleman I thought I was justified in availing myself of the earliest day at my disposal for proposing the second reading of the measure. Then, as regards some hon. Friends of mine from Ireland, who opposed the Bill last year, I may state that there were 11 of them then, and that number is now reduced to 10. We know the very vigorous, and, indeed, the very successful efforts which were made by these hon. Gentlemen last year in the hot days of July and August, in the way of talking against this Bill. I think each of these hon. Friends of mine will be obliged to me for commencing at this early stage of the Session, as it will certainly afford them greater scope and a cooler season of the year for the expression of their views, and for their patriotic exertions. I have nothing more to say, and will conclude by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Richard Smyth.)
      MR. O'SULLIVANSir, I will appeal to you to say whether it is just, right, or in accordance with the usages of this House, that a Bill of this kind, dealing with the property of 16,000 or 18,000 persons in my country, and restricting the liberties and ancient privileges of the people, should be forced on so precipitately on what is really the first night of the Session? The Bill cannot yet have got into the hands of the persons chiefly interested in this question.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me whether we are proceeding according to usage in discussing the second reading of this Bill. I am bound to say that the matter is properly before us.
      MR. O'SULLIVAN: I rise to object to this Bill being read a second time. I do so, Sir, for many reasons. I rise to oppose it because it is contrary to the wishes of the large majority of the people of Ireland; secondly, because it attacks the rights and the property of a large number of the people of Ireland. I am prepared to maintain that this Bill, which is brought in for the professed object of lessening drunkenness in Ireland, will be the means of increasing it, and that it will not stop the sale of drink in Ireland on Sundays, but merely transfer the sale from a large number of small and industrious shopkeepers to the Munster houses and shebeen houses. It will increase drunkenness, because the article to be found in the shebeen houses will be of the very worst description, and there is no control over these houses as there is over regular licensed victuallers in Ireland. I will refer to a Return which has been obtained by the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Limerick, a gentleman who is well known in this House, the present Lord Emly. In the county which I represent (Limerick) there are 14 parishes in the diocese of Cashel and Emly in which Sunday closing is carried out at present, and has been for some time past. There is another large part of that county where the public-houses are opened on Sundays as they have always been. A Return was asked for by Lord Emly from the different petty session clerks of petty sessions districts of the archdiocese of Emly, where the public-houses

      187
      are closed, and that part of the diocese of Limerick where the public-houses are open on Sundays. There is, first of all, Patrickswell, in the diocese of Limerick, with a population of 5,447, and the convictions for drunkenness there, according to this Return, were I in 286; while in the archdiocese of Hospital, with a population of 5,790, the convictions for drunkenness were 1 in 156. In New Pallas, in the diocese of Cashel and Emly, where closing is adopted, the convictions for drunkenness were 1 in 212, in a population of 10,520; while at the same time in the petty session district of Abbyfeale, with a population of 10,294, the convictions for drunkenness were I in 572, against 1 in 156 in Hospital, which is in the archdiocese where there is Sunday closing. The next is the petty session district of Munroe. The convictions there in the archdiocese of Cashel were 1 in 833, with a population of 6,665; while in Bruree, with a population of 4,426, the convictions wore only 1 in 1,475. Or, in other words, in places where there was Sunday closing the convictions for drunkenness were 1 in 833, and where the public-houses wore open the convictions were only I in 1,475, or a little more than one-half. In the next case I find in Ballyneety, with a population of 7,430, the convictions were only 1 in 391; while in Glin, with a similar population, there was only 1 conviction in 517. I need not go fuller into this, Sir. But the reason of these figures is very readily accounted for. If you prevent the respectable public-houses from opening on Sunday you drive the people who want to get refreshment and to get drunk into the shebeen houses, and you increase intoxication, because men who take home drink with them on Saturday night will give it to their wives and children, and they will be taught to drink, so that this Bill brought in for the purpose of lessening drunkenness will go far to increase it. I want to know what has been shown to this House to lead it to believe that this Bill will lessen intoxication? I believe there is not one man in this Assembly who would not vote for any measure which he thinks would have that effect. I believe this measure is an infringement of the liberties of the people, which will destroy the property of 16,000 or 18,000 of our fellow-countrymen without offering them any com-
      188
      pensation in return, and I trust the Government will not allow so unfair and unjust a measure to pass even the second reading in this House. I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
      MR. MURPHY: I beg leave to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick. I will not go into a discussion of the provisions of the Bill, but will remind hon. Members that this question has already been referred to a Select Committee of this House. If the whole question had not been gone into the last few years, and if that Select Committee had not unanimously reported against the provisions of this Bill—more than half of whom, when appointed, were in favour of Sunday closing—I think then there would be no farther occasion for taking any part in this discussion. But, as I understand the matter, it is this: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) has thrown out something like—I cannot call it an official—intimation, but something like an intimation, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended, if this Bill passes a second reading, to move that at least two portions of it, dealing with certain towns, be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into and report whether or not these towns shall be exempted from the operation of the Bill. That is what I understood the hon. Member to say.
      MR. RICHARD SMYTH: I merely quoted substantially, as well as I could remember, the language employed by the right hon. Gentleman on Friday evening.
      MR. MURPHY: I think it is right that the House should be put into possession of what has already occurred in relation to this matter. In 1867 this Bill was brought into this House for the first time. It was allowed to be read a second time on the distinct understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. That Select Committee was appointed, and evidence was taken before it, and, as I before observed, it was unanimously recommended that the principle of total Sunday closing should not be adopted, but that a modification of the hours of closing should be recommended. Upon the lines of that Report

      189
      the legislation which took place so lately as 1872 was founded, and it was then believed that that was a final settlement of the question—at least, for some years to come. I will inform the House that all the Petitions which have been presented upon this subject—this great mass of so-called public opinion, to which the hon. Member for Londonderry has referred—these Petitions are. I believe, nothing more than the emanation of a systematised plan of action pursued by various associations, who, with ample funds at command, and with every possible means of procuring signatures, have been most industriously employed in getting them up. But looking at every Petition presented to this House in favour of this measure, what do I find? I find that they contain nothing in the world more than an expression of opinion on the part of the signatories that the closing of public-houses on Sundays would do that which every Member of this House is anxious to do—none more so than myself—repress intemperance. The question before the House is this—not what may be the belief of the signatories to those Petitions, but what is it as a matter of fact? Would the measure have the effect which those who have signed the Petitions say they believe it will have? Now, if I can show that so far from this belief being correct, it is directly, absolutely contrary to the evidence founded on official Returns from those who have the best opportunity of ascertaining the facts, I do say that this House ought not to give their undivided attention to that expression of opinion. The gentlemen who have signed do not know anything of the subject, but merely "believe" the case to be as set forth; and they express that opinion to the House. I will mention one fact. On the Select Committee which sat in 1868 the chief authorities in Dublin were examined—Mr. O'Ferrall, the Head Commissioner Police, the Chief Inspectors of the Constabulary, and others, and what was their opinion? They stated broadly and openly that so far from closing public-houses there being of any use it would absolutely intensify the evil; and they further stated that a great amount of drunkenness took place at the very hour when the public-houses were closed. Now, I mention that fact merely that this House may not
      190
      be led away by the opinions of gentlemen, however sincere they may be, upon a question which is simply a matter of fact, and not of opinion. A very strange incident occurred in that evidence given before the Select Committee. Gentlemen in this House have often heard, and are perfectly aware, that in the archdiocese of Cashel the late Archbishop of that diocese succeeded in establishing a voluntary system of closing public-houses on Sunday. The Archbishop was examined before that Committee, and, in answer to a question, he stated that he came there prepared with statistics which he had got from his diocese, commencing with 1861, when the suppression of public-houses began, and ending in 1868—a period of seven years—and he said the effect of closing these houses had been to reduce the number of committals by one-half. But what, moreover, did he show? Because these figures are most useful by way of contrast and comparison with other places where the system of closing public-houses did not prevail. Why, in one instance, in one small town in the county of Tipperary, where the inhabitants were about 6,000 or 8,000, the number of committals for drunkenness on Sundays was exactly double the number in the city of Cork on Sundays with a population of 90,000 inhabitants. I merely mention that as a matter for inquiry, and to show that we must not take for granted what these numerous Petitioners have asserted, that the closing of public-houses on Sundays would diminish drunkenness. This House is, and always has been, anxious to effect social reforms; and we are all united in an earnest desire to see how best to check intemperance. I say, therefore, that if this Bill be read a second time, to refer the subject again to a Select Committee to inquire into and report. If the authors of this measure are so satisfied that public opinion is with them, if they can produce absolute striking proof that the closing of public-houses would effect their object, for Heaven's sake let them have the benefit of it, and not extend the measure to large towns. Let there be no fragment of an inquiry; let it be an open inquiry as in 1868; let those who are best qualified to give an opinion be summoned upon it, and let those who support these Petitions show the grounds of

      191
      their belief. I feel it my duty, under existing circumstances, to oppose the second reading of this Bill. I do not believe it will effect the end desired. I do not believe that the parties for whose professed advantage it is sought to pass it require it. I presented a Petition to the House this evening signed by 14,000 working men and inhabitants of Cork against the Bill, and I simply ask—Is that any evidence of the great popular opinion in favour of it? I should rather think it was to the contrary. But, be that as it may, I protest against the passing of the measure. It will not effect the object; it will increase drunkenness, and intensify the evil while it professes to bring about good. It will despotically interfere with the habits and convenience of the large majority who are temperate, and will not prevent the intemperate from indulging in their courses, but rather stimulate them to an evasion of such a law, if passed. And, above all, there is another question mixed up with this. A large and influential trade has grown up under the sanction of the law; men have invested their capital largely in a legitimate trade, and if this Bill passes into law it will sweep away one-seventh of the entire profits of that trade. This House is asked to do, with respect to those who have invested their money, that which it has never yet done in any analogous case—namely, to deprive a body of men of the fruit of their investment and industry without any compensation whatever. The case of commissions in the Army were dealt with. Everybody knows that the sale of these commissions was absolutely illegal by Act of Parliament, yet a custom grew up, and what did this House do? It did not attempt to deprive the Army of that which had obtained a value, although it was illegal. In contradistinction to that, how is this question to be treated? No Committee is to be appointed on the subject, and these legal traders are to be deprived of their right. I do earnestly trust that the House will not come to that conclusion of forfeiting a man's property for what will be found to be an ideal and not a real good. Let men turn their attention to the repression of vice and intemperance by every means, if they can; let them look after the comfort of the people, find increasing re-
      192
      creation for them on the Sunday, and let them not oppose the opening of public parks. A great many men in favour of this measure oppose the increase of recreation for the people, and all kinds of innocent enjoyment which would be the best possible means of repressing intemperance. I protest against this Bill on this principle—that it of necessity lays down the doctrine that the great mass of the people in Ireland are intemperate. There is no reason for the passage in the Bill that the majority of those who frequent public-houses are intemperate. Let us legislate not for a minority but for a majority, and do not let the vices of the few override the comfort and convenience of the many. If this measure should pass, I warn this House that it will give rise to a similar feeling to that which visited England when a similar Bill was passed almost sub silentio, and the people rose almost in rebellion, and the Bill had to be repealed within six months. I will not detain the House longer, but beg leave to say that I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick.
      MAJOR O'GORMAN: I should like to say one or two words on this subject. This Bill—by-the-bye I have not seen it; I understand it is only printed to-day—this Bill is brought in for the purpose of soberising the people of Ireland. Now, let us see the way in which it professes to soberise the people of Ireland. It distinctly states this to the people of Ireland—"You—men, women, and children—drink as much whisky, beer, porter, everything intoxicating, as ever you like upon Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, but do not go into a public-house licensed by Her Majesty on Sunday, and you will be sober." That is the Bill; nobody can deny it. It allows everyone, old or young, to drink in his own house or in the house of his friend on Sunday, to bring his children to his friend's house, to bring his friend's children to his own house, and allows them to drink as much as they desire. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents their drinking where they like—drink in the field, drink sub Jove frigido. But do not drink on Sunday in places licensed by Her Majesty. I would remind hon. Members that the licences in Ireland are given with a certain degree of care for the people. A man is obliged

