CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 24 May 1878 vol 240 cc657-703

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.

MR. PARNELL

said, he had put on the Paper a Motion to reduce the Vote by £10,000, and he was in some doubt as to whether he ought not to ask the Committee to reject the Vote altogether. Under all the circumstances, however, he thought he might be content with moving that the Vote be reduced by the amount which he had mentioned. It must not be supposed, however, that because he merely moved for the reduction of the Vote, that he in any degree approved the principle of paying Secret Service money. On the contrary, he disapproved altogether of the system, for he greatly doubted whether the Government were justified in such expenditure; and he thought that if Secret Service money were voted, an explanation should be given after it had been expended of the way in which it had been used. As was well known to hon. Members, large sums were voted from year to year for Secret Service, and it was next to impossible to get from the Government of the day any information as to the way in which such money was used. The money was, he supposed, used for the purposes of the Crown both at home and abroad; and, without wishing to pry unduly into the operations of the Government, he thought the Committee had a right to know more than it did of the way in which the money was expended. He did not wish to inquire as to how much money had been expended by the Government in corrupting or attempting to corrupt the servants of the Czar of Russia; nor did he particularly wish to know anything as to the results which had flowed from such expenditure. He would confine himself to the question as it affected home affairs. In Ireland they had had painful experience of the application of Secret Service money in times past, and he had no reason to believe that such money was not now being so expended. In 1867 this fund was applied to the purpose of paying informers in Ireland, whose business it was to look after a secret conspiracy of a very extensive character which existed, or was supposed to exist, in the country. The spies were not only employed for the purpose of detecting persons engaged in the conspiracy, but of inducing them to join it in order that they might afterwards be committed to prison. When a man named Kelly was accused, before a Dublin jury, of the murder of a constable named Talbot, it was proved that Talbot, who was in receipt at the time of Secret Service money, had deliberately entered into the Fenian ranks, had taken the oath of fidelity to the organization, and had himself sworn in a large number of other persons whom he had been able to corrupt, while he was himself in receipt of Government pay. Talbot did not confine himself to this. He went further, and entered upon an extensive system of corruption which it was not easy to characterize. In order to gain the confidence of the poor people by whom he was surrounded, this man Talbot, although he was a Protestant, pretended to be a Roman Catholic, and took the sacrament of the Church at its altars, side by side with the persons to whom he had administered the oath as members of the Fenian conspiracy. If he knew that none of this Secret Service money was being spent in Ireland at the present time, he might, perhaps, have been content to let the Vote pass unchallenged; but it was because he felt certain that the same system was being pursued, that he thought it his duty to protest against the Vote. The consequence of the action taken by Constable Talbot was that he was fired at in the streets of Dublin, and a man named Kelly was arrested on a charge of having fired the shot. Talbot was taken to a hospital, and, after a few days of suffering, died, some said in consequence of the shot, others as the result of unskilful surgical treatment. Kelly was acquitted on the charge of having shot Talbot, but was sentenced to penal servitude for life for shooting at a policeman who arrested, or attempted to arrest, him. In consequence of the use of this money, hundreds of young Irish- men were sworn into the conspiracy, and Talbot was shot as an act of revenge by some member of the Fenian organization. The man Kelly was still in penal servitude on Spike Island, and was an object of great sympathy in Ireland. What he had stated was, he thought, sufficient to show that a horrible chain of misfortune had encircled Ireland in consequence of the expenditure of Secret Service money for the purpose of first corrupting, and then punishing, people for the offences into which they were drawn by emissaries of the Government. For these reasons he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £10,000.

Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. O'DONNELL

seconded the Motion. The House, he said, had a right to further information and guarantees as to the way in which this money was expended. He thought, also, that the House was entitled to some supervision of the expenditure of the money, and in the selection of the agents by whom it was expended. Only a few weeks ago, he received a letter from a gentleman in Ireland who was being persecuted by the police in Ireland, because he happened to be known to certain other Irish gentlemen resident in Paris, who, some years ago, were mixed up in revolutionary movements in Ireland. This gentleman wrote, that although there were no grounds for suspicion, as far as he was concerned, he was continually dogged about by the police, and subjected to all sorts of annoyance and petty persecution. This sort of harassing espionage was the way in which the Secret Service money was spent, and he, therefore, thought that Parliament was entitled to know more about the matter than it did at present. That was the kind of conduct pursued against a rich gentleman, merely because he was suspected of sharing the opinions of some out of his many Irish acquaintances. He (Mr. O'Donnell) thought something ought to be done in the way of providing supervision over the expenditure of Secret Service money. He quite understood that the disposal of such money could not be accounted for publicly, and, of course, he knew all Governments needed an amount for secret purposes. But he thought, at the same time, if there were some means of examining into the expenditure, many objections to the Vote would be removed. The total sum required for Secret Service was £40,000, of which £10,000 was annually charged on the Consolidated Fund. Forty-thousand pounds a-year could be employed over a very wide area, and a large number of agents could be kept by such a sum. Not having been in the House when the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was explaining a portion of the Vote, he did not know whether he gave any details of the general heads under which the money was spent. At any rate, he (Mr. O'Donnell) considered, that without infringing secrecy, the Government could afford a little more information as to the general direction of the espionage which they had been bound to employ. Considering this espionage was spread over a comparatively limited portion of the Empire, £40,000 was a large sum to be spent on the Service. If the amount were devoted to the purposes of Indian espionage also, he could understand the demand for £40,000; but the money spent for such duties in India was paid out of the Indian Revenues. Consequently, it came to this—that they had £40,000 a-year spent by a Constitutional, respected, enthusiastically beloved, and admired Government in spying the conduct of British citizens and subjects. The maintenance of such a class of spies was certainly not creditable to a Constitutional and universally beloved Government. The detectives, who might be spoken of as the regular Espionage Department of the administration, were paid out of the Police Fund, and no part of the £40,000 a-year went towards their cost. He, therefore, thought the Committee was entitled to know from the Government what they did with the money, how much they were spending in additional rewards for the discovery of crime, and how much they paid for domestic and foreign espionage. He did not know whether the practice was now recognized in diplomacy of paying for the theft of despatches sent by one Government to an- other. Such things used to be done; but he was sure the sense of Parliament and of the nation of the present day would decidedly discountenance such an application of public money. He asked for some general description of the agencies which were set on foot by means of this £40,000 a-year Secret Service money. Every Irish Member knew that in Ireland Secret Service money had been used to suborn perjury and reward the basest infamy. The rope had been tied round the necks of innocent persons by means of such money. Again and again it had been the great element of a widespread organization of fraud, false swearing, and utter uncrupulousness, directed against the most noble-minded, though of the poorest, in Ireland. The horrible case of Inspector Talbot had been mentioned that night, and if the Committee were to ransack the annals of the most despotic Government in the world, they could discover nothing more dreadful than the conduct of that man, who was supported during his career of unscrupulous hypocrisy out of the Secret Service Fund which was annually voted by an Assembly of Gentlemen. But that money had not been confined to suborning such wretched instruments of despotism as the miserable Talbot. It had been spent in Ireland in the corruption of the public Press, and it had been employed in that country in maintaining journals hired by the Government to stab the reputation of Irish politicians. The hands of the Representative of Her Majesty—the hands of the Viceroy of Ireland—had been stained by the distribution of money out of this unclean fund. Every Irish Member knew the case of Burch v. Clarendon, where the editor of a wretched Dublin print brought an action against Lord Clarendon for a reward due to him, because, in his paper, month after month, and year after year, he slandered, for Vice-Regal—aye, and for Imperial—pay, the purest reputations and noblest characters in the Irish Party. How could Irish Members be expected to let that Vote pass unchallenged when they knew the money had been employed in recent times, and, as far as he (Mr. O'Donnell) could see, was being employed now, in suborning perjury, planning schemes against innocent men, and recruiting the victims of informers amongst the innocent and decent peasantry?

Notice being taken that 40 Members were not present, and the Committee having been counted and 36 Members only being present, Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair and counted the House; and 40 Members being present—

SUPPLY—further considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Question again proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services,"—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. O'DONNELL,

proceeding, said, the Government owed it to the House and to the Irish people, who had suffered much from the employment of Secret Service money, to give some general indication of the manner in which it was spent. He wished to know if pensions to former informers were paid out of the fund? If that were the case, it would diminish the menacing character of the amount, because the British Government had employed so many informers in Ireland, that if they still received pay from the retired list, a considerable sum could be accounted for. In fact, he should not be surprised to hear that half the total of the Vote was spent on pensions. The application of the fund had been so evil in many cases that the Government ought to explain how it was spent, and guarantee that it was not employed to-day as it was 10 or 20 years ago in suborning perjury, such as the evidence of the wretched Talbot, and rewarding such venal editors as Mr. Burch, the editor of The Dublin World, an organ supported and maintained by the Viceroy of the time for the purpose of slandering the character of Irish politicians.

