Commons Sitting of 14 March 1881

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Henry William Eaton, esquire, for Coventry.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Railways, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Caine, Sir Baldwyn Leighton, and Mr. Phipps added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLE-MENTARY ESTIMATES, 1880–81—Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 5, 12, 13, 14, 21; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16,18, 25, 35; Class III.—LAw AND JUSTICE, Votes 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18; Class VI.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Votes 4, 6, 7, 11, 15; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Votes 1, 2, 3, 7, 9; Class VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES, Vote 1; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, TREASURY CHEST; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, Votes 1, 2, 3; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, Votes 1, 3, 4, 5; CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES), Classes II., III., IV., V.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—London Sea Water Supply*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Poor Law Officers (Scotland) Superannuation* [113].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [99]; Local Taxation Returns (Scotland)* [107], debate adjourned.
Select Committee—Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [102], nominated.
Committee—Report—India Office (Sale of Superfluous Land) [91]; Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds) [83]; Exemption from Distress [92].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Godalming, &c.)* [88], and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY OATH—MR. BRADLAUGH.
MR. BRADLAUGHrose in his place, to present a Petition, when—
MR. GORST, interposing, said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I submit that the Gentleman who has just risen, for the purpose of presenting a Petition to this House, is not a Member of this House, and as such cannot present a Petition. I will give very shortly my reasons for thinking that the House should come to the determination that it is impossible for the Gentleman who has just risen to present a Petition. It will be in the recollection of the House that last Session the Gentleman in question came to the Table of the House, claiming the right to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of taking the Oath prescribed by law. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed, which considered whether the claim to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of the Oath was founded upon any legal right. The Committee reported to the House that the Gentleman in question had no legal right to make the

893
Affirmation. That finding of the Committee was afterwards adopted by a Resolution of this House, and it stands now upon the Records of this House that no Gentleman in the position of the Gentleman in question has a legal right to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of the Oath prescribed by law. It was afterwards, by a Resolution of the House, determined that Mr. Bradlaugh might at his own risk and peril—
MR. BRADLAUGH: I rise to Order. There is no such Resolution on the Books of the House.
MR. GORST: The Gentleman interposed before I stated what the Resolution was. The Resolution said—
MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can speak of a Member of this House by his name?
MR. CALLANalso rose to Order. May I also ask—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Chatham is speaking to a point of Order.
MR. GORST: I am sorry that I have not got the terms of the Resolution; but it was practically this: that the Gentleman in question—I really do not wish to be offensive; I would call him the "hon. Member," but it would be inconsistent with my argument, and I will, therefore, call him the "Gentleman in question"—might, if he pleased, make a solemn Affirmation and take his seat; but at his own peril, and without prejudice to consideration by a Court of Law. Now, on Friday last, the decision of the High Court was given, and was in accordance with the opinion of the Committee and of the House itself, that the Gentleman had no right to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of taking the Oath prescribed by law. Therefore, the first vote he gave, and the first day he sat in this House, the seat for Northampton became by law vacant, exactly as if the holder of it were dead. The seat did not become vacant on Friday last, but on the first occasion when Mr. Bradlaugh gave a vote in this House. What I submit to the House is that, under the circumstances, when its own Committee has determined that he is not entitled to make an Affirmation, when the House itself has confirmed by Resolution the opinion of that Committee, and when a Court of Law in this country has decided that he is not en-
894
titled to make an Affirmation instead of an Oath, he ought not to sit and vote and take part in the proceedings of this House as long as the opinions and judgments of the Committee, the House, and the Court of Law remain uncontradicted and unreversed. I have heard that it is the intention of Mr. Bradlaugh to appeal; but I know of my own knowledge that no notice of appeal whatever has, up to the present time, been given. [Mr. BRADLAUGH rose to explain; but being received with loud cries of "Order!" sat down again.] I have heard from the best authorities that an hour ago no notice of appeal had been given; but I do not care about the appeal. It seems to me that when the matter is sub judice, it is so on one side as well as the other; and, at all events, until the judgment of the Court, which has confirmed the opinion of this House, be reversed, the Gentleman has no right to take part in the proceedings of this House in any matter whatever. If it should be the pleasure of the House, I should have no objection to moving for a Committee to inquire whether Mr. Bradlaugh has the right to sit and vote; but until some notice has been taken of this matter by the House, I submit that, as a matter of Order, he ought not to be permitted to sit and vote in this House.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am aware that it is very inconvenient to enter upon anything approaching a discussion on a subject like this on a point of Order. I ask your permission, Sir, to speak to the point of Order; and I hope the House will allow me very briefly to state my views in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. It is a matter which would have been better discussed on the Motion of which the hon. and learned Member has given Notice, to issue a New Writ for Northampton; for, on that Motion, hon. Members would have been able to express their opinions more fully than they can on a point of Order. I will, however, confine myself strictly to the point of Order. My hon. and learned Friend correctly says a Committee decided that the hon. Member for Northampton was not entitled to make an Affirmation; but he will also recollect that on the 1st of July, 1880, the House came to a Resolution, general in its

