Commons Sitting of 10 March 1880

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—Co-operative Store [No. 113]; Public Accounts [No. 113]; Contagious Diseases Acts [No. 114].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—War in South Africa (Vote of Credit) (Supplementary) £1,225,200—Committee R.P. Resolutions [March 8] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£8,322,177 Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Beading—Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual)* [106]; Eating of Machinery* [108]; Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices (No. 2) [107].
Second Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* [91]; South Western (of London) District Post Office [90]; Consolidated Fund (No. 1).
Committee—Report—Municipal Corporations (Property Qualification Abolition)* [43]; India Stock (Powers of Attorney)* [93]; East India Loan (East Indian Railway Debentures)* [99]; Common Law Procedure]and Judicature Acts Amendment* [80]; Valuation (Metropolis) Act (1869) Amendment [98].
Considered as amended—Blind and Deaf Mute Children [41].
Third Reading—Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) [34], and passed.
Withdrawn—Vaccination [9]; Patents for Inventions [92]; Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment [100]; Commons Act (1876) Amendment* [61].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. RAIKESstated that the object of the Resolution he was about to move?was to enable Private Bills to be taken up in the next Parliament in the stage in which the present would leave them. There might, for instance, be a large and important Bill before a Select Committee which must require consideration for six or seven days, and would not have been disposed of before the Prorogation. If some Resolution of this kind were not passed, all the work, in the instance he had mentioned, would, if undertaken now by a Committee, have to be gone through again. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be a matter of convenience to ask the House to adopt this Resolution, and the Private Bill Committees could then exercise their own discretion as to what Bills they thought they would be able to get through, and what work it would be impossible to complete. They could then report accordingly to the House.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That in case the Committee on any Private Bill, or Group of such Bills, shall report their opinion to the House, that any Bill or Bills not yet considered by them should not be entered upon, or that the consideration of any Bill already partly considered should not be proceeded
  742
  with, all further proceedings upon such Bills shall be suspended during the present Session."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means,)
  put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  VACCINATION BILL— [BILL 9.]
  (Dr. Cameron, Earl Percy, Mr. Lyon Playfair, Dr. Lush, Dr. Ward.)
  VACCINATION BILL— [BILL 9.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. CAMERON, in moving that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged, said, he believed that a discussion on the Bill at the present moment would be productive of very small effect. The country was not in a frame of mind to care much about the question, and the House was not in a condition to pay much attention to its provisions. Besides, the Local Government Board had thought fit to institute some experiments since he brought the question forward, to see how far the provisions of the Bill would work, and the result of them could be considered at a future time. He now begged to move that the Order be discharged.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
(Mr. Anderson, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Alexander Brown.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.

  [BILL 92.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he considered it exceedingly desirable, notwithstanding the short period which the Session had to last, to move the second reading of this Bill, because he thought it well to have certain views placed before the House now, as it was quite possible one might not have another opportunity of bringing these views forward. They were all going into the battle, and none knew what the result of that battle might be, regarding any one of them. The measure he proposed was most absolutely necessary for the well-being of the country. Their manufactures had been declining for some time. Other countries had been treading very fast upon their heels, and not only overtaking them,

  743
  but in some cases passing before them. A great deal of this was owing to the much greater liberality shown in other countries to patentees, and the much greater freedom with which they could obtain protection for their discoveries. A cheap and liberal Patent Law would stimulate inventive genius in a way that they had hitherto failed to do. Every Session they had had Patent Law Amendment Bills before them. The Government had brought in a number of these. While they had been successively improved, the second being better than the first, and the third better than the second, they failed to grasp the difficulties of the position, and the real need of the manufacturers of the country to have a thoroughly liberal Patent Law. The provisions of all the Government Bills had treated inventors and patentees as persons who ought to be checked and kept in order, and who ought to get as little benefit as possible from their inventions. Not only had they kept up the charges for patents very much higher than they ought to be; but where they had attempted to reduce them, the reductions they proposed were altogether insufficient to put the Patent Law here on anything like the same basis that it was in other countries. He could give the rates at which patents were obtained in many other countries; but he would only trouble the House with the rates paid in those countries which were their immediate competitors, and which were damaging them most. In Germany, for instance, an inventor could get a patent for 80s. Three years afterwards he had to pay up to £16 10s.; after seven years, his payment would have reached £71 10s.; and at the end of 12 years he had paid £169 10s. This was the dearest of all the Patent Laws except their own. The House would observe, however, that the heavy cost was thrown on the later stages. The cost at the earlier stages was extremely small. In Belgium, which was one of their most pressing competitors, and was treading fast on their heels, an inventor could obtain a patent for 8s. At the end of three years he had to pay £4, at the end of seven years £14, and by the end of 12 years he would only have paid £36 8s. altogether. The United States was still more liberal. In America an inventor could get a patent for 35 dollars—that was, £7—and this was all he would have paid at the
  744
  end of 12 years. In Great Britain, on the other hand, even were the proposals of the Government agreed to, £12 10s. would have to be paid by an inventor in the initial stage. At the end of the third year, before it was possible for anybody to get any benefit from it, another payment—no less than £50—had to be made. By the end of the seven years the unfortunate patentee, who had barely time to get anything out of his invention, would actually have expended in Government charges £162 10s.; and at the end of 12 years, even under the proposed Government reductions, he would have paid £262 10 s. This operated most prejudicially on poor inventors. But, worse than that, the Government proposed to compel a man to publish all the particulars of his patent before he knew whether he would get a patent or not. There was nothing more likely than this to crush patentees, and to drive them out of the country. This proposal was in itself enough to condemn the last Government Bill, and had prevented it ever receiving any encouragement or favour in the House. A patentee incurred endless expense in experiments in testing everything, and in getting an invention before the public, so that it was absolutely impossible to pay high patent charges in the earlier stages. The Bill which he (Mr. Anderson) had introduced modified the charges very much, bringing down the initial charge of a patent to £10, which was still a great deal higher rate than was paid in America or Belgium. He proposed to abolish all further payment at the third year, and only at the end of the seventh to charge £25, and at the end of the fourteenth £50. But, in truth, patentees did not so much object to high charges in the later stages, but the abolition of the third year's payment and the reduction of the initial charges were imperative. Another proposal of the Bill was to remedy the bad management of the Patent Office. In place of unpaid Commissioners, who did not do the work, the Bill proposed that there should be three paid Commissioners. No unpaid work was likely to be well done. Many hon. Members, even of this House, probably because they were not paid for the work, went away and did not do it. In business, unpaid work was certainly bad work, and the Patent Office proved, this. The work was badly done, the Office was badly organized, and