MR. MACDONALD

said, the speeches of the hon. Members for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) seemed to imply that Secret Service money was spent in no other part of the Empire except Ireland. But Scotland, years ago, suffered greatly from the existence of such a Service, and the name of one person—Castlereagh—was still thought of with detestation by working and middle-class people in that country. The work of such a system culminated at one time in the execution of an old man of 72 years of age, who was harmless and innocent. But the disturbances which led to such a result did not end there. Open rebellion was brought about, a battle took place between the Forces of the Crown and the people at Barrymore, and two men, whose characters, history now told them, were beyond the slightest stain, who were of the highest order of Scotch peasantry—these men were hanged in virtue of a plot known to be instigated by Castlereagh and his minions. Secret Service money had also been used for the very worst purposes in England. During the Chartist agitation from 1838 to 1840, it was clearly shown that such money was employed for the purpose of fomenting insubordination and rebellion among the people. Then unfortunate victims who had been lured into rebellion by Government money were sent to distant lands for considerable periods. He could speak for, at least, 10,000 Scotch peasantry, and say that they detested Secret Service money. He was glad the subject had been brought forward, and it would be very creditable to the Government if they would get rid of the system altogether. If the hon. Member for Meath divided the House on the question, he would support him.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, formerly pensions were largely supplemented out of the Secret Service money. That was to say, a person receiving a pension from some public Department, frequently had it added to from the Secret Service money. Evidence of this fact was given before the Diplomatic Service Committee years ago, and the year before last attention was drawn to the subject. Some statement was then made by the Government, but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not know if the practice had been stopped, or whether it still continued. Of course, the House of Commons had no right to ask in what way the Secret Service money was spent; but certainly it had a right to say that pensions should not be supplemented out of such a Vote.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought it was time for the Government to consider whether this Vote ought to be proposed at all. There was something not altogether creditable in the expenditure of public money on Secret Services, and he should think that a Minister of the Queen would feel scarcely comfortable in mixing himself up with transactions of the kind. If the money was expended for the purpose of bringing criminals to justice, he saw no reason why it should not so appear on the face of the Votes; if it was not so expended, but was allowed to filter away through all sorts of occult channels, he thought the sooner an end was put to the voting of money for such purposes the better.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he thought the main objection to Secret Service money was that it gave a positive temptation to a certain class of Government officials to encourage crime, in order that they might gain rewards for afterwards detecting it. In the summer of 1865 he was spending a holiday at a watering place in the West of Ireland, where he saw bands of men go out into the fields for the purpose of drilling, as an avowed part of the Fenian organization. The police stood by, saw all this, and knew perfectly well what it meant; but by their tolerance—connivance, in fact—they lured these men, most of whom were very young, into a course which brought them within the meshes of the law. A scandalous example of this was afforded by the case of Constable Talbot, whose conduct could only tend to alienate the people from their respect for the law. He had himself been subjected to this sort of espionage. On one occasion he arrived at the railway station at Limerick, carrying with him a long box containing mallets and balls for playing croquet. He was met by three policemen, who insisted on seizing his box, on the ground that it contained arms and ammunition. On opening it, however, they found that the only balls it contained were of wood, and the only weapons of propulsion were mallets. He remembered, on another occasion, hearing that a stipendiary magistrate asked a gentleman, occupying a prominent social position, to prevent his daughter from wearing a dress of invisible green colour, on account of the fact that the sight of it might possibly incite the lower classes to the commission of illegal acts. The gentleman appealed to his daughter who, on the ground that the colour of the dress was admirably suited to her complexion, declined to change her attire—even though the wearing of the dress might endanger the safety of the Empire. There was another case, too, of an informer in Hong Kong, who received secret money to spend in a house of ill-fame, in order to convict the person who kept it. He thought there could be no doubt that some power of active supervision ought to be given to Parliament over the disposal of this money, and until it was done, hon. Members of that House would be perfectly justified in continuing their opposition to the Vote.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he could scarcely credit the Hong Kong case to which his hon. Friend had referred, as there was only an unofficial statement of the facts which had come to hand, and it disclosed proceedings so base as to pass belief. The Secret Service money was, in many cases, it was alleged, used for purposes of great baseness, and he hoped steps would be taken by the Government to put a stop to such practices as were said to exist, or to explain that they had no existence.

SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON

deprecated the repetition of these discussions year after year, because they could not lead to anything satisfactory to those hon. Members who objected root and branch to the granting of any money at all for Secret Service. It was the very essence of a secret Vote that the details of its expenditure should not be disclosed to the public. He could admit that the accusations made against the Vote, from the point of view of the Irish Members, were borne out by facts. The Vote asked for was, in amount, £24,000, but it would not necessarily be expended. In the year 1876–7, £24,000 were voted, but only £14,900 were expended. In the year 1800 the amount voted by Parliament for Secret Service was £112,000; but it had gone on steadily decreasing since that time, and he hoped that decrease would continue. The fund was administered by the heads of the different Departments, on the faith that it was used for the public service, in reference to matters which could not absolutely be made public. Each Minister was responsible for the amount voted for his Department, and it was administered on the actual responsibility of such Minister. In reply to what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he might safely answer that, whatever might have been the practice in ancient times, the amount voted for Secret Ser- vice money was now devoted to payment for special services, and was not used for the purpose of increasing salaries paid to the officials holding office in the different Departments in the service of the State.

MR. BIGGAR

thought the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had himself furnished a reason for decreasing the Vote, by stating that much less than the sum voted was annually expended. As at present managed, each one of the Departments had entrusted to it for expenditure a certain portion of the Secret Service money, and he saw no reason why each of the Departments should not give an account, yearly, of the way in which the money was disposed of. If this were done, a great deal of the suspicion now felt would be got rid of. As far as the use of Secret Service money in the past was concerned, it must be perfectly well known that in Ireland it was extensively used by the infamous Lord Castlereagh, in order to induce persons to join in the Rebellion, which cost many people their lives. On every ground, therefore, he thought there was a sufficient cause for objecting to the present Vote and moving its rejection.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he had listened very attentively to the debate. He was unable to agree to the proposition that Secret Service money might, with advantage to the public service, be entirely abolished. At present, he was not able to conceive that there were not many things for which a Government was obliged to use secret money, and yet which it would be very undesirable to publish to the House of Commons 12 months after the event. Still, if the hon. Member pressed his Motion to a division, he should certainly vote for it, as a protest against the manner in which this fund had been applied. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said that the allegations of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Donnell) against certain officials in Dublin were incorrect. Now, as to the statement that an Irish official had employed the Secret Service Fund in hiring a newspaper to assail Irish patriots, if the hon. Baronet would only consult the files of the Irish newspapers—

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he did not dispute the statement at all, nor the one that the Secret Service Fund had been employed during the Fenian rising. What he did say was, that the latter statement was exaggerated.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he was very glad to hear that. Of course, these discussions would be futile and idle as the passing wind if some impression were not made on Ministers by these discussions, and if they were not disposed to recognize that in certain cases very grave mistakes—to say the least—had been made. It would be the duty of every head of a Department entrusted with money of this kind to see that mistakes of this kind were not repeated. The use that was made of this money was notorious in the ease of Lord Castlereagh, and Burch, the proprietor of The World. It was also true that Talbot was employed to go into Clonmel, and there first swear in the peasantry as Fenians, and then go into the dock, and swear away their lives. It was not necessary to bring the guilt of having sent out this man home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney General; but it was sufficient for his purpose to show what had been done in the past. He had been told that they were on the eve of great social troubles, and before the excitement burst upon them, he wished to warn the Government to keep a sharp eye on their officials in the country, and to see that none of them were stirring up tumults. He asserted, and thought he had proved, that this money had been disgracefully applied in the past; and if the Government would not take proper measures for dealing with its disposal, it would be their duty to exhaust every Form of the Committee and the House in protest against the Vote.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 49: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 147.)

Original Question, That a sum not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services, put, and agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,390, 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 Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, there were several items in this Vote which seemed to him to have lost their appropriateness. There was, for instance, £97 for Her Majesty's Limner, an institution not quite in keeping with the usages of modern times. Again, there was £184 for Her Majesty's Historiographer. If there was to be a recognition of merit in this way, he did not see why the distinguished scholar who enjoyed the salary should not be on the Civil List, in receipt of the same recognition as was frequently paid, on a somewhat moderate scale it was true, to men of merit in England. The next item was Her Majesty's Clockmaker, £17. Surely, attending to the clocks at Holyrood and other places was a matter which might just as well be paid by the job. Her Majesty's Clockmaker at present certainly received a salary either very much above or very much below his commercial value. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote, in the first place, by the salary of Her Majesty's Limner for Scotland.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member propose to omit the item, or to reduce the Vote?

MR. O'DONNELL

To omit the item, Sir.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £97, for the Salary of Her Majesty's Limner, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the post of Her Majesty's Limner was one always held by some great painter. It was once held by David Wilkie, and the salary then was £300 per annum. It was now held by Sir Noel Paton at £97, and he ventured to think a sum of that sort was by no means too much to pay as a recognition of public services of the character and description of these gentlemen. He trusted the Committee would not say by its vote that it begrudged a sum of this kind.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he would not oppose this Vote if the money really went to encourage art; but he did doubt very much whether to give certain persons sums of money in this way did any good. If they were earning, as he supposed Sir Noel Paton was earning, a very large income, the money might surely be spent in a much better manner—for instance, in prizes to students who were trying to make their way.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he would not trouble the Committee to divide, after the explanation that had been given, but would simply content himself with saying "No" to the question. All these distinctions, he thought, should be honorary. The money could be of no importance to Sir Noel Paton, and it would, therefore, be quite sufficient to have these as honorary posts. The emoluments in any case could in no way correspond to the literary or artistic eminence of the persons concerned.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. MACDONALD

said, he observed that they had again the Vote of £144 for the Historiographer. The gentleman who held that office was well known and highly respected in Scotland as an historian, and also as one who had done good service to his country in other respects; but he would like to know from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury if this was to be continued? because last year when this sum of money was voted it was to complete the volume. Now, it did occur to him that from the work this gentleman had to perform it must be a very bulky volume. He feared it was a taking away of the public money rather than a promotion of the object that was in view. He should like to know when this volume was likely to be completed?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

rather thought the hon. Gentleman was somewhat under a misapprehension as to the present item. He would ask leave to say that these offices of Historiographer of Scotland and Limner were honorary offices that were given to men of high position in literature and art. The payments were not in respect of services. It would be seen that these were a few old relics left of Scottish Royalty. They had nothing left in Scotland that represented the old Royalties of the Kingdom except these offices, which at one time were hereditary. The salaries were once paid out of the personal revenues of the Sovereign; but by Act of Parliament these revenues were transferred to the State. At the time that transfer was made to the Exchequer, certain of these honorary offices, which, as he said before, represented the sole relics of Royalty in Scotland, were maintained. There was another office under the Lord Clerk Register, where a grant was made, but of much smaller amount than the sums given to England and Ireland, for the purpose of making available to the public at reasonable expense the treasures that were collected in the Register House in Edinburgh. The item they were dealing with was an honorary allowance given to a man who had earned his spurs in the field of literature. It was not brought forward simply to stimulate the cultivation of letters. He did not think literary gentlemen stood in need of that; but he should regret if a practice which had existed from time immemorial should be taken away, because it was looked upon as a great prize by men of letters in Scotland.

DR. CAMERON

would be very sorry to do away with relics of the ancient Royalty of Scotland, but there was an office which he should be glad to see done away with, and that was the Lyon-King-at-Arms. On one occasion there was something like blackmail in connection with that office. The occasion was this—Biographies of hon. Members who first entered that House appeared in a paper called The Illustrated House of Commons, with arms opposite each name. Those hon. Members received from some person, who pretended to speak in the name of this office of Lyon-King-at-Arms, an inquiry asking by what right they assumed these arms, and requesting the payment of £40 for that assumption. Most of the hon. Members thus questioned found themselves in an awkward position; but, never having been guilty of the assumption of arms himself, and arms having been placed opposite his name, he was able to inquire into the matter boldly, without any fear of the payment of the sum required. He confessed he did not get a satisfactory answer. The man who said he had written to him did not appear to have written with any authority. His authority was repudiated by Lyon-King-at-Arms. The man assured him that he had authority; but he did not think the matter was seemly, and he trusted it would be inquired into.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER,

before the Lord Advocate answered the question, would like to know what was the present state of the office, and whether there was such a person as Lyon-King-at-Arms? Some people supposed that Lord Kinnoul was Lyon, and that the office was hereditary in his family. He should like to know something about that. It was said that the only people in the office were clerks to copy documents. It seemed to him that the office of Herald of Scotland ought to be kept up, and kept up with dignity. It was a great pity if this office had been frittered away. There were many people who took an interest in this subject, who would wish to know from the right hon. and learned Lord who the Lyon was, and what were the duties performed in the office?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, it was quite true that at one time the Earls of Kinnoul were Lords Lyon-King-at-Arms of Scotland; but, some years ago, Parliament took the arrangements of the office into its own hands, and by Statute 30 Vict. c. 13, the office was remodelled, and, instead of the office retaining the fees as the property of the Lyon-King-at-Arms, the fees were paid into the Treasury. The office was now held by a well-known gentleman, a cadet of one of the oldest families in Aberdeenshire, and one of the most learned heralds in Scotland. It was the duty of the officials to receive the fees which were scheduled by the Act of Parliament, and precisely fixed. He was very sorry that any unjust claim, if such were made, was presented by these officials. He trusted the law was not unduly pressed against any hon. Member of that House. But it clearly was the duty of the office to collect the fees, and he was happy to say the office was in a most thriving condition.

MR. WHITWELL

hoped the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) would not press his objection to the small amount paid to the Historiographer of Scotland. He trusted that the objection to the amount paid to the Limner would also be withdrawn. When they considered how, in foreign countries, Art was rewarded by degrees, and still more by orders, he did not think they could object to these small amounts. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was strictly accurate as to the receipts of income from this office? There ought to be a record on the Votes of all receipts of income. In all other cases receipt of income was recorded. He was not aware that there was any other Vote where corresponding income was not recorded. No doubt, the Secretary to the Treasury would look after that.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

would not pledge himself that this represented the whole of the receipts of the office; but hon. Members would see that there were receipts for £700 placed under the Vote. While he had risen, he would answer the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). With regard to his opposition to the item of the Clock-maker, that was money paid for duty done. The man had charge of the clocks not only in the Palace at Holyrood, but in the Courts of Justice, and, therefore, this did not represent an honorary office, but represented work done.

DR. CAMERON

would point out that the fact that fees were received by the Lyon-King-at-Arms rendered the circumstances which occurred a few months ago all the more inexcusable. On the occasion to which he referred, the demand did not come from the office, but came from a person purporting to come from the office. Yet, no steps had been taken to bring him to account.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

could only say, that if the hon. Member had reported the circumstance to the office, steps would have been taken.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that his objection was, that these Votes were neither quite honorary, nor really valuable. As for the rest, he confessed if he had looked on this item simply in the light of remains of old Scottish Royalty, he would have treated it with more veneration. He had great veneration for the charming sentimentalism that still subsisted, and he hoped the Government would not be alarmed at this revival of Scottish Home Rule through the Votes of the Civil Service.

MR. MACDONALD

observed, that one question he had asked had not been answered. He wanted to know when they were likely to have this volume? He knew there were men who were as anxious to have reprints of old books, as they were to have old china. He knew men who were looking anxiously for this book, and he would be glad if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would tell them when they were likely to have it. He would not press the matter to a Vote. What he wanted to know was, when they were likely to have this volume, which had been so long in preparation?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

explained, that the Vote was put in accordance with the Rules of the House, but did not relate to this book. There was a rule that when a public officer derived salary from one source, if he was, at the same time, deriving Government pay from another source, it should be mentioned; and this entry merely recorded that he received payment for preparing the volume. He might say that he believed the literary work had been accomplished; but, as the hon. Member was aware, the duty of superintending the publication of the work fell on the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, an office vacant by death.

MR. BIGGAR

asked for explanation of the item relating to the Secretary to the Bible Board?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

would suggest that in future the Estimates should avoid separate details of these relics of the Crown. Two hours were wasted last year in discussing these Estimates. On seeing the words "Limner" and "Historiographer" there was a good deal of curiosity among those to whom the names were new. If they were simply indicated as charges on the hereditary revenue, that would be quite sufficient.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,

in answer to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), said, that the Secretary to the Bible Board's duties depended on the number of editions of the Bible in the course of publication. Out of the salary, the Secretary to the Bible Board paid a reader, who was by profession a printer, and who did the technical work. He believed the Secretary had also to provide office room for books and papers out of that amount. As agent of the Bible Board, this man was appointed from time to time by the Lord Advocate, and the clerks he had to employ were paid also from his salary. He believed the Secretary was formerly paid by fees; but the fees were now paid into the Treasury, and came to the same amount, or, rather exceeded, the salary; and, therefore, practically, it was not a great cost to the country.

MR. BIGGAR,

after that explanation of the hon. Baronet, would feel called upon to move that the Vote of £600 to the Secretary of the Bible Board be not paid. The explanation was extremely satisfactory as far as it went. This gentleman paid as rent for the office £50 a-year; he paid to the reader not more than £100 a-year, and he did all the actual work; the result being that the Secretary of the Bible Board got £400 a-year for doing nothing. It was a sinecure, as far as he could see; and he did think that, unless the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate could give a more extended explanation, he should be called upon to ask for a division. Really, as at present advised, he should feel called upon to ask for a division. One of the duties of the Committee of that House on the Estimates was to see that no money was unreasonably spent. It seemed to him, as far as the information he had went, that this £600 was entirely thrown away. It was a sinecure for some gentleman. A sum of money was given, and no service was given in return. He should think it his duty to vote against the grant, and would move to omit £600, the salary of the Secretary to the Bible Board.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £600 for the Salary of the Secretary to the Bible Board be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Biggar.)

MR. O'DONNELL

would suggest to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to push his objection to this item. After all, this item was connected with the religious institutions of the country, and might as well be passed by.

MR. MACDONALD

thought there was some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and he feared the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury did not quite understand what the question really was. The Board, as he understood, was constituted as follows:—When a printer desired to print an edition of the Bible, that edition had to be submitted to the Clerk of the Board, and had to be read carefully. It was not a sinecure office. It was an office appointed for the use of the country, and so long as that was the case, this office should be maintained. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not push his Motion to a division.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, this was a matter discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) last year. At one time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy in Scotland. There was a monopoly of printing the Bible in Scotland, which involved great expense. For that was substituted a system of licensing in order to protect the purity of the text. He believed the whole of the religious sects in Scotland were quite agreed on the utility of this Board, and would not like to part with its services.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he was only partially enlightened so far, and for this reason—there was an expenditure on all fours with these hereditary and Royal appointments. First, there was the Secretary to the Bible Board; then there were the Limner and Historiographer, the Warder of the Regalia, and so on. These were all included under the hereditary allowances. Of course, the first time the Bible was in Scotland, as far as he knew, was in the reign of James the First. He certainly certified for the possession of the Bible, and perhaps that rule was still in operation. The fact remained, that this Secretary to the Bible Board got £600 a-year for correcting proofs of the different editions of the Bible. The Secretary might correct the proofs of one edition every three months; and it really seemed to him an extraordinary payment. He thought he ought to divide the Committee.

MR. J. COWEN

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was not here last year, when this Vote was explained. The £600 was paid for work done. The question was, whether the State ought to undertake that work. He did not think the State should undertake that work; but if the hon. Member for Cavan really knew what the work of correcting proofs was, he would not begrudge £600.

MR. BIGGAR,

said, as it appeared by the explanation of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that the sum in question was not an over-payment, he was willing to withdraw his Motion for the omission of this grant.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he must ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Trea- sury for a further explanation. He wished to know what were the duties of the Law Agent of the Scotch Bible Board? He would move the omission from the Estimates of the sum of £240, which appeared as the salary of this officer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £240 for the Salary of the Law Agent to the Bible Board he omitted from the proposed Vote.—(Mr. Biggar.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

explained, that it was the duty of the Law Agent to watch that there was no infringement of the licence of the Board, and to prosecute for any such infringement. He was compelled to appeal to hon. Members as to whether, in proceeding with the consideration of the Estimates, the Committee were to do so in the usual manner, or in that lately followed—a course which appeared to him to be consistent neither with the dignity of the House nor the transaction of Business.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had no intention of placing obstacles in the way of the Business of the House. It was only reasonable that he should ask for information sufficient to enable him to understand the purposes to which this sum of money was to be applied. He had deferred to the views of several hon. Members in withdrawing his previous Motion, and, after the explanation afforded by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he would now beg leave to withdraw his opposition to this Vote of £240.

MR. PARNELL

said, he could understand the impatience of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury when questions were asked by Irish Members with respect to the Scotch Estimates. The questions of his hon. Friend related to subjects perfectly familiar to Scotch Members, but with which Irish Members were unacquainted. The hon. Member for Cavan came from the North of Ireland, and, by the responsibility cast upon him as a Member of that House, was asked to vote money for Scotch and English, as well as Irish purposes. It seemed to him that the hon. Baronet was suffering, not so much from any fault of his own, as from the faults of those who, in the year 1800, effected the arrangement which compelled the hon. Member for Cavan to come over to this country in order to assist in passing this Vote for Scotch purposes. His ignorance of these matters must, therefore, not be regarded as a fault, but as a misfortune. The explanation of these Votes which had been afforded by the Secretary to the Treasury was of great value; but, at the same time, he (Mr. Parnell) was bound to say that his explanations had not always been satisfactory; and the hon. Baronet would bear him out, that at an earlier period he had said that it was impossible for the discussion of the Estimates to be satisfactorily conducted in a Committee of the Whole House, and that one of two things would result therefrom—either that the Committee would lose its temper over the amount of time necessary to be expended, or that the Estimates could not be discussed at all. He had invited the hon. Baronet to refer the whole of the Estimates to a Select Committee upstairs; and he now repeated his invitation, under the conviction that a very large saving could be effected if this course were adopted.

THE CHAIRMAN

would point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that his observations went beyond the Question before the Committee, to which he should endeavour to confine them.

MR. PARNELL

would continue to do so. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must remind the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that after having been requested from the Chair to abstain from a particular line of argument, it was scarcely respectful to the Committee to say that he proposed to continue it.

MR. PARNELL

had, perhaps, expressed himself incorrectly; but, of course, had not intended to refer to anything but the particular Vote under discussion, in doing which he had only expressed his conviction that if these particular Estimates were referred to a Select Committee, many ways could be pointed out by which a very material saving might be effected.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he could not allow the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to pass unnoticed. A great deal of the difficulty in which the hon. Baronet was placed arose from the fact that he had not been assisted during the evening by the Heads of the Departments for which this money was asked. It was most desirable that those Gentlemen should be present, whose duty it was to be thoroughly posted with regard to these items. He had observed the Secretary to the Treasury sitting for a long time during the evening without a single Member of the Government beside him to afford explanations upon questions that had presented themselves earlier in the discussion; when, however, the Lord Advocate came in, every explanation had been given, and the Committee were enabled to proceed with Business. He had referred to these facts, so far as they related to the hon. Baronet, rather by way of commendation than otherwise; but, at the same time, he was bound to say that every Member of the Committee had a perfect right to make and maintain an objection to any item in the Estimates.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, if the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had devoted some attention to these Estimates when they were gone into last year, he would have been in possession of a full explanation. He had only alluded to the course pursued by the hon. Member, because it seemed to him that the discussion was perpetually coming back to the same point, and that if any progress at all was to be made with the Estimates it could hardly be effected by that mode of procedure.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, many were of opinion that Queen's Plates, by encouraging short races with light weights encouraged the breeding of a weedy and worthless description of racehorse; and it was a common saying of an inferior description of racehorse, that "he was only fit to run for a Queen's Plate." He therefore moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £99, the amount of the Queen's Plates, Edinburgh.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £99, for Queen's Plates to be run for at Edinburgh, be omitted from the Vote."—(Major O' Beirne.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

pointed out, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O' Beirne), that the Vote had been thoroughly discussed on a previous occasion. In 1870, a division had taken place, and the Government were induced to strike the item out of the Estimates. Since then, however, in the year 1872–3, it had been restored, on the Petition of some of the Scotch Members, and he believed that as the matter now stood, it really represented the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he had always looked upon the sport of horseracing as one of the most innocent of recreations, and hoped that the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) would not insist upon his Motion.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

hoped the Vote would not be objected to. On a former occasion the Scotch Members had strongly opposed this item for the Queen's Plates, and their wishes had been gratified; but experience had since shown that their object in so doing was the withdrawal of the Queen's Plates from other portions of the Kingdom as well as Scotland. As soon as the Scotch Members found that the sum of money which had formerly gone to Scotland had been struck out by their virtuous action, they requested that it might be restored. He thought that as the Scotch Members wanted the money they should be gratified, and trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would not go to a division on this Vote.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

thought it was doubtful whether the Scotch people did wish for this money. In his opinion, the grant was a very unsuitable gift to such a nation as the Scotch, who, judging by their manner of observing the Sabbath, led one to infer that they objected to every kind of amusement. The money was thrown away in making such a grant, and, as apparently a number of Scotch Members agreed with him, he should press the question to a division.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he had been led by his convictions as to the feeling of the people of Scotland as well as by his own opinions on the subject of horse-racing to vote against the application of this money for the Queen's Plates; but he had been deterred that evening from taking any notice of the amount in question, simply because hon. Members were proceeding with their criticisms to such an extent as to exhaust the patience of the Government and waste the time of the House. He could not allow the representation made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) to be a correct exposition of the feelings of the people of Scotland; but, even if it were, to waste the time of the House was not a satisfactory way of redressing a grievance. He would, therefore, appeal to the hon. and gallant Member not to proceed with his Motion.

DR. CAMERON

said, he had not raised any objection to this portion of the Vote, for the same reason as that given by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay). He was, however, of opinion that the reduction of the Vote by this amount for the Queen's Plates would not be contrary to the wishes of the people of Scotland.

MR. MARK STEWART

observed, that although the Scotch Members, as a body, were not favourable to a continuance of the Queen's Plates, he thought that while they were granted to the sister Kingdom, it was but right they should continue to be extended to Scotland. He should certainly vote against the Motion.

DR. BRADY

said, the Queen's Plates had done a great deal towards improving the breed of horses in Ireland. They had done much good in past years, and he was sure that the wishes of the people of Ireland were in favour of their continuance. He knew no portion of the Kingdom where Plates of this description were more necessary than in Scotland, and, on that account, he should certainly vote against the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member.