895
terms, giving to a Member who claimed it permission to make Affirmation, subject to the risk of penalties imposed by law. It was under that Resolution, wiping away the previous Resolution, that the hon. Member for Northampton took his seat. He has sat and voted under that Resolution ever since; and if my hon. and learned Friend is correct in basing his objection on the opinion of the Committee and the confirmatory vote of this House, he should have taken that objection on those grounds earlier, any time since last July down to the present. The hon. and learned Member must, therefore, rest his argument on the decision given by a Court of Law on Friday last. I quite agree that although it is a judgment by way of demurrer, it determines that, in the opinion of the learned Judge, the hon. Member for Northampton has not relieved himself from the necessity of taking the Oath, because he was not entitled to make an Affirmation the equivalent of the Oath. I quite admit that, by the effect of that judgment, construing the Statute of 1866, the Membership for Northampton is now vacant as if the holder of it were dead. What effect, then, ought this House to give to that judgment? I submit that when the Resolution of the 1st of July was passed, the intention of the House was that the right of every Member to make Affirmation, if he made it under protest, should be determined by the legal tribunals. A judgment has now been given by the Court of First Instance, and the Judge himself stayed execution of the judgment in every respect, in order that the opinion of the Court of Appeal might be taken. It is the inherent right of every subject, when his rights are in question, that the Court of First Instance shall not determine them finally, but that the Courts of Appeal should be the ultimate tribunals to determine them; and if an action of ejectment were brought against a person to recover an estate, the judgment of the Court of First Instance would not be conclusive, for the Court of Appeal would have power to reverse it. If for the word "estate" you will substitute, "status," you will see the position which the hon. Member for Northampton occupies at this moment. He is entitled to have the judgment of the Court of Appeal to determine his right, and until that judg-
896
ment is given I submit that he has a right to take his seat in this House. The contention of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham might, if successful, place the House under great difficulty. If you were to decide that the seat for Northampton is vacant, of course a New Writ would issue and a Member be elected, and if in three weeks from this time the Court of Appeal decided that the judgment of the Court of First Instance was wrong, what position would this House be placed in? If the present hon. Member were not returned again, we should have practically two Members for Northampton. There would be one sitting by virtue of the real election, which would never have been vacated, because the Court of Appeal would have held that the judgment was wrong, and would treat it as if had never been given, and that there was no vacancy; and yet there would be a second newly-elected Member. It is a matter for your determination alone. I respectfully submit that the greatest inconvenience would result to the House and the greatest injustice to the hon. Member, and, above all, to his constituents, if you deprive him of the inherent right of every subject of the Crown to appeal from one Court of Law to another.
SIR JOHN HOLKER: It seems to me, Sir, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has mistaken the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The question which the hon. and learned Member desires to bring to the attention of the House is, not whether there shall be a New Writ issued for Northampton; but whether, a Court of competent jurisdiction having decided that the hon. Gentleman who was Member for Northampton is not Member for Northampton, but that his seat is vacant, it is seemly on the part of the House altogether to ignore that decision, and allow the hon. Gentleman to exercise the same rights and privileges as if no decision had been given? Of course, if the hon. Gentleman be allowed to do what we all suppose he intends to do—that is, to remain in the House—he will influence the House in the course of its debates. He is a Gentleman of great intellectual power. He is a practised speaker, and has shown that he will very likely exercise considerable influ-

897
ence in debate; and he is to be allowed to do all this when, according to the decision of a Court of Law of competent jurisdiction, he is not a Member of the House. More than that, he would be allowed to vote on every question which arose as though he were a Member of the House; whereas, actually, he is not a Member of the House at all. All that is asked now is, not that there should be a New Writ for Northampton; but that the hon. Gentleman shall not sit and vote in this House until it has been decided whether that would be within his right or not.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I hope the House will permit me to say a few words, as my hon. Colleague is unable to speak. Perhaps I may be allowed to read a letter which I have received from him, and which will reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that no notice had been given of my hon. Colleague's intention to pursue the appeal in this case. Mr. Bradlaugh writes to me as follows:—
"March 12, 1880. My dear Labouchere,—May I trouble you to say to the House, if Mr. Gorst proceeds with his Motion, that I have instructed my solicitor to give the necessary notice of appeal in the action against me on account of Henry Lewis Clarke, and that I undertake to prosecute that appeal in due form and without delay? Will you add that while I protest against any attempt to declare my seat vacant, as creating an improper embarrassment in the legal procedure still pending, I am quite willing, in order to avoid the waste of public time by a purely personal conflict, to voluntarily vacate the seat and at once submit myself to the judgment of my constituents? I wish in all this to show due respect to the House, while safeguarding my legal and constitutional rights and duties. So long as I have the honour to be one of the Representatives of the borough of Northampton it is my clear duty to sit and vote at all risks and perils.—Yours very sincerely,
"C. BRADLAUGH."
The hon. Gentleman owes duties, not only to this House and himself, but also to the constituency which he represents. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) to say that the hon. Member in question should remain suspended from the service of the House, and that Northampton should be deprived of one of its Representatives until the appeal is decided; but I, as the other Member for Northampton, protest in the name of the constituency against such a course.
898
It would be most unfair to the constituency. I am not a lawyer myself, and perhaps that is the reason why I do not particularly appreciate the legal observations of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham; but it appeared to me that they were entirely overthrown by the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The Court that has decided against Mr. Bradlaugh is a Court of First Instance. Mr. Bradlaugh, as I have shown by his letter, intends to prosecute his appeal from the decision of that Court, and it can hardly be fairly said that the matter is judicially decided so long as he intends to go to a higher Court. I will take the case of an estate. Supposing that I were sued for the possession of an estate. I should not be deprived of that estate by an adverse decision of a Court of First Instance, if I gave notice of my intention to appeal. The position of a defendant or appellant remains unaffected pending the appeal. Besides, there was a clear understanding between the House and my hon. Colleague. He was told that the House would not pronounce an opinion on the question whether he might affirm or not, but that he might do so at his own risk and peril. He did affirm at his own risk and peril, and he is quite willing to accept the ultimate decision of the Courts on the case; but I appeal to the sense of fair play of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House not to allow the matter to be prejudiced pendente lite.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, there are two or three facts which should be brought to the notice of the House. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham, on Friday last, gave Notice of a Motion for the issue of a New Writ for Northampton, he did so under the belief that it was not the determination of the "Gentleman in question" to sit and vote in this House, and it was my hon. and learned Friend's intention to at once take the decision of the House upon that Motion. But there was on Friday an understanding, which was greatly strengthened by the fact that the "Gentleman in question" did not appear in the House alter my hon. and learned Friend had given his Notice, that while the matter was pendente lite the Member for Northampton did not intend to take part in the proceed-

