Commons Sitting of 16 May 1878

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Viscount Lewisham, for Western Division of the County of Kent; Benjamin Thomas Williams, esquire, for Borough of Carmarthen.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway, 2°.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Under Secretaries of State* [181]; Lord Clerk Register (Scotland)* [182].
Second Reading—General Police and Improvement Provisional Order (Paisley)* [170]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, &c.)* [165]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lochgelly)* [171].
Committee—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [44]—R.P.
Third Reading—Acknowledgment of Deeds by Married Women (Ireland)* [173], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL.— [Lords.]—(by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he felt it an imperative, but disagreeable and painful, duty to move that the second reading of the Bill be postponed until that day six months. He was induced to take this course from peculiar circumstances. Most English Members of Parliament had been in Ireland, and the majority of them travelled by way of Holyhead and Kingstown, passing in their way over a short section of railway, about six miles in length, from Kingstown to Dublin. Most of them, therefore, had an opportunity of judging whether that line was well or badly managed. He was of opinion—and he was fortified in that opinion by the declaration of the great majority of the citizens of Dublin—that the line had been mismanaged in a manner that reflected great discredit upon the Directors—most of them respectable, intelligent, and wealthy persons—and so mismanaged that it had materially injured the trade and property of the inhabitants of the district. Such being his opinion, he had felt it his duty, early in the Session, to call the attention of the Board of Trade to the subject, and to request them to institute an inquiry. The Board of Trade, accordingly, sent down Major-General Hutchinson, one of the Railway Inspectors of the Board, to the City of Dublin. That gentleman had made an inquiry, and had presented a Report, a copy of which he (Mr. Brooks) held in his hand, and which he would read in part. It was better, he thought, that he should take the observations of Major-General Hutchinson, rather than offer his own view of the facts. He had, however, found it impossible to devise any means for rectifying the abuses under which the citizens of Dublin suffered, except by an appeal to Parliament, fortified by a Report from the Board of Trade; because no Committee sitting upstairs upon the present Bill could deal with the question, as no one would have any locus standi before it. The Board of Trade had no power to deal with anything affecting simply the comfort of the passengers, and had no power to revise the fares, however excessive they might be. Neither the Board of Trade, nor any other public authority, had any power to compel the Railway Company to improve the railway carriages, no matter how discreditable they were. The Board of Trade had, however, placed in his

    13
    hands a copy of the Report of Major-General Hutchinson as to the condition of things on the line between Dublin and Kingstown. Major-General Hutchinson held his inquiry on the 30th of March, and he reported that the stations between Dublin and Kingstown—namely, Lansdowne Road, Sidney Parade, Booterstown, and Blackrock—were one and all deficient in that accommodation as regarded waiting-rooms, water-closets, and platform-shelters, which might reasonably be expected upon a railway having a large suburban traffic. Major-General Hutchinson pointed out that at Lansdowne Road the shelter on the down platform consisted of an open shed; at Booterstown there was no ladies' waiting-room, although it was the most important station between Dublin and Kingstown. Not only was there no ladies' waiting-room, but there were no water-closets or urinal, and the platform at all of the stations, with the exception of Lansdowne Road, varied from 19 inches to 22 inches above the rail levels. Most of the carriages had only one step, so that infirm persons experienced considerable difficulty in stepping in and out of the carriages. It was hardly necessary to remind the House that within the last few days one of the oldest and most respected Members of the House came to an untimely death on account of the defective arrangements at one of the London stations. Yet this was one of those defects which was capable of very easy remedy. In addition, there were no bridges or subways for communicating from one platform to the other, and, according to the Report of Major-General Hutchinson, this formed a constant source of danger, particularly at Booterstown, where the up and down trains stopped simultaneously, and very frequently. The complaint he had made to the Board of Trade was under various heads. One related to the accommodation at the different stations, and another to the excessive amount of the fares. Major-General Hutchinson stated that, whilst upon the Dublin and Kingstown Railway—a line six miles in length—the second-class subscription ticket was£l2, the subscription for a similar distance on the London and North-Western Railway was only £7; on the London, Brighton, and South Coast, £6 10 s., or 45 per cent less; on the Great Eastern, £7 10 s.; the Great Northern, £7; the London, Chat-
    14
    ham, and Dover, £7 10 s.; and upon a line at Belfast, of a somewhat similar suburban character, while the second-class subscription ticket between Dublin and Kingstown was £12, between Belfast and Bangor, for the same distance, it was only £8. The Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company wore established in the year 1848, and in 1856 they obtained a lease of the Dublin and Kingstown line. They obtained it on terms stated in the Preamble of their Bill—that if they obtained the lease, they would work the line more beneficially for the public. They obtained the lease on this understanding, and they immediately raised the fares, one and all, instead of reducing them; and the result was, that whereas the old Dublin and Kingstown Company were able to pay a dividend of 10 per cent upon the low and moderate and reasonable fares which they exacted, while happily for the citizens of Dublin they had the management of the line, the Company promoting the present Bill were able, by raising the fares, to extract from the unfortunate persons who lived on the line such further sums as enabled the two Companies to divide upon their capital the enormous dividend of 17½ per cent. Under the old system there was a return ticket of 6d. issued in the morning to workmen. The new management abolished this return ticket, and increased the second-class return ticket from 1s. to 1s. 2d. Major-General Hutchinson concluded his Report by stating that whereas, under the Act of 1856, by which the present Company leased the Dublin and Kingstown line, they were to make more advantageous arrangements for the public service, they had, in fact, exacted fares which, especially for season tickets, were unreasonably high. Major-General Hutchinson further stated that the complaints with regard to the want of reasonable accommodation of small-sized stations and the height of the platforms were well-founded; and, seeing that the Company were in a prosperous condition, the public had a right to expect accommodation of a superior class and character. The Company were now seeking to extend their powers; and he (Mr. Brooks) asked that Parliament should refer the complaint of Major-General Hutchinson and of the citizens of Dublin either to the Board of Trade, or to some indepen-

    15
    dent authority, which should decide that, in acceding to the present project, there should be some assurance on the part of the Company that they would mitigate the grievances of which Major-General Hutchinson complained. He begged to move 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. Maurice Brooks.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR GEORGE BOWYER,as Member for the County of Wexford, thought it was necessary that he should explain the reasons which induced him to oppose the Motion. The objections which had been urged by the hon. Member for Dublin did not touch the principle of the Bill, and were such as could be best dealt with when the Bill came before a Committee upstairs. The hon. Member had not said a word against the second reading of the Bill; and he therefore hoped the House would pursue the course which was usually taken in these cases, and read the Bill a second time, leaving its provisions to be considered by a Select Committee.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAcould not concur in the views of the hon. Member for Dublin, who had moved the rejection of the Bill, and quite agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, that most of the questions which had been referred to by his hon. Friend were questions for the consideration of a Committee upstairs rather than for the House. He was sorry to add, however, that it would not be within the province of a Committee upstairs to consider all these questions. While he hoped the Bill would be read a second time, he had no desire that it should be read under the impression that the matters complained of which affected the Dublin and Wicklow traffic could be remedied by a Committee upstairs. The object of the Bill was to enable the Company promoting it to make a continuation of their line from New Ross to Waterford; and he thought it would be altogether a mistake to prevent the only Company which was able to do this from carrying out that work because another complaint, upon an entirely different matter, had been made against them.
    16
    For his own part, he did not think they ought to stop a public work that would be, on the whole, beneficial to the country, because the Company who were promoting the Bill had been in other respects negligent, and had not considered the interests of the City of Dublin. Although he generally acted with his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin, he could not agree with him on this occasion, but would support the second reading of the Bill.
    MAJOR O'GORMANexpressed a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin would withdraw his opposition to the Bill. He had never in his life heard a weaker argument than the one which his hon. Friend had brought forward. The Bill was promoted by the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company. It was originated in the House of Lords, and it had gone through every stage required by the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament. It had been twice referred to the Examiners of Private Bills, and had been passed by them, notwithstanding opposition and the complaint that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. It had been referred by the House of Lords to a Select Committee, by whom it had been carefully considered before it was passed and reported. His hon. Friend appeared to have completely lost sight of the main object of the Bill, which was to construct a new line. His hon. Friend, he hoped unintentionally, had endeavoured to throw dust in the eyes of the House. The object of the Bill was to construct a line, which was urgently required in the public interests, extending from the town of New Ross to the Waterford and Dungarvan Railway terminus in the City of Waterford. If the opposition to the measure were successful, no railway could be made between these two important towns. And, in regard to that opposition, so far as the inconveniences now sustained in connection with the Dublin and Kingstown line were concerned, he was authorized to say that a contract had already been entered into for the building of a new station at Westland Row, which would cost £75,000. He was free to confess that the present station at Westland Row was disgraceful; but after the £75,000 had been spent upon it, it would not be so. The Company were also about

    17
    to enter into contracts for taking land, which would enable them to improve the condition of all the stations on the line. Under these circumstances, the objections urged by his hon. Friend fell to the ground at once. He hoped the House would not assent to the Amendment, which, if carried, would prevent an important railway communication being made between the town of New Ross and the City of Waterford.
    MR. SULLIVANsuggested, as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dublin, that in place of postponing the second reading of the Bill for six months, it should be postponed for three or four weeks. The object of his hon. Friend would be fully attained by taking that course, and time would be given to enable the Report of Major-General Hutchinson to be circulated and made known among the Members of the House. Although differing from the hon. Member for Dublin to a certain extent, he wished to remind the House that if Westland Row station was going to be improved in any way it would be because of the action taken on the floor of that House by his hon. Friend. The improvement of that station was certainly necessary in order to wipe out a great scandal from the railway management of Ireland. The only reason why the present Bill was opposed was that it was promoted by a Company who had the management of the Dublin and Kingstown line. That had been execrably mismanaged. It was the filthiest line in the whole Empire, and Irishmen felt keenly that it would be a bad line even for the wilds of Connemara. Unfortunately for the character of the country, it was the line which English tourists first encountered when they crossed the Channel from Holy-head, and they naturally turned up their noses at what they considered a very dirty way of doing business. As to the grand Westland Row terminus that was to be built, he could only say that one of the humorous traditions of Dublin, in reference to the management of the Dublin and Kingstown line, was that the most remarkable event in the history of the line occurred within the last 10 years when, on the occasion of a member of the Royal Family going over, a porter was actually seen brushing out the railway carriages with a broom.
    MR. RAIKEShoped the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) would not put the House to the trouble of dividing on the second reading of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had expressed himself in terms certainly very strong; but he dare say not at all stronger than were deserved, of the management of the railway between Dublin and Kingstown; but, at the same time, he thought the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth was one that would hardly recommend itself to the House on further consideration. The hon. and learned Member suggested that the Bill should be delayed for three weeks or a month, in order that the Report of Major-General Hutchinson should be studied by the House. He did not question that that Report might be studied with advantage; but he did not see what contribution its consideration would bring to the final conclusion to be arrived at with regard to this particular spur of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway. The object of the Bill was to make a small extension of the main system of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway—namely, from the town of New Ross to Waterford, and it did not apply to the Dublin and Kingstown line at all. He believed that the proposition embodied in the measure met with the approval of the landowners in the locality. It was supported by one of the Members for the City of Waterford (Major O'Gorman), and also by the hon. Members for Wexford and Youghal (Sir George Bowyer and Sir Joseph M'Kenna), who were supposed to represent the views of that part of the country. Under these circumstances, he did not think the City of Waterford and the town of New Ross ought to be deprived of the substantial benefit which they would derive from the construction of this railway. He agreed with the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), that the objections to the Bill were not in the nature of objections which could be raised before a Committee on the measure, because the hon. Member for Dublin would have no locus standi before a Committee, and the Corporation of Dublin, who had been allowed a locus standi with regard to certain matters, had not raised the objections urged by the hon. Member. He (Mr. Raikes) thought that, upon, the

    19
    whole, it would be a pity to punish the people of Waterford on account of the defects of a railway between Dublin and Kingstown; and it might be taken for granted, that now the attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the condition of the latter line, matters would not be allowed to rest where they did, but that something would be done with a view of insuring improvement. On this occasion he supported the second reading of the Bill, and he saw no reason why the House should refuse to send it to a Select Committee.
    MR. H. HERBERTconcurred in the remarks which had been made in regard to the disgraceful state of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway. It had been spoken of repeatedly, and he hoped there was at length some chance of obtaining some improvement of the line. The Report of Major-General Hutchinson concerned not only the Members of that House, but the whole of the public. The condition of the Dublin and Kingstown line was disgraceful, not only to the people of Ireland, but to the public at large. In journeying between London and Dublin the traveller, on his arrival at Kingstown, had to get ashore as he best could. Not unfrequently he was obliged to wait for half or three-quarters of an hour until the mails were got on shore. All the Company cared about was the mails, and they did not care a straw about the comfort or convenience of the passengers or men of business. He thought it would be disgraceful to allow this state of things to be continued.
    SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSsaid, he had been authorized, by the Railway Company who were promoting the present Bill, to state that the Report of Major-General Hutchinson would receive its fullest and most liberal consideration, and that many of the suggestions contained in the Report were in the course of being carried out. He had no doubt that the present condition of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway was, in many respects, very unsatisfactory; but he believed there was every desire to effect an improvement, and he trusted the hon. Member for Dublin, under the circumstances, would withdraw the Motion he had made.
    MR. BIGGARagreed with the hon. Member for Dublin that all the arrangements affecting the Dublin and Kingstown Railway were of a most dis-
    20
    graceful character, and that it was perfectly legitimate to place pressure upon the Company, in order to compel it to reform its system of management, even by postponing the consideration of a Bill for another and independent line until some sort of security was obtained that the necessary reforms would be carried out. The general assurance given on the part of the Railway Company by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin (Sir Arthur Guinness) was by no means satisfactory or sufficient. All the Company promised was that they would take the Report of Major-General Hutchinson into favourable consideration. They knew perfectly well in that House what "favourable consideration" meant. It meant, in most cases, that there would be no more consideration on the subject, but that it would be quietly shelved. If the Bill were postponed for three or four weeks, the Company would probably be induced, in the meantime, to give a bonâ fide undertaking, in the form of a clause to be introduced into the Bill in its passage through Committee, binding themselves to carry out the reforms which were necessary, and which were asked for. One very strong argument for the adoption of this course had been supplied by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), when he stated that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) had no locus standi to appear before the Committee in opposition to the Bill, and, further, that the Corporation of Dublin, as a Corporation, had no power to appear for the purpose of obtaining the improvement of any railway station beyond the scope of the present Bill. He thought the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) ought to be agreed to. At the same time, the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman) were entitled to great weight; but, unfortunately, the promoters of the Bill, if they obtained their Act, could snap their fingers at the passengers, and the result might be that the reforms that were asked for would never be carried out. For these reasons, he hoped that the further consideration of the project would be postponed, and that an opportunity would be afforded to the House of forming an opinion as to the value of the reforms which were required by the public, and the promises made by the Company to carry them out.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he felt that there was considerable force in the observations which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford—that the residents in one district ought not to be punished, by retarding the construction of a line, in consequence of the mismanagement of the Directors in regard to another part of their system. Therefore, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

    CHESTER TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Ordered, That the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be appointed Chairman of the Committee on the Chester Tramways Bill.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  QUESTIONS.

    STREET TRAFFIC—MILITARY BANDS- MEN.—QUESTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Attorney General, If it is a criminal offence, punishable by summary conviction, for Volunteer and other regimental bandsmen to play tunes while marching through the streets of London or other English cities and towns; if Military have any greater privileges than civilian bandsmen as to playing tunes through the streets of English or Irish cities and towns, and, if so, under what statute; and, if, where there is no local Act or Corporation bye-law to extend the ordinary common and statute law, it is lawful for magistrates in Ireland summarily to convict and fine or imprison Military or civilian bandsmen for playing tunes while marching through the streets of Irish cities and towns as English bandsmen were constantly doing everywhere through England?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD): Sir, in the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who is unable to be here, I beg to answer the hon. Member's Question. In the terms in which he has put it, it is not a criminal offence in itself for Volunteer and other regimental
    22
    bandsmen to play tunes while marching through the streets of large towns. The 27 & 28 Vict. c. 65 enables street musicians to be given into custody for playing in the street near a house after being required by the householder to depart. Neither military nor civil bands have any peculiar privileges; but, in fact, it would hardly be contended that military bandsmen, in the performance of their duty, were street musicians within the meaning of the Act. I have said it is not an offence in the language of the hon. Member's Question; but it must be remembered that neither street musicians, nor bandsmen, nor anybody else are entitled to obstruct the Queen's Highway; and, treated as an obstruction, which it sometimes is, a band may be made a subject of punishment on summary proceedings both in England and in Ireland.

    PARLIAMENT—LIABILITIES OF EM- PLOYERS AND WORKMEN—LEGISLA- TION.—QUESTION.
    MR. PULESTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will be prepared to introduce a Bill to regulate the Liabilities of Employers and Workmen this Session; and, if so, whether he can state the time?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD), in reply, said, that a Bill dealing with the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question was in course of preparation, and would shortly be introduced.

    PARLIAMENT—CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Corrupt Practices Bill will be introduced?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD), in reply, said, that in the present state of Public Business it was impossible to give an absolutely definite answer to the Question, but that the Government hoped shortly to bring in a Bill.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1873.—QUESTION.
    MR. WADDYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the 75th section of "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873," which provides

    23
    that a council of the Judges of the Supreme Court shall assemble at least once in every year, at a time fixed by the Lord Chancellor, to consider the operation of the Act, of the rules of Court, and other matters, and shall report annually to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State what, if any, amendments or alterations it would in their judgment be expedient to make in the Act, or otherwise relating to the administration of justice; whether the Lord Chancellor has ever fixed a time for the holding of such annual council; whether such annual council has in fact ever been held; and, whether such reports have been duly made at any time since the passing of the Act; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, in reply, said, that he had been informed that since the passing of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act rules of Court had been passed from time to time, all of which rules had been laid before both Houses of Parliament, in conformity with the requirements of the Act. Councils of the Judges of the Supreme Court under Section 75 of the Act of 1873 were held on November 20, 1876, and again on December 15, 1877; and at these councils it was determined that sufficient time had not been given for the working of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to render it expedient to make any alteration or amendment which could not be carried into effect without the authority of Parliament.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MELDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that the garrison of Woolwich has been so denuded of medical officers that the Government has been obliged to sanction the employment of private practitioners to assist in taking medical charge of the soldiers and their families; whether many other garrisons have not been left short of Army medical men; and, whether it is true that more than £5,000 is required to pay private medical practitioners in attending the troops in the field at the Cape?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I am informed that the garrison at Woolwich has its full complement of medical officers, and
    24
    no private medical practitioners are employed. Other garrisons, however, are short of medical officers. This is in some measure due to a number having been withdrawn temporarily for the purpose of undergoing special field training with the Army Hospital Corps at Aldershot. The increase of £5,000 referred to was taken for the employment of civil surgeons at the Cape, as it was found a more economical and desirable arrangement than an augmentation to the staff, as the services of these gentlemen will be dispensed with when no longer required.

    MADRAS HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
    MR. SMOLLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Sir Andrew Clarke has inspected the harbour works at Madras, and has officially reported upon the present position of that undertaking; and, if so, if there will be any objection to lay Sir Andrew Clarke's Report upon the Table of the House?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, it appears from the Indian newspapers that Sir Andrew Clarke has recently visited Madras to inspect the harbour works, but no official Report respecting his visit has yet reached this country.

  THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE CROWN—THE INDIAN CONTINGENT.

    QUESTION.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Articles of War made by the Indian Government for the government of Her Majesty's Native Indian Forces, and those portions of the Indian Penal Code which are adopted as forming a part of those Articles of War, have any force within the Island of Malta?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir. They will apply to the Indian troops at Malta.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM—THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If he can state when the Educational Collection of South Kensington Museum will be removed from the apartments under the National Portrait Gallery, so as to enable that gallery to occupy the space?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, we are now in communication with, the Treasury upon this subject; and as soon as arrangements can be made by which the Educational Collection can be transferred to another place, we shall be ready to vacate the apartments now occupied by it.

  TURKEY—MURDER OF MR. OGLE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Consul General Fawcett's report of his investigation into the murder of Mr. Ogle by Turkish soldiers has arrived; and, if so, when it will be presented to the House; and, whether all documents relating to Mr. Ogle's murder at present in the Foreign Office will be laid upon the Table without delay?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I understand that the Report has not yet been received at the Foreign Office, but that it is expected shortly. When it arrives, the Government will lose as little time as possible in laying the Papers upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE—MAIL CONTRACTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HOPWOODasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to invite tenders for a Contract or Contracts to carry the Mails on the termination of that now existing with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Shipping Company; if so, when it is probable that advertisements will be issued for the purpose?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, tenders would be invited on the termination, on January 1, 1880 of the existing contract. A Correspondence was now going on between the Home and Indian Governments as to the terms on which those tenders should be invited, and as soon as that Correspondence was completed the terms would be made known.

  SCOTCH BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    QUESTION.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, To state in what order he proposes to pro-
    26
    ceed with the various Scotch Bills at present before the House; and, whether it is intended to take up any of them before Whitsuntide?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, it was a matter of some difficulty to arrange when the Bills relating to Scotland could be brought forward; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Assheton Cross) had sent him a note to the effect that he thought that the Roads and Bridges Bill might be taken at a Morning Sitting. The Government, however, could not make any positive promise on the subject. Due Notice would be given when the day was fixed. The Government would do their best to have the Bill brought on on Thursday. The Education Bill and the Endowed Schools Bill, having passed the House of Lords, were not so pressing. The Bills as to an Under Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Clerk Register, his right hon. Friend thought, might be taken on any convenient day that could be arranged.