      193
      to show that his house is comfortable, that he has good tables and good chairs, and is in a position to receive people comfortably on Sundays. The people who are licensed have to pay a large sum of money. Is faith to be broken with these traders? Sir, I say this Bill is an insult to the Queen herself. [Laughter.] I do say so, because the private houses of individuals are not licensed, and the liquor must be got somewhere. Where is it got? The hon. Member tells us where it is to be got. He says—"Go out on Saturday and get it. Fill your houses full of it. Drink it on Sundays, but do not drink in public-houses." That is the essence of the Bill. Now, I ask, is that a Bill likely to soberise the people of Ireland or any other country where it is adopted? It is not, Sir. For that reason, therefore, and I am most desirous of showing my anxiety for the sobriety of the people, I oppose the second reading of this Bill.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I have always been very doubtful how far this measure will soberise the people of Ireland, and I have expressed my views upon that question more than once. But I think that the Iron. and gallant Member who has last spoken has somewhat forgotten that it might be urged as an argument against his position that drinking in a field, sub Jove frigido, is not quite so tempting a thing as in a snug corner of a public house—[Major O'GORMAN: In summer.]—and I suspect that the argument of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) would be that if comfort were diminished, drinking also would diminish. It occurred to me, from the speeches of the last three hon. Members who have addressed us, that they scarcely appreciate the position which this question has reached. Now, the House will remember that last Session, when the hon. Member for Londonderry made a Motion on this subject, I stated, on behalf of the Government, our views with regard to it, and I made a counter proposal to limit the hours of opening public-houses on Sunday. That proposal was fully discussed, and. the House, by a large majority, expressed their preference for the Bill of the hon. Member for Londonderry. That, Sir, is one fact which the Government are bound to consider, and to which I hope the House will think they have shown proper
      194
      deference. But still there is another fact. The hon. Member for the city of Cork (Mr. Murphy) spoke of what was likely to happen if a Bill were passed upon this subject sub silentio. Now, I doubt whether any question has engaged the attention of the House during the past three years upon which it could less be said that a Bill was likely to pass sub silentio. At any rate, I feel sure of this, that every person in Ireland has had by this time a full opportunity of knowing of the proposal for total Sunday closing of public-houses in Ireland, and of the probability that a measure would be passed upon the subject. Yet, Sir, I am bound to say that, although I do not attribute to the expressions of opinion which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry quite as much weight as he does, still I do attribute very great weight, indeed, to this, that there have been hardly any expressions of opinion on the other side. During the past autumn and winter — when certainly there must have appeared to people who take interest in this question every probability of the passing of a measure with regard to it—there have been, as far as I know, very few expressions of opinion on the subject at all, except those elicited by the advocates of Sunday closing. Well, looking at the matter from this point of view, I think the Government are justified in adhering to the decision at which they arrived last Session—that they would accept the judgment which was arrived at by the House on an occasion when they, to the best of their power, put their views of the matter fully before the House—that they would accept, I say, that judgment, and would allow this experiment to be tried. Then, Sir, I come to the point how far it is to be tried. Now, the House will remember that I stated last Session that in ray view, based upon reasons which appeared to me sufficient, it was not advisable that total Sunday closing should be adopted in the larger towns. I based that view upon information which had been supplied to me in the ordinary way by magistrates and police authorities in those towns. I think there is great reason to fear that if a Bill for the total closing of public-houses in Ireland on Sunday was passed, with reference, we will say, to the city of Dublin, the towns of

      195
      Belfast, Limerick, Waterford, and Cork, one of these two things would happen—either there would be great and widespread evasion of the law, than which I can conceive nothing more detrimental to the cause of law and order in Ireland, or else, if the law were thoroughly enforced, there would be no little danger of riotous proceedings, which I am sure we should all deplore. Well, Sir, I based that opinion upon information which has been supplied to me. I never had an opportunity of fully stating that information to the House when I made the proposal which I felt it my duty to make last Session, that towns of above 10,000 population should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, and that the hours of opening public-houses in those towns should be merely restricted by a period of two hours. I am bound to admit that that proposal was not very favourably received. On the one hand, it was objected to by the advocates of total Sunday closing; on the other hand, it was objected to by some of those who opposed it; and I felt myself in the difficulty of being obliged, as I conceived in the interest of law and government, to make a proposal which, as it seemed then, might not be favourably received by the House. I am anxious—and I am sure in this the hon. Member for Londonderry will agree with me—that this experiment, if tried, should be tried with safety—that we should not go farther than we think, on the best evidence we can obtain, we can safely go. I feel the importance of placing before the House and the country all that can be said upon the subject by those who have had any special experience in the adminstration of the present law. I do not think that that opportunity would be afforded to me merely in a speech on a second reading or in Committee on the Bill; and, therefore, the proposal I make to the hon. Member for Londonderry and the House is this—that the Bill should be referred, after the second reading, to a Select Committee, that it there should be thoroughly considered and sifted, and should be adapted to what are admitted to be the different circumstances of town and country; but that that Committee should not, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Cork, enter fully ab initio into the whole question of Sunday closing in Ireland—that we should take as settled the adoption of the
      196
      principle of total Sunday closing, and that we should confine the evidence to be taken before that Committee to information bearing upon the applicability of the measure to those towns, the Dublin metropolitan police district, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford in which, I am bound to say, there is by far the most danger that, if applied, it would not give satisfaction. In making this suggestion I can assure the House that I have no wish to delay the progress of the Bill. The present, however, is a very early period of the Session, and the Committee may enter upon their inquiry with every prospect that their work would be concluded before Easter, and the Bill may then return to the House and pass its several stages during the present Session. I am as anxious as the hon. Member himself that a question which has been so long agitated should be now finally settled, and that the experiment which the House last Session decided to make should be entered upon under the most favourable conditions of success. For these reasons alone I have made the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after it has passed a second reading.
      MR. MELDONsaid, he confessed ho had heard the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland with considerable satisfaction. The assurance he had given in the name of the Government that the question should be finally settled, and that they would not impede the progress of the Bill, was one that must give satisfaction to all their supporters. He must say he had been one of the most earnest and most strenuous supporters of the Bill, and one of them who had urged that they should give way in nothing, but that the Bill should be carried through in its entirety. They had no hesitation in saying, however, that if the Select Committee was appointed, the present Session would see them in possession of the Bill in its entirety. There were one or two points of view from which they might look on the proposed Select Committee. In the first place, from the point of view, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet, that it would be impossible to work out the Bill as it was at present framed; the second was the way in which the Bill might be made most useful and most beneficial for those who wished for it. He was per-

      197
      fectly willing to take an inquiry on this subject from either of these points of view, as he was confident they could, upon an inquiry whether such a Bill was wanted in the large towns or not, produce the strongest and most overwhelming evidence that it was most wanted in the large towns, and particularly in the city of Dublin. Were those places left out of the Bill, there would immediately be an outcry, and especially would there be one in Dublin, as soon as it was known that it was to be made a drinking place into which all those who desired drink might drift in on Sundays from Rathmines, Kingstown, and other townships near Dublin. Speaking of Dublin alone, it would be horrible to contemplate such a state of things. It might be, however, that there were reasons that would make it essential and necessary that Dublin and those large towns should be excluded; but if there were, he thought it most important that they should be laid before the House and before the Committee, and that it should be demonstrated that the passing of the Bill would seriously prejudice public interests or public convenience. He was most anxious that the Bill should pass, and especially that, when passed, it should be a success; and he certainly said, for himself, he was most anxious that the Committee's proposition that had been been made should be accepted in that House that night, and he trusted the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) would see his way to accept it.
      MR. COLLINSsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the remarks of the hon. Member for the county Kildare (Mr. Meldon), who had taken an active part in the promotion of this measure; and when he found that a Gentleman whose experience on this subject induced him to accept as fair and reasonable the proposition that had been stated to the House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he confessed it seemed to him to be unnecessary for himself, who up to this time had taken a view of the question which was the opposite to that of the hon. Member, to discuss the matter further. He should not have spoken on the present occasion, but for an observation that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He altogether concurred in the advisability of a Select Committee to deal with this subject; but ho should greatly
      198
      regret that the scope of that inquiry should be strictly limited to the effect the Bill might have on the large Irish towns to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Those five large corporate towns—Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, Cork, and Waterford—were, of course, very proper and suitable subjects of inquiry by a Select Committee; but there were other towns also to which he would ask the consideration of the Chief Secretary similarly circumstanced with those he had named, but which he had omitted from consideration by the Select Committee. He did not desire to raise points of discussion, but would appeal to the Chief Secretary to extend the scope of the inquiry, and not to limit it too strictly to the towns he had named. He feared much that if it was limited too strictly there would be great dissatisfaction among the inhabitants of considerable towns which would be injuriously affected by the Bill. He could only say that if the inquiry was to be so strictly limited in that way he should have no alternative but to oppose any proposition of the kind.
      MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, that though ho thought the Bill ought to be allowed to pass through the House in the ordinary way; still, as he understood its supporters were prepared to accept the recommendation that had been given them from the Treasury Bench, he should not oppose it. He thought, however, they should clearly understand what they were about. The statement of the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Collins) showed the difficulty they would drift into if the terms of reference were not made clear. The hon. Member was the worthy Representative of one of the smallest constituencies in the Kingdom, and wanted the Bill to be so framed that persons might go before the Committee and give reasons why very small towns should be exempted from it. It appeared to him that the lines on which this great question was to be settled were perfectly well understood not only in that House, but out of it; but if they did not lay down those lines, they might be re-opening the whole question before the Select Committee, and the question might be treated in a very unsatisfactory way. He was not quite able to understand the extent of the suggestion of the Chief Secretary for

      199
      Ireland. They knew that last Session the right hon. Baronet had great tenderness of heart for cities of 10,000 population and upwards; but in the case of Londonderry the gift had not been received with gratitude—the citizens there saying they were much obliged, but would rather not have it. Within the last few weeks the gift of being exempted from the Bill had been repudiated a ta large meeting of the inhabitants. He was bound to mention that, in view of the extraordinary statement that there was no evidence as to the state of public opinion on the main question. That House had hardly risen at the close of last Session when there was a large meeting of publicans in Dublin, who took heart of grace and subscribed 12,000 to set public opinion going on the question, and enable the public to state their grievances against the Bill, and take measures for defending their rights and privileges, which were supposed by some persons in that House to be connected with the unlimited opening of public-houses. He had looked to the newspapers in Ireland for the results of that £2,000 subscription, but from what he could see there had been no outcome from it in the shape of public meetings and resolutions passed at them, and they might take it that, after asking for the delay of another Session to test the reality of public feeling in Ireland, the opponents of this measure had not been able to carry any expression of public opinion in their favour. He should have been well content that this great question as to the extent of Sunday closing should be decided by the House, instead of being referred to a Select Committee. Almost every Member of the House had voted either for or against the Bill on former occasions, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a satisfactory and impartial Committee. The whole point was contained in this one question—Were there not overwhelming reasons why, if they determined to close in the counties, they should not also close in the towns?
      SIR GEORGE BOWYERobserved that, as on most other subjects, much might be said in favour of the Bill, and much also against it. The subject had been so much debated, however, that he did not think they wanted any long discussion on it. Now the more so, as he thought that if there was one subject
      200
      on which more than another there was a preponderating body of evidence in Ireland, it was on this very question. He did not say public opinion was unanimous on the question in Ireland; but there was a preponderance of opinion in favour of the Bill. In proof of that he might mention that in the county he represented, he meant in the diocese of Ferns, public-houses had been closed on Sunday for a long time by Episcopal authority—the authority of the Catholic Bishop of Ferns, but with the full consent and approval of the people of all denominations. That was strong evidence in favour of the Bill from one of the largest counties in Ireland. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Collins), for extending the scope of the inquiry of the Committee, he thought it would be better not to do so; because, if the Committee were allowed a great scope, it would occupy a long time, and there would be no satisfactory result. It was quite enough to take some of the large towns as typical of the rest. He hoped the Committee would be able to come to a practicable conclusion within a reasonable time.
      MR. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped the House would appreciate the indisposition of the supporters of the Bill to enter into any lengthened discussion just now, and that their abstention would not be quoted against them hereafter. They took it that the discussion was virtually concluded by the proposition now before the House; but it was indispensable for the character of the Government and the success of the measure, that they should understand exactly the terms of the reference. They were, first, that the Bill was accepted in principle; secondly, that the inquiry was only as to the five large towns of Ireland; and, thirdly, how and when to apply total Sunday closing in those towns in such a manner as to lead to a successful issue. He hoped it would not be taken to be a subject of inquiry whether those five towns were to be excluded in tote from the operation of the Bill; for, as the hon. Member for Londonderry City (Mr. Charles Lewis) had shown, it would not be deemed a benefit to some of the cities proposed to be excluded. They could not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman) and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) into the general discus-