  745
  it would never be better until it was banded over to paid Commissioners. That, and the reduction of the fees for patents, and the extension of the duration of a patent from 14 to 21 years, were the reforms which were demanded by inventors. The Government had conceded the necessity of an extension of the time. He would not dwell further on that than to say that he thought the extension should apply equally to patents that were now running, so that a patent should not be cut off when it came to the end of the 14 years, by the fact that at the time it was got the law did not allow a further period. These were all the provisions of this Bill, and he hoped the House would give a second reading to it, in order to affirm the principle that the Law of Patents should be so modified that it would to the utmost stimulate the inventive genius of the country, so as to enable their manufacturing industry to keep its place, or regain what it had lost—for it had lost a good deal. To retrieve that place two things were wanted—the one a liberal Patent Law, so that they might have the benefit of the best possible machinery and appliances; and the other, proper technical education to their work-people, so that they might be able to bring the utmost skill to bear upon their manufactures. He hoped to see these two things secured by the House. This Bill, if adopted, would settle the question of patent legislation for a great many years to come. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. FRESHFIELDwould not say that he objected to the Bill; but he contended that no good would result by reading it a second time, considering the present condition of the House. The subject was one which deserved a great deal more consideration and discussion than it could possibly receive now; and he thought it would be a great misfortune if the principle of the measure were supposed to be approved by Parliament. Under the circumstances, the Order ought to be discharged.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)trusted the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill would not press the second reading to a divi-
  746
  sion. The matter was one of the greatest possible importance; and if it was to receive consideration at all, it ought to be at the hands of a fuller House than that which they had that day. He had read the hon. Gentleman's Bill with considerable care. In the first place, the hon. Member proposed to abolish the present Commissioners, and to substitute in their place paid Commissioners, one of whom would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and the rest by the Board of Trade. He (the Attorney General) had not heard that there had been any complaint as to the manner in which the present Commissioners of Patents had performed their duties. There might be complaint of the working of the present system, that too many patents were granted, that the fees were too high, and that inventive industry would be encouraged if they were lower; but he had not understood that there was any complaint as to the way in which the Commissioners performed their duties. The question had been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government for some time, and there had been no reluctance shown on their part to improve the Patent Laws, if they could be improved. Session after Session a Bill had been introduced by the Government. There was one last Session, and he believed if it had been improved in the direction proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), it would have been an excellent Bill. It was not the fault of the Government that it had not been passed. There was other Business which the House thought of more importance, and, in the circumstances, it could not be got through. The Government had, how-over, come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to have paid Commissioners, and, therefore, it was impossible for him, as representing the Government, to accept the second reading of a Bill amongst whose provisions this proposal stood. The Bill went on to propose that Letters Patent should be granted for a period of 21 years. No doubt, there had been a proposition in the Government Bill to a similar effect; but, after mature consideration, he could not, without very considerable discussion, and without gathering the opinion of a full House of hon. Members thoroughly acquainted with this important subject, sanction any Bill which contained any such provision as

  747
  this. Another provision of the Bill was that the stamp duties should be very considerably reduced. That was an alteration to which he could not consent without consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whatever might be said for reductions being made in the fees in the earlier stages of patents, there was no doubt that, under the present system, patents were granted for all kinds of frivolous and ridiculous ideas. If hon. Gentlemen only saw the extraordinary applications which were made to the Law Officers of the Patent Office, they would be filled with wonder at the absurd notions which entered into the heads of people who called themselves inventors. For these reasons, he could not support the second reading of this Bill. He knew of nothing of more importance than that they should have a good system of Patent Law. It would be a great encouragement to invention, and the manufacturing interests of this country would reap from that an enormous benefit. But, just because of this, it seemed to him this was a subject which should be brought forward by the Government. The Government had shown the disposition to do this Session after Session, and it was not their fault if none of them had passed. There was a Bill which he had hoped to introduce this Session. The Session, it appeared, was about to come to a speedy termination, and, in certain respects, an unexpected termination. He should do his utmost, if the present Government was in power when Parliament again assembled, as in all probability they would be, to modify that Bill as far as possible in the desired direction, and, if it passed, he believed it would do much good.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had listened to the remarks of the hon. and learned Attorney General with much satisfaction. He had objected to the Bill which was brought forward being proceeded with late at night. He also condemned the extension of the term to 21 years, as that period would tend to exclude manufacturers and others from the benefit of inventions. He thought it would be well to have some alteration in the machinery of the Office; but whether the Commissioners should be paid or not he would not give an opinion upon. He also thought that the fees in the earlier stages should be reduced. It certainly would be a great mistake to read the Bill a second time
  748
  now, as it would create the erroneous impression that it was the deliberate opinion of the House. This House could not give a deliberate opinion on anything for the remainder of its life. If he was in the new Parliament, he would support the views on this question enunciated by the Attorney General.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he gave the Government credit for many good intentions, which, however, they had never given effect to. An endeavour had been made to throw the blame of that upon the House; but he held the House had a right to hold the Government responsible, when certain home questions were pressing for solution, for the non-fulfilment of their undertakings. He had no doubt that if the Government had brought in a Bill on the moderate lines indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and dealing with the points to which he had so clearly called attention, then the Bill would have been fairly and fully considered. But there had been no disposition on the part of the Government to lay the Bill before the House. If they chose to bring such a Bill on late at night, they might succeed in passing it without discussion; but the House was entlitled to a full discussion, and could not accept any such Bill without it. He joined with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the hope that when the new Parliament assembled this question would be taken up and treated with the consideration it deserved; but, with all his admiration for the ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not hope that the Bill would be in his charge; but if that should be the case, he hoped that the undertaking given to-day would be followed by the introduction of a Patent Law giving general satisfaction.
  MR. GREGORYthought no Bill would be satisfactory which did not take into account the recommendations of the Select Committee which reported on the question some few years ago. He thought power might be given to patentees to grant licences to other persons for the manufacture of their inventions.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that the subject was of the greatest importance, and as it was impossible that it could receive adequate discussion in the present condition of the House, he would move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day month.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR.ANDERSONsaid, that certain hon. Members had based their objections to the second reading of the Bill mainly on the state of the House and the impossibility of having a full discussion on anything. But if that objection applied to this Bill, it applied to every other; and he hoped the Government would take it into consideration, and would not bring forward any important Government Bills, and ask an attenuated House to read them. If they were not to discuss any more important Bills, they might as well go home to their constituencies at once. The moving of the second reading of this Bill had been useful, if only in getting the views of the Attorney General more distinctly stated than they ever were before. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not heard any complaints about the Patent Office, he must have shut his ears. There was a prolonged discussion last year in the Society of Arts regarding the deficiencies of the Patent Office, where there was no sufficient register, and where there was a great want of proper organization. He had introduced this Bill, because the successive Bills of the Government had been bad Bills. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman had made improvements upon every succeeding one; but they had never been satisfactory, because they looked upon inventors and patentees as malefactors, who must be looked after and checked. It was said that ridiculous things were patented. But if the fees were paid, this did no harm to anybody except the patentees themselves. The interest of inventors and the public were the same and that was that the inventive genius of the country should be stimulated to the utmost. The principles of this Bill were those which inventors agreed should be embraced in the Government Bill. He was much pleased with what the Attorney General had said about reducing the charges for patents in the initial stages. It was because the Government Bill had not proposed to reduce the charges at the initial stages that he had brought forward this Bill. The hon.
  750
  and learned Gentleman still proposed a considerable charge at the end of the third year; but this was most unfair, and never would be satisfactory, as an inventor could not by that time get much benefit from his invention. Inventors would not have the same objection to maintaining considerable charges at the later stages. There ought to be no charge of any magnitude prior to the seventh year, so that the inventor might have a chance of having some benefit from his patent before he was called on to pay a large amount on account of it. None of the Government Bills had dealt with inventors in a sufficiently liberal spirit. For this reason he had brought forward this Bill, but there was no hope of passing it at this period of the Session. Whether he would have opportunity to introduce it in any other, was a very uncertain thing. Ho was glad, however, that the Attorney General had shown a more liberal spirit in his speech than he had before, and there was some hope that when the Government Bill he promised in the next Session did come forward, it would be an improvement on all the preceding ones. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted it to be satisfactory, it must go in the direction of this Bill. He would not divide the House upon it, as in the then state of the House the division would be a most unsatisfactory one.
  MR. MUNDELLAregretted that he had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General; but he had no idea that the Bill would have come on so soon, as it stood low down in the Paper. He had, himself, tried in two Parliaments to pass a reasonable measure, and ho had served upon a Committee which had sat to consider the Patent question. That Committee made a most important Report as to the amendments required in the Patent Laws. Another Parliament was now about to be dissolved, and nothing whatever had been done with this Patent question. He believed that when the question came to be better understood, it would be found that there was no more important question affecting our manufacturing industry. He could answer for it himself that Englishmen had again and again, in the last 10 years, left this country with their inventions, solely because they had not the means to patent them here; and if they ven-

