Commons Sitting of 15 March 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Employers' Liability for Injuries to their Servants, appointed and nominated; Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS REMAINING SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES AND CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS EXCESS ESTIMATES FOR 1875–6, AND VOTE OF CREDIT ASHANTEE EXPEDITION (EXCESS).
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— Consolidated Fund (£1,213,532 6s. 9d.)
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered — First Reading Public Health (Ireland) [116]; Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries [117].
Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature [103]; Marine Mutiny; Mutiny; Exchequer Bills and Bonds (£700,000) [114].
Select Committee—Metropolis Toll Bridges [18], nominated.
Committee — Report—Registration of Borough Voters [38-115].
Considered as amended—Justices Clerks [5].

MANCHESTER AND MILFORD AND MID WALES RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. GOLDNEYobjected to the Motion on the ground that the Bill introduced a new species of legislation. The Bill was one of an extraordinary character, and perfectly new in these days, because it practically called upon the House to assess damages between two Companies who had obtained powers to construct a railway over the same district. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Goldney.)
  MR. T. LLOYDsupported the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that after a careful examination of the Bill he had come to the conclusion that it was one
  1964
  that should be read a second time, and then sent to the ordinary Private Bill Committee.
  MR. STORERalso supported the second reading, having been advised that the Manchester and Milford Railway Company were suffering a hardship for which their only remedy was to come to that House.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, it would be very difficult for the House to pronounce an opinion upon the merits of the Bill, because it involved one of the most complicated cases that perhaps had come before the House within his experience in the shape of a Private Bill. The arrangements between two of the Companies interested were such as almost to defy explanation that would satisfy the House. It was only by the assistance of maps and plans that it was possible to convey any idea of the subject-matter in dispute. The two Companies formerly competed for traffic through one of the most mountainous and uninhabited districts of Wales. The Manchester and Milford Company obtained a Bill to make a railway, but finding the difficulties to be overcome enormous, they consented to the construction of an alternative line which was projected by the Mid-Wales Company, and over which they were to have running powers. On the faith of this line being constructed, the Manchester and Milford Company entered into certain engagements, but the Mid-Wales Company subsequently abandoned their project; hence the claim which this Bill was intended to settle. The best course would be to follow the ordinary practice and refer it to a Committee up-stairs. At the same time, he thought it was not desirable that a Committee should be called upon to assess damages between two Railway Companies. It was a course which the House ought to discourage; but the circumstances of the present case were very peculiar, and he did not think they were likely to be drawn into a precedent. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Chippenham would not press his Motion.
  Question, "That the word now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

CENTRAL ASIA—TREATY WITH KHELAT.—QUESTION.
MR. ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Times" of the 5th March instant:—
"A Treaty has been concluded with Khelat whereby the British Government agrees to support the Khan against internal and foreign foes, and to pay an annual subsidy of £10,000, besides a further sum of £2,200 for the purpose of effecting such improvements in the country as the Government may approve. In return the Government will have the right to occupy the chief towns with troops, to construct railways and telegraphs, and to erect forts. The British Agent's headquarters will be at Khelat, and an officer will also be stationed at Quetta;"
and, if he will inform the House if such a Treaty has been concluded, and if the Government approves of the policy indicated of thus occupying places in Beloochistan far beyond the British territory?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The paragraph alluded to refers to a revision of an old Treaty concluded in 1854 between the Indian Government and the Khan of Khelat, under which an annual subsidy was granted to the Khan to enable him to fulfil certain obligations, and the right of stationing British troops in any part of Khelat territory was confirmed to the British Government. In March, 1873, this subsidy was withheld in consequence of the Khan having failed to fulfil his obligations to protect trade and secure the peace of the frontier. Towards the end of 1875 the late Viceroy despatched Major Sandeman with a suitable escort on a special mission in order that he might, if possible, terminate the prevailing state of anarchy. The present Viceroy has carried on the negotiations initiated by his Predecessor, and the present Treaty is the result. It is therefore scarcely necessary to observe that the revision and adaptation of an old Treaty to existing circumstances does not in any way indicate on the part of the Indian Government any intention of pursuing an aggressive policy towards the countries beyond their borders.

ARMY—MILITIA LIEUTENANTS—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the
  1966
  statement that Militia Lieutenants wishing to pass into the Line would, after the end of the year 1878, have to do so by competitive examination, Whether young officers at present in the Militia would be exempted from that rule?
  M. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the rules which it was proposed to issue would apply to all officers after the end of 1878.

EGYPT AND ABYSSINIA—DETENTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.—QUESTION.
MR. POTTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is now prepared to state to the House the particulars of the outrage on a British subject perpetrated by the Egyptian authorities in the recent seizure of Mr. Robert Adeane Barlow off Massowah, and the measures which have been taken to obtain reparation for Mr. Barlow; also, if Mr. Barlow is now set at liberty?
MR. BOURKE: I stated to the House the other day that Mr. Barlow, who describes himself of the Abyssinian Army, and Mr. Houghton had in November last announced their intention to penetrate into Abyssinia, and they were warned by Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General that if they attempted to do so in defiance of the prohibition which had been issued by the Egyptian Government it would be at their own risk and peril. It appears that they did proceed to the eastern shore of the Red Sea, where they embarked in a small dhow that was going to Massowah with coals for one of Her Majesty's ships. The dhow was not under the British flag, but under the Turkish flag. On their arrival at Massowah they were asked for their passports. They answered that they had got none. Mr. Barlow gave his name as Colonel Knox, and Mr. Houghton his as Mr. Baird. Afterwards they produced their passports. When the authorities at Massowah found by the passport that their names were not Knox and Baird suspicions were aroused, and they were put under arrest; but on Mr. Houghton giving his parole that he would not leave the town he was released; but Mr. Barlow having refused to do so was placed in confinement pending inquiry as to their identity. They were subsequently removed in an Egyptian transport to Suez, where they

1967
were set at liberty on the 21st ultimo. They were re-arrested, in consequence, it is said, of their attempting to leave again for Massowah, and Mr. Houghton has represented that great violence was used against him when arrested. Inquiries will be made into the truth of this statement. Mr. Houghton has been set at liberty, and is now at Cairo. Mr. Barlow refuses to give his parole not to return to Abyssinia; but, though under serveillance at Suez, he is free to go where he pleases in the town.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT) SURVEYORS.—QUESTION.
MR. GOLDSMIDasked the Postmaster General, Whether any surveyors have been appointed since the Report of the Committee on the Telegraph Department of the Post Office; and, if yea, whether, in accordance with the recommendation of that Committee, security was taken that they possessed a practical knowledge of telegraphy?
LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, that two surveyors had been appointed, and that neither of them possessed a practical knowledge of telegraphy. At present there was no one in the service who combined that knowledge with such a knowledge of postal work as would fit him for a surveyor-ship; but it would be the policy of the Department to select persons for the office who had a knowledge of telegraphy.

ARMY—THE COAST BRIGADE—ROYAL ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
MR. RITCHIEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is contemplated to take any steps to remedy the present stagnation of promotion among the officers of the Coast Brigade, Royal Artillery?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am proposing to take steps at this moment which I hope will have the effect that the hon. Member desires.

CRIMINAL LAW—UNLAWFUL KILLING OF A DOG.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following statements published in the Belfast news-
1968
papers, in reference to a case tried at the recent Monaghan Assizes:—
"On the 31st August Mr. William Ancketill was driving about the hour of midnight through the village of Emyvale, county Monaghan, when some dogs aroused by the noise of his gig barked at it, and, as he states, frightened the horse. He thereupon pulled up, drove to the police barrack, and induced one of the police to accompany him in a search for dogs in the houses of the sleeping villagers. Neither he nor the constable knew the dogs which had barked, but they went to the houses of people who were known to own dogs. They went to the house of Widow Armstrong, and one of the inmates was roused out of bed. In reply to inquiries, the man stated that Mrs. Armstrong had a dog, and that the dog was in one of the outhouses. Mr. Ancketill requested the servant to bring out the dog that he might see him. The dog—a valuable dog—and one to which Widow Armstrong's family were greatly attached, was brought out. Ancketill caught up the unsuspecting creature in his arms, and with a pocket-knife severed the throat from ear to ear. The police constable was present when this was done. They discovered another dog which belonged to a car driver named Peter M' Anally. Ancketill seized him and cut his throat;"
whether Mr. Ancketill has not been convicted, at the suit of Mrs. Armstrong, for unlawful killing of the dog, the county chairman severely commenting on Ancketill's brutal conduct, and whether that conviction has not been confirmed by the going Judge of Assize; and, whether the Mr. Ancketill here referred to is a Magistrate and Deputy Lieutenant of the county Monaghan, and whether the Government consider him worthy to hold any longer Her Majesty's commission of the peace?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS- BEACH: Mr. Speaker, my attention was first called to this statement, which appears to be taken from an article in The Belfast Morning News, by the prominence given to it by the Notice of the hon. Member for Louth. I believe it is incorrect in part and generally much exaggerated. The circumstances, so far as I have been able to learn them, were these: — Mr. Ancketill was driving through a village in county Monaghan late at night, when his horse was frightened by dogs and ran away, kicking the carriage, which was much injured. Hearing the noise, the police came to his assistance; but he, foolishly and improperly, being no doubt much aggravated by what had happened, killed two of the dogs which appeared to have been the transgressors. He was subsequently summoned by the police;

1969
the case was dismissed; and on a second summons being issued, the solicitor for the owners of the dogs obtained leave from the magistrates to withdraw the case, as a civil action was also pending. This action resulted in a decree by the Chairman of the county for £10 against Mr. Ancketill, which was appealed against, and reduced by Mr. Justice Barry to £5, on the ground that the damages were excessive. Mr. Ancketill does not, therefore, appear to have been convicted of a criminal offence, but cast in damages in a civil action; and the circumstances I have related appear to me to place the case in a somewhat different light from that in which it is presented in the statement read by the hon. Member for Louth. However, as what has happened affects the conduct of a magistrate, I have thought it right to direct that the official reports on the subject shall be referred to the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, with whom the decision in such matters rests.
MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to give Notice that, affording time for communication with the Lord Chancellor, I will renew this Question, and ask whether the magistrate who dismissed the case did not when he dismissed it state that the cutting of the dog's throat was not cruelty to animals—it was so swift a death?

POST OFFICE—COMMUNICATION WITH THE UNITED STATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ISAACasked the Postmaster General, If arrangements are in course of settlement with the White Star Line of Steamers trading between this Country and the United States of America, by which the serious delay, inconvenience, and loss at present sustained by the mercantile community of this Country trading with the United States of America may be avoided?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, the question of the conveyance of the American mails was now under consideration by Her Majesty's Government, and under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he declined to enter into the merits of any particular line of steamers plying between Liverpool and the United States.

CRIMINAL LAW—ALLEGED OUTRAGE AT STAMFORD.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the magistrates of Stamford, doubting that any outrage was committed as alleged by the person named Hammond, have asked the Home Office to send down a detective, in order that the character of the town and the efficiency of its magistracy and police force may be vindicated by a still more searching inquiry; and, whether he means to comply with this request of the magistrates?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it was true that the magistrates of Stamford had asked for the assistance of a detective in inquiring into the outrage alluded to by the hon. Member, which request would be granted if the magistrates were willing to pay the expense.