899
ings of the House. [Mr. BRADLAUGH dissented.] My hon. and learned Friend did not wish either unfairly to prejudice the question, or raise a debate which would embarrass the Government. But the case is different to-day, when my hon. and learned Friend comes down to the House and finds that the Gentleman who was Member for Northampton is in his place, taking part in the Business of the House, and evidently intending to vote and speak on any question which may come before the House. Upon that, my hon. and learned Friend had no choice but to raise the question immediately. I am perfectly certain that if the Gentleman who was Member for Northampton would consent to consider his status sub judice while the House considered the issue of a Writ premature, my hon. and learned Friend would not trouble the House further on this point of Order. I submit that if the House is willing to forego the issue of the Writ, the hon. Member should be willing to withdraw from the House pending his appeal. Of course, I do not distrust or throw doubt on any statement made by the Member for Northampton, or his Representative, the senior Member for that Borough; but I submit that the House has no security whatever that an appeal will be lodged, at any rate, before the expiration of nearly the whole of the 12 months' interval allowed by the law. It is, therefore, in the power of the Gentleman against whom judgment has been given not to appeal for that time, during which he might be taking part in the proceedings of this House, and voting on most important questions.
MR. BRADLAUGH[Cries of "Order, order!"]: Mr. Speaker—
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understand, Mr. Speaker, not having been present when the matter arose, that a Question has been put to you on a point of Order. It would be greatly to the advantage of the House if you were able at once to decide that point; and it would be very undesirable that we should, in the present state of affairs, expend more time than is absolutely necessary on this subject. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend who has given Notice to move for a New Writ will not on the present occasion make that Motion, but that we shall have another opportunity of discussing
900
the very serious question which he raises. Its discussion would take up much time; and he will feel that there are many reasons why it is not desirable to bring it forward again to-day.
MR. BRADLAUGHagain rose, this time simultaneously with the Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman at once gave way.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Northampton rises in his place. I presume the House will extend its indulgence to him, and desire that he be heard.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I only desire to say, as a matter of fact, that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was misinformed in saying that no notice of appeal had been given. I myself gave notice of appeal in Court to the learned counsel; and, on my giving it, the learned Judge who tried the case at once stayed execution. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) is either mistaken or misinformed as to the law. By the Rules of the Court, on an interlocutory judgment, I am bound to prosecute the appeal within 21 days, as the noble Lord would have discovered on reference to any ordinary law book.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) has appealed to me on a point of Order of great difficulty. He, in fact, desires me to state, upon the authority of the Chair, whether the seat for Northampton is vacant or not. That is a matter, not for the determination of the Chair, but for the determination of the House; and I feel bound to say this—that until the House shall otherwise order I should consider myself obliged to look upon the hon. Member for Northampton as filling the seat for Northampton. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham having interrupted the hon. Member for Northampton while he was presenting a Petition to the House, it is my duty now to call upon the hon. Member to proceed with the presentation of his Petition.
Mr. BRADLAUGH accordingly presented 53 Petitions, having 7,000 signatures, in favour of the Motion of which he had given Notice for inquiry into Perpetual Pensions, and which Petitions were ordered to lie upon the Table.

ASSASSINATION OF THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA.
MR. GLADSTONE: I will to-morrow move an humble Address for the purpose of expressing the sentiments of the House on the assassination of Her Majesty's Ally and Relative, the Emperor of Russia.
Subsequently,
MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to correct an error of omission in relation to the Notice which I gave of an Address to the Crown on the subject of the assassination at St. Petersburg, and to say also that I propose to move a Message of Condolence to Her Imperial and Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh.

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—PAY AND PENSIONS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is intended to extend to the non-commissioned officers and other ranks in the Royal Marines corresponding advantages in pay and pension to those now proposed to be granted to the Army?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In answer, Sir, to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Board of Admiralty, now that they have the scheme of the Secretary of State for War before them for reference and comparison, I do not say for guidance, will at once come to the consideration of the questions relating to the Corps of Royal Marines. There is no need for appointing any more Committees to inquire. The Board has information enough before it to approach the matter with a view to a prompt and practical decision.

  STATE OF IRELAND—PROCESS-SERVERS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware, and, if it be true, that some three or four months ago a large number of the process servers of the county of Donegal resigned office on the ground of intimidation on the part of the Land League; whether their places have as yet been filled
  902
  up; and, if not, why not; whether at the last Quarter Sessions at Carndonagh, county Donegal, only five processes were served, the usual number being about one hundred and fifty; and, what steps the Government propose to take to provide the means for suitors to recover debts in that district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that three process-servers in the barony of Innishowen, in the county of Donegal, had resigned their appointments, the reason of their resignation being that they anticipated danger to themselves in the discharge of their duties, in consequence of the disturbed state of the district. In two cases they had offered themselves for re-appointment; but, as yet, no person had been found willing to take the office of process-server in the district of Carndonagh. There were only 10 processes served last Quarter Sessions. The Government had proclaimed this barony as being in a state of disturbance by a special proclamation under the Coercion Act.

  FEVER AND SMALL-POX HOSPITALS (METROPOLIS).
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, after the recent decision of the House of Lords in the Hampstead Hospital case, he is prepared, by legislation or otherwise, to secure to the inhabitants of the Metropolis the advantages which were intended to be conferred by the establishment of hospitals for fever and small-pox under the provisions of "The Metropolis Poor Act, 1867?"
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I am desirous of doing what the hon. Member asks; but the matter is one of much complication, and I am not prepared, until I have had more time to review the whole subject, to indicate what steps should, in my opinion, be taken to meet the present difficulty. I may add that the recent decision of the House of Lords has only been given with regard to one of the appeals in the case, and a month has been allowed to the managers to prosecute the second appeal if they think proper to do so.

  ARMY—STAFF PAYMASTERS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he cannot mitigate the hardship inflicted on

  903
  Staff Paymasters, who are to be compulsorily retired on 30th September next, by allowing those whose period of five years' grace (secured by Royal Warrant of 22nd October 1877) expires in 1882, to complete that term of service, and thus, in some cases, to complete 25 years' service, and to become thereby entitled to a higher pension; whether he has considered the hardship suffered by those who were (in terms of Royal Warrant of 1st May 1878) gazetted "Staff Paymasters" (the highest rank then granted to officers of the Army Pay Department, all senior Paymasters who joined the Department being gazetted with that rank, according to seniority), and who were superseded by the establishment on 23rd December 1880 of the higher grade of "Chief Paymaster," to which junior officers were appointed; and, whether it is not in his power to grant to Staff Paymasters similar advantages of extra pension on compulsory retirement which is secured to Chief Paymasters by Paragraph 7, Clause 2, of Royal Warrant of 23rd December 1880?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. Member is really a little unreasonable. On the 4th instant I answered a Question on this subject, put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), and I said that I would look into it. I have every desire to mitigate any real grievance; but this is not a question of the New Warrant giving any officer less retired pay, but of pressure to obtain for certain officers larger boons than those granted in 1877. Considering that these matters involve careful discussion between Departments of the Government, it is really out of the question that, especially at a busy time of the year like this, they can be dealt with in a week. If the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question some time hence, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

  NAVY—THE NAVAL RESERVE.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact that although some of the Officers of the Naval Reserve have for sixteen years and upwards served in the rank of Lieutenant, there are no Officers of the rank of Commander in the Reserve; and, if so, whether promotion
  904
  to that rank will be given to any of the Officers in question, as in the other branches of the Navy; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the numbers of the Naval Reserve, stating the class of seamen, whether 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, promotion to the rank of commander in the Naval Reserve, which is an honorary rank, can only be conferred on officers who have attained the age of 50, and who have distinguished themselves in action, or by their zeal in promoting the efficiency of the Reserve. Hitherto, no cases fulfilling both these conditions have been brought under the notice of the Admiralty; but any application sent through the Board of Trade on behalf of officers whose cases satisfy these requirements would meet with the favourable consideration of their Lordships. In answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I may say that on the 28th of February last the numbers of the Royal Naval Reserve were—First Class, 12,050; Second Class, 5,496; Third Class, 111; total, 17,657.

