Commons Sitting of 11 June 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading—Costs in Actions for Libel (Ireland) [194]; Public Health Act (1875) Amendment [193].
Second Reading—Public Health (Metropolis) [187] Public Record Office [182]; Solicitors Examination, &c. [190].
Committee — Report —Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order (re-comm.) [180]; Removal of Wrecks [181].
Third Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment [164], and passed.

QUESTIONS.
  THE COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is not the case that for the last six months only three judges have been sitting in the Second Division of the Court of Session in Scotland, although, by the existing statute Law, four judges are appointed to sit ordinarily in each of the two Divisions of that Court; whether any detriment to the public service in the conduct of the business of the Court has been experienced in consequence; and, if it has been found that three is a convenient and sufficient number of judges to sit ordinarily in each Division, whether the Government intends to introduce a measure for the purpose of making the necessary alteration in the Law?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it was true that only three Judges had been sitting in the Second Division of the Court of Session for the last six months. According to the statute law the senior Lord Ordinary could not take his seat in the Second Division until a new Judge had been appointed in case of a vacancy in consequence of the death of one of the Judges. Although no detriment had ensued to the public service, the existing state of matters was not satisfactory, and the Lord Advocate proposed very shortly to introduce a Bill into the House of Commons for the

    1569
    purpose of reducing the number of Judges by two, and of making one of the four Judges available when wanted in the lower House.

  FOREST OF DEAN.—QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, pending legislation for carrying out some of the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat in the year 1874 on Dean Forest, he will communicate with the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests, urging them to give further facilities to the inhabitants of the Forest of Dean for purchasing waste or other land in the said Forest belonging to the Crown, for building or garden purposes, as provided by the Act 10 George IV., c. 50, s. 98?
  MR. R. E. PLUNKETTwished to ask a Question of which he had given Private Notice, Whether the hon. Gentleman could hold out any hope that the Government would undertake any legislation upon this subject during the present Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said he had already communicated with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who were under the impression that they did not possess sufficient powers under the section of the Act to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. They had been requested to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and if it was found that that section did not give sufficient authority to the Commissioners to sell land for building or garden purposes in the Forest, a short Bill would be introduced with the view of giving them that authority, and also to enable them to lease land in the Forest.
  In reply to, a further Question from Colonel KINGSCOTE,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would undertake to communicate the decision of the Law Officers as soon as it was received.

  VACCINATION ACT—PROSECUTIONS—CASE OF JOSEPH ABEL.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. JAMESasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is the case that Joseph Abel has been fined eleven times during the last four-
  1570
  teen months by the local magistrates upon the information of the Board of Guardians of the Farringdon Union for refusing to have his child vaccinated; whether it is the case that the chairman of the convicting magistrates on many of the above-mentioned occasions is also the chairman of the beard of guardians, and the costs of prosecution have included in several instances the payment of a fee to an attorney, who is also clerk to the same guardians; and, whether he will take any special steps to arrest, if possible, further prosecutions being taken in his case, in accordance with the instructions issued by the Local Government Board in the course of last year to the Evesham Board of Guardians?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he had made inquiries into the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and had found that Joseph Abel had been 11 times before the Farringdon magistrates within the past 14 months for refusing to have his child vaccinated, but that only on six occasions was he fined. In the other cases he paid the costs of the proceedings, which did not include any fine. The Chairman of the convicting magistrates happened on two occasions—namely, in May and November, 1876—to be the Chairman of the Board of Guardians. On the sixth occasion that a fine was inflicted the prosecution was conducted by the clerk to the Guardians as their attorney, and the magistrates, in their discretion, allowed him a fee of one guinea as a part of the costs. As to whether any special steps had been taken to arrest further prosecutions in this case, he had nothing to add to what he said last August on the subject. The Guardians of the Farringdon Union were made aware last year of the policy which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had endeavoured to promulgate in a letter to the Evesham Guardians. But they had exercised the discretion which that letter left to them and had continued to prosecute Joseph Abel, and although his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) general view was that it was undesirable to institute prosecutions so frequently, he was unable to say that, in their discretion, they had not good grounds for the decision at which they had arrived.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, Whether the fee of a guinea to the attorney was not unusual in such cases?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that it had struck him as very unusual, and that he had caused inquiries to be made respecting it.

  ARMY—ESCAPE OF A DEFAULTING OFFICER—QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Belfast Morning News" of Tuesday, May 29th, in a letter signed "Inquirer," of whom the editor says—
  "We are prepared to say that implicit credence may be given to his facts." Referring to the 94th Regiment, "As the matter at present stands it would appear as if certain officers of the regiment have connived at the escape from justice of a man said to have been guilty of a crime. The question presents itself—How is it that the officer alluded to is an absconder. Is duty so laxly performed in the 94th that a prisoner can so easily escape. We know that, accused of a crime, he was placed under arrest and that he broke his arrest, for, leaving the officers' quarters in broad day, he quitted by the barrack gate and fled. But how was it that he was able to do so,"
  and, whether, if the above statement is well founded, any inquiry has been instituted into the matter, and with what result?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, my attention was called to the paragraph about the same time by the hon. Member's Question and by an anonymous letter in which it was enclosed to me. It is perfectly well known that an officer of the 94th Regiment was charged with an offence. He escaped; but there is no reason whatever, as I am informed, to suspect any connivance on the part of any of the officers or soldiers in the regiment. There was nothing so extraordinary in the case as to make the arrest different from that which is usual in the case of an officer. He was placed upon parole, and he broke his parole and escaped from barracks. There was nobody in charge of him. He was trusted on his word, and he broke it.

  LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATIONS.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I rise to put the Question which stands in my name. On the 31st of last month the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), the pre-
  1572
  sident of the federation to which it refers, made this statement—[Cries of "Order!"] Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is quite usual to make a statement of fact for the purpose of explaining a Question, although it is not allowable to use any argument. My hon. Friend the chairman of the society, about which I have to ask the Question, at a meeting of that society, made use of these words—
  "We hope the time is not far distant when we may see the meeting of what will really be a Liberal Parliament outside the Imperial Legislature, but, unlike it, elected by universal suffrage, and with some regard to a fair distribution of political power."
  I would now ask Mr. Attorney General the Question which stands in my name—Whether his attention has been called to a meeting lately held at Birmingham, where a political society or association was constituted, described as a Federation of Liberal Associations, on the following principles:—All Liberal Associations to enter into a Federal Union, preserving their independence, and separate organisation and administration, but the representatives of such associations to be convened from time to time to consider, by conferring together, the course of action to be recommended to their several associations; the object of the proposed organisation to be secured by the election of a council and committee of delegates of such associations; such associations to have separate and distinct presidents and other officers elected by and to act as officers of such associations, some of which presidents are to be members of the committee of such Federation; whether his attention has been called to Statute 39 Geo. III., c. 79, ss. 2 and 25, with reference to the legality of the said organisation; whether the Government is disposed to test the legality of the said organisation by taking the opinion of the law officers, or otherwise; and, whether such statute ought to be enforced or repealed?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: If the House will permit me, I will put the Question of which I have given Notice before the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General replies, as it is germane to the Question which has just been put. It is—To ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a political society or association, which has existed for several years, called the Na-

  1573
  tional Union, and which is a Federation of Conservative Associations on the following principles: — All Conservative Associations to form part of this National Union, preserving their independence and separate organisation and administration; but the representatives of such Associations to be convened from time to time to consider, by conferring together, the course of action to be recommended to their several Associations; the object of the proposed organisation to be secured by the election of a council and committee of delegates of such Associations; such Associations to have separate and distinct presidents and other officers elected by, and to act as officers of such Associations, some of which presidents are to be members of such National Union; whether his attention has been called to Statute 39 George III. c. 79, ss. 2 and 25, with reference to the legality of the said organisation; whether the Government is disposed to test the legality of the said organisation by taking the opinion of the Law Officers or otherwise; and, whether such Statute ought to be enforced or repealed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I will answer the Questions which have been put to me separately. First, to deal with the Question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), the statute to which he has called my attention was passed in 1799 for the effectual repression of societies established for seditious and treasonable purposes. [39 Geo. III., c. 79.] It recites that—
  "A traitorous conspiracy has been long carried on in conjunction with the persons from time to time exercising the powers of Government in France to overturn the Laws, Constitution, and Government, and every existing Establishment, civil and ecclesiastical, both in Great Britain and Ireland, and to dissolve the connection between the two Kingdoms so necessary to the security and prosperity of both; and that to carry this design into effect divers societies have been instituted of a new and dangerous character, particularly the 'United Englishmen,' the 'United Scotsmen,' the 'United Britons,' the 'United Irishmen' and the London Corresponding Societies."
  These societies the statute represses by name, and it then proceeds to set forth in very comprehensive terms the circumstances which shall render societies in general unlawful, and it goes on to provide that—
  1574
  "All who shall, by contributions of money, or otherwise, aid, abet, or support such society, shall be deemed guilty of unlawful combination and confederacy."
  The statute then provides that such persons shall be subject to certain penalties and punishments, and, notably, the punishment of transportation for seven years, or imprisonment for two years. Now, the hon. and learned Baronet asks me whether the Confederation of Liberal Associations established by the hon. Member for Birmingham is a society which comes within the prohibitory provisions of this statute. Having given the question my very careful and serious consideration—for it is a question of great difficulty—I have come to the conclusion that, as at present constituted, that Federation does not come within the spirit of the Act, or within its exact letter. With respect to the inquiry of the hon. and learned Baronet, whether the Government is disposed to test the legality of the said organization by taking the opinion of the Law Officers or otherwise, I have no reason to believe that the Government has any such intention; but I beg to point this out to my hon. and learned Friend, it will be quite open to him in the most effectual way to test the legality of this organization, by preferring an indictment against the hon. Member for Birmingham and those who have aided and abetted in the formation of this society; and the only difficulty in adopting such a course seems to me to be this, that if the Court upon the trial of such an indictment should come to the conclusion that the construction of the Act of Parliament which my hon. and learned Friend seems inclined to adopt is the correct one, a sentence of penal servitude or of imprisonment would have to be inflicted upon the accused, the political Friends of the hon. and learned Baronet. But I have no doubt that upon a recommendation to mercy by the hon. and learned Baronet, and upon the accused undertaking forthwith to dissolve the obnoxious association, the Court might be disposed to mitigate the sentence. As to the remaining part of the Question of the hon. and learned Baronet, whether such a statute, ought to be enforced or repealed, that is a question of policy, and not of law, and upon questions of policy I do not feel myself called upon to give an

  1575
  opinion. With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), I find upon perusing it that there is considerable similarity between it and the Question of the hon. and learned Baronet; so much so, that I think that my reply to the latter may, mutatis mutandis, be applicable to the former. I beg, however, to add this much—that I have an assurance from the honorary Secretary of the National Union, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who thoroughly understands the constitution and objects of this organization, that it was established not, to use the words in the recital of the statute of George III., "to overturn the Laws and Constitution of the Government," but for the purpose of maintaining them.

  FISHERIES—USE OF DYNAMITE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ERRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has yet received any Reports from the Inspectors of Fisheries as to the use by fishermen and poachers of dynamite to destroy fish in the sea and rivers; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of such Reports, and will state what steps he proposes to take to check a practice so destructive?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: No, Sir. The Inspectors have completed their investigations so far as the sea fisheries are concerned. They are at present considering the question of river fisheries. As soon as I have received the Reports I shall have great pleasure in laying them on the Table.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Under Secretary of State for India, -Whether the Civil Service Commissioners have proposed any modifications as to the subjects of Examination for Indian Civil Service Candidates under the new Regulations; and, if so, whether they have been approved by the Secretary of State for India, and will be laid upon the Table of the House at an early date?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, a letter was received last week from the Civil Service Commissioners, stating the modifications which they propose to make
  1576
  in the subjects of examination in the competition for the Indian Civil Service. This letter is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and there will be no objection to lay it upon the Table of the House when a decision has been arrived at.