  751
  tured to put them in the hands of a capitalist, they would leave themselves at his mercy. Why, last year he received a letter from a very able and a very superior man, who thanked him for the part he had taken in trying to amend the Patent Laws, and said—"I am going with my inventions to a country where I shall get protection at a reasonable price." He was going to America. He (Mr. Mundella) knew that since then that man had been very successful as an inventor. He sold one of his inventions, and with the proceeds he took out patents in the United States. In England the English workman was discouraged on all hands by the Patent Laws. When he (Mr. Mundella) was in active business himself, he was the proprietor of at least 20 patents, and in most of them he was associated with working men. He had paid a working man as much as £2,000 or £3,000 for his share of patents. One of the inventions practically revolutionized the business in which he was engaged. He, in conjunction with the senior Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley), paid several thousand pounds to a working man whom they took into partnership. He had seen scores of workmen who had been sacrificed and soured because they were unable to bring out their inventions to advantage, and they had, therefore, become practically a dead letter. What was wanted was a cheap and simple Patent Law, and it was an absolute necessity, if they were to maintain the superiority of the manufactures of this country. He believed that it was in very rare cases indeed that the manufacturer himself was an inventor. In all his experience in connection with one of the largest industries of the country, and one which had given the largest scope to the exercise of mechanical ingenuity, he had never known but two instances in which the manufacturer himself had been an inventor. In nearly every case it was the man who stood before the loom and who brought his brains to work upon the loom who had been the means of improving it, and to deny him a fair share of proprietary right in his own inventions was to deal very hardly with him. He had known instances where an inventor put his little invention in a box and ran across to France, where he could dispose of it, after securing a patent for it at a cost of £2. As a rule, a work-
  752
  man generally spent the last of his hoard in perfecting his invention. He wanted a patent, and the cost of that patent was the first thing to entail a difficulty. He knew that it was hopeless to discuss these questions at that time of the day, at the end of an expiring Parliament. He had stood up in that House for the last 10 years urging the House to take the matter in hand, and he had seconded the Motion for the appointment of the original Committee that sat on the Patent Laws. He believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had brought in four or five Bills of his own, and he was bound to say that every succeeding one was a little better than its predecessor. The first was as bad as it could be, but the second was a little better; and they improved as they went on. The hon. and learned Gentleman had now made a speech that was a little more liberal than anything that had preceded it; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman occupied his present position in May, although he (Mr. Mundella) hoped he would be disappointed in his expectations, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring in a Patent Bill that would stimulate the inventiveness of the workmen of the country and give them an opportunity of protecting their inventions and bringing them before the public when they were perfected. By the permission of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, he begged to move that the Order be discharged.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was an Amendment already before the House, and it must be withdrawn before any other Amendment could be put.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 100.]
(Mr. Plunket, Sir Arthur Guinness, Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Kavanagh.)
IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 100.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. PLUNKET, in moving that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged, explained, that after consulting with his hon. Friends, whose names appeared on the back of the Bill,

  753
  he had come to the conclusion that it would not be for the convenience of the House, and certainly it would not be in the interests of their proposals, that they should attempt to take a division upon the question at present. But he desired to call the attention of the House to the real character of the proposals of the Bill of which he had charge, because he thought that there was a good deal of misapprehension abroad on the subject. Some of the opposition which was threatened to it in that House was, he could not help thinking, threatened under some degree of misapprehension, and therefore he trusted that when a new House of Commons was returned, and, in the words of the Irish poet, "beaming all over with smiles," the proposals of this Bill, which would certainly be brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity in a new Parliament, might have a better time of it in all its stages than the present measure had had in its initial stages during the present Session. He desired now very briefly to call attention to the true character of the measure. It contained a very modest proposal with the object of undoing a great wrong which had been inflicted upon certain persons. He wished to say that, although the title of the Bill was the Irish Church Act Amendment Bill, it did not in any way challenge any of the general principles contained in the Irish Church Act of 1869, or propose directly or indirectly to re-endow the Irish Church. Its object was simply to give redress to certain individuals, clergymen of that Church, who, in his opinion, and he believed in the opinion of every fair and honest man who had considered this question, sustained a grievous wrong and injury when the Irish Church Act came suddenly upon them. He wished further to say that the Bill applied only to certain clergymen who were either minor incumbents or curates in the Irish Church on the 1st day of January, 1871. It applied only to those who, under the Irish Church Act, had already received annuities calculated at a less amount than £250 a-year. Therefore, while it excluded every clergyman who might have come into the Irish Church since the 1st of January, 1871, and every clergyman who had received a greater annuity than £250 a-year, it included all the clergy under the Irish Church Act, who were, on the 1st of January, 1871,
  754
  either incumbents or curates of the Irish Church. Now, the principle upon which the Bill was founded was a very small one, and it was this—the average income of the incumbents of the Irish Church previous to disestablishment had been ascertained to have been something over £250 a-year, and there were in the Irish Church at the time of disestablishment 550 incumbents whose means were under that sum. All these men had accepted these small incumbencies with the prospect of having their incomes augmented to £200 a-year at least, through the operation of certain Acts which had been passed for the purpose of augmenting small incumbencies in Ireland. But, besides that, they had a prospect of other benefits, which would bring their incomes up to £250 a-year. There was also a large number of curates, all of whom had entered the service of the Irish Church with the prospect of obtaining preferment. It must be remembered that as the patronage of almost all benefices in Ireland was in the hands of the Bishops, it had become the established custom that all the Clergy, with very few exceptions, should obtain promotion. The Irish Church Act came suddenly upon them, and put an end to the prospects of the minor incumbents, without giving them any compensation whatever. This was the main contention of the Bill. But besides that main contention, these minor incumbents and curates alleged that there were funds in the hands of the Irish Church Commissioners on which they had a special claim. This fund was the result of a special tax on the wealthier incumbents for the augmentation of the salaries of their poorer brethren, and was naturally regarded by the minor incumbents as belonging to themselves. It was estimated as amounting to between £250,000 and £300,000. This claim was put forward on general grounds by the incumbents, and especially because it had not been noticed or acknowledged by the Irish Church Commissioners. The exact amount of the money which was the subject of this claim had been marked for the purposes of it, and although he could not state the precise amount, it could be easily ascertained. Calculations had been made by competent authorities, who had an opportunity of investigating the matter, and he believed that it would be found the whole sum required to compensate these gentlemen