  INDIA—MILITARY STATIONS IN BE-LOOCHISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will place in the Library of the House a map showing the stations, if any, in Beloochistan and Afghanistan at which he proposes that troops should be stationed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, this question of the stations of the troops in Beloochistan and Afghanistan is entirely or mainly a matter for the consideration and decision of the Indian Government, and we are not sufficiently in possession of their views to give the stations. I should, however, have no objection to put up a map without the stations.

  INLAND REVENUE—RECEIPT AND POSTAGE STAMPS.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will be good enough to consider the desirability of meeting the public convenience by an arrangement which would make the existing Penny Postage Stamp available either as a Receipt or a Postage Stamp?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have long desired that the public should be relieved from the inconveniences which attend the obtaining of Inland Revenue stamps as compared with the great facilities for obtaining postage stamps, and there is no way that I know of removing those inconveniences except the union of the stamps—that is to say, allowing postage stamps to be used for Inland Revenue purposes. There would be a certain amount of disadvantage for fiscal and statistical purposes in the arrangement; but, on the whole, the convenience would be so great that I think I may say that we propose to carry it into effect.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE ARMISTICE.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on Her Majesty's Government giving authority to Sir E. Wood to negotiate for prolongation of the armistice with the Boers, he had any instructions to make it a part of the arrangement for such prolongation that the troops of the enemy should be withdrawn from Natal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the case stands thus: The armistice, as it was originally framed, was to expire last night, the 13th, at midnight. On Saturday, the 12th, the Cabinet made a communication to Sir Evelyn Wood, which he was requested to send on to the leaders of the Boers, and which required an answer from the Boers. We could not reasonably expect that that answer could possibly have been received by him in the course of yesterday; and, having previously authorized him to prolong the armistice if necessary, we, on Saturday, instructed him to prolong it, if it were desired by the Boers, for the purpose of giving time for an answer within the limit which we named, which was the 18th—next Friday, but not beyond that, and, perhaps, an earlier day. Under these circumstances we did not instruct Sir Evelyn Wood to make any change in the conditions of the armistice, which would have led to further delay, and been the subject of further communications. I may as well take this opportunity of referring to a Question which was put to me on Friday last with regard to the original armistice. We have telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Wood upon that subject, and have received an
  906
  answer as respects the communications between Mr. Brand and Sir Evelyn Wood in regard to the original armistice. I have already referred to them in this House, and can revert to them if it should be desired. But Sir Evelyn Wood now gives us information with regard to the communications between President Brand and Joubert, and between Joubert and himself, and he states that—"On the 3rd of March, Brand appealed to Joubert to meet me," for the purpose of making an arrangement for the conclusion of an armistice, "and on the 4th of March, Joubert sent me Brand's message asking how far I would co-operate." That is the important part of the communication made by Sir Evelyn Wood—"how far I would co-operate." Sir Evelyn Wood adds—it is written—"so he wishes;" but we read it "as he wishes to stop his patrols on the 5th of March, I offered to meet him on the 6th."
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked, Whether the armistice had been prolonged?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had no information on the point, but would probably have in the course of a day or two.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CETEWAYO, LATE KING OF THE ZULUS—ARRANGEMENTS FOR DETENTION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What arrangements have been made for the future detention of Cetewayo; what amount of liberty will be granted to him; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will allow him to be joined by such members of his family as he may wish to have with him?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, Cetewayo is now, and has been for more than a month, residing about four miles from Cape Town, on a farm, or small estate, of some 1,600 acres. He and his are free to range over this and the neighbouring location occupied by his neighbour, Langalibalele, from sunrise to sunset, as much as they please, and all the necessaries and comforts of life are supplied to them. Strangers will not be allowed to trespass on the location at their own pleasure; but all proper visitors will be able to obtain orders from the Secretary for Native Affairs. Four or more of Cetewayo's wives and a few

  907
  followers, the number to be determined by the Cape Government in concurrence with that of Natal, are permitted to reside on the location. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies long ago gave very positive orders as to the spirit in which the detention of Cetewayo was to be carried into effect. I read these to the House in reply to a Question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and I think the House was quite satisfied as to their humanity.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1872—SCHOOL CHILDREN—THE CENSUS.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will give instructions that School Board officials or others authorised by them may have access to the Enumeration Books containing copies of the contents of the schedules in the forthcoming Census, in the hands of the sheriff clerks or town clerks at any time between the period when, by the Registrar General's Instructions, these are to be placed in their hands by the Registrar of the district, viz.: 23rd April, and the time when they fall to be transmitted to the Registrar General, viz.: 4th May, for the purpose of extracting therefrom the names, ages, and other particulars regarding all children of school age, and the names and particulars of the parents or guardians of such children; and, whether, should it be necessary, he will authorise an extension of the time during which the Enumeration Books may remain in the hands of the sheriff clerks or town clerks so as to facilitate the carrying out of the purposes of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872?"
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): I find, on inquiry at the office of the Registrar General for Scotland, that there are serious objections to communicating the Census Returns to school boards. Those Returns are held to be of a confidential character, and we are afraid that if they were to be given to any person outside the Department it might interfere with their accuracy.

  INLAND REVENUE—SURVEYING OFFICERS.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the hours of duty of the Surveying Officers of Inland Revenue have been much in-
  908
  creased by the new duties imposed upon them by the Act 43 and 44 Vic. c. 20; and, if so, whether it would be possible to give them, in compensation, some increase of leave?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, in order to meet the increase of work referred to by the noble Lord, 100 officers have been added to the Staff, and the business has been re-arranged with a view to avoid giving more work to any officer than he is required and able to perform according to the regulations of the Service. It is, of course, impossible to say that in some particular case some officer may not have more to do than formerly, especially as, from the nature of the duties of the Surveyors, their work is not performed at specified hours; but, as I stated the other day in reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County, the present allowance of leave is considered sufficient.