SPAIN—TAXATION IN CUBA.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be not the fact that our mercantile treaties with Spain contain a Clause putting us on the same footing as the most favoured nation; if it has not been frequently represented to Her Majesty's Government that in Cuba, Spain has been for years systematically charging our merchants with an enormous war tax, amounting in some cases to many thousand pounds, from which by special order she exempts German merchants; and, if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to insist on Spain as a friendly power putting British merchants on the same footing as the Germans with whom they have to compete?
  MR. BOURKE: The exceptional position of Germans in Cuba, as regards extraordinary taxation, arises from an additional Article to the Treaty of March 30, 1868, between Germany and Spain, which extended certain provisions of that Treaty to the Spanish Colonies. The Spanish Government have never admitted the validity of the claim founded by Germany on the additional Article, but pending discussion between the two Governments temporary exemption had been granted to the Germans. Her Majesty's Govern-

  1971
  ment are fully aware of the injustice which this arrangement necessarily inflicts on British subjects, as well as on all others except Germans; and they have used their best endeavours, in concert with the Government of France, to induce the Spanish Government to put an end to it. In answer to the representations of Great Britain and France, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs admitted the hardship of the arrangements, which, his Excellency said, was complained of also by Spaniards, and he announced that extraordinary taxes would be abolished in Cuba, ordinary taxes being substituted, similar to those levied in Spain itself, and payable by persons of all nationalities alike. A representation has, however, lately been made by a British firm at Havannah that taxes are still levied from them and other foreigners from which Germans are exempt; and in consequence of this representation Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid will be instructed to make a strong representation to the Spanish Government and to inquire whether the proposed new arrangement has been finally decided upon, and, if so, when it will be put in force.
  MR. CHILDERS: May I ask whether the Government is not aware that not only one firm but that several firms have been paying for some time these utterly illegal taxes?
  MR. BOURKE: Of course I am not in a position, without Notice, to answer that Question. All I can say at present, from the inquiries I made to-day, is that we have only notice of one firm having been asked to pay these taxes; but it is quite possible that other firms may have been asked to pay it.

METROPOLIS—KNIGHTSBRIDGE ROAD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, If he has taken any steps to acquire from Her Majesty's Government the ground necessary for the widening of the Knightsbridge Road, in accordance with the promise given last year; and, how soon the work will be commenced?
  SIR JAMES HOGG: In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I beg to inform him that the Metropolitan Board
  1972
  of Works has agreed with the War Office, subject to an Act of Parliament, to pay £5,000 for a strip of ground for widening Knightsbridge Road, and to undertake the work of making up the roadway. I believe that the Bill is in course of preparation, and as soon as an intimation is received from the War Office that the ground can be given up, the Board will be prepared to perform their part of the agreement.

INDIA—ROUTE FROM RANGOON TO KIANG HUNG.—QUESTION.
MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, considering the great importance to the commercial and industrial interests of this Country of establishing commercial intercourse with the populous south-western provinces of China, Her Majesty's Government intend to take steps to complete the survey of the land route from Rangoon to Kiang Hung, which in 1867 was ordered to be made by the Noble Lord the present Chief Secretary of State for India, and of which the first half was actually completed in that year, as appears by a Report laid before this House?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As my hon. Friend is aware, the completion of this survey will involve certain risk and considerable expense. Pending the consideration of the information obtained by the recent missions of Colonel Browne and Mr. Grosvenor, the Indian Government do not think it expedient, in the present state of feeling upon the frontier, to take steps for the completion of the survey of this particular route.

THE GERMAN EMPIRE—FRENCH RESIDENTS.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has received information that those French citizens residing in any part of Germany who have served a portion only of their military time in the French Army, and who are still liable to be recalled to their regiments, are to be for the future treated differently from other Foreign residents in Germany?
MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that no such information had been received.

ARMY—EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS IN THE HARVEST FIELD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Queen's Regulations restricting the employment of Soldiers in the Harvest Field, Whether he will be good enough to state what inquiries were made by the General Officer commanding at Dover relative to a complaint made on the subject, on the 17th day of August last, by Mr. Simmons, secretary of the Kent and Sussex Labourers' Union, to whom those inquiries were addressed; and, if he will lay before the House the Answer received to those inquiries?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the Queen's Regulations stated that there would be no objection to soldiers being allowed, at the discretion of the general officer in command, to assist in getting in the harvest, when application was made for their assistance, provided that the employment of the population of the district was not thereby interfered with, and that there were no strikes or disputes between the farmers and their Labourers. An application was made in August last for the employment of six soldiers in the neighbourhood of Dover, under the authority of the general officer commanding there. Inquiry was made by the War Office as to whether there was any reason why permission should not be given. The general officer replied that the Labourers were fully employed, and there was no strike or dispute between them and the farmers; and, therefore, he allowed these soldiers to assist in collecting the harvest. The harvest time came on very rapidly, he believed, and but for this assistance many of the farmers would no doubt have suffered. As he had received no reply to the request which he had made to those persons who had complained that they should furnish him with some statement of their grounds of complaint, he did not think it necessary to take any further steps in the matter.

ARMY—THE CRIMEAN GRAVEYARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REEDasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would inform the House, by laying Papers upon the
  1974
  Table or otherwise, what is the present state of the British graveyards in the Crimea, and whether a guardian has been appointed to protect them?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that care has been taken to put these cemeteries in good order. Captain Anstey, who was peculiarly well qualified to perform that duty, was assisted by Captain Harford, who was at that time acting as Consul at Sebastopol. In some cases the tombstones, where they were few, have been removed to the larger cemeteries and placed within boundary walls. A custodian has also been appointed, and a cottage built for him.

ARMY—MILITIA SURGEONS—WARRANT OF 1876.—QUESTION.
COLONEL MITREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration the case of Surgeons of Militia, who, by the Clauses of the Royal Warrant, dated War Office, 19th July 1876, and the instructions of the Secretary of State thereon, have been deprived of the larger proportion of the income derived from their appointments?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The subject has received a good deal of consideration, and I have been requested to receive a deputation after Easter from a medical body in the Metropolis who have taken up the subject of Militia training, and I shall be prepared to give every consideration to the statements they may make. With respect to the subject of the treatment of the Militia medical service, that also is under consideration, and it will depend to some extent upon the condition of the Militia service.

JUDICATURE ACTS—APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL JUDGE.—QUESTION.
MR. FRESHFIELDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to arrange for the appointment of an additional Vice Chancellor, with adequate staff, to carry on the business which, under existing arrangements, is, or should be, carried on in Chambers?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The proposal of the Govern-

1975
ment is not to appoint an "additional Vice Chancellor." The proposal is to appoint an additional Judge of the High Court of Justice. He will, in the first instance, be attached to the Chancery Division of the High Court; but, like all other Judges appointed since the Judicature Act, he may hereafter be removed to another Division, should such a course be expedient. It is not intended, at least at present, that he should have a staff of chief clerks and subordinate clerks, as in the case of the Master of the Rolls and Vice Chancellors. There is now a very large number of actions before the Chancery Division which are analogous to what were formerly called Common Law actions, which do not involve any amount of Chamber business, and which are the cause of much of the arrear in the Division. The object is to enable arrangements to be made for the decision of these actions.

NAVY—THE TRAINING SHIP "BRITANNIA."—"BULLYING."

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a letter of Mr. John Lloyd, in the "Daily News" of the 9th instant, on the subject of bullying and cruelty, which practices are alleged to prevail among the Cadets on Her Majesty's Training Ship "Britannia" at Dartmouth; whether such allegations are true; and, if so, what steps he has taken to prevent such practices in future; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Admiral who recently held a Court of Inquiry on beard Her Majesty's Ship "Britannia relative to these charges, and state the decision of the Admiralty thereon?
  MR. HUNT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I have seen the letter to which this Question refers. The allegations contained in it are of a general character, and I can only reply generally as to whether they are true. I am sorry to say there were some cases of bullying on beard the Britannia. I believe that in every school, of every kind, bullying does occur to a certain extent at certain times. The Britannia was no exception to the rule; but great pains had been taken of late years to repress all such practices, and with very
  1976
  considerable success. I have reason to think that the practice of bullying on beard the Britannia has been very considerably diminished. Ever since I have been at the head of the Admiralty I have taken very severe measures to repress such practices whenever they have been brought to my notice. These are the instructions given to the captain of a ship in regard to all such matters: In the case of minor offences he deals with them himself, but serious offences are brought under the notice of the Admiralty. The hon. Member asks me to lay on the Table the Report of the Admiralty. All I can say on that subject is that there is no precedent, either in the Army or Navy, for producing a copy of the report of a Court of Inquiry. But, even if this were not the practice, I should not feel disposed to lay this Report upon the Table, for the following reason: I should be very sorry myself to see all my schoolboy delinquencies recorded in a Blue Book, and I think, probably, the hon. Member who puts the Question shares my views with regard to himself. As regards the decision of the Admiralty, I would say this, that certain specific charges were brought in the case to which the letter relates, and the decision of the Admiralty was that those charges had not been substantiated in any important point.

COAL MINES REGULATION ACT—PARK HALL COLLIERY EXPLOSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the depositions taken by the coroner at an inquest held on the body of Edward Barnes, who died in consequence of burns received from an explosion of gas in the Park Hall Colliery, near Cheadle; and, whether he intends to order the prosecution of Thomas Birt, the fireman of the pit, for a breach of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, in not properly examining the pit before sending in the men to work?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that proceedings would be forthwith taken under the Coal Mines Regulation Act. The only reason why proceedings had not been taken by the Inspector before was that, unfortunately,

  1977
  another man was seriously injured, and it was expected that another coroner's inquest would be necessary. If such an event occurred, he would take care that the Home Office was represented at that inquiry.

BARBADOES—MR. POPE HENNESSY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREENEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention had been called to the following remarks made by Mr. Pope Hennessy, the Governor of Hong Kong, when he was presented with the freedom of the City of Cork. He is alleged to have said—
  "I am enabled now, for the first time since I have returned to this country, to refer to what has passed in Barbadoes, and to declare that, in all my experience, I was never in a community where there was such deliberate oppression of the masses as in the community at Barbadoes;"
  and, whether, from the information received by the Government, such a charge is borne out by the facts of the case?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Our attention has been called to this report, and a communication has been addressed to Mr. Hennessy inviting him to state whether it is correct, and, if so, to offer explanations. With respect to the latter part of the Question, I may inform my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government are not possessed of any information which would warrant a statement that there had been deliberate oppression of the masses in Barbadoes.

THE FLOODS.—QUESTION.
MR. ARTHUR PEELasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any decision has been come to in reference to instituting an inquiry into the causes of floods throughout the country; and whether, in the opinion of the Government, a Royal Commission would not be the most suitable mode of ascertaining facts and suggesting remedies?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had had the subject of the floods throughout the country under consideration, and they thought it was a subject about which inquiry was certainly necessary. The time of this House was at present fully occupied, both in Committees and
1978
otherwise; and therefore they had come to the conclusion that the better course would be that the inquiry should be undertaken by a Committee of the House of Lords in the first instance, the Government reserving to themselves the right, when the Committee had reported, to appoint a Royal Commission afterwards, if necessary, to inquire into specific points in the inquiry, but not to take the shape of a roving Commission.

SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
  (1) £140,000 Army Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYexplained that the object of the Vote was to provide a reserve of clothing for the Army. He found last Autumn that the markets were favourable, and he therefore thought it was desirable to take the opportunity of providing the Army with a reserve supply of clothing.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURapproved of the right hon. Gentleman's precaution, and urged that in order to render the measure a success, it was necessary to have a statement of the stocks on hand before the purchase and after the purchase to enable the House to verify the existence of a reserve stock in the present year, and the like precautions being taken in future years, so as to guard against the using up of reserves without being replaced.
  Vote agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS REMAINING SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES AND CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS EXCESS ESTIMATES FOR 1875–6, AND VOTE OF CREDIT ASHANTEE EXPEDITION (EXCESS).
(2.) £550, Arctic Expedition, agreed to.
(3.) £31,350, Diplomatic Services.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this Vote included £10,400 for the Yunnan Mission, but the Papers had not been produced, and he doubted whether, without them, the Vote ought to pass.
MR. BOURKEsaid, the Papers relating to the Mission were produced last

1979
year, and the expenses now asked for had been recovered from the Chinese Government, so that it was a mere matter of account.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdoubted whether, under all the circumstances, this country was entitled to ask for the indemnity.
MR. BOURKEsaid, a large portion of the £10,400 was for the escort. As to the policy of the indemnity, he thought the House would be of opinion that it had been properly required from the Chinese Government, which had also paid a compensation to the family of Mr. Margary and to certain merchants whose property was destroyed. Sir Thomas Wade, now in this country, was preparing a long Memorandum on the subject, and further Papers would be laid on the Table after Easter, when the question of the policy of the Mission might be raised.
MR. RICHARDthought that the first Yunnan Expedition was unwise and untimely, and predoomed to failure from the first, and there should be an opportunity of discussing the subject when the further Papers were produced. The Expedition was undertaken in opposition to the views of Lord Northbrook and the Indian Council, and Sir Thomas Wade, the British Ambassador at Pekin, was at least unfavourable to the enterprise.
MR. RYLANDScalled attention to some circumstances connected with Lord Salisbury's special embassy to Constantinople. Lord Salisbury was accompanied by four Foreign Office clerks. The Foreign Office staff was divided into classes, to whom different parts of the world were allotted, and the clerks were expected to make themselves familiar with the affairs of those countries. It might have been supposed that these four gentlemen chosen to accompany Lord Salisbury would have been taken from the department of the Foreign Office which was specially charged with Turkish affairs; but Mr. Currie and Mr. Hozier were, he believed, in the United States department, Mr. Leigh was a member of the commercial department, and Mr. Northcote was connected with the Austria and Germany branch. No Member of the House would object to see the son of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) being attached to the Mis-
1980
sion, but the other three gentlemen had been selected in a most extraordinary manner, and not at all on account of their knowledge of Turkey. The passing over of every gentleman connected with the Turkish department had attracted much observation.
MR. BOURKE: I am not at all certain that it is for the public interest that the appointments to which reference has been made should form the subject of discussion in this House. Generally, such appointments are left to the discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There are reasons why the Secretary of State does many things in his office which it is not desirable or expedient for the public service should be given to the world. But there is no mystery about this matter. The hon. Gentleman says that the Foreign Office is divided into geographical sections; but it is only divided in that way for the convenience of the Office, and not at all upon personal grounds. The chief reason why the selections which have been complained of were made was that it was extremely desirable that the Turkish department of the Foreign Office should be left as strong as possible during the time that Lord Salisbury was at Constantinople; and that what had been going on for some months should not be disturbed by the absence of the clerks who had been engaged in that department up to that time. Therefore it was that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office thought it much better to leave the Turkish department as it was. It was quite clear that those connected with that department would have a great deal to do at home while the gentlemen who were selected to accompany Lord Salisbury to Constantinople were absent from London. The result proved the wisdom of the arrangement which was made; for there never was a department so overworked as that unfortunate Turkish department, both during the time Lord Salisbury was away on his Mission to the East, and after his return, in preparing Papers which had to be got ready for Parliament in great haste. I do not think it desirable to enter into the individual merits and qualifications of the clerks who were chosen. It would be invidious to do so; and, indeed, I could hardly state their qualifications without appearing to do injustice to others. All I can say is, that they were selected for

1981
very good reasons; and as for the selection of Mr. Northcote as private secretary, that selection was made by Lord Salisbury himself, and we all know how well he discharged his duties.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFconsidered the explanation of his hon. Friend was the most unsatisfactory he had ever given. The Foreign Office, as he had stated, was divided into geographical departments. The European departments knew everything about Turkey, for by the rules of the Foreign Office every despatch coming into it was copied by every department, so that the Embassies and Legations abroad should be kept fully informed on all European questions. Therefore, if any of the clerks in any of the European departments had been selected they must have known more of Turkish affairs than any of the clerks in the American section. He did not wish in any way to run down the clerks that were sent out to Turkey, as they were, no doubt, meritorious public servants; but the very nature of their work precluded them from knowing the previous history of what was going on in Turkey. He did not think his hon. Friend's reply ought to satisfy the Committee. He had reason to know that the course pursued in this instance, which was unusual, had given rise to great dissatisfaction in the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service. He believed there was a certain amount of favouritism going on in the Foreign Office, which naturally caused dissatisfaction in that Department.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that the discussion was very inconvenient and inopportune. A person appointed to an important duty ought to have the choice of those whom he thought most likely to assist him. He was told that Lord Salisbury had not chosen those gentlemen. Well, then, Lord Derby, who had chosen them, must have known better than any one else the persons best fitted to perform the duties that would be required.
MR. ONSLOWregretted the observations made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). Everybody gave Lord Derby credit for using the best discretion, and in a matter of such importance it was impossible to believe that any but gentlemen competent for the work would have been appointed. There was no necessity for the clerks who went out with Lord
1982
Salisbury to know much about Turkey, for this reason—that the staff at Constantinople was well informed on all subjects connected with Turkey and the Turkish Provinces; and if Lord Salisbury required information he had only to go to Sir Henry Elliot's office, and get all he wanted. The insinuation against Lord Derby was, he thought, unjust and undeserved.
MR. GOLDSMIDcongratulated the Government on their two advocates, whose explanations did not agree with each other or with that of the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Bourke). The Parliamentary Papers were prepared, not when Lord Salisbury started on his expedition, but long after. Perhaps the real explanation was that the Government thought it was most desirable to send out men who were absolutely ignorant of the Turkish question, in order to show that there was no bias on one side or the other, so far as the Foreign Office was concerned.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had not charged Lord Derby with favouritism. He believed that the noble Lord was really as ignorant of what had led to the appointments which had been made as Lord Salisbury himself. What he had stated was that there was a great deal of favouritism shown in the Foreign Office, and that statement he maintained. He believed the gentlemen in question were selected in order that Lord Salisbury and his staff should be thrown into the hands of the permanent staff of the Embassy at Constantinople.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses, in certain Colonies."
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU,who had given Notice of an Amendment to reduce the Vote by £41,000, complained that the laws of political economy had been systematically violated in the management of the affairs of our West African Settlements. Lord Carnarvon had offered the country two alternatives on this question—either to pay certain sums

1983
annually for these Colonies or give them up altogether. If there were no other option he should at once advise the abandonment of the Colonies; but, in his opinion, the true policy with reference to Sierra Leone and the Gambia was to remove the heavy shackles of taxation and give them the benefit of free trade. He complained that Governor Pope Hennessy had, in order to obtain popular applause, given up certain direct taxes. Direct taxation was the best means of raising a revenue, instead of which they found from the Blue Book that the Customs duties were the staple of revenue, and the result was that while the revenue obtained from Customs duties had gradually increased, those duties had strangled the trade. The taxation of the Colonies had been increased the last two years, and there had been a serious diminution in the export of palm oil, which fell from 22 cwt in 1871 to 13 cwt in 1872; and, though it rose to 16 cwt in 1873, it fell to 11 cwt in 1874. Taxes were continually added to in order to augment the revenue, and those taxes were imposed in violation of all the principles of free trade. The smuggling which had been complained of also arose from the same cause. If taxes had not been imposed which it was beyond the capacity of the Colony to bear there would have been no cause for the excessive smuggling. Not only had the Colonies been weakened by these causes, but no security was taken against the maladministration of public funds, for Lord Carnarvon had admitted that the accounts had been "cooked." No private firm would submit to a continuance of the state of things which Lord Carnarvon described. Ono large item in the Vote was for the provision of a steamer, the use of which had been told him by a late Governor; he was granted a guinea a-day for travelling expenses, and found he could live on beard a steamer for 7s. 6d., and so he left Government House, diminished his personal risk of fever, and pocketed 12 s. 6d. a-day. Instead of being warned by diminishing trade and revenue, and by the consequences of increasing the taxation, to adopt a wiser policy, the Government came to this House to get the deficit made up by the British taxpayer. In order to protest against such disregard of political economy iii' the case of a Colony blessed by Nature, but
1984
cursed by ignorant administration, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £41,000. He quite apprehended that his Motion would be lost; but if he could obtain any following at all he would divide the Committee on the subject.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, the noble Lord had made a most energetic speech in favour of the British taxpayer, but he thought he had scarcely done justice to Lord Carnarvon, who had shown the greatest anxiety to reduce the expenditure. When the vast extent of our Colonies Empire was considered it was perfectly wonderful to him how it was maintained without larger and more frequent calls upon the Imperial Exchequer. Within the last few years troops had been withdrawn from these Colonies—a matter which was to be regretted, yet one which had led to a saving; and really the expense which those Colonies now entailed on this country was perfectly insignificant.
MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN,as he had been connected with the Colonial Department under the late Government, wished to say a few words. There were two points for consideration, the matter of the Vote and the manner of its presentation—namely, as a Supplementary Estimate. So far from finding fault with the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) for bringing forward that subject, he thought he had exercised a sound judgment in doing so. When Supplementary Estimates were proposed it was not well for the House to be too easy, or to abstain from criticism. Last year, when the Colonial Estimates were moved, it must have been within the knowledge of the Colonial Office that some excess Votes would be required, and it was not desirable to allow those items to accumulate until they amounted to such a sum as was now asked for. It would be far better that when the Colonial Estimates were moved in the regular order, Government should state the financial condition of the Colonies for

1985
which Votes would be asked and the reasons for such Votes. At the same time, he believed that earnest attempts had been made by the Home Government to obtain a more correct rendering of accounts and a reduction of expenditure. But with regard to their Colonies on the West Coast of Africa, there could be no doubt that they must be prepared either to make Imperial contributions from time to time or to surrender those Colonies. A certain sum was asked for St. Helena, whose revenues, owing to the opening of the Suez Canal, and the consequent diversion of trade, had fallen off, and in those circumstances — for which the people of St. Helena were in no way to blame—it would not be consistent with the dignity and character of England to refuse such a contribution or to abandon a Colony which had belonged to us for upwards of 200 years. With respect to the Gambia, the question of its cession had been dangled before Parliament by successive Governments and then withdrawn, and they had no full discussion as to whether it ought to be ceded or not. When he first went to the Colonial Office there had been a negotiation for the cession of the Gambia to France, but it was broken off for the moment by the state of the Continent. The argument in favour of the transfer was mainly that by an exchange with France the collection of Custom duties on the West African Coast would be facilitated and the revenue improved. He himself, however, came to the conclusion that it would have been very unwise to have carried out this cession, and that for three reasons—first, that it was dubious morality and scarcely fair to transfer, contrary to their own wishes, to another Government, a population which had grown up under the authority of this country, spoke our language, and clung to our connection; secondly, that it was very doubtful whether the French really possessed such exclusive jurisdiction over some of the places which they proposed to exchange, as would secure to us the expected revenue advantages; thirdly, the River Gambia was very wide and large, and we might want a coaling station in that quarter, when the Gambia would be extremely serviceable to England. The possible future development of trade with the interior of Africa was another reason why we should not give up that Colony. At the same time, he
1986
hoped that the present large demand on the Imperial Exchequer might not be repeated, or, at all events, that the sum required would be asked for when the Colonial Estimates were brought forward in the regular form. The greater portion of that Vote was for Sierra Leone, as to which the noble Lord's criticism was to a great extent just. Mr. Pope Hennessy took to every Colony to which he went a very sincere and proper desire to render himself and the Queen's authority in his person popular with the Natives; but he thought that policy might be carried too far, and the financial changes which Mr. Pope Hennessy made in 1872 had scarcely been justified by the results. It might be said that those proposals might have been disallowed; but when Mr. Pope Hennessy had put forth his scheme, which abolished the house tax, the land tax, and various other taxes, which were unpopular with the Natives, resting the whole of his revenue on certain duties, it was almost impossible for the Secretary of State, without possible mischief, and causing much local discontent, to have overridden the decision to which Mr. Pope Hennessy had come, being, as he was, upon the spot with information which should have led him to sound conclusions. Unfortunately, Mr. Pope Hennessy's plan did not succeed; and in the Papers before them they found Lord Carnarvon asking, almost in a pitiful manner, whether some of the taxes which had been repealed might not be reimposed. They had to consider whether Sierra Leone was one of those Colonies which it was so desirable to maintain that they would give a contribution towards its expenditure, and that question was one which might fairly be discussed on a future occasion. But the debt which had been already incurred they could not honourably refuse to pay, and therefore he could not support the Motion to reduce the Vote. At the same time, it was incumbent on the Government to exercise the greatest vigilance in scrutinizing the future expenditure of the Colony.
SIR HENRY HOLLANDknew from his experience at the Colonial Office that if this country was determined to keep these Settlements we must from time to time be prepared to advance money from Imperial funds to secure an efficient government of them. The Committee which sat in 1865 came to