  CRIMINAL LAW—RELEASE OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can hold out any hope of the release of the Fenian Prisoners still undergoing penal servitude, provided they give their word never again to participate, directly or indirectly, in any treasonable practices, or that they will at once leave the country not to return?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I must once more express my objection to these persons being considered, treated, or called Fenian or political prisoners. The contention of the late and of the present Government always has been that they are not political prisoners in the true sense of the word. I can only say, what I am sorry to say I have said once or twice before so far as regards two of them—there are only six of them altogether. With regard to those two they were, in the opinion of the Government—and I believe in the opinion of the country also—found guilty of murder. So far as they are concerned, I can only repeat that which I have said before, that the law in their case must take its course. Their case has been brought under the consideration of the Government, just as those of other persons convicted at the same time. The only other case of a civil prisoner is that of Davitt, of whom I have nothing to say. The Prime Minister last year went at considerable length into his case. He and another man named Wilson were both convicted at the same time, and Wilson was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, and this man to 15 years. The learned Judge who tried the case—the Lord Chief Justice—expressly stated that owing to special circumstances, to which I need not now refer, a marked distinction must be made between the two cases. The matter was brought under the notice of the Government at the time Wilson had worked out his sentence—that, I think, was the end of 1875—and it was again stated that there must be a

  1577
  marked distinction between the case of Wilson and that of Davitt. How long it may be necessary for Davitt to remain in prison is another matter. The Prime Minister stated that was a question which would receive the anxious and careful consideration of the Government; but it is not necessary he should remain in for the full term of 15 years. With regard to the other three, they are all soldiers; and in the case of soldiers questions of military discipline must necessarily enter into the consideration of any person who has to consider this matter; and in this case I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he should conclude his observations with a Motion. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering the Question, had entered upon a subject not contained within the compass of the Question, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had so carefully framed that the word "political" was nowhere to be found in it. The term "Fenian prisoners" as applied to these men, was scrupulously accurate, and the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way and violated the custom of the House in introducing it. He had also repeated the statement that those persons were not to be regarded as political prisoners. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) entered his protest against such an assertion; they were political prisoners, and it was shelving the question and avoiding the point at issue for any right hon. Gentleman to assert that they were not. There was no parallel to be found in the history of civilized nations for the manner in which these Fenian prisoners had been treated by the present Administration. Her Majesty's Government had been obliged, in order to save themselves from the odium that must attach to their exceptional conduct, to protest from time to time that these men were not political prisoners. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) asserted, in the name of his constituents, and he believed also on the part of the majority of the Irish Representatives, that they were political prisoners; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that upon no occasion would a Representative of the Irish people allow him to attempt to stain the character of these men by comparing them to wife murderers, burglars, or
  1578
  common offenders. He moved the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, a debt of gratitude was due to his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo—["Oh, oh!"]—whatever hon. Members on the other side might think, for drawing the attention of the House to the deliberate way in which the Home Secretary had tried to shelve this question. The right hon. Gentleman bad endeavoured to avert from the English people the stigma which must always attach to them for their treatment of their political prisoners during the past 10 years by putting the latter in the same class as ordinary felons and convicts. He protested against such a course; these men were in every sense of the word both political and Fenian prisoners. Davitt was convicted of treason-felony, and was that a political offence or not? He could not trust himself to speak further, and he would only remind the House how time after time cases of cruelty and ill-treatment had been proved to demonstration in the House, and time after time the Government officials could not deny them, and yet they were in the same position as six years ago, and there was no alleviation in the treatment of the prisoners, which was worse than that of the worst of criminals.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYregarded it as a remarkable circumstance in the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he had dealt with the case of three prisoners only, while he had referred to the Secretary for War as an authority in the case of three of the other prisoners. It was not a very happy circumstance, and one that ought not to be passed over. It would appear that these men were detained in prison because of the fear of the effect of their release upon the Army. If they were to look to the military authorities, it would confirm as more or less correct the rumours current in Ireland and elsewhere that the highest authority at the head of the Army stood between these prisoners and an amnesty. If the declaration they had heard were correct, he must look at the matter in a totally

  1579
  different way, and believe that the men were now kept in prison for military reasons, and not because they were political offenders.
  MR. SULLIVANregretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had answered the Question in the manner he had. He had not the slightest doubt of the personal feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, and believed that he would be rejoiced if he could make a more pleasing statement; but he under-gauged the depth of feeling in Ireland on the subject when he supposed he could induce hon. Members around him to run away with the idea that these men were murderers or common criminals. Whatever might be thought in England, the sympathy of the Irish people was not aroused by such crimes. He would recall the fact of Davitt's conviction to the Home Secretary. That man never would have been convicted, unless he had been a political offender. He was charged with the sale and purchase of arms in England, where such a thing would not be a crime unless with political associations. Nor could the legal Advisers of the State have secured a conviction unless on political grounds. How could the Irish Members be patient under the inconsistency which he now charged upon the Ministers of the Crown—that in order to obtain a conviction of the man they pledged their word that the offence was political, and then, to keep him in prison, they pledged their word that the crime was not political. If it had not been proved to be a political offence he committed, Davitt never would have been convicted, and he (Mr. Sullivan) invited the Attorney General to contradict that if it was not so. Yet, to-day, the House was told that these men were to be retained in prison on the ground that their offences were not political. Such an assertion was inconsistent with political truth and fact, and no authority of the Crown or of the Horse Guards would induce the people to believe otherwise.
  MR. ANDERSONdesired to point out, in reply to the hon. Member for Louth that the state of Irish opinion had nothing to do with the question. It was simply the sentence of a lawful Court which was being undergone, and that sentence could not be altered by the political feeling of the Irish people, for that ought to have nothing to do with
  1580
  it. He felt disposed to agree with the Home Secretary, that these were not mere political prisoners, but that they were that and something more, that was, they were guilty of political offences aggravated in some other criminal way. He would remind hon. Members from Ireland, that although the right hon. Gentleman had said that the law should take its course as to those convicted of murder, he had held out a hope that those not guilty of murder would have some mercy shown them, and that the time for considering it, in the case of one of them, Davitt, he almost said had now come. He hoped that was so, and that before long some measure of mercy would be extended to others of the least criminal.
  MR. BIGGARcalled attention to those men convicted of the attack upon the prison van, and refused to believe that they would have been convicted of any crime but manslaughter, unless they had been regarded as political offenders. Upon the evidence of thieves and prostitutes of what took place, amid a scene of the greatest confusion, three men were hanged, two suffered penal servitude, and on the same evidence received a free pardon.
  MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, that the great mistake made by the three men was that they did not succeed; if they had they would have been considered political prisoners. There was now on the Continent of Europe a man upon whose head the price of thousands of pounds had been set by the Austrian Government. He had taken up arms against the Emperor of Austria, and, no doubt, had been the cause of death to thousands of Austrian soldiers. He was a violent politician, and yet now what was he?—Prime Minister of Austria.
  Question put, and negatived.

  MINES ACT, 1872—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the case of John Newry and Co. of the Barrow Hill Coppa Colliery and the Tansey Green Colliery, near Gornall, which appeared in the "Staffordshire Advertiser" dated the 19th May 1877, in which it is stated that firm had been convicted of six infringements of "The

  1581
  Mines Act, 1872," and for which it was amerced in penalties amounting to nearly 50; and, whether he will deal with this case under the provisions of the 32nd Clause of the Mines Act?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that the matter was under consideration, and he would require further information before coming to any conclusion on the matter.

  INDIA—AMEER OF AFGHANISTAN—THE CONFERENCE AT PESHAWUR.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government can without inconvenience produce any Papers relating to the Conference at Peshawur, between representatives of the Indian Government and of the Ameer of Afghanistan?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Conferences at Peshawur, Sir, were for the purpose of making communications to the Ameer, which if a British Envoy were permitted to reside in the Ameer's territories would have been made through the ordinary diplomatic channels. No change in our obligations to the Ameer has been the result of the Conference, but it would not be consistent with the interests of the public service to publish the conversation.

  STOCK EXCHANGE FRAUDS — LEGTSLATION.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, with reference to the serious division of opinion among the Judges on the question whether Stock Exchange practices, which all consider to be dishonest and immoral in the highest degree, are punishable by the existing Criminal Law, and also to the opinion of the Attorney General, that it is no part of his duty to initiate criminal proceedings against the promoters of Companies, the Government are still considering the expediency of strengthening the Law for dealing with financial and commercial frauds, and of appointing a public prosecutor, who may deal with the delinquencies of the rich as effectually as the police deal with those of the poor?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that the hon. Member must be aware that a Commission had been very lately appointed to inquire into the whole subject. He was bound to say that under the circumstances it would be wise to wait for their Report before any such steps as those suggested were taken. He would be quite ready to do so, if the Report required it.

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY EXEMPTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will give directions to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to furnish the Commissioners of Income Tax and Inhabited House Duty with an enumeration of such trades as are exempted from Inhabited House Duty under the provisions of the 32nd and 33rd Victoria, chapter 14, section 11?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he could assure his hon. Friend that the Government would be very glad to render any assistance in their power to the Commissioners of income Tax, to whom a debt of gratitude was due for discharging a very troublesome and important duty from merely public spirit; but it would be rather difficult for him to do what his hon. Friend asked him to do. According to the law, every trade properly so called was exempted; but a difficulty arose in certain border cases, as to whether this or the other Profession ought properly to be called a trade. He did not see that the Commissioners could do anything except exercise their best discretion in deciding the cases as they came before them, subject to appeals to the Superior Courts. Some appeals were at present before the Courts and were about to be brought to a conclusion. When those appeals were decided he presumed that the difficulty which the Commissioners at present laboured under would come to an end. Therefore he did not think it necessary to give any special instructions to the Commissioners at the present time.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—TEACHING OF COOKERY IN BOARD SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
  MR. LEVESON GOWERasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether

  1583
  he would lay upon the Table of the House the Memorials that have been received by the Education Department from the School Boards of large towns on the subject of the teaching of cookery?
  VISCOUNT SANDON,in reply, said, he should have no objection to produce, if they were moved for, the Memorials referred to in the Question of the hon. Member.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—BLOCKADE IN THE BLACK SEA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. D. JENKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has any information showing that the Russian ports in the Black Sea are not effectively blockaded; whether it is true that Russian vessels are proceeding without hindrance between the ports of Odessa and Nicolaieff; whether, in the event of British vessels entering and leaving these ports without hindrance from Turkish cruisers, Her Majesty's Government will allow such vessels to be interfered with by the Ottoman Porte on their return through the Bosphorus; and, whether the Turkish Government should be notified that Her Majesty's Government will not recognise any blockade which is not effective as prescribed by the Declaration of Paris?
    MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, no official information had been received at the Foreign Office as to whether the blockade of certain ports in the Black Sea was inefficient. They had, however, received information from private sources that certain vessels which before the blockade were in the habit of running between Nicolaieff and Odessa had run again between those two ports. That was all the information he could give him on that point. With regard to the third part of the Question, he had to state that no case of that kind had occurred, where there had been any interference on the part of the authorities of the Porte. If any case of the kind did occur, of course, it would depend entirely on the facts of that particular case whether it was illegal or not. If a vessel were captured, the case would be taken before a Prize Court for that Court to decide. The House would, therefore, see it would be inexpedient for him to answer a question of a hypothetical cha-
    1584
    racter, or to give an opinion on the subject before the facts of any particular case were known. As regarded the last part, it was well known that the Turkish Government were parties to the Declaration of Paris, and therefore it was not necessary, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government to notify that fact to them.

  NAVY—MARINE OFFICERS—REPORT OF COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When it is expected that the Joint Committee of the Treasury and Admiralty, appointed in February last to consider the scheme for the amelioration of the position of Marine Officers, will make their Report; and whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the scheme has been shelved?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON, in reply, said, the Joint Committee referred to had met several times and were proceeding with their investigation. He hoped the Committee would make their Report shortly. There was no foundation whatever for the rumour referred to.