  THE CENSUS (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the teachers of the National Schools who have filled the Census Returns are entitled to some remuneration commensurate with the amount of labour which those Returns involve; and, if so, whether the Government can take any steps in the matter?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that as the National School teachers were only called upon to perform these Census duties once in 10 years, and as he found that no other public officials were remunerated for doing them, he did not see why there should be any exception made in their case to the general rule.

  TURKEY IN ASIA—ARMENIA.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the injuries now being inflicted on the peaceable inhabitants of Armenia, both Christians and Mohammedans, by the Kurds who have been driven back from Persia into Turkish territory, and to the conduct of the Porte in quartering Kurdish nomads upon the Armenian villagers;

  909
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government has already represented, or will represent, to the Porte the necessity of ceasing this practice of quartering ferocious tribes on its unarmed subjects, and the duty of taking prompt and vigorous action to check the excesses of the Kurds?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have heard from Vice Consul Clayton that fugitive Kurds from Persia have been quartered by the Turkish authorities upon the villagers in the country to the south-east of Lake Van, and that the villagers have been ordered to support the fugitives for the winter. Colonel Clayton's Report came through the Embassy at Constantinople; and Her Majesty's Ambassador, who is greatly interested in the condition of the Armenian population, will make representations in regard to the hardship entailed on the villagers by having to maintain these fugitives, if he has a favourable opportunity of doing so, or thinks that such representations are likely to be of use.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE CONSTABULARY—AFFRAY AT WINDGAP, CO. KILKENNY.
  THE O'DONOGHUE (for Mr. MARUM)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement appearing in a local paper, that during the last month a patrol of three subconstables were sent from the police barrack of Windgap, in the county of Kilkenny; that the men, instead of going on patrol as directed, retired to a public-house in the locality, and commenced to drink and play at cards; that a row subsequently ensued, when a sub-constable struck a comrade with a tumbler, split his upper lip, knocked out two of his teeth, and fractured the jawbone; that they attempted to shoot one another in the house, and also when they got out; that the constable who struck the first blow was subsequently placed under arrest and removed to Callan; and that the men, when sent on patrol, were in the habit for some time past of resorting to this publichouse; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be instituted into the matter, to prevent repetition of such conduct?
  MR. CHARLES LEWISalso wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If the
  910
  publican has not been guilty of a gross breach of the law in allowing the police to remain in his house under such circumstances?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have made inquiry into the matter, and I regret to find that it is one of the very rare—almost the only—case since I have been in my present position that has come to my knowledge where members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been shown to be guilty of gross misconduct. The facts, however, are not quite so bad as they are represented. It was after the men had returned from the performance of their patrol duty that the occurrence took place; no attempt was made by the sub-constables to use their firearms; and I can also give a distinct denial to the allegation that the police when on patrol duty were in the habit of resorting to this public-house. This appears to have been an exceptional case; but though this may be some palliation, yet no excuse can be offered for their conduct. However, a stringent inquiry has been undertaken by the Inspector General into the circumstances of the case, in order that it may be seen what steps should be taken in the matter. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Londonderry, I have to say that the publican, as well as the sub-constables, was brought before the magistrate and fined for a breach of the Licensing Act.

  VACCINATION ACT—VACCINATION IN PRISON.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the medical officers of Her Majesty's Prisons are required by the regulations to vaccinate all children born in the prisons before they are allowed to go out; and, if so, whether such regulations are strictly enforced, especially in the case of the female prison at Westminster?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, there is no absolute rule on the subject, nor could there be. It is uncertain at what age a child may be at the time it is discharged. As a general rule, a child is vaccinated in prison when it is old enough, and the mother makes no objection. The answer I have received to a question is, that all the children born in Westminster Prison are vaccinated if they are old enough and not too delicate.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) ACT—REPORT OF ELECTION COMMISSIONS.
  MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Attorney General, What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in order to secure the presentation of the Reports of the Election Commissioners who have not as yet reported before the close of the time specified in the Act for the commencement of a prosecution for corrupt practices; and, in the event of any of the Election Commissioners not reporting in time to prosecute any of those who may be scheduled in these Reports, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in order that there may be no miscarriage of justice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, at one time there were apprehensions entertained that these Reports would not be presented in time for the purpose stated in the Question; but a practical method was found of getting over the difficulty. It was pointed out that if the labours of the Commissioners were not brought to a close to enable certain steps to be taken by the 31st of March, great inconvenience would result to the public interest; and the Commissioners came to the conclusion that the business was urgent, and they also came to the conclusion that it was of importance to the public interests that the business should be proceeded with without delay. Their doing so was the best way of getting rid of the difficulty; and the proof of it is that their having done so has rendered it unnecessary to answer the second part of the Question.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the proceedings of the Oxford Election Commissioners, by which it appears that on the 30th of October the Chief Commissioner stated that they had notice to conclude the local inquiry in the long vacation, but having been unable to do so, it was adjourned to the 22nd of December; whether that adjournment had his sanction, and whether the professional engagements of the Commissioners had anything to do with the arrangement; and, whether it has not followed that the inquiry is still incomplete?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Oxford Commissioners and the other Commissioners did, from time to time, apply for power to adjourn, and that power I granted, at the same time giving instructions that it was desirable and important that the Reports should be made as soon as possible. It is quite true that the Oxford Commissioners had hoped to have concluded their Report in October; but at the end of October they stated that, with every desire to have concluded the inquiry during the course of the Long Vacation, they had been unable to do so, owing in great measure to the fact that the vouchers presented by Mr. Walsh, the Conservative agent, who had destroyed his accounts, had been found to be unreliable, and they had been engaged during the greater portion of the inquiry in procuring from those who had the management of the different districts their accounts, which they had to render in some cases from memory, and in others from imperfect memoranda. The inquiry has now nearly reached its end. As to the other part of the Question, I am unable to give information.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, that the main question was, whether there was an adjournment from October to December?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I believe that was so. The Commissioners wrote to me that it was an adjournment of their sittings in Oxford; but they held sittings in London during the interval. I may say that it has been rather the business of the Oxford Commissioners to examine me, than my business to examine the Oxford Commissioners.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the main point of the Question was, whether the long adjournment had anything to do with the professional engagements of the Commissioners?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not know. I think it is very likely.