      201
      sion of the merits of the Bill; but as statistics had been quoted on the authority of Lord Emly, he would observe that there was nothing more misleading than imperfect statistics. The House had not been told by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan) that those statistics referred to only two months of the year 1874, and to two months of the year 1876; and with regard to the two parishes of Hospital and New Pallas, he might say that they were famous for the riots of the Three Year-Old and the Four-Year-Old, factions that had given plenty of employment to Her Majesty's justices, and also to the ecclesiastical authorities. No two more combative parishes could have been selected, and as for Lord Emly's statistics, his brother Poor Law Guardians evinced their appreciation of them by carrying a Petition in favour of the Bill, though not unanimously. Reference had been made to the probability of rioting in Ireland consequent upon the passing of this Bill; but he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford was altogether wrong in endeavouring to make the House suppose that there would be rioting in Ireland in order that the people might enjoy the ancient privilege of getting drunk.
      MAJOR O'GORMAN: I rise to Order, Sir. I never said anything of the sort. I detest drunkenness as much as the hon. Member does.
      MR. SULLIVANbegged the hon. and gallant Member's pardon if he had at all misunderstood him. As to all these prophecies about rioting put forward to alarm the House, no doubt they were not slow in rioting in Ireland occasionally; but he proudly affirmed that he never knew the Irish people break into riot for the sake of drink. Riots of that character had taken place in other parts of the Empire—there had been disturbances in England a few years ago when early closing in the week days was enforced. But once again he proudly claimed that no one could point to an instance in which tumult or disorder had resulted from applying restrictions to drinking in Ireland.
      MR. GOULDINGobserved that the clergy of all denominations had asked for the Bill, and a majority of the work-
      202
      ing men were in favour of it; and if the large cities were to be exempted from it, they would be made the receptacle of all who wished to indulge in drink.
      MR. RICHARD SMYTHregarded the proposals as being made in good faith, and he was quite sure that the right hon. Baronet was anxious to have a Bill carried through the House during the present Session. He was confident that he might rely on the assurance of the Chief Secretary that the scope of the instructions to the Committee would not be enlarged under any pressure whatever. He thought that, all things considered, they had reason to be in a measure satisfied with the proposal from the Treasury Bench; and he hoped the Committee would make such a Report to the House as would not only enable Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their duties and keep the peace in Ireland, but give satisfaction to the supporters of the Bill. With these observations he begged to recommend all his hon. Friends who had interested themselves in this measure to accept the proposals of the Government.
      Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
      The House divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 23: Majority 171.
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
      Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they do take Evidence as to the applicability of the measure to the Dublin Metropolitan Police District, the town of Belfast, and the cities of Cork, Limerick, and Waterford.
      And, on February 16, Committee nominated as follows:—Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Mr. LAW, Mr. BRUEN, Mr. MELDON. Mr. JOHNSTONE, Mr. SMYTH, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Lord CHARLES BERESFORD, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, Mr. MARTEN, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. SULLIVAN, and Colonel COLE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
      And, on February 23, Mr. ION HAMILTON and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY added.

    VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      MR. SCLATER BOOTH, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to "consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes," said, he would refer very briefly to the fate which befell the measure of a similar character which he introduced in the first week of the Session last year. He could assure the House that the measure which was then proposed by him, and unreservedly assented to and approved by the Government, was bonâ fide intended to be proceeded with in the usual course, and, if possible, to be passed into law. At all events, it was intended to take the opinion of the House upon it in the early part of last Session; but about the time when the second reading should have come on, the debates on the Royal Titles Bill interfered very much with the Government Order of Business, and before another opportunity arrived for bringing it on, great interest was exhibited on the subject, both in the form of Petitions to the House and of deputations to himself, showing that the matter could not be brought to a final issue without a much greater expenditure of the time at the disposal of the Government than he could have hoped to secure for his Bill. Again, the Highways Bill was introduced before Easter, but the two Bills were correlative and required to be proceeded with simultaneously. On these grounds it was determined not to proceed with the measure last year, and he hoped that the time spent on its details might not have been spent in vain, and that the communications which he had received would so far have conduced to a satisfactory result that he might be enabled to present the Bill this Session in a shape more likely to escape the opposition to which it had been formerly liable, and to facilitate its passage through the House. In introducing it last year he had referred to the precedent of previous measures introduced by successive Governments upon the same principle—namely, by the Government of Lord Derby, of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) and of the present Government. Measures had
      204
      been laid before Parliament by the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt), by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was then President of the Poor-Law Board, (Mr. Goschen), and afterwards by the right hon. Gentleman succeeding him in that office (Mr. Stansfeld) in order to carry the same principle into effect. He also relied a good deal, in submitting the measure to the House, upon the absurdity of the present system which it was proposed to supersede. That absurdity was, in short, this, that for the purposes of taxation, they had now the same description of property valued by three different authorities upon three different principles or bases of valuation. He did not wish, however, to rely exclusively upon that ground of argument—the symmetry and simplicity of their system—they had also to consider the wishes and feelings of the people. Symmetry in their system of government was not the first thing to be considered; but he thought that when it could be combined with administrative improvement it was a very desirable thing. The history of recent legislation upon the subject of these Bills was an interesting one. When the Poor Law Amendment Bill was passed some 40 or 45 years ago attention began to be more and more directed, than had hitherto been the case, to the systematic levying and expenditure of parish rates. Accordingly, within a few years of the passing of that celebrated measure, a Bill on the subject of local valuation was introduced and passed through the House by Mr. Poulett Scrope. That was in the year 1837, and the Bill laid down the principle defining what should be the basis on which the gross estimated rental should be calculated in terms which have been copied and never have been objected to in subsequent Acts of Parliament. It was effective for its object, but within a very few years it came to pass that some of the charges which had been cast on the parochial area alone were extended to the Poor Law Union area. In 1861 some very important changes in the law were accomplished by the transfer of the charge of lunatics to the Common Fund of the Union, and it was also provided by the same statute that the several parishes should contribute to the common fund in proportion to their rateable value. The additional

      205
      importance thus given to the Common Fund in 1861 led to the necessity of a further important change in the law which was effected by the Union Assessment Act of 1862. By that Act the duty of assessment or valuation was transferred from the parish to the Union authorities. That Act was amended in 1864, and he mentioned that circumstance only for the purpose of stating that on his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) Motion, an important clause was introduced into the Act, which required that the valuation list of the several Unions should be transmitted regularly to the clerk of the peace of the county. By the Act of 1865 the whole charge for the maintenance of the poor was transferred from the parish to the Union area. That was a most important change in the law and was made with the consent of both sides of the House. Two years after the passing of the Union Chargeability Act it was found necessary by his right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for War, to avail himself of a Common Fund, levied over the whole Metropolis to an extent and in a way which experience had shown to have been productive of the most beneficial and valuable results. In 1867, therefore, we had a Common Fund set up for 30 or 40 of the most important Unions in the Kingdom, extending over the most important Province of the country and over an area containing one-seventh at least of England as regarded population. The House, however, would easily see that at that time there was no security that the various Unions in the metropolis would be rated on similar principles, and therefore one of the first Departmental acts of his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Goschen) was to pass through the House in 1869 a Valuation Act which provided the necessary securities that the Common Fund of the metropolis should be satisfactorily assessed and levied without any reasonable cause of complaint on the part of the various contributory Unions. Now, under the Metropolis Act it was provided that the inhabitated house duty and the property tax should be collected upon the valuation lists as settled by the various Union authorities. Therefore, under that Act we had the payers of the property tax under Schedule A and the payers of the inhabited house duty in the metropolis paying on a more accurately determined
      206
      basis than the payers of those taxes in the country at large. A further illustration might be drawn from that Act. The three counties of Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex had an aggregate valuation of £29,000,000, and the contributions to the county rate were levied in these three counties according to the valuation lists which prevailed in them, except in those portions which lay within the metropolitan area. The portions of these counties which lay within the metropolitan area were four times as great as those outside, as regarded rateable value. The consequence of the present law was that, taking these counties, the ratepayers within the metropolis were paying at a higher ratio than the ratepayers outside it in the rural parts of the counties. The rateable valuation of the three counties was, as he had said, £29,000,000; that of the metropolis within these counties was £21,000,000. Another practical reason why it was important at the present time to proceed with this measure was that the expenditure under the operation of the Sanitary Acts was rapidly and daily increasing in importance. There were many local board districts constructed in times past which overlapped the borders of two or more Unions, and we had this anomaly—that the local beard was now restricted by the Public Health Act to the valuation lists, as settled by the assessment committees of the Unions, so that the rate is levied by the local beard authority upon the different bases which may happen to obtain within their area. Another reason which would commend itself to the House was that the want of this Valuation Bill stood in the way of very considerable administrative reforms which were otherwise necessary. For instance, under the Poor Law Amendment Act there was power to take a parish from one Union and to put it into another, and recently there was a case where a parish was added to an outside Union; objection, however, had been taken to the transfer, because of the transfer of burdens which it involved under the different valuations in the two Unions in question. Again, under the Act of last year additional powers 'were conferred on the Local Government Board in respect of the re-distribution of parishes and adding them to other Unions; but for the want of larger powers, improvements like these were

      207
      constantly hampered. For instance, it was obvious that the highway rate ought to be charged upon districts instead of upon parishes, in order to secure its equal pressure, but that could scarcely be done until there was a more uniform valuation of the property through which those highways ran. These new valuation lists were desirable as the basis on which to assess the property and income tax, and last year !he had stated that the Government were willing to base the property tax on the valuation list; but that, if so, they ought to have some voice in preparing the list. There were other grounds why this should be, for it might surprise some hon. Members to hear that the Government were now the largest ratepayers in the Kingdom. He did not now speak only of the subventions paid by the State in aid of local rates, toward the cost of police, lunatics, and other local charges, which would alone give the Government a right to look somewhat jealously to the valuations throughout the country generally. But the Government were now assessed, or rather paid contributions in lieu of rates, to a considerable extent, the rateable value of the property on which they regularly contributed being not less than £586,000, situated in 345 parishes, and probably not fewer than 200 Unions, scattered over the whole of the country. The Government, therefore, had some right to require that the valuation of the Kingdom should be placed upon a sound footing, be governed by similar principles, and assessed by similar authorities, and with equal justice. Upon all these grounds the Government had come to the conclusion that the want of a proper Valuation Bill prevented administrative improvements which might otherwise be made under existing powers and under powers which might hereafter be conferred. The intention of the Bill was not to vary the principles of valuation at present recognized, but only to make them more effective, more uniform, and more equal. It would contain two main provisions—first, the empowering of the Government officer or surveyor of taxes who would have some voice in furnishing information and in objecting to the different valuation lists as prepared by the overseers, and, secondly, that a certain scale of deductions laid down in the Schedule should
      208
      not be departed from, more or less. These two provisions would insure greater uniformity in the two columns of the rate-book — namely, gross rental and rateable value. The Government had been urged last Session by his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to adopt a principle which was said to have worked well in Scotland by setting up a new system of valuation by means of County Boards. Having considered the subject, however, with great attention, he was unable to adopt this system. In his opinion the Union was a quite sufficiently large area to be administered for the purpose of valuation. It was well known that for the last 40 years the Guardians had been entrusted with very large administrative duties; they had with much justice and accuracy revalued the different Unions; had put the existing law into operation upon their sole authority, besides having a large portion of local expenditure to collect, control, and be accountable for to their constituents; and had exercised those powers with so much justice, that he saw no ground for disestablishing them from their present position with regard to valuation, or for entrusting that duty to a body representing the larger but uncertain area of a county. A county body could not have the same minute knowledge of the detailed circumstances of different localities, and would, as he thought, so far fail to give satisfaction that even a Government officer would be considered preferable as a guiding authority upon the subject. As a rule, throughout the Kingdom the county administration did not exercise the powers they now possessed for effecting a county valuation upon their own authority. A Return issued upon this subject at the instance of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Ridley) showed that in 12 counties of England and Wales the property tax valuation was relied on exclusively as the county rate basis. In 17 counties the valuation lists formed the basis, and in 17 others both those sources of information were resorted to. In five counties only was there a separate system of valuation, or any application of the powers which counties now possessed. The Bill, therefore, did really what the counties for the most part were doing for themselves, and the counties might

      209
      well rely upon the valuation lists, just as the Government were prepared to look to the valuation lists for the property tax. The Guardians were now the sanitary authorities in rural districts; their functions had undergone an important change under the Public Health Act of 1875; and were scarcely to be distinguished from those of the councils which exercised similar authority in towns. Hon. Members knew that a very important change in regard to the Guardians was conferred upon them also by the Education Act of last year—that of appointing education committees, so that he could not see why they should not have the same functions as those enjoyed by town councils, but he was far from saying that improvements might not be made in the election of those bodies and the system generally, though he thought they must rely upon Union areas. Possibly the foundation might be laid for the establishment of a common County Fund, equally leviable over the whole county whether in one Union or the other. For the want of such a fund there was a difficulty in framing the Highways Bill, which he hoped shortly to introduce, and the principal feature of which would be the establishment of a common County Fund in aid of the principal highways of the county. There was also a growing difficulty in reference to the provision of accommodation for pauper lunatics. In the metropolis, provision had been made by means of the Common Fund for the proper and humane custody of 5,000 harmless chronic lunatics at a considerably less cost than was incurred in county lunatic asylums, and it would be easy hereafter under the provisions of the Bill he was explaining to spread similar charges in the same manner. Many Poor Law reformers were of opinion that a portion of the cost of maintaining habitual in-door paupers should be spread over a wider area than at present; but what he desired to do was to say generally, as the result of his experience in the Office over which he had the honour to preside, that there were other charges coming under different heads of local administration which might be dealt with in future measures, but the questions so involved were incidental to the present measure, the want of which stood in the way of a great deal of useful legis-
      210
      lation, which the Government, the House, and the public might desire to see accomplished. He might mention before sitting down that since last year there had been many alterations in the draft of the Bill. In the Bill of last year it was proposed that rent should be regarded as the minimum of value, but this proposal had been omitted from the present Bill, although he did not disguise his opinion that rents rightly ascertained would, under the scheme of the Bill, be regarded more closely now than in former times as the true criterion of value. The Bill would also differ from that of last year as far as it described the status and functions of the surveyors of taxes in relation to the valuation lists. It would provide that in the different tribunals where objections to valuations contained in the lists were admissible the surveyors of taxes should take their places as ordinary objectors. In the Bill of last year it was proposed that the county magistrates should appoint committees to take part in the preparation of the valuation lists; but this was omitted from the present Bill, because the Government was satisfied from the opinion of many of the most experienced officials in the country that such a system was unnecessary; and it was proposed further that the re-valuations should be made once in five years instead of once in seven, as proposed in the Bill of last Session. A proposal in the Bill which was not contained in the measure of last year was one which would establish a means of appeal direct from the Assessment Commissioners to the High Court of Justice, where this course might be deemed necessary, in order to determine points of the highest importance as affecting the assessment of properties held by manufacturing, railway, canal, public companies, and other parties owning properties of great value. This had been done to save expense, and to secure uniformity in the principles upon which property was in future to be valued in the country generally; but in all cases ratepayers would have the same power of appeal as at present. In conclusion, he would make an appeal to the House whether, after the sifting which this measure had so anxiously and deliberately undergone throughout the whole of the country, they would exercise the power which they possessed

      211
      of severely criticizing the 100 clauses which it contained. These clauses were for the most part re-enactments of existing laws. The Government did not propose to vary or depart from the principles which had been laid down by the Legislature for a great number of years. They only proposed to consolidate the present laws and to improve the administration of them, and thus to secure greater uniformity throughout the country—to bring, in short, the whole subject into one comprehensive code which should guide all local authorities in the execution of their most important duties. The Government had no wish to find fault as a general rule with the present administration of the laws, but they merely desired to improve a system of local government which had been somewhat neglected. In accepting the Bill he believed that the House would lay the foundation of a great deal of useful reform. He was sorry that he had had to trouble the House with so much detail, but he had felt it to be incumbent upon him to place the whole subject in the fullest way before them, and to express his earnest hope that the attention of the House would be directed to the new materials of the measure now placed before them, and that they would not be disposed, as he had before observed, to enter fully into the discussion of every clause and sentence, which, if done, might lead to a great and unnecessary waste of time. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
      MR. WHITBREADsaid, he was sorry to find from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had not advanced one step in reference to this subject since last Session. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would have to be criticised in detail on the second reading, and he would not, at this moment, discuss the question whether or not the Government had taken a wise step in associating a Government officer with those whose duty it would be to make the re-valuation. He wished, however, to touch upon the part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with the future—he was afraid not the immediate future—of local government. Those who took an interest in these matters might be divided into two classes; one class would go at once to Imperial funds for every relief they
      212
      could advocate, and the other class was composed of those who thought that any subventions from Government or Imperial relief of any kind would be utterly useless without great and far-reaching reforms in our system of local government. The first class would, doubtless, be gratified by the Government subvention proposed to be given under the provisions of the Prisons Bill; whereas the second class would find that all they had to trust to were the large but vague promises of the right hon. Gentleman which might or might not be carried into effect some three or four Sessions to come. If the Government stood still there was one thing, however, which never stood still, and he felt bound to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the vast and rapidly increasing debt which had been incurred by the different local authorities, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House what was the total amount of the public indebtedness under that head; its rate of increase, and the estimated cost of the various claims which were being urged, and which would involve its still further increase. In his opinion, the policy of the Government was short - sighted and bad, because doling out a number of "sops" of the character proposed would have no effect in keeping down the rates. In the course of time people would not tolerate any further increase in the amount of the rates, and, consequently, works of the first necessity would have to remain unexecuted. He was, however, glad to find that the Government had adopted the Union as the unit of local self-government, though he thought that the indoor relief might have been cast upon a wider area. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not touched upon the subject of the simplification of areas or on the means of connecting the different areas either by County Boards or by any other machinery, which would be the only way to secure economical management. He had no hope of any such economy being effected in the absence of such provisions, and trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an earnest for the fulfilment of his promises for the future by placing upon the Table a Bill which would give effect to the views of those who strenuously advocated local reforms.
      SIR WALTER BARTTELOTthought that the right hon. Gentleman had placed his views very clearly before the House, while the statement of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitbread) should have been reserved for the second reading of the Bill. He would refrain from discussing its provisions until they were laid before the House, and simply rose to express his opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that his Bill would place the rating of the country upon a sound and satisfactory basis, which was in truth the main reason for introducing the Bill. His principal objection to the measure was that it would leave the initiation of the assessment in the hands of the overseers as before. A very large practical experience had shown him that the rates in different Unions, although adjoining, were far from being equal, and in order that they might be placed upon a fair and reasonable footing there should be some fresh general valuation made throughout the counties. He approved the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), last year, that the county and other local rates, as well as the income tax, should be made upon the ratable and not upon the gross estimated value of the property. The whole matter, however, was subject for further consideration, and he trusted it would receive that consideration and discussion before the Bill went into Committee.
      MR. CLARE READsaid, he wished to put the right hon. Gentleman right with regard to the nature of the Motion he had placed upon the Paper last year. By that Motion he had sought to have the powers of appeal which now appertained to quarter sessions transferred to County Representative Boards, and he must deny it would have the effect of extinguishing the present assessment committees. The right hon. Gentleman had hinted that it might be expected in the future that the expenditure for lunatics, main highways, and in-door poor would be spread over the counties. That, in itself, he thought, would be a very strong argument in favour of County Representative Boards.
      MR. RATHBONEsaid, he shared in the disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) at the meagre character of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in-
      214
      stead of proposing to give additional powers to local governments and to relieve them from that interference in details which was now overweighting his own Department, had brought forward a Bill which was likely to add even more work to that Department. The question of our local administrations was one of the great questions of the day; and he regretted that there was no sign, either out·of-doors or in the declaration of the Government, of an attempt being made to frame anything like a comprehensive scheme of reform on that subject and to work it out. Unless some systematic plan were laid down, all their legislation of that kind would do little more than add to the existing confusion. He did not say that what he suggested could be effected in a Session or two; but some general plan ought to be formed in the mind of the Government and then all their Bills should be made to work it out. To accomplish that object, with the least disturbance of existing interests and the least interference with popular prejudice, he thought it would probably be necessary to resort to the expedient of a Royal Commission.
      MR. STANSFELDdesired to guard himself against being supposed to agree with the last speaker that the best method of dealing with the large problem of local government would be by the issue of a Royal Commission on the subject. It would retard rather than advance legislation, and would in reality accomplish no solid good. He welcomed the Bill as far as it went, but it was not a sufficient instalment of reform of one of the most pressing questions of the day. He acknowledged it was a sound, useful, and business measure nevertheless, and in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, when it got into Committee it would be his duty to offer assistance, in order to secure its enactment. He had always endeavoured to look at questions connected with local government wholly irrespective of Party considerations; but he could not profess to be satisfied with that Bill, good and practical though it might be, as a sufficient instalment for the present Session of that reform of our system of local self-government which both the present and previous Governments had admitted to be necessary. He thought, on the contrary, that the time had come when some kind of plan, some outline of

      215
      future, if not present, legislation should be devised which might give some encouragement and hope to those who took a deep interest in that great question. He regarded the proposal in the Bill to create a county fund with some jealousy, if there were to be no county representatives or administrative body to control its expenditure; and indeed he regarded with similar jealousy some of the other imperfect contrivances which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned as substitutes for the time being of a greater measure of local government—the creation of some system of county administration. The sooner they addressed themselves to the creation of some system of county administration the better; and, therefore, either on the second reading of that Bill or on some other early opportunity, he should feel justified in drawing the attention of the House to the question of local government generally.
      MR. SAMUDAobserved that an important matter to be considered was this—that as a rate must be carried out with totally different machinery by the various Boards of Guardians, they would have what would really amount to a differential duty by reason of the Bill not clearly specifying that which should be rated and that which should be left out of rating. At the present time, for instance, machinery was rated in one parish but not in another, and it was of the utmost importance to the interests of trade that the matter should be settled. Even the law failed to deal with this satisfactorily, for when litigation had occurred there were most conflicting judgments, and even if they could be reconciled, it was of great importance that when a new start was made on the subject of rating, such as he conceived this Bill to propose, that it should be clearly settled by the Legislature to relieve all doubts, and he would say all excuses, for burdening trade with the vexatious exaction that was often sought to be imposed on it by treating machinery, the capital and stock-in-trade of the manufacturer and tenant, as a matter in any way subject to rates which were intended only to apply to freehold and leasehold property.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he fully endorsed the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld), that these De-
      216
      partmental subjects ought to be discussed without Party bias. He would also remind the House, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the Bill would be an insufficent instalment of reform in local taxation, that he proposed within a few days to re-introduce the Highways Bill of last year with some alterations. He should have been very glad if those two measures could have been passed last Session; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite must be aware of the difficulty which a Minister in charge of a particular Department had to contend with in securing sufficient time for the consideration by the House of the Bills he might have to bring in. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that since he had been at the Local Government Board he had succeeded in passing various measures connected with his Department through the House. Since coming into office the Government had passed several important measures akin to this subject, all of which he believed would be found to tend towards a harmonious whole. He therefore felt bound to protest against the assumption that they had practically done nothing. Apprehensions seemed to be entertained by some hon. Members with regard to an increase in the amount of local indebtedness; but the House ought to bear in mind that the great mass of local expenditure was incurred not by the Guardians, but by the town councils. On the whole, he believed the Union area would be found to be the most advantageous for the purpose in view; while with regard to the difficulty of rating machinery which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), it would probably be smoothed away by the Bill, or, if it continued to exist, it would readily be settled by the easy, inexpensive, and simple form of appeal which was provided. If the Government had wanted to do nothing, they could not have done better than adopt the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member or Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), and refer the whole subject to a Royal Commission; but they preferred dealing with it to tie best of their ability. By the adoption of that suggestion, legislation might have been looked for in the Greek Kalends. He had certainly in the course he had taken laid himself open to the charge of not producing a com-

      217
      prehensive measure; but he thought he had done enough in the way of detail to show that his attention had constantly been directed to this subject, and he had endeavoured so to shape the measures he had introduced as to make them fit in with the local administration of the future when it came to be dealt with on a largo scale. He should certainly be very reluctant to commit the Government to a comprehensive scheme so long as he had not at his disposal the means of carrying it out. He had not those means at present, but the Bills he had brought forward had contributed, he believed, in a very material degree to the improvement and simplification of local government in this country; and if he had the good fortune to be able to pass this and one or two other measures which he proposed to introduce in the course of the Session, he hoped he might with propriety take credit to himself for having furnished an important contribution to what was undoubtedly a great and important work.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. CHAN- CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. SALT.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 63.]

    PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill for consolidating with Amendments the Acts relating to Letters Patent for Inventions, observed that the Bill in many respects was a similar measure to, though not identical with, that introduced in "another place" by the Lord Chancellor in 1875, and which was again passed by the Upper House with some alterations last year. Everybody would acknowledge the importance and interest of the subject. The prosperity and preeminence of our manufactures was to a great extent due to the inventive genius of the people of this country; and if that prosperity and pre-eminence was to be maintained it would be necessary to protect and encourage inventions as far as that could be done judiciously and without imposing any undue fetter or
      218
      restraint upon trade. At one time an opinion prevailed pretty extensively that to reward inventors by conferring on them the right exclusively to manufacture and sell their inventions was contrary to public policy and detrimental to the community, and that some other mode of rewarding inventive genius might be discovered. But within recent years the matter had been very fully and fairly discussed with an opposite result; and the Royal Commission of 1863 and the Select Committee of 1871 arrived at a conclusion favourable to the maintenance of the Patent Laws, though the latter body suggested several important alterations and Amendments in them. Additional evidence in favour of the expediency of maintaining Patent Laws was afforded by the fact that a number of gentlemen representing different countries and thoroughly conversant with the subject discussed the question in Vienna at the time of the Exhibition of 1873, and passed a resolution in favour of the principle of such laws. A similar opinion had been expressed at a number of meetings held since then in this country. He thought he might, therefore, assume that the feeling which prevailed some time ago antagonistic to the Patent Laws had died away, and that if there was not complete unanimity, there was at all events a preponderance of opinion now in their favour. Of course, the Bill which he proposed to introduce was framed on the theory that there ought to be seine Patent Laws rewarding and encouraging inventors, and the only question really to be solved was how to frame them so as to secure the greatest possible benefit to the inventor without producing detriment and disadvantage to the manufacturer. Now, this was a Bill to consolidate, as well as to amend, the law; and, as the House was aware, the law as it at present stood with regard to the procedure as to Patents was contained in the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1852 and some Acts which had been passed since to amend it. No doubt those statutes placed the law on a much better footing than it was before, but many defects in the working of the system had since been discovered, and until those defects were removed it could not be said that the Patent Laws of this country were satisfactory. He would point out what appeared to him to be

      219
      the most striking of those defects, and would explain as he went along how it was intended by the Government to remedy them. The first objection he had to make to the working of the present system had reference to specifications. It was almost, if not absolutely, the universal practice to file in the first instance a provisional specification, and thereupon to receive provisional protection, as it was called. The period of protection was six months, and during that time the provisional specification was kept secret. Before that period elapsed application had to be made for Letters Patent, and they were usually granted, unless successfully opposed, on condition that the inventor should within a certain time file a further specification, which was called the complete specification, describing accurately and distinctly the nature of his invention, and the mode in which it was to be carried into effect. Now, that was, he thought, a bad system, because, in the first place, those who were interested in opposing the grant of the Letters Patent had to do so in the dark, having really no opportunity afforded them of' ascertaining exactly what it was the applicant wanted to patent. All they knew was that certain advertisements had appeared describing generally the sort of thing for which provisional protection had been obtained. There was another disadvantage: From the moment the applicant received the Letters Patent, being sealed he was armed with the means of bringing actions for infringements of the Patent; in fact, he was armed with the means to a very great extent of levying black mail, because, although his contrivance might be as old as the hills, and although his Letters Patent might be, for a number of reasons, perfectly bad, and although anybody who should be bold enough to meet him in a Court of Law would have an easy victory, yet most people had an objection, not, perhaps, altogether unreasonable, to embark in law suits, and rather than encounter an action for damages for an infringement of the Patent it often happened that they preferred to pay royalties for the use of the contrivance. It seemed to him, then, that the true policy would be not at once to give Letters Patent to a man, trusting him to disclose its nature afterwards, but to give ample notice to the parties interested
      220
      that they might be enabled to show, if they could, that the Patent ought not to be granted. There were other reasons which he would not at present go into for objecting to the existing system. In order to remedy this state of things it was proposed that when the applicant filed his provisional specification, as allowed at present, there should be an examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether it properly described the contrivance, and whether the contrivance was a fitting subject for a Patent, and it was further proposed to give him a longer period of protection—namely, a yéar, or, if necessary, more than a year, because many inventors, although they could describe their inventions in a general way, nevertheless required time to develop their ideas, and perhaps required the resources of third parties to aid them in experiments. During that period he thought it reasonable to provide that no action should be brought against any one for an infringement of the Patent, and before the period expired the applicant for Letters Patent would have to file a complete specification, which would be made public, submitted to examination, and then referred to the Law Officers and other authorities, and if either the applicants or the opponents were dissatisfied with the decision arrived at, an appeal would he to the Lord Chancellor. Under this system it would be secured that before Letters Patent could be obtained a complete specification would be laid before the public, an opponent would not have to oppose in the dark, a patent would not be given for that which ought not to have a patent, and the petitioner and the inventor himself would in some respects be a great deal better off than before. The next, and a very striking defect in the present system was that there was no adequate examination of specifications. No doubt they were examined by the Law Officers, but they flowed in in great numbers—sometimes 100 a-week—and it was very difficult for those Officers to find the time to examine them, and even if the time were found, they had not the materials before them to enable them to make a complete examination. The want of examination operated as a hardship against the inventor himself, because he was, in consequence of the ease with which he obtained his specification, frequently

      221
      lured on into expenditure which he could ill afford, to find when he had spent his money that the outlay had been perfectly useless. It was also a great detriment to the public that -Letters Patent were given which ought not to be granted, for every Patent so granted had, he maintained, the effect of having an undue restraint on trade. That state of things he proposed to obviate, and for the future the complete specification was to be subject to examination by a body of examiners which would be created by the Bill for the first time, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was in proper form and whether the invention was a subject-matter for a Patent. The examiners would further have the important power of reporting whether or not in their opinion the specification disclosed a contrivance which was novel. That was a provision which would, he thought, be productive of great benefit, because no one could doubt that above one-half these contrivances were not novelties. When the examination had been concluded by the examiners they would report, and the specifications would then be made public and the matter would be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, whose duty it would be to decide whether, under the circumstances, Letters Patent should be granted or not. As the law at present stood, the decision of the Law Officers if against a Patent was final, and that, he supposed, was one reason why they sometimes passed Patents which they ought not. He proposed, however, to give an appeal from the Law Officers' decision by the Bill, both to the applicant and to the opponents. But there was another defect in the law as it stood, and that was that there was no means of compelling a Patentee to put his contrivance into use. A Patentee, for example, who had invented some improvement in the manufacture of steel might practically monopolize the whole business, though the means at his disposal might be utterly inadequate to enable him to supply the public wants. In order to remove that defect, it was proposed that for the future if a man failed to put into use the invention for which he had obtained his Patent, say, for three, or, rather, four years, it should be competent for the Lord Chancellor if he found that Patentee had so acted without reasonable excuse to revoke the Patent
      222
      and to grant licences to manufacture on such terms as might be deemed just, the Patent to be revoked if the Patentee refused to comply with the decision of the Lord Chancellor. That, he thought, would effect a very great improvement in the existing law, while the inventor could scarcely complain of such a provision as being unfair, because no man had any property by our law in his invention unless he obtained Letters Patent. As a reward of his ingenuity he had a monopoly thus secured to him, but it was only right that it should be subject to reasonable conditions. The next point of importance which occurred to him was the peculiar position in which a Patentee now stood with respect to the rights of the Crown, a position which was considered somewhat hard. Under the existing law Her Majesty was entitled to make use of a man's Patent in her workshops to any extent which the Government might think proper without paying a single halfpenny. It had, however, been recently decided that if the Crown engaged with a contractor who agreed to supply articles, in manufacturing which a Patent might be used, although the agreement was to supply the Crown with those articles, and nobody else, still the contract or would be subject to the payment of a royalty to the Patentee. It was, however, obvious that that liability might be got over by resorting to a very easy contrivance, for the Government, if they thought fit to do so, though he did not say they would, might make the contractor the servant of the Crown and his workmen the workmen of the Crown, and in that way deprive the unfortunate man of all remuneration. Now, that was a state of things which he did not think fair, and it was deemed far better that the Crown should have the most unlimited right to use a patented article, but that it should pay for the exercise of that right, and if the amount to be paid could not be settled by agreement between the parties, that it should then be settled by the Treasury or some other tribunal appointed for the purpose. Again, as the law stood it enabled a man to patent what was called a communication from abroad. He himself, for instance, might go to Belgium and be struck with some ingenious contrivance for winding up blinds, for which ho might on his return to England obtain

      223
      a Patent, although he had no merit in the invention, and could purchase the right to it abroad for a few guineas. That he did not regard as a proper state of things, and that in justice it was proposed to remove. He therefore proposed that no Patent for a communication from abroad was to be allowed, although every facility would still be given to those foreign inventors to have their inventions patented whom it was desirable to attract to this country. There was another very important point to which he wished to refer. At present Patents were granted for 14 years subject to certain conditions, but Her Majesty, through her Privy Council, had a right to prolong a Patent if she thought proper, and some rules had been laid down on the subject with respect to the usefulness of the Patent and the remuneration of the Patentee for his ingenuity and labour. It was, however, very difficult to apply those rules, especially to those cases in which a Patent right had been sold, and the Government had deemed it desirable that the right to apply for a prolongation should be done away with, and that instead a Patent should be granted from the outset for 21 years. This would be a great been to the Patentee. There was also a provision in the Bill that a Patent should cease if it were not renewed at the end of the 3rd, the 7th, and the 14th year. At present it was necessary for a Patentee who desired a renewal to produce the Letters Patent themselves, but this difficulty would in future disappear, as he would only be required to produce the certificate described in the Bill. There were at present no means if a Patent had been accidentally allowed to expire to make an application afterwards for its renewal, but under a provision in this Bill the Lord Chancellor would be empowered to grant an additional period for applying for the renewal of a Patent. The Government also thought that the expense in the earlier stages of obtaining Letters Patent was too heavy and pressed with undue severity on the poorer class of Patentees, from whom inventions to a great extent proceeded. Therefore it was proposed to diminish by one-half the expense of obtaining a Patent. At present the expense up to the complete specification was £25, and it was intended to reduce it to £12 10 s.
      MR. SAMUDA, interposing, remarked that £25 was not the expense for the United Kingdom.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that, whatever the expense might actually be, it would be lessened by one-half. It was not proposed, however, that the duties payable at the end of the 3rd and 7th years should be diminished. Perhaps those duties were somewhat heavy, and operated rather' hardly sometimes on the poorer Patentees; but it was highly important to the community that worthless Patents should be weeded out, and there was no more effectual mode of doing this than by making it obligatory on the Patentee at the end of a particular time to pay something like a substantial duty. As a rule the worth of a Patent could be ascertained in four years, and it was not unreasonable to enact that, prior to its renewal, something like a substantial duty should be paid. At the end of seven years, at all events, one would think that the advantages of a Patent would have exhibited themselves. If, however, a Patent turned out to be worthless, the Patentee would not pay the duty. It was proposed to impose an additional duty for the renewal of a Patent so as to give the Patentee a right to the 21 years, and it was thought that it would be better that this additional duty of £100 should be payable at the end, not of 14, but of 12 years, so that the public might be fully aware whether the Patentee intended to make an application for the extended time.
      MR. MUNDELLAinquired whether duties would have to be paid at the end of the 3rd and 7th years, as at present?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied in the affirmative, and went on to say that the present Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the two Law Officers for England. It was proposed, however, to increase their number by appointing as Commissioners the Law Officers for Scotland and Ireland, and some gentlemen who were not lawyers, but who were conversant with manufactures, trade, and inventions. He had now described all the main provisions of the Bill, though he had not dwelt on many minor points such as the power conferred on a Court of Law when dealing with a Patent case to call in scientific assessors. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Are the Commissioners to

      225
      be paid?] The examiners would be paid, but the Commissioners would receive no salaries. Some of them, indeed, would not condescend to be paid, and if some were paid and others not paid, he did not think they would act together very harmoniously. Their duties would not be onerous, but they would have the general superintendence of the working of the system, and he did not think it necessary that they should be paid. These were the main provisions of the Bill, and in his opinion it would be beneficial to inventors, to manufacturers, and to trade generally; and, therefore, he moved the House that leave be given him to bring it in.
      MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not approve of some of the provisions of the Bill; but there was much in it of which he approved. He hoped to see the Patent Laws so amended as to prove advantageous to the inventor and the country; and he was glad that the present measure was introduced in the House of Commons, instead of in "another place." He hoped they would have a full discussion upon it. As, however, he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General's statement, he apprehended that the measure, without very considerable alteration, would not work well, and that its operation in its present form in a few years would tend to destroy the Patent Laws, and to render them perfectly useless. It would have a most discouraging effect, in his opinion, upon the class of poorer inventors. There were many inventions which had been pooh-poohed by the authorities and by the public for years which had subsequently turned out to be of the greatest value, and he entirely demurred to allowing any set of examiners to decide whether an invention was likely to be useful; that must be entirely a matter of opinion. He was sorry, too, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had not proposed to pay the Commissioners of whom he had spoken. The break-down of the present law—and there could be no doubt that it had broken down to a certain extent—was due to the fact that the work had been referred to gentlemen who could not possibly attend to it. In order to that work being properly done, he believed it was necessary that they should have able and first-class Commissioners, who should be properly paid. The existing law, if he remembered
      226
      rightly, provided that the Commissioners should be the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, the Law Officers of the Crown, and certain other persons to be appointed. These were the Gentlemen who were supposed to attend to the work; but no such persons had ever been appointed, and the consequence had been that it had been referred to subordinates—a result which was not, in his opinion, desirable.
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, in common with the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) he also rejoiced that the Bill which had formed the subject of the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General had been introduced into the House of Commons. In that House there was a practical knowledge of invention, and the industry of the country was much more likely to be properly looked after than could be the case in "another place." In addition to that he was bound to say, after an experience of the way in which the question had been discussed on two occasions in "another place," that a most dangerous theory had been prevalent in that "place", and that Bills had been permitted to pass there which, if they had been allowed to pass the House of Commons also, and come into practical operation, would have proved ruinous to those who were affected by them, and he regarded the present Bill as a great improvement on those measures. The question was one of the utmost practical importance, and if they approached it with a determination to do what was just and right they would easily arrive at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Happily, it was not one of Party, and both Parties would be anxious to make the measure—the details of which would require very serious consideration—as perfect as possible. The object of such legislation ought to be to promote, encourage, and give facilities for inventions, and if that were done in this case, the Bill, in its working, could not fail to be attended with the best results. He trusted that every unnecessary difficulty which stood in the way of the inventor would be removed, and while he was glad to hear that some modifications upon previous proposals bad been introduced into the present Bill, especially as to the time and provisional specifications, he thought there were provisions in it which would

      227
      have the effect of reducing the number of Patents to a minimum; and that was a result which was not for one moment desirable. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said he believed the more Patents were sifted the fewer they would become; but, in opposition to that view, he (Mr. Mundella) might point to the case of the United States, where the number taken out was 300 or 400 per cent in excess of England. There was no country where Patents were so closely sifted as in America; and there was no country where there were so many, and where invention had done so much towards saving human labour, or had been more appreciated. In Washington they had a splendid museum for their Patents, while in London we had a few wretched sheds in the Kensington Museum, where discoveries of men like Arkwright and Stephenson were placed. He hoped this would soon be remedied. In England he never saw an invention yet which was not pooh-poohed at first, and the inventor had so many difficulties to contend with and was always so unpopular that the Government should try rather to smooth his path than to put any obstacles in his way. As to the Lord Chancellor fixing what should be the licence for working any particular Patent, or as to examiners with his Lordship's assistance doing so, he thought it was an utter impossibility. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that under the present system Patentees had an opportunity of levying black mail upon their co-manufacturers; but he (Mr. Mundella), for one, had never known a Patentee of whom that could be truly said. On the other hand, a Patentee had to run the risk of his rich competitors coming down upon him with their wealth and crushing him; and as in this country the great mass of inventors were poor inventors, in legislating on this matter, provisions should be enacted which would have the effect of encouraging them, for the House should remember that the inventions which had most revolutionized trade were the works of poor men. He was quite clear that in the clause which gave the Lord Chancellor the right to grant compulsory licences lay the whole of the mischief in the Bill. A poor man might bring out the best invention in the world, and a rich manufacturer, saying that he did not want the machine to
      228
      prosper, for it would cost him say £70,000, and render his then existing plant useless, might get a compulsory licence, ruin the inventor, and put the invention aside. He did not believe that a bad Patent would injure an industry, because it would not be adopted. If an inventor brought out a bad Patent he simply paid his duty to Her Majesty and lost his money. He approved of the provision with regard to foreign inventors, and hoped the Government would adopt an international system of Patents in the same way as the international system of trade marks, and he could see no difficulty in this. With regard to the expense, the proposition was to lessen the smallest and increase the largest part of the expense. A Patent in France for 13 years could be had for £20 odd, and in America for 15 years for under £20, and he could see no reason why so large a sum as £50 was demanded under this Bill. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that a man could afford to pay £50 after three years' enjoyment of his Patent, but this was the most difficult payment he could be called upon to make, because he was seldom able by that time to get his article introduced into the market. The tendency of this provision must, therefore, be to discourage Patents. Patents ought to be obtained in this country as cheaply as in France or Belgium, and, in his opinion, it would be better to make the first payment for a Patent £1, and afterwards an annual payment of £1 or £2 during its existence. A much larger sum would thereby be obtained from the inventors, and the country much more benefited in its industry. It was unwise to discuss a Bill on its introduction, because he had learned from experience that it was impossible to trust to the details of a Bill from any Minister who introduced it. This, he would repeat, was no Party question, and he sincerely trusted that both sides of the House would co-operate in making it a measure that would be for the best interests of the Patentee and for the interests of the country.
      SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he had no doubt the Bill would be very I useful, but he wished to say a few words with regard to two points in it, which he regarded with dislike—first, on the Patent itself, and next as to the exami-

      229
      ners. The Patent was an antiquated thing altogether and in itself meant expense. It was made out on a large piece of parchment with the Royal seal, and was a remnant of the old theory that the issue of a Patent was part of the Royal Prerogative. Instead of coming from the Lord Chancellor, a Patent should proceed from the Board of Trade. Why should not a Patent be like the brevet d'invention, as in France, or a certificate as in Belgium, which would be equally effective; and he considered that the privileges of inventors should be made as cheap as possible. The certificate should be issued from the Board of Trade which had the proper machinery to consider these questions, and it should specify the number of years for which the inventor should enjoy the privileges of his invention. With regard to the examiners, he could not see why a Patent should receive any consideration or undergo any examination before it was issued. If a Patent was found to be good, the inventor had his reward; if, on the other hand, it was useless, he hurt no one. When a man climbed up to the top of St. Paul's and stood upon the highest part of it on one leg, he applied to George III. for a reward. The King said he would give him a Patent. That would not have injured any one else, because no one wanted to perform the same feat. The principle in granting Patents ought to be one of great freedom, and it was for the public good that inventors should be able to take out Letters Patent at the smallest expense. All he thought necessary was a fee sufficient to pay office expenses and no more.
      MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he was glad to see that the Bill followed the lines of the recommendations of the Committee on the question of Patents which sat in 1871 and 1872. The differences between the Bill about to be introduced and those which had been introduced during the last two Sessions in "another place" had been so clearly stated by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that they were in a better position to judge of its merits than they generally were on the first reading of a Bill. He believed it was in many respects a better Bill than those to which he had adverted. He gave it his cordial support, and could only express the hope that it would not
      230
      meet with the same fate as those of 1875 and 1876, for if such should be the case he would rather that the Government should have availed themselves of those powers which they already possessed by the Bill of 1852 which had never yet been put in operation. He trusted that Commissioners would at length be appointed. The present Commissioners were as useless as if they were non-existent, because with their multifarious occupations they could not give any attention to the administration of the Patent Laws. He agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that there were difficulties and objections to the appointment of paid Commissioners, because there were eminent men whose services could be secured, but who would feel that the acceptance of salaries called for greater sacrifices than they were prepared to make. Not to mention any one living, he would instance the late Sir William Fairbairn as a specialist who would probably have given valuable service as an honorary Commissioner. With good officers the general superintendence of the office might be left to unpaid Commissioners. He thought there had been several mistakes regarding the functions of the examiners, whose function would ascertain, not whether a so-called invention was Frivolous, but whether it was properly the subject of a patent, and whether it was a novelty, and on this point examination would be of the greatest service, not only to the public, but to inventors also. As a manufacturer of machinery and of iron, he could adduce many instances of Patents which were mere obstructions to the development of improved processes of manufacture. For this reason he rejoiced at the introduction of compulsory licensing, which ho hoped nothing would induce the Attorney General to abandon. If the Patent system were to be maintained, it was necessary that inventions should not continue to be monopolies in this sense. Before the Committee of 1871–2, it came out that there were inventions patented by Englishmen, and yet the articles manufactured under the patents were manufactured exclusively and imported from abroad. Was that a state of things that ought to be allowed to continue? Nine out of ten of the Patents for sewing machines wore worked entirely by the importation from abroad of the manufactured article

      231
      and that was an argument for compulsory licensing. There was keen international competition in sugar refining, and a simple improvement patented in this country might render all our manufacturers except the Patentee unable to compete with those of Holland, where there were no Patents. With regard to the question who should decide what the value of a licence was to be, he believed that in very nearly every case it would be determined by the giver and taker of the licence. It would be in rare cases only that the parties concerned would be unable to agree; the fact of an ultimate authority existing—the Patent Commissioners or the Lord Chancellor, would tend to induce them to come to an agreement. There was another provision he did not approve of—that as to the manner in which a Patentee was to be remunerated for his invention when it was used by the Crown. He did not think that the Treasury was sufficiently impartial. If the Commissioners of Patents or the Lord Chancellor were substituted then the provision would be of some service. The extension of time for the completion of specifications would in many cases be a been; but inventions were often reduced to questions of detail and ran much on all fours with each other; and in such cases it would be a disadvantage to a rival inventor to be placed in a position of uncertainty for a long time. The advantages must be balanced against the disadvantages, and he was not prepared to say at that moment which were the weightier. It was only fair that a complete specification should be published before a Patent was granted, and it was a monstrosity that a monopoly should be given to a man without his being compelled to declare what the invention was, for some one might have been using it for years, and it was a hardship that he should be able to assert his right to continue its use only by costly litigation. Provisional specifications ought to state clearly what the inventions were, and care should be taken that the complete specification included nothing but what was fairly included in, or fairly grew out of, the provisional specification deposited. If there were a proper system of examination and of licensing, then the term of 21 years would be a fair concession. Under the present system, without the
      232
      safeguard proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, an extension to 21 years would be unfair to the public. As to the question of a Patent Museum, the present Museum at South Kensington was a disgrace to the country, and no language could be too strong in deprecating its condition; what was really wanted was not a Museum of Patents, but of important scientific and maufacturing inventions. It was a mistake to suppose that all important inventions were patented. On the contrary, the patenting of an important invention was, in some trades, the exception, not the rule. This was especially the case in the manufacture of iron, and he could state that one of the causes which had led to the rapid development of the Cleveland Iron District was the liberality with which its manufacturers threw open their inventions to their neighbours, instead of each one attempting to secure a monopoly by taking out a Patent. As he had said, he would support the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would admit the inconvenience of discussing a Bill on the first reading, but if the author of a Bill thought it necessary to make a speech in introducing it, he must expect to hear something in reply. As regarded inventors, there were two points he considered to be most urgently required—namely, a reduction of the expense of getting a Patent, and the extension of time to enable an inventor to reap the reward of his discovery. On the first point he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made out his case in favour of his Bill. In America the expense he believed was only $35, or £7, and he (Mr. Anderson) thought the mode of examination adopted there was much better than ours, and the proof of that was in the result, for in no country was the inventive genius of the people so stimulated to activity as there, and if we wished really to encourage the inventive genius of our people, we ought, as far as possible, to adopt the system in vogue in America. On the second point, he thought the extension of time to 21 years would give the utmost satisfaction to inventors. He objected, however, to that portion of the Bill which required that an inventor should divulge everything before he got his Patent, while it

      233
      was left to the examiner to say whether the Patent should be granted. What man in the possession of a secret which he deemed of great value would risk its loss by accepting such terms? It could not be expected that a man would divulge his invention to the whole world while there was so much uncertainty whether he would get a Patent or not. As to licences, the public were entitled to some protection in the matter, for they had a right to demand that they should be enabled to get the fair use of a Patent. He thought that if the Commissioners were not paid the work would not be done well. He had no great belief in unpaid work. They must pay for work either in money or honour. Members of Parliament were paid in honour, but would these Commissioners be sufficiently paid in honour? He considered that it would be better to pay those gentlemen for doing the work than to pay the Law Officers of the Crown, for he could not see why the latter should be paid at all for this work; and now it was proposed to bring the Law Officers of Scotland and Ireland into the same system. They should pay the Commissioners and reduce the charges to those ingenious men who made new discoveries.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would not reply to the objections which had been stated to the Bill; they would be better discussed hereafter. He wished, however, to explain that he did not propose to allow the examiners a power of veto; they would only report, and they would not be able to report against a Patent on the ground that it was frivolous. Frivolous Patents would perhaps do no harm, except to the inventors themselves. The examiners would have only to report that the provisional specification, which would be kept secret, was properly framed, and when the specification was completed to see that it accorded with the provisional specification—whether it was properly framed, and whether it was novel or not. He did not know that the American system was the best, nor that it could be copied with advantage, for he could not conceive that in any country there could be 18,000 new inventions in any one year.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill for consolidating, with Amendments, the Acts relating to Letters Patent for Inventions,
      234
      ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 64.]

    ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: I rise to ask leave of the House to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law in regard to the management and maintenance of Roads and Bridges in Scotland, and I will endeavour to indicate to the House, very briefly I trust, the circumstances under which the Bill is introduced, and the objects which it is thereby proposed to attain. Hon. Members of this House are probably aware that in Scotland there is no obligation at Common Law either to make or to maintain roads and bridges. Those obligations arise entirely from the statute law of the land. Our roads in Scotland, or public highways, are of two characters. There are statute-labour roads, which were originally intended simply for purposes of local communication, were originally maintained by the personal services of dwellers in each particular parish, and are now maintained in most cases by what is called commutation money—that is, by a parish rate levied within the bounds of the parish in lieu of the personal service formerly given. The second class of roads are called turnpike roads, and they are managed by trustees constituted by a long series of local statutes. As a general rule these roads constitute, or did constitute at one time, the main trunk lines of communication through the country, and serve for the purposes of what is called through traffic. As an invariable rule these turnpike roads have been maintained, not by assessment, but by a levy of toll from persons using the roads. Of late years the spread of railway communication throughout Scotland has altered very much the character of the traffic upon these roads. It no longer represents through traffic, because of late all such traffic passes either by water or by rail, and the result is that these main lines of road, originally formed and maintained for other purposes, have virtually become part of our local system, and are used as such almost exclusively. It is proposed by the present Bill to combine the management of our statute-labour and

      235
      our turnpike roads, to abolish entirely the system of levying tolls, and to throw the maintenance of both classes of roads for the future upon a rate levied from lands and heritages throughout the whole of Scotland. It is proposed to give the administration of the whole of the roads, statute-labour and turnpike, within the county to the county, and to give the management and administration of all roads and streets within burghs in Scotland to the burgh authorities, meaning thereby the town council or the police commissioners of the burgh. It is right to inform the House that this Bill does not directly affect the whole of the counties in Scotland. It is right that the House should know that out of the 32 counties in Scotland, 14 have already obtained local Acts from the Legislature from time to time, under which tolls have been abolished, and roads of every class are maintained by rates upon lands and heritages. Two other counties have obtained local Acts, whereby the maintenance of the roads will be thrown upon rating as soon as the debt of the turnpike trusts has been paid off by means of tolls. Other two counties, Dumfriesshire and Forfarshire, have recently obtained local Acts in virtue of which they have power at any time to abolish tolls. In Dumfriesshire that has already been carried out to a great extent, although no steps have been taken, I am informed, in Forfarshire for the purpose. So there only remain 14 counties in Scotland in which turnpike roads are still exclusively maintained by the levy of tolls. In none of the cases I have referred to where tolls are still levied is there any right to continue that levy in perpetuity. Several of the Turnpike Acts, by which turnpike trusts are constituted, contain within themselves provisions continuing them in force for periods which have not yet expired; but the great bulk of the Scotch local Acts constituting turnpike trusts, depend, and have for many years past depended, for their existence on the passing through the Legislature from time to time of general Acts—the Turnpike Trusts Continuance Acts—and I find that in regard to those 14 counties which I have mentioned, in which tolls are still levied, and the turnpike roads thereby maintained, that all the Acts constituting those trusts, with a few exceptions, will expire in the year
      236
      1878, and all the trusts continued by the Turnpike Trusts Continuance Act of 1876 will expire with the close of the Session of Parliament in 1878. There would only then remain existing, were those Acts not renewed by a Continuation Act, the Ayrshire Turnpike Trust Act, which expires in 1879; three out of 11 turnpike Acts for Roxburghshire, two of them expiring in 1881 and one in 1892, and in the case of Lanarkshire, where there are no fewer than 21 separate statutes constituting separate trusts, only five would exist after 1878. Of those five, one would expire in 1879, one in 1880, one in 1881, one in 1882, and the last in 1887. It is proposed by the Bill that its provisions may be adopted voluntarily by Commissioners of Supply, whether they have a local statute or not, at any time within the next 10 years; but that at the end of 10 years it shall become a compulsory measure in all those counties where at that date the exaction of tolls or statute-labour money has not been abolished either under local Acts, or by the county having voluntarily adopted the provisions of the Bill. It appears to the framers of the Bill that that would give sufficient time for those counties in which there are exceptional difficulties with regard to the abolition of tolls or the adjustment of areas and burdens as between county and burgh, to overcome these difficulties, either by means of the machinery provided in Section 8 of the Bill, or by arrangement. When it is adopted, the provisions of the Bill are that the management should be vested, first, in a body of County Road Trustees, to consist of Commissioners of Supply of the county, in whom the control of our roads of whatever class is at present vested, with the addition to that body of the nominee of any corporation holding land of the value of £800 and upwards on the valuation roll, and the further addition of an. elective member, elected by the ratepayers, one for each parish within the county. As this body would be rather unwieldy for the constant administration of the trusts throughout the year, it is proposed that the plan adopted should be similar to that which has been followed with success in some of those local statutes—letting the County Road Trustees appoint a County Road Board, consisting of 30 members, with a certain proportion of elected members among

      237
      them. Further, an important part of the administration of the local management of the roads will be entrusted to district committees. In the case of burghs the administration may be much more simply provided for; and here I ought to explain that by the word "burgh" in the sense in which I have used it, I mean, in the first place, Royal burghs; in the second place, Parliamentary burghs; and, in the third place, populous places of considerable size and extent which have adopted the provisions of the General Police Act. The limit fixed in the Bill is a population of 10,000, and it is obvious that a burgh of that extent may have an interest separate from the county, and roads and streets within it sufficient to form the subject of a separate local administration. Then, there being a separate administration for counties and for burghs, it is proposed that within burghs the streets and roads which are under the management of the local authority shall be as at present provided for in regard to maintenance, and new streets made and maintained out of rates levied on land and heritages in the burgh, one-half in respect of ownership, and one-half in respect of occupancy. Within the county a different rule is to obtain. There are three things to be provided for in both burgh and county alike. In the first place, the maintenance of roads; in the second place, the making of new roads or bridges; and, in the third place, provision must be made for the debt which attaches to roads already formed. It is proposed that within counties, in order to maintain the roads, an assessment shall be levied, one-half on owners and one-half on occupiers, but the provision made for the payment of debt and for new roads rests upon owners exclusively, and not upon those who temporarily occupy land, with this further provision, that in all questions relating to the formation of new roads no trustee shall have a vote imposing an assessment who is not himself an owner of land, so that it will be left to proprietors to decide whether their interests will be so advanced by it as to justify them in incurring the outlay. It is further proposed by the Bill that debts upon roads shall be taken over at their true value. The Bill also contains other provisions of considerable importance for making a fair allocation of the
      238
      debt in the first place, as between county and county, because these turnpike trusts are not, like statute-labour roads, localized. There will also be an allocation as between county and burgh. As regards the debts on existing roads, there is no liability whatever incumbent upon the trustees except what may be met out of the tolls. In some instances these are amply sufficient to meet the interest, and in time liquidate the capital; but, in very many other cases, the tolls are not sufficient to pay the interest on the capital. With respect to these it is proposed that they shall be bought up at the fair market price. When a road serves the purposes of two adjoining counties, the debt will be fairly allocated between them, and under like conditions between the county and the burgh. Then, again, several of the bridges in Scotland are in an exceptional position. A bridge may be in a borough; but it may be equally useful to the county, as it may connect two parts of the same county or two districts, and therefore, in such cases they will be exceptionally dealt with, so as to apportion the cost of maintenance fairly between the counties, or the county and burgh, which are benefited by them without imposing the sole burden upon the county or burgh in which they may happen to be situated. Perhaps I may be permitted, in conclusion, to express a hope that, as this question of roads has deeply interested the people of Scotland, this Bill, which I ask leave to lay on the Table, may be the means of enabling the Legislature to arrive at an expedient and safe solution of this much vexed question.
      SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that he had a Bill of his own on this subject, but he was very glad that the Government had given the House so early an opportunity of discussing the question, which was thoroughly ripe for immediate legislation. He thought the Bill in its main provisions was the same as that which was brought before the House last Session. References had been made to the effects produced upon the road traffic of Scotland by the formation of railways, and there could be little doubt that this was practically the case, and what were formally looked upon as main lines had become used for local purposes only. He thought it was a question whether those who made the

      239
      most use of the roads would, under the provisions of the Bill they had heard explained, contribute their fair share to the expenses. Some years ago he had advocated a plan, and this plan had received the support of many authorities on the subject. This plan was to adopt a uniform management, with a uniform scheme of tolls. He explained that such a plan, if carried out, would tend to lighten the burden on the shoulders of those who had to bear it, and not lay it on the shoulders of others in an unfair way. He trusted that his suggestion would be considered by the Government, and that the result would be a more efficient management than the one at present in existence.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the Government deserved thanks for introducing this Bill at so early a period of the Session, and he looked upon it as an intimation of the earnestness and desire of the Government to carry the measure this year. He agreed with the principles laid down by the learned Lord Advocate, but he regretted that the Government had gone back with respect to the period of final application. It was proposed last year that the option should not extend to more than five years, but, according to the Bill, 10 years might elapse before the total abolition of tolls in Scotland. Now, he thought that there were certain inconveniences attending such deferred legislation. If the owners of the roads or the trustees interested chose to do so, they might adopt the policy of starving the roads with a view to increase the interest on their debt; and when the time arrived for handing over the roads, they might be found out of repair. This would of course throw a heavy burden on the new trustees, in order to put them in proper condition. In his constituency the Commutation Road Trustees had allowed a large proportion of the roads to become entirely worn out, and consequently the cost of repairing them had fallen very heavily upon the owners and occupiers. He apprehended that under the system proposed by the Lord Advocate the roads which would be affected by it would also become worn out before they were handed over to the new authorities. He trusted, therefore, that the Government, if they kept to the period of 10 years, would insert in their Bill a provision requiring the old trustees to hand over the
      240
      roads in a fair condition of repair to the new trustees. It was unfortunate that the power of adopting the Bill would be placed in the hands of a body which was hostile to the new system, and of whose opinions the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Edward Colebrooke) might be taken as a representative. He might remind the House that no one had benefited so much previously by the formation of roads and railways as the owners of the land in their neighbourhood, and, therefore, it was very selfish of them to object to pay their fair proportion of the expense of keeping them in repair. He trusted that the Bill would become law during the present Session, and would give it his earnest support.
      COLONEL ALEXANDERexpressed a hope that the Government would assure the House that sufficient time would be given between all the stages of the Bill, so that all persons interested would be able to give the measure full consideration. He quite saw that, owing to the short period there was to elapse before the expiration of the different trusts, the learned Lord Advocate was obliged to introduce the Bill that evening; but he would point out that the Act for the county of Ayr expired not in 1879, but in 1878. It should be borne in mind that 14 counties would be affected by the Bill, and that the circumstances of those counties differed very materially. Some of them were what might be called mineral counties, while others were devoted almost wholly to agriculture. The county which he had the honour to represent was partly mineral and partly agricultural; and he might say that the agricultural country roads were some of the best in Scotland.
      MR. RAMSAYapproved of the general principle of the Bill for the abolition of tolls, and hoped that all the bodies in Scotland who were interested in the measure, and competent to form a judgment upon it, would have sufficient time allowed them to consider its provisions before it was set down for a second reading. The Bill contained numerous details of great importance to mineral owners, land owners, and others, and there were many districts in Scotland which had peculiarities in comparison with other districts, and which had Acts of their own so framed as to meet local wants, and these circumstances gave rise to a considerable diversity on local re-

      241
      quirements. That was an important fact to remember in the case of a Bill which, if it passed into law, was to be made compulsory at the expiration of a period of 10 years.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, admitted that Lanarkshire, like Ayrshire, stood in an exceptional position; and as to the separation of the burghs and counties, he pointed out that the separation, unless attended by a provisional order or by agreement, would take effect either at the municipal or the Parliamentary boundary of the burgh.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill to alter and amend the Law in regard to the maintenance and management of Roads and Bridges in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lone ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the constitution of a Supreme Court of Judicature and for other purposes relating to the better administration of Justice, in Ireland, said, it differed in a few particulars from the Bill which last year obtained a second reading in that House. As far as the general objects of this Bill were concerned—namely, the application to Ireland of those great reforms in the system of Judicature which had been introduced in England—this Bill was, in the main, the same as that of last year. The chief point on which it differed was that, while effecting a reduction in the judicial strength of the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer, it proposed that the Judge of the Probate Court should retain his present position, that branch of business being of so much importance as to demand the whole time and attention of a Judge. The Bankruptcy Court would also remain as it was at present, and provision was made that when a vacancy occurred in the Judgeship of the Admiralty Court the jurisdiction of that tribunal would be transferred to the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice. Another variation from the Bill of last Session was the omission of the clauses relating to
      242
      the compulsory reference of cases to arbitration, which had been found to be exceedingly unpopular in Ireland. They had not been able to comply to the full extent with the desire expressed last year by some hon. Members by adding a complete Schedule of Rules and Orders; but they had introduced into the body of the Bill certain provisions which would, he believed, meet the substantial objection taken last Session to the absence of such a Schedule. He trusted that the present measure would be more fortunate than the one of last year; and he was sure that in the interests of the Bench, the Bar, and the public, the House would do well to put an end, as soon as practicable, to the protracted uncertainty which had prevailed in regard to the carrying out in Ireland of the great reforms in the Judicature of the country which had already been adopted in England. He therefore now moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
      MR. MELDONsaid, he did not intend to enter into any discussion on the Bill; but, at the same time, he must congratulate the Solicitor General on the improvement which the measure had undergone since last year. Every alteration in the Bill was an improvement, and this might be said especially of the proposition to leave the administration of Bankruptcy as it was before. It was clear that the modifications in the Bill had been introduced by some one well acquainted with the difference in the circumstances of England and Ireland.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill for the constitution of a Supreme Court of Judicature, and for other purposes relating to the better administration of Justice, in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Sir MICHAEL HICKS- BEACH.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 66.]

    COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to County Officers and to the Courts of Quarter Sessions and Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, said, though it was not an exact counterpart of any Bill of last Session, it was, in point of fact, a

      243
      combination of two of those Bills, the Clerks of the Crown and Peace (Ireland) Bill, and the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill. In that part of the present Bill which referred to the County Courts it was proposed to extend their jurisdiction mainly by giving them a jurisdiction in Equity, and to bring into immediate effect several other useful reforms in the local administration of justice. It was divided into four parts. Its first object was to consolidate the offices of Clerk of the Crown and Clerk of the Peace, and at the same time to provide an efficient Registrar for the County Courts. The clauses framed with this purpose were not very different from the proposals which were included in the Bill of last year; therefore he would not trouble the House by stating them. The principal objection taken last year was that in the office thus created efficiency had been too much sacrificed to economy. There were always some difficulties which occurred between those who proposed measures and those who had to find the sinews of war for carrying them out; but he was happy to say that on the present occasion he had been able to come to a better understanding with the Treasury than last year. A clause had been inserted in the Bill providing that, at any time after the passing of the Act, if it should appear that the staff was insufficient for carrying on the duties of the combined offices, the Lord Chancellor should have the power to order such additional assistance as ho thought requisite, and there was also a provision in the Bill for payment to the officers so appointed. As to the second part of the Bill—that conferring an Equity jurisdiction—the Bill of last year provided for giving a jurisdiction in Equity in matters in which the annual value of the property did not exceed £30. In the present Bill that figure had been retained in regard to the annual value, but £300 had been substituted for £500 as the limit of jurisdiction in dealing with personal property. That limit had been fixed after consultation with several persons of high authority; but of course it was a proper subject of discussion in Committee. They proposed no alteration in regard to the limit of jurisdiction in testamentary cases, except in contentious cases, and in these the Bill proposed to increase the present limit of £200 to £300. As to the third part of the Bill
      244
      he need only say it was very much the same as the corresponding clause of the Civil Bill Courts Bill of last Session, extending the existing jurisdiction of the county Chairmen. Another important proposal was the reduction in the number of the Chairmen and Judges of the Civil Courts. There were at present 33 Chairmen of counties besides the Recorders, and the Bill proposed that there should be 21 Judges, including the three Recorders of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork, who would perform the combined offices of County Court Judge and Recorder. Instead, however, of retaining the present three classes of Chairmanships, the Bill contemplated but one class of Chairman, which, as to salary, should be equal to the present first-class Chairmanships. In the case of the Recorder of Dublin it was proposed when the arrangement combining the two offices of Recorder of the City and Chairman of the county of Dublin came into effect to pay him a salary of £2,500 a-year; in the case of the Recorder of Belfast of £2,000; and in the case of the Recorder of Cork also of £2,000 a-year. The Treasury was prepared to bear the whole expense and relieve the local taxation of the presentments for the Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of the Crown excepting those made for the registration of voters and jury lists. Special pensions would be paid to retiring Clerks of the Peace or Crown. There would be a revision of the fees in the Civil Bill Courts, and all the emoluments of those officers other than those to which ho had referred would on the union of offices be paid into the Treasury. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by expressing confidence that this Bill would effect great improvement in the Civil Courts, which were already very valuable to Ireland, but could be rendered still more so when they acquired the equitable jurisdiction which this Bill would confer upon them. He believed that the consolidation of the offices of the Clerks of the Peace and of the Crown would also be attended with great public advantage. It was an old saying that the doors of the Courts of Equity were always open; but as the law now stood it was impossible for the Irish people to even approach the portals of the Court of Chancery, and he believed this Bill would be a great boon to his fellow-countrymen. He hoped that as

      245
      it had been introduced at so early a period of the Session, Members on both sides would to their best to pass it.
      MR. LAWcongratulated his hon. and learned Friend on the early introduction of this measure. Of the expediency of giving the Irish Chairmen a substantial jurisdiction in Equity as well as an enlarged jurisdiction for Common Law actions and contentious testamentary matters, he did not think there could be any reasonable doubt; but the value of all this depended on whether the Chairman had an adequate staff of officers to assist him. As far as he could judge from the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, there was little, if any, improvement in this respect on the proposals of last Session, and he regretted to say that, in his opinion, the official assistance which the Government thus meant to provide for the Chairmen would be found wholly insufficient, and the measure consequently prove, he feared, an utter failure. This would be a very deplorable result for the establishment of efficient local tribunals to enforce or adjust the rights of the farmers and small traders throughout Ireland. was urgently required, and had been too long delayed. There was one other point to which his hon. and learned Friend casually alluded at the close of his statement, and on which he (Mr. Law) desired to say a word. It appeared that the Bill proposed to prevent future Chairmen from practising at the Bar. Now to this he (Mr. Law) entirely objected, and that, not for the sake of the Chairmen to whom, indeed, it was a matter of indifference, but for the sake of the people, and to preserve their present confidence in the decisions of those local Courts, for it could hardly be doubted that the indirect effect of this provision would be to make the Chairmen quit Dublin and settle down with their families in the county or union of counties subject to their jurisdiction, and form at least intimacies, if not often closer connections, with the county families. Once this, or anything like this, was done, there would, he feared, be no longer that confidence on the part of the people which was at present felt in the decisions of the now non-resident Judges. However, he should take another opportunity of discussing this proposal. Meantime he gladly acknowledged that, notwithstanding these objections, the main object
      246
      of the Bill was good; and he hoped that the Government would be able to carry it through this Session. It was, as he had said, a measure which was much wanted; and it would, he hoped, be of great benefit to Ireland.
      SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENtrusted that this important question, which so very materially affected the administration of justice in Ireland, would be fairly discussed, and that it might not cone on until April, when barristers who were Members of that House and also members of the Irish Bar would be relieved from their legal engagements.
      MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGconcurrrd in the provision of the Bill which required that the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions should devote their entire time to the discharge of their duties.
      MR. MURPHYhoped that a provision would be introduced into the Bill giving to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Belfast and Cork a Bankruptcy jurisdiction.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, it had been suggested that the assistant barristers should go circuit, whereby the suspicion of partiality would be removed. He wished that Government had proposed to enlarge the jurisdiction of these Courts.
      MR. MELDONobjected to the introduction of local Bankruptcy Courts. The business was far better done in Dublin than in local Courts.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill to amend the Laws relating to County Officers and to the Courts of Quarter Sessions and Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 67.]

    LUNACY LAW.

      MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
      MR. DILLWYN, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire into the operation of the Lunacy Law, so far as regards the security afforded by it against violations of personal liberty," said, there were two points in which the law especially required amendment—first, as to private patients sent to private asylums without any warrant from any public official, which seemed to him a violation of the Constitution; secondly, as regards the custody of such patients, the keeper of the

      247
      asylum, that was the person most interested in keeping them, having the most potential voice in deciding whether they should be retained there. He believed that all private asylums ought to be gradually done away with.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that it would have been inadvisable rashly to vote a Committee on this subject, as their proceedings would be read by persons subject to such derangements, to their possible excitement and injury. The noble Earl at the head of the Lunacy Commission (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was willing that the Committee should be granted. But he (Mr. Cross) would suggest that the powers of the Committee should be restricted, and sufficient safeguards might either be shown to exist or be provided. There was a strong feeling that such safeguards did not exist. Still, it was clear that early treatment was the best in the case of lunacy.
      Motion agreed to.
      Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Lunacy Law, so far as regards the security afforded by it against violations of personal liberty."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
      And, on February 22, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Dr. LUSH, Mr. WOODD, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. LEIGHTON, Mr. TREMAYNE, Mr. HERSCHELL, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. KAVANAGH, Mr. BUTT, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. STEWART, and Mr. DILLWYN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

      KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
      Standing Committee appointed, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House:"—Mr. ADAM, Mr. DICK, Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. GOLDNEY, Captain HAYTER, Lord KENSINGTON, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. STACPOOLE, and Sir HENRY WOLFF:—Three to be the quorum.

      SLIGO BOROUGH (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion Or Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to constitute the municipal town of Boyle, the borough of Sligo, and the municipal town of Ballina into a Parliamentary Borough, to be called the Borough of Sligo, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, and Captain NOLAN.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 68.]

      KINGSTOWN BOROUGH (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to constitute the townships of Pembroke, Rathmines and Rathgar, Blackrock, Kingstown,
      248
      Dalkey, and Killiney and Ballybrack, in the county of Dublin, into a Parliamentary Borough, to be called the Borough of Kingstown, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Mr. MELDON.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 69.]

      COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. JOSEPH COWEN Bill to amend the Law relating to the jurisdiction of County Courts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, Mr. RIPLEY, and Mr. EUSTACE SMITH.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 71.]

      ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
      On Motion of Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Bill to amend the Law in regard to the management and maintenance of Roads and Bridges in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Sir WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER, and Colonel MURE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 72.]

      THAMES RIVER (PREVENTION OF FLOODS) BILL.
      On Motion of Sir JAMES HOGG, Bill to amend "The Metropolis Management Act, 1855," and le Acts amending the same, so far as relates to le Protection of the Metropolis from Floods and Inundations caused by the overflow of the River Thames; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES Hoc a, Lord CLAM) JOHN HAMILTON, Sir JOHN HAY, Sir ANDREW LUSK, and Mr. HOLMS.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 70.]

      COUNTY TRAINING SCHOOLS AND SHIPS BILL.
      On Motion of Captain PIM, Bill for the provision, regulation, and maintenance of County Training Schools and Training Ships, ordered to be brought in by Captain PIM and Mr. COOPE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 73.]

      PROTECTION TO GROWING CROPS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      On Motion Of Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Bill to enable the Tenants of Arable Farms in Scotland to protect their Growing. Crops from in- jury by Hares and Rabbits, ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, Viscount MACDUFF, and Sir WIND-SIAM ANSTRUTHER.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 74.]

      WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to provide for the holding of Winter Assizes in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Mr. STACPOOLE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 75.]

      CRIMINAL LAW EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to further amend the Law of Evidence in Criminal Trials, and to enable Prisoners or Defendants and their Wives or Husbands to give Evidence at such Trials, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY, Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, and Mr. GEORGE CLIVE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 76.]

      JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (RATING) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to make provision with respect to Judicial Proceedings in certain cases relating to Rating, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 77.]
      House adjourned at One o'clock.