1987
two resolutions—the first of which was that there ought to be no further extension of territory; and the second, that the main object of the Government should be to train up the Natives in the art of self-government, with a view to the ultimate withdrawal of this Government from them, with, perhaps, the exception of Sierra Leone. The first resolution had been carried out, and no territory had been added. With respect to the second, the country had decided upon retaining those Settlements, and Selden's saying might be applied to this question, that "he who keeps a monkey must be prepared to pay for the glasses it breaks." The country was obliged not only to pay larger salaries, but to keep up larger establishments than were required in ordinary cases, and in Colonies of the same class. One of the main causes of the expense of these Colonies was the climate. It was no uncommon thing to find a Governor acting with only half a staff; and this, of course, rendered it extremely difficult to have a thoroughly good financial system carried into effect. Another reason which rendered the administration of these Colonies rather difficult was that there was no power of taxing luxuries—such as carriages and articles of that description—and that they must mainly rely on their Customs duties. In Gambia £22,000 out of £24,000 had been raised in one year in this way, and in another year £16,000 out of £18,000. Another difficulty which existed was the stoppage of trade from the interior. This had been specially the case in Lagos, which had had in consequence to borrow £10,000, and to its credit, be it said, that sum had been repaid. Smuggling, too, had greatly interfered with the financial difficulties. Then there was the expense of expeditions to keep the Natives in order, and of providing for the defence of the Colonies. It would be a bad day for England if she allowed the defensive works of the Colonies to get out of order. With respect to the steamer to which reference had been made, he considered it absolutely necessary for going up the rivers. The difficulties to which he had referred applied to all these Settlements. There was no doubt that in 1872 Mr. Pope Hennessy revised—or it should rather be called revolutionized—the tariff in Sierra Leone, and he raised the duties
1988
in some cases 33 per cent, and on others 166 per cent, on the cheap articles; and the consequence was that the trade was driven to the rivers outside the Colony. It seemed to him (Sir Henry Holland) that it was desirable to revert to the old state of things, and this had to some extent been done; but it was not so easy to draw back merchants who had set up their establishments on these rivers; and he thought the wisest course for the country to adopt would be to enter into Treaties with the Native Chiefs along the rivers, and to obtain a better jurisdiction over them. Such a course would not be contrary to the recommendations of the Committee of 1865; and with reference to the costs which were incurred in the administration of these Colonies, he thought no one who had read the Papers before the House could come to any other conclusion than that Lord Carnarvon was applying himself in every possible way to a reduction of expenditure.
MR. GOLDSMIDbelieved that a portion of the Colonial expenditure which had to be paid by this country was owing to the advantage, or perhaps the luxury, of having such a Governor as Mr. Pope Hennessy. That gentleman might possess eminent qualifications for his office, but he had a remarkable faculty for getting every place he attempted to govern into hot water, while every time he opened his mouth he said something he had better have left unsaid. He need only instance the fact brought under the notice of the House that very afternoon, that the Under Secretary for the Colonies had been obliged to call upon Mr. Pope Hennessy to offer an explanation of some strange observations recently made by him in Ireland. As far as the history of this Colony could be traced, it was progressive and improving up to the unfortunate date of the arrival of Mr. Pope Hennessy, who had adopted a system of finance which had never been contemplated, and had thereby changed the whole course of events. The result of his proceedings was that owing to his abolition of certain taxes, and the increase of certain duties, he had driven away trade to the French and Native territories for years to come. He had great fault to find with the late Under Secretary for the Colonies for not having put down his foot upon Mr. Pope Hen-

1989
nessy's financial experiments, because he should have known that it was not desirable that he should be entrusted with so large a discretionary power. When he went to Barbadoes—perhaps through over zeal — he involved the Colony in political messes of the most serious character, and he (Mr. Goldsmid) trembled to think what would be the fate of Hong Kong, which had been unfortunately committed to his charge. But whether Mr. Pope Hennessy was to blame in these matters or not, he had no personal ground of complaint, as each difficulty had resulted in his promotion to higher office. He wished to remind the Under Secretary for the Colonies of the remarks which he made when in Opposition with regard to the duty of impressing on the Colonies the necessity of their being self-supporting. When Lagos got into financial difficulties it had to borrow £10,000, which was afterwards honourably repaid; but Lagos would not be so foolish as to do such a thing again, when it found that other Colonies obtained such pickings from the Imperial Treasury. The Government ought to send out strict instructions for the reversal of the wrong financial policy which had been adopted by Mr. Pope Hennessy, and to go back on the former lines, and endeavour to make each Colony, as it was before, improving and progressive. The Secretary for the Colonies had admitted that there had been some extravagance, and that was the case at the present time. The result of the discussion which had taken place last Session showed that, in the opinion of Parliament, we ought not to cede any Colony in our possession. In that opinion he (Mr. Goldsmid) entirely concurred. The cession of the Ionian Islands was one which we had ever since regretted, and he knew that the inhabitants of those Islands regretted it too. That was not an encouraging example. We had duties to perform as civilizers of the Colonies, but we also had duties to the mother country; and the first thing we ought to do on establishing a Colony was to establish a government founded on the principles of right and justice, and not on a policy which was totally erroneous and unsatisfactory. The errors in the government of these West African Possessions were obvious, and were founded on a policy which the Government ought
1990
to reverse; and he trusted the Secretary for the Colonies would give effect to the strong feeling which he entertained as to the necessity of making the Colonies self-supporting.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not come down to the House with the intention of speaking, but seeing that his grandfather was the founder of this Colony of Sierra Leone, and he had some family and previous knowledge of the circumstances in discussion, he would like to submit to the Committee a few facts regarding it. He had collected statistics, which, he thought, would justify him in asking the Committee not to make a reduction in the Vote, but to agree to an Amendment which he should propose, and upon which he hoped they would go to a division. The population of Sierra Leone was about 40,000, and its trade with this country, which was its principal trade, might be valued at £200,000 per annum. The revenue of the Colony was about £58,000 per annum, almost all of which was derived from the Customs, which, they were told by the Earl of Carnarvon, were declining, owing to smuggling. The expenditure somewhat exceeded the revenue, and in addition to that, there was a debt of about £75,000. Let the Committee consider what that meant. The extent of the Colony was about 18 miles by 13 miles, the total area being about 300 square miles. And what was the expenditure which it was thought necessary to make for the government of this small Colony? In the first place, there was a Governor with a salary of £2,000 per annum and additional allowance of £500 per annum, and he had an aide-de-camp and a clerk. There was besides a Colonial Secretary with a salary of £800 and quarters, having three clerks having salaries from £100 to £150. per annum. These too highly-paid administrative officers, he ventured to say, had little or nothing to do. Then, with reference to the Financial staff, which turned over something like £50,000 or £60,000 a-year, they had clerks with £700, £350, £200, and £150 a-year; and to keep those people in order they had an Audit Office, which cost £300 a-year, and so badly managed was it that for two successive years they were unable to get a revenue account for Sierra Leone, because they were told there were no reliable returns. The

1991
Collector of Revenues had £500 a-year, with 12 subordinates. The Sanitary Department consumed £400. The Judicial Establishment was a disgraceful item. The Chief Justice had £1,500 a-year, Queen's Advocate £1,000; a Master and Registrar of the Supreme Court £500, a Sheriff and Provost Marshal 400. The Registrar General had £300 a-year. The police magistrate had £500 a-year, his clerk £200; the Inspector General of Police £500. More than £700 a-year was paid to the Coroners of Sierra Leone in the rural districts. There was a Bishop with £900, a Colonial chaplain with £500 a-year, and a Director of Public Instruction with £500 a-year, to which he did not object. This immense establishment was the real cause of the deficit. Sierra Leone had been a success mice by means of thrift, energy, and public spirit. The Earl of Carnarvon had tried to do his duty there, as elsewhere, and had sanctioned the public-spirited conduct of the Governor of St. Helena, who, by taking upon himself the duties of Chief Justice, had saved the country £600 a-year. Some reasonable arrangement of the same description at Sierra Leone might save the country thousands a-year. It became Parliament to look into these matters. What he desired was that the Colonies Office should tell our officials there that they should reduce the expenditure, and if they did not do so that others would be sent out to take their place. He would not support the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) to diminish the Vote by £41,000, for the money must be made up; but lie wished the House to come to a resolution to make the Colonial Office take measures to diminish the expenditure, and if the noble Lord withdrew his Motion he (Mr. Trevelyan) would move that the Vote be diminished by £5,000.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not wish to follow the hon. Member into details, but he would put the result into two simple figures. In Sierra Leone there was a revenue of £61,000, and an expenditure of £68,000, £3,500 being interest on the public debt, and £32,000 for salaried establishments. The population was only 50,000 or 60,000. In St. Helena the salaried establishment cost £10,000 a-year, out of an income of £13,000. Lords Kimberley and Carnarvon had done their utmost to bring
1992
these Colonies into a satisfactory condition. What the Colonial Office really wanted was more power to act; a distinct indication on the part of the House that these Colonies should not thus be administered. Again, he found that the debt of Sierra Leone had been spread over a number of years and was now £38,000. The Colony had been borrowing at the rate of 6 per cent, £3,000 or £4,000 a-year being paid for interest. If the Colony had borrowed it from the Government at 3 per cent they would be saved a large amount of grant now asked for. So, again, as to the finance of the Gambia and of St. Helena, the revenue would have been sufficient but for the contribution now being made to wipe off the capital of the debt. It was better, in all these cases, for the Treasury even now to supply the whole sum needed to pay off the debt at 3 per cent, than to make these absolute grants. Of this he had no doubt—that it was impolitic to allow those Colonies to think that they could obtain grants from the Imperial Exchequer whenever they got into debt for public works at high rates of interest, and their expenditure came hence to exceed their revenue.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it would be unnecessary for him to make any detailed statement as to the financial position of the Colonies referred to, full information on that subject having been furnished in the Papers now for some days in the hands of hon. Members. Very little had been said in the course of the discussion against the financial administration of St. Helena, the principal charge made being that preferred by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers)—namely, that the Colony, which was maintained altogether for Imperial purposes, spent its money in paying its debt—an example which he thought might with advantage be followed by other communities. The utmost economy had been for some years observed there—the staff had been reduced; the Governor uniting with his duties as Governor those of Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Vice Admiral, Colonial Secretary, Judge of the Summary Court, and Police Magistrate. He did not see how a consolidation of offices could be carried further. The Committee must recollect that it would be unreasonable to expect a small com-