  ARMY—THE SEPARATION ALLOWANCE FOR SOLDIERS' WIVES AND CHILDREN.
  GENERAL BURNABYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a letter, on the subject of "soldiers' families," in the "Times" of the 9th instant; whe-

  913
  ther it is true, as therein stated, that from the
  "allowance of 9d. a day to each non-commissioned officer's wife, 7d. to each private's wife, and 3d. for each child,"
  in quarters, the sum of
  "6d. a day would be recovered from each non-commissioned officer's pay, 4d. from each private's, and 1½d. in respect of each child,"—"so that it would appear that the exact allowance this wealthy Country is making to these poor women amounts, besides a little coal, to exactly 3d. a day for themselves, and 1½d. a day for each of their children;"
  and, whether he can promise to increase these allowances?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I must appeal to him whether it is reasonable that I should be asked to reply to a letter in a newspaper written by a Member of Parliament, whose Question on the same subject I had fully answered, and with great detail, a few days before. What is called the "separation allowance for soldiers' wives and children" has been in force for many years, and I find has been the subject of full inquiry by my right hon. and gallant Friend and Predecessor, who declined to increase it. I have, however, out of consideration for the women and children who came home in the Jumna, their husbands having been hurriedly separated from them, advanced them a further daily allowance, instead of keeping them waiting for the remittance from their husbands, and I have undertaken to look into the whole question. It would be unreasonable to ask me to decide it in a hurry, after the positive refusal of my Predecessor and the late Government to make any change.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MICHAEL BOYTON.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report which has appeared in several newspapers to the effect that the United States Minister has made representations to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the arrest of Michael Boyton, on the ground that he is an American citizen; and, whether any information can be given to the House, as to the course to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government on this and other similar cases?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir. No representation has been received from the United States Government upon the subject.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE ARMISTICE.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is correctly reported to have said at Oxford, that the proposal for an armistice after the defeat at Lang's Nek came from the Boer side?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir; the report seems substantially correct. What I actually said was this—that we had been obliged to give rather cautious answers in Parliament to Questions about the armistice, because Ministers replying to Questions in Parliament are expected to be rigidly accurate, and not to go one inch beyond the documents which they have in their hands; that, however, at a festive gathering, one was not bound to be so rigidly accurate, and that I had no hesitation in saying there what I do not think I should have been justified in saying in the House of Commons, that, as far as my opinion went, based on the best study I could give to the telegrams, I had no doubt that the first suggestion of the armistice came from the Boers.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE NEWCASTLE AND LANG'S NEK ROUTE.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, to be so good as to inform the House, Whether the late Sir George Colley advanced towards the Transvaal with the force at his disposal by the Newcastle and Lang's Nek route in full telegraphic communication with England; whether the disadvantages and dangers of that route, in comparison with an alternative route, were fully pointed out to and admitted by the Intelligence Department in England, by an officer lately returned from the Transvaal; and, whether such information was telegraphed to Sir George Colley; or, if not, why it was withheld from him?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that Sir George Colley was in tele-

  915
  graphic communication with England when he advanced by the Newcastle and Lang's Nek route. It is also true that a gentleman who had formerly been a lieutenant in the Army suggested to the Intelligence Department a different route for an advance on the Transvaal. But it is further true that Sir George Colley was fully aware of this route, and of its disadvantages and advantages. I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, under these circumstances, not to include in any Question he may address to me indications of a route for military operations which is perfectly well known to us, but which had better not be made known to others.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS)—THE NATIVE POPULATION.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in any settlement of the Transvaal Question, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the question of providing not only for the protection of the loyal inhabitants of the Transvaal of European origin, but also in respect of the lives, liberties, and property of the native inhabitants of that country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I really think I need only refer to what has been said by myself and by other Members of the Government upon the subject to show that the position of the Native population in the Transvaal was one of the most important matters present to our minds in view of any practicable settlement of the question.

  ROADS AND HIGHWAYS (SCOTLAND).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Lord Advocate, If he will arrange to supply the House with as full information about the roads and highways of Scotland, as that promised to be supplied about the English and Welsh roads and highways by the President of the Local Government Board of England and Wales?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN), in reply, said he thought that the Returns regarding the highways and roads in England were not in a form that could be given for Scotland; but he should be very glad to consider, along with his hon. and gallant Friend,
  916
  in what form the Returns could be given in order to secure the specific information he desired.

  MEDICAL POOR LAW GRANTS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. CRUMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the following paragraph in the "Times" of 9th March correctly represents the views of the Government; and, if so, whether they will give effect to these views in the present year:—
  "Last night a deputation from the Parochial Boards of Scotland waited upon Mr. Gladstone to ask for an increase in the Medical Poor Law grants. Mr. Gladstone told the deputation that he was under a mistake as to the nature of their application, and he must refer them to Lord Frederick Cavendish, who, after hearing their statement, gave an undertaking that he would grant an increase if the Parochial Boards were willing to allow the Poor Law supervision to exercise some control over the appointment and dismissal of their Medical Officers?"
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I have to thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of removing a misapprehension which could not, I think, be shared in by any member of the deputation referred to in the Question. The facts are as follows:—In reply to an observation made by a member of the deputation that there was no necessity for legislation, and that all that was needed to secure equality between England and Scotland was to place an increased sum in the Estimates for medical relief in Scotland, I pointed out that, to place England and Scotland on an equality, it would be necessary to make the condition of the grant the same as well as its proportions, and that that could not be done without legislation. I added that, to secure the desired equality, we must not look at this particular grant in aid alone, but include in our survey other grants in aid, such as that for pauper lunatics. I then as nearly as possible repeated the statement which I made a short time ago in this House in reply to a Question, that the Government was considering the subject of grants in aid at large, with the view, if possible, of devising some better method of regulating the appropriation of public money for local purposes, and that, in the meanwhile, we did not consider it desirable to insert an additional sum in the Estimates for medical relief.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—LOWTON SCHOOL, LANCASHIRE—REPORT OF A DEPUTATION.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in a local newspaper, purporting to be a report of a deputation respecting the school of Lowton, in Lancashire; and whether the same is a true report? He would not have troubled the right hon. Gentleman with the Question, if the reported speeches had not contained serious charges against a gentleman concerned.
  MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, his attention had been called to a statement which filled nearly two columns of the newspaper. The deputation consisted of a very few persons, and he did not know how such a report of what was stated to have taken place could have been made, as no speeches were made. Instead of making speeches to the Education Department, the deputation must have sent them to the local newspaper.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—SUPPLY AND "URGENCY."
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he desired to ask the Prime Minister some Questions of which he had given him private Notice. They were:—Firstly, Whether it was correct to say that the demand for "urgency" was partly made because the Government wished to preserve the time between Easter and Whitsuntide for legislation? Secondly, whether, if the Supplementary Estimates were not passed between the 24th and 31st March, the House would have no security that the law would be observed with regard to them? Thirdly, whether it was usual to postpone the first Votes of the Estimates? Fourthly, whether the original Estimates which were now followed by these Supplementary Estimates were framed by the present Government, or their Predecessors? Fifthly, and lastly, whether at the time of the Supplementary Budget of 1880, the Government were possessed of a trustworthy Estimate of the expenses of the Afghan War?
  MR. GORST: I rise to Order, Sir. Is it not a Rule of the House that the Motion of "Urgency" shall be put without discussion or delay? If it is so, I wish to ask, whether it is not an inva-
  918
  sion of the Order of this House if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillwyn) puts a Question to the Prime Minister which will enable the Prime Minister to state his reasons for the Motion of "Urgency" he is about to make?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Swansea having risen in his place and put certain Questions to the Prime Minister on certain points, I am not in a position to interpose.
  MR. RITCHIE: Will the hon. Member for Swansea say at whose request he has put these Questions?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will take care, Sir, to obviate the reasonable apprehension of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), by confining myself in the strictest manner to matters of fact. It is not the case that the present demand for "urgency" is made, either wholly or partly, because the Government wish to reserve the time from Easter to Whitsuntide for legislation. It would be their duty to make the demand, if they had no wish on the subject of legislation, although we do desire to use some of the time in question for legislation. The change which we have made, which led to my reference to the subject, is that, in consequence of this desire, the Government have to ask for a Vote on Account for the Civil Service of 1881–2 for a longer period than we should otherwise have asked for it. I am asked, secondly, whether, if the Supplementary Estimates were passed on the 24th of March, the House would have any security that the law could be observed with regard to them, and I must say, in reply, that in the conviction of the Government the House can have no such security. I will not enter into details, which would be of a technical character; but I may be permitted to say, as a matter of fact, that during 20 years past the Votes for Supplementary Estimates have never been granted later than the 21st of March, and never but once so late as March 21—namely, in the year when the Government had very recently assumed Office. With regard to the third Question, I have to say that it is not usual to postpone the first Votes for the coming year, and the Ways and Means Act relating to them, until after the 31st of March. That Act has always been passed before March 31st, since the Exchequer and Audit Act was passed, and

  919
  the stricter Rules came into practice. As to the fourth Question, I have to say that the original Estimates, of which the Supplementary Estimates represent the consequent result, were framed by the late Government, and were presented anew by the present Government, with, I think, one or two changes in some matters of detail. With regard to the last Question, whether, at the time of the Supplementary Budget of 1880, the Government were possessed of a trustworthy estimate of the expense of the Afghan War, the matter stands thus:—On the 5th of February, 1880, those expenses were estimated by the Indian Government at £5,500,000. On the 4th of May, 1880, they were estimated at a sum which it was stated would be nearly £10,000,000, and on the 1st of June the Government received a telegram from the Viceroy of India stating that the expenses would largely exceed £10,000,000.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I certainly do not rise, Sir, to attempt anything like a discussion; but I wish to put a Question upon one of the statements of the Prime Minister which is simply a matter of fact, upon which I do not think his answer was quite full. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not go into details as to the possibility of passing the Ways and Means Act on the 31st of March if the last Vote was taken in Supply on the 24th. I wish to ask him whether that is a correct statement as to what the course of Business might be if the last Vote was taken on the 24th? Assuming the last Vote to be taken on that day, and the Resolution in Ways and Means also taken on that day, would not the Supply Votes be reported on Friday, the 25th, and the Resolutions on Ways and Means be also reported on that day, and the Bill be brought in and read the first time? Would it not then be possible by sitting on Saturday—["Oh, oh!"]—well, I am suggesting it as a choice of evils—to read the Bill a second time? The Committee might then be taken on Monday, the 28th, the Bill be read a third time on the 29th, and be sent to the House of Lords and read a first time there; whether the House of Lords would not on the 30th pass the Bill through its remaining stage, so that it might receive the Royal Assent on Thursday, the 31st?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will answer the Question of the right hon. Gentleman in detail. It is correct to say that we could take the stages mentioned on Thursday, the 24th, and Friday, the 25th. It is not, however, usual at this period of the year to sit on a Saturday, especially when Her Majesty's Cabinet were occupied in considering questions of peace and war of the utmost delicacy and anxiety, which are not of their seeking. No doubt, as regards the House, it is a matter of convenience or inconvenience; but the Government have to contemplate another state of things, in which the Ways and Means Bill might be made the subject of debate, occupying the day on Saturday; and certainly it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to discharge their duty at any meeting of the Cabinet that day. But, overlooking that, let us assume that the second reading of the Bill would take place on Saturday, the 26th. On Monday, the 28th, we might have the Committee on the Bill. On Tuesday, the 29th, we might have the third reading of the Bill; but the Government have no command of Tuesday, and we have no means of insuring that we should read the Bill a third time on Tuesday, the 29th, so as to send it to the House of Lords, that it may go through its first stage on that day. The next Question is, whether it should not be read a second time and passed through its remaining stages in the House of Lords on Wednesday, the 30th. Sir, I presume it might; but I know very well the practice of the House of Lords is not to sit on Wednesday. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: They sat to pass the Coercion Bill on a Wednesday.] At any rate, the Government have no right whatever to calculate upon any change being made in the practice of the House of Lords to suit the convenience of the House of Commons. ["Oh!"] The hon. Member who interrupts me will be pleased to allow me to finish my statement. We have no right whatever to calculate, and it would be most imprudent in us to calculate, on such changes in the practice of the House of Lords to meet the immediate difficulties which it might be said the House of Commons had the means of averting. But let me pass that over. The right hon. Gentleman then asks whether the Bill, having passed on the 30th, might not receive

  921
  the Royal Assent on the 31st? What I have to say in reply is, that if it did not receive the Royal Assent on the 31st, the law could not be fulfilled, and the necessary transactions and communications between the Government and the Departments and the Banks of England and Ireland could not be carried out. That is my answer; and I hope it will be considered sufficiently clear by the right hon. Gentleman.