    ARMY—REGIMENTAL LIEUTENANT COLONELS.—QUESTION.
    GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can take steps to stop the supersession of regimental lieutenant-colonels now taking place by the action of paragraph (f), Article 22, Clause 124, of the Royal Warrant of September, 1877, whereby their positions have suddenly and considerably been altered for the worse; whether, if (as sanctioned by this late Warrant) appointments which a captain would be competent to hold are to qualify for the rank of full colonel, it will not tend largely to increase the list of colonels, which it is an object to reduce; and, whether, instead of thus lowering the standard of practical military experience required for the higher ranks of the Army by allowing an increased number of small appointments to be considered as qualifying for full colonel, he will consider the advantage to the public service of reducing the number to those higher appointments only, in the fulfilment of which, a real qualification for high command is likely to be acquired?
    COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he was afraid that he could only answer very generally the Question of his hon.

    27
    and gallant Friend. A small Committee had been appointed to consider this subject. The Committee had presented their Report; but he thought that it would be necessary to refer it back to them with reference to certain particular points.

  ECCLESIASTICAL SALARIES (INDIA).

    QUESTION.
    MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Return regarding Ecclesiastical Salaries in India, for which an Address was moved last Session, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the Financial Department in India has been directed by the Government of India to prepare this Return, but it must necessarily take a considerable time, and I cannot at present say when it will be received.

  TEACHERS AND SCHOOL RETURNS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the following extract from a letter lately sent to the Wigan School Attendance Committee by Mr. Cumin is to be understood as showing a change of intention since the favourable answer given in this House by Viscount Sandon on the 21st March in respect to the claim of teachers to be paid for making out the returns required to be furnished:—
    "I am directed to refer you to paragraph 25 of the Minute which, in their Lordships' opinion, precludes the teachers of schools from demanding any fee for making the returns required under paragraph 8."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, that the letter referred to by the hon. Member, written by Mr. Cumin, was dated the 16th of March. That was five days before the answer given by his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon); and, therefore, his answer would not be affected by that letter.

  THE PARIS EXHIBITION, 1878—ASSIST- ANCE TO ENGLISH ARTIZANS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MELDONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Whether, having regard to the fact that the Royal Com-
    28
    missioners for the Paris Exhibition, 1878, have (out of the moneys granted to them by Parliament) voted the sum of £100 to assist English artizans to visit the Exhibition, the Government are prepared to recommend that a sum be granted out of the same funds for a similar purpose in aid of the subscription now being made in Ireland to assist the workmen of that Country to visit the Paris Exhibition?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the arrangement that has been made with respect to the grant for the Paris Exhibition is that it shall be entirely at the disposal of the Commissioners, subject to the control of the Treasury, and the necessity of providing proper vouchers. It would not be consistent with the arrangement that has been made that the Government should interfere in any way with the appropriation of that money, and such a suggestion as that contained in the hon. and learned Member's Question should be addressed to the Royal Commissioners themselves.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR, as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Exhibition, answering a further Question by the hon. and learned Member, said, that he would remind the House that in 1867 Parliament granted for the expense of the British section £130,000, and on this occasion had only granted £50,000. Therefore, great economy was required. The utmost the Commission could grant for the benefit of artisans visiting the Exhibition was £100, and this would be applied through the Society of Arts, who were gathering subscriptions in order, if possible, to send artizans from all parts of the United Kingdom.

    COAL MINES—THE BLANTYRE COL- LIERY EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the Report of Inspector Moore as to the explosion which took place on the 20th August 1877, in the No. 2 Pit, Blantyre, in which he states—
    "That a fall of the roof took place in the waste close to them, which brought down some fire-damp. It ignited at their naked lights, and burned them both;"
    whether Inspector Moore visited the survivor, Francis McMulty, to get any in-

    29
    formation as to the cause of the explosion to frame the Report, as the survivor alone could give a true account of the explosion; and, whether it be true that an order was given for the fireman Black to be prosecuted for a breach of the special rules; and, if so, why the prosecution was abandoned some time before the explosion on the 22nd October, by which he lost his life?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, I would remind the hon. Member that he has been long familiar with the terms of Mr. Moore's Report, and that Report correctly ascribes the death of one man and the injury of another to an explosion of fire-damp on the 20th of August, 1877. Inspector Moore did not visit the boy who was injured, because while in the pit he received information from a number of men who professed to have been present, and to have witnessed the accident. No order was ever issued, and therefore no order was cancelled for a prosecution against the fireman Black. It was the duty of the Procurator Fiscal to make an investigation, with a view to prosecute anyone concerned who might be legally liable for the result. The Procurator Fiscal had not completed his investigation at the time the second explosion took place, when Black lost his life.
    MR. MACDONALD: The right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to notice whether Inspector Moore examined the boy or not.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, I was under the apprehension—misapprehension, it seems—that I had stated that Inspector Moore did not examine the boy because he had received in the pit information from persons who had seen the accident.

  ARMY—THE RESERVE FORCES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ALDERMAN M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the wives of the men of the Reserve Forces who have been called out are required to produce certificates of their marriage and the birth of their children, involving a cost of about three shillings and seven pence for each certificate, before the allowance granted by Government is paid them; and, if so, what steps the
    30
    Government will adopt to save these poor people from such expense?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, the regulations require no such certificates as those mentioned; but only a declaration to be made by the Reserve man when he first comes up for service with the Colours, in which he gives the particulars of his family.

    COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL—MA- NAGEMENT OF RIVERS.—QUESTION.
    MR. ARTHUR PEELasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, pending the passing of the County Government Bill, he will take any steps to carry out the recommendation of the Lords' Committee on Floods; and, whether he will introduce or facilitate any measure for placing the control and management of Rivers in the hands either of new Conservancy Boards or of existing Local Authorities?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the clause referred to was inserted in the County Government Bill, not with the view of giving complete effect to the recommendations of the Lords' Committee on Floods, but with the object of taking a useful step in the direction indicated by that Report. The subject had not been lost sight of by the Government, and he hoped there would be more complete legislation with respect to it before long. He could not, however, give any assurance that he would lay on the Table any further measure dealing with it during the present Session.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING—CARDIFF PILOTS.—QUESTION.
    MR. PULESTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been given to the circumstances under which two Cardiff pilots were and are still suspended; whether the explanations which have been offered by the Cardiff Pilotage Board, in reply to a Memorial to the Board of Trade by the general body of Cardiff pilots against this suspension, are deemed to be satisfactory; if it be a fact that since these pilots were suspended several serious casualties have occurred to vessels while leaving the port of Cardiff; and, whether he is informed of the circumstances under which pilots were induced to take these vessels out?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, my attention has been called to the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. The explanations which have been offered by the Cardiff Pilotage Board are not complete, and I have asked for further information from them. There is no record whatever in the Department of any serious casualties, other than collisions to vessels entering or leaving Cardiff, since the first pilot was suspended. The Receiver of Wreck for the district reports that "there have been some groundings where the damage has not been material," and none of these groundings have been of such a character as to necessitate their being reported as "casualties." Neither the Board of Trade nor their officer on the spot know anything of the circumstances in which pilots have been induced to take the vessels out.

    DIPLOMATIC APPOINTMENTS—HON. COLONEL WELLESLEY, MILITARY ATTACHE.—QUESTION.
    MR. BENETT-STANFORDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the appointment of Military Attaché has ever been considered as a diplomatic appointment; whether any persons holding that position have ever been promoted into diplomacy in consequence; and whether on the contrary it has not always been held as a Military Staff appointment?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am informed that the appointment of a military attaché is made in the same way as that of all other attachés. When Colonel Wellesley's appointment was notified to our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, in 1871, his Excellency was told—
    "To consider Colonel Wellesley as part of his diplomatic establishment, and to employ him in the business of the Embassy in whatever way he might deem most beneficial to Her Majesty's service."
    The expenses of military attachés were, until 1859, always charged on the Diplomatic Estimates, and military men have on several occasions been employed in the higher posts of the Diplomatic Service, without having passed through the rank of ordinary attaché. Colonel Rose, afterwards Lord Strathnairn, Colonel Staunton, and Colonel Mansfield are cases in point.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

    QUESTIONS.
    THE O'CONOR DONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under all the circumstances connected with the Irish Sunday Closing Bill and the interest evinced in it, he will give any facilities for proceeding with the Bill at an earlier hour in the evening than would otherwise be possible?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have always been most anxious, on the part of the Government, to fulfil the engagement which we entered into—that in the event of certain Amendments being adopted we should give facilities for the progress of the Bill. I understand that an agreement has been come to between the promoters and the leading opponents of the Bill that, if a fair opportunity is given for discussion, the discussion should take place on the merits of the clauses, and should not be merely of a dilatory character. In view of that arrangement, I have caused the Order for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill to be placed as the second Order after Supply, and I propose to adjourn the Committee of Supply at a reasonable hour—say between 11 and 12—in order that there may be a discussion on the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWasked the hon. Member for Roscommon, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill to-night; and, also, whether it is intended to put down the Bill for every Government night in the course of the Session?
    THE O'CONOR DON, in reply, said, that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was a sufficient reply to the first part of the Question; and of course, as the Government promised facilities for the Bill, it was his intention to proceed with it that night. With regard to the further progress of the Bill, he should certainly take every means in his power of pressing it on at any hour which the majority of the House thought a reasonable one for proceeding with it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that the agreement entered into upon

    33
    the last occasion applied only to the 1st clause?
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, by way of reply to the Question, he might at once say that it was not his intention to press the Bill farther than the 1st clause that night.

    THE COTTON MANUFACTORIES—THE WAGES DISPUTE—RIOTS IN LAN- CASHIRE.—QUESTIONS.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which he had given private Notice—namely, Whether the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to state to the House any particulars as to the riots which had occurred at Blackburn and Accrington, especially with regard to the outrages which had been committed on the houses of Colonel Jackson and Mr. Hornby, what steps had been taken to suppress those outrages, and whether those steps had been successful?
    MR. DODDSsaid, the Question of the hon. and gallant Member had anticipated one on the same subject which he intended to put; but he begged further to ask, If the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be good enough to inform the House what steps had been taken for the protection of life and property in the disturbed districts?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, yesterday morning was the first time that I heard of these outrages, and of the burning down of Mr. Jackson's house. I immediately telegraphed to all towns where disturbances took place for full information as to the state of affairs, and asked what steps had been taken to preserve order. I found that the military had been called out before that time, and, in fact, before I received information of any rioting, though I am happy to say that no collision has taken place between the military and the persons inhabiting those districts. No one more deeply regrets than I do that the people should have committed outrages in any part of the country, and especially in my own county. The authorities are now, I believe, alive to the steps that they ought to take. I telegraphed again this morning that it was absolutely necessary that order should be preserved, and, at the same time, that I relied upon the greatest discretion being used on the
    34
    part of the authorities in all those places where it was necessary to have the presence of a military force. I have received, within the last few minutes, the following telegrams, and, with the leave of the House, I will read them, as they give all the information I possess:—
    "From the Chief Constable of Lancaster county.—Rioting has been commenced at Burnley, where there are one hundred police, who have been reinforced by two troops of cavalry and the infantry stationed there. No disturbances in the country districts elsewhere have commenced at present; but I am apprehensive about Darwen. Three men shot and wounded near Accrington by private individuals (not by soldiers); particulars not yet to hand. No effort is being spared to restore order and to avert the actual employment of the military. The area now affected is very extensive, and the police have been for some days largely reinforced from other parts of the country. Since telegram was sent this morning military force has been withdrawn from Darwen, by order of the magistrates, and the Chief Constable fears that serious results may ensue."
    That telegram was only received a few minutes ago, and I have not had time to reply to it. I have received the following telegram from the Mayor of Blackburn:—
    "Peace since noon yesterday. Night passed very quietly. Shall keep present military force until strike is ended. No further excitement."
    The Mayor of Burnley telegraphs—
    "Thanks for your telegram. Town is still disturbed; but we have a good force, civil and military. Letter by this post."
    The Mayor of Preston telegraphs—
    "There have not been any disturbances at present, but an uneasy feeling prevails among the operatives. All possible precautions have been taken. The excitement appears to be subsiding. Will write report by next post."
    A telegram from Burnley, dated 2.40 to-day, says—"Quiet prevails. Military are patrolling the streets." I have received also a message from the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, saying that the magistrates are alive to the situation, and are taking every possible precaution.
    MAJOR O'GORMANgave Notice of his intention to-morrow to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government has been made, or is about to be made, to reconcile the unfortunate differences existing in Lancashire between the millowners and

    35
    workers; whether it is true that in certain districts of Lancashire the operatives, having assented to the wages and conditions imposed by the masters, have notwithstanding been driven from their work by those very masters who have thus openly violated their own solemn engagements; and, whether, should the Government refrain from bringing about amicable relations between the millowners and the operatives, it is the intention of the Cabinet to proclaim the various towns where disturbances have occurred, as would long since have been done under similar circumstances in Ireland?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Question he has now offered to the House involves matters of argument, and it cannot be put in the form proposed to the Home Secretary.

  H.M.S. "BEAGLE"—EXECUTION OF A NATIVE OF TANNA—JUDICIAL POWERS OF NAVAL COMMANDERS.

    QUESTIONS.
    In reply to Mr. GORST,
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that a Report had been received from Commodore Hoskyns in reference to the execution of a native of Tanna on board Her Majesty's ship Beagle. That Paper was being considered by the Admiralty, and would be laid on the Table in a few days.
    In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the decision of the Admiralty with reference to the case would also be laid upon the Table at the same time.

  REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (IRELAND) —REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

    QUESTION.
    In reply to Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN,
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the Commission had been for some time engaged in collecting information and making due arrangements for the proper prosecution of the important inquiries intrusted to them. Their next meeting would, he believed, be held on the 24th of May, and after that he understood they
    36
    would meet weekly. The time limited for the presentation of the Report was 12 months from the 22nd of January last; and there was no probability of their being able to present their Report before the close of the Session.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  THE BETHNAL GREEN MUSEUM.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. RITCHIE, in rising to call attention to the arrangements for admission to the Bethnal Green Museum, and to move—
    "That it is desirable to give greater facilities for admission by extending the arrangements now existing on the three free days to five days in the week,"
    said, the present arrangements were the same as those in existence at the South Kensington Museum; but arrangements which were suitable for the West End were by no means adapted to the East End of the town. For three days the Museum was open free from 10 A.M. to 10 P.M., and for three days it was open, on a payment of 6d. each person entering, from 10 to 6. That so many pay days, which had been instituted for the sake of students, were not wanted he would be able to show by figures. In the month of March the attendances on pay days only averaged 27 each day, whilst on free days the average was 3,346. On the pay days, therefore, the Museum was practically closed to the public; and he trusted the Government would see the advisability of agreeing practically with his proposal. He quite agreed there ought to be one pay day; because there were many persons, other than students, who wished to examine the works of Art when there were not such crowds present as on the free days. There was, no doubt, some question of expense with respect to gas; but he did not think the question of fees, considering how small they were, was worth considering.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable to give greater facilities for admission to the Bethnal Green Museum, by extending the arrangements now existing on the three free days to five days in the week,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Bethnal Green Museum had, since its opening, more than realized the most sanguine expectations which had been entertained with respect to it. As it was a local institution, and there were many similar institutions, the Education Department undertook to lay down its rules, and those rules were the same as were in force at South Kensington. At the latter place large numbers of persons made use of the Museum on pay days; but in Bethnal Green, the population being of a different character, the number of persons attending on pay days was comparatively small. The Government felt that as there had been a large expenditure on the Bethnal Green Museum, it should be utilized as much as possible. At the same time, it was necessary that any arrangement which might be made with that object should not afford a precedent for placing on the Treasury an undue expenditure for objects of a local character. Before making any considerable change it had been necessary to inquire into various points. The increase in the number of free days would cause a loss of a considerable portion of the fees, and, in addition, a largesum—something like£l,200 a-year—would have to be spent in gas. That was an expenditure he did not think the Treasury ought to undertake. Considering, however, the case which his hon. Friend had presented to the House, he did not think it would be unreasonable to increase the number of free days to five, on the understanding that on the two extra days the gas should not be lighted, but that the Museum should be closed at six.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he gladly accepted the proposal of the noble Lord, and hoped that he should obtain from him next year a still further concession.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  THE NORTHERN CIRCUIT—ASSIZES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMrose to call attention to the inconvenience arising from holding the Assizes for the Northern Counties at Manchester. The effect of the arrangements which previously existed was, he said, that many men committed for trial were detained in gaol for a number of months; and it was to obviate this that additional Assizes were instituted. The result was that prisoners, who would otherwise have been tried at Newcastle, Carlisle, and Lancaster, were now sent to Manchester, and the arrangement occasioned great inconvenience. Owing to the distance from their homes prisoners, on their discharge from prison, and those who were found not guilty, had great difficulty in getting back, and were, consequently, especially in the case of those who were youthful, exposed to great temptation. Then there was another and inevitable evil connected with the system. A man who was being tried near home could get witnesses on his behalf who would spare half-a-day or a day to give testimony in his favour; but it was difficult, if not impossible, to get men, especially of the working class, to travel from Carlisle to Manchester for that purpose. An additional Assize in each of the Northern county towns would meet the difficulty, and enable justice to be carried out with much greater certainty. Another point for consideration in connection with this matter was, that if a man were tried for a murder committed in a county where murder was a rare crime, or happened only once in three or four years, it was not likely that he would receive the same consideration from the jury if he was tried in a county, in every Assize calendar of which there were four or five murders put down for trial, as he would have if tried in the county where murders were rare. On that ground, it was undesirable to take men long distances from the scene of their offences to take their trial. He hoped the Government would see their way to adopting his suggestion.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the House had decided that prisoners should not practically be kept longer in custody before their trial than three months, and it had therefore been found necessary to

    39
    hold the Assizes four times in the year. It was thought necessary, under the new arrangements, to try the experiment as to how far the grouping of counties could be carried out. He was quite willing to admit that this grouping had been carried out, in some instances, too extensively. He did not think it fair that prisoners from Carlisle should be taken all the way to Manchester for trial. And, as far as that was concerned, his hon. Friend might rest assured that it should not happen again. The question of grouping counties, and the making of the best arrangements for the holding of criminal Assizes, was at present under the serious consideration of himself, the Lord Chancellor, and many of the Judges; and, as they had not yet arrived at a definite conclusion, he hoped the House would excuse him if he did not go further into the consideration of the question.
    MR. PAGETcontended that the convenience of localities should be fully considered in any fresh arrangements that might be made, and that too much consideration should not be given to the convenience of Judges in any re-arrangement of the Circuits.
    MR. FLETCHERwas glad that attention had been drawn to so important a subject. He could corroborate all that the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had said; and he hoped the Government would be able to deal with the question in a satisfactory manner.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought the whole plan of holding Assizes for the trial of criminal cases only should be revised. He saw no reason why the trial of civil causes should not be combined with the trial of criminal cases at all the Assizes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would seriously consider the point, and that before long there would be one uniform system applicable to the trial of all cases alike.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that in common with those who took an interest in Legal Procedure, he felt great satisfaction at having heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the re-organization of the Circuits, for the despatch of the criminal business of the country, was under the serious consideration of the Government. He was sure that that
    40
    statement would be received with no less satisfaction outside the House. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had last Session brought forward the subject of the inadequacy of existing arrangements for the despatch of civil business in the Provincial districts, especially at Manchester and Liverpool, at both of which places he knew that much dissatisfaction was felt. He hoped, therefore, that while providing greater facilities for the trial of prisoners throughout the country, Her Majesty's Government would also see the necessity of improving the administration of civil business, and meeting the obvious requirements of the public in that respect. He had submitted to the House, on the occasion to which he had alluded, a Memorial from the inhabitants of Manchester, by which it appeared that, in consequence of the limited number of days allotted to the trial of causes at Manchester, and owing to the Commission day at Liverpool coming immediately after that of that town, the civil business at Manchester was frequently hurried over, and important actions either withdrawn or referred at the last moment, to the great detriment and expense of the suitors, who complained that their matters were very imperfectly transacted. Whether the remedy for this should be more time given to the Assizes, or more Judicial strength, it was not for him to say. He had not had the good fortune to hear the able and eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General on a former evening, when introducing his measure for the amendment of the Criminal Law; but, from the report he had read in the papers, he was sure that the Bill about to be introduced by the Government would give general satisfaction, and he could not help saying that no more important measure had been proposed during the present Session. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could not do better than accompany the Bill establishing a Criminal Code by an improvement and re-construction of the existing very imperfect arrangements for the trial of causes, both criminal and civil.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