1993
munity of 17,000 souls to bear up against the great alterations in trade, which had diminished their resources. Blame had been laid on the financial administration of Sierra Leone, especially by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath. (Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: I said Sierra Leone and Gambia.] He laid special stress on the administration of Mr. Pope Hennessy, which he (Mr. Lowther) was not charged with the duty of defending. That episode occurred when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) occupied the position of Under Secretary, and he (Mr. Lowther) had had sufficiently often to trespass on the indulgence of the House in endeavouring to defend the acts of Mr. Pope Hennessy while he himself was officially connected with the Colonial Department, and was therefore not disposed to assume any unnecessary responsibilities of that nature. The noble Lord said that the mischief which had occurred was due to the adoption of a system of indirect taxation. Reference had been made to certain imposts which had been discontinued—namely, the land tax and the house tax. From the observations made by the noble Lord and other hon. Members the Committee might have been led to think that the main source of revenue up to the time of Mr. Pope Hennessy's Governorship was direct taxation. So far, however, from that being the case, it would be found that a very small portion of the revenue was derived from that source. The revenue of those Settlements had been mainly derived from indirect taxation. It was perfectly notorious that there were no wealthy classes to bear taxation; there was no landed aristocracy — no great private trading community; and therefore they had to resort to indirect taxation for the revenues of these Colonies. At the Gambia the taxes were more or less of the same kind, and although they had not in late years succeeded in raising the revenue required, yet up to 1872 the revenue was found to be equal to the expenditure, and a considerable sum was applied in re-paying some loans. At Sierra Leone a change took place in 1872 in regard to the management of that Colony. The noble Lord said that if any commercial establishment carried on their affairs in a similar manner, the firm would dismiss
1994
the officers; now, unfortunately, the officers dismissed themselves; there were constant deaths occurring amongst the members of the staff; and, not only that, but the retirements so far diminished the staff that it was almost impossible to keep it filled up in a proper state of efficiency. He did not wish to dwell upon this subject, but he must admit that the state of things at Sierra Leone was far from satisfactory. The noble Lord had said it was a place blessed by nature. All he (Mr. Lowther) would say in reply to that was that he hoped such blessings would not be extended to any community with which he might happen to be connected. It had been alleged he had stated that he would come to Parliament for an annual Vote for this Settlement. He, however, said nothing of the sort. What he said was that he could not hold out any confident expectations that such Votes would not be required again. He freely admitted that the revenue of these Settlements was not equal to their requirements, and that the Imperial Exchequer was the only source from which help could be derived. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) was in error in stating that he (Mr. Lowther) had ever committed himself to the doctrine that these Colonies ought to be self-supporting. The observations evidently in his mind were made when he (Mr. Lowther) was sitting on the opposite side of the House, and was untrammelled by any official ties. What he really did say upon that occasion was that the expenditure of British lives and treasure in those unhealthy climates was a policy he could not endorse. He also pointed out that the chief horrors of the Slave Trade were due to the overcrowding of vessels consequent upon the presence of our cruisers, and had further drawn a comparison between the relative value—in his own opinion—of the life or health of a single British seaman and several cargoes of Ethiopians. If he he was asked for an explanation of those opinions expressed at the time and under the circumstances alluded to when he occupied an irresponsible position in that House, he might very well take the liberty of copying the reply given (if his memory did not fail him) to the noble Lord himself (Lord Robert Montagu) by a statesman of greater eminence than any to which he (Mr. Lowther) could

1995
ever hope to attain—"a great deal has happened since then." He, however, would be perfectly frank with the House, and would at once admit that with the advantage of the additional experience he had since enjoyed he entertained precisely the same opinions now. If he were asked why, under those circumstances, he had not endeavoured to induce the Government to move in the direction he had indicated, he would with equal candour admit that he had not met with such support on former occasions on this subject in the House of Commons as to justify him in urging his personal opinions upon his Colleagues, who probably would not have been more inclined to adopt them than he candidly owned the House at large had formerly been. While his opinion remained precisely what it was, he felt bound to acknowledge accomplished facts; and therefore he would not urge opinions which might not be shared in by his Colleagues or approved by the House. He assured the House that he would not press the Vote unless he felt that the Imperial Government was bound in honour to discharge its obligations. As we had, on repeated occasions, decided to retain these Colonies, no other course was open to us but to agree to the proposal before the Committee.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he had not expressed any desire to give up any Colony, but the Earl of Carnarvon had said in "another place" that Parliament must either pay these sums or these Colonies must be given up. But there was an alternative which he would place before the Committee, and that was that the Government should reduce the taxation on the imports and exports. They should revert to the old system, which was approved of and which was successful. If the principles of free trade were resorted to the result would be that the resources would be amply sufficient. He objected to the now indirect taxation which the Government was constantly putting on these Colonies. If there should be deficits in any of the Australian Colonies this country might be called upon to make them good. In conclusion, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
1996
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Lord Robert Montage.)
MR. TREVELYANwished to point out that what the Committee was going to do was not to vote a sum to discharge obligations which this country had incurred, but rather to put pressure on the Colonial Office, and require them to make during the present year a saving of 20 per cent on the enormous and expensive establishment at Sierra Leone.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 150: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 35.)
Original Question again proposed.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved that grants in aid of bankrupt Colonies had formerly been unusual, but seemed likely to become frequent, seeing in particular that we had taken over Fiji, which it appeared from accounts would probably never be in a position to pay its way. On looking back to the Reports of the Committee on Public Accounts, he found that in 1873 the Committee reported in terms which showed that St. Helena was an old offender in the manner in which money voted by this country was expended in that Island. It was necessary under present circumstances, and having reference to other Colonies, that the House of Commons should see that it possessed proper control over the sums granted in aid, and that the money so granted was properly applied. He therefore moved that the amount of the Vote be reduced by the sum proposed for St. Helena—namely, £5,500.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he could not support the Vote as proposed by Her

1997
Majesty's Government, and he expressed his opinion that it was lamentable the way in which the affairs of the Colonies were administered. In the case of Gambia, there had been seven Governors in 12 years, and there was no wonder that the accounts had got into a bad state. He could not see why now, with the appliance of telegraphy, these Colonies could not be governed from the mother country, without the aid of a Governor. The expenditure of St. Helena, which contained a very small population, was much too great. Administrative reform was wanted for the better government of that Colony, in order to induce persons to settle there.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that necessarily these unhealthy Colonies must be more expensive in their administrative department than others. It was impossible to get persons to accept office there without their being highly remunerated, and pensions being provided. With regard to St. Helena, the alteration of the route to the East caused by the opening of the Suez Canal had naturally resulted in a loss of revenue to that Colony, and he would remind the Committee that any cutting down of the establishment must naturally lead to an increase in the pension list. The utmost economy had throughout been observed. Attempts had been made to increase the revenue of St. Helena by cultivating a particular tree, the bark of which was valuable as an article of commerce, but the results had not yet been very favourable.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Committee ought to jealously watch and see that where demands were made on the mother country for assistance, that a proper case for acceding to the request had been made out. These grants were not a satisfactory way of voting public money, and there was no guarantee that the money then to be voted would be expended as the House of Commons intended it to be spent. He should vote for the reduction of the Vote.
SIR ANDREW LUSKalso complained that money voted for the Island by the Imperial Parliament had been imprudently expended, which was a very improper thing to do. It was useless to talk about the productions of St. Helena, for nothing grew on these rocks. Occasionally ships put in for supplies when they passed, but they were
1998
pretty well skinned before they left. It would be well for the Committee to reduce the Vote, and by refusing the money tell those who administered the offices of the Island and the population that England could not be continually assisting them.
ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEsaid, that it was of the utmost importance that England should maintain the possession of the Island of St. Helena. It was of the greatest advantage as a place of call for our ships in a time of war.
MR. RYLANDSsuggested that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) should not move the rejection of the entire Vote, but to reduce it by £2,000. He condemned the practice of coming down to Parliament for large sums of money to assist the Colonies, and being unable to explain what the financial difficulties were that required pecuniary aid from the mother country. Applications for money made in this loose way only encouraged lavish expenditure on the part of the Colonies. He hoped the hon. Baronet would confine his proposal to the reduction of the Vote by £2,000, rather than to that of the larger sum, £5,500.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he should vote with the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, unless the Under Secretary for the Colonies would consent to revise and reduce the establishment charges.
MR. TREVELYANpointed out that St. Helena stood in the peculiar position of a community whose revenue had fallen off enormously in the course of some six years. It had decreased from £25,000 to £13,000. Therefore, St. Helena was under an absolute obligation to reduce, and what was the consequence? In 1869 the establishments there stood at £14,000, but in the course of seven years the Colonial Office had reduced them to £6,000 a-year. All he asked was that the Colonial Office should take measures for reducing the establishments of Sierra Leone and Gambia by £2,000 in the course of a year. He would make a suggestion to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary. It was that he should abolish the office of Queen's Advocate at Sierra Leone; that he should make the Registrar General do the registering of the Supreme Court; that he should give up the office of Provost Marshal; and that he should abolish some of the

1999
trumpery twopenny-halfpenny courts of summary jurisdiction which dealt with the small community of negroes. In this way his hon. Friend would be able to save the £2,000 offhand.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, with regard to the particular tree from which revenue was to be derived, that it was called the cinchona, and that, according to the eminent authority of Dr. Hooker, it was capable of being acclimatized at St. Helena. A considerable revenue would probably be yielded by its cultivation, as the bark produced something like quinine, which was found of great use in the tropics. A reduction of establishments such as that which had been carried out in St. Helena were quite incapable of being applied to Colonies like the Gambia and Sierra Leone. As regarded St. Helena, it was impossible to conduct the government of the Colony with a smaller staff than at present, and the money now asked for had been actually expended.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was no question of the relinquishment of St. Helena involved, the contention of those who objected to the Vote being that the Island could probably be much better governed by a single policeman than by the existing staff. In order to show that the object which he had was not to strike out the whole Vote, but only to enforce upon the Government the necessity for a further reduction of the establishments, he would withdraw the Amendment which he had proposed, and substitute for it a proposition to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £44,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
The Committee divided: —Ayes 57; Noes 124; Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
Original Question put, and agreed to.
2000
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for Tonnage Bounties, Bounties on Slaves, and Expenses of the Liberated African Department."
MR. GOURLEYwanted to know how the bounties were regulated—how much was paid to officers and how much to men? The practice of subsidizing men engaged in the capture of slavers had led not unfrequently to the wrongful capture of vessels which were not engaged in the traffic. That the system was liable to abuse was shown, he thought, by a Return which had been laid on the Table, from which it appeared that 13 vessels had been wrongfully captured. Another point to which he wished to call attention was that Rear Admiral Cumming had made several recommendations for the more effectual suppression of the traffic, one being an increase of interpreters, and he would like to know how far that suggestion had been carried out. He also wished to know whether attention had been paid to certain recommendations made by the same officer for the abolition of the Trade on the land side? Although the traffic had been put down by sea it had largely increased on land, and one recommendation was to establish a blockade at certain points of land opposite Zanzibar. This could best be done, not by European, but by Indian troops at comparatively little expense. There were 48,000 slaves annually exported by the coast route, whilst the number of slaves captured by our cruisers did not exceed 600. The number of vessels employed by us should be also increased. In order to elicit information from the Government, by which he should be guided in considering whether he should divide the Committee, he moved to reduce the Vote by £10,000, for tonnage and slave bounties.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £10,000, for Tonnage Bounties, &c., be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Gourley.)
MR. MARK STEWARTimagined that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) did not intend to divide the Committee. [Mr. GOURLEY: I beg