  755
  would not exceed £300,000, and he did not believe it would cost more than £250,000. He wished it to be distinctly understood that this claim was put forward to redress personal wrongs, and was in no way intended as a re-endowment of the Church, either directly or indirectly. The effect of the disendowment had been very heavy upon those whom the Bill sought to assist, and the matter was one of urgency, inasmuch as they had already devoted some of the Church Surplus to other matters, and they had been informed that a scheme for dealing with the whole of it would, before long, be submitted. He wished, however, in dealing with the question, to deal with each question upon its merits, and to see that, as under the old arrangements, the stipends of these clergymen should be raised to £250 a-year. They would, therefore, have to find out what the present income of each was, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the amount to be added, and he had provided in the Bill that in each case the clergyman should apply to the Commissioners, state his ease, and prove it to their satisfaction, and only to the extent of his case would he get anything whatever. Again, whatever money he received would not go to the Church, but simply to redress his personal wrongs. Anyone who knew what had happened in Ireland since the passing of the Church Act would admit that there were cases of grievous hardship. He would ask any unprejudiced man to put the case in this way. Supposing his own son or brother had been brought up to do duty in the Church, with the full belief that the very moderate measure it offered would be reached, and supposing that by the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church that measure had been very much reduced, would they consider that fairness had been done? Many had, in fact, entered the Church, believing that their income would reach £250 a-year, but suddenly the Act was sprung upon them, and they and their family had to exist upon, perhaps, £100, £110, or at the outside £120 a-year. The additional sum he was now asking should be paid to them would make all the difference between penury, not far removed from actual destitution, and comparative ease. He appealed, in the name of fair play and of honesty and justice, that the relief should be given. It was very small, and
  756
  could be granted without any serious injury to the Surplus Fund. The case was one which very justly required redress, and he trusted that when the Bill was introduced in the next Parliament the House of Commons would be willing to sanction its passing into law. By so doing, the House would be redressing a real grievance and a great wrong which was done to certain individuals, but which, he could not believe, was ever contemplated or foreseen by the promoters of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act. He begged to move that the Order for the second reading of the Bill be read and discharged.
  MR. RYLANDS, while sympathizing with the feelings which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Plunket) held towards the clergymen of the Irish Church, said that, unfortunately, it was not alone amongst the Irish clergy, but also amongst the clergymen of the Established Church of England there were many cases of great hardship. There were many of the working clergymen of the English Church who had small incomes, large families, disappointed expectations, and difficulties of every kind to contend with. The House must try, if possible, to withdraw their minds from those appeals which had been so earnestly put before them by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Plunket), which appeals would be perfectly unanswerable, if they were made with regard to the obtaining of assistance from other quarters. He wished to point out why he had been unable to give his support to the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. This was an attempt to re-open a question which was settled 11 years ago—a question which was settled, after careful deliberation by Parliament, by a measure which was brought in after the most minute examination of all the claims which might arise under the circumstances of disestablishment. When a measure of that great magnitude, a measure not only involving and affecting the interests of the Church which was about to be disestablished, but also affecting the interests of every class in Ireland, had been passed, it seemed to him most extraordinary that, after a delay of certainly 11 years, they should have the hon. and learned Gentleman proposing to the House that this great settlement

  757
  should be disturbed, and that new terms should be given to certain members of the Irish Church affected by the measure. If the matter was one upon which the opinion of the House ought to have been taken, it ought to have been introduced immediately after the disestablishment of the Irish Church. It was quite clear that the curates in Ireland were in a position, at that time, to know exactly how their interests would be affected. There was no doubt whatever that those gentlemen would see that their prospects, with regard to promotion, were considerably impaired by the change in their position in the Church. If the gentlemen who made the present claims had placed them before the House at an early period, they might have been considered. In 1869 the question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church was settled under such conditions that it rendered it unwise, after a lapse of 11 years, to re-open it in the way now suggested. If that settlement had been a niggardly one, supposing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had dealt with the Irish Church in a harsh manner, the disestablishment might have been carried out under conditions which would have very seriously injured the position and prospects of the members of the Irish Church. But they knew that the right hon. Gentleman approached the question in a spirit of the greatest sympathy for the Irish Church; they knew that his great anxiety was that there should be no injustice done to any individual member of that Church, and he proposed an arrangement which had proved, as it came to be worked out, a munificent settlement of any claims which the Irish clergymen might have upon Parliament. He (Mr. Rylands) did not expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have gone so fully into the subject upon this occasion. Had he known that such was the hon. and learned Member's intention, he would have been prepared with facts and figures, which he did not now happen to have with him. But with regard to the main facts, there would be no dispute at all. That it was estimated that a certain amount would be payable to the Church Body of the Irish. Church, and that that amount was exceeded by a very large sum indeed, would not be disputed by the hon. and learned Member. But, in the working out of the
  758
  settlement, very great unfairness occurred. It was clearly understood that those clergymen of the Irish Church who were to receive their annuities and commutations should remain in the actual service of the Irish Church, but in many cases this was not so. Then, again, the number of curates was augmented during the expiring days of the Establishment in a manner which was perfectly marvellous. There had never been such a revival of curacy in the history of the Church; for, at that time, clergymen who had hitherto worked without curates strangely enough found the necessity of employing one or more curates. Curates were even ordained within three days of the period at which the Act came into operation. That there was an appointment of a very considerable number of curates—a number far in excess of the average number of curates employed in the Irish Church before the disestablishment was contemplated—would not be disputed by the hon. and learned Member. In the Act it was stipulated that any gentleman appointed before the 1st of January, 1871, was to be entitled to a commutation of his annual income He believed he was correct in saying that before disestablishment was contemplated there were not more than 500 curates in the Irish Church. What, however, was the case on the 1st of January, 1871? The number of curates had increased to 900. Dissenting ministers, who had been officiating as Dissenting ministers up to the middle of the year 1870, went into the Church, and were ordained within three days of the Act coming into operation, and thus became entitled to a commutation. That was a straining of the intention of the Act. All the curates had received from the Church Fund a very considerable commutation, and he believed that the curates who were imported into the Church of Ireland, as he had described, were imported entirely with the view of their getting the advantage of the commutation of salaries. Many of those gentlemen were now receiving about £200 a-year, and, therefore, they would come under the Bill of the hon. and learned Member, and they would receive an increase to their salaries. The settlement effected by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) was not only a full and fair one, but a very handsome one, and,

  759
  therefore, he (Mr. Rylands) considered that the question ought not now to be re-opened. If there were a number of gentlemen within the Church who were not placed in the position the hon. and learned Gentleman wished, a fund ought to be provided from some other source than from the Church Commissioners.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, it was always a difficult task to oppose a Bill of this kind; but he must point out that last year the hon. and learned Member estimated the cost of the transaction at £500,000, whereas he now thought it would be covered by an expenditure of £250,000. There were, however, 550 gentlemen who were dissatisfied, and he did not think that the estimate of the hon. and learned Member would be sufficient to cover the cost of his project. Ho could imagine that it would at least amount to £800,000, and that would have a considerable bearing upon the Irish Church Surplus Fund. With that amount they could assist 10,000 small tenants to become proprietors; and, besides that, he feared that the Bill would cause the Surplus which remained to be dealt with in a very loose manner. He thought the Church Party had been very liberally dealt with by the Commissioners. No doubt, there were a few cases of hardship; but he did not believe that they numbered anything like 500 as stated. He thought, before they legislated, they ought to have before them a Return of the cases in detail.
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, the Irish Church Act was considered by the House to be a fair settlement, and the matter ought not to be re-opened. As for the Special Fund referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, its existence cut both ways, for such a large sum could not have been overlooked at the time of the passing of the Act, and the claims of the minor incumbents should have been inquired into at the time.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