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

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Question [May 13] again proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £376,545, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, and Printing Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he objected, in this Vote, to the sum of £289 for stationery for the purposes of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that there was no item of £289 for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, they had been informed by the Government that a portion of this Vote was intended for the purposes of the Queen's University in Ireland, and they calculated that the amount that would be so applied would be about £289. In order to justify themselves in making that calculation, they quoted the figure given in the Estimates of a year or two ago, and it was for that reason he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £289, unless the Government would give them an assurance that, under no circumstances, would any portion of the Vote be spent in the present year for the support of the Queen's University in Ireland. He maintained that this Institution did not deserve to receive any grant of public money. Of course, neither he nor any Irish Member would rise in his place on the present occasion to oppose a Vote of this kind without having good reasons for so doing. If the money which they were asked to vote for the service of the Queen's University were really intended to be devoted to promoting the usefulness of that Institution, they would not think of persevering in their opposition. But if they could show that such would not be the effect of the application of this
    42
    money, he thought they had a right to ask the Committee to diminish the Vote by that amount.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that, while he would be in Order in objecting to the money being applied to a purpose which he deprecated, he would not be in Order in entering into any discussion of the merits of the Queen's University on this Vote.
    MR. O'DONNELLwas afraid he had misunderstood the ruling, because he failed to perceive how he could ask the Committee on his ipse dixit to reject the Vote. He apprehended that it was not sufficient for a Member of the Committee to say that he objected to this or that Vote, without stating the grounds of his objection. If he objected to public money being voted for the use of the Queen's University, he did so for a certain reason; but he could not presume to ask hon. Members to follow him blindly into the Lobby, without giving any reasons for the request he made to them.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member seemed not to have observed that the proper time would come when that question would be discussed on a Vote for the purpose of the Queen's University; but the present Vote was one for the Stationery Office, and upon that it was desirable to keep the arguments addressed to the Committee within the scope of the matters relating to the Stationery Office.
    MR. PARNELLremarked, that if the present Vote should receive the sanction of the Committee, a certain sum of money, amounting to £451,745, would be provided for the purposes of the Stationery Office. In looking at the purposes to which it was proposed to apply this money, he observed that a sum of £289 was to be applied to purposes—["No, no!"]—he observed that stationery to the amount of £289 was to be issued—["No, no!"]
    SIR H. DRUMOND WOLFF: I beg to rise to Order.
    MR. PARNELL: I am speaking to a point of Order.
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member for Meath was in possession.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he observed that it was intimated to them that £289 was applied for the purposes of stationery and printing in the Queen's University

    43
    in Ireland during the years 1876 and 1877. From that he inferred that, out of the sum which they were now asked to vote, a somewhat similar sum would be applied during the coming or present financial year for the same purposes—that was, for the purposes of the Queen's Colleges and University in Ireland. He objected to the Department applying any money for stationery or printing for the purposes of these Institutions; and he desired to have the opportunity of stating to the Committee the reasons why he thought that the application of that portion of this large sum which they were now asked to vote would be a waste of public money. Therefore, he wished to reduce the Vote by the sum of £289, which the Government had informed them they applied in 1876 and 1877 for the purpose of stationery and printing in the Queen's University in Ireland. The Chairman had said, just now, that they could discuss that question when they came to the main Vote. But there was no portion of the main Vote set aside for the purpose of stationery and printing for the Queen's Colleges; and if they discussed that question on the main Vote, they would do so without having any opportunity of fixing upon a particular item in the Vote. The item in reference to this point was now before them; or, if it was not, the Government had at least intimated very plainly to them that they would apply a certain portion of this Vote for these purposes to the Queen's Colleges and University in Ireland. Therefore, he submitted, with great deference, that he should be in Order in stating the reasons why he objected to having any portion of this money devoted to that purpose, and also in moving to reduce the amount of the Vote by the sum of £289 or £300, which the Government had intimated to them would be so applied.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would be in Order in moving to reduce the Vote before the Committee by the sum of £300 or £289, or whatever other sum he thought proper; and he might also justify that Motion by stating that he believed that some such sum was likely to be applied to purposes which he deprecated; but there was no item in the present Vote which raised the question of the Queen's Colleges or University; and therefore, in the event of
    44
    the hon. Member inducing the Committee to adopt his view, it would not have the effect of depriving these Institutions of any portion of the money that might be required for them. It would, therefore, be plain to the Committee—and, he trusted, it might be clear to the hon. Member—that any discussion of the constitution or merits of the Queen's University would be wholly beside the question now before the Committee.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to refer to what took place the other night. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) then assured the Committee that, from his point of view, the proposed reduction of this Vote would be most disastrous to his Party in Ireland. He (Major Nolan) would not say it would be disastrous; but if they were to believe what the hon. Member for the City of Londonderry had said, the effect would be, at any rate, of very great importance. Consequently, he did not think it could be a waste of time on their part to discuss this Vote; and he thought his hon. Friends around him would be quite right in adhering to their intention to reduce it by £289, because that was the only sum in the Vote which was connected with anything that was objectionable from their point of view. They found the connection between the sum of £289 and the Queen's University established, because the Government had declared that in a past year that sum had been expended on that Institution. Now, the proposition which he made the other night he would venture to repeat to the Committee, and it was, that the sum of £289 should be omitted from the Vote, the Government taking that money later on, when the Committee were asked to pass the Vote for the Queen's University. It was, after all, a mere question of detail, whether they should vote the money for stationery for each Department separately, or lump the various sums together under the one head of Stationery Office. He did not say that it might not be better, and more convenient, under ordinary circumstances, to adopt the latter course; but he thought that it would be far better, in regard to a disputed item, that it should be taken in connection with the main sum of money voted for an Institution to which objection was taken. It might be thought that voting stationery and paper for the

    45
    Queen's University was a small question; and although that might be so considered in one aspect of the case, yet it had really become a very large question for the Irish Members to consider whether they should pass any Vote connected with this particular Institution. If they had the great moral advantage of having the great majority of the Irish Representatives on their side, he thought it was obviously their policy on every occasion to oppose the voting of any money for the Queen's Colleges. It was only by taking that course that they would show the Irish people that their Representatives continued to do their duty, but that a majority of English and Scotch Members had determined to overrule them on this question. He would not enter into the great question of education, as another opportunity would be afforded for discussing that subject. But they had been taunted with coming there and begging for money from the Imperial Exchequer. Well, the Irish Members were willing now to show that they did not want public money. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the suggestion that he had made, it would afford an easy means of cutting the Gordian Knot on the present occasion; but, otherwise, he hoped that the omission of the £289 would be pressed to a division, in order to show that the majority of Irish Members were anxious, on every occasion, to prevent money, or anything else, being given to the Queen's Colleges, until all denominations in Ireland had equally advantageous educational establishments.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he understood that at the present moment the Committee were rather engaged upon a question of Order, raised by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and others, and that the point of Order was this—The Vote about to be taken was for a gross sum to be expended through the Stationery Office on all the Public Services in which stationery was required. Hon. Members found that a certain portion of that sum would, in accordance with the usual practice, be expended upon the Queen's Colleges. They desired to challenge the application of any public money to the Queen's Colleges, and they, therefore, proposed to omit a certain sum from the Vote, being about the sum which they
    46
    presumed might fairly be taken as representing what would be spent upon stationery for the Queen's Colleges. Then they said that, in order to justify themselves in making that proposal, it was necessary that they should show why with them these Colleges were an objectionable Institution, and why no public money should be given to them. Well, it might seem to them that it was unreasonable that they should propose to strike out that portion of the Vote unless they showed that, and they might say that they could not show it unless they were allowed to go into the whole subject of the Queen's Colleges. But, on the other hand, he apprehended there could be no doubt that the Rule which the Chairman had laid down was the one which must guide the Committee. It was that, in the discussion of this Vote, it was impossible for any Member, in a regular and orderly way, to go into the whole question of the merits of the Queen's Colleges; and the inference which he thought they must draw from that ruling was, that the present was not the proper occasion for the raising of that discussion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had said that the Government might alter the form of the Vote so as to get the Committee out of the difficulty which it was in by withdrawing the small sum that was proposed to be applied to the Queen's Colleges, and voting it hereafter when they came to the Vote for these Institutions. That would be an inconvenient way of proceeding, and really it would make no difference, because the withdrawal of £300 or £3,000 from the Vote would not in any way impede the expenditure of so much of the money as was voted for the Stationery Office being applied to the Queen's Colleges so long as they were, and continued to be, recognized as an Institution which was entitled to Government support. But what he would undertake on behalf of the Government—he believed that it had already been promised—was this—If when they came to the Vote for the Queen's Colleges that Vote should be negatived, he would undertake that no portion whatever of the sum voted for the Stationery Office should be applied to them. That would obviate the difficulty which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who had said that they

    47
    might, perhaps, negative the Vote for the Queen's Colleges, but that as they had granted the stationery it would still be supplied to them. He really hoped that they would not be called upon to discuss any further the point of Order; but that hon. Gentlemen, if they thought it desirable to try the question, and put in what was in the nature of a protest on their part on the present occasion, would move a reduction of the Vote and go to a division, remembering that the question of the Queen's Colleges themselves would be a matter for subsequent discussion. As he had already said, more than once, the Government would take care that ample opportunity was given for the discussion of that important subject on its merits.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had never before heard a statement made by the Government to the effect that it made no difference whether a sum of money were struck out from the Votes or not, for that stationery would be supplied all the same to the Queen's University. He thought that was a most immoral doctrine, and one which struck at the root of the system of voting public money. He also thought that it was thoroughly unreasonable to ask Parliament to vote first, and then to hear arguments on the policy of the Vote. In his opinion, the only sensible plan was to allow the discussion to go on then.
    MR. PARNELLwished to make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), in consequence of the allegation of the Government that the reduction of the Vote by £289 would not affect the supply of stationery to the Queen's University. He should suggest, if that were so, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should withdraw his Amendment, and should move to strike out the entire Vote. He was very serious in his opposition to the Queen's University in Ireland; and he could not but think that the power that the Government assumed of applying money, voted for this purpose to any Department, was a very faulty way of applying the Estimates. It was very strange that sums of money should be accounted for in the Public Services by items, when they were not intended to be applied to the Services for which they were voted. It placed the opponents of any particular Service in a dilemma; and the only way in which they could protest against any sum of
    48
    money being spent on the Queen's Colleges would be by objecting to the whole Vote. For that reason, he should advise the hon. Member for Dungarvan to object to the whole Vote; and, in the meantime, the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing the other items included in the Vote. He was determined not to vote any sum of money to the Queen's Colleges without entering his protest against it; and if they could not object to the particular application of any sum of money by the Government, they must divide against the whole Vote. The fault lay with the Government in framing the Estimate in this manner. In future, he should consider that it would be desirable for the Government to arrange these matters in a different way, so that hon. Members who objected to any particular sum would be able to do so, without being under the necessity of opposing the whole Vote.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISobserved, that it seemed to him that the Committee, to a certain extent, had suffered, in point of time and convenience, from the fairness and ingenuousness of the Government in dealing with this particular Vote. Had the Government moved, without specific details, for a supply for stationery for the Public Service, no one could have objected to the Estimate; but just because the Government had been fair and explicit in giving a larger amount of information as to the portions in which the stationery and printing was supplied to the different Departments, the Committee had been wearied by the various discussions on the matter. The objections raised, it was said, were conscientious ones; but when anybody said proudly that he did anything for conscience sake, he could not but suspect. He liked to hear a business argument and business reasons given when a Vote in Supply was opposed; but when he heard an item of £289 was objected to from conscientious motives, he could not but wonder that this should prove a dead fly in the ointment. This little matter it was which disturbed the digestion of hon. Members opposite, and which incited them to discuss, over and over again, the merits of the Vote for the Stationery Department. The hon. Member for Meath, who had last spoken, had recommended

    49
    that the Committee be divided against the whole Vote. Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite at once challenge the whole Vote of £480,000, because £289 in stationery was supplied last year on account of the Queen's Colleges, if they really meant to take that course? Whenever they threw out a challenge to go to a division, it was accepted on that side of the House; but when it was thrown to them, they always delayed from it.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Question before the Committee was the Vote for the Stationery Office, and upon that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had intimated his intention to move an Amendment that it be reduced by the sum of £289. He had pointed out to him that it was quite competent for him to bring on that Amendment; but, at the same time, he thought it his duty to state that the Amendment was not yet before the Committee. He must, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Dungarvan, whether he intended to move that Amendment?
    MR. O'DONNELLexpressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment, and to raise his objection to the supply of stationery to the Queen's University by challenging the entire Vote. He agreed with the hon. Member for Meath, that the Government provoked that course by the way in which they had framed the Estimates. He therefore moved the reduction of the whole Vote.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYwould like to know whether the Vote of £450,000 was not to be applied for stationery in the different Departments? If that were so, he would wish to be informed in what way this sum of £289 was to be expended? No doubt it was to be applied, amongst other things, in providing three or four Institutions in Ireland with a certain amount of stationery; but he did not think that they were likely to get rapidly through the Estimates, when such arguments were addressed to the Committee as that they had just heard from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). He had told them that when the Government applied to Parliament for a Vote of £450,000, the House ought to thank the Government for giving it any information as to the manner in which that large sum was to be expended. They did not, however, thank the Government for giving them
    50
    information, for it was the duty of the Government to furnish it, and it was the duty of the Committee to see that it was given. For his own part, he deprecated the enunciation of such a doctrine. Another point he wished to raise was this—It might be that when Parliament struck out a sum of £289 from the Estimates, as not applicable to a particular purpose, it would be within the power of the Government to take other means to perform the service which the House of Commons had said should not be performed. To that he entirely demurred, and he thought the Committee was interested in knowing whether or not it was correct; for, if so, Parliament had no control over the Estimates?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that he would first reply on the question of the information given with regard to the particular distribution of the Vote of £450,000, now asked for on behalf of the Stationery Office. What was done in the composing of the Estimates of the year was for the sums to be inserted on account of the stationery which each Department had demanded from the Stationery Office in the preceding year. At the end of the year, when the proper accounts were made up, the whole was put together, and it became possible then to draw up such a table as appeared in the Estimates, showing how the sum of money granted to the Stationery Office had been distributed. In that way a table, 1876–7, showed how the money granted at the beginning of that year was distributed. On the Estimates so prepared the Government asked the House of Commons to grant £450,000 for the Stationery Office. Supposing that the House subsequently agreed to the Vote for the Queen's Colleges, the sum allowed to the Stationery Office, even if minus the £289, would enable it to supply the demands of the Queen's Colleges. On the other hand, if Parliament refused to make the grant to the Queen's University, the Stationery Office, although they might possibly have been prepared to meet the demands of the Queen's Colleges, would not be justified in supplying them, and would pay the money back through the Exchequer. If this particular sum of £289 were now struck out, and the House subsequently agreed that the Queen's Colleges should

    51
    be continued, the Stationery Office would have no money to pay for the printing required by the Queen's University and sanctioned by the House. That would necessitate a Supplementary Estimate. A similar table to that in the present Estimates would be given for 1879–80 in a future year, showing how this sum of £450,000 had been used; and if the Queen's Colleges were left out of the Vote by the House, no sum would then appear in the next table to the credit of the Queen's Colleges.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that the explanation given of this £289 was to the effect that the sum would probably be required for the purpose of supplying the Queen's University with stationery. It was said that the stationery might not be required, and that, if not required, the money would be returned to the Treasury. He would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the matter in this way—Here was a large Vote of £450,000, and a little matter of £289 was sticking in the throats of his hon. Friends. Was it worth while to fight about so small a matter? Would it not be better to withdraw the sum of £289 from the present Vote, and add it to the Vote for the Queen's Colleges? The sum should be withdrawn from the present Estimate, on the distinct understanding that it would be brought on when the whole of the question of the Queen's Colleges was discussed.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYcould not understand the attempt to diminish the value of the control of that House over the public expenditure. This money was to be spent in the year on particular things. Suppose, for one moment, that the items given were omitted, did anyone think that the large sum in the Estimates would be voted by the Committee without previous inquiry as to the objects for which it would be applied? And that consideration showed the necessity for the enumeration of the items in the Estimates, and that in placing them there the Government had performed no perfunctory duty. He could not, therefore, follow the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) in what he had stated with regard to the ingenuousness of the Government in giving correct details of the different items. He understood that it had been suggested by the hon. Mem-
    52
    ber for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that the question of the Queen's Colleges was to be shelved until somebody moved to reduce the entire amount of the Vote. He wished to call attention to another "fly in the ointment." He used the expression of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and he hoped it would not interfere with his digestion; although it was very remarkable that the hon. Member should use so contradictory a simile—as if anyone ever took ointment internally.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISobserved, that he had never made the statement in the connection imputed to him.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that it was unimportant, and he would not pursue the subject. What he wished to mention was, that under the head of Stationery a certain amount was included for the supply of the Education Department. The Education Department in Ireland spent on stationery and printing, during the last year, £2,174. In Ireland they had a different system of National Education to that which existed in Scotland. In the latter country, the sum expended in the same year by the Education Department for stationery was only £124. He wanted to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinarily large amount spent by the Irish Education Department for printing and stationery, and to suggest that this very large amount could be cut down. He thought he was in Order in mentioning this matter. The Education Department in Ireland arrogated to itself the right of printing, publishing, and supplying copybooks to the schools. It also supplied the schools under its control with all the literature they required, to the exclusion of all other publications, publishers, and printers. One result of that system he should not discuss, because it would be without the ruling of the Chair to go into the subject of the disadvantage under which Irish publishers laboured, in not being permitted to supply the schools. But there was another objection to the system by which the schools in Ireland were allowed none but books published by the Stationery Department; for, were the market open, it was probable a very different class of books would be introduced, and a much larger number of people would patronize the schools. Apart from the injury inflicted on the trade, the result of this

    53
    monopoly was very detrimental in other ways; because, if the contracts were open to public competition, it would, undoubtedly, be found that private enterprise could supply these books at a much lower rate than was now charged by the Printing and Publishing Department. Without pressing for a vote, he would recommend the subject to the notice of the Educational Department. It was not alone in this branch that the Government confined to itself the monopoly of printing and publishing. His attention had been directed to other Departments; and he found there was scarcely any work of a similar description to be executed in Ireland that was not kept out of the hands of the trades, and under complete Government control, to the great loss of the public, and in a manner perfectly unknown in this country or in Scotland.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, that no part of this Vote be applied to the providing of stationery for the Queen's Colleges or University in Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that such a Motion is out of Order, and that he can only move a reduction of the Vote.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not propose to question the ruling of the Chairman, but would call his attention to the fact that some years ago, when the Dover Mail Contract, concluded with Mr. Churchward, was under discussion, a similar Motion was made and agreed to. The course he now proposed to pursue was, therefore, in strict accordance with Parliamentary precedent.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that in the case to which he refers the Proviso was moved by the Government, who were responsible for the Vote.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked, whether the Government had any privileges in connection with the Estimates which were not shared by the Representatives of the people?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Government necessarily bring forward the Estimates on their own responsibility and discretion, and place them before the House in the form and manner most convenient for discussion. It is the function of the Committee to criticize, reduce, or reject
    54
    the Votes; but the responsibility of framing them rests with the Government.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYreplied, that it appeared by the Estimates that a sum of money was required for certain purposes. His proposition was, that the money be so granted to the Government, but with a Proviso that no portion of the Vote should be applied to a particular purpose. He failed to see what were the functions of hon. Members, if it was not competent to them to object in this manner. He asked, whether he was precluded from moving the Amendment?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will understand that he cannot proceed with the Motion indicated.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government had framed this Vote in such a way as to render impossible the rejection of any particular item, and he was, therefore, unable to move the reduction of the Vote by any specific amount. There were, however, several items in the Estimates by the reduction of which it would be ensured that no money would go this year to the Queen's Colleges and University in Ireland for the purposes of stationery and printing. The Vote was divided into items, none of which referred explicitly to the printing and stationery for the Queen's Colleges and University. Hon. Members were told by the Government that the sum of £289 was applied to that purpose in 1876–7; and he inferred that the Government, in framing the Estimates, had allowed for a similar amount in the present Vote. He wished to point out to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that there were four other items, by moving the omission of which he would attain his object. Under the sub-headings E, F, G, H, there was the sum of £271,000 for printing, paper, parchment, and vellum. He thought that, as any expenditure for stationery and printing for the Queen's Colleges and University in Ireland would come from this amount, in the event of the Committee being induced to omit the items under these sub-headings, it would result that no money for these purposes would go to the Colleges this year.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYremarked, that in the case of the Dover Contract with Mr. Churchward, the Government