  ARMY—ABOLITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT—THE TROOPS IN NATAL.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether he has received any report from South Africa confirming the telegram in the "Standard" of that day, to the effect that—
  "The abolition of corporal punishment in the field is placing the military authorities in Natal in a very grave difficulty?"
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I must appeal to the House whether the sending of a note to a Minister on this Bench, as to whether a telegram published in a newspaper is confirmed by information received by him, is not an extremely inconvenient course to adopt. The Question put to me is, whether the military authorities in South Africa are not placed in a certain difficulty by the abolition of corporal punishment? I presume the hon. Member, in his allusion to the abolition of corporal punishment, refers to the Act passed in 1879, which took away corporal punishment in certain cases. All I have to say is that I have read the telegram in The Standard, and we have received no similar telegram whatever.

POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—MR. BRADLAUGH—BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON—ISSUE OF NEW WRIT.
  MR. GORST, who had a Motion on the Paper—
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Northampton, in the room of Charles Bradlaugh, esquire, who, since his election for the said Borough, has voted as a Member in the House
  922
  of Commons in the said House, and has sat during a debate after the Speaker had been chosen without having made and subscribed the oath by Law appointed,"
  said, that the Motion in question was one which ought not to undergo any unnecessary delay. Delay would apparently make no difference to the hon. Gentleman whose seat was involved in the question; but it would make a difference to the House of Commons and to the constituency of Northampton. Therefore, he had great reluctance to postpone the Motion of which he had given Notice. At the same time, he could not but be sensible of the difficult position of Supply; and it appeared to him it was the duty of every Member of the House not only to put no obstacle in the way of the Government, but to give the utmost encouragement in their power to enable them to lay Supply before the House of Commons in an ordinary and Constitutional manner. Therefore, for that reason, and that reason only, he did not intend to move his Resolution; but he gave Notice that, on the earliest possible day when the exigencies of the Public Service would allow him to bring forward the question without interrupting Supply, he should renew his Notice, and take the opinion of the House as to whether the seat was vacant or not.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—(URGENCY).
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to declare, in my place, as a Minister of the Crown, That the Votes in Committee of Supply for Excesses for the service of the year 1879–80; for the several Supplementary and other Estimates for the service of the year 1880–81: Votes A and 1 for the Army, Vote 1 for the Navy, and the Vote on Account of the Civil Services, and Revenue Departments, for the service of the year 1881–2, now before the House are urgent; and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the state of public business is urgent."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 296; Noes 212: Majority 84.

  AYES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Courtauld, G.

  Agar-Robartes, hn. T. C.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Cowan, J.

  Allen, H. G.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Allen, W. S.

  Craig, W. Y.

  Allman, R. L.

  Creyke, R.

  Amory, Sir J. H.

  Cropper, J.

  Armitage, B.

  Crum, A.

  Armitstead, G.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Arnold, A.

  Currie, D.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Davey, H.

  Baldwin, E.

  Davies, R.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Davies, W.

  Balfour, J. B.

  De Ferrieres, Baron

  Balfour, J. S.

  Dilke, A. W.

  Baring, Viscount

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Barnes, A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Barran, J.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Bass, A.

  Duckham, T.

  Bass, H.

  Duff, rt. hon. M. E. G.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Duff, R. W.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Biddulph, M.

  Edwards, H.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Edwards, P.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Errington, G.

  Brand, H. R.

  Evans, T. W.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Brassey, T.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Brett, R. B.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Ferguson, R.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Findlater, W.

  Brinton, J.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Brooks, M.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.

  Brown, A. H.

  Flower, C.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Bryce, J.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Butt, C. P.

  Fort, R.

  Buxton, F. W.

  Fowler, W.

  Caine, W. S.

  Fry, L.

  Cameron, C.

  Fry, T.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Gabbett, D. F.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Glyn, hon. S. C.

  Carington, hon. R.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Carington, hn. Colonel W. H. P.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Causton, R. K.

  Grant, A.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Grant, D.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Grant, Sir G. M.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Grenfell, W. H.

  Chambers, Sir T.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Guest, M. J.

  Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Chitty, J. W.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Cohen, A.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Collins, E.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Colman, J. J.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Colthurst, Col. D. la T.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir H.

  Corbett, J.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Henderson, F.

  924

  Heneage, E.

  O'Beirne, Major F.

  Henry, M.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Otway, A.

  Hill, T. R.

  Paget, T. T.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Holms, J.

  Palmer, G.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Howard, G. J.

  Parker, C. S.

  Howard, J.

  Pease, A.

  Hutchinson, J. D.

  Pease, J. W.

  Illingworth, A.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Peel, A. W.

  James, C.

  Pender, J.

  James, Sir H.

  Pennington, F.

  James, W. H.

  Philips, R. N.

  Jardine, R.

  Playfair, rt. hon. L.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Portman, hn. W. H. B.

  Johnson, E.

  Potter, T. B.

  Johnson, W. M.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Joicey, Colonel J.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Pulley, J.

  Kinnear, J.

  Ralli, P.

  Labouchere, H.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Laing, S.

  Rathbone, W.

  Lambton, hon. F. W.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Law, rt. hon. H.

  Reid, R. T.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Rendel, S.

  Lawrence, W.

  Richard, H.

  Laycock, R.

  Richardson, J. N.

  Lea, T.

  Richardson, T.

  Leake, R.

  Roberts, J.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Lee, H.

  Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Roundell, C. S.

  Russell, C.

  Litton, E. F.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Lloyd, M.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Rylands, P.

  Lyons, R. D.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Macdonald, A.

  Samuelson, H.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Seely, C. (Lincoln)

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Seely, C. (Nottingham)

  Macliver, P. S.

  Shield, H.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  M'Arthur, W.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  M'Intyre, Æneas J.

  Slagg, J.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Smith, E.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  M'Laren, J.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  M'Minnies, J. G.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Magniac, C.

  Stanton, W. J.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Stewart, J.

  Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.

  Story-Maskelyne, M. H.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Stuart, H. V.

  Marriott, W. T.

  Summers, W.

  Martin, R. B.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Mason, H.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Massey, rt. hon. W. N.

  Tennant, C.

  Matheson, A.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Maxwell-Heron, J.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Meldon, C. H.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Mellor, J. W.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Milbank, F. A.

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

  Monk, C. J.

  