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

  WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA (VOTE OF CREDIT.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,226,200, be granted to Her Majesty, beyond
  760
  the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenditure which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, in consequence of the War in South Africa."
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the Vote was a very large one. It would bring up the Supplementary Votes for this particular purpose to about £4,500,000 in excess of the ordinary charge for the Forces employed in South Africa. The cost of the troops employed during the last two or three years had been charged to the Military and Naval Estimates, and very large sums of money had been voted by Parliament for maintaining the Forces in South Africa. He had no doubt that the ordinary charge would amount to some millions; but he was not in a position to arrive at a very accurate conclusion, because it had gone on rapidly increasing. Three years ago the ordinary expenditure amounted to £1,000,000, and he had very little doubt that it had increased now to probably £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year; and in addition to the charges borne on the ordinary Estimates, Parliament was now called upon to vote a Supplementary Charge which, as he had said, would bring up the Supplementary Votes for this Service to £4,500,000. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had any reasonable expectation of obtaining from the South African Colonies any considerable portion of those charges? In the last Session of Parliament he brought the question under the notice of the House, and he received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very positive assurances that strong representations had already been made to the Colonial Government, and that Her Majesty's Government intended to obtain from the Colonial Government a considerable portion of the charges to which this country had been put in consequence of the South African War. So far as he had been able to see, the pressure upon the Colonial Government had not been very strong, and so far as the House was concerned, hon. Members were entirely ignorant as to what the Government had a right to demand. That was not at all a satisfactory position for the House to occupy. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech intended

  761
  to give them any information as to the amount of money they might expect to obtain from the South African Colonies. Possibly they might have some information on the point from the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow; but he thought the Committee ought not to vote the large sum of money now asked for without taking an opportunity, which he ventured to take now, of stating that the House and the country were in a very unsatisfactory position in regard to that great expenditure. He believed that, sooner or later, that expenditure would become a charge upon the British taxpayer. He was very much afraid that there was not much prospect of getting any large sum of money from the Colony, and he was also afraid that this sum of money, largo as it was, that they were now voting, would not be the final demand made upon them. Even at the present time the money expended upon these South African Wars was not absolutely known. In point of fact, they had a large number of British troops in the South African Colonies at that moment who would have to be paid for, and there was every reason to believe that Her Majesty's Government had not taken those steps which he thought it was important to take in order to secure this country from being called upon to bear the burdens which were now being thrown upon it. Unless the Secretary to the Treasury was able to give some little information on these matters, he thought the House ought not to be called upon to pass the Vote in entire ignorance of what the Government were doing, and what the amount was they expected to receive in connection with the claim they had upon the South African Colonies.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that before the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury rose to reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he wished to make one or two observations on this Vote. In the first place, it appeared to him that there was a question of Order involved in the matter. This was a Supplementary Vote of Credit in amplification of a Vote of Credit already passed to meet the expenses of the Zulu War. But in this Supplementary Vote there would be found not only additional expenses in relation to the Zulu War, for which the original Vote of Credit was given, but two sums amounting to £500,000 of money for a
  762
  separate expenditure in South Africa quite apart from the circumstances which led to the original Vote connected with the services for quelling the rebellion in Griqualand West. Surely that had nothing to do with the war in South Africa, for which the original Vote of Credit was granted. He submitted, as a matter of Order, that the Supplementary Vote ought to be kept entirely separate and distinct from any new source of expenditure. It was of the utmost importance that the expenditure in connection with the different wars should be kept separate. Then again, the Vote not only included charges for the War in Griqualand West, but also for the occupation of the Transvaal and the Expedition against Secocoeni. The House ought, ho thought, to have fuller details as to how the expenditure was distributed among these different items—the Griqualand War, the occupation of the Transvaal, the Expedition against Secocoeni, and the Zulu War. More details were certainly necessary, because there had already been not only a Supplementary Vote of Credit, but a Supplementary Estimate of £200,000 in addition to the sum charged in the Army Estimates in connection with the Expedition against Secocoeni. These were, undoubtedly, matters that required explanation, although it was not necessary or desirable at that stage that the House should enter into any critical examination of the policy of their action in the Transvaal or of the Expedition against Secocoeni. The Secretary to the Treasury could not be expected to explain that policy; but, at the same time, it was the duty of the Committee to insist upon having a more detailed explanation of the reason why these totally distinct sources of Expenditure were mixed up together, and why, under cover of an old Vote of Credit, they had now a Supplementary Vote which included entirely new and separate charges.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would, perhaps be as well that he should reply to the point of Order which had been raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He might state to the Committee that, no doubt, the practice in presenting the Estimates to the House was to take each of them separately; but he was not aware of any Rule of the House which prevented these Estimates

  763
  from being presented together collectively, notwithstanding that the usual practice was to submit them as separate Estimates. If the items to which attention had been called were entirely extraneous matter, the Committee would be entitled to have them presented separately, under the head of Supplementary Estimates for South Africa. However, as they all related to South Africa, it did not appear to him that it was a breach of Order to include them in one Vote.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas of opinion that the course now adopted, if not absolutely out of Order, was exceedingly inconvenient. No one could have any doubt that it would be much more convenient if Parliament were informed in a more regular manner what amount of money was to be devoted to the expense of each of these wars. He did not suppose anyone could conceive that there was such a close connection between the occupation of the Transvaal and the Expedition against Secocoeni and the Zulu War as to make it desirable that the expenditure should be mixed up in this manner. He scarcely thought the Secretary to the Treasury would say that the Expedition against Secocoeni and the occupation of the Transvaal were the same thing as the Zulu War; therefore, it was desirable that the charges for each should be kept distinct and separate.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsubmitted that there were four distinct operations included in these Estimates—namely, the War in Griqualand West, which, he believed, occurred before the Zulu War; then the Zulu War; next, the occupation of the Transvaal; and lastly, the Expedition against Secocoeni. The House had a right to ask for a separate Vote for each, with a full and detailed account of the expenditure. It was, he thought, impossible to expect that the small sum included in the Vote for these operations against Secocoeni could possibly be sufficient; and, therefore, each transaction should be separated. The best way would be to vote the sums separately, with separate and distinct amounts in each Vote—to grant the money for Griqualand in one Vote, for the Zulu War in another, for the Transvaal in another, and for the Expedition against Secocoeni in another. He could not understand how, when the expendi-
  764
  ture for these distinct services came to be examined by the Auditor General, it exhibited that for each, when lumped together as if all the money now asked for related to one operation. He had always complained of that mode, so frequently practised, of lumping together under one head the expenditure voted for distinct services; and he had endeavoured on more than one occasion to point out the defective manner in which the Government asked for money from the House of Commons. When they prepared their Estimates for questionable purposes, instead of explaining each item in detail, the Government invariably arranged so that the Auditor General should put it altogether, in as brief a form as practicable, often as one mass, so that it became impossible for the House to distinguish what each charge was really for. He did not oppose the voting of this money now. It had, no doubt, been expended, and the Government must have it; but the Committee ought to vote it in separate items—for the War in Griqualand West, the Zulu War, the occupation of the Transvaal, and the Expedition against Secocoeni. The Government would, in that case, be obliged to render an account of the different items expended. One other remark he must make, and that was, that there were great doubts in his mind as to the power or authority of Lord Chelmsford making an advance of £200,000 for operations in Griqualand with which he had no concern.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask whether the sums should not be put separately? They could be put separately, if the Government thought proper to withdraw the present Vote and submit each item separately.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould assure the hon. Member for Burnley that, had he known in reality that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to give an explanation of this Vote in his Budget Statement to-morrow, he would not have been justified in forestalling the statement which his right hon. Friend proposed to make on that occasion. Attention had been called to the fact that a separate sum appeared in the Vote for the war in Griqualand West which ought to have appeared in a separate Estimate. He could only say that the