    55
    retained the item in the Estimates for a period of two years. The Government then accepted a Motion precisely analogous to that which he now made, and which he held it was competent to them to entertain.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he must direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to a matter that was attracting considerable notice in Dublin. He saw, under the sub-head A, that the Examiner received a salary of £138 a-year. He did not know whether that gentleman was responsible for the matter he was about to complain of; but, if so, he would move the reduction of the total amount under this sub-head by the amount of his salary. His complaint was, that in consequence of a Memorial presented by the printers in Dublin to the employers in the trade, seeking for an increase of wages to the extent of 2s. weekly for time-work, and of from 6 to 7½ per cent for piece-work, the head of the Department and a considerable number of the employers having met to consider this very moderate proposal, it resulted that a fortnight's notice was given to every member of the Typographical Society in Dublin, including those printers who were employed for the Government Offices. During the interval, many of the employers and some newspaper proprietors, among whom he would mention The Freeman's Journal, agreed to the advance of wages, and continued to employ the men. A few employers, however, had not followed this very proper example. The Queen's Printing Office, where from 60 to 70 hands were previously engaged, was now closed—Mr. Thom, the manager of the office, having failed to get workmen from England to supply the places of those who were on strike. Some English printers did go to Dublin, and went to work in the Queen's Printing Office; but after finding out the position of things, and how very unfairly the manager of the office had acted towards his old hands, they refused to work any longer in the establishment, and returned to England. Ten weeks had elapsed since this rupture took place, and during that time Mr. Thom and his agents had searched all the large centres of industry and large Provincial towns in the United Kingdom for men, but, up to the present, their efforts had not been successful, as although in
    56
    numerous instances workmen were engaged, when they found out the actual state of affairs they returned to the localities whence they came. But Mr. Thom, having discovered that it was impossible for him to get enough men from England to fill the places of the printers who were dismissed, had sent all the Irish printing to be done in England; and, consequently, the journeymen, who asked for an advance of 2s. a-week, had been thrown out of employment permanently; and there was really no hope of their getting work again in Dublin, unless the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Estimates told the Committee that he thought the Irish printing ought to be done in Ireland. Very few of the large Dublin employers had refused to grant these reasonable demands of the men, and the course which Mr. Thom had taken appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) to be altogether unjustifiable. That being so, he should be glad to hear from the hon. Baronet where Mr. Thom's salary appeared in the Vote, and whether he was the gentleman described as the "Assistant Examiner of Printing and Binding" in Dublin?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move to reduce the Vote?
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had not moved the reduction of the Vote. He had only asked for information.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, Mr. Thom's salary was paid him for taking charge of The Dublin Gazette, and the Assistant Examiner of Printing and Binding was a kind of foreman in the office, who had to see certain work carried out. As to the rupture between Mr. Thom and his men, he knew nothing of it. Mr. Thom was bound to perform certain work; and, therefore, he was justified in seeking for labour during the time of the differences between him and his men.
    MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, which was the item in the Vote providing for Mr. Thorn's salary? Unless he had that information, he should be obliged to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount paid to the Controller of the Department. He desired to reduce the Vote; but he did not know what item he could select in order to deal with Mr. Thom's stipend. The Vote was framed in such an extraordinary manner, and so few details were given, that it was utterly impos-

    57
    sible for a private Member to find out what he wanted to know.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the complaint in this matter was, that a Government Department in Dublin, in order to defeat Dublin workmen, first tried to import labour from England and Scotland, and, failing that, had exported the Dublin work of the Government to England and Scotland. The Dublin printing of the Government was now being done in Edinburgh, and that course had been adopted for the purpose of saving the Dublin Department the necessity of yielding to the just demands of the printers. Of course, to a certain extent, it was quite right that an employer should go to a far distance for labour in order to counteract what he considered to be an unfair combination; but in this case the question arose as to what was, and what was not, an unfair combination? The charge against the Government Printing Office in Dublin was this—that whereas the printers, who had only asked for an advance of wages once before in the course of half-a-century, and who, upon this occasion, had only asked for an increase of 2s. a week on the establishment wages and 6 or 7 per cent upon piece-work, the Government Department, backed by the influence of the Stationery Office, first tried to defeat that very moderate demand by the importation of workmen, and, failing that, they had the work "jobbed out" at Edinburgh. He was informed that one of the reasons why the work could be done cheaply at Edinburgh, and thus the opposition of the Dublin printers easily defied, was that in Edinburgh the duty was being performed by females. Female printers were doing this work at a cheap rate, and the regular printers of Dublin were thrust out of employment in this unfair manner. Undoubtedly, labour had its duties, but so, also, had capital; and there ought to be some strong reasons shown before the Irish Government printing was taken out of the hands of the Irish workmen, and handed over to females in England and Scotland. He thought this a very serious question, and he was sorry to see the Government did not appear to be previously aware of what had been taking place.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, Mr. Thom had a very lucrative contract for the publication of Government papers in
    58
    Ireland, and he must say he did his work admirably. There was recently a strike in Dublin, on the refusal of an application for an advance of wages to the printers. There were other printing offices besides that of the Government in the city, and he believed the proprietors of most of these—and especially the newspaper proprietors—conceded the demands of their men; and it was only right to say that even now, with this increase, the wages of printers in Dublin were less than those given to similar workmen in England and Scotland. The point before the Committee was this—Mr. Thom had a monopoly given him by the Government of this extensive printing; and while he ought to be protected against unfair competition, on the other hand the Secretary to the Treasury ought to take care that the monopoly which was given to that gentleman was not used to oppress the people whom he employed. If the Secretary to the Treasury would say he would look into the matter and take it up in a right spirit—which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was sure he would do if he took it up at all—something might be done. It certainly was not right that printing, which the Government contracted to have done in Dublin, should be taken by the contractor to be executed in Edinburgh, unless there be some very strong reason for such a course being pursued. It was clear that the attention of the Government had not yet been called to the matter, and he hoped they would now look into it. Mr. Thom's labours in the cause of everything that was good in Ireland were so great, and the extraordinary volumes of statistics which he produced entirely by his own exertions were so valuable, that he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was most unwilling to say anything, or to take any course, which should injure him. But, at the same time, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury ought to look into the matter, and see that the printing should really be done in Dublin, when it could be executed there on fair terms. He would not say a word against Mr. Thom, who richly deserved the support of that House for all he had done in the way of facilitating legislation by the admirable statistics he had compiled; but, at the same time, he must not be allowed to over-ride poor people by the great weight given him in consequence of his

    59
    having this monopoly from the Government.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as to the admirable work which Mr. Thom performed. As to the direct salary which he received, it appeared in the Estimates—namely, £100—and that was paid for the assistance he rendered in editing The Dublin Gazette. That sum, he believed, represented the whole of the Government salary which was paid to Mr. Thom; and, considering his services, he did not regard that as an extravagant sum. With reference to the question of printing, it was not his wish in any way to injure the trade; but the Government required certain work to be speedily done, and, owing to the strike, Mr. Thom seemed to consider the best plan to adopt was to have it executed in other places. However, at the request of one or two hon. Gentlemen, he would consent to look into the matter.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury was mistaken if he supposed his attention had not been directed to this subject before, because his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) alluded to it on Monday night. True, he did not do so at any length, and probably he did not make any impression upon the hon. Baronet; but as the hon. Baronet had been kind enough to say that he would look into the question, he (Mr. Parnell) would not persevere in his opposition to the Vote on that ground. With regard to the question itself, it was quite competent for the Committee to say, if contracts for printing to be performed in Dublin were entered into, that the work should not be sent by the contractor to be executed in Edinburgh or Glasgow, or elsewhere, and especially on so small a reason that the men had asked for an advance to the extent of 4s. a-week. There was no such emergency in getting out the work as the hon. Baronet seemed to think. The printing had only been put out because Mr. Thom said—"I will put down this strike; I will use the power and authority which the very lucrative Government contract I hold will enable me to use; I will enter upon this contest, and I will put down this demand from the men." He (Mr. Parnell) hoped the hon. Baronet would carefully look into the whole question.
    MR. T. CAVEsaid, he must protest against the new doctrine sought to be laid down by the hon. Member for Meath. If a contractor obtained a contract from that House to execute printing at a price, he was entitled—always supposing he was fair and reasonable—to get his work done as cheaply and as well as he could. He was sorry that the printers of Dublin had quarrelled with their master; but, at the same time, that was no reason in the world for laying down the doctrine—which would work most mischievously—that a contractor in that country or this had not a perfect right to get his work done as cheaply as he could.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the House had laid down an entirely different principle. The House had decided that the printing referring to Scotland should be done in Edinburgh; that that referring to Ireland should be done in Dublin; and that that referring to England should be done in London. He boldly asserted that, because he saw in the Vote separate and distinct items for printing in Ireland, Scotland, and England. If he had not recognized that principle, he should not have adopted the course he had; or, inasmuch as if they went upon the general principle of getting work done in the cheapest way, they would put all the printing together and have a contract for the lot. Then they would have the work executed in the cheapest place they could. If a Glasgow printer could do the printing cheaper than anyone else, by all means let the House of Commons, if it desired, give him the work. But, in this instance, the House of Commons had not chosen to do that, the Vote being presented in an entirely different way; and as long as they appeared in that shape, and a Dublin contractor sent his work to Scotland, he (Mr. Parnell) would protest against it.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, both the hon. Gentlemen who had last spoken were in the wrong. There was no contract, in the ordinary sense of the word, in this case, and that was precisely the error into which the two last speakers had fallen. While being called a contractor, Mr. Thom was not put into competition with anyone. The facts of the matter before the Committee were these:—The Dublin printers thought fit to require the masters in that City to raise their wages. Of course, they had a perfect right so to

    61
    act; and he must remind the Committee that while some did not submit to this compulsion others did. Mr. Thom who, on a previous occasion, had thoroughly kept himself clear from all connection with the Printers' Association, and who opposed that Society successfully, would not agree to the terms of the men as to an increase of wages. That being so, he (Mr. Sullivan) regretted that the matter had been brought before the Committee that night. He considered it would be a deadly blow given to the printers of Ireland if hon. Members propounded on the floor of that House that the work could be done in Edinburgh cheaper than in Dublin; because it would put the printers of Dublin in the odious position of having driven the trade from the City. That was why he deplored such a discussion being raised. He hoped the present difficulty would be adjusted, and he believed it might be by the display of a little kindliness on each side.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was a fact within his own knowledge that there had been very great delay in printing documents which ought to be produced in Dublin in consequence of the copy having to be sent to Scotland. One reason why the Government had printers in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, was that there were documents peculiar to each country which required to be got on with at short notice. The Government printing in Ireland was done in Dublin for that reason; and if the Government printer for Ireland, as a rule, had his work done out of the Irish capital, of course there would be great inconvenience and delay. For his part, he was quite content with the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury—that he would inquire into the matter. At present, it was provided that the Irish printing should be done in Dublin, for the sake of convenience and expedition; and unless it was done in that city, Parliament must alter the system under which the work was given to the contractor. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) made every allowance for Mr. Thom; and he regretted the delay occasioned in the execution of work in consequence of his not seeing his way to do what the other masters had done.
    MR. O'DONNELL,in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who objected to the fact
    62
    of the Dublin work being sent to Scotland being stated on the floor of that House, said the matter had been fully ventilated before it was mentioned in debate. The Dublin printers had clearly stated the facts in a Memorial they had sent round to Members of Parliament, and in their trade organ, The Irish Artizan. They themselves said that work was being done in Edinburgh which ought to be done in Dublin; and, consequently, there was not the slightest ground for saying that harm had been done, or was likely to be done, to the interests of the Irish printers, by referring to the matter in that House. The statement of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, as to the previous collision between Mr. Thom and his men, had far from weakened the cause of the men. Mr. Thom had first come in contact with the men by refusing to have any belonging to a society in his office; and now, when they asked for a slight increase of wages, he made use of his immense resources, and "jobbed" the work out at Edinburgh.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it was quite clear that Mr. Thom, rather than submit to an advance of wages, as other masters had, would rather "job" his work out at Edinburgh. He—Mr. Thom—could afford to submit to a temporary loss, in order to force his employés to come to his terms. The argument of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave), that the House should allow the work to be done in any place the parties chose, would, of course, be good if the work were open to competition, and if the papers ordered to be printed in Ireland were such as did not require to be produced in a certain time. In this case, Mr. Thom was not a contractor. He obtained whatever he charged on the understanding that the printing should be supplied and be in Members' hands in a definite time. He thought it only reasonable that Mr. Thom should be asked to give the same rate of wages as his neighbours, and nothing more was asked.
    MR. MACDONALDobserved, that the salary of the editor of The London Gazette began with £600 a-year, with a maximum of £800; that the first-class clerks began on £300, and rose to £400 a-year; that the second-class clerks began with £200, and rose to £300 a-year; and that third-class

    63
    clerks began with £100 a-year, and rose to £200. Then there were warehousemen in the same office who began at £120, and rose to £130 a-year. He desired to know whether this rule of raising salaries applied to the printers as well as the others engaged in preparing The Gazette; or whether it might be the salaries of the printers lessened as those of the other employés in the office increased? For his part, he saw no reason why those that really did little work should have ever-increasing salaries, while the men who did the work got less. This was not paying according to work done at all.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the hon. Member fell into a mistake in imagining that the clerks to whom he referred were of the same grade as the men employed in the printing office of The Gazette. Those clerks were civil servants, having increases to their salary in the same way as those employed in the Foreign or Home Offices, or other Departments. Their salaries rose by given increments each year, until the maximum was reached.
    MR. MELLORasked, if that increment occurred in all those Departments without reference to the qualifications of the official servant? because, if so, he considered such a principle one of the worst ever introduced.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the increment was supposed to represent the knowledge a clerk obtained in the time he had served. He came in as a probationery clerk at £90 a-year, after having passed the Civil Service examination, and he had increases of £10, or £15, or £20 a-year as time went on, and these advances represented the knowledge he was supposed to have acquired during the time he had been in the service.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to make a suggestion to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the £3,000 to be voted for Hansard's Debates, as he was unable to do so on Monday night when the subject was under discussion. At present, Mr. Hansard sent round proofs to Members of the House, and they were entitled to make any corrections they pleased. They were entitled to disregard the proofs entirely, and give their own version of the speeches which they had made. This really meant that a Member could supply
    64
    a brand new speech. ["No, no!" "Hear, hear!"] He understood that to be the case; and he knew that last Session speeches were reported in Hansard which were certainly not delivered in that House. He had listened to speeches in that House, and he had read entirely different versions of them afterwards in Hansard. It was the custom of Mr. Hansard to report all speeches in the third person, with the exception of those delivered by Ministers. Well, he had seen speeches in Hansard relating to Irish questions delivered by Gentlemen who were not Ministers, and yet they were in the first person singular. He could not believe that those speeches, produced in this most minute way, were those delivered when the subject was under discussion. Nor could he believe that Mr. Hansard supplied proofs of some speeches at all in the form in which they were published. He had no fault to find with the proofs which Mr. Hansard sent round. He (Mr. Parnell) rarely made any corrections in those sent to him. Last Session he only had to make two or three unimportant ones, and this Session only one or two. But what he had to suggest was, that any correction which a Member made in the proof of his speech, except it should be merely a grammatical error, should appear, not in the body of the speech, but as a foot-note appended to that speech. By that plan, they would be able to see what Mr. Hansard's ideas really were as to the speeches of Members, and they would read his report, and not the versions of their utterances as supplied by hon. Members themselves. He thought it exceedingly important, that whatever alterations or corrections Members desired to make in their speeches should be appended as footnotes to those speeches, or, otherwise, no one would know what they were paying for. Practically, if the present system continued, they would be paying to enable Members to alter or do what they liked with their speeches.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) could not expect to have all his speeches reported at length in Hansard, for if he did he would require a Hansard to himself. He thought his hon. Friend had not read Hansard very carefully, or he would have seen that the speeches which were supplied by Members in the first person were always distinguished

    65
    by an asterisk, to show that they had been so supplied. All who had sat in that House for any length of time must remember the remonstrances which had been urged against the Vote for Hansard' s Debates, on the ground that Mr. Hansard refused to alter speeches in any manner a Member desired. What he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) believed to be the general rule was this—such alterations in a report as were necessary, and within fair and reasonable bounds, were allowed; but Mr. Hansard felt himself under moral responsibility to the House of Commons not to permit those extensive alterations which his hon. Friend the Member for Meath had spoken of. Before he sat down, he wished to remark that Mr. Hansard had informed him that the most careful speakers—and those most careful of the honour of the House of Commons and of the time of the country—were precisely the gentlemen who took the most pains to correct their speeches. The Prime Minister (the Earl of Beaconsfield) corrected his speeches very carefully for Hansard; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had always done so; and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) remembered the right hon. Gentleman speaking in the House of the hard task he found it to correct his speeches for the printer. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) ventured, therefore, to suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath that perhaps he might with advantage devote some portion of his own time to correcting those of his speeches which were reported. His doing so might possibly trench on the time which he now had for speaking in the House; but, at any rate, by his so acting posterity would have a better opportunity of judging of the quality of his utterances than would otherwise be afforded.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the great value of Hansard's Debates was to place on record the exact words uttered—especially by Ministers. He considered that Mr. Hansard ought to supply a first-rate report on being paid what was reasonable and fair for his labour. At present Mr. Hansard was paid too little for a good report, and too much for an incomplete one. He regarded the practice of supplying proofs for correction as most objectionable, and it certainly was a bad precedent for a Member to contribute his own speech. No alteration should
    66
    be permitted unless it were inserted in italics, or in brackets, to indicate that it was an alteration. Unless that were done, what was the use of referring to Hansard in order to quote the exact words which were used? Of course, the exact words employed upon such a subject as the Eastern Question were of great importance, and in a permanent record of what occurred on other subjects the exact words used were equally essential. Unless the corrections or alterations of hon. Members were plainly distinguished from the report, the present system of reporting speeches would be of no advantage. What ought to be done was this—to say to Mr. Hansard—"Here is a certain sum to do the best you can with, but you are either to give a good report or none at all." Either the work should be properly done, or the House should be in no way responsible for it. At present, he thought the reports carried no official weight with them.
    MR. J. COWENhad considered that this subject was disposed of on Monday. He thought the Gentlemen who passed this criticism upon Mr. Hansard had no practical grievance whatever. He would undertake to say—and he spoke with some knowledge of such duties—that it was impossible to conceive a man doing the work better or more fairly than Mr. Hansard did, considering the circumstances, considering the disadvantages, and considering the position in which he was placed. It was scarcely worth while prolonging a discussion on a subject which had already been under the consideration of the House; but he felt desirous, at least, of lodging his protest against the unjust condemnation of a gentleman to whom the House and the whole British nation were indebted, and who for over 40 years had conducted a very thankless and unprofitable work with great ability and much self-sacrifice.
    MR. PARNELLthought he had paid Mr. Hansard the highest compliment which he could possibly pay him. He did not say, as his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had asserted, that he never took the trouble to correct the reports of his speeches. What he, in reality, said was, that Mr. Hansard's proofs of his observations in that House were so good, that he seldom or never found it neces-

    67
    sary to correct them. This, surely, was a very different statement from that which had been put into his mouth by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway. He distinctly stated—and he had no doubt that Hansard would report him as having so stated—that he very seldom found it necessary to make corrections in the proofs which Mr. Hansard furnished to him. Indeed, he found it scarcely at all necessary, both this Session and last Session, except in unimportant details, to make any corrections in the reports of his observations. The recommendation he made was that any alterations which Members made in the proofs should be appended as foot-notes to those proofs, and should appear as foot-notes to Hansard's reports of the speeches afterwards. Otherwise, hon. Members would not know what they were paying for. They would not know whether they were paying for Hansard's reports, or for the reports of the Members themselves. For his own part, he had very much more confidence in Hansard's reports than in any report which a Member might make of his own speech, either before or after it had been delivered.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKwanted to know where they were? It appeared to him that they were rambling over the whole Vote.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question before the Committee was the Vote for the Stationery Office.
    MR. O'DONNELLdesired to call attention again to the subject of the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges. Before doing so, however, he would point out that there was a Vote here for stationery which would be supplied to the Civil Service Commission. He hoped the hon. Baronet would briefly give some information concerning this Vote. He understood that in the Civil Service examinations changes had lately been made which imposed denominational disabilities. Until the last year or two, he believed, candidates who passed the Civil Service examination for India became entitled to an allowance of from £150 to £200 per annum.
    THE CHAIRMAN,interposing, said, the hon. Member was entirely out of Order in discussing the rules of the Civil Service Commission, which had
    68
    nothing whatever to do with the Vote for Stationery.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was going to ask a question on the subject. He was raising the point on the Vote generally, and not on any particular item. On the general Vote, he begged to move its reduction by the sum of £271,000—that being the amount required for printing, paper, parchment, vellum, and binding for the various Departments. He did this on the following ground:—The Government had informed the Committee that they were going to supply printing, paper, parchment, and vellum for the use of the Queen's Colleges; and, as they declined to bring forward these matters under special heads as items, his only resource was to object to the payment of any public money to the public Departments in respect of stationery. In this manner he should object to the grant of any money for the Queen's University in Ireland. He objected to the item relating to printing for public Departments, because it included printing for the Queen's University, and would enable that University to lay before the House of Commons documents representing the Institution as a success, whereas everybody in Ireland knew perfectly well that it was not a success. In like manner, he objected to furnishing paper to the public Departments, because that would allow a supply of paper for the examinations of the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges; and he objected to being in any way a contributor towards facilitating those extraordinary examinations, as to the character of which many Professors of the Queen's University had themselves borne testimony. He objected to paper being supplied for the Greek matriculation examinations. Again, he objected to the parchment and vellum, because they were employed for the diplomas or degrees granted by the Queen's University. He should continue to object to this item until some provision was made to distinguish the good degrees from the bad degrees in the Queen's University. He did not know how far the Chairman could permit him to go on justifying his objections. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might consider it hardly sufficient for him merely to state that books printed by the Stationery Department for the Queen's University contained Returns

    69
    which were erroneous. It might be thought that the Committee was entitled to be informed how they were erroneous, and how the examination papers were used for purposes which were not real. At the same time, if the Chairman held that it was only in his power to state his own opinion that these items were misapplied, he could, of course, only bow to such a ruling. He now merely asked the Chairman whether, when he affirmed that the money asked for in this Vote would be expended on public Departments, and, consequently, on the Queen's University as well, he was entitled to show that it would be misapplied?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, this point of Order occupied a good deal of time on the last occasion when this Vote was under consideration. He then ventured to appeal to the Chairman for a decision; and it was stated, during that discussion, that the item for stationery with reference to the Queen's Colleges represented the amount which had been expended in 1876–7. Now, these were either Estimates or accounts. Taking them to be accounts, they were also indications of the amounts of money which it was expected would be required for the same expenditure again. There was a marked distinction between an Estimate and an account. If he were told that this was an account, he must ask the Government—"What is your Estimate?"
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that although the hon. Member had risen on a point of Order, he appeared to be going into the question as to what was an Estimate and what was an account.
    MR. PARNELLexpressed his belief that his hon. Friend was speaking on the point of Order.
    THE CHAIRMANthought the hon. Member's remarks were somewhat remote from the point of Order which had been raised. Hon. Members ought to confine their observations to a discussion of this particular Vote. It raised the question of the supply of stationery to the public Departments, and any hon. Member might object to its application to a particular Department; but he could not go into the constitution of that particular Department at length. That had better be done in the discussion on the Estimate for that Department.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the difficulty the Committee were placed in was this—The sum of £451,745 was asked for by the Government for the expenses of the stationery and printing Departments. The Government furnished the Committee with an account of monies paid to the different Departments in 1876–7, and in that account there occurred an item of £289 for printing and stationery for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. Of course, this was an intimation by the Government that a somewhat similar sum would be required for the same purpose out of the present Vote. Consequently, in voting this £451,745, the Committee were voting a sum of £300, in round numbers, for the purpose of the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. By his ruling the Chairman refused to give hon. Members an opportunity of stating their objections to applying that sum for such a purpose. Irish Members were, therefore, prohibited from stating why they could not conscientiously vote any money for any purpose in connection with the Queen's Colleges. As this was a matter of the gravest importance, and as there had been several discussions on the subject, he submitted that hon. Members were entitled to have the opinion of the Speaker of the House on this important question. Therefore, he begged to move to report Progress, in order that they might have the decision of the House of Commons and of the Speaker as to the correctness of the Chairman's ruling.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had not excluded any debate on any of the items which appeared in the account, although he had endeavoured to confine the remarks of hon. Members to the subject under discussion.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I appeal to the House to protect its Chairman. We have here, Sir, an unexampled attempt to set your authority at naught; and, under these circumstances, I think it would be only becoming of us to express now that they have confidence in your ruling, and that it is not to be set aside by such an attempt as has been made on this occasion.
    MR. DILLWYNhoped his hon. Friend the Member for Meath would not press his Motion to a division. If every single particular relating to every Department in the country were allowed to be discussed in the consideration of this Vote, the Committee would be landed in an illimitable debate.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that when this question was originally brought forward, he expressed his opinion that it might be just and reasonable for the Irish Members to move a reduction of the Vote by the amount which, on the average, was spent on the Queen's Colleges, as expressive of their dissent from that particular item. He was perfectly aware at the time that this was not described in the general Estimate as a Vote for the Queen's Colleges. If the Irish Members divided now against the whole Vote for the Stationery Office they would place on record in another, but still in the most emphatic, manner, their protest against the Queen's Colleges; and, after that, he hoped they would allow the other Votes to be taken. He trusted his hon. Friend the Member for Meath would not put the House in a false position by pressing to a division his Motion for reporting Progress.
    MR. O'DONNELLdenied that there was any disposition on that side of the House to treat the authority of the Chairman other wise than with the greatest respect. But when a grave and delicate technical point, on which many senior Members appeared to differ, was before the Committee, it was quite competent for an hon. Member, with all respect for the Chairman, to ask for an appeal to a higher authority. The right of appeal was a protection to Members against possible errors on the part of the Chairman, and it was likewise a protection to the Chairman himself, who, in case of necessity, might be fortified by the supreme authority of the House. He did not think it was fair for the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to address himself in such a manner as he had done to a Member who was seeking a solution of a delicate and difficult point.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it appeared to him, when they were discussing this question the last time, that every Member of the Committee was most anxious to ascertain the decision
    72
    of the Committee on the point raised. He thought that if the Chairman had given his decision on that occasion, it would have been acquiesced in by all. For his own part, he would state quite unreservedly that, in his opinion, the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Play fair) were perfectly reasonable. The Irish Members were quite justified in fighting against the item of £289 for the Queen's University. No one, he believed, had denied their right to exhaust all the Forms of the House in protesting against the item. But if their action in this respect necessitated resistance to items, in regard to which they entertained no conscientious objections, of course an injury was done to Public Business, and a certain obstruction was raised which did not appear to be of a Constitutional character. He must join his hon. Friend in regretting the course which the hon. Baronet had thought proper to adopt. Of course, it was a matter of taste and judgment; and if he considered there had been anything like a disposition to set up the opinion of a small minority of the Committee against the decision of the Chair, no doubt it was to be expected that the hon. Baronet would stand up for what might be called the dignity of the Chair. At the same time, he thought the hon. Baronet himself would not be prepared to deny that a Member of the Committee, even if he stood alone, would be acting in a manner that was not disrespectful to the Chair by taking his case, as it were, to a higher Court of Appeal. The hon. Baronet said he would ask the House to support the authority of the Chair. This, however, was not the House, but only a Committee of the House. What he would now submit to the consideration of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath was the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh. The Irish Members had stated more than once the nature of their objection to the payment of any money to the Queen's Colleges. An item relating to those Colleges came on for consideration now. Let them, therefore, lodge their protest against that item, and when the other items came forward, let them take them all in order, and protest against every one of them. That would be as complete and as

    73
    thorough a protest as even the most patriotic Irishman could desire.
    MR. BIGGARdid not think his hon. Friend the Member for Meath intended any disrespect to the Chairman or his ruling. Like his hon. Friend, he differed from that ruling; but all they asked was, that the decision of the highest authority—namely, the Speaker of the House—should be obtained on the question.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Cavan is exactly that which we cannot admit. He says that when any point arises on which your ruling, Mr. Chairman, seems doubtful to any Member of the Committee, that Member has a right to appeal from your ruling to the ruling of the Speaker in the Chair. Now, that I imagine to be a misconception on the part of the hon. Member. The Chairman of the Committee is absolute in the direction of the Business of the Committee, and there is no appeal from the Chairman of the Committee in the direction of the Committee to the Speaker—or anyone else. That doctrine being obviously necessary for the proper conduct of Business, we must support you, Sir, in your ruling, even if I were to differ from your individual opinions. Hon. Members may have differences of opinion; but we must, for the sake of Order, submit to the ruling of the Chairman.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that nothing in his manner, or in what he said, conveyed any disrespect to the Chairman. It was perfectly absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that there was no appeal from the Chairman of this Committee. From this Committee an appeal lay to the House and to the Speaker with reference to any point of Order which might have been decided. It would be monstrous to confide to any Member of the House the right of deciding, beyond appeal, upon matters of Order and matters of form. There was an appeal on matters of Order from the Chairman of Committees to the highest functionary of the House—namely, the Speaker himself. From any decision of the Speaker they could appeal to the House. He repudiated strongly, and with indignation, the charge of the hon. Baronet—a charge which the hon. Baronet ought not to have made, and which he would not have made if he had
    74
    really understood the position of affairs. His appeal on this occasion was not an attempt to over-ride the authority of the Chair. He submitted that this Committee was entitled to make a direction that the opinion of the Speaker and of the House should be taken upon the point of Order which the Chairman had decided. Were any other contention possible, it would be tantamount to placing the Chairman of Committees in a higher position than the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons itself. The Standing Order of the House very properly provided the means by which the Committee could, if it pleased, at any time submit any ruling of the Chairman of Committees to the decision of the Speaker, and from the decision of the Speaker to the decision of the House itself. On one occasion, the Speaker of the House was actually held down in his Chair by hon. Members when he desired to go contrary to the opinions and feelings of the majority of the House, and to commit a breach of Privilege in the interest of the Sovereign. It was absurd to set up any person or authority above the authority of that House. He was entitled to ask the Committee, by moving to report Progress, to submit to the Speaker or to the House any question as to the ruling of the Chairman. He wished to point out that the items which the Irish Members objected to were not items in the account at all, but sub-heads in the Vote itself. Sub-head E was for printing, &c., for the public Departments, and the Irish Members contended that, as a portion of the money was to be spent for the purposes of the Queen's Colleges and the Queen's University in Ireland, they had a right to state their reasons for objecting to it. The conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in seeking to prevent the right of the Speaker to control the conduct of the proceedings of the House, even though the offender was a functionary as high in rank as the Chairman of Committees, would be consistent in the case of an arbitrary Minister or an absolute Monarch; but it was altogether out of place in this country and in existing circumstances. To permit a proceeding of the kind was apt to lead to serious encroachments upon the rights of Parliament. The occupants of the Ministerial Bench were too much in the habit of supposing that

    75
    they, in their own persons, constituted the House of Commons, instead of being simply Members of it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as one of the Members, having been intrusted with certain functions. The right hon. Gentleman certainly had no power to decide a question of Order upon a point which had been raised by another Member of the House who wished to appeal to the Speaker; and, unless a satisfactory answer was forthcoming, he should certainly think it his duty to divide the Committee upon the question.
    MR. T. CAVEsaid, the hon. Member for Meath might be correct in saying that he intended no disrespect to the Chairman; but, whether he did so intend or not, he was certainly disrespectful to himself and to other hon. Members who had come down to the House with the bonâ fide intention of discharging their duties to the country in Committee of Supply. He (Mr. Cave) had come to that House, in obedience to the will of his constituents, to vote with the Government when, in his opinion, they were right, and against them when he believed they were wrong. He trusted his conscience would acquit him of ever having given a vote which was not in accordance with this principle; but when the hon. Member for Meath and one or more other Members conspired, as it was well understood before going into Committee that they had done, in order to prevent progress on Supply——
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the expression "conspired" was out of Order.
    MAJOR NOLANpointed out to the hon. Member for Barnstaple that, according to a recent ruling of the Chairman, the use of the word "confederates" would be quite in Order.
    MR. T. CAVEsaid, he would at once substitute the word "confederated" for the word "conspired;" and, in any case, he had a right to object to the hon. Member coming down to that House, together with a few confederates, in order deliberately to obstruct the Business of Parliament.
    MR. PARNELLasked the Chairman to rule that an hon. Member was not in Order, without clear proof, in charging him with deliberately interrupting the progress of Business.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as the hon. Member for Meath had asked him for a distinct ruling upon this point, he
    76
    was bound to say, from what had occurred in the course of the Committee, that he had not felt justified in stopping the hon. Member for Barnstaple in the statement which he was making.
    MR. T. CAVEsaid, he should be sorry to over-step the ordinary rules of debate; but it was a deplorable humiliation, and was intended so to be, that the House should have to listen, over and over again, to the same arguments—if, indeed, they were worthy the name—and that the hon. Member for Meath should have the impertinence——
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the use of the word "impertinence" was not Parliamentary.
    MR. T. CAVEsaid, he would at once with draw the expression; but, in doing so, he must remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Meath had demanded that the debate on the Hansard Vote should be resumed, although it had been thoroughly considered the previous night, because, forsooth, he had been absent from his place during that discussion; and he must express his regret that he could not use the strongest words in the language in reference to the conduct of the hon. Member, whose return to that House had been a curse to the United Kingdom.
    MAJOR NOLANprotested against the violent language of the hon. Member for Barnstaple. The hon. Member for Meath had millions behind him—not millions of electors, of course, but millions of the population of the country—and the opinions which he expressed were, therefore, not to be despised. As for the hon. Member for Barnstaple, the constituency which he was supposed to represent did not number more than 11,000.
    THE CHAIRMANremarked, that the population of Barnstaple, or the number of electors in the borough, had nothing to do with the Question before the House, which was that he should report Progress.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had only made the comparison between the relative positions of the hon. Members for Meath and Barnstaple, because the remarks of the last-named Gentleman, which he heard immediately on returning to the House after having dined, seemed to require that he should do so. It was well known that millions of people in the United States, in Australia, and in the

    77
    Colonies, were of opinion that the Irish Members in that House were set at defiance.
    MR. SULLIVANpointed out that when the hon. and gallant Member for Galway incidentally mentioned the fact that he had been dining an hon. Member opposite said, audibly—"He looks like it." He tried not to hear offensive observations of this kind; but on the present occasion he could not help it, and everyone knew the imputation which was conveyed in the remark.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that whenever any observations of an offensive or personal character reached the Chair he always endeavoured to repress them; but, at the same time, he must point out to the hon. and learned Member for Louth that nothing had a stronger tendency to bring the proceedings of the House into contempt than for hon. Members to rise in their places and call attention to snatches of private and confidential conversations which they might happen to overhear.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had tried not to observe the bad manners and rather vulgar conduct of some hon. Members of that House, but he could not succeed in doing so. He would not have called attention to the observation just made, had it not been sufficiently audible to be heard across the floor of the House.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERregretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made his meaning more clear. An hon. Member had a right to appeal against a decision of the Chairman; but he must, in the first place, appeal to the Committee, and if the Committee could not agree upon the point, he was within his right in moving to report Progress, in order to call attention to the point which he had raised.
    MR. SULLIVANappealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to allow the matter of the Chairman's ruling to drop, and to take a division upon the Vote, whereby hon. Members could record their protest against it. There would be an opportunity hereafter of discussing the whole question of the Queen's Colleges. He (Mr. Sullivan) while ready, at any time, to participate in genuine discussion to the fullest extent, would not be a party to any dilatory resistance to the progress of Business.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, there were several ways of appealing against the decision of the Chairman, and he was acting on a precedent set last Session. On that occasion, when he objected to a ruling from the Chair, he was told that his proper course was to move to report Progress, and that was all he had done on the present occasion. He denied the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set up Standing Orders of his own in reference to the way in which the Business of the House ought to be conducted; and he contended that if any hon. Member thought a decision from the Chair was wrong, he had a right, without being bullied, to ask that the opinion of the highest authority in the House should be taken upon the question. He had no fear of any threats that might be made against him; and as for the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave), he would not have dared to say what he had said outside of the House, or any where beyond the jurisdiction and the protection of Parliament. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to send him back to Ireland, he should be glad to quit his connection with that House.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the observations of the hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with the Question before the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the attacks which had been made upon him had tried his patience to the utmost. It was no pleasure to him to sit in that House from its sitting till its rising; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to his being there he could challenge his presence, which he wished the right hon. Gentleman would do forthwith.
    MR. J. COWENthought the discussion to which they had listened a most unfortunate one. He had great respect for the abilities of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who discharged his duties according to his conscience; but he objected to the nagging sort of opposition which he offered to several questions, and which had, over and over again, defeated the object which he had in view. He hoped a division would be taken upon the question of the Vote, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, which had been thoroughly ventilated by the Committee, and that they might get out of the atmosphere of irritation in which they had been for some time.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the difficulty had arisen on the question as to whether the Committee had power to appeal against a decision of the Chairman? and, as that was a question of much importance, he thought a division ought to be taken upon the question of reporting Progress.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have meant that the decisions of the Chairman were beyond appeal. The state of the case was, that unless the Committee required direction there was no appeal. He should like to have a decision on the question; but, under the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would gain nothing by dividing, the opinion of the Committee being evidently in favour of the ruling of the Chairman.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) as to the undesirability of prolonging this discussion; but he wished to say one or two words, in order to avoid any misconception. He was not present when the question was raised, but he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He understood that hon. Gentleman to argue that there was a right, on the part of any Member of the Committee who might be dissatisfied with any ruling from the Chair, to appeal to the Speaker and the House. Against such a doctrine he wished to enter a protest. If the House were constituted as a full House, and a question of Order was raised, there could be no doubt that any hon. Member might rise and appeal to the Speaker to settle the point. When, on the other hand, the House was in Committee, any hon. Member might appeal to the Chairman to settle a point of Order, and in this case, also, the decision was final, unless an appeal was made to the House. Undoubtedly, there was an appeal to the House; but it must not be that of a single Member, but of a majority of the Committee. This was all he meant to say in answer to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who contended that every individual Member had the right to appeal to the Speaker from a decision of the Chairman. He hoped the hon. Member who had moved to report Progress would at once proceed to do so, if
    80
    he intended to take the opinion of the Committee on the question.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that after what had been advanced, he saw no reason for dividing upon the Main Question at the present time.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, when he spoke he stated that he did not profess to know clearly what the rights of the Committee or the Chairman were. The right hon. Gentleman laid it down, however, that there was no appeal whatever from the ruling of the Chairman, though it now appeared that there was, in some roundabout way, a power to appeal. As regarded some remarks which had recently been made, he would say that he did not think they ever set the opinions of the Chairman at defiance. He and his hon. Friends had only urged their own views with as much force as possible, and on this occasion he had not heard a single argument against their contention. They had been denounced in strong terms; but no one had used an argument to show that they could not discuss the Queen's Colleges on this particular Vote.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it now appeared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stumbled into the position he (Mr. Parnell) took up, and that he had not previously examined his premises. The right hon. Gentleman announced, with all the importance belonging to the Leader of the House, that there was no appeal from the decision of the Chairman, and he (Mr. Parnell) had protested against such a doctrine, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer now admitted he was wrong. ["No, no!"] If hon. Members could not believe their own ears, he was sorry for them. He moved that Progress be reported, because he wished that the ruling of the Chairman should be submitted to the House. Of course, if the Committee decided not to report Progress, that was equal to saying they did not wish the ruling of the Chairman to be submitted to the House. All this matter would have been ended long ago had it not been for the intemperate interruption and language of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave) and the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who ought to have had more sense than to take up the impractical position which he had done. Under all the circumstances, he would not put the Committee

    81
    to the trouble of dividing on the Question of reporting Progress; but he would ask leave to withdraw. ["No, no!"]
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would be allowed to withdraw the Motion, because, otherwise, several hon. Members would be placed in a very invidious position.
    MR. BARINGwished to know who was responsible for the awkward position in which they found themselves?
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had listened with great attention and pain to what had taken place, and he thought great blame was to be attached to both sides. Considerable blame was due to the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) for the tone he adopted at first, and strong objection must be taken to the very intemperate language which was subsequently used by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave). No doubt the Committee was in an unpleasant position; but there were faults on both sides.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRfeared they were getting into another personal altercation, just when they were on the point of obtaining a division. Hon. Members had seen the force of the appeal made to them that they should allow a division to be taken on the main issue, and not press the Motion to report Progress; and, therefore, it was very desirable there should be no opposition to the withdrawal of that Motion.
    MR. STORERdid not think it would be at all consistent with the dignity of the Committee to pursue the course just suggested. The credit of the Committee was impugned by the Motion to report Progress; and hon. Members, having placed themselves in a false position by that Motion, did not now wish to persevere with it. For his part, he did not think they ought to be allowed to withdraw; but that they should be forced into a division.
    THE O'CONOR DONhad been many years a Member of that House, and that was the first occasion that he had heard an hon. Member, who was in favour of making Progress, oppose the withdrawal of a Motion to report Progress.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, as far as he was concerned, he certainly should not take a division.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. PARNELLmoved the reduction of the Vote by £271,000, being the sums under sub-heads E, F, G, and H, out of which amounts might be paid to the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. By the ruling of the Chairman he was unable to state the reasons he had for objecting to any monies being paid to the Queen's Colleges; and, therefore, he would content himself with simply moving the reduction of the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £105,545, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 123: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 134.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £19,492, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, &c. Office.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, that there were one or two items of which he should like to have some explanation. The first was that for the Chief Mineral Inspector. He should like to know what the work performed by that official was, and what the office had to do with Woods and Forests? He saw that the gentleman was paid £800 per annum, and his emoluments were greatly increased by his giving lectures on Mining and Mineralogy at the Geological Museum. The next point was that of the two Commissioners, who received £1,200 per annum each. In addition to that, the First Commissioner received £1 6s. 8d. and £11 for such offices as Keeper of Westminster Hall, and for locking the Hall Door. He mentioned these small matters as a protest against the multiplicity of offices held by one man, and also as a protest against gentlemen getting a salary of £1,200 a-year holding such offices as these. Then he found, in addition to the salary of the Receiver General, an item of "allowances personal;" and there not being any explanation of it, he should like to know what

    83
    was the cause or explanation for the "allowances personal?"
    MR. MELLORcalled attention to the arrears of rental, which had been increasing annually. He had asked a question upon that subject years ago, and he received a promise that the matter should be inquired into; but he found that little or no attention had been given to it since that time, and he saw that the irrecoverable arrears had increased by £1,000.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, in answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), with regard to the Chief Mineral Inspector, the gentleman in question was a scientific man—Mr. Warington Smyth. His duties consisted of inspection and supervision over the various mining properties belonging to the Crown. Those properties were of considerable extent, and he believed that the amount of gross receipts from those sources during the previous year had come to something like £53,000. The time of this gentleman not being fully occupied in Government work, he had been allowed to utilize his own time by giving lectures at the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street; and he would point out, that by following that course, the country generally benefited by the gentleman's knowledge and power, as well as the Department that paid him his salary. The large amount of property that was at stake necessitated the engagement of a person of the kind; and, he believed, taking into consideration the powers and ability of the gentleman in question, that he was not overpaid by his salary. He was afraid he had forgotten the exact point with regard to which the reference to personal allowances was made; but he would point out to the hon. Member for Stafford, that when the item of personal allowances was recorded in the Estimates, it meant a remuneration for particular services performed by an official, and was so mentioned in order that the sum might not be supposed to attach ordinarily to the office. It was only on account either of length of service, or some extra or peculiar work, that an addition was made to anyone's salary, and it was to prevent its becoming a part of the salary that it was placed in the Estimates in the form of a personal allowance. With regard to the small sums paid to the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests for certain offices in
    84
    connection with Westminster Hall, he believed those items were put down in accordance with an old custom which attached to that particular office. It might be rather antiquated in its form; but the emolument, such as it was, the First Commissioner continued to receive, though he believed there was no particular duty performed in respect of it. His attention had not been called before to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor), as to the arrears of rental; but he certainly would look into the matter, now that his attention had been called to it.
    MR. GREGORYwished, if he were in Order, to call attention to a retiring allowance made to the late Solicitor to the Department, in assessing which he thought that sufficient consideration had not been given to the period of service of that gentleman.
    MR. HERMONsaid, he would take that opportunity of recognising the readiness with which the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, who had so recently taken charge of the Estimates, evinced in answering questions and offering explanations; and, in the case under notice, he was very glad to see that the Department was occupying the attention of the hon. Baronet; because, for many years, when he had had a seat on the other side of the House, and on several other occasions, he had pointed out that this was a Department which required special attention. He thought that when they looked at the estates that came under the management of the Commissioners, they would agree that those estates required to be managed more efficiently.
    MR. PARNELLagreed with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) that the Department was scandalously managed; that the country was entitled to a much larger return from the Woods and Forests; and that the expenses of management ought to be very much diminished. He did not think the Committee really understood how the Department was situated. In fact, it was a most extraordinary state of affairs. They found, by the Report of the Royal Commissioners, issued in 1855, that the cost of management alone of these Woods and Forests amounted to 25 per cent of the gross revenue. Now, what were those estates? They were, practically, something like the estates of private gentle-

    85
    men, and what landed gentleman would like to have it said that the cost of managing his private estate was 25 per cent of its gross revenue? In some of the estates the cost of management exceeded their gross revenue. There was Windsor Park; and he must say that Windsor Park ought not to appear under that head at all. It should appear under the head of Royal residences. The gross revenue of Windsor Park amounted to £5,509 18 s. 6d., and he found, from the Report of the Royal Commission, that the management of Windsor Park was put down at £24,738 11 s. l0 d. He supposed that a great deal of the management meant the expense of keeping up the Royal Palace; but, if so, it ought to have been included under the proper head. If it did not, he thought it was a perfectly monstrous thing that the management of the Park, apart from the Palace, should be £24,000; while only about £5,000 was derived from all the magnificent grass land in Windsor Park. It appeared to him that many of the estates were unprofitable; and he would press upon the Secretary to the Treasury the advisability of getting rid of some of these unprofitable estates. He would refer him to the Alice Holt Wood, which returned a gross revenue of £1,725 5s. 1d., while the cost of management was £632 16 s. 9d., or 36·59 per cent of the revenue. The Vere Woods showed a gross revenue of £1,746 16 s. 8d., and the cost of management £743 4s. 11 d.—the percentage in that case being 43½. In the Forest of Dean the gross revenue was £12,550 1s. 4d., and the cost of management £6,138 2s. 4d., or 48·89 per cent. There were three woods—the Delamere, the Hazelburgh, and the Salse Woods—of which the Returns were not given. In the High Meadow the gross revenue was £5,377 12 s. 10 d., and the expenditure £1,600, or 30·5 per cent. The gross revenue of the New Forest was £10,207 10 s. 2d., and the cost £8,987 16 s. 4d., or 88·4 per cent. Now, he could not imagine how the New Forest returned such a very small revenue, as, from the nature of the property, one would think it one of the most valuable, instead of the least productive. The Parkhurst revenue was £420, and the cost £272, or 64·70 per cent. The Woolmer estate was the only one which was at all economical, the revenue being £1,000, and the cost £101, being only
    86
    a percentage of 9·19. Taking at random a variety of arrears of rental since 1853, he found that in that year the gross revenue was put down at £358,266, and the expenditure at £111,711; and out of the gross revenue there was paid into the Exchequer only £252,000, so that the expenditure in that year was nearly equal to half the revenue. In 1864 the gross revenue was £432,148, and the expenditure £129,414. The amount paid in was £300,000, or rather more than double the expenditure. In 1870 the gross revenue was £447,000, and the expenditure £87,000, the amount paid in being £375,000. Of course, things were going on a great deal better; and he found in 1877 the gross revenue was £488,000, the expenditure £83,902, and the amount paid in £410,000.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFhoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would devote his attention to the Office of the Woods and Forests, which was now in the anomalous position of being practically exempt from Parliamentary jurisdiction. He had not a word to say against the present Commissioners, who were men of high character and great ability; but the Department, being unrepresented in that House by any officer over whom Parliament could have control, required entire re-organization to preserve it from abuses which were liable to spring up.
    MR. DILLWYNremarked that the expense of the management of the Woods and Forests was altogether out of proportion to the revenue derived from them. What he wished particularly to call attention to, however, was the position of Windsor Park. That really was one of the Royal Parks, and ought to be regarded as such. It was absurd to treat it as a public Park, managed as property by the Woods and Forests, which was an accounting Department, when it cost £24,000 a-year, and only yielded £5,000 in return. No private person would manage property in that way. As a Royal Park its cost ought to rank as one of the charges paid to the Crown, and appear on the Estimates as such.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmaintained that the charge of mismanagement brought against the Department of the Woods and Forests by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Par-

    87
    nell) had not been proved. No doubt at one period the expenses very largely exceeded the receipts; but the difference had been steadily diminishing under the management of the last few years, the amount paid into the Exchequer for the year 1877–8 having been £410,000, as compared with £190,000 in the year 1838–9. However, he was quite prepared to give the Vote his particular attention. The Committee ought to remember that such property as Woods and Forests was necessarily unproductive for long periods. Young timber was not in a condition to be turned into profit, and considerable sums had to be spent for its maintenance. At present there was very little large timber standing; for the most part the trees had not attained such a growth as to be available for sale. Hence the disproportion between the expenses and returns, in part at least. Windsor Park, he submitted, was enjoyed as much by the public as by the Sovereign herself; and it ought never to be forgotten that of the £24,000 expended upon it, no less than £11,000 was for the maintenance of the lodges and roads, which enabled the public to enjoy its beauties. Under the original arrangement, however, it was distinctly understood that the Park should be maintained for the enjoyment of the Sovereign.
    MR. MACDONALDreminded the Committee that an increase of revenue was not necessarily an indication of better management—they might be eating the most valuable portion of the property away, and leaving it valueless. Had not the mineral property under this Department been developed, until at least it was, to a large extent, exhausted?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that was hardly the case. The receipts from the mining property amounted to some £53,000 annually.
    MR. DILLWYNexplained that he did not object to the expenditure of £24,000 on Windsor Park, or doubt that a large part of that sum was applied to the use of the public, as well as of the Crown. All he contended was, that the money for its maintenance ought to be voted by that House—that it ought to be put into the shape of a Vote, and appear in the Estimates, like the cost of Richmond Park, for instance, and not made a matter dealt with as though managed for profit.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the present arrangement was effected by an Act of Parliament, and that it would require an Act of Parliament to reverse it.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked how the officers of the New Forest were paid, and to whom were people to go if they wanted a road to be made there?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that information on these matters might be obtained from the new Verderer.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFinsisted that, the officers of Woods and Forests being Government officers, their salaries should be submitted to Parliament. It certainly appeared to him very extraordinary that there should be Government officers all over the country without the House knowing who was responsible for their salaries. He had asked for the information in vain, and he thought the public interest required that the condition of the Office of Woods and Forests should be entirely revised, and that it would be a good work for his hon. Friend to undertake it.
    MR. MUNTZheld that all the receipts from the New Forest should go into, and that all payments in connection with it should go out of, the Exchequer. The reply of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was the one they had so often heard before—namely, that things were not so bad as they appeared, because, while a few years ago the expenses of management amounted to nearly 50 per cent, they had gradually come down to 25. Now, what would any hon. Member think of a steward who charged 25 per cent for the management of his estate? [An hon. MEMBER: 2s. 6d. per cent.] Well, he was glad to hear it was so low. He hoped his hon. Friend would continue, as he had hitherto done, to discourage extravagance, and that the Department would, by-and-by, double its revenue, and so abolish a national scandal. The expense of management might very properly be reduced to 5 or 7½ per cent.
    MR. GREGORY,in corroboration of the hon. Baronet's (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) remarks, said, that in walking recently through a portion of the property in question he was struck by the large quantity of young and growing timber, which spoke very highly

    89
    for the managers of it. At some future time there would be a good return; but at present the Woods and Forests were necessarily unproductive to a certain extent, owing to the large expenditure incurred by the planting and maintenance of young trees. Last year he was through the New Forest, and he had observed a similar state of things there.
    MR. RAMSAYalso urged the adoption of an Estimate, expressing a hope that the Vote would take that form before next year. With regard to the question of management, no one knew better than the hon. Baronet himself, when he stated that since 1839 the revenues had increased from £190,000 to £410,000, that during the last 40 years the annual income from all real estate had increased in nearly as great a proportion without any reference to its management. An increase in the revenue of the Department, therefore, ought not to be accepted as a proof of good management. Enough, he thought, had been said to satisfy the Committee that the management of this property was anything but what it ought to be. He trusted that before next year some definite proposal for better administration than at present existed would be devised.
    MR. WHITWELLadmitted that the management of the Woods and Forests entailed considerable expense, and expressed his satisfaction at the good accounts given of the growing timber. He found that the expenses of ordinary management—wages, salaries, and allowances—amounted to £16,000; but, turning over a leaf, he found that no less than £5,000 for legal expenses had to be added—a sum which appeared to him excessive.
    MR. MUNTZexpressed himself satisfied, from an examination of the accounts, that the expenses of management were fully 25 per cent.
    MR. O'DONNELLsuggested that the Keeper of the Records should be placed upon salary instead of having to depend upon fees.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that by arrangement made with the Government, all the time of the Keeper of the Records was duly accounted for; but that official was permitted to occupy his spare time in doing work outside the office, in order that he might acquire a general knowledge of the investigations in which he was en-
    90
    gaged. With regard to the legal expenses of the office, they were necessarily incurred for the custody of a large number of deeds and records of exchanges and sales which took place under the direction of the Department. The property was scattered all over the country; and, that being so, he did not think the staff could be considered as excessive. At the same time, there might be points in regard to which improvement could be effected.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the cost of managing the properties to which reference had been made amounted to 25 per cent of the net revenue. The expense connected with the management of 12 of the properties was £43,258, while the revenue only amounted to £38,000.
    MR. BIGGARobserved, that in addition to fees the Keeper of the Records received £150 salary. He suggested that the fees should go into the Treasury.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he had almost made up his mind to move a reduction of the Vote; but, remembering that the hon. Baronet had only recently entered upon his present Office, he would rest satisfied with expressing a hope that by next year the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to present a different record under this head.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £33,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    MR. DILLWYNdirected attention to the item of £1,200, paid as salary to the Consulting Surveyor. The gentleman who occupied that position was also allowed private practice; and this, he thought, was to be deprecated. No man could properly serve two masters; and he hoped that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would direct his attention to this particular point. It seemed to him that the Consulting Surveyor received a sufficiently large salary to command his whole services. He should also like to know whether that officer was connected by partnership,

    91
    or otherwise, with, any of the other officers of the Department?
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the Consulting Surveyor was in no way connected with any of the other officers of the Department. It was most important that there should be a gentleman of the highest ability in that position; and such an officer the Department now possessed. His duties were of an onerous description; and he received only £1,200 a-year.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, there were several items in connection with the Vote to which he desired to direct attention. Commencing with the Private Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, he found that that official also drew a salary as senior clerk in the Financial Secretary's Department of the War Office. In fact, two offices might almost be said to be the order of the day in these Departments. Again, he found that there was a Superintendent of Furniture at £400 a-year, a Deputy Superintendent, and an Assistant Superintendent. There was likewise a Store Keeper of Furniture. The object of the heads of Departments seemed to be a multiplication of offices; and he should like to have a general review of all those persons who were connected with the various Departments in Hyde Park, or somewhere else. He had been told that a number of them might be turned to better account in the British Museum than as occupants of Public Offices. He had referred to the fact that there were four officials connected with Furniture; but his objections under the Vote did not end with them. He found that there was a Superintendent for the supply of Coal and Firewood, and a Superintendent for the supply of Candles and Oils. He should fancy that it would be easy to find a man perfectly capable of combining these two offices at a single salary. Unless some satisfactory explanations were given, he should feel it his duty to move a reduction of the Vote to the extent which would be implied in the cutting off of, at least, four officials, whom he regarded as totally unnecessary, and whose continuance was simply equivalent to a scandalous waste of public money.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that with regard to the Private Secretary to the First Commissioner, a certain sum was
    92
    deducted from his salary to compensate a clerk in a lower division for performing his duties. As regarded the Superintendents of Furniture, to which the hon. Member had alluded, he could assure him that those gentlemen had ample work to do. They had to look after the supply and repair of furniture in all the Public Offices in the occupation of Her Majesty's Government, in the House of Commons, in the Law Courts, in the Police Courts, in the Customs' Buildings, and in the Inland Revenue, and many other Departments to which he need not refer. They had, also, duties to perform in connection with the accommodation necessary for the different Commissions, and they had to take inventories of all the Public Offices. The hon. Member had only to glance at Class I. of the Estimates on Public Buildings to see the enormous number of those buildings which the officials in question had to look after. With reference to the Superintendent of Coals, he could assure the hon. Member that the duties of that officer were by no means light or unimportant. The Government made large contracts for coal in various parts of England, and it was necessary to have a gentleman who understood the different kinds of coal, and who could bring experience and knowledge to bear upon the duties of his office. As regarded the post of Superintendent of Candles and Oils, it was under consideration whether that office might not be combined with some other.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, no sufficient answer had yet been given to the question as to the Consulting Surveyor. That gentleman might be a very valuable servant; but, in addition to his salary, he found, a few lines further down in the Estimates, that salaries were paid to four first-class Surveyors and six of the second class. Surely, those gentlemen ought to be able to perform the work which required to be discharged without paying £1,200 to a Consulting Surveyor. He knew that £1,200 in itself was a very trifling sum; but he appealed to hon. Members to look back upon the Estimates, and see whether it was not the case that year after year there had been an increase of expenditure in this Department?
    MR. WHITWELLinquired, whether the Surveyor who had been brought

    93
    home from China and Japan would have the superintendence of diplomatic residences in more than one place, and whether he would supersede the local Superintendents?
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the gentleman referred to had been for many years in China and Japan; and, having learned his duty thoroughly, he had been brought home to England, and was now one of the first-class Surveyors. It was his duty to visit the different Embassies of Europe; but he would not supersede the local Superintendents.
    MR. MELLORasked, whether the Consulting Surveyor, with his £1,200 a-year, did not receive, at times, payment for other than Government work? Did he not, in fact, receive commissions on work done by contractors?
    MR. GERARD NOELreplied, that the official in question received no commissions, but simply a salary of £1,200 a-year.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, that seeing the proposed Vote was in excess of that of last year, he would move its reduction by £791.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £32,791, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."—(Mr. Macdonald.)
    MR. BIGGARdid not understand how the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had arrived at that particular sum; but he thought that if his hon. Friend would propose to leave out entirely the Vote for the Consulting Surveyor, he would simply be doing his duty. A more pernicious system could not exist than that of having a Consulting Surveyor paid by Government for part of his time, with liberty to take general practice. Hon. Members must be aware of what such a system might give rise to. He did not know the name of the gentleman referred to in this particular instance, and he could have no personal grudge against him. That gentleman might be immaculate and pure; but there could be no greater temptation than that which existed under the present system, for a Consulting Engineer or Surveyor to be employed by parties
    94
    who wished to carry out little jobs for their own interest.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that one of the 15 third-class clerks, who received £300 a-year as a regular salary, also got £50 per annum as receiver of the tolls at Chelsea Bridge. That allowance was paid out of the tolls; but it appeared that there was a regular keeper who was paid for receiving the tolls. It seemed that the third-class clerk received the tolls from the toll-keeper; but all that the former functionary had to do might very well be performed by some official of the numerous Government Departments. A separate salary ought not to be allowed for such a purpose as this. There were several other salaries included in the Vote; but he could not trust himself to go into them in detail.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 231: Majority 206.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would ask the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) not to report Progress. The Committee had discussed the Vote at considerable length; and, if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, he would move to report Progress when the Vote was agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he merely wished to ask—["Oh, oh!"]—it was impossible for hon. Members who had not been present the whole evening to understand the situation. He merely wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. It was, whether he knew how many times the Consulting Surveyor was consulted during the past year? He could not make out whether the Surveyor was consulted at all. He believed it was a sinecure office.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, it was impossible to give an answer to a question of that kind; but if he were to say "a thousand times," he should be considerably under the mark. The office

    95
    was no sinecure, the gentleman in question being consulted almost every day by the Department.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 44.]
    (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th May.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Extension of Acts prohibiting Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to the whole of Sunday).
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING,on rising to move an Amendment, said, he hoped they had now arrived at a time when the Committee would consider what course ought to be taken in regard to the position in which the Bill now stood. They had had a very long time of it on Monday night and the whole of Tuesday morning. He was one of those who contributed to an arrangement which, he trusted, was now to be consummated; and he further hoped that they would now discuss with calm consideration a question which involved the interests of a large class in Ireland, and, he ventured to think, the interests of a large class of the people of England hereafter, if this Bill were carried into effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had proposed an Amendment to the Bill at the end of Clause 1. As the clause now stood, the hours were to be extended during which intoxicating liquors were not to be sold to the whole of Sunday. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal to except five towns—namely, Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Waterford, and Limerick—had been accepted; and his (Mr. M'Carthy Downing's) Amendment was to insert certain words after the words which were ac-
    96
    cepted by the promoters of the Bill. The words would be—
    "Except all towns and villages with a population of 500, according to the last Government Census of the population."
    He should propose that, in these places, public-houses should not be open before 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and after 5 o'clock in the evening of Sunday. At present, the law in Ireland was this—that on Sundays, in all towns where the population exceeded 6,000, the time during which intoxicating liquors could be sold was from the hour of 2 o'clock until 9 o'clock. In all towns where the population did not exceed 6,000, the hours were from 2 to 7 o'clock. The Committee would perceive that towns of over 6,000 had the right to sell liquor for two hours later than towns of less than 6,000. When this Bill was introduced, the Petitions in favour of it were for closing public-houses all through Ireland on Sunday. Those who had charge of the Bill referred to public meetings held in Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, Waterford, and Cork, to prove that the people of those great towns were entirely in favour of closing on the Sunday. No doubt that made a great impression on the minds of hon. Members. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had heard the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) speak in that House of the important meeting which took place in Phœnix Park, Dublin, where so many thousands of people were in favour of the closing of public-houses in that City. He also referred to an inquiry made in every house in Dublin, which ended in an immense majority signing in favour of Sunday closing. The same thing occurred in some other large towns; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman voted for their exemption. What said the right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, when this measure was introduced in 1877—when some of the Irish Members said that, when there was a majority of Irish Members in favour of this question, then, as a matter of course, it ought to be accepted by the House, and English and Scotch Members ought to vote for it? He (the Chief Secretary) denied that if a majority of Irish Members were in favour of this measure, therefore it ought to be carried. If, he said, it was good for Ireland, it must be the same for England.

    97
    This was the thin end of the wedge; for, as sure as they passed the Bill for Ireland, the House would hereafter be assailed with thousands of Petitions from England, praying that a similar measure might be passed for that part of the Kingdom. He could not conceive how those who called themselves Liberals could advocate this Coercion Bill—how those who sat on the front Opposition bench could have allowed their "Whips" to go out and call in their Friends to speak in support of a measure which the people of Ireland looked upon as one of extreme injustice. The promoters of the Bill had talked a good deal of the Petitions that had been presented in favour of it; but where did those Petitions come from? The greater part from England. Since the 19th of January, the Petitions presented from Ireland were as two to one against the Bill; and most of those from England were from the Wesleyans and Primitive Methodists, and other Dissenting Bodies, thus showing that the movement was a Sabbatarian one, and not one coming from the people. If the Bill should be passed for Ireland, English Members who voted for it would certainly be told by their constituents at the next General Election—"You voted in favour of Sunday closing for Ireland; we, therefore, ask you, will you do the same for England? If you will not, we shall vote against you." If they were prepared to pass a similar measure for England, they would have the people up in arms against them. That certainly would be the result, if they attempted to deprive the people of England of their pint of beer on the Sunday, or of the means of enjoying themselves on that day. Many of the people in Ireland had to go two or three miles into a country town in order to attend a place of worship; and when they did so in cold and wet weather, were the promoters of this Bill to say to them—"You cannot go into a public-house and get refreshment?" There were other persons who went into a country town for the purpose, perhaps, of meeting their friends, or of settling their accounts. If this Bill became law, the public-house door, the only place where they could meet for such a purpose, would be shut against them. It had been asserted that a measure of this kind had done
    98
    good in Scotland; but he asked the Committee to consider what were the Returns upon that point. They showed that, since the Forbes-Mackenzie Act was passed, there had been more arrests than before of persons charged with being drunk or incapable; for, between 1871 and 1876, the number of those offences had increased by 50 per cent in Scotland, while in England they had increased by 33 per cent, and in Ireland there was little, if any, increase. It had been said that an increase had occurred in the year 1874; but why? Because an Act was then passed requiring that the name of every person arrested for drunkenness should be entered in the petty sessions book; whereas, previously to that year, the law insisted upon no such record—if a man, brought up before a magistrate for drunkenness, was discharged, no more was heard about the matter, and this enactment was made on an Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. So that, in Ireland, there was a decrease of drunkenness, as every magistrate knew perfectly well whose duty it was to preside at petty sessions. But how was the opinion of the people to be ascertained? The House knew that there were paid agents employed—there were those who got up Petitions in favour of Sunday closing, and those who got up Petitions against that measure. But let hon. Members make inquiry as to the meetings which had been held where neither prejudice nor interest existed, and let them ascertain what had actually been done at those meetings. One such meeting had been held in his own county—Cork—presided over by the Rev. Canon Griffin, a dignitary of the Church. He held in his hand an account of what took place. In opening the proceedings, the rev. gentleman stated that when he consented to preside he did so on the distinct condition that the meeting was to be an open one, and that all parties might give their opinions on this vexed question of closing on Sunday. He went on to say that, if he were asked his own opinion with regard to the villages surrounding his own parish, he could emphatically affirm that there was no necessity for Sunday closing. The amount of intemperance on the Sunday, during the five years he had been in that parish, would not justify the passing of an Act by which the people would be

    99
    deprived of their liberty. The very last visit he had the honour of receiving from Dr. Moriarty was on the Feast of St. John the Baptist, which fell on a Sunday, when Dr. Moriarty was gratified at the orderly and sober demeanour of the people as they left for their homes. On that, as on former occasions, his Lordship expressed himself to the effect that curtailing the number of hours during which public-houses might be open on Sunday for the sale of liquors would meet all necessary requirements. That was the opinion of a Bishop, who certainly was known for great wisdom and prudence, and his testimony amounted to this—that it was not necessary to close on the whole of the day, but all that was required was to limit the hours. The Amendment which he had to submit to the consideration of the Committee was, in effect, that on the Sunday, instead of having public-houses open until 7 o'clock in the evening, in towns other than the five excepted by the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, they should be open from 2 to 5 o'clock. Everyone acquainted with Ireland knew that, before the hours were curtailed, they extended from 2 to 9 o'clock. In the small country-places, when riots or assaults occurred, it was always after nightfall, and it was found desirable to alter the hours—namely, from 2 to 7—since when a great improvement was the result. By his Amendment he asked the Committee to curtail them still further, instead of closing public-houses altogether. He believed if the hours were fixed at from 2 to 5, that would give the people the opportunity of enjoying themselves. As a magistrate, Chairman of the Town Commissioners, and member of a Board of Guardians, he had not, in the course of his experience, known drunkenness to prevail on the Sunday. Why, then, he asked, did the promoters of this Bill wish to inflict upon the people of Ireland a deprivation of the right which they at present possessed? They desired to have their glass of beer, or their glass of whiskey-and-water; and was the House going to deprive them of this enjoyment without even consulting them? That was, in effect, what the promoters of the Bill wished the House to do; because the number of real, bonâ fide signatures attached to Petitions
    100
    from Ireland against the Bill exceeded by two to one those in favour of it. He had examined the Petitions from. Cork, and had been unable to recognize any names of note. There were many, no doubt, that were respectable; there were several old unmarried ladies who had signed these Petitions; and there were names which belonged to various sections of the Church; but the great body of the people had not signed them; and he defied any hon. Member from Ireland, who had advocated this measure, to show that Petitions had been largely signed in favour of the Bill by the people of Ireland. With regard to the magistrates and the Clergy, it had been asserted that they were all in favour of it; but the fact was, that only one-fifth of them had signed Petitions in support of the measure. He made that statement without fear of contradiction. If there were a General Election to-morrow, and this question were brought before the electors in every county and every borough in Ireland, hon. Members would not receive a favourable reception from their constituents if they voted for the passing of this Bill; and that would make them regret their having taken a course which was opposed to the wishes of the Irish people. But he would appeal more particularly to English Members. As for the Scotch Members, he knew very well that no argument would have any effect upon them. He appealed to English Gentlemen, representing English constituencies, because they knew what was due to the people; he appealed to them to consider fairly and justly the question before the Committee, and not to be led away by the Sabbatarian feeling which had induced many hon. Members to vote, if not against their consciences, against their better feelings. If English Members allowed this coercive measure to pass, and to appear on the Statute Book, they would find it very hard, at the next General Election, to resist a similar Bill for closing public-houses on Sundays in England. If they were prepared to meet that demand, of course they might vote for this measure; but if they were not prepared, because they believed that such a Bill would not be accepted by the English people, then he asked them not to force it upon the people of Ireland. There could be no doubt that it was attempted to force the Bill upon them. No

    101
    public meeting had been held, at which the question had been freely discussed, where there was not a Petition signed, or where there were not resolutions adopted, against this Coercion Act. Let the Committee fairly consider the position of the question. This Bill was originally brought in for the purpose of closing public-houses all over Ireland. Was that actually the Bill before the Committee at the present moment? Had they not exempted from its operation the five chief towns of Ireland? Was that consistent? Had they done that which the people had required of them, and which the Petitions called upon them to do? The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had boasted in the House that his Eminence, Cardinal Cullen, was an advocate of this Bill. Was he an advocate of it, as it stood now? He was not. This was proved by a statement, signed by the Archbishop of Dublin, by Cardinal Cullen, as well as by the Mayors of Dublin, Belfast, and of Cork, Sir Dominic Corrigan, the Mayor of Limerick, the Bishop of Limerick, the Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, and the ex-High Sheriff of Waterford. It was to this effect—
    "In view of the probability of the above 'Order of the Day' being reached on Wednesday next, the undersigned beg respectfully to request the attention of Honourable Members to the following 'reasons' why any proposal to exempt Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, or Waterford from the operation of the Bill should be resisted and opposed:—
    "(1.) Because the question of 'exemption' was expressly referred by the House of Commons to a Select Committee. This Committee, largely chosen by the Government, sat for three months, heard evidence, and decided that the Bill should apply to the 'whole' of Ireland, and that there ought to be no place excluded from its operation. (2.) Because the evil against which the proposed legislation is directed exists in its most intensified form in the large cities and towns, and to exempt these from the Bill is to deny the remedy to the very places that most require it. (3.) Because to leave the public-houses open in these large cities and towns will have a direct tendency to increase the evils already existing there, by tempting people of intemperate habits into these places from adjacent districts where the Bill is in force, thus adding rural to existing city drunkenness. (4.) Because the suggestion of riots taking place on the enforcement of Sunday closing in these cities and towns, hinted at by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, broke down before the Select Committee—not a single witness, official or otherwise, failing to ridicule any such idea. (5.) Because the public opinion of these cities and towns has been often and frequently ex-
    102
    pressed in favour of total and universal Sunday closing, by public meetings, house-to-house canvasses, petitions, and other means."
    This was not the Bill in favour of which Petitions had been presented. It was not really a Bill for the closing of public-houses in Ireland, because five large towns were to be exempted from its operation; although, in those towns, the greatest amount of excess, drunkenness, and vice prevailed. Were the Government justified in making that exception? What he asked the Government to do was to be fair and just, and at least limit the hours in the way that he proposed by his Amendment. If they accepted his Amendment, and gave the people the opportunity of meeting their friends, nothing would be done in opposition to the proposal of the Government, which exempted the five large towns. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had fairly and manfully stated that he had no respect for this Bill, or, at any rate, that he did not like it. That was, no doubt, the opinion of most of the Members who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) believed there were very few who really liked this Bill. They were influenced by feelings which he very much respected. He could understand those hon. Gentlemen, like his hon. Friends the Members for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) and for Kilkenny, (Mr. B. Whitworth), who were teetotallers, and who never drank intoxicating liquors of any kind, trying to convert Members of the House to their way of thinking on this question; but he could not understand the advocacy, in favour of this Bill, of those hon. Members who went to their clubs on the Sunday and took refreshment there, or who had the best of wines and spirits in their own homes. He could not understand how such hon. Gentlemen could go into the Lobby with the promoters of this measure, and so deprive the poor working man, after abstaining for a whole working week, of the pleasure of smoking a pipe and taking his glass of grog with his friends whom he met on the Sunday. He hoped that the Government would take a right view upon this question. They had insisted upon the exemption of five towns. If he were in the position of those who supported the Bill he should refuse to accept that Amendment, and

    103
    say to the Government—"No, this was a measure for closing public-houses throughout Ireland. It was upon that principle that the Bill went before the people; it was upon that principle that they signed Petitions which influenced the House in passing the second reading. Therefore, as advocates of a measure which they thought essential for the moral welfare and for the sobriety of the people, they must reject what the Government offered. They would not exempt the five towns that the Government named, and they would appeal to the country on the question." The city, where his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth had spent so much of his life, was the very place where the greatest amount of drunkenness prevailed. There was more crime in Dublin than in the other large towns, according to population. Dublin and Cork were to be exempted. What would be the consequence? Queenstown, with a normal population of 11,000, had besides a floating population of 1,500 or 2,000. Every Sunday in the year a number of packets arrived there from Liverpool and other places. They called at Queenstown and landed their passengers. There were vessels arriving there from all parts of the world. If all the strangers, and all the inhabitants, were to be deprived of drink on a Sunday, what would be the consequence? They would go on to Cork, and get drunk there. A rivalry would spring up between the men of Cork and the people of Queenstown; they would sit drinking together for a considerable time, and, in the end, there would be riots; so that, when the time came for the party from Queenstown to go back, a great number of them would fall into the hands of the police because they had got drunk. The same thing would probably occur with regard to Bardon, a town with 6,000 inhabitants. The people there requiring drink would go to Cork, and the two great parties—the one boasting of the Orange flag and the other of the Green—would come in contact with each other, and a riot would probably ensue. The number of she-beens would rather increase than diminish. The people would purchase whiskey on the Saturday to be drunk on the Sunday; and wives and children would be seen taking their portion of the whiskey provided. There would
    104
    be contamination in every family. In making these remarks he might state that he had no interest whatever either in a brewery or in a distillery. He would rather resign the position he held as a Member of Parliament than express his approval of what he believed to be a measure that was opposed to the convictions of the people. He believed that the Bill, in its present shape, would be detrimental to the best interests of Ireland; and that, if passed in that form, it would be resented by the people. If the Government accepted the Amendment he now proposed, they would not violate any principle in regard to the Bill, and would, at the same time, he thought, satisfy all classes. He advised the Government to accept his proposal as an experiment. If the trial proved successful, his Amendment might continue to be the law; if not successful, the Government would, at any rate, be able to say that they had made a fair attempt to remedy the evil. He was sorry to see that a great many people, with whom he had been in the habit of acting, should have taken up this measure as a Party matter; but he hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would see that the adoption of his Amendment, which he would now move, was only fair and reasonable, and that it was only extending to all towns and villages of Ireland what had been concerned to the five towns having the largest population.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "Sunday," at the end of the last Amendment, to add the words "and except in all towns and villages, with a population of five hundred according to the last Government Census of population, and within the said towns and villages, the said hours or times are hereby extended, and shall be as follows—that is to say, up to the hour of two o'clock in the afternoon, and after the hour of five in the evening."—(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE O'CONOR DONhad listened with very great pleasure to the speech that had just been delivered, inasmuch as it was in striking contrast to the speeches which he had heard on the last occasion, when the Committee was occupied in considering the Bill. It must be clear to everyone that the Amendment his hon. Friend proposed was one that

    105
    touched the whole principle of the Bill. Most of his speech was directed to show that the Bill was not approved of by the Irish people; that it was a Bill that in every way would be objectionable, and one that ought not to be considered, or, at all events, that it was one that would not give satisfaction to the country. In carrying out the endeavour to subvert the whole principle of the Bill, his hon. Friend had fallen back on an argument with which they were all familiar. He had told them, as usual, that this was a purely Sabbatarian question—that the Bill had no strength outside that view. He had pictured to them the deplorable condition in which certain of his countrymen would find themselves when they came into town on Sundays, saturated with wet, and unable to obtain refreshments, and the remedy suggested by the hon. Member was that they should be allowed to saturate themselves internally. Then, it was said that the Bill was not approved by the Irish people, and how was that shown? First of all, reference was made to the enormous number of Petitions which, it was said, had been presented to Parliament against the Bill. For his part, he was surprised that the opponents of the Bill should rely so much upon this question of Petitions. They had heard a great deal about the Petitions that had been presented with regard to that Bill, and they knew that an enormous number of signatures had been paraded before them as having been attached to those Petitions. But the great majority of those signatures were without addresses, and the signatures might have been written out in a few public-houses, for no one could tell whether they were genuine or otherwise. They also knew that a certain number of those Petitions had been before the Petitions Committee, who had reported against them, and that some of them had, in consequence, been discharged. He attached very little real value to the Petitions on either side, and in arguing the question before the House, he had never based his case on the Petitions presented in favour of the Bill. The next question raised by the hon. Member was with regard to the great number of meetings which he said had been held against the Bill. It seemed to him (the O'Conor Don) that that statement was rather a flourish than anything else; for the hon.
    106
    Member did not go on to tell the names of the different places in which those meetings were held, but he confined his remarks to one meeting held at a place called Mill Street in his own county. What were the facts in connection with that meeting? No doubt the hon. Member for Cork would correct him if he stated wrongly, that since that meeting had been held an action had been brought in the City of Cork against a distiller of the City by two men, who attended at that meeting, in respect of their wages in going there. The action was tried in Cork, and those men recovered their wages against the distiller. That was the sort of way in which those meetings against the Bill had been got up, and those were the persons by whom they were attended; and, therefore, the Committee would pay very little attention to these proceedings. It had been further said that no meetings had been held in the South of Ireland in favour of the Bill; and his hon. Friend went further, and said that whenever there had been a free discussion at any meeting resolutions had been carried against it. During the course of the debate they had heard many astonishing statements; but he had heard none that more astonished him than that no meetings had been held in the Province of Munster in favour of the Bill. The truth was, that not alone had meetings been held there in favour of the Bill, but even at a meeting of the opponents of the Bill, convened under the auspices of the Mayor of the City of Limerick, himself a stern opponent of the Bill, resolutions were carried in favour of it. In spite of that fact, they were told that not a single meeting had been held in the Province of Munster in favour of the Bill, and that not a single free discussion had taken place at which resolutions had not been carried against it. He begged most emphatically to deny that statement. Meetings had been held in Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir, Maryborough, Wicklow, and in other places—in all, over 78 meetings had been held in Ireland in favour of the Bill. He might mention that in those he had enumerated he had not included one in the North of Ireland, because the views of the Province of Ulster were well known although they were objected to, as if they had no voice in

    107
    the matter. He could show four meetings for every one given by the other side; and if the fate of the Bill depended on this test it could not be doubtful. Reference had also been made to the next General Election, and he was not going to imitate his hon. Friend in what he had said; but he would venture to express his opinion that it was an unconstitutional course to threaten Members of that House for the consequences of their acts when they came before their constituents. He apprehended that his hon. Friend did not really mean to use that as his argument; although, were it done, he could point out to him that if this question was not made a hustings question on the last General Election, there had been many bye-elections since at which it had. That question had now become understood, and a candidate's opinion was now asked at the hustings about it. In no case of the bye-elections had the opponents of the Sunday Closing Bill carried the day. Several elections had taken place in the Province of Munster, and one, an election for the County of Waterford. At that election, the question of Sunday closing was raised. He perfectly admitted that Sunday closing views would not carry a man through an election if he were otherwise objectionable; but the Gentleman he had referred to was obliged to pledge himself to Sunday closing, and had always supported the Bill since he had been elected. In no case, so far as he knew, had any man been returned in Ireland, since the question had come into prominence, who had not been a supporter of the Bill. Upon that point he would say no more, but would proceed to make some observations with respect to what had been said regarding the omission of the five towns from the operation of the Bill. The Amendment embodying that had been accepted by the promoters of the Bill; but, of course, the Committee were perfectly aware that the proposal to exempt the five towns did not come from the proposers of the measure. They introduced the Bill as one for the whole of Ireland; and it must also be quite clear, if the matter were considered for a moment, that in consenting to exempt certain portions of the country from the operation of the Bill, they consented to nothing that was inconsistent with the principles of their measure. His hon. Friend said—"Oh! but it
    108
    was true the Bill was not originally proposed as one to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom." From the commencement the Bill was partial in its operation, and intended only for Ireland, and there was nothing inconsistent in having it still further restricted, and accepting the proposal of the Government for exempting certain portions of Ireland from it. It should be remembered that the Bill was promoted by private Members, and when a hostile minority were opposed to it, it would be utterly impossible for the promoters to pass the Bill without making some concessions to the minority and to the Government. They had been told, in previous Sessions, that public opinion in those large towns was divided on the necessity of the measure; they had been further assured that if the Bill were extended to those places dangerous consequences would result, and that the minority against the Bill in those large towns was considerable, and that that minority would not consent quickly or quietly to the measure. Furthermore, it had been urged that the habits of the people of those large towns were very different from those of persons in other parts of the country, and that in those places there were respectable traders and small householders who were in the habit of getting in beer at dinner times, as was usual in England. Those five towns, it was said, very much resembled the towns in England to which hon. Gentlemen opposite thought this Bill should not be applied. Therefore, it was said that this Bill ought not to be applied to the large towns; but with regard to the rest of the country, a fair case for its passing had been made out. It was proposed to the promoters of the Bill that they should accept that condition. They had accepted it reluctantly; but, nevertheless, they did accept it. Some remarks had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), in which he said that he, representing a county constituency, had always supported the Bill, because his constituency wished it; but he certainly would not give it any further support if he found that the promoters were going to sacrifice the whole of the country districts of Ireland for the sake of those five towns. He urged what would be the feelings of their constituents, if they saw that their Repre-

    109
    sentatives had sacrificed the good of the greater part of Ireland for the sake of those five towns. For these and other considerations, they had consented to the exemption; but that was not giving everything up. What they said with regard to it was, they had accepted it in order to give what they believed would be a blessing to the whole of the rest of Ireland; they had accepted it in the belief that the Bill would be found to be such a success in the rest of the country, that it would eventually be applied to large towns; and if it should turn out that the experiment were unsuccessful, then the case for extending the operation of the measure to the large towns would be gone; but if they were right, and the measure proved beneficial, it would be impossible to prevent its being extended.
    MR. GREENEobserved, that the exemption of the five large towns of Ireland from the operation of the Bill was an illogical proceeding. Whether Sunday closing in Ireland was right or not, it was clear that the principle of the Bill was sacrificed if people were encouraged to leave their homes on Sundays and go into the large towns for the purpose of getting drunk. In his humble opinion, and he had had some experience in these matters, the safest course would be to shorten the hours during which public-houses were opened all over the country. They could not advocate entire Sunday closing without taking a Sabbatarian view of the matter. He did not say that those who took that view were not right, and that there should not be any liquor sold on Sunday. But he could not for one moment reconcile his mind to the inconsistency of exempting the five large towns from the operation of the Bill, and yet supporting the measure for the rest of the country. The Irish Members appeared to be very much divided in opinion on this subject. Some had said that Members from Ireland who voted for the measure would be marked men at another General Election, and would not be likely to be returned to that House. At the same time, it was said that if the Bill even passed for Ireland, it would also be passed subsequently for England. Those statements were difficult to reconcile; although it was known that in Ireland different views were generally taken from those
    110
    held in England. His belief was that if restrictions were made severe and unyielding people rebelled, and the object failed. They could not suddenly get people to fall into the habit of severe restrictions. It would be much better to shorten the hours of closing in Ireland. He thought the prevalence of drunkenness was much exaggerated. Because two or three men were seen drunk in the streets, it was forgotten that there were probably 1,100 who were perfectly sober, it was, moreover, unjust to deprive the great majority of men of proper enjoyment of their refreshment, because an insignificant minority abused the privilege. They should take a rational view, and legislate for men as men, and not as if they were children. Did they suppose for one moment that men would be restrained from drink by any legislation they might pass? A great deal had been said about public-houses. Now, what he saw of the evil in England, it appeared to him that severe restrictions on those places encouraged men to form clubs, over which the police had no control, and where no one had any right of interference. Only the previous day a Bill had been before the House with regard to the franchise. The House was asked then to give to the same people, who it was now said had no power of self-control and must be governed like children, the right to say whether the country should be at peace or war. They did not act on the same principle for two days running. In Ireland, he thought the great evils they suffered from were agitators and priests; and until they got rid of them the people would be below par, and Ireland could never enjoy the same prosperity as the rest of the United Kingdom.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that on tins question frequent appeals had been made to English Members, and, as an English Member, he did not wish to give a silent vote. It seemed to him that the Bill raised a most important question connected with the future government of the United Kingdom, and it seemed to him that its principle, once settled, would have very serious and mischievous consequences. He would not say a word on the general principle of Sunday closing. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—whose absence

    111
    from indisposition the Committee must regret—and those who thought with him, were perfectly logical and consistent in the action which they were taking, because they were in favour of Sunday closing alike for Scotland, for England, and for Ireland. To them he had nothing to say; but he did desire to address one or two remarks to those hon. Members, and especially to responsible Ministers, who were going to vote for the principle of this Bill, and yet who would give a similar Bill for England an unhesitating opposition. He would ask them to consider how they could justify their vote. They might say that they would oppose Sunday closing for England, because of their opinion that the majority of the English people were opposed to it; and that they supported Sunday closing for Ireland, because they believed the majority of the Irish people were in favour of it; but so long as he had a seat in the Imperial Parliament—a Parliament that was the Parliament alike of England, of Scotland, and of Ireland—he would not, whether with reference to Sunday closing, to Home Rule, or to Education, vote to do that for the Irish people which he thought would be bad for the English or the Scotch people. The majority of the people of Ireland were, by their Representatives, in favour of Home Rule; and it should also be borne in mind by hon. Members opposite, and by a Conservative and Protestant Government, that a still greater majority of the people of Ireland were in favour of denominational education. If Parliament were to do for Ireland what they would not do for England, because the majority of the Irish people demanded that it should be done, on what possible ground could the demand for Home Rule or for denominational education be resisted? What answer could be made to Irish Representatives, when next they made a proposal for the settlement of a purely Irish question by the granting of a Charter to an Irish Catholic University? Such a proposal would involve no expenditure of public money, and could not be opposed on that ground. It need not involve the loss of a single shilling to the Imperial Exchequer; but such a proposal would be strenuously resisted by scores of Scotch Members and English Conservative Members. His hon. Friend the Mem-
    112
    for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) would oppose it, and not a man on the front Ministerial bench could do otherwise than oppose it. The Members to whom he addressed himself ought, therefore, seriously to consider their position. He could not help feeling, with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene), that there was some inconsistency between the attitude of those who one day came down to the House and pleaded for an extension of the franchise, on the ground that those whom they wished to enfranchise were as intelligent, as independent, and as good citizens as any in the rest of the Kingdom, and who, on the next day, exhibited the same people to the House as little better than children, who were in want of the patronizing and coddling care of the State, because they were bent on doing what they confessed they ought not to do. He had only one appeal to make to the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. M'Carthy Downing). He (Mr. Fawcett) was going to support the hon. Member's Amendment, but on one condition, and it might be for the practical convenience of the House that the condition should be stated. He was going to vote for the Amendment, if he was not compelled to stay till an unreasonable hour in order to do so. The principle of the Bill had been again and again discussed. He had not the least sympathy with some of the tactics by which the Bill had been postponed. He was at the House at noon to attend a Committee, and at noon again he would have to be there; and though he was as anxious as the hon. Member for Cork County could be to record his vote against the principle, which many other English Members were going to support, he would tell him frankly that he could not do so if there were any foundation for the rumour he had heard that the Amendment was going to be discussed for three or four hours. The hon. Member would obtain a much better division, and would consult the convenience of the House, if he would allow a decision to be taken at a reasonable hour.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I so cordially agree with the closing words of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that I am reluctant to trespass on the time and attention of the House, even for a moment; but there were some of his obser-

    113
    vations to which I think it necessary to make a reply. He has challenged the Government to say with what consistency they can support a measure of this kind, which is intended to apply to Ireland only, when, as he says, they would oppose it if it were proposed for England, or, I think he said, for Scotland; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is one of those measures which cannot be regarded from a purely Imperial point of view, and that legislation precisely of this character, or nearly of the same character, has already been for some years in force in Scotland: and I do not think it at all necessary, for justifying the course which Government take in this matter, that we should enter into such large questions as how we are to deal with the demand for Home Rule or for denominational education, with which the Bill before us has no real analogy. The hon. Member, of course, knows that, while we are anxious to assimilate legislation for all parts of the Kingdom, there are a great many subjects upon which there has been, and always must be, different legislation for different parts of the country—that legislation having reference to differing circumstances and to local considerations. This is exactly one of those measures in reference to which we have to take into account the feelings and the wishes and the circumstances of the portion of the country for which we are legislating. We have to consider that the measure is not one which can be called bad in itself. The great objection that, no doubt, would be taken to the application of such legislation to England is, that it is not suited to the circumstances of the country, and would do more harm than it could possibly do good. In itself, the limitation of the amount of drinking cannot but be considered a good and desirable object, provided it is not likely to meet with such opposition as might do more harm than the good effected; and it was not until it was pretty clear that this measure was agreeable to the feelings of those to whom it is to be applied, that the Government cared to offer it a conditional and moderate support. It is the qualification of our support that illustrates the spirit in which it is given. We say that, believing that the measure is one which in itself is well-intended, and suited to a considerable portion of Ire-
    114
    land, we do not think it one that can safely or properly be applied to certain large towns, and upon that ground we make our proposals in favour of legislation of a partial and local character. I think there is sufficient ground for taking that course, and that it is by no means necessary to follow the hon. Member for Hackney into the larger question which he has raised.
    MR. STACPOOLEdeprecated such allusions as those made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) to the Irish priesthood. He (Mr. Stacpoole) was a Protestant; but he must certainly say that all the priests in Ireland were in favour of law and order. He had also to say, however, that he believed the majority of the people of Ireland were against the Bill. Many of them did not properly understand it, and of those who had come to appreciate its significance, many now refused to sign Petitions in its favour. He hoped the House would postpone legislating on this subject until after a General Election.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISreminded the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that on the questions of Home Rule and denominational education Ireland was divided into two hostile political camps, with no possibility of their agreeing; while in reference to the question involved in this Bill the case was far otherwise. Of about 70 Members representing Ireland on the Opposition side of the House, only 12 or 15 voted against the Bill. The rest who voted did so in its favour. Of about 35 Members from Ireland on the Ministerial side, not more than three or four voted against it. In Ireland large numbers of the leaders of Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Nonconformist Bodies petitioned Parliament in its favour. To say only that a majority of the people of Ireland were in favour of the Bill was a weak and quite inadequate statement of the real fact of the case, which was that the vast majority of all parties, classes, and political or religious creeds in Ireland were in favour of the Bill. ["No, no!"] He was told by the exclamations of some hon. Members "No, no!" but he was at a loss to understand how any other or better evidence of the fact could be brought before the House than the several measures taken to exhibit the

    115
    real feeling of the people. As to the Government Amendment proposing to exempt five large towns from the operation of the Bill, would those who support the Bill not have been foolish in the last degree if they had opposed a proposition which would secure the Government help in trying the experiment of Sunday closing in regard to the rest of Ireland, which they believed would result in convincing the Legislature that the grounds on which the Bill was promoted were right grounds? He thought, if the Bill was good for the villages, it was good for the cities, and he had not voted for the Government Amendment. But were they to be told that, because the force of the Government was sufficient to carry a clause exempting certain portions of Ireland from the operation of the Bill, that they should allow the Bill to be lost? In consequence of what was frequently being said as to the evidence given before the Select Committee on this Bill, he challenged hon. Members to controvert his assertion that the evidence of those witnesses who spoke to matters of fact in relation to the working of the Scotch system since the passing of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act was all in favour of that system; while among those witnesses who came from Ireland to give, as a matter of opinion, their idea as to the applicability of the system to Ireland, there was a vast difference of opinion. With the Scotch example and experience, and the admission by Parliament, in the case of Scotland, of the principle that upon this subject the Legislature was entitled to deal with the different parts of the country in different ways, he thought the legislation now requested by all classes and parties in Ireland ought to be granted. The exemption of the five towns should not be an obstacle to the passing of the Bill; because it would give supporters and opponents alike the opportunity of comparing the state of things in those towns and out of them, and testing whether the principle of Sunday closing could successfully be applied to the whole of Ireland.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, for some years he was in favour of this Bill, believing that its promoters expressed the public opinion of Ireland; but he confessed that the arguments used in a former debate by the hon. Member for
    116
    Cork (Mr. Murphy), and the statistics then produced—and never since combated—had perfectly convinced him that the general impression as to the currency of opinions in Ireland in favour of this Bill was without foundation in fact. Drinking of itself could not be more objectionable or criminal on Sunday than on any other day; but Sunday being a day of rest, if the leisure then enjoyed were made bad use of for the purpose of excessive drinking, it was right that the facilities for drinking on that day should be largely curtailed. But what was proved by statistics given to the Select Committee, and never challenged? That the offences arising from drinking on Sunday, compared with those arising from drinking on other days, were as two to three. He admitted that, as far as external appearances were concerned, the Forbes-Mackenzie Act had not been a failure in Scotland. But he denied that it had been a success in the way of effecting a reform of the drinking habits of the Scotch people. The alcoholic liquors now consumed in Scotland greatly exceeded in quantity per head of the population their consumption before the passing of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act. He respected the honourable consistency with which Sabbatarians and teetotallers supported the Bill; but he wished to take that view of this subject which presented itself to the ordinary man of the world, and to investigate the subject uninfluenced by their principles. The case which it was attempted to make out was, that the Irish people had abused their facilities for drinking on Sunday, and that it was absolutely necessary that these facilities should be curtailed. He could not see how that contention could be maintained side by side with a proposal to except populations numbering five-eighths of the whole borough population of Ireland. The Bill, as it now stood, raised the question of the different treatment of one town and another. Was it not monstrous to propose that those who might go from Cork on a Sunday to enjoy themselves in the country should not be able to procure their accustomed recreation and refreshment, while those who went from more wholesome localities into the slums of Cork could get what they chose to drink? He opposed the Bill, and would vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), not only because he thought

    117
    the measure ill-considered, but because he considered that, in its new form, it would be unfair and partial in its operation.
    MR. KING-HARMANhoped the Bill would be made a temporary measure, since if there were ground for believing that it would be extremely unsuitable for the large towns excepted from its full operation, it might also be found extremely unsuitable for the whole country. He would therefore like to know from the promoters of the Bill, whether they would be prepared to accept his Amendment limiting the operation of the measure to a period of two or three years, in order to test its usefulness?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERexpressed his intention of being brief in the remarks he had to make, although the opponents of the Bill had not supplied a motive for that brevity by their example. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) appeared to have been so impressed with an argument which he had adduced on a previous occasion that he had repeated it that evening, and he had so repeated it as to win the approval of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). But he would ask—what was that argument worth? The hon. Gentleman who represented Bury St. Edmunds said—"You are asking the franchise for people whom you will not intrust with the liberty of taking a glass of beer on Sunday." The answer to that statement was that, if the majority of the Irish Members were in favour of a Sunday Closing Bill, they were also in favour of a Permissive Bill. Had a Bill of the latter description been carried, the Irish people would have settled this question without asking the House of Commons to decide the matter by a Sunday closing measure; for he had no doubt that, in the large majority of districts, the preponderance of opinion on the part of the ratepayers would have been found on the side of shutting up the public-houses. The hon. Member to whom he referred had also said—"Get rid of your priests, and you will solve the difficulty." He must tell the hon. Member that the only body of men in Ireland who had been able to exert sufficient power to close the public-houses without the aid of the law were the very priests whom he called upon them to get rid of, in order that they might promote the cause of temper-
    118
    ance. The hon. Member had no right to introduce an element, not of religious feeling, but of religious bigotry, into a question of this kind. If that were an improper thing to do in relation to most questions, it was a most improper thing to do in connection with a body of men who had, as he had already indicated, exerted their influence successfully in favour of the cause of temperance. The hon. Member for Hackney had spoken of the inconvenience which would result from the Government supporting this measure. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) looked at it from a moral standpoint; and he believed that the mistake which the hon. Member made was in thinking that whatever happened to be the wish of the Irish people must therefore be opposed to the integrity of the Empire—the mistake of elevating what were purely local Irish questions into the dignity of Imperial questions, and of saying, in effect, from an unfounded fear of the result of conceding the wishes of the Irish people—"We cannot do this; if the Irish wish it, it must be opposed to our own desires and interests," was one into which many hon. Members seemed not unfrequently inclined to fall. He regretted that the hon. Member was not now in his place. Had he been present, he would have taken the opportunity of assuring him that if he were interested in the integrity of Empire, the best way to preserve that integrity was to concede every local wish in regard to local affairs in Scotland, local affairs in England, and local affairs in Ireland. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member desired to stimulate the disaffection of the Irish people towards Imperialism, he should endeavour to thwart their local and natural wishes, and should use his influence in the House in opposing the views which had been endorsed by a majority of their Representatives. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had threatened the supporters of the Bill with the prospect of not being returned to the next Parliament if they continued to advocate the measure. The answer which he had to make to that threat was that the principle of the Bill appealed to the moral sense of the Irish people, and that in such a case he had no fear of the result. He had seen great politicians and strong parties frightened by appeals of a different character—appeals coming from

    119
    great and powerful organizations. Those for whom he spoke did not regard such appeals in Ireland. They appealed to the moral feeling which had sustained this agitation through many vicissitudes; and they would return from Ireland to advocate the same principles when, perhaps, the hon. Member for Cork County was left weeping alone by his own fireside.
    MR. STORERthought that the great end to be attained was a limitation of the hours during which public-houses were open in Ireland on Sunday, and he believed that the Amendment of the Government would effect that result. He desired to point out how very futile was the argument which was derived from the case of Scotland and the frequent allusions that had been made to the Forbes-Mackenzie Act. It had been said that since the passing of that measure the consumption of ardent spirits in the country where it was in operation had not increased; but the statement was entirely erroneous. The fact was, that of late years whiskey-drinking had increased to a great extent in Scotland. Not only so, but the only country in which it had increased was the very country that had been spoken of as being the land of Sunday piety and Sunday closing. The Returns of the Revenue Department clearly proved this to be the fact. They showed, that during 1877, whiskey-drinking in Scotland had materially increased; whereas in England and Ireland it had materially decreased.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork County, and, so far from looking upon that speech as an argument against the Bill, he regarded it as a strong argument in favour of the measure. In the course of his remarks, the hon. Member had produced a certain document by way of illustration; but what was the nature of that document? It was a document signed by some of the most eminent men in the country, not in opposition to the Bill, but expressive of their regret that it had been abandoned so far as the large towns were concerned.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 92; Noes 134: Majority 42.

    AYES.

    Adam, rt. hon. W. P.

    Marten, A. G.

    Allen, Major

    Master, T. W. C.

    Allsopp, C.

    Mellor, T. W.

    Amory, Sir J. H.

    Merewether, C. G.

    Arbuthnot, Lt.-Col. G.

    Miles, P. J. W.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Bass, H. A.

    Moore, S.

    Bates, E.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Bowen, J. B.

    Mure, Colonel

    Brooks, M.

    Naghten, Lt.-Col.

    Brooks, W. C.

    Newdegate, C. N.

    Bulwer, J. R.

    Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

    Cameron, D.

    O'Brien, Sir P.

    Cartwright, F.

    O' Gorman, P.

    Clowes, S. W.

    Onslow, D.

    Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

    O' Sullivan, W. H.

    Dyott, Colonel R.

    Paget, R. H.

    Eaton, H. W.

    Pell, A.

    Egerton, hon. W.

    Pemberton, E. L.

    Elliot, G. W.

    Percy, Earl

    Emlyn, Viscount

    Perkins, Sir F.

    Errington, G.

    Power, R.

    Estcourt, G. S.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Fawcett, H.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Forester, C. T. W.

    Scott, M. D.

    French, hon. C.

    Shaw, W.

    Gardner, J. T. Agg-

    Sidebottom, T. H.

    Giffard, Sir H. S.

    Smyth, P. J.

    Gordon, W.

    Spinks, Mr. Serjeant

    Gore-Langton, W. S.

    Stacpoole, W.

    Greene, E.

    Stanhope, W. T. W. S.

    Hall, A. W.

    Starkey, L. R.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Storer, G.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Swanston, A.

    Heath, R.

    Sykes, C.

    Hick, J.

    Taylor, P. A.

    Hildyard, T. B. T.

    Tennant, R.

    Holford, J. P. G.

    Thornhill, T.

    Jolliffe, hon. S.

    Thynne, Lord H. F.

    Knowles, T.

    Warburton, P. E.

    Learmonth, A.

    Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

    Lee, Major V.

    Wilmot, Sir H.

    Legard, Sir C,

    Winn, R.

    Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

    Macdonald, A.

    TELLERS.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Downing, M'C.

    Makins, Colonel

    Murphy, N. D.

    NOES.

    Agnew, R. V.

    Chadwick, D.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    Cholmeley, Sir H.

    Backhouse, E.

    Clarke, J. C.

    Baring, T. C.

    Close, M. C.

    Barran, J.

    Cole, Col. hon. H. A.

    Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

    Cole, H. T.

    Beaumont, Colonel F.

    Colman, J. J.

    Bell, I. L.

    Corbett, J.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Corry, hon. H. W. L.

    Birley, H.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Blake, T.

    Cowper, hon. H. F.

    Brady, J.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Brassey, T.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Briggs, W. E.

    Delahunty, J.

    Brise, Colonel R.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Brown, A. H.

    Dodds, J.

    Bruen, H.

    Douglas, Sir G.

    Cameron, C.

    Duff, M. E. G.

    Campbell-Bannerman, H.

    Dunbar, J.

    Dundas, J. C.

    121

    Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W.

    Meldon, C. H.

    Middleton, Sir A. E.

    Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

    Montgomery, Sir G. G.

    Ennis, N.

    Moore, A.

    Evans, T. W.

    Moray, Col. H. D.

    Ferguson, R.

    Morley, S.

    Finch, G. H.

    Noel, E.

    Fletcher, I.

    Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

    Floyer, J.

    Forster, Sir C.

    O'Beirne, Major

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    O'Byrne, W. R.

    Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

    O'Clery, K.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    O'Conor, D. M.

    Gordon, Sir A.

    Palmer, C. M.

    Gordon, Lord D.

    Parker, C. S.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Pease, J. W.

    Goulding, W.

    Playfair, rt. hon. L.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Power, J. O'C.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Price, W. E.

    Grant, A.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Hamilton, I. T.

    Ralli, P.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rathbone, W.

    Hamilton, hon. R. B.

    Reed, E. J.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Russell, Lord A.

    Harrison, C.

    Samuelson, H.

    Harrison, J. F.

    Severne, J. E.

    Havelock, Sir H.

    Sheil, E.

    Hayter, A. D.

    Shirley, S. E.

    Henry, M.

    Smith, A.

    Herbert, H. A.

    Stanton, A. J.

    Herschell, F.

    Stewart, J.

    Hibbert, J. T.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Sullivan, A. M.

    Holms, J.

    Taylor, D.

    Howard, E. S.

    Taylor, rt. hon. Col.

    Hughes, W. B.

    Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Kavanagh, A. MacM.

    Vivian, A. P.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir U.

    Vivian, H. H.

    Waddy, S. D.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Walter, J.

    Kensington, Lord

    Ward, M. F.

    King-Harman, E. R.

    Waterlow, Sir S. H.

    Leslie, Sir J.

    Whitworth, B.

    Lewis, C. E.

    Wilson, C.

    Lewis, O.

    Yeaman, J.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Young, A. W.

    Lloyd, M.

    Lloyd, T. E.

    TELLERS.

    Macartney, J. W. E.

    O'Conor Don, The

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Smyth, R.

    Martin, P.

    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
    MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, he must express a hope that the spirit of compromise was now at an end.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Travellers' exemption orders) struck out.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he had no objection to that being done.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had no wish to detain the Committee; but he desired to be allowed to make a brief personal explanation. An accident had occurred to him that evening which, he believed, had sometimes happened to other hon. Members. He had gone into a different Lobby from that which he intended, and had voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork County when he had intended to vote against it. It was with great surprise that he had found himself, when too late, in the wrong Lobby.
    MR. RICHARD SMYTHbelieved that the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew shire (Colonel Mure) had made precisely a similar mistake.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEEDS BY MARRIED "WOMEN (IRELAND) BILL.
    (Mr. Meldon, Mr. O' Shaughnessy.)

    [BILL 173.] THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved, as an Amendment, the adjournment of the debate, and appealed to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Meldon) not to press the matter upon the present occasion. The Bill had arrived at this stage without having attracted much attention on the part of Irish Members; and, unfortunately, as he was advised, it was a measure which affected a case that was now sub judice. At all events, he again appealed to his hon. and learned Friend to give him some further time in order to examine into the effects of its provisions.
    MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the Bill was simply a declaratory enactment, assimilating the law of Ireland to that of England in certain important legal particulars.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)hoped that no

    123
    opposition would be offered to the passing of this simple measure. The object of the Bill was to enable the Courts to do a simple act of justice, and to put parties under such terms with regard to costs as they might think proper. The law had been amended in England under precisely the same conditions a few years ago; and the present Bill simply gave to the Irish Courts the discretion which was already enjoyed in England.
    MR. DODDShoped the Bill would be allowed to pass.
    MR. MELDONwas afraid that if the measure were not passed, the effect might be to unsettle hundreds of settlements of sales.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Aye 1; Noes 79: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
    MR. BIGGARmoved the adjournment of the House. He did so because—
    MR. SPEAKER, interposing, pointed out to the hon. Member that, having seconded the Amendment for the adjournment of the debate, he had exhausted his right to speak.
    MR. MELDONmoved, in Clause 5, line 4, after the word "the," to insert the words, "Common Pleas Division of the."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he did not desire to put himself in opposition to an overwhelming majority of the House; but, really, he did not understand why there should be all this hurry in regard to the Bill. He asked once more that some further time should be allowed for its consideration.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member must confine his observations to the Motion immediately before the House.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERhad only further to say, that he felt himself reluctantly bound to exhaust all the Forms of the House in opposing the Bill.
    MAJOR O'GORMANdesired to state that in the last division he had voted in error, and had gone into the wrong Lobby. He was very much in favour of married women possessing their own property.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes none.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes none.—(Div. List, No. 139.)
    Bill passed.

    UNDER SECRETARIES OF STATE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill further amending the Law relating to Under Secretaries of State sitting in the House of Commons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and The LORD ADVOCATE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 181.]

    LORD CLERK REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill to make provision in regard to the Office of Lord Clerk Register in Scotland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and The LORD ADVOCATE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 182.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.