2001
the hon. Member's pardon; it all depends on the answer to my question.] His principal object in rising was to ask the Government if they had any information with regard to the policy the Portuguese Government had pursued in this matter. It was generally understood that that policy was rather obstructive in its character, and opposed to the view that all Englishmen took in regard to the slave trade. At Mozambique, which belonged to Portugal, though it was not precisely the place they were now speaking of, there was a continual stream of slaves emigrating from South to North, and the same was the case at places contiguous to the Portuguese Settlements. Although the Government of Portugal had expressed sympathy with what we were doing in regard to this important subject, they acted in quite a reverse manner. There was another point on which he thought they should have some explanation—namely, the amount to be allowed to the Sultan of Zanzibar, not only for the courtesy he had shown to this country, but also in consideration of the large sacrifice of revenue he had to make in putting down the slave trade in his dominions. They ought to have some clear indication of the liberality the Government were prepared to extend towards the Sultan. A debate had taken place in the House last Session in regard to the slave trade on the coast in question, and it was believed then that though the trade had been greatly stopped on the seaboard, where Her Majesty's cruisers and men-of-war had proved so destructive to the dhows, that in the interior, within often three and four miles of the coast, it had not been stayed very materially. It had been said that a great deal had been effected, but that there was something still to be done, and that a system of stations extending right across the country from the line of coast opposite Zanzibar would be the most efficacious and practical mode of proceeding. It was not necessary to go further into this subject; but the House should have some assurance that the money they were about to vote was spent as it ought to be.
MR. WHALLEYfeared that the expenditure covered by the item to which exception was taken involved the sacrifice of more slaves than it liberated. He believed that the Squadron on the
2002
African Coast had discharged its duty most efficiently, but the Slave Trade could never be suppressed until a road through the interior was constructed. A short time ago he had asked the Under Secretary whether Her Majesty's Government intended to give any aid or countenance to any private parties who might respond to the invitation of the Sultan of Zanzibar and undertake the construction of such a road. The hon. Member, however, probably on account of the quarter from which it had come, did not give a satisfactory answer to that Question; but he understood him to say that the Government were not prepared to recognize any private parties who might undertake the important work to which he referred.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should not quarrel with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) for having raised this large question upon the present Vote. At the same time, he thought the hon. Member had put the Committee in some little difficulty by the manner in which he had chosen to bring forward the general subject of the suppression of the Slave Trade. Undoubtedly, when the ordinary Estimates of the year were before the House, any hon. Gentleman, by giving Notice that he intended to call attention to the mode in which the Government of England endeavoured to put down that Slave Trade—by intimating that he would do so in connection with the Votes which were proposed in view of carrying out the policy which had been adopted by the country—would have a very convenient and proper opportunity of discussing such questions as those which had been raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland; but on the present occasion all that the House had to deal with was a Supplementary Vote—a Vote which was required in order to make good the total amount that was required for the service of the year according to the principles which were at present recognized by the nation. The hon. Member for Sunderland, by the Notice he had put on the Paper, hardly intimated that he would raise so wide a question. The position of the Government, right or wrong, was laid down by the Act of 1873, which enabled Her Majesty to pay certain bounties to any vessel which under the provisions of the Act seized a slaver and took it to

2003
a slave port. Under that Act £5 was to be paid over for every slave, or a tonnage bounty of £4 for every ton of the vessel which was condemned. It was obvious in framing the Estimates for any particular year they must merely make a guess of the amount they would require in the course of the year to come; and it might so happen that the amount they anticipated in one year would be more than they required, while in another it might be less, because more vessels might be captured at one time and fewer at another. In the year which was just expiring it had turned out that the amount which had been taken in connection with the Slave Trade had been considerably too little. The sum of £10,000 had been taken, and it appeared that the sum of £20,000 had been paid. That was, no doubt, a very large increase; but he was told that the explanation of the increase was to be found in the fact that this year there had been stationed a guard-ship, the London, off the coast of Zanzibar, and that the number of boats attached to that vessel had enabled the operations of the captors to be carried on amongst the islands off the coast, where the slaves were secreted, and where a cruiser could scarcely go, and where the traffic had been hitherto carried on with comparative impunity. In other words, more stringent measures had been adopted than before; and the slavers had been followed into creeks and shallow waters where previously our vessels could not go. The consequence had been that a larger number of captures had been made and bounties recovered; and all that was now proposed to hon. Members was that they should do that which under the Act of Parliament they were bound to do—that they should fulfil their contract with the owners and captors of those vessels, and with the men who were employed upon them, by paying them the amount they bad earned according to the enactments now in force. This, he apprehended, was a Vote which he House of Commons would never think of refusing. He entirely agreed, however, with the hon. Member for Sunderland that it was a question which was very legitimately open for the House to consider whether the present system was the best and most effectual manner of suppressing the Slave Trade; but he thought, as he had
2004
already indicated, that it would be desirable, if the hon. Gentleman wished to raise that general question, that he should do so in such a manner as might give clear Notice to the House of the particular points on which he desired information, when the Members of the Government specially charged with that subject would be prepared to supply that information, and the House would be able to form a deliberate judgment on the whole matter. He did not profess to be able to answer all the questions which the hon. Member had put; but he could say for those who constituted the present Government, that they were anxious to do all they possibly could, and by every means in their power to suppress the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa. They and their Predecessors had done what they could by arrangements with the Seyyid of Zanzibar to enlist his sympathies in that cause and to induce him to cooperate with them in suppressing the internal Slave Trade. They had been asked what had they done for the Seyyid of Zanzibar in return for the sacrifices they had called on him to make in that matter. He did not know that they had done all that they perhaps might have been called upon to do, but they had done that which they could. They had endeavoured to point out to the Seyyid of Zanzibar the interest he really had in the development of the legitimate trade of his country, and they had sought to give him their assistance and their moral countenance. On the last occasion when they were in Committee on the Supplementary Estimates they had before them the arrangements for aiding him in regard to the tribute which he paid to Muscat, and which this country guaranteed. They asked him, in the cause of humanity, in which all persons were interested, and he among others, to join them in that good work. He quite agreed with the observation which had been made that we ought not to limit our efforts to attempts to capture slavers. There was a great deal to be done by trying to stop the Slave Trade in the interior of the country—whether it were by arrangements with the Portuguese, by opening up roads, or by some other means. Everything which we could legitimately do in that direction we ought to do; and though, as he had said, he was not pre-

2005
pared to answer all the questions which had been put to him on the subject, he might state one tact which was within his knowledge, and that was that a great deal of information on this important matter was continually supplied to the Slave Trade Department of the Foreign Office, that that Office was informed by our Consuls of all that was taking place, and that whenever the attention of any Consul was drawn to the fact that slaves were being carried overland by one route or another route proper notice was immediately directed to the circumstance, remonstrances were made, and such steps as could be taken were at once adopted for the purpose of remedying the evil. With regard to the mode in which the money earned by our cruisers was divided, he understood it was all regulated by the Prize Act, so many shares being given to a captain, so many to a lieutenant, and so many to a seaman. In conclusion, he hoped that the hon. Member for Sunderland would not think of pressing his Motion to a division.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREexpressed the hope that after what had just been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) would not divide the House. The matter in question was not one within the discretion of the Government, who were bound by the Act of 1873.
MR. GOSCHENremarked that Her Majesty's ship Thetis was involved in this Vote, and perhaps it would not be out of place if he took the present opportunity of asking the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could give the House any information with respect to that ship? As the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, certain reports about the vessel had appeared in the public newspapers.
MR. HUNTsaid, he had no further information in regard to the Thetis than that which had appeared in the newspapers, although he had later information. On Wednesday he telegraphed to Malta asking whether there was any news of the Thetis, but the answer was that there was not. Her Majesty's ship Sultan had returned there without finding her, but that the search for her would be renewed.
SIR ANDREW LUSKdid not like to see a red herring dragged over the scent, as was done by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the Vote led to a
2006
great injustice, inasmuch as men were tempted by the tonnage bounties to destroy not only slave dhows, but small vessels, the property of struggling people engaged in legitimate trade.
MR. GOURLEY,having heard the statement in explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed a desire to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked if any portion of the large expenditure in respect of the Thetis had been recovered from the captain? He believed it was a gross case on the part of the captain of that ship of destroying dhows in the Red Sea, and it was reasonable to suppose that some deduction should have been made from the bounties received by him.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was unable to answer the question. The sum had been voted twe years ago after a full discussion, but from some delay, caused by the Indian Government, it was necessary to obtain a re-vote.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, the captain ought to be made to refund money improperly received by him. He agreed that it would be unwise to oppose the Vote; but thought the present system of bounties open to serious objection, and that the whole question ought to be considered by a Committee of the House.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that any money had been improperly received by the captain. No money could be paid for capture unless the vessel seized was condemned by the Court. The Act was clear upon that point. As a matter of fact, a long time generally elapsed between the condemnation of a vessel and the payment of the money. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) was mistaken in supposing that naval officers were in the habit of seizing dhows on the chance of getting them condemned. He (Sir John Hay) believed the naval officers entrusted with the enforcing of the Act for the suppression of the Slave Trade discharged their duty with the utmost care, and. seized only vessels which would certainly be condemned. If they acted otherwise they would render themselves liable to very heavy pains and penalties, both

2007
from the admiral commanding the Station and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who would take care never to employ an officer who had been guilty of such dereliction of duty. Such a case as the hon. Member for Sunderland supposed was utterly unknown.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it was desirable that there should be no misunderstanding about this Vote. Unfortunately, the sum that was granted two years ago, after a full discussion in that House, was not paid in the year for which it was voted. The Indian Government undertook the repayment of the money; there was some delay which he could not account for, and the money was not paid till last year by the Indian Government. Then, of course, the Vote lapsed and came back into the Treasury. The Indian Government having paid the money, it was necessary to have a revote. But it might be a satisfaction to the Committee to mention that none of this money, as he understood, was voted for the purpose of giving bounties to anybody. What happened was this. In May, 1873, the Thetis seized and burnt 10 dhows on the ground that they were supposed to be engaged in the Slave Trade. Proceedings were then instituted in the Admiralty Court at Aden. It turned out that the captors were wrong, and they were condemned in costs. Then came a claim for compensation for the dhows which they had destroyed; the claim amounted to about £32,700, but that was found to be an extravagant claim, and, after a careful investigation, about £11,100 was ordered to be paid for the loss of the dhows, and £1,000 was set apart for the purpose of compensating the families of five men who had been killed at the time of the capture. Every precaution was taken to secure that the money should reach the sufferers themselves, and he understood all parties had been satisfied that Her Majesty's Government had desired to do full justice in the matter. It was, of course, an unfortunate capture. The dhows were engaged in pearl fishing, and not in carrying on the Slave Trade. Probably there was some primâ facie justification for what was done, though it afterwards turned out that there was no justification.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
2008
(6.) £1,000, Mr. Cave's Mission to Egypt.
In reply to Mr. DILLWYN,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, £100 of this amount was for payment to officers who performed the duties of Colonel Stokes at Chatham during his absence with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cave) in Egypt. The remainder was the sum which was allowed to Colonel Stokes himself for compensation.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate and other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
MR. CHILDERSinquired how it was a Vote was asked for compensation allowances for persons employed on the survey staff. The survey had not been reduced, and they had been told that the surveys would not be concluded for many years to come.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it had been found necessary to retire certain officers in the survey department of the Office of Works, and the sum now asked was for compensation on the retirement of those officers. There was no doubt that the staff at the time was considerably in excess of the number provided by the Vote of the House, and it was thought that these gentlemen were the persons it was most desirable to retire.
MR. CHILDERSthought more information should be given on this point. The surveys of the United Kingdom were still going on, and the tendency was to increase rather than to diminish their cost. He wanted to know under what circumstances it was possible that persons who had not reached the ordinary age of retirement had been retired on an amount which would show that their aggregate salaries were some £7,000 or £8,000 a-year?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was most anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman the fullest possible information,

2009
but it was an expenditure connected with the Office of Works, and the First Commissioner then in office was now absent on leave from the House.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, as no expenditure was allowed at the Office of Works without reference to the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury must have approved it.
In reply to Mr. MACDONALD,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the compensations included in the Vote had no reference to the cases of certain officers of the Inland Revenue whose names he had promised to give.
MR. RYLANDScomplained that the amount of compensation given to gentlemen who retired in the prime of life was continually increasing. This Vote would be added to a grand total of £433,000. It was becoming perfectly alarming, and he hoped the Government would be able to give the exact particulars.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that full information was to be found at page 468 of the Estimates for this year. He fully admitted the danger there was in permitting these retiring allowances to grow. It was, however, impossible to effect improvements and economies in the public Departments without recognizing the claims which old public servants had upon the country when they were compelled to retire. No one could be more anxious than he was to keep these pensions within due bounds.
MR. CHILDERSfully recognized the good service which the hon. Gentleman had done in that direction, but, nevertheless, he felt bound to press for explanation upon the point. The number of Civil Service servants in these Departments had increased by 10, and their salaries had increased from £73,100 to £74,800 in the course of the year, and this in the face of this large additional sum being required for retirements.
MR. GOLDSMIDthought that the matter required further explanation. If persons were entitled to retire, it would surely be known at the beginning of the year. He also thought that public servants who, after trial, were found to be incomptent to perform their duties ought to be discharged without compennsation, as private servants would be under similar circumstances.
MR. W. H. SMITHexplained that it was impossible to foresee all the allowances that would be required in the coming year, and there were some that could be provided for only in the Supplementary Estimates; and as to inefficient servants, public servants could not be dealt with on the conditions described.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, the point was being avoided; for, in addition to the superannuation allowances, compensation allowances were asked for. They ought to have full information, or to strike the £8,000 from the Vote.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, that great expense was entailed on the country by the present system of compensation. Many cases were put down as "reductions in the Office." Did that mean reductions in the Office in which nothing had been done? The Committee were entitled, when an increased charge was put down on account of re-organization, to know that there was an economy in the Vote for the Office, and in the increased charge for compensation.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he would supply fuller information, and had no doubt he should be able to show increased efficiency. The actual cost of the Service would not be greater with these additions; economy and efficiency were sometimes obtained by paying a little more for a smaller number of persons.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that in consequence of the promise given to supply further information, he should not move the reduction of the Vote. But how there could be a genuine reduction when the number was increased he could not understand.
MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, that it was absolutely necessary in the Public Departments, to prevent stagnation in promotion, to retire the senior officers, so that younger men might be moved up from the bottom of the lists; and that would no doubt account for much of this increased charge.
MR. O'REILLYhoped that that principle would not be followed—that men would not be superannuated for the purpose of bringing about promotions.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in the re-organization of offices it constantly happened that more work was thrown upon the officials than they had before performed; and if

2011
hon. Members would refer not to one year, but to a course of years, they would find that many new duties had been imposed. Though they superannuated old officers and brought forward new ones, yet if hon. Members would take a fair view of the transaction they would find that a considerable amount of economy had been effected.
MR. GOLDSMIDpointed out that they had had no explanation of a sum of £3,800 which had been expended, it was said, under the orders of the late First Commissioner of Works (Lord Henry Lennox); and for which no one appeared now to be able to be responsible.
MR. E. J. REEDsaid, it seemed to him that it was unfair to throw the responsibility upon the noble Lord in his absence. The Government were responsible for the expenditure.
MR. DILLWYNmoved to postpone the Vote.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not competent to move the postponement of the Vote.
MR. DILLWYNthen moved to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Dillwyn.)
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he started this discussion, and after the promise which had been made by the Secretary to the Treasury, he thought they might agree to the Vote.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, it was not satisfactory to him to vote money for purposes as to which they had no explanation.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would give the required information on a future occasion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) £1,550, Miscellaneous Expenses, agreed to.
(9.) £6,498, Mediterranean Extension Telegraph Company.
MR. W. H. SMITH(in answer to Mr. PARNELL) said, the payment was made under a deed dated in June, 1858.
Vote agreed to.
2012
(10.) £1,820, Ashantee Expedition, Gratuities and Prize Pay, agreed to.
(11.) £10,980, Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether any steps would be taken to induce Mr. Hertslet, at the Foreign Office, to publish a beok of the despatches in the Foreign Office, as it would be a most valuable work?
MR. W. H. SMITHwas not able to give any information on the point, but he would undertake to inquire at the Foreign Office for it. He agreed that Mr. Hertslet had rendered most valuable information to the country.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £54,000, Inland Revenue.
MR. W. H. SMITHstated that it was the intention of the Treasury to lay before the Public Accounts Committee a proposal whereby the charge of each public Department would be in future years more accurately shown than could be done under the present system of cross Votes between one Department and another.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £42,373 19 s. 6d., Civil Services and Revenue Departments (Excesses 1875–6), viz.:—

CLASS I.

£

s.

d.

Surveys of United Kingdom

3,331

3

3

Lighthouses Abroad

931

12

3

CLASS II.

Treasury

26

12

8

Foreign Office

83

14

10

Colonial Office

318

9

3

Board of Trade

7,751

16

11

Civil Service Commission

326

19

10

Lord Lieutenant's Household

4

5

11

Public Record Office, Ireland, &c.

18

15

3

CLASS III.

County Courts

12,818

9

8

Admiralty Court Registry

157

19

9

Land Registry

22

0

2

Convict Establishments, England and the Colonies

3,023

0

4

2013

Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland

6,428

16

2

Common Law Courts, Ireland

497

3

11

Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland

104

10

5

CLASS IV.

Universities, &c. Scotland

103

10

5

CLASS V.

Grants in Aid of Colonies

24

3

8

Tonnage Bounties, &c.

1,076

1

10

Total Amount Voted for Civil Services

£37,049

6

6

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

Inland Revenue

5,324

13

0

Grand Total

£42,373

19

6

Vote agreed to.
(14.) £2,017 5s., Ashantee Expedition, 1875–6 (Excess) agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES AND NAVY ESTIMATES.(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment in respect of various Miscellaneous Services' during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."
MR. PARNELLasked for what the Vote was required?
MR. HUNTsaid, it was to meet a claim of £8,000 by the Indian Government for wear and tear of the Serapis on the voyage of the Prince of Wales to and from India.
GOURLEYcould not understand how such a charge could arise, as the Serapis was specially fitted out at considerable expense for the voyage. He thought that some further explanation should be given in respect to it.
MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the vessel was worked at a higher speed than usual, and her engines and hull suffered a greater depreciation than they would otherwise have done had she been worked at nine knots instead of 12.
MR. D. JENKINSthought the Vote excessive, and moved that it be reduced by £4,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment in respect of various Miscellaneous Services' during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."—(Mr. David Jenkins.)
MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked whether the Vote was in addition to the sum already paid for the hire of the vessel?
MR. A. F. EGERTONexplained that no sum was paid for hire. The vessel was employed upon Imperial service in conveying the Prince of Wales, and it was upon that ground that the Indian Government claimed this sum. This subject had been very carefully considered by the India Office and the Admiralty, and the claim was reduced to £8,000, with the approval of the director of transports, on behalf of the Admiralty and the India Office, as a fair settlement.
MR. W. WHITWORTHthought the sum was excessive, and that £4,000 would be adequate.
MR. CHILDERSinquired by what calculation the sum of £8,000 had been arrived at?
MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, unfortunately he had not the calculations with him, but they had been carefully gone into both by the Admiralty and the India Office, and the former were quite satisfied as to their accuracy, and consented to pay the amount.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,684,048, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year of March 1878."
MR. GOSCHENsaid, this was not a supplementary Estimate of a few thousands, but one of over £2,000,000, and would give rise to a discussion of the naval policy of the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty made his statement, it came on at so late an hour that it was impossible then to discuss the very many important and interesting points of policy that were raised in that statement, and it was arranged that this Vote should be taken on a day and at an hour when it could be thoroughly discussed. Under those circumstances, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to proceed at that hour, or whether he would defer the

2015
Committee to another day? If commenced then, it would be impossible to finish the discussion that night.
MR. HUNTsaid, that when the money Estimates were put on the Paper for that night it was not supposed by the Government that the discussion on the supplemental Votes, standing before the Vote for wages for the men, would have occupied so long a time. He felt the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and, therefore, he would postpone the Vote until Monday, when it would stand first on the Paper.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.— [BILL 103.]

  SECOND READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. PARNELLmoved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. His object in doing so was to give the Government an opportunity of stating what necessity there was for the creation of this additional patronage, and how it was proposed to pay the new Judge to be appointed under it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the Bill was a proper one, but he thought its value diminished by the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made early in the evening in answer to a Question. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have said that the new Judge whom it was proposed to appoint under this Bill would not be a Vice Chancellor at all, and would not have any staff, but would be appointed for the purpose of trying what were
  2016
  called Common Law actions, and would be called in when any Judge happened to be overloaded with work. In other words, he was to be a sort of journeyman Judge—a kind of judicial charwoman, who would be sent for when any part of the establishment could not get through its work. Now, he very much doubted whether that plan would be found to work well in practice, and whether a thoroughly good man would be found willing to take the new post on such terms. On a former occasion he had shown that the effect of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act had been to double the amount both of the contentious and administrative work in the Chancery Courts, and that the result had been a scandalous block of business both in Court and in Chambers. This Bill might alleviate the former evil, but it would aggravate the latter. For, if the new Judge, as was suggested, was to take nothing but purely contentious business, it would proportionately increase the administrative business of the other Judges, and would throw a still greater burden upon their Chief Clerks. Thus, if the Bill passed in its present shape, the evil would be partly remedied in one place, only to appear in a worse form in another.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the House would agree that the Government had shown a laudable promptness in adopting steps for grappling with the great block of business which existed in the Law Courts, especially in the Chancery Division. But for the vigilance of certain hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who apparently deemed it their imperative duty to oppose every useful measure, in order that they might leave the House early, or to accomplish some other useful end, the Bill would long ago have been read a second time. When the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan) called attention to the subject, a few weeks ago, everybody seemed agreed upon it; and on behalf of the Government it was stated that they were considering what steps should be taken to remedy the evils complained of. Notice was afterwards given of their intention to introduce a Bill for that purpose. The chief evil mentioned in the discussion on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion was the Common Law business, which created a great block in

  2017
  the Court of Chancery. That defect the Government attempted to remedy by appointing an additional Judge to assist the Vice Chancellors, whose main duty, at all events, it should be to grapple with cases of that description, though it was not intended that he should be exclusively so occupied. If a man of ability, of vigour, and of expedition were appointed to the new Judgeship, the cause of complaint would thus far, he contended, be removed; and as there was no reason to suppose the Government would not make such an appointment, great relief would, he had no doubt, be given to the Chancery Division. But then his hon. and learned Friend was of opinion that the Government did not go far enough, and that an additional staff was required for Chambers. Now it was, he thought, not well to multiply offices unless it was absolutely necessary to do so, and he did not think there was any such necessity in the present instance. It was, he believed, the fact that in the Chambers of the Vice Chancellors, the Chief and other Clerks were not in the habit of lending a helping hand to each other. It seemed to be with them much as used formerly to be the case in the Courts at Westminster, when one Court which might not be very popular was able to rise perhaps at I o'clock and the Judges were able to go home or disport themselves in the parks, whereas the Judges in a neighbouring Court which was more popular were obliged to toil all day. That being so some arrangement might, in his opinion, be made by which the work might be done in the Chancery Division by imposing more work on some of the clerks and diminishing the labour of others. If that could be done it would be better than creating an additional staff. If not, the Government would be obliged to screw up their courage to the sticking point and to create additional clerks.
  MR. BIGGARobserved that the Notice of opposition of the Bill which had been given had obtained for the House the benefit of a very satisfactory explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. PARNELLalso thought the explanation of the Attorney General perfectly satisfactory, and he should not, therefore, divide the House against the second reading.
  2018
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.
(Mr. Hunt, Mr. Algernon Egerton, Sir Massey Lopes.)
MARINE MUTINY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  MR. BIGGARmoved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that the Bill had not been printed.
  MR. PARNELLseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 221: Majority 207.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENexplained that the Members who voted in the minority were not opposed to the Bill, and they had done so because they were under the impression that by the Standing Orders the Bill could not be proceeded with until it was printed. That question had been asked, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill ought to have answered it. If he had, the time occupied in the division would probably have been saved.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he happened to be in the Lobby when the Bill was called on, or he should have explained that it was not usual to print this Bill before it reached the Committee stage. No discourtesy was intended. This Bill followed the Mutiny Bill for the Army mutatis mutandis, and when alterations were made in the Mutiny Bill they were made in the Marine Mutiny Bill.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MUTINY BILL.
(Mr. Gathorne Hardy, the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Stanley.)
MUTINY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient that the Mutiny Bill should empower the Government to billet officers without making any payment to the occupiers of the houses on which the officers are billetted; also that where horses are billetted a fair price should be paid for forage and stable room,"—(Captain Nolan,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought it would have been more convenient to raise this question in Committee on the Bill. His answer to the objection of the hon. and gallant Member was this, that every landlord took his licence with full notice of all his liabilities, and, among those, innkeepers were bound to give the accommodation Officers desired without pay. If the hon. and gallant Member wished to revert to the subject when the Bill was in Committee he would be prepared to discuss the matter with him.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreminded the hon. Gentleman that his hon. and gallant Friend had last year raised this question in Committee on the Bill, and was then met by a technical objection.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhoped some explanation would be given of the reasons which had led the Secretary of State for War to introduce one of the most important changes in the Mutiny Act which had been made for many years. It was proposed in this Act to render all the officers of the Militia amenable to the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War when they were not embodied and not out for training or exercise. Such a proposal had not been made since the Act of Settlement in 1688, yet no explanation had been given. He should draw attention to the subject on going into Committee on the Bill and move a Resolution.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTremarked that such an important change as that contemplated in the Bill with reference to bringing the Militia under the operation of the Articles of War, not only while they were embodied and out for training, but during the remainder of the year, should not have been made without due Notice having been given to the House, and a statement made, showing how it would be beneficial to the Militia, as well as for the interest of the country.
  MR. DILLWYNhad always regarded the Bill in the light of a continuance Bill, and was astonished to find that important alterations had been made in it.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYwas surprised that the hon. Member for Swansea, who kept such a keen look-out upon the proceedings of Parliament, had overlooked the Paper in which these Amendments had been announced. As regarded the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, he thought it had no relevance to the second reading, however appropriately it might be raised on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill. As regarded billeting he had never received any complaint from the innkeepers with respect to the billeting of officers, as they were such liberal customers that the profit the innkeeper received on the refreshments compensated for the price of their bed. As regarded the allowance for fodder, it might be sometimes below the market price and sometimes above it, but it was, on the whole, a fair charge. As to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) with respect to the Militia, the Committee which inquired into the subject, and which included a number of Militia officers, recommended unanimously that this change should be made. The Militia was no longer the civilian corps it was formerly, and therefore it had been thought desirable to bring it rather more into conformity with the Regular Army.
  MR. PARNELLthought it was becoming too much a matter of course to pass the second reading without any discussion, and that hon. Members might have that opportunity he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.

  2021
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, it was quite a mistake to suppose the alterations in this Bill came upon the House like a thunder-clap, for he distinctly recollected the right lion. Gentleman, when moving the Army Estimates, stating what he intended to propose. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYalso trusted that the Motion would be withdrawn.
  Motion, by, leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Question put, and agreed to. Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

JUSTICES CLERKS BILL.— [BILL 5.]
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
JUSTICES CLERKS BILL.— [BILL 5.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONrose to move the following clause:—
  (Justices of peace shall administer oaths, &c.)
  "After the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for justices of the peace, if they think fit, to administer oaths and to receive statutory declarations, as the same are now administered and received by commissioners authorized for such purposes."
  The hon. Gentleman said, the object of the clause was to bring cheap justice to the doors of poor people. Commissioners were often only to be reached after a needless, and therefore vexatious, waste of time and money. The fusion of Equity with Common Law had removed all grounds for limiting the power of administering oaths, &c., to Commissioners. He did not wish the justices to be absolutely bound, under all circumstances, to receive these declarations, but that they should have a permissive power to do so. The useful functions of Commissioners would not be
  2022
  abrogated, but would still continue to be exercised where more than the common printed forms were required. The proposal was not a new one, for its principle existed in the laws regulating patents for inventions and the regulation of trade marks, both of which allowed an applicant to elect to go either before a Commissioner or a magistrate. This clause would make a great saving of time and money to poor persons.
  New Clause—(Mr. H. B. Samuelson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there were really very serious objections to the adoption of the clause. Under the present regulation security was taken against fraud by retaining the means of verifying the signatures of all the Commissioners before whom the oaths were taken. The clause, if adopted, would open the door to forgery and fraud. If the hon. Member would so amend the clause as to provide that a justice of the peace could only administer the oaths in petty sessions, and in the presence of the clerk, something might be said for it; but then they had the fact that the justices' clerk would be a solicitor, who was almost always a duly-qualified person to administer oaths, and the provision would be unnecessary.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he would read an extract from a letter he had received on the objection that forgery might be encouraged.
  "I do not see how the clause can be imperilled, by the objection that forgery would be rendered easier. Statutory declarations and affidavits are never registered except when proceedings take place on them, and the justices could describe the name and place of swearing, &c."
  His object was to save expense to poor people, which object he believed would be safely obtained by the passing of the clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS (IRELAND) (APPLICATIONS FOR REMISSION.)

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Applications for total or partial Remissions of Criminal Punishments awarded in Ireland during the years 1874, 1875, and 1876; stating in each case by whom the application was made, and whether it was wholly or partially acceded to, or whether it was refused."—(Captain Nolan.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHdeclined to accede to the Return. There had been 3,200 memorials of this kind in the past year. Each would probably have attached to it a number of signatures, and without looking at any other fact such a Return would be most voluminous and expensive, and when obtained it would be useless.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYcordially supported the Motion for the Return. The magistracy being, in most cases, alien in race and religion to the people, it was desirable that there should be perfect openness as to the influences bearing on the administration of justice, in order that all grounds for distrust should disappear. The production of the Return would discourage the belief in what was popularly known as backstairs influence in Ireland—a belief which led people to think that the law could be overridden by private intervention. As to the question of cost, it was not asked that it should be printed. The mere production of it would deter men from attempting to bring undue influence to bear on the authorities.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 79: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 38.)

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Public Health in Ireland, said, the main object of the measure was one of consolidation. The House would be aware that by the Act of 1874 certain powers in sanitary matters which were conferred on several local authorities were uniformly vested in urban sanitary authorities and Boards of Guardians.
  2024
  It was proposed by the Bill to consolidate this and other Acts and bring them to the compass of one Act. There were also some Amendments he proposed to introduce giving certain powers to rural sanitary authorities with reference to the structure of dwellings and closing houses unfit for human habitation. Another feature was making the burial districts coterminous with the sanitary area. It proposed to allow the Local Government Board, where a town was under the jurisdiction of a County Grand Jury, to transfer, subject to certain safeguards by Provisional Order, the powers of the Grand Jury to the town authority, without the consent of the Grand Jury. These were the main amendments in the law, with the exception that the Bill also proposed to extend the Local Government audit to the three towns of Cork, Kilkenny, and Waterford. He hoped the House would not be alarmed by the length of the Bill, which extended to no less than 290 clauses, because in the main they would only have the effect of bringing about the consolidation of existing Acts. He brought the Bill under the notice of the House, with hardly any exceptions, save those he had named, as a consolidation Bill. If discussion was invited he should be perfectly willing to submit it to a Select Committee for the purpose. He hoped that no objection would be offered to what he believed would be a useful consolidation of the law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Public Health in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 116.]

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1876 and 1877, the sum of £1,213,502 6s. 9d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO THEIR SERVANTS.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee of last Session, to inquire whether it may be expedient to render Masters liable for injuries occasioned

    2025
    to their Servants by the negligent acts of certificated managers of collieries, managers, foremen, and others to whom the general control and superintendence of workshops and works is committed, and whether the term "common employment" could be defined by legislative enactment more clearly than it is by Law as it at present stands, be re-appointed:—That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members:—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. LOWE, Mr. WYNDHAM, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. WALTER STANHOPE, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Sir DANIEL GOOCH, Mr. MAC-DONALD, Mr. TENNANT, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. KNOWLES, Mr. ELSTACE SMITH, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. MELD0N, Mr. CAWLEY, Mr. HOPWOOD, and Mr. BULWER:—With power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

    SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AND MARINES (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
    Ordered, That the Select Committee of last Session, to inquire how far it is practicable that Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines who have meritoriously served their Country should be employed in such Civil Departments of the public service as they may be found fitted for, be reappointed:—That the Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members:—Sir HENRY HAVELOCK, Lord EUSTACE CECIL, Colonel MURE, Lord
    2026
    ELCHO, Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, General SHUTE, Captain PRICE, Sir GEORGE BALFOUR, Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. HANBURY-TRACY, Viscount HINCHINGBROOK, Mr. ERRINGTON, Mr. GERARD NOEL, Major O'GORMAN, Mr. JAMES CORRY, Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Mr. JOHN TALBOT, Mr. LAING, Sir CHARLES RUSSELL Sir HENRY HOLLAND, and Mr. CHILDERS:—With power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    Ordered, That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines (Civil Employment) in Session 1876 be referred to the Select Committee on Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines (Civil Employment).—(Mr. Childers.)

    NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK FISHERIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JAMES DUFF, Bill to preserve the Fisheries in the navigable rivers and broads of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk and the city of Norwich, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES DUFF, Lord RENDLESHAM, and Mr. COLMAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 117.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.