  765
  first intention was to produce it as a I separate Estimate. He did not know how it came to be altered; but it certainly had been altered before it came down to the House. It was a separate item and a separate sum, and it had been included in the present Vote by an unintentional mistake on the part of the printers. The mistake was, however, discovered too late to allow of its being altered; and it was considered by those who had the preparation of the Estimates, that as all these sums had, after great trouble and only very recently, been ascertained as sums which should be entirely credited to the service of the particular year they were now dealing with, it was thought advisable that the whole of them should be included in one Supplementary Estimate, seeing that they all related to transactions in South Africa. It was only after certain officers had been sent out for the investigation of the accounts in South Africa that the Government had been able to arrive at something like a knowledge of the expenditure. The sums seemed to be fairly charged, although they were for occurrences in different parts of South Africa, and they had been brought into this one Account. In regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Burnley, whether the Government were disposed to adhere to what they had already foreshadowed in making a demand upon the Colonial Government for some return of the expenditure in South Africa which had already been incurred, he believed his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to satisfy the House upon that point to-morrow. The intention was not to allow the Colonial Government to escape without contributing to the expenditure, but to adhere to the original determination. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to make arrangements definitely until the whole business was concluded; but that they were in progress, and that there was a certain hope, or rather an absolute certainty, of this country receiving some considerable portion of the expenditure from the Colonies he thought he might fairly say. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would be satisfied to allow any further information to be deferred until the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would be made tomorrow. He believed that that State-
  766
  ment would be entirely satisfactory to the House.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had really omitted to notice what was really the most important point raised in the discussion, and that was, that they were putting into the Supplementary Vote of Credit four different springs of expenditure which were really separate from each other. He admitted that the same policy underlaid all this expenditure; but they were as distinct and separate branches of expenditure as the Cyprus occupation and an expedition to Egypt and Constinople, or a war in Burmah and a war in Afghanistan. "South Africa" was a large geographical expression, and although he believed that the same policy had produced all these wars, they were totally distinct and separate wars, and, as a matter of finance, ought to be brought before the House separately and with separate explanations. This was especially the case when they were dealing with a Supplementary Vote, which was a continuation of an original Vote confined to the war in Zululand. The present Vote introduced the war in Griqualand West, and two other matters—the occupation of the Transvaal and the Expedition against Secocoeni—two widely different matters. He thought there ought to be a separate statement in respect to each of these items, and they ought to have been introduced separately. He would strongly recommend the Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw the Vote, and to put separate Votes before the Committee.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwished to add a few words to the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He believed that the expenditure in connection with the war in Griqualand West was incurred in 1878–9—in a year quite distinct from the Zulu War. The Transvaal expenditure was incurred partly in 1878–9 and partly in 1879–80, the main part having been in 1878–9; but the expenditure in connection with the Expedition against Secocoeni was incurred entirely in the year 1879–80, and the expenditure for the Zulu War was also incurred in 1879–80. Thus, they were dealing with entirely different dates as well as with entirely different operations, and all he asked the Secretary to the Treasury was to

  767
  arrange that the Estimates for money should appear in a proper manner, divided into dates, and for the distinct services. He had no doubt that the House would grant the Vote, because the money must be paid, and the sooner the Exchequer got it the better accounting would follow; but the House ought not to sanction this loose method of mixing up the expenditure for different purposes and for different periods.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDwished to point out, in reference to the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), that the operations against Secocoeni and the occupation of the Transvaal were not by any means as disconnected as appeared to be supposed. Secocoeni had invaded the Transvaal and defeated the Boers, and for that reason, and because they believed that the disturbances would injure their interests and excite the Natives in their own Colonies they occupied the Transvaal. After they had occupied the Transvaal, finding that Secocoeni did not yield to their remonstrances, they made an expedition against him, so that the two operations were, in point of fact, very closely connected.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked, whether any portion whatever of the expenditure upon South Africa had already been paid by the Colonies?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: None.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINinquired, whether any portion of the item of £903,000, connected with the Army Services, belonged to any of these other operations, or was wholly required for the Zulu War—the Expedition against Cetewayo?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid the item of £903,000 for the Army was mainly on account of the Zulu War. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not entirely.] He was unable to answer whether it was entirely or not. He believed it was mainly on that account. He might add that there was much force in what the hon. Member for Liskeard said as to the propriety of submitting these items under separate heads. But he trusted the Committee would consent to pass the Vote in the form in which it now appeared; and, to-morrow, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fully explain all the circumstances attending the expenditure. It was the object of the Treasury, as far as possible, when
  768
  the expenditure of money was brought to their knowledge, to have it brought to account within the financial year. Therefore, if they were to postpone any part of the Vote, there might be some difficulty in bringing it forward again so as to bring it in the account for the year. He therefore hoped that on this occasion the Committee would allow the Vote to pass in the form in which it had been introduced. He was quite certain that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal with the question when he came to submit his Financial Statement to-morrow. At the present moment, if the Vote were not passed now, there would be some difficulty in bringing the expenditure into the account in which it really ought to appear.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, the explanation which had been given would not appear upon the Reports of the House; and it was very important that all these Estimates should be brought before the House and duly recorded in proper form. It was frequently charged against them that they did not attend quite enough to the order and regularity of their proceedings. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that he should respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and withdraw the Vote for a couple of days. It need only be delayed for a day or two. The Committee had no wish to delay the Government Business, or to obstruct; but they wished to have the Estimates, constantly increasing as they were, brought before them in a proper shape, so that they could be recorded on the Books of the House in a manner which would explain the purpose for which they were brought forward, and why they were wanted. It was manifestly wrong to lump them together. If they passed the Vote in the form in which it now appeared, the explanation which had been given by the Secretary to the Treasury would not be known, and the public would only see the confusion that had occurred. He did not think there would be any objection to the delay of a couple of days.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the best course he could take would be to lay an explanation on the Table at once, defining what the separate items of the Vote were for, as had been suggested. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr.Dillwyn) said there would really be a

  769
  delay for a few days; but the hon. Member knew very well that at this moment, and at this period of the Session, a delay in Ways and Means practically meant a continuance of the Session for two or three days longer than the day fixed for its final Sitting. It was only because the Government were so pressed for time that he had been induced to make a suggestion to the Committee, which, under ordinary circumstances, he would not have made. He would endeavour to place on the Records of the House the facts mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea; but that might be done without doing that which would practically delay them for a time, even if not fatally, in getting this Vote in the present year.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if it was absolutely necessary to take the Vote that day? His belief was that this Vote would not finish the Supplementary Estimates. To-morrow they would have to take a Vote for Excess in the Expenditure of the past year; and there was no reason why the Vote should not also be brought on to-morrow. With respect to the arrangements of the Secretary to the Treasury to lay on the Table a Schedule explaining the Expenditure in more detail, he did not think that arrangement would provide what was wished for. When they came to the Appropriation Bill, which they must sooner or later, it would be impossible to take into consideration any Schedule of that nature if the entire sum expended upon these four Services was not exceeded. If the sums now asked for were taken, as they clearly ought to be, as four different Votes, it would be impossible to exceed the sum included in any one of the Services without coming to Parliament again. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury, again, whether it was absolutely necessary to take the Vote to-day, and whether, if it were taken to-morrow, it would be in plenty of time?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought there could be no objection on the part of the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the consideration of the Vote, if they were to understand that there were other Votes to be introduced to-morrow. If that were so, there would not be the delay of a single day in postponing the Vote until to morrow. Was that the fact? As the Secretary to the Treasury
  770
  did not rise, he presumed that the statement was correct; and he would, therefore, move that the debate be now adjourned, in order that the Vote might be introduced in a different form to-morrow. Perhaps the most regular course would be to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was one point which added much force to the argument which had been used in favour of having this Vote placed in separate items. He wished to point out to the Committee that sub-head "D" was one of a very remarkable character. It was in aid of the expenditure in suppressing the rebellion in Griqualand West. It was quite clear that if that Vote had come before the House in its proper form, and at its proper time, it would have afforded the House an opportunity of discussing the policy which led to that particular war. But it now appeared that the money was paid out of the Treasury Chest by Lord Chelmsford, and the House of Commons had had no special knowledge of the expenditure. It came before the House now in a general Vote of Credit, because the Auditor General refused to pass it, and the Treasury had now come to the conclusion that it was not right to charge it against the Vote of Credit for 1878–9. He thought they would be setting a bad precedent if they allowed a Vote to be passed under such circumstances without having it fully explained.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that if it was the general wish of the Committee to adjourn the consideration of the Vote until to-morrow he would not object; but he hoped it would be on the distinct understanding that the Committee would pass the Vote when it came before them to-morrow, because it would be very disadvantageous to the Treasury to have any further delay. Therefore, he trusted that if he withdrew the Vote now the Committee would consider it to-morrow with the view of passing it.
  MR. RYLANDSpresumed that the Votes would be put upon the Table tomorrow in a distinct form. He had no objection to the Vote being passed; but