MR. MELDON

said, the object of the Scotch Members in voting against the continuance of Queen's Plates in Scotland was to get them withdrawn from Ireland, their case being that, as they were willing to see justice done, they would consent to their discontinuance in Scotland if the Irish Plates were also withdrawn. Personally, he (Mr. Meldon) did not care about horseracing; but it was exceedingly popular among the people of Kildare, the constituency which he represented. He could not understand the Motion, as coming from an Irish Member. On a former occasion, the Irish Members had almost in a body voted for the continuance of the Queen's Plates, and he thought it unfair to expect them to eat their own words. If the Scotch Plates were withdrawn, of course, the Irish Plates would, in common fairness, have to be withdrawn also—a result which he was sure the Irish people did not desire. He hoped that the Motion before the Committee would not be pressed to a division.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

wished also to reply to some of his Colleagues, and to mark his dissent from the opinions expressed by them at an earlier stage of the discussion. He thought that the people of Scotland took a very considerable interest in horseracing. He (Mr. Barclay) did not approve of it, but was obliged to recognize the fact that horseracing was on the increase in Scotland, and that a strong feeling in its favour was entertained by a large majority of the people.

MR. MONK

admitted that the sum of £99 was so exceedingly small as to render the discussion of the amount itself needless. But there was a principle underlying this question. If the sum were really given for the Queen's Plates, it should be provided from the Privy Purse, and the Representatives of the people ought not to be asked to vote this money out of the Consolidated Fund. For that reason alone, he would record his vote in favour of the Motion.

MR. O'CLERY

said, that as he liked to see a good race, he was quite willing to bear his share of the expense. He considered that Irish Members had no right to object to the Queen's Plates in Scotland, and that it would be wrong for him to go into the Lobby to vote against his Scotch Friends.

MR. MACDONALD

said, in the course of the discussion the Committee had heard a great deal about the breed of horses, which was said to be improved by the competition for the Queen's Plates. He denied that the Queen's Plates had improved the breed of horses in Scotland, and believed that anyone who was acquainted with the kind of horses that ran for these Plates must know them to be a lot of old screws that had been drummed off every racecourse in the United Kingdom, and as such, they were quite unfit for breeding purposes.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 94: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 148.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,848, 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 Fishery Board in Scotland.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

complained that the grant of £3,000 for Piers and Quays had been for many years almost, if not entirely, absorbed by the Harbour of Anstruther, and he thought this unfair to other localities sorely in need of accommodation for fishing boats. He also wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to declare in a more distinct manner than he did lately on the discussion raised by the noble Lord the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Viscount Macduff), what the intentions of Government were in reference to the recent Report of the Herring Fisheries' Commissioners which referred to harbours? There were numerous places on the North-eastern Coast of Scotland and friths, where pier accommodation was much needed; but these localities were very poor. He wished to know whether, in those cases where the localities undertook substantial obligations, Government would assist in form of loans on moderate terms?

MR. MACDONALD

directed attention to the salary of the Secretary to the Fishery Board. It was stated to be £524; but an explanatory note showed that he also received £300 per annum from the Vote for the National Gallery, as Secretary to the Board of Manufactures, &c. This was another instance of a plurality of offices vested in one man—a practice which indicated a good deal of extravagance. Unless a very satisfactory explanation was given, it was his intention to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £300, in order that the latter amount might be given to some other person, and not all to one man.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

objected to the whole Vote for the Fishery Board, because he did not think it did any real good. He understood the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) to complain, in effect, that this sum of £3,000, annually granted for Piers and Quays, led the proprietors of the small harbours round the coast to make out an urgent case, in order to induce the Government to help them, instead of depending more upon their own efforts, and he thought he was quite right. Most of these small harbours belonged to the owners of land adjacent, and any money expended upon the harbours by the Government simply went to increase the revenues of the landowners. If the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could hold out any prospect of allowing the proprietors to have Provisional Orders with greater facility than at present, he would, by saving a great deal of trouble and expense, offer the best encouragement to local effort. The point to which he particularly objected in the Vote was the branding. That was a question which had been repeatedly discussed in that House. A good many years ago a Commission reported upon the subject, and pronounced against branding; or, at least, they expressed the opinion that if the herring-curers wanted the system of branding, they should themselves pay for it. He was for many years of opinion that the small curers could not get on without the Government branding system; but after a careful consideration of the question, he was now fully of opinion that branding, in the long run, was not of advantage to the small curers, any more than to the large. Formerly the Government brand was of value, because it indicated a certain description of herrings, and abroad was accepted implicitly as such; but of late years the quality of the fish branded had been so uncertain that Continental buyers were obliged to stipulate that, besides the barrels having the Government brand upon them, the herrings should be warranted by the trader to be of fair average quality. This involved great uncertainty in the trade. Another disadvantage was that the branding system gave great facilities for speculation, and caused considerable fluctuations in the price, causing much injury to the whole trade. For instance, herrings were often sold for weeks before they were branded, or even caught. Last year, for example, speculators went into the market and unduly raised the price, so that, at the end of the fishing season last year, it was as high as 40s. a-barrel. Contracts with the fishermen for this year's take had been made at Christmas, based on this extreme price, which had since fallen to 25s. If the branding system were abolished, the trade would no doubt soon get into a sounder and more healthy condition; the larger curers would establish a reputation in the market, and would buy the herrings of the small curers on fair terms, and the competition among the curers would improve the quality of the cure. On these grounds, he should move the rejection of the Vote.

Moved, "That the Vote be disallowed."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

thought the hon. Member who had last spoken was under a misapprehension, as branding was quite optional, and not compulsory, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. Many curers did not brand their barrels, but relied upon their own reputation. According to the last Return, he found that, in the year 1876, the number of barrels of herrings exported to the Continent was 400,423, and of these only 222,979 were branded—very little more than half. Branding was of great value to small curers, because it enabled them to make money out of the fishing trade by establishing a little trade of their own, without being obliged to place themselves in the hands of the large traders. This was, no doubt, a vexed question in Scotland; but he believed that the wish of the fishermen, as a body, was not that the system should be abolished, but that the cost of branding should be reduced from 4d. a-barrel to 2d. That was the impression he gathered last year, when he visited all the ports in his own neighbourhood, during the sitting of the Royal Commission. If that reduction were allowed, the amount realized from branding would still be sufficient to defray Departmental expenses; and he, therefore, recommended that the Government might, with advantage to the trade, fairly make the reduction desired by the Scotch fishermen.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

inquired whether the branding system was self-supporting? The expenses of the Fishery Board amounted altogether to £12,948; whereas the branding fees were £6,810. It ought to be made clear whether the branding was self-supporting, or whether there was a profit or a loss upon it.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the branding was remunerative. The hon. Member opposite (Sir George Campbell) had mixed up a certain number of other charges which were included in this Vote—charges for Piers and Quays—which amounted altogether to something like £5,000. After deducting for that amount, the estimated cost of branding itself for the last year was about £5,200, while the actual receipts reached the sum of £6,000 or more. There was, therefore, a surplus; but it was not large enough to enable the Government to reduce the fee in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon). It was quite true, as had been stated, that branding was really a protection to the small curers, being accepted in foreign markets as a standard. He believed it was equally true that the brand was not adopted to a very large extent by the large traders. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser Mackintosh), although, for some period, the grant of £3,000 had been devoted principally to the Harbour at Anstruther, that had not been the case during the last two years. The grant had been made to supplement the local subscriptions from fishermen, and other inhabitants, which amounted to £1,000. He saw less objection to that form of granting aid than was open to other methods. With reference to the salary of the Secretary, this gentleman had a very responsible office to fill, and £524 did not more than fairly represent the value of his labours in that office. The £300 which the same gentleman received was for the duties performed by him as Secretary to the Board of Manufactures. This was, probably, a case in which one gentleman could do the work of two offices at a cheaper rate than if the two offices were filled by two distinct men. Where skill was required, it had been found better to obtain that skill and pay for it in this way, than to pay a much higher salary for the same amount of skill in two persons instead of one.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

deprecated the reduction of salaries on the cheeseparing principle. He defended the branding system, which, he observed, had been established by the State in order to give an ascertained value, or standard, to herrings, of a good quality, exported from the Scotch coasts. There were some large curers who had established for themselves a commercial reputation, which was quite sufficient for the purposes of their trade, without the sanction of a Government brand; but this brand was needed to protect the small traders who had not established a reputation from the monopoly which would otherwise be exercised by the large ones who had.

MR. BRUEN

considered the question of branding should be looked upon by the Government as a national, and not merely as a provincial, matter. The subject had been discussed many times previously by the House, and he hoped if hon. Members were desirous of supporting the Government in continuing the advantages which branding secured, they would, at the same time, urge the unfairness of that boon being confined to one part of the Kingdom. He thought the Irish had a fair claim to be considered, and to be as liberally dealt with in this matter as the Scotch.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the question had not only been frequently discussed in the House, but it had been reported on several times by Committees of the House. There were inquiries made in 1848, in 1856, in 1866, and again in 1870, the two first and the last of these Commissions being specially appointed to consider the matter of branding. It hardly fell within the powers of the Commissioners of 1866, whose inquiries should rather have been devoted to trawling; but they did make a Report, which was unfavourable to the continuance of branding. However, the special investigation in 1870 resulted in its continuance being recommended. All the Government really knew was that the small traders voluntarily paid branding fees to the extent of £6,800 per annum, and, consequently, they had no reason to suppose that the charge was considered objectionable.

MR. MACDONALD

said, the large curers did not use the brand, and he could assure the Committee that, despite the statement that the fees were voluntarily paid, there were great complaints about the whole of the £6,000 having to come out of the pockets of the poorer people. Seeing that there was an increase of £235 now proposed, he suggested the reduction of the Vote by that sum.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, Scotch herrings made a much higher price than those caught off the Irish coast, and that was owing to the former having the benefit of the Government certificate or brand, which was much appreciated in those parts of Europe where the fish were sold. In fact, the Scotch herring exporters had now almost a monopoly of the sales, and, having obtained such a position, certain large traders were perfectly willing that this protection should be withdrawn from them. But there were other and smaller traders who did not at all wish to see such a course pursued, and he, therefore, was not prepared to vote in favour of the discontinuance of branding. Unfortunately, by the Rules of the House, he could not propose that the system should be extended to Ireland. It was felt to be a great grievance that the Scotch herring fishery should be protected by a brand, which boon had always been refused to the Irish. The result was that Irish herrings, though just as good, did not fetch such large prices in the Continental markets as the Scotch fish. Another thing, which was well known, was that the Irish herrings had, to a considerable extent, deserted the Irish coast, and there were strong reasons for believing that the herrings, resenting the manner in which they were treated, went to the coast of Scotland, where they were considered with greater distinction. He hoped the gentleman, who used to sit on the Ministerial side of the House, and who had recently been appointed to the office of Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland, would use his powers to obtain Government protection for the Irish fisheries. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) should support the Vote for branding in Scotland, and he hoped the Government would ere long institute a similar proceeding in Ireland.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

had understood the Secretary to the Treasury to say he entirely disapproved of grants being made for constructing piers and harbours in the United Kingdom. The Act under which these grants were made was one of the most valuable Acts affecting Ireland, and he was utterly amazed to hear such a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury. Had not such an Act been in force, they would not now have had the safe piers and harbours which existed on the Scotch and Irish Coast for the benefit of the small fishermen, who had no other protection for their boats. He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would not advise his Colleagues to repeal so valuable an Act of Parliament, and he desired to ask him, whether he had been correctly understood to say that he entirely disapproved of grants being made by the Government in aid of piers and harbours?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the hon. Member had forgotten that he was alluding to a grant of £3,000 for Scotch Harbours, when he made the remarks referred to. On a previous occasion an. opinion was very generally expressed in the House, and by a considerable number of Scotch Members, that these sums of money ought not to be made as grants; because such a course of proceeding encouraged the people interested in the construction of harbours to trust too much to Government aid rather than to their own exertions. The proper principle was for the Government to assist local efforts rather than grant large sums of money for the purpose of making harbours. He believed it would be much better to give assistance, than to encourage the people to lean upon the Government for the creation of harbours.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, if the Scotch Members who had spoken really represented the feeling of the Scotch people in reference to this matter, he would have voted against the grant of this sum of money to Scotland. But he could not for a moment think that they had expressed the wishes of the Scotch people. His reasons for saying so were that, having recently been engaged in an inquiry relating to some herrings sent from Scotland to Holland, at which many Dutch merchants who dealt in herrings were examined, all of them agreed that in Holland the brand was considered as placing a value on the herrings, and that fish sold under such a brand could, as a rule, be relied on. In fact, had the herrings which gave rise to that particular inquiry been branded, litigation would have been entirely avoided, and the merchant would have taken the cargo on the strength of the brand. The fact of such a value being set on the system of branding by the merchants in Holland—and he did not know that it was not equally popular elsewhere—seemed to him to be a reason for retaining it. He was glad to find that the Irish herrings—like everything else Irish— were intelligent and sensitive, and that they felt the insult cast upon them by the Government in neglecting to extend the brand to the Irish fishery. But, as they had left the Irish shore, perhaps it would be premature to consider a proposal to brand them until they returned.

MR. RAMSAY

hoped the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would withdraw the proposal for the disallowance of the Vote. In preferring such a request, it need not be understood that he differed from the hon. Gentleman; but he (Mr. Ramsay) thought time had been wasted by discussing a subject which was opposed, and with the same result, year after year. He hoped the Vote would be allowed to pass, and the Committee enabled to make some progress with the Estimates.

SIR, GEORGE CAMPBELL

did not like the word "protection," and he was very sorry it had been used in that discussion, because it seemed to him that no protection was afforded. The Irish Members were entirely mistaken if they supposed the Scotch people owed anything to the Treasury on account of the brand. Under an arrangement, which was entirely self-supporting, fish-curers in Scotland were allowed to have their exports branded; but they need not do so unless they chose. What was there in the nature of protection in such a system? He hoped the Committee would not be called on to divide against a plan which cost the nation nothing, and which, at the same time, was popular in Scotland. As to the making of harbours, he quite agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury, that grants should not be given to people who did not help themselves, but that assistance should be given to those who tried to do what they could by their own efforts. But sometimes the Government efforts had not been very successful. Anstruther was a case in point. There, an attempt was made to carry out some ambitious scheme in the shape of a harbour of refuge, the result being to spoil the harbour previously existing without providing any useful substitute. Anstruther was an important fishing station, where they wanted not a harbour for ships but for boats. After the Government had spent a very large sum of money in driblets, they had made a harbour into which it was extremely difficult to get in bad weather, and, when inside, a boat would be almost sure either to dash against the pier, or to be swept out by the receding current. Something had been done since, the result of which was that boats could neither get in nor get out in bad weather; but having gone so far—while he agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury in the principle he had laid down—he thought, as a matter of justice, they could not withdraw the grant in such a case until the harbour was made what it ought to be.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, there could be no doubt that the brand was instituted for the purpose of giving a prominence to Scotch herrings which they would not have obtained but for this Government certificate. Some years ago, the fees paid for branding were not sufficient to meet the expenses, and a sum used to be voted yearly to supplement the fees; but, since then, the Scotch herrings had obtained such prominence in the world, as enabled the curers to cure them in sufficient numbers to pay the £6,800, which was the amount charged for branding. But that sum did not meet all the expenses. True, it paid for the Inspectors and individuals employed in affixing the brand. But, beyond that, they had the Fishery Board of Scotland, the most complete and direct instrument for preserving the Scotch Fisheries, costing £2,340. Therefore, to suppose that the Committee would believe that the whole system of branding was self-supporting, would be to draw rather too much on the credulity of hon. Members. He did not at all object to the branding of Scotch herrings, by the moderate expenses of which, and by the Government grant, the greatest benefits had been conferred upon a poor class of the community. If the Government were wise, they would extend the same system to other parts of the Kingdom, by which means herrings caught by the poor people of those localities would become as saleable and marketable in foreign countries as those which now came from Scotland.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he thought the position of the Government on this occasion very inconsistent, and he and others had been continually asking the Government to brand Irish whisky, so as to prevent Scotchmen selling bad Scotch spirit as Irish whisky. But the Government would not allow that to be done even at the expense of the distillers. ["Question!"] This was the Question, because the Government which branded Scotch herrings for the purpose of protecting them, allowed Scotch merchants and manufacturers to send bad spirit into Ireland, and to call it Irish whisky.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member, that the Question before the Committee was the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board.

MR. PARNELL moved to reduce the Vote by £3,000. He did so, because, on referring to the Irish Estimates, he found only £3,900 put down for Irish Fishery purposes, whilst the expenses of the Scotch Fishery Board amounted to £12,900, a difference of about £9,000. So long as the Government refused the brand to the herring fisheries of Ireland, they were doing a serious injustice to the country, preventing the Irish traders from establishing a reputation in the market for Irish herrings in competition with Scotch herrings. As a consequence of such conduct, there was no curing whatever carried on in Ireland. During the Irish herring fishery, when large quantities were caught, steamers came from Liverpool and other places, laid off the fishing ground, received the fish as soon as caught, and carried them to England or Scotland, where they were cured and branded. By these means, it frequently happened that Irish herrings were sold as being Scotch or English. If these fish were cured in Ireland, a great deal of employment would be afforded to people who were much in need of work. The neglect of the Government, in reference to the interests of the fishermen, was one of the most important examples of their general neglect of the material and industrial resources of Ireland. During recent years, the shoals of herrings had increased to a great extent on the Irish coast, and had not, as the hon. Member for the county of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said, gone to the coast of Scotland. That being the case, an important and valuable industry might, with proper assistance in shape of giving the Irish the protection of the brand, be established in Ireland. He knew that very often, herrings, for which there was no market, and for curing which no means existed, were used for manure by farmers. If the Government gave them the brand, it would be of the greatest importance to the fishing populations in Ireland. They did not want direct support, they did not want a grant, nor did they want protection. All that they asked was that the Irish fisheries might be put upon an equality with the Scotch. The Scotch herrings had acquired a reputation by means of the Government brand, and they seemed now able to do without it; but that was not the case with Irish herrings. Ireland was still without that brand; but he firmly believed that, if his country had it, the result would be the setting-up of industries at different points which would contribute materially to the welfare and posterity of the seafaring population along the coasts. No one who had come in contact with the large seafaring population of Ireland would dispute that proposition. Sometimes the fishermen of whom he spoke were comparatively well off for a brief period; but it not unfrequently happened that they suddenly found themselves sinking into a condition of abject poverty. He affirmed that the Members of the Government had neglected their duty with respect to the Irish fisheries in a most remarkable manner; and, as marking his disapproval of the course which they had followed, he moved to reduce the Vote by £3,000. If that sum was no longer of use to the Scotch Members, let it be given to Ireland, and let Irish fish be branded, in order that they might acquire the same reputation as the Scotch herrings enjoyed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £7,848, 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 Fishery Board in Scotland."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he could never consent to act upon the principle on which a reduction of the Vote had just been proposed to the Committee. This money did a great deal of good to a poor population in Scotland. There was exactly the same kind of population in Ireland, who deserved en- couragement in a similar manner. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in his desire to obtain some advantages for the poor Irish fishermen; but he would be no party to reducing a Vote which was productive of nothing but good to Scotch people, merely because there was not exactly the same thing in Ireland. Let the Irish Members endeavour, certainly, to get Irish herrings branded, and to obtain the establishment of a Fishery Board in their own country. In that endeavour he believed they would be aided by the Scotch Members, and he had no doubt that if they put their shoulders to the wheel, and were united, they would realize what they desired; but he would think it wrong to reduce the Vote simply because of the reasons which had been stated by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not deem it his duty to persevere with his Motion for a reduction of the Vote. There was one particular point in connection with this matter which he desired to clear up. The Scotch system of branding was no longer a charge on the State. The sum by which his hon. Friend would reduce the amount now proposed to be voted, was contributed to the State through the fees paid to the branders. He quite agreed that it would be advantageous if the branding of herrings were extended to Ireland, and he had no doubt that the Scotch Members would support their Irish Brethren in this matter, as in everything that was fair their Irish Brethren had supported them; but he thought that the best interests of both countries would be consulted by not objecting to the Vote at present. He quite agreed, however, as he had indicated, with the reasons which had actuated the hon. Member for Meath in the course he had taken.

MR. YEAMAN

said, he did not see why the same justice should not be done to the Irish fisheries as had been done in the case of the Scotch. Let a fair trial be made by sending two or three inspecting officers to the different stations in Ireland while the fishing was going on. The officers could supply the curers at those stations with rules and regulations in regard to the curing of fish, and they could mark out for them the exact size of barrels to use. The expense of doing this would be but small, and the people of Ireland would be enabled to prosecute a branch of industry which he believed would be of great value and advantage to them. It would only be right, in his opinion, to place the Irish fisheries on the same footing as those in Scotland; and he had no doubt that if that were done there would be found to be a surplus in connection with branding in Ireland as there was at present in Scotland. With regard to the question of harbours, he quite disapproved of large grants being given by the Treasury for the erection of fishing harbours at Wick, Anstruther, or other places. But the Government had undertaken certain engagements; they had expended something like £19,000 upon one particular harbour. At the same time it would be manifestly unfair for them to refuse to fulfil their obligations with the authorities in Anstruther. As to Wick Harbour, he did not know how many thousands of pounds had been expended upon it; but it was now, if not a complete wreck, at least a wreck to a very considerable extent. These, however, were not harbours of refuge in the proper sense of that term, as the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs seemed to suppose, but simply harbours for the purpose of protecting fishing boats when they came in from sea, and their support should be the result of the native industry of the people. He objected very much to any mere reduction of the Vote. If there were to be any diminution under this head of the Estimates, let it take the form of doing away with this particular grant altogether; but he believed that, even if it were done away with, the trade in Scotland would prove in future as successful and as prosperous as it was at the present time.

MR. PARNELL

desired to advert for a moment to the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). His hon. Friend had said that they must not take away this Vote from Scotland because they desired a similar grant for Ireland. He could not have ventured to suggest that it should be taken away from Scotland, had not the Scotch Members themselves distinctly told the Committee that they did not want it. ["No, no!"] On this occasion, and on several previous occasions, the Scotch Members had informed the Committee that branding was a disadvantge to their country. ["No, no!"] No! Why, the hon. Member who first drew attention to this matter to-night distinctly stated that the brand was an injury to Scotch fish; that those fish had now acquired a sufficient reputation, that the present branding system was not required, and that, therefore, it was not necessary it should be any longer kept up. He had taken the hon. Member at his word, and he had said—"Give to us this money which you do not require for yourselves, and let us spend it for the purpose of improving our fisheries." That, surely, was a sensible proposition. He asked that money, not needed in Scotland, should be given to Ireland, in order that Irish herrings might acquire the reputation in the markets of Europe which Scotch herrings now possessed, and that by the same means. This, he repeated, was an intelligible proposal, and did not at all partake of the nature which the hon. Member for Galway had attributed to it. He did not grudge the money to Scotland, but the Scotch Members said that Scotland did not want it. Ireland did, and he should press his Motion to a division.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, previous divisions had shown whether the Scotch Members desired this money or not. It was perfect error for his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to say that those hon. Gentlemen wished that this grant or other grants of a similar character should be withdrawn. Over and over again the hon. Members referred to had voted in favour of their maintenance. No doubt, there might have been one or two exceptions. There was, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) who first brought up the question on the ground that the existing state of matters was an interference with free trade. That right hon. Gentleman introduced the subject several years ago; there was a division upon it then, there had been divisions since; and the Scotch Members then, as now, would be found to have voted in favour of the grant. Not only so, but to talk of the Scotch Members giving Ireland this Vote was absurd. What power had the Scotch Members to give this or any other money to Ireland? To say that those hon. Members had any such power was simply to trifle with the question. The Scotch Representatives had no more authority over the £3,000 than his hon. Friend the Member for Meath himself. The Vote must be proposed by the Government, and hon. Members might, if they liked, protest against it; but he thought they would be adopting a very foolish policy if they did so. The policy which the Irish Members had always followed was to support these grants to Scotland, while endeavouring to get similar grants for Ireland. They had never introduced the principle of cutting down the advantages which were given to a weaker portion of the Kingdom—Scotland—in order to obtain that which they desired for themselves. Those advantages might possibly be cut down speedily enough, if the course which certain hon. Members recommended were acted upon. England governed Scotland, as well as Ireland, and he thought it would be most unwise to inferfere with the few advantages which the unity of Scotch Members had enabled them to attain and to retain.

MR. GRAY

said, it did not appear to be generally recognized that the only way in which the opinion of the Committee could be tested on this question was by moving a reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said that the matter had been voted on again and again. In that case, the opinion of the Committee must have been taken on a similar question to that which was now before it—namely, on a proposed reduction of the Vote. No hon. Member could of himself propose a substantive Vote of money; the proposition must come from the Government. It was not from any hostility to a particular grant being given to Scotland, but because of a desire to protest against the inequality of the present system, that it was now sought to test the opinion of the Committee. If the grant were useful for Scotland, a similar grant would be useful for Ireland. If it were not useful for Scotland, what harm would be done to that country by abolishing it? He was astonished that the discussion should have reached its present stage without a single Member of the Government having said a word on the subject. He should like to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury an answer to two questions—If this were a useful expenditure of public money in regard to Scotland, how could the exclusion of Ireland from a similar advantage be justified? If it were a useless expenditure with respect to Scotland, how could its continuance be justified?

MR. RAMSAY

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken could not have heard the whole of the discussion. There had been an expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench on the question of branding. The Committee had now been debating one and the same Vote for an hour and 20 minutes, and he thought that during that period there had been a waste of time such as he had never before witnessed in the House. He would point out to those who so very frequently addressed the Committee, that one of the effects of their system of criticizing the Estimates was to prevent hon. Members from making objections on points that should really be raised in discussing the Votes. For himself, he had been restrained from expressions of opinion on different items solely by the time which had been occupied by preceding discussions.

MR. GRAY

thought the Committee had listened to four or five speeches that evening from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who protested against a waste of time. He (Mr. Gray) himself had only occupied a few minutes; and, that being so, the Committee could judge as to who had wasted time. The hon. Gentleman had said that a statement on the subject under consideration had been made from the Treasury Bench. It was not on the general question of branding that he desired an expression, of opinion from the Government. The point was one of principle—why should that which was conceded to Scotland not also be given to Ireland? and it was upon that point he should like to hear something from the Treasury Bench.

MR. KING-HARMAN

remarked that this question of branding was one of the greatest importance to Ireland. The trading portions of the community in that country were deeply interested in it, and he hoped that due consideration would be given to it by Her Majesty's Government.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the only reason why he had not risen sooner to notice the remarks of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland was, that it ap- peared to him they had been discussing a Vote which did not apply to Ireland at all. The Vote had simply to do with the branding of Scotch herrings, and the question was whether a sum of money should be placed in the Estimates in connection with that object. Reference had been made to previous divisions on the subject. Previous divisions had certainly been taken; but those divisions had not been as to whether this grant should be extended to Ireland, but as to whether the Scotch Members wished that it should be continued for their own country. That was the issue on which discussions had arisen. When they came to the case of Ireland on its own merits, he should be prepared to express an opinion on the part of the Government; but on what was a purely Scotch question and a purely Scotch Vote, he had already given his opinions to the Committee at some length. He confessed that he failed to see how the question of a Vote which could not, by any reduction, be applied to Ireland, could properly be brought into the present discussion. Let the matter be raised in a practical form, and at a proper time, and he should then be prepared to state his views upon it.

MR. MELDON

said, he could not agree with the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that the question, as connected with Ireland, had not been raised on this occasion in a practical form. He thought it had been raised by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in a very practical form. They had heard a good deal in that House about levelling up and levelling down. He was in favour, as a rule, of levelling up; but when attempts in that direction failed, he was inclined to adopt the principle of level ling down. That being so, he thanked his hon. Friend who represented Meath for having raised the question in the manner he had done. The fact that herrings were branded for Scotland and not for Ireland had an injurious effect upon the Irish article in distant markets. The Government brand was frequently regarded as the only test, and it was the want of it which excluded the sale of Irish herrings altogether in some of these markets. In addition to that, it was an obvious injustice that a system which existed in Scotland, and which the people of Ireland desired, should not be extended to the latter country. The Scotch Members said, however, that the branding system was more injurious than beneficial to the trade in. Scotland, and that their herrings had acquired such a reputation that they did not wish the brand continued. But why not give the brand to Ireland, where it was desiderated, in order that Irish herrings might have a chance of competing fairly in distant markets? For years the Irish Members had been fighting, in order, if possible, to obtain some relief and consideration with respect to the fishery laws in their own country; but they had, so far, been wholly unsuccessful. It was obvious, however, that there ought not to be protection given to one part of the Kingdom and not to another. The subject had now been brought before the Committee in the most practical way, and he could not agree with the hon. Baronet who preceded him—that the question of Irish branding had nothing whatever to do with the Vote under discussion. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), that hon. Gentleman was always ready, whenever the matter of refusing a Vote for Ireland was concerned, to waste as much time as possible; but he protested against the assertion that time was lost or wasted in any way when hon. Members raised a question like the present, involving a great principle. He had been in attendance during the greater part of the evening. He had derived a good deal of benefit from the discussion which had taken place, and he did not think that one moment of the time of the Committee had been uselessly employed.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, that in 1874 a Motion was carried by a majority of 2 in favour of affording support to the Irish fisheries, and the result was that the Reproductive Loan Fund, which was used for various useful purposes, was handed over to the Commissioners for the purpose of encouraging the fisheries of Ireland. What had been the result? It had been a loan, not for the purpose of the fisheries, but to enable broken-down tenants to pay their rents. It was asked why did they not move a Vote of money to be given for the branding of herrings in Ireland? The reason was they had got no herrings to brand. They all knew very well that the herrings had abandoned the Irish coast, and the idea of taking from Scotland the fees it received, because they had herrings and Ireland had not, was a most extraordinary one. He, for one, would be no party to the doctrine that Scotland should be deprived of what she got. He would rather be in favour of increasing it; and, when he found Ireland had got herrings to brand, he would join in asking the Government to give them a grant.

MR. PARNELL

protested against the assumption of the Scotch Members, that they were the only persons entitled to speak on that subject. It would be within the knowledge of everybody who had attended this evening, that by far the larger portion of the time of the Committee had been taken up by the Scotch Members, who had made speeches of a most stupid character, in a language which nobody could understand.

MR. PULESTON rose to Order, and submitted that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had no right to use such language towards the Scotch Members.

THE CHAIRMAN

I did not understand the hon. Member for Meath to attribute any motives; but the expression he has used with regard to the pronunciation of the Scotch Members appears to be somewhat irregular.

MR. PARNELL

had merely said he could not understand their language, and before the next Scotch discussion came on, he would endeavour to learn it.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, not a single word had been uttered which any hon. Member of the House could not understand.

MR. PARNELL

promised, by that time next year to remove any further cause of offence, by living such a time in Scotland that he would be able to learn the language. But they were now discussing the Vote for the branding of Scotch herrings, and the Government had been asked to give the Committee some reason why such a Vote should be continued; but the Government had neither told them the Vote was right or wrong. The Secretary to the Treasury had said he could give no reasons at all for the Vote; and, under those circumstances, the Committee was entitled to reject it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been present during the whole of the discussion, but he was, apparently, asleep, and he had not told them why if Scotland was to have this money, a similar Vote should not be made to Ireland. He protested against this system of partial legislation.

MR. SULLIVAN

pointed out the injustice and impolicy of arraying Scotland against Ireland in this matter. Because Ireland did not receive a similar Vote, that was no reason why they should take the money away from Scotland. He had been sent into the House from Ireland to pursue towards the people of this country a policy of conciliation, and the kinder and wiser course was to encourage every just and beneficent measure for the fishermen of Scotland, rather than to pursue the ill-natured policy of endeavouring to deprive Scotland of the Vote simply because Ireland had not got a similar one.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, the Scotch fishermen had no right to Irish and English money, when the Scotch Members refused to grant English, Irish, and Scotch money to the Irish fishermen. He, as an Irish Member, could not sit still and see such a thing done. What he had been looking for during the last hour was for some of the Scotch Members to get up and say—"Do not touch our privilege, and when you ask for a similar Vote for Ireland we will support you." With the exception of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Yeaman), no such expression of intention had fallen from the Scotch Members; and he, therefore, thought his hon. Friend was correct in the course he was pursuing in objecting to this Vote. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had preserved a suspicious silence, and their course was perfectly plain. As they could not now bring forward a direct proposal for a grant of this kind for Ireland, the only way they had to express their dissatisfaction at the way they were being treated was by moving the Amendment. Allusion had been made to the Reproductive Loan Fund, and as regarded that, he wished to say that it was not English and Scotch money, but it was wholly Irish money.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he should not take the hon. Member who had just sat down as his model, nor did he want a character from him amongst his constituents. He was in the habit, whenever he got up to address the House, not of advising, but of insulting, hon. Members by his personally offensive observations. Now, with regard to the Reproductive Loan Fund, the hon. Member showed his ignorance by saying it was Irish money. It was the money of the charitable and philanthropic people of England, got up at a time when Ireland was suffering great distress, and what remained of the sum not required was vested in trustees for public purposes in Ireland. Not a single farthing of the money originally belonged to the Irish people. So much for the hon. Member's knowledge of the history of that matter. Now, as to the question before the Committee, he repeated there was no injustice in this grant being made to Scotland, and it was only delaying and trifling with the time of hon. Members to object to it, because Ireland had no substantial grievance regarding it. The objection which had been raised was simply for the purpose of preventing the Business of the House being carried on, and he, as an Irish Member, had no hesitation in expressing that opinion.

THE CHAIRMAN

The discussion seems to be turning away from the particular subject before the Committee.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the omission of this Vote had been moved on the express ground that the money was not wished for by the Scotch Members.

MR. PARNELL

begged to say that he had not moved his Amendment merely on the ground that the Vote was not wished for by the Scotch Members, but he had given other grounds; though, as far as they had expressed themselves, the Scotch Members had distinctly said the Vote was not useful to them.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, it was in the recollection of the House that the distinct and only ground upon which it was proposed not to grant this money was because it was not appreciated in Scotland, and the Scotch Members did not wish it to be continued. The hon. Member distinctly stated that if the Scotch Members had desired the Vote to be continued, he would not have moved its rejection. Now, it was perfectly clear the Scotch Members did want the Vote, and, therefore, the hon. Member ought not to press his opposition.

MR. GRAY

considered the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had made a very strong and undeserved attack upon the Irish Mem- bers who opposed this Vote. There was no desire on his part, or that of any other Irish Member, to waste the time of the Committee. They had raised a perfectly legitimate issue, and they had asked the Government to pronounce upon it, and the Secretary to the Treasury had told them he would be prepared to give an answer, if the point was raised on the Irish Votes. Now, the hon. Baronet must be aware that the Rules of the House would not allow them to raise it on the Irish Votes. The right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland was present, yet he had given no expression of opinion on the subject; and, if there had been any waste of time, it was due to the fact that, having raised a perfectly legitimate issue in a fair manner, they had received no answer. He therefore protested against the insinuations which had been made by the hon. Member.

MR. MELDON

merely wished to add one word, which was that this question had been persistently and earnestly raised every year since 1874, when they succeeded, by a majority of two, in establishing the principle that some help ought to be given to the Irish fisheries. This disposed of any charges which might be made against their motives.

Question put.

The Committee divided; Ayes 10; Noes 142: Majority 132.—(Div. List, No. 149.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.