  COAL MINES—TYNEWYDD COLLIERY EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any decision has been come to repecting the miners who took part in rescuing the men from the inundated colliery, and who should be recommended to Her Majesty's consideration as proper recipients of the Albert Medal?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that a very careful investigation had been made, and that certain recommendations had been submitted to Her Majesty. He hoped to be able before long to state them to the House.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. WHITBREADasked, Whether the Valuation of Property Bill was likely to come on for discussion on an early day?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he could not give an immediate answer to the Question. At present the Government were anxious

    1585
    to finish the Prisons Bill and Universities Bill. Then they were backward in Supply and must get some Money Votes before the end of the month, in order to avoid the necessity of taking Votes on Account. Again, it was important to introduce the Indian Budget as speedily as possible, and he should be very glad if it could be brought forward in the course of this week. These measures must necessarily take precedence of the Valuation Bill.
    MR. FAWCETTthought it desirable that Notice should be given as to the day on which the Indian Budget would be brought forward, and said he would put a Question on that subject tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

ADMINISTRATION OF IRISH AFFAIRS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BUTT,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it would conduce to the better administration of Irish affairs if a department, such as the Local Government Board and the Commissioners of Public Works, were presided over, as is the case of corresponding departments in England, by a responsible Minister not incapable of sitting in Parliament,"
  said, that a great deal was done in Public Business by Departments. He did not wish to say anything about Education as a change was to be made; and it would be well to wait for that. But the Local Government Board in Ireland exercised a great deal of control over the Poor Law and municipal government in Ireland, and he wished to show the necessity of establishing a system such as in England brought the control of Parliament directly to bear on the management of the Board. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary was only nominally a Member of the Board, for it could not be supposed that he could take an active part in their work. He (Mr. Butt) wished for a responsible Minister who might have a seat in the
  1586
  House. The House would never have an efficient control over Irish affairs until some such official was appointed. Again, the Board of Works had many very important functions, and had the control over a great deal of money and other property. One of its duties was the regulation of the Royal Parks. As an instance of the want of proper controlling power, he would refer to the lamentable conflict which took place in Phoenix Park some seven years ago between the police and the people. He would not go into the affair, except so far as to show how divided was the rule and responsibility of such affairs in Ireland. Some persons determined to hold a meeting in favour of obtaining the release of the Fenian prisoners, somewhat in the style of the London meetings in Hyde Park in favour of reforms in England. The Law Officers decided that if the people got into the Park, it would be impossible to prevent a meeting being held; but in the Phoenix Park, the people were allowed to assemble, and then they were violently disturbed by a body of police. The property was, no doubt, that of the Sovereign, but the management was invested in the Commissioners of Public Works, who alone had power to prohibit the meeting. The Chief Secretary admitted no responsibility for the affair when he was examined at the trial, and had not thought it his duty to give the Under Secretary the necessary instructions. Here, then, was a very strong illustration of the want of responsibility, and it was plain that these Boards were nothing more than shields for the higher officers of State, who really ought to be responsible. Even the Commissioners could do nothing without formal instructions. Their Secretary had been examined, and it appeared that there were three Commissioners who never consulted together or any of recorded their proceedings. No minutes had been taken for two or three years of a Board supposed to administer the whole of the Irish Land Act. Now, in a matter such as an illegal meeting, it could not be right that both the Chief Secretary and the Commissioners should repudiate all responsibility. A Minister having a seat in Parliament, as he had said, should be at the head of the Department of Public Works, and if there were such an official, public opinion would be brought to bear upon the de-

  1587
  tails of Irish administration. He believed the worst government in the world was government by Boards, and he trusted that the authorities would, by the change he advocated, help to educate and stimulate public opinion. The number of officials in the House of Commons was surprising. There were, he thought, 37, but of those only two were Irish officials. There would be no difficulty in finding the official required. He could himself suggest several hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who would be perfectly qualified for the position; and it was his opinion that if they had these administrative Departments to which he had alluded, presided over by men who were Irishmen and whom they could question in the House, it would materially improve the tone of public opinion in Ireland. He had also to complain that the Government did not give Irishmen a chance of being trained in subordinate offices, so as to fit them for the higher offices of State. They had an Englishman at the head of the Local Government Board, a Scotchman at the head of the Board of Works, an Englishman at the head of the Constabulary in Ireland, perhaps the most important office under existing circumstances in the Irish Administration, and an English Commissioner of Dublin police. In fact, wherever they went, they found Irishmen excluded from sharing in the administration of the affairs of their own country. He thought that the strongest reason he could adduce in favour of his proposition was the unhappy affair in the Phœnix Park. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it would conduce to the better administration of Irish affairs if a department, such as the Local Government Board and the Commissioners of Public Works, were presided over, as is the case of corresponding departments in England, by a responsible Minister not incapable of sitting in Parliament,"—( Mr. Butt,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to express his sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), inasmuch as the inconvenience felt in
  1588
  Ireland was also felt in Scotland. Their Boards were not properly represented in that House, and he hoped the Home Secretary might be able to clear up some doubt which still existed as regarded the responsibility for Scotch Business in that House. In former times, it was supposed that the Lord Advocate was the Minister for Scotland; but at the beginning of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was pressed a good deal about the responsibility for what was done, or rather, he thought he might say for what was not done, with regard to Scotch Business, and then the right hon. Gentleman distinctly and entirely took the responsibility upon himself. He said that with regard to Scotch Business, hon. Members were to apply to him, and he understood him to lead them to suppose that the Lord Advocate was in reality simply in the position of Attorney General for Scotland. He was therefore rather surprised when the other day he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Local Taxation Returns for Scotland, to find that he referred him back again to the Lord Advocate. Now, although he was not himself in favour of trusting all Scotch Business to a lawyer exclusively, yet if it were the fact that the Lord Advocate was not in reality an Attorney General, but a Minister under the Secretary of State, responsible for Scotch Business, they would have the advantage of knowing where they were and to whom they were to look in regard to Scotch Business. If the Lord Advocate was not to be something more than an Attorney General—if he was not in reality something of the nature of an Under Secretary of State for Scotland, then he would wish to suggest that at the present moment Scotch Members were somewhat ill-used in this respect, because formerly a practice existed whereby a Scotch Member of the Treasury took a very active part in Scotch Business, and did this work as a Minister responsible for Scotch Boards and Scotch affairs, such as was now demanded for Ireland. He understood that was an arrangement which was at one time made, but which had to a great degree ceased. He understood that the office of Scotch Lord of the Treasury was now held by an hon. Member whom he saw opposite (Sir James Elphinstone), but his functions

  1589
  were not generally very active in that House, and he was not a very constant attendant. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] If he had clone an injustice to the hon. Member, he readily apologized; but he understood that the hon. Member opposite did not make himself responsible in any degree for the active conduct of Scotch Business, and that the arrangement which formerly subsisted, by which the Scotch Lord of the Treasury was practically an Under Secretary of State for Scotland, had ceased to be the practice at the present time. Therefore he did hope that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would tell them whether the Lord Advocate was really a responsible Minister for Scotch affairs in all Departments, as well as in his own legal Department; and, if not, whether the Government would take an early opportunity of considering the question whether the conduct of Scotch affairs might not again be conducted through an officer who, drawing a salary as Scotch Lord of the Treasury, should act in the capacity of a quasi -Under Secretary of State?
  ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would remind hon. Members that they were talking just now of an Irish subject, and not of Scotland, and thought it would be well that they should confine their attention strictly to Ireland. He would only observe that what he said the other day was that, as Secretary of State, he was responsible for the Scotch Business in that House. Any Scotch Member who had any grievance to coin-plain of had only to come to him, and he would do his best to see that measures were taken to put it right. That the Lord Advocate gave him the most material assistance was quite true. The Lord Advocate was intimately versed in all the details of administration, and that he received the greatest possible assistance from him he most readily acknowledged, but he (Mr. Cross) was responsible practically for the conduct of Scotch Business in that House. With regard to the particular question of local taxation, he was responsible for seeing that he got the Returns. All he said upon that matter was, that the Lord Advocate would show the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) at once how easy it would be to obtain the information, and not put him to any trouble. He (Mr. Cross) would under-
  1590
  take that the hon. Gentleman got the information for which he asked.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not consider that what the hon. and learned Member for Limerick recommended was the best course to adopt. He thought that the real remedy would be for the Irish Secretary to pay more deference to the opinion of Irish Members.
  MR. GRAYobserved that there was no real responsibility to that House. It was impossible to fix responsibility upon anyone. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary was nominally the President of the Local Government Board; but he took no personal part in its deliberations, and therefore he could not be responsible for it. The real work was left to three gentlemen, who were Poor Law Commissioners, and who were now by virtue of an Act of Parliament members of the Local Government Board; and, without saying anything derogatory to their personal qualifications, he could not admit that they had the confidence of the country. He had known cases in which the Local Government Board had acted in a most arbitrary and unconstitutional manner, but there were no means of getting at them. There was a Bill before that House for the consolidation of the sanitary laws of Ireland, in which the Chief Secretary took a great interest, and there was a great deal of complaint about the obstructive policy pursued with regard to that measure. For himself, he should hesitate to support it, for it proposed to increase the power of a Board in which the country had no confidence and which could not be made responsible. There was a waste of money at the Board of Works, and competent authorities declared that the work could be done for half the money. The Board did things which they would never have dreamt of doing if they had a responsible Member in the House. Take the case of a nice slice of the Queen's Park being given to the nephew of a learned Judge. ["No, no!"] Well, he apologized—it was the son-in-law of a learned Irish Judge. It was a pretty bit of the Park given to him at a rental. Would any Judge dare to ask for a bit of a London Park for his son-in-law? That was a very small case; but it was one of many cases, and, rightly or wrongly, there was in the public mind more than a suspicion

  1591
  that the affairs of these Boards were not well conducted, and it was a serious grievance in Ireland that if there was a complaint, it was absolutely impossible to fix the responsibility. It was useless to have a nominal representation in that House who had more important duties to perform, and whose responsibility to that House therefore practically ceased.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he felt himself unable to join in anything like a censure upon the present mode of conducting Irish Business. Judging from some of the expressions made use of, it might almost seem as if blame was to be attached to the Chief Secretary. ["No, no!"] He was glad to hear the disclaimer, as he would otherwise have been compelled to demur to such an assumption. The right hon. Gentleman had never shirked his responsibility; but had always been ready to answer in the House for the manner in which Irish affairs had been conducted. He dissented also from the blame cast upon the public Boards referred to. No doubt, certain acts of those Departments might be found fault with by some persons, but the same thing existed in England. If, however, the Motion was intended to imply that the present head of the Irish Department in this House was a very hard-worked Minister, he entirely concurred in it, because he believed there was no Member of the Government who had more arduous and difficult duties to perform.
  MR. BUTTdisclaimed the slightest or any intention whatever, in bringing forward this Motion, of making an attack on the right hon. Gentleman. It was the system of which he complained.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, that he understood that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was only attacking the system; and, certainly, if he had attacked the way in which his (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's) own duties were performed, he should not have felt that it would be becoming for him to attempt any reply. However, he desired to express his hearty thanks to his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) for the opinion he had expressed on that subject. The hon. and learned Member attacked the system on two grounds—first, that the various Departments of the Irish Government were administered rather by Boards than by Ministers personally responsible
  1592
  to that House; and, secondly, that these Boards were not composed of Irishmen, and that Irishmen generally had not a fair share in the Government of the United Kingdom. He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member as to the second objection. The present Vice President of the Local Government Board, and the present heads of the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin police happened to be Englishmen or Scotchmen. But if hon. Members looked to the other persons who controlled those Deparments, he believed they would find that the second in command both of the Dublin police and the Irish Constabulary were Irishmen; that two members of the Local Government Board were Irishmen, and that Irish blood was very fully represented on the Board of Works. He did not think that men should be chosen for such appointments on the ground of their nationality, but on the ground of their being fit for the place; but it had happened that two Irish gentlemen had on his recommendation been appointed, one as a Commissioner of the Local Government Board, and another as the second in command of the Irish Constabulary. But as regarded the composition of the Government, when it was remembered that his noble Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Lord Crichton) and his right hon. Friend the Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel Taylor) were respectively a Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it would be seen that Ireland had as great a share in the composition of the Government as Scotland. And when the hon. and learned Member for Limerick hoped that some day an Irishman might rise to the distinguished position of a Member of the Cabinet, he was astounded that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have forgotten that one of the most distinguished Members of the present Cabinet was Lord Cairns, who was an Irishman, and for many years had been Member for Belfast. As to the objection raised that the Government of Ireland was too much in the hands of Boards, he might say, in the first place, that that objection could hardly be applied to the Local Government Board, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray). He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was the President of the Local Government Board, and he was, to use the