  771
  when it was again placed on the Table it should be under separate and distinct heads. "D" and "E" should be special Votes, and should not come under the general head of operations in South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman would agree to lay these Supplementary Estimates on the Table in this form, he (Mr. Rylands) believed there would be no objection to their being passed. Of course, it would be necessary to include the dates when the expenditure was incurred.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would endeavour, as far as possible, to meet the views of the Committee; but the time was short, and he might not be able to do so in every respect. He would certainly do all he could to meet the views of the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SOUTH-WESTERN (OF LONDON) DISTRICT POST OFFICE BILL.
(Sir Henry Selwin. Ibbetson, Lord John Manners.)
SOUTH-WESTERN (OF LONDON) DISTRICT POST OFFICE BILL.

  [BILL 90.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-lbbetson.)
  In reply to Sir CHARLES W. DILKE,
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the site of the new Office would be at Buckingham Gate, and that the Bill contained powers for altering streets in the vicinity, so as to give facilities of ingress and egress from the Office.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolutions [March 8] reported.
MR. RAMSAYcomplained of the small amount of the grant for medical relief to Scotland as compared with the allowance to England. He thought that the matter should really be re-considered; indeed, his contention was that it had never, in the proper sense of the
772
word, been considered at all. What he complained of was that while they were asked to vote some £280,000 for medical relief in aid of the ratepayers of England, they in Scotland only received a grant of some £10,600. He maintained that everyone who had at all considered the circumstances—the proportion that Scotland bore to England, either in respect of population or taxation—must admit that the grant for Scotland was very inadequate. Such a system imposed a burden on the poorer ratepayers of Scotland from which the richer ratepayers of England were relieved. The ground on which justice was refused to Scotland in this matter was that the Scotch people were not willing to conform to the same rules as were laid down in England in regard to medical relief; but that was an entire misapprehension. Except the power which the Medical Boards had of dismissing their medical officers, there was no condition attached to the grant in England other than those attached to the grant in Scotland.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the subject, so far as he was concerned, would not be lost sight of. He could not promise, even if he happened to be in his present position next Parliament, that he would consent to all that had been laid down. The difficulty under which they had always laboured had reference to Scotland being placed under identical positions with regard to the grant as England. The subject, however, would recur in the next Parliament.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURalso maintained that the ratepayers had great reason to complain with regard to the grant. He submitted that Scotland had complied with all the requirements of the Treasury in regard to medical officers, except as to their removal. That, however, could be easily settled if there was a feeling on the part of the Treasury to place Scotland, in regard to medical allowances, on equal terms with England. The fact was, a large body of men in Scotland were deprived of a fair remuneration for their services because a bad Poor Law would not be accepted for Scotland. The conditions thus exacted from them were of a character that the Government ought to be ashamed of, and when the Scotch Members went back to tkeir own country

773
they would not fail to make known to the people of Scotland the manner in which they were treated. The truth was, he was not surprised to find Irishmen anxious for Home Rule. England seemed to feel a total indifference with regard to the neighbouring countries, whose interests were neglected because the Members who represented England were far more numerous and influential than the Members who represented Scotland and Ireland. It was thus that bad feeling sprang up, and that a certain movement of the Irish Members which had been denounced by the Prime Minister had been brought about—he referred to the existing system of partiality and entire want of consideration for the neighbouring country Scotland which at present obtained. He was very sorry to find that the Secretary to the Treasury, instead of listening to him, was carrying on a private conversation, and totally disregarding all he was saying; but that was only of a piece with the rest of the proceedings of the Government. ["Oh, oh!"] If the hon. Gentleman who shouted "Oh, oh!" was an Irish or a Scotch Member, he would feel the iron entering his soul at such treatment. It made the Scotch and Irish Members indignant when they found they could not get justice.
MR. C. S. PARKERobserved, that the hon. Members who cheered ironically would have done better to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to the discourtesy he was committing by turning his back upon his hon. and gallant Friend while he was speaking, and engaging in a private conversation. He did hope that they would have some assurance that the Government intended to increase the grant, otherwise the Scotch Members would be under the necessity of representing to their constituents that they were quite unable to obtain anything like justice.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the indulgence of the House while he explained that he had intended no discourtesy to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour); but that, having already exhausted his own right to speak on this particular Vote, he had taken advantage of the opportunity to discuss an important Scotch question with another Scotch Member. If, however, he had
774
known the hon. and gallant Member was so touchy he would have been more careful.
Mr. VANS AGNEWwished also to explain that the conversation in which, he had engaged with the Secretary to the Treasury while the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) was speaking simply amounted to this—that he had been privately expressing to the hon. Baronet, whose ear he had obtained, the same views in regard to this Scotch question which his hon. and gallant Friend had been expressing publicly.
Resolutions agreed to.
Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 2nd day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and then agreed to by the House, he read, as followeth:—"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 131,859, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide during twelve months for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel STANLEY, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, and The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 106.]

VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 98.]
(Sir Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 98.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Returns to be sent back to and retained by the surveyor of taxes).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked if the hon. Gentleman intended to introduce any clause into the Bill to guard against any increase in the water rates taking place until some settlement was come to, as to the future supply of water to the Metropolis?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the question referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was raised the other day in the House, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then stated that the subject was one of great magnitude, and could hardly be dealt with by a clause in the present Bill. The present measure was introduced for a wholly different object. The Government had