  1593
  words of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion, a "responsible Minister not incapable of sitting in Parliament." No doubt the whole of the ordinary daily administration of the Local Government Board was conducted, and most ably conducted, by Sir Alfred Power. But why was it that the daily administration of the ordinary work had fallen into the hands of the Vice President of the Board rather than the President? Unquestionably, because it was necessary that matters of this kind should be decided by a person actually on the spot. He was not speaking of important matters of policy; he was speaking of the ordinary details of administration, and he thought that it would be impossible for him, having, as he had, other duties to perform here, to attend to such details; while, on the other hand, it would be an unnecessary multiplication of offices to appoint a responsible Minister capable of sitting in Parliament, only for the purpose of presiding over the Local Government Board. The work of the Local Government Board was performed by the Vice President, after consultation with his Colleagues, and when important matters arose, he had invariably consulted him (the Chief Secretary) and acquainted him with what he proposed to be done; and, of course, in all matters of legislation, he was the responsible head of the Department, and he was prepared to answer any charges that might be made. It had been stated that these Boards were not responsible to Parliament. He denied that statement altogether. As a matter of fact, if anything was done by any one of those Boards it was brought before the notice of the House, and some Minister or other was bound, as the responsible Minister, to answer for that act. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had referred to Whitefield Lodge. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) must take exception to the statement that the Board of Works had given a residence to the son-in-law of a Judge as a matter of favour; on the contrary, the place was advertized in the public journals, tenders were asked for, and the gentleman who offered the highest tender was, subject to confirmation by the Government, accepted by the Board of Works. What happened? The matter was brought by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) under the notice of that
  1594
  House. He moved for the production of Papers. The subject was re-considered; and in the end, he presumed, dealt with satisfactorily to the hon. and learned Member opposite, for he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had never heard of it since. He could not imagine a more striking instance than that of the fact that, if necessary, any Department of the Government could be reached by a Motion made in that House, to which some responsible Minister was bound to reply. Then, with reference to O'Byrne v. Hartington, he certainly recollected that his Predecessor in office (the Marquess of Hartington) had upon more than one occasion been called to account for his share in the action taken to suppress the meeting in the Phœnix Park; and therefore he could not see how it could be said with justice that an attempt had been made to push off responsibility upon the Board of Works. The fact was, that details of local business must be locally conducted; but they were so conducted under the supervision and under the direct responsibility of the Government. If anything was done to which hon. Members for Ireland could take objection, they had always shown themselves ready to bring it forward, they experienced no difficulty in doing so, and if they disagreed with what had been said by the Minister, they could always exercise their privilege of dividing the House against the Government upon the question. He did not see any obstacle in the way of obtaining redress, but he did say that if each and every one of those Departments were all, as he thought the hon. and learned Member would propose, put under a separate Parliamentary official, they would have an infinite and unnecessary multiplication of offices, of which some at any rate would be sinecures; or if they did not have these, they would be all absorbed in English Departments of the corresponding kind. He did not think that the adoption of the second alternative would be satisfactory to hon. Members representing Irish constituencies; and he felt equally sure that the first would not result in any benefit to the country.
  MR MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not care much for the appointment of more Irish supporters of the Government to offices either in that House or out of it. It seemed to him that the Government of Ireland was so abomi-

  1595
  nably bad, and so opposed to everything of what a popular constitution should be, that he could have very little sympathy with any attempts to patch it up. It was based on two principles—first, to reward the most unpatriotic Irishmen that could be found; and, second, to find a shelter for the responsible heads of the Government from everything that was done. Nothing could be more absurd than the constitution of the Irish Education Board. It was composed of a great number of Judges and other persons selected by different Governments, and many of these never attended, except when there was something particular coming on in which they happened to feel an interest. He had also to complain of the anomaly of allowing Sir Richard Griffiths to continue a member of the Board of Works when, from his great age and his residence in England, he could not attend to the duties of the office. He objected to the patching up of this anomalous and objectionable system of government in order to weaken the claim of the Irish people to manage their own affairs.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENregretted that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had not promised that Sir Richard Griffiths's place on the Board of Works should be filled up by someone competent to discharge the duties of the office, seeing that that gentleman remained on it as a mere puppet. He dissented, however, from the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) as to unpatriotic Irish Members obtaining appointments from the Government. He had seen Irish Members on both sides appointed by different Governments who, in the conduct of Public Business, had evinced an intelligence and an energy that conferred honour on their country. No doubt, the Irish people were entitled to administer their own affairs; but, in the meantime, he certainly advocated Irishmen having a fair share in the administration of the affairs of the country, and thought the Irish people would be very dissatisfied if that were not carried out.
  MR. PARNELLthought that no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had put his finger on a very great evil, and that it would be very difficult in the present state of affairs in Ireland to adopt an adequate
  1596
  remedy. There was no country in the world so much governed by Boards, and everybody who had lived in Ireland must have seen instances where the power of the Local Government Board and of the Commissioners of Public Works had been exercised adversely to the interests of the country, and he (Mr. Parnell) had no doubt that it was equally patent to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The question was, how were they to remedy the present state of affairs? The hon. and learned Member for Limerick suggested that those two Boards should be represented by a responsible Minister in that House. At first sight, it might appear as if such a step as that might increase the patronage and power of the Government, but that was not so. It would only increase Parliamentary patronage, and would transfer to Members of Parliament offices now held by those who were not Members of Parliament. He did not wish to draw any invidious distinctions with reference to the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sat behind the Treasury bench, and he would not say that they did not represent the intelligence of Ireland; but it must be remembered that by the past administration of Irish affairs the Government had put the people of Ireland in direct antagonism to the upper classes and the aristocracy of Ireland. There could be no question that the Irish Conservatives were in a position of very great difficulty in obtaining Representatives in that House, and therefore on that account he could not take it for granted that Irish Members on the opposite side did thoroughly represent the ability, education, and aristocracy of Ireland. From the very nature of the case, it followed that those hon. Gentlemen had been elected under exceptional circumstances, and if the Government were to choose from that body there would be a very limited choice, and he did not think that they could select from among them satisfactory occupiers of office. As to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), who had deprecated any attempt to alter the present system, because at some time or other they hoped to obtain self-government for Ireland, he (Mr. Parnell) was one of those who perhaps held rather peculiar views, and he thought that the question of self-government

  1597
  should be brought before the House, and if the Home Rule Members were only true to themselves, they would soon place it in a position of importance which it had not acquired up to the present time. The hon. Baronet had told them that he, for one, was not unwilling to make changes which were required now, but which would not be required under a system of self-government; there would be no doubt that under such a system it would be extended to local self-government and municipal government. The hon. Baronet had also said that Members from Ireland sitting on any side of the House, ought not to be precluded from sharing in the Government of the country, or from sharing in the places at the disposal of the Government. But the position of hon. Members on that side of the House was exceptional, and this had been proved by the manner in which offices had been bestowed by the present and past Governments. Those Governments, instead of assigning the offices as a reward of merit and ability, had deliberately given them to men who had prostituted themselves to the ends and aims which the Government had in view. He did not believe it was possible for any English Cabinet, or any number of English Members, to appreciate and understand the real mistakes they made, and he did not believe those mistakes would be corrected until they had a means of local self-government in Ireland which would be appreciated by the Irish people. He further believed it was impossible for the English Government to govern Ireland with a due regard to the interests, or in conformity with the feelings of the country, so long as they adhered to the system, which was that of ruling the country through a garrison, as it was called.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that as he had brought forward the Motion mainly with the view of raising a tentative discussion upon it, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw it. ["No, no!"]
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

  ORSERVATIONS.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN,who had given Notice to move the following Resolution:—
  1598
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Cadetships in the Royal Irish Constabulary should be thrown open to public competition similar to that now adopted with respect to first appointments in the Army,"
  but which he was prevented by the Forms of the House from moving, said that at present, as far as he understood, the system was this—a young gentleman who sought to obtain a cadetship in the Royal Irish Constabulary must get a nomination from the Lord Lieutenant, from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or from the Inspector General of the Constabulary. For every vacancy three nominations were given alternately by the Lord Lieutenant, by the Chief Secretary, and by the Inspector General. He considered that this practice ought to be abolished, and that public competitions should take place for the vacancies just as commissions in the Army were thrown open. The Royal Irish Constabulary Force now consisted of nearly 12,000 men, officered by over 200 officers, and he believed there were 26 county inspectors and 200 sub-inspectors. No one could get into this Force as an officer, unless he could get a Government nomination. These nominations were generally obtained through Members of Parliament; but, of course, no Home Rule Member could get a nomination, because he could not approach the Chief Secretary with whispered breath and bated humbleness, and therefore all the nominations went to the small body of Members behind the Treasury Bench. That, he thought, was extremely hard. He was desirous of having this question discussed in the House, after which lie thought the present system could not stand. He did not believe that there would be any danger imported into the Force by throwing open the cadetships to public competition. Of course if a system of open competition was established—and he did not see why it should not be as good for the Constabulary as for the Army—proper precautions must be taken against improper persons getting into the Force, but he believed this could be done, and that a Force, which he, unlike some hon. Members on that side of the House, looked upon with approval, could be protected against deterioration. In his belief it was a very efficient Force, and a great credit to the country.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that this subject had only very recently

  1599
  been brought under his notice, since there had been latterly a large reduction in the number of officers; and in consequence, until a few weeks ago, no fresh appointments had been made for some years past. But the competition for three appointments that had just taken place was conducted very much on the principle which the right hon. and learned Baronet had suggested to the House, but with this difference, that instead of the competition being an open one it was limited to five candidates for each vacancy. And if the nomination in one case had been given to the Inspector General of Constabulary, it had not been used as private patronage, but had been made the means of promoting a deserving head constable. The question raised by the Motion was really one between limited competition and open competition, and he confessed that he preferred the former to the latter for the Force. The argument that the same principle should be adopted for the Constabulary as for the Army was an argument that the Constabulary was a military Force; but he denied there was this analogy between the two, and he trusted that no one who ever occupied the position he held would regard the Force in that light. He did not think it possible, under the system of public competition, to take sufficient security for the fitness of candidates for the Irish Constabulary; and he thought it was very necessary that there should be sufficient security that no one should be permitted to enter the Force without proper qualifications. At the same time, it was possible that the present system of limited competition might be extended; in fact, he had already extended it in some degree, and in filling up future vacancies he should be prepared to proceed in a similar direction. Hon. Members from Ireland should remember that up to the present time the Irish Constabulary had been officered almost exclusively by Irishmen; but if the system of open competition was established there might be a large introduction of Englishmen and Scotch-men. He did not say that this would be an injury to the Force; but it would change its character very materially. He promised that the question should engage his attention, and he would endeavour to deal with it on the lines which he had sketched out.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he had no fear of the open competition of Englishmen and Scotchmen, for Irishmen had hitherto in all cases held their own very fairly in any public competition to which they had been admitted. As Irishmen were admitted to competitions for admission to many branches of the Imperial Service, and especially to the Indian Junior Civil Services, it would only be right that Englishmen and Scotchmen should be admitted to compete for office in Ireland. He believed, for his own part, that Irishmen had everything to gain by a general throwing open of the appointments to open competition, and he thought that throwing open the appointments in the Irish Constabulary to such competition would tend greatly in that direction. He did not believe that by adopting such a system they would get worse officers than at present, or even of inferior social position. This had certainly not been the case in the Army, but the contrary. The practice of open competition had been to raise the standard of efficiency, and he saw no reason why this should not be the case as regarded the Constabulary. Open competition had been productive of the best results in the Services, as it attracted better educated men. There was no doubt that the Indian Civil Service had been greatly improved by the introduction of open competition, for instead of studying a little for a mere pass examination, they had to study hard to beat one another. On making arrangements at the Castle in Dublin, by political services, or by cultivating social acquaintance, these were the means by which nominations were got. It was very unfair that such privileged persons should have the appointments, and thus keep others out. For that reason he thought the Irish Constabulary ought to be thrown open to public competition, and the same remark applied to all the Services. Let them introduce physical examinations, if they liked; but, whether at cricket or not, let the best men win.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYadmitted the desirability that a Force like the Irish Constabulary, which had to administer the law, and had besides many official duties, should be drawn from the people as much as possible, and should be officered by persons drawn from all classes. At the same time he agreed

  1601
  with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) that for a Force of that kind the present competitive examination was utterly inadequate for the selection of the proper men. It was impossible to form any opinion as to the tact of a young man by competitive examination, nor could they tell how he would conduct himself in difficult circumstances. In some Departments of the Indian Civil Service open competitions had been attended with success; but in other Departments it had been a failure. Considering the delicate and difficult nature of the duties which the Irish Constabulary had to discharge, they should hesitate before they adopted open competition. With regard to Englishmen and Scotchmen in Ireland he confessed he should not be sorry to see a few in the Irish Constabulary. An Englishman and a Scotchman had very different ideas as to the administration of the law, and as to the rights of those over whom he exercised that administration, from those of Irishmen. They had been accustomed to deal with people who stood on their rights, and who would resist any attempt to infringe their rights—who would in fact, always resist authority when they thought it was illegally and discourteously used. Therefore, an Englishman or a Scotchman might set an example to many Irish officials, who were wanting in the charities of official life, and bring other ideas of administration not only into the Irish Constabulary, but into other Departments of the State. He was always reluctant to say anything savouring of sectarianism, but when they considered the numbers of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the Force, it was easy to say that the proportion of the latter was very great. That, to say the least, was very natural, seeing that the upper classes were to a large extent Protestants. These who frequented the Castle, whose parents and relatives had held office, had been to a large extent Protestant. He did did not wish to make any suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as he was quite sure that none was necessary; but he would give a hint as to the undesirability of the system he seemed to approve—selecting candidates from those whose parents, or members of whose families, had been officials. He was very much afraid that
  1602
  this was calculated to create in Ireland an official caste which was already sufficiently strong, and it was unadvisable that it should grow stronger, especially in the Force which had to deal with the administration of law, and had so many social duties to perform. If the right hon. Gentleman knew as much as he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) did of the spirit of the country, and saw the hostility and the chasm which existed between the official classes and the people, and what a hobgoblin the official was to the shopkeeper, the farmer, or the labouring man, he would see how undesirable it was to perpetuate that official caste.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that no doubt the Force in Ireland was greatly indebted to his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) for bringing the subject before the House, and especially for having elicited from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the direction in which his own mind tended on that subject. He could do no more useful work during his term of office than to give the Irish Constabulary that non-Party character which was so desirable in a peace Force. There might be difficulties in throwing open the appointments to public competition; but nothing could be more desirable than that the system of nominations should monopolize the whole field of Constabulary appointments; and, for his own part, as an Irish Member of Parliament, he blessed the day when patronage had been taken from them to the extent to which it had been taken. He was proud to say of his own constituents that from the day he was elected four years ago to the present hour he had got but one application for anything like political patronage, and that, which happened to be for one of these nominations, he was obliged to refuse, stating as his apology that while the courtesy of the Government to Irish Members was beyond all expectation, he could not go to them, and ask them for a favour, as they invariably gave nothing for nothing. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would narrow as much as possible the area of possible Party appointments, and carry out the idea of opening all branches of the Public Service.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had asked the Government to postpone this Vote until the present occasion. He now wished to get at the precise amount of the Secret Service money that was spent in England, Ireland, and Scotland, divided into these three heads. He observed that this Secret Service Vote came under the head of England, and there was no Vote of Secret Service for Ireland and Scotland. He had no objection to a secret service. He knew it was one of the necessities of every State to have herself secretly served in foreign countries; that she should have secret emissaries to demoralize the servants of other Sovereigns, such as the Emperor of Russia, for the sake of the supposed interests of the Empire. Although he might have no objection to the demoralization of the subjects of the Czar by the application of Secret Service Money, he had a great objection to the demoralization of the people of Ireland. They had always had a great suspicion that a considerable portion of this sum was devoted to payments in Ireland, or in connection with supposed services to the Government in regard to Irish matters. As a proof of this, during the years 1865 and 1868 the sum voted annually for the Secret Service was £32,000, and this year it was only £24,000. In addition to that Vote they were told that the sum of £10,000 was charged annually on the Consolidated Fund for the Secret Service. In the years he had named, it was considered necessary by the English Government, for her own purposes, to pay considerable sums of money not entirely for Secret Service, because a great deal of it was performed in open Courts, in giving evidence on the trials of political prisoners. He wished to say that if any of this money was paid to persons in the United Kingdom, the portion of the
  1604
  Vote paid to such persons should be defined, and it should be told how much was paid with regard to Scotland, Ireland, and England. He heard an hon. Member who represented an important Scotch constituency say that no Secret Service Money was paid for Scotland, but how did he know that? They had had informers in Ireland, such as Massey, Corrigan, and others, who were described by Mr. Justice Keogh as dangerous characters in society. Possibly, some such men might still be living, and in receipt of money from the Secret Service Vote. If so, how much had been paid them? To give the Government and the Committee an opportunity of stating their opinions on this question, he would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £4, 000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,000, lie granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was exceedingly sorry he could not give the hon. Member the information he asked; but he did not possess it. Indeed, the Committee must see the sum would not be Secret Service Money at all if he was in a position to state exactly the purposes to which it was devoted. All he could say was, that the money was spent with the greatest possible care by the Ministers of the Crown, and as long as the necessity for a Secret Service unfortunately existed, the House must be content to leave the subject in the hands of responsible Ministers.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, all his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) asked for, and all the Committee asked for, and which they had a right to know, was an assurance on the part of the Government that the expenditure of the money was one that ought really to be considered a secret, and not for the purposes of compensation allowances and increase of salaries.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he must complain of the language of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in saying that the Government spent Secret Service money in demoralizing the subjects of the Czar. He did not think that that

  1605
  was language which ought to be used in the British House of Commons.
  MR. J. COWENconsidered the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had a right to know how the Secret Service Money was expended in Ireland. In his (Mr. Cowen's) opinion it was paid to spies and informers, who went among the people, misled the innocent, excited them to insurrection, and then gave evidence against them. For his part he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend for a reduction of the Vote. He considered the course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury wrong in asking the Committee to give assent to the Vote without giving any explanation respecting its application. He thought the demand reasonable that a distinction should be drawn between what was spent in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
  MR. RAMSAYagreed that the Secretary to the Treasury, in asking a Vote for such subjects as those of Secret Service, was bound to give some explanation; and with regard to its application to England, Ireland, and Scotland, the question ought, in his opinion, to be answered. In addition to this Vote for Secret Service, the sum of £10,000 was charged on the Consolidated Fund for the same purpose. It therefore seemed something like a mockery of the Forms of the House to place this sum in the Estimates, if they were not supposed to discuss and obtain some explanation of it. The Committee might be told where the money was spent, without being told how.
  MR. MACDONALDthought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was perfectly right in drawing attention to this subject, because the House ought to know how the money was spent. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) knew that Secret Service Money used to be paid in Scotland for the promotion of revolt and rebellion. [Mr. M'LAREN: Forty years ago.] Although it was 40 years ago, it was no less true. He contended that there ought to be an understanding that this Secret Service Money should not be spent in promoting rebellion. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not know how the money was spent, then how could he state that it was well spent? The hon. Member for Meath was entitled to demand an answer as to how
  1606
  much of this money went to Ireland, and they ought to know how much was expended in England and Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, it would be a misnomer to call the Vote one for Secret Service, if the Government had to give full particulars regarding it. But he thought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had a perfect right to ask whether any of the money was employed in Ireland, especially if he believed it was being employed for other than legal purposes, and contended that this money was given as a bribe. He begged to say that he had taken an interest in public matters in Scotland for 40 years, and he did not believe that any of this money went to that country now; but there was a time when it did, and that was when the Sidmouth Government existed. The money was sent to Scotland to induce the people to become seditious; but of late years he had not heard a whisper in Scotland that any of this money was expended there.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the nature of Secret Service was really called in question by the discussion. If the money was given, it was voted in confidence that the Government would apply it to purposes that were proper and not to such as were improper, and that it would be used only for purposes which, in the judgment of the Government, it would be inconvenient to make matter of public discussion. The question whether a part of the money was applied to the increase of salaries must have reference to a discussion that occurred a few years ago; up to which time it had been the practice to make additions out of the fund to certain Foreign Office salaries. The result of the discussion was that that practice was discontinued, and the money was not now applied in that way, nor in the payment of compassionate allowances. He hoped that much would be satisfactory to the Committee. The Committee would do well not to press the question now put, because it would be obvious that if the information were given, either it would be misleading, or it would be followed up by further questions which would be of a character to destroy all secrecy as to the disposition of the funds. Suppose it were stated how much was given to one portion of the United Kingdom, questions would arise as to the services rendered, whether

  1607
  they were rendered within it, or whether the money was paid to persons residing there in respect of services rendered abroad, and the result would be a discussion, which it was the very object of the Vote to render unnecessary. He could assure the Committee that so far as the expenditure of the money had come under his notice, there had been nothing improperly done with it; at the same time, he felt that, though it had been properly applied, it would be very inconvenient to make that application public. He had no doubt each of his Colleagues would say the same for the part of the expenditure for which he was responsible. He hoped the Committee would not press for further information on the subject.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was not at all satisfactory. Was any Secret Service money applied in the United Kingdom, or was it all applied to purposes in foreign countries? If some portion was not applied in the United Kingdom, the Committee would not press for further information. If his memory served him, it was stated in a former debate on this subject that Secret Service Money was applied entirely to purposes connected with Foreign Affairs. If that were so, the right hon. Gentleman could surely state as much now without any breach of due official reserve.
  MR. A. MILLScould not see how the information asked for would at all assist hon. Members to judge whether any part of the money was corruptly spent. -What would be the use of it, unless they got the names of every individual who had been paid some of this money?
  MR. RYLANDS: I took a leading part in the discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, and I moved the Resolution by which the House declined to allow the payment out of the Secret Service Money of any sum for salaries or pensions. But the origin of the Resolution which was carried on that occasion was a little remarkable. I had on several occasions put Questions to the Treasury Bench as to whether it was not the fact that certain parties were receiving salaries and pensions out of this Secret Service Money, and it was positively denied. If I had not had very good authority for the course which I
  1608
  took, and if I had not resisted the representations of the Government, the facts of the case would never have come out at all. It was only by asking Question upon Question, and persistently meeting the denials given to me, that at last I forced from the Government the acknowledgment that a very considerable amount of salary was paid to an important officer of the Crown as an addition to the remuneration which he derived from his Department. And who was that official? It was the very official who had the management of this Secret Service. My complaint was that although this was done, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs knew nothing whatever about it. In fact, my noble Friend the then Under Secretary of State (Viscount Enfield) was put up to deny that there was any truth in my assertion. Of course, it was not categorically denied. My complaint then was, and it is the same now, that the political Under Secretary of State is kept in entire ignorance of the expenditure of this money. If my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will get up in this House and say he knows how this money is expended, and that he is prepared on his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown to say that it is properly expended, I will yield to his judgment. But he cannot say so. He knows nothing more about it than I do. I know quite as much as my hon. Friend in reference to this matter. And let me tell the House what course is taken in regard to this Secret Service Money. A large portion of it is expended abroad in connection with foreign affairs. I believe it will be found that the sum of £10,000 charged on the Consolidated Fund is the sum chiefly expended for Home purposes. A large portion of the £24,000 which we are now asked to vote is expended through the Foreign Department, and let me tell hon. Members how it is managed. A Minister of the Crown abroad or a Consul in some Foreign State applies from time to time to the Foreign Office for a certain sum of money for the purposes of Secret Service; and when he makes that application, if he takes care to keep within what is considered a fair and legitimate amount for the particular part of the world in which he is placed, and the position he occupies, there is no inquiry made. But if the Ambassa-

  1609
  dor or Consul asks for an unusual amount, the Foreign Office institutes an inquiry and calls the attention of our Representative at the Foreign Court to the fact that he is asking for an unusual sum of money, and that an explanation will probably be necessary. But so long as he keeps within certain limits, no explanation is called for, and there is nothing to show how the money is expended. I venture to challenge my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to show me within the last quarter of a century in all the diplomatic transactions which are recorded in the Blue Books, any instance in which the employment of Secret Service Money has been of value. I am speaking about transactions completed historically and diplomatically, and laid upon the Table of the House in the Blue Books, which record from time to time the varying action of Her Majesty's Government, and the varied information which they possess. I challenge him to show in any of these transactions during the last 25 years a single case in which important information was obtained by Her Majesty's Government in advance of the ordinary channels of information in consequence of the expenditure of this Secret Service Money. That is the very challenge which I made to the Predecessor of my hon. Friend in the office which he now fills. The challenge never has been met, and I do not think it can be met. I say, that if Her Majesty's Government get priority of information, it ought to be known; for, at present, there is no evidence of the fact. The Ministers and Consuls spend the money, no doubt; but you do not require them to give a detailed account of the way in which it is spent. They simply declare, on their honour, that it is spent for the benefit of the Crown. It is passed by the Foreign Office, and there is no check. The Secretary of the Treasury cannot check it, and it is admitted that the check is utterly insufficient to secure care and accuracy in the expenditure of the money. My impression is, that it is paid to persons who do not do the slightest good in return for it, and if a poor Consul's widow goes to the new Consul in distress, I have no doubt that he would put his hand into this fund, and make her a compassionate allowance out of it; because he would naturally say—"It is a hard case, and the money
  1610
  can go to Secret Service." There is a strong suspicion that a portion of the money is expended in that way. My complaint is, that Her Majesty's Government spend the money without getting any real and substantial advantage in return for it; that the mode in which it is spent prevents proper control; that the Representative of the Foreign Office in this House knows nothing about it, and has no control over it, but that it is left in the hands of the permanent Servants of the Crown who, as far as I know, may deal with the money in a manner that is not in accordance with the public interests. It may be that some of the objects for which it is expended are good. Perhaps they are, but they ought to be stated in the Estimate. The system is one which is very much open to abuse. If the money is employed in this country, it is used for the purposes of demoralization, and if used abroad, it is used in a mean and contemptible manner in bribing someone on the side of your enemy, or on the side of some State from which you have reason to expect opposition. You bribe him to give you private information that will damage the interests of his own country. I am of opinion that our policy in connection with this country should be an open policy, and that when we talk of British interests, we mean those interests which we can proclaim before the whole world. I shall vote for the Motion which has been made by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and I shall also be prepared. to vote for the rejection of the entire sum asked for.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISwas reminded, by the challenge thrown out by the last speaker to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of the proverb—"Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." He was sorry the hon. Member for Burnley, who so strongly denounced Secret Service Money, had not commenced his opposition to it when his own political Friends were in office. He could not think that the Committee would refuse to confide in the present Government on this matter as previous Governments had been confided in. But if a vote were to be taken on the subject, let that vote be not upon the question as to how much Secret Money

  1611
  was spent in different parts of the Kingdom, but upon the broad question as to whether such money should continue to be voted at all.
  MR. RYLANDSexplained that he had divided the House against that vote when the late Government were in office.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYexpressed a hope that some information of a general character as to the proportions in which it was distributed, would be furnished to the Committee. The Motion before the Committee was not made with the object of abolishing the Secret Service Grant; and if it were conceded, and Parliament were informed what sums were spent in England, as compared with Ireland and Scotland, and other places, its object would be served. With regard to Ireland, it was impossible, without some further information, to satisfy the minds of the people as to how the Secret Service Money was approximated. They remembered that there had been men like Head Constable Talbot, who, being sworn in as officers for the preservation of the peace, had gone among the people, and, on pretence of taking part in the Fenian movement, had mingled among its supporters and obtained information against them. So far was this carried in Talbot's case, that, although a Protestant, he had actually disguised his real character, so as to perpetrate the sacrilege of receiving the Sacrament at the altar of a Catholic chapel. It was true that he was afterwards shot in Dublin; but had the people known of the sacrilege he had perpetrated, he would probably have fared much worse, by being burnt alive by the infuriated populace, whose feelings he had outraged. What was wanted, however, was not details as to particular sums, but the proportions of the total money expended in the Three Kingdoms; and then, if it were seen that there was not an undue amount spent in Ireland as compared with England and Scotland, they would be satisfied. At present no attempt was made by the Government to interfere with or put down any form of popular feeling; but the people were apt to exclaim that the disturbing element was prompted by the Government, who provided the means from the Secret Service Fund. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary knew nothing
  1612
  about the expenditure of the money, or had communication with men such as Talbot. No secrecy would be lost by consenting to the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), while it would create greater confidence on the part of the people in the Government.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not suppose that the Motion was brought forward in a spirit of obstruction to delay the Estimates, and contended that no more fitting opportunity could be found to discuss the Vote. Hon. Members had spoken of the spending of Secret Service Money in Scotland 40 years ago; but without going beyond 1848, the history of the Dublin Police Courts—when Lord Clarendon, then Viceroy of Ireland, was dragged into Court upon a demand by one Burch, the editor of The World, for the payment of the sum of £1,000, which he alleged was due from the Lord Lieutenant for the support of a paper which vilified the leading members of the patriotic Party as Infidels, Atheists, Socialists, and stigmatized them by the vilest epithets—would show how Secret Service Money was used in Ireland to bring the Young Ireland Party into contempt and discredit. It might be said that it was useless to raise the question, and make accusations against men no longer able to defend themselves; but these things were never known until they became matter of history. He wished to point out to the Committee that with regard to such men as Talbot, who had been alluded to, there was another way in which they were rewarded. Most of those employed as spies and informers were also inspectors or sub-inspectors, and were paid in another form. In addition to the £24,000 now asked for, it was more than possible that the House would be asked to vote another similar sum in the form of salaries to inspectors, or in some manner impossible to classify. MR. MONK regretted that the whole Vote was not to be opposed, as he had never heard any argument in favour of Secret Service Money. It was beneath the dignity of this country that it should purchase information in the way which it had been shown it was purchased.
  MR. J. COWENsupported the reduction of the Vote. Earlier in the evening, they had been discussing the case of the

  1613
  Fenian prisoners, and it should not be I forgotten that some of these men were placed in prison on information obtained in the manner described, and that it had been paid for out of the money voted by Parliament. We had instances also of the way in which this money was spent during the Chartist movement, and there was a well-known case of a man who had incited the insurrection which led to Thistlewood being hanged, who had lived for 39 years on a pension granted to him by Government out of the Secret Service Money.
  MR. GRAYadverted to the manner in which the Vote was brought forward, as being likely to deceive any hon. Member who looked at the Estimates casually. The Estimates were divided under the heads—England, Ireland, and Scotland; but in this item of Secret Service Money the whole was put down to England. The result of that—whether intentional or not—would be that it would not probably be challenged by an Irish or Scotch Member, unless the Vote were carefully examined. If the Government would give no information whatever, then the whole of the amount should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and not under the head where it now appeared. It appeared to him a justifiable thing to ask what portions of the sum were spent in each country, though he thought that if that information were given, the Vote would not be tolerated for an instant. English Members would resist such an expenditure in their country, and Scotch Members had emphatically expressed their determination not to tolerate such a means of corruption in their country, and if they resisted the Votes for England and Scotland, they could scarcely refuse to assist Irish Members against corruption in the same form in Ireland. It was usually, though vaguely, understood that the bulk of the money was for the purpose of acquiring foreign information; but, if that were so, why should not the Government say as much at once? He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), as he should vote for any Motion tending in the same direction. Not without reason he felt very strongly on the point. In 1847, his father, Sir John Gray, was intimate with the Young Ireland Party, and, with others, became acquainted with one Barney Malone. This Barney Malone professed to have most
  1614
  patriotic feelings, and to be very sanguine as to the prospects of an immediate rising in accordance with the views of the '48 Party. He produced plans, and sought to induce Sir John Gray, and others, to adopt his views. But in looking through some papers, to which he obtained access by a curious accident, Sir John Gray found that this same Barney Malone had been in receipt of a pension since '98, paid out of the Secret Service Money for services rendered to Government. In 1848 he was doing the same work, and but for the accidental discovery of those papers, he might have succeeded in entangling Sir John Gray, and many others, in a way that might have led to their execution. Government had improved on their agents since 1846, for Barney never went the length of swearing-in his countrymen and taking the Sacrament at the altar in order to win their confidence.
  MR. BIGGARhad no doubt of the demoralizing effect upon the recipients of Secret Service Money. The information elicited was generally worthless, for the spy must be a liar, and, in most cases, a perjurer. He did not see how a Minister of the Crown could defend such a system before the House and the world, and certainly ought to be discouraged.
  MR. WADDYsaid, it seemed to him that some hon. Members desired that Secret Service should not be secret; but he would ask how could a great deal of the necessary, though unpleasant, work of the Government be conducted without it? It was, no doubt, a very sad thing; but so long as there were traitors, it would be one of the unfortunate necessities of the Government to take these desperate means to find it out both at home and abroad. They ought to confide in this Government as they had confided in others in times gone by.
  DR. LUSHsaid, he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy), as he was of opinion that the matter should be fully investigated. He hated the system of spying, and he thought it ought to be discouraged as much as possible. He thought it strange that the sum asked for should be the same this year as last—namely, £24,000.
  MR. PARNELLdisclaimed any intention of asking for details of payments made to individuals. Had he wished that he would have made the demand

  1615
  openly. He was willing to withdraw the Amendment, if the Government would tell him that no money was spent in Ireland for improper purposes, or beyond the fair proportion of the expenditure in England and Scotland. Without such information, he must press the Amendment to a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 43; Noes 92: Majority 49. — (Div. List, No. 162.)
  MR. ANDERSONmoved the rejection of the entire Vote. He denied that the opposition to Secret Service expenditure was a new movement, as he and others had been opposing it for years, and on a former occasion he and those who concurred with him succeeded to the extent of preventing Foreign Office clerks from receiving part of the money. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) did not object to that part of the Vote which was used in the prevention of crime, nor did he himself; but there was reason to suppose that no part of it was spent in that direction, and he believed that Secret Service Money was employed entirely in political purposes, often of the meanest and most degrading order. Such devices ought not to be had recourse to in a great country like this.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 96; Noes 40: Majority 56. — (Div. List, No. 163.)
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,207, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."
  SIR ANDREW LUSKobserved that in this Vote was included the sum of £200 for Queen's Plates in Scotland. He intended to take a division against it; but as he understood that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was going to move the reduction of the Irish Vote for the
  1616
  same purpose, he should be content to allow the Scotch Vote to pass for the present.
  MR. DILLWYNunderstood that a promise had been given that Queen's Plates should not again appear in the Estimates, and he hoped his hon. Friend would divide against the Vote. Some rather curious items were included in this Vote. There was the salary to the Secretary and to the Law Agent of the Bible Board; also the salary to Her Majesty's Historiographer for Scotland, who, it appeared, was also Manager and Secretary to the Prisons Board. He should be glad to have some information as to these items.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he might explain that the learned gentleman who filled the office of Historiographer in Scotland to Her Majesty at present was a well-known man, Dr. John Hill Burton, whose works, among which was comprised a history of Scotland, were a great credit to the age, and well known in the literary world. The office of Historiographer was well-known. It was in the gift of Her Majesty, and it was one of those old offices connected with the Royal Establishment in Scotland which all Scotchmen would be sorry to see abolished; and, although differing in politics from the gentleman who held the office at present, he must say it could not be better filled. The sum of £700 drawn for another purpose was well earned. Dr. Burton was Secretary to the Prisons Management Board, and the efficiency of the present arrangements was greatly due to the management of Dr. Burton. The other duty for which payment had not been fixed was not one that fell within his duties as Prison Manager, or Secretary, or Historiographer. In England some £10,000 a-year was spent in making known what was contained in the repositories of the Master of the Rolls and other dignitaries. A much smaller sum was sufficient for Scotland. So far, therefore, as Dr. Burton and those three items were concerned, he had given all the information which the questions put to him seemed to require. He was also asked the meaning of Secretary to the Bible Board, an office held by the Rev. Sir Henry Moncreiff, brother of Lord Moncreiff. The people of Scotland set very great store upon that office and the effective performance of its duties. Every

  1617
  copy of the Bible printed in Scotland was published under the licence of the Queen, and the duty of the secretary, with the aid of the reader, was to supervise every edition of the Scriptures before it was published. That work had been most efficiently performed, and Scotchmen would regard it as a very serious calamity if the office were done away with. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY asked what the Law Agent had to do He was not precisely informed as to what the duties of the Law Agent were; but no doubt the remuneration had been fixed, having due regard to the duties of the office.
  DR. LUSHthought the text of the Holy Scriptures in Scotland was so thoroughly understood, that it was unnecessary to continue any person to give his imprimatur, and he thought that it had been shown that it was worthy of consideration whether the office was more than a sinecure, and ought to be abolished. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not given a satisfactory reply as to the duties connected with the salary of Her Majesty's Historiographer in Scotland. The present occupant held the office at £184 a-year, and had the opportunity of earning £700 a-year in another office, and an unknown sum in another office. This was a question which must be considered by the House, and he could not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation was satisfactory.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKremarked that there was the greatest unanimity among Irish Members as to the retention of the sum for Queen's Plates; but when the Scotch Queen's Plates were omitted it was the Scotch Members that did it. The year after the Vote was re-instated, because the Scotch people wished to have it.
  MR. M' LARENsaid, as to the Queen's Plate question, the House disallowed the Vote; but an opposite feeling was got up, not by the people of Scotland, but by some busy Members of the House attached to horse-racing, and the Government not only re-instated the Vote, but paid the Vote which the House of Commons had disallowed. As to the offices mentioned, the appointment of Historiographer might be regarded as another way of giving a literary man a pension. He could not imagine that the office was held with a view to the performance of any specific
  1618
  duty. On the other hand, £700 a-year for practically managing the prisons in Scotland was very small, considering the salaries that were paid in England. With respect to the other duty, the salary was no salary at all. Certain State papers had to be calendered. Very few men could do that, and Dr. Burton had to be paid for editing a particular volume, but the amount he was to be paid was to depend on the Treasury, and was not to be a salary at all. With the explanations that had been given, and the little he had added, he thought the Vote might be passed.
  MR. RAMSAYapproved of the Vote, and held that in no part of the Kingdom were the prisons so economically managed as in Scotland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsuggested that, by a little alteration, the office of Historiographer might be made a useful one without withdrawing the Vote. With regard to the Bible Board, the office at present was scarcely defensible. So far as the Law Agent went, they had no information whatever with respect to him. The explanation of the hon. and learned Lord Advocate was, financially speaking, unsatisfactory, and he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was prepared to vote with the Scotch Members on the subject.
  MR. MARK STEWARTtrusted hon. Members opposite would see there was good reason for passing the Vote in its entirety.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the difficulty was how could you preserve the purity of the text of the Bible? If you allowed everybody that chose to print it, all sorts of errors would get into it. This plan was hit upon—that any person in Scotland should be allowed to print the Bible, subject to this condition—that they should first of all get permission of the Lord Advocate, and engage that his permission should be printed on the first page of the Bible. Another condition was that there should be a secretary appointed, and that when the edition was printed a perfect copy should be sent to him, and if an error was found in it the whole edition should be cancelled—not that the secretary should revise it. Nobody could legally print the Bible in England except the Queen's printers or the Universities, and this office was fixed as a security for the purity of the text in Scotland. He never could find out that the Law Agent had anything to do.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKwas satisfied with the explanations given on the other Votes, but not with that for the Queen's Plates. To that he had a decided objection.
  MR. DILLWYNwas also opposed to the Vote for the Queen's Plates, and should move that the amount asked for be reduced by £218, the amount proposed for that purpose. The House in a former year had refused to grant money for this purpose, and he did not know why the item had been re-introduced into the Estimates.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £218, for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—( Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYhoped the Vote would be agreed to. The work done either directly or indirectly by the Historiographer in return for the small sum of money paid him was very ample, and he thought it mere cheese-paring economy to object to it. He hoped the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not divide the House on the question. He believed that when the House previously withdrew the Vote for Queen's Plates, the feeling in Scotland was so strongly expressed against that course that the Government had replaced it.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he did not support races generally, nor did he in the least care for races carried on in Scotland. But he found that the Vote was given for Ireland, and he could not see why it should not be given to Scotland also.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that it was because they intended to vote against the item for Ireland which would come on presently that they would now vote against it for Scotland, and he did not believe that any feeling existed in Scotland in favour of the Vote.
  MR. YEAMANexpressed himself in favour of the Vote, considering that the three countries should be treated alike in this matter. He was surprised that the Committee should waste so much time upon so small a matter.
  DR. LUSHsaid, it was very clear that whatever might be the case on other occasions, Scotch Members showed that there was a wonderful unanimity among them when there was any advantage to be gained for Scotland. He should vote against the item for the Queen's Plates.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, that with regard to the Vote which threw out the item for the Queen's Plates some few years ago, that Vote gave mat dissatisfaction in Scotland. He had a strong recollection of the dissatisfaction that was created when the item was not allowed. He should vote against the reduction, on the ground that equal justice should be done to Scotland, Ireland, and England.
  MR. M'LARENdenied that Scotch Members combined on all occasions to support Votes of Money for Scotch purposes. On a former occasion a large number of Scotch Members voted against these Plates. He was one of those who so voted, and he intended to do so again.
  MR. DILLWYNdeclined to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that he intended to vote against the item, not because he did not think it was the duty of the State to encourage the breeding of horses in Scotland and Ireland, but because the sum of £218 was so small as to be perfectly useless for that purpose. He should, however, vote in favour of the Vote for Ireland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to ask the Committee, whether they intended to do anything to make progress with the Estimates? The Government did not at all desire to cut short discussions upon any Vote; but he thought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was going a little beyond the necessary line of argument which might be used on that occasion. He thought that the subject was one upon which a great amount of discussion was hardly needed, as they were presently coming to the question of the Votes for Ireland, and then they should hear what the Irish Members had to say.
  MR. BIGGARwas of opinion that these Queen's Plates did nothing to improve the breed of horses. That object would be much better effected if the Government passed a law not to allow two-year-olds to run before a certain age, and not to allow light weights.
  CAPTAIN NOLAN,who spoke amid continued interruption, said, if the Committee would allow him, he wished to say that he had come to the conclusion that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with reference to ample time being given for the discussion of Votes in Supply was entirely wrong, for

  1621
  not one-tenth sufficient time was devoted to the discussion of these Votes. He should vote with the Scotch Members, because he was of opinion that unless the Irish Members supported the Scotch Motions they could not expect to obtain the support of Scotch Members when Irish subjects were discussed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 53; Noes 141: Majority 88. — (Div. List, No. 164.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,513, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland."
  VISCOUNT MACDUFF,in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,000, said he did not do so from any feeling of parsimony, but simply to raise that part of the question which referred to the system of Government brands, and which had been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the North of Scotland both among fishcurers and others. The feeling there was opposed to the continuance of the branding system, which had already been condemned, both by Royal Commission and by Treasury Minute. It had been condemned by those interested in the herring trade, both in Germany and in Scotland, as being practically of no use whatever, while the trade itself was injuriously affected by it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £7,513, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland."—(Viscount Macduff)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYalso thought that in the interest of the large curers, as well as of the small, and likewise in that of the general fishing of Scotland, it was now time that the branding of herrings by the Government was abolished. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government would, if the noble Lord withdrew his Motion,
  1622
  give the Committee assurance that the Vote would not be brought forward in future years.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought that the Committee should clearly understand that if the Estimate was reduced by £3,000, with an understanding that in consequence the brand was to cease, the effect would be not a reduction, but a considerable augmentation of the expenditure—because its effect would be that the £6,000 or £8,000 which the brand now produced would come off the receipts, and the Vote would remain the same. He trusted that the Treasury would not consent to the reduction of this Vote. The subject of the brand had been investigated by three Commissions in 1848, 1857, and 1870. All of these recommended its continuance. It was true that the Commission of 1866 reported against it. While it was a tax upon the producers of salt herrings, it was a tax which they desired to pay, and for which there were no Petitions for removal. And the reason of this was that the brand enabled small producers to sell as readily as large producers. It did not act like a protective tax, for it was only used for the export trade.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONcomplained, with reference to the Vote before the Committee, that the sum put down for the express purpose of repairing and building piers and quays injured by storms was applied to the building of new piers. For three years the sum granted had been applied to one port. Further than that, he did not find that those in whose favour that expenditure was made had, as the Act of Parliament required they should do, expended for the same objects one-fourth of that amount. They evaded the Act by borrowing the required portion from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, instead of drawing on their own private resources for it. The Act of Parliament also required that the accounts should annually be laid on the Table 14 days after the meeting of Parliament, and that had not been complied with. With regard to the noble Lord's Amendment, the estimate of the brand fees was £2,800 less than last year, whilst herring fishing was increasing considerably. This required explanation. While admitting that there was a great deal of truth in the remarks of the noble

  1623
  Lord as to the present system of branding, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition bench (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it was not desirable that the Vote should be reduced as proposed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked whether it was for the interest of the herring trade on the Coast of Scotland that the brand should be continued? The Commissioners of 1867 came to the conclusion that the brand was objectionable, as it prevented improvements being made in the trade. The curers, too, who were formerly very much in favour of the system, now began to see that it was injurious to their trade. There was a large herring trade on the West Coast of Scotland, and in England, and he had never heard that the curers had found any difficulty in disposing of their herrings which were not subject to the brand. He thought that the brand should be abolished.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYknew that three or four years ago the great foreign merchants of Russia and Germany were favourable to the continuance of this brand. It would be most unwise upon a mere assumption without proof that these merchants had changed their opinions to disturb a trade of so much importance to the North of Scotland. He therefore hoped that until further information was obtained on the subject the Committee would maintain the branding.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that since the Reports made to that House on the subject, additional facts had come to light, and a great change had taken place in Scotland upon the question of branding. He believed that it was expedient that the brand should be abolished, and as the Dutch had agreed to its abolition, he hoped the Government would consider it expedient to put an end to the system. As to the Board of Fishery at Edinburgh, it was no Board at all; it had been severely censured by the Treasury, in connection with harbour works, and the time had come when it ought to be abolished. In fact, the sooner the better.
  MR. YEAMANalso supported the Motion of the noble Viscount (Viscount Macduff), and contended that it was the duty of the Committee to abolish the system of branding and the Board of Fishery.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that neither the present nor any other Government would wish to maintain the system of branding, if all those who were concerned in the trade desired to have it abolished. But it appeared to him that the published Reports of the Commissioners were in favour of the system, and it was still believed by many that if it were abolished there would be a great disturbance to the trade. Acting upon the advice which they had received, the Government did not venture to propose the abolition of the brand. With regard to the repair of the piers or quays, it was his opinion that the Act of Parliament was complied with if the parties borrowed the portion of the expenditure, seeing that they would have to repay the loan out of their private purse.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to explain that his father, who was a Member of the Commission of 1848, condemned the brand in principle, though he did not see his way clear to abolish it.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEread from the Report presented to the House of Commons, which showed that the abolition of the brand would cause a great disturbance to the trade, and recommended that it should be retained.
  VISCOUNT MACDUFFsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYdrew attention to an item of £350 paid in respect of certain Government cruisers employed to protect the fisheries. There was a general complaint against these vessels that they did not sufficiently aid the fishermen in case of storms, nor effectually protect the Scotch fishermen from the Dutch and French fishermen, and that the nets of the former were frequently stolen without proper action being taken by the gunboats. He could not see why £350 should be given to the gunboats for acting as police, and unless the Secretary to the Admiralty gave some explanation, he would move the reduction of the Vote by that sum.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONwas not prepared with any very minute information. He believed that the whole charge the hon. Member referred to was not £350 but £150, the sum which was paid to the Vigilant. He could assure

  1625
  the hon. Member that the Government were only anxious that everything should be done to assist the fishermen on the coast.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYexpressed himself dissatisfied with the answer, and intimated that unless some more satisfactory statement was made, he should be compelled to divide the Committee against the Vote.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he had every reason to believe that the instructions given to the cruisers were fully carried out.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Government had intimated the other day that they intended to appoint a Commission to inquire into the condition of the fisheries; and he wished to know whether the Commission should be a new one, with large powers, or simply a local one; and whether, if it was to be a local inquiry, it ought not to be conducted through the Fishery Board, instead of by an independent Commission? The Royal Commission of 1865 had dispelled the idea that there had been a great falling off in the Scotch fisheries, and since then there had been a steady increase of the "take" on the coast of Scotland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Departmental Commission to inquire into various complaints which had arisen, not only in Scotland, but in certain other parts of the coast of the United Kingdom. The inquiry would be conducted, as the inquiry was conducted during the last year, by the Fishery Inspectors for England united with the Inspectors of Fisheries in Scotland. The inquiry was made last year with satisfactory results at no great amount of cost, and he believed it would be the same in the present case.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRobserved that there had been three separate inquiries instituted of late years into the Scotch fisheries, and there was no good reason why the question should so soon be re-opened by a speculative investigation, unsettling the minds of the fishermen. It was not a justification of legislation that there had been a bad season last year. When the temperature of the water was high in summer herrings migrated to colder waters; and when it sunk too low in winter they sought warmer places. These climatic changes produced constant fluctuations in the
  1626
  fisheries; but legislation could not determine the migration of herrings.
  DR. WARDasked whether the contemplated inquiry would extend to the Irish fisheries?
  MR. BRUENexpressed a hope that the Irish fisheries would be included in the proposed inquiry and that the question whether the "branding" system, which had been so beneficial to the Scotch fishermen, should not be introduced into Ireland would also be fairly considered.
  CAPTAIN NOLANhoped that the inquiries would be extended to Ireland. When last Session he introduced a Bill on the lines of the Scotch system, it was attacked piecemeal by the Government, but now they expressed approval of the very same principles.
  MR. BUTTurged that greater encouragement should be given by the Government to the promotion of Irish fisheries.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, when the inquiry was resolved upon, it was not contemplated that it should be extended to Ireland, inasmuch as no complaints had been made to the Home Office with regard to the fisheries of that country. He would consult the Home Secretary as to the advisability of including Ireland in the inquiry.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £4,625, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
  (5.) £5,401, to complete the sum for the Register Office, General, Scotland.
  (6.) £63,828, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor and Public Health, Scotland.
  (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,798, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLobjected to the item of £1,562 for Queen's Plates. He supposed he might infer without fear of contradiction that in theory at least Queen's Plates were given as prizes from the State for the improvement in the breeding of horses through the medium of races, They

  1627
  were not given by the State as a subsidy to the turf as an institution, excellent though it might be. How far had the Queen's Plates in Ireland fulfilled those conditions? So far as he was able to gather they had not attained their object. Year after year money was poured into a perfect morass of inutility. For many years prior to 1860 Queen's Plates in Ireland were won by English horses. Since that time a condition had been imposed that the money should only be given to horses which had been trained six months in Ireland; but that provision had not altogether stopped the practice, and still year after year the Queen's Plates were won by English horses. One gentleman in England—a Mr. Coppin—in five years carried off from Ireland Queen's prizes amounting to no less than £3,400. In 1876 there were 17 Plates, with 50 runners, and only 19 horses. Queen's Plates were not valued, and had never attracted much attention. From the smallness of the amount and the length of the course, they were not competed for by the owners of good horses; in fact, they were, when not the subject of arrangement between the various stables, run for by most wretched "platers." In 1874, a most wretched animal of that description called Hookey was successful. Only three sires had been winners of Queen's Plates in the course of many years, and this was a proof that these races did not develop the qualities which they were intended to produce in horses. In reply to the assertion that the Turf in Ireland would suffer if these Plates were no longer given, he contended that the people of Ireland were too much attached to horse-racing to let it drop because these paltry sums were withdrawn. At only 5 out of the 90 different race meetings held annually in Ireland were these Plates run for, while the "added money" subscribed at those meetings amounted to upwards of £7,000. As to the effect that these Plates had in improving the breed of horses in Ireland, it was the unanimous opinion of those best competent to judge that the breed of horses in that country had very seriously deteriorated during the last few years and that it was still rapidly deteriorating. This was a matter that should command the attention of Parliament and of the country, inasmuch as it most vitally concerned our Cavalry, which, with the exception of one regiment, was mounted
  1628
  on Irish horses exclusively. Good troop horses which could formerly be obtained in ample numbers at £25 each could now scarcely be purchased for £40. The Irish export horse trade, which at one time brought into the country £700,000 annually, and which in 1873 amounted to 32,000 horses, had largely fallen off, until last year it only amounted to 18,000, and thus a most important source of national wealth was being destroyed. The cause of this deterioration in the horses was undoubtedly due to want of blood—he did not believe that there was a single good stallion in Ireland. Those stallions which went about Ireland were notorious for hereditary unsoundness, and such wretched animals ought, he maintained, to be prevented by law from perpetuating their miserable species. He might quote pages of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. Now, the remedy which he would propose for that state of things was, that the money which was voted every year for Queen's Plates and absolutely wasted should be capitalized, and that alump sum of, say, £25,000 should be given to the Irish Government with which they might purchase one or two first-class stallions and half-a-dozen or more good ones, to be sent to various parts of the country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) would, he was sure, welcome one of them in his locality. If some such plan were adopted, there might be a Royal Irish stud which would be extremely popular in Ireland, as indicating that that House was interested in maintaining the prestige of their ancient breed of horses, and which would be productive of great practical advantage. He begged, for these reasons, to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,562, the item for Queen's Plates.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £1,562, for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. GREENE,in supporting the reduction, said, he fully concurred in everything that had fallen from the noble Lord, for the deterioration in the breed of horses was beginning to assume a very serious aspect, and as matters at present stood there were stallions going about Ireland which propagated a race of animals hardly fit for a cab. That was the more to be regretted, as he knew

  1629
  from his hunting experience that there was something in the soil and climate of Ireland favourable to the breeding of horses, for he had found them sounder and capable of more work than those bred in England. He was all the more glad to support the noble Lord, because he was always anxious to vote in favour of anything which he thought would really benefit Ireland, although he often felt it to be his duty to resist legislation which he believed would be prejudicial to that country. If they meant to do anything to improve the breed of horses they must do so otherwise than by Queen's Plates. With the same money they could introduce stallions into Ireland that would breed a race of really strong and useful horses.
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought that the arguments which had been urged both by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene) were somewhat inconsistent with themselves, for he spoke of the Irish horses as better than those bred in England, while they condemned the present system of breeding in Ireland as bad. Beyond that, the scheme propounded by the noble Lord was a chimerical one. If stallions were distributed over the country it would require a Vote of £2,000 or £3,000 a-year for men to look after them. It was right to continue the Vote in the first instance for military purposes; and, in the next place, because these Plates were given to amuse the public, and he thought the money ought not to be diverted from that purpose. The present system of running all the Queen's Plates at the Curragh was not satisfactory. The native population there was very thin. If they gave Plates to one or two of the larger towns, it would go much more towards improving the breed of horses than any fanciful scheme of distributing stallions.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhad no doubt his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) was animated by a sincere desire to improve the breed of horses, and had done good service by bringing the matter before the House, but he hoped he would not press his Motion. Whatever might be said from the noble Lord's point of view, the Committee should remember that Queen's Plates were given for two reasons—to encourage the breed of horses, and to promote a sport that was very popular
  1630
  in Ireland. He was satisfied that the gift did effectually accomplish the latter object, and although he would not go to the extent of saying that it had very much influence upon the breed of horses in Ireland he was satisfied that the loss of this £1,500 given in Queen's Plates in Ireland would be much more keenly felt in that country than the loss of the same sum in England. Some fairer distribution than that which now prevailed was, however, possible, and the Committee would find attached to the Vote a note to the effect that the subject of the Queen's Plates was under revision. The distribution of Queen's Plates in England had recently been revised by the Master of the Horse, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had had an interview with the Earl of Bradford on the subject of the altering the distribution of the Irish Plates. He (the Earl of Bradford) advised the Irish Government to wait a little before they took any action in the matter; but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) hoped that in the ensuing year they would be able to propose some alteration in the existing system. Perhaps by giving fewer Plates of larger value and changing the locality they might be able to do more to promote the sport of racing. The suggestion of providing stallions for improving the breed of horses in Ireland was recently fully discussed in that House, and the whole subject was thoroughly-considered by a Select Committee in "another place;" but that Committee did not recommend that the Government should interfere in any such way, nor had the proposal made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) met with a very favourable reception. The breeding of horses for the Army was, of course, very important; but there was no difficulty in getting a sufficient supply, and he could not think that under these circumstances sufficient grounds had been shown for calling on Government to undertake what was probably much better done by private individuals. He admitted, however, that the clear and able statement of the noble Lord showed that much might be said on the other side, and if the Amendment were withdrawn, it would give time for considering the whole question.
  MR. ANDERSONdid not object to the Vote on account of its amount, but solely as to the manner in which it was to be applied. The evidence before the

  1631
  House of Lords Committee proved that the money was thrown away both as regarded improving the breed of horses and amusing the people. So far from assisting the amusements of the people, it was well known that in Ireland many of these Plates were run for at races where there were no people to amuse.
  MR. BRUENpreferred prizes for the produce of good animals rather than for animals which were merely bred to be exhibited. He would not sanction the reduction or abolition of this Royal grant, but must admit that the conditions under which it was run for might be varied with advantage. The question had been mooted over and over again at most of the agricultural societies in Ireland, and it had been generally agreed that it was better to give these moneys in prizes for the produce than to the animals from which that produce was reared.
  MR. A. H. BROWNthought the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) was a better one than giving these prizes as Queen's Plates. He objected to the doctrine that this was money spent on popular sports, and it would be far better to withdraw these Plates and lay the money out at agricultural shows, which would really result in improvements in the breeds of animals.
  MR. MORRISthought that for the last 70 years this had been a perfectly useless Vote, and suggested that the same sum should be applied in importing into Ireland good English racehorses.
  MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, he was much obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) for the admirable manner in which he had brought the subject forward, but he was quite mistaken. Ireland had 1,500 guineas to run for. Let them keep it. If Irish Members once parted with this money, they would never see it again. The noble Lord was mistaken in saying that there were no good stallions in Ireland, which possessed better stallions than were to be found in England. The Committee might depend upon it that if they left the people of Ireland to look after the breed of horses for themselves they would attend to it. In Ireland they had Tom King, the sire of Umpire, one of the best horses in England at the present time. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Tom King was sent to
  1632
  Australia 10 years ago.] He knew what he was talking about, he was talking about Tom King, and not about King Tom. Then they had Jack O'Lantern, and Fenian, and he was splendidly bred. His sire was High Treason, and they could not beat the breed of that horse. They had also Ivanhoe and Lothario, such horses as Englishmen would give all the world for, but Ireland would not part with them. If the Committee said to the Irish Members that they did not improve the breed of their horses because there were not many horses which ran for the Plates, and the time taken was very long, he would say that was the fault of the stewards and of the Earl of Bradford. Let them start the horses, and if they did not get over the course in a certain time let them disqualify the lot, and let another lot run. At Manchester he had seen jockeys smoking while they were taking part in a race, and the horses had been walking in some part of the race. He would come back to his old argument. Let the Committee leave them alone, for they in Ireland knew more about the breeding of horses than did the Englishmen.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENadmitted that under the present system a very limited number of horses competed for the Plates at the Curragh, and suggested that the money should be so divided that there would be a prize of £700 to be run for in two of the four Irish Provinces alternately each year. By that means a better class of horses would be brought to the post.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLhaving expressed his regret for having used on a former occasion an expression with respect to Dublin being a seditious capital, and having stated that he had since learned to know Ireland better, offered to withdraw his Amendment, as his purpose had been served by the discussion which had been raised. ["No, no!"]
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 45; Noes 153: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 165.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHRQUERsaid, he had no objection to the Motion for reporting Progress when this Vote was agreed to.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL. (Lords.)
  (Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL. (Lords.)

    [BILL 182.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—( Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    MR. ASSHETONobjected to the Bill, which required re-consideration, especially in regard to the provisions for weeding out useless records. It neither provided against the destruction of valuable documents in the weeding of the present accumulation of the public records; nor, on the other hand, did it provide against future accumulations by the exclusion of such documents as were useless. For instance, the captain of every ship had to send in five copies of the log-book of every voyage he made, whereas one ought to be sufficient. He had a further objection to the measure on the ground that documents would be destroyed under its provisions without any veto of Parliament. It was true that certain rules were to be laid on the Table, and if not objected to within 40 days they were to have the force of law, but every hon. Member knew that in balloting it was very difficult to obtain a day for taking an objection before that time passed.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Bill had been carefully considered by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. It had two objects—the preservation of all useful records, and the best means of making the enormous mass of public records available for public purposes. It was, of course, unnecessary that five copies of every log-book should be de—posited at the Record Office and he
    1634
    would take care that before Committee the suggestions which his hon. Friend had made should be carefully considered by the Government and the Master of the Rolls.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    COSTS IN ACTIONS FOR LIBEL (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOCHILEN, Bill to amend the Law in Ireland as to Costs in Actions for Libel, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, and Mr. GRAY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 194.]

    PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Bill to amend "The Public Health Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Mr. RYDER, and Mr. COWEN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 193.]
    house adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.