  775
  been obliged to sanction the non-payment of penalties, or rather not to enforce penalties for incomplete returns under the provisions of the Act, on the ground that the same amount of secrecy applied to these returns as to those which were sent in in regard to the Income Tax. The Bill was simply to remedy that state of things, and to enable the authorities in future to secure the provisions of the Act in regard to returns being complied with. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) did not for one moment under-rate the importance of the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire; but it must be dealt with in a separate measure, and not in a Bill of this nature.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 34.]
(Mr. Vans Agnew, Mr. Baillie Hamilton, Sir George Douglas.)
HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 34.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Vans Agnew.)
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had no wish to oppose the Bill; but he regretted exceedingly to find that the hon. Member (Mr. Vans Agnew) had got the Bill passed through Committee without Amendment the previous morning, at a time he did not expect it to pass in that form. What he regretted was, that the hon. Gentleman himself, and Scotch Members generally, considered the Bill susceptible of, and requiring amendment, and, notwithstanding, they were asked to pass the Bill in its present form. He did not think this was right, although he sympathized with the hon. Member in his desire to have the Bill passed through this stage, so that it might go into the other House. It was right, he thought, to take notice of the fact that the Bill was being sent admittedly in an imperfect form to the other House, and he desired to record his protest against any such practice.
  MR. VANS AGNEWbegged to say a word or two in explanation. The Bill, he remarked, stood for Committee on the day on which they were informed of the approaching Dissolution; and as there was no difference of opinion among Scotch Members in regard to its principle, and no alteration wanted except as to the wording of some clauses, it was considered that such alterations might easily be effected in "another place." He had been in communication with the Lord Advocate and other hon. Members; and with their concurrence he was advised, if possible, to take the opportunity he had of passing the Bill through Committee. The count-out the previous evening showed that it would have been dangerous to postpone the Bill even for one day. He hoped the hon. Member opposite would not consider that he had tried to take any advantage over Members in this matter. He had consulted him as to the Amendments that might be desirable, and these were found to be mere matters of detail. He trusted, therefore, the House would consent to the third reading.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURbore testimony to the desire of the hon. Member for Wigtownshire (Mr. Vans Agnew) for making the alterations referred to. The clauses of the Bill were chiefly taken from those which he (Sir George Balfour) had submitted to the House in order to remove the desire which existed to protect the interests of landlords. He had done his best to make them as clear as possible, and, towards this end, had obtained the services of a professional gentleman, the late Mr. Neil Caird, whose early death was so much regretted. Indeed, if he compared the Bill with some Bills drafted by the Government—especially the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill—it was perfection itself. Whatever course might be pursued towards it in the House of Lords, he thanked the hon. Member for drawing up such a Bill as would abolish hypothec, and would admit of improvements in the present Act being introduced before it came into operation; and he thanked the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) for assenting to its third reading.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (No. 2) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER), in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Conveyance of Voters to the Poll, and to continue the Acts relating to the Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections, and the Acts relating to Election Petitions, said, he thought he ought very shortly to explain the provisions of the Bill which he desired to introduce. The House would be aware that a Bill was brought in last Session to carry out, to a great extent, the recommendations of a Committee which sat on the subject in 1875. The principal recommendation of the Committee was that, for the future, Election Petitions should be tried before two Judges instead of one, and that no one should be found guilty of any corrupt practice except on trial before two Judges. That recommendation, after a good deal of consideration by the Government, was adopted, and was introduced into a Bill last Session, which passed into a Act, which also continued the penalties for various corrupt practices till December, 1880. It was thought desirable to introduce a Bill this Session to continue the Corrupt Practices Act for another year, and also to continue the Election Petitions Act, so that Election Petitions would be tried before two Judges. That was an enactment which, so far as he knew, had given every satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen. There was another provision in the Bill which he desired to introduce of some importance. By the 36th section of the Representation of the People Act it was provided that it should not be lawful for any candidate, or anyone on his behalf, at an election for any borough, unless in widely-scattered boroughs, to pay any sum on account of the conveyance of voters to the poll, and payments so made were declared to be illegal and corrupt. A good deal of difficulty had arisen under this section of the Act. In the first place, it was by no means clear what constituted a payment of money in respect to the conveyance of voters to the poll. It had always been considered
    778
    that money might not be paid, but a cab might be hired and a voter taken along with the hirer; and, although it was said to be an illegal payment under the Act of 1854, it was impossible to find out what the penalty for the payment was. They had, therefore, a payment declared to be illegal, but no penalty attached to it. The consequence was that this provision had been utterly disregarded, and had, in fact, become a dead letter. He thought it very undesirable that the law should remain in that unsatisfactory state. It should be made clear one way or the other. The Government, having considered the subject carefully, thought it would be a strong measure to make the conveyance of voters to the poll—which was in itself an innocent act—a corrupt practice denounced by the Act; and. if it was not desirable to make it a corrupt practice, the only other course was to repeal that provision of the Act. The Government had, therefore, come to the conclusion to repeal that provision, and to make it no longer illegal, either in boroughs or counties, to take voters to the poll in cabs. These were the objects of the Bill which he hoped the House would give him leave to introduce.
    MR. HIBBERTagreed with what had been said by the Attorney General with regard to the working of the clause referred to; but he (Mr. Hibbert) must draw attention to the fact that the clause, as originally proposed by him, was different from that passed by the House, owing to the alteration made by the Government then in Office. The alterations, in fact, made it unworkable. He did not mean to say that the repeal of the clause might not be a good thing; but, at the same time, he must withhold his judgment with respect to the present proposition. He contended that it would have been much better to have made the clause more stringent than to have repealed it. They ought to strive, as much as possible, to limit the expense of elections, and that was one of his objects in proposing the clause.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved, that he himself had frequently brought the subject before the House, and he had quite expected that the Government would take the course they now proposed. It was not the course that recommended itself to him personally, for he agreed that it would have been far

    779
    better to have put a stop to the practice in question altogether. He felt, however, that the Government could not have carried a proposal of that character. That being so, the Government was driven to do what it now proposed, for nothing could be worse than to leave the country in its present state of uncertainty.
    MR. DODSONcomplained that this Bill had not been introduced at the very commencement of the Session, particularly as it was now obvious from the Prime Minister's manifesto that the Government intended only to pass the Irish relief measures before the Dissolution. Except for the repeal of a particular clause, he could see no reason for the Bill at all, as the Corrupt Practices Act would remain in force until December, 1880. So far as he was concerned, he wished it to be understood that he reserved his judgment.
    MR. RYLANDScordially supported the views of the Attorney General, and thanked him for having dealt with the subject in the Bill he was about to introduce. It was monstrous that that should be immoral in boroughs which was legal and proper in counties. It was, in fact, impossible to prevent the employment of conveyances, and the Government proposed the best way out of the difficulty. He should give the Bill his hearty support.
    MR. COLMANsaid, he thought it was highly desirable that the important question dealt with by the Bill of the hon. and learned Attorney General should be settled before the next Election. He wished, however, to impress upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the necessity of taking care that the Returns of the election expenses gave a full account of expenses incurred under the head of conveying voters to the poll. He could not forget that little word "etcetera," frequently applied in election accounts, and it was one of the worst words that could be used. It left a wide door open for corruption; and he therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would take care that there was a full and special Return of all the expenses incurred for the conveyance of voters under distinct and separate heads.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the increase of election expenses was to be deprecated by those who sat on his side of the House. He could not understand
    780
    why the relief of the conscience of a candidate should be more regarded than the relief of the conscience of a conscientious agent. The proposition of the Attorney General, he held, would have the effect of making this practice of using conveyances universal; and he regretted that any measure should be favoured by Government which would have the effect of increasing the legal expenses consequent on an election. He, therefore, protested against the general principle, and especially against any such measure at the present time.
    MR. STANTONhoped the Attorney General would take into consideration the propriety of making legal the issue of railway tickets for the conveyance of voters to the poll.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDregretted that the employment of cabs was to be legalized in boroughs, because their use was not necessary in small boroughs, and would encourage a corrupt use of them. If necessary, an exception might be made in the case of large boroughs or boroughs with large areas.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsuggested that the difficulty in the way of prohibition might be met by making it illegal to receive payment for the conveyance of voters.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER), in reply, said, the effect of the Bill would be to legalize the payment of expenses for conveying voters to the poll, whether by railway, cab, or omnibus. The boroughs of large areas like East Retford and Shoreham were excepted from prohibition under the present law; but, as conveyance was now to be made legal, it would not be necessary to insert any exceptions.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend the Law relating to the Conveyance of Voters to the Poll, and to continue the Acts relating to the prevention of Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections, and the Acts relating to Election Petitions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.[Bill 107.]

    RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BIRLEY, Bill to remove doubts as to the liability of Machinery to be rated to the relief of the Poor and other local rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. RIPLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.[Bill 108.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, the sum of £8,322,177, he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to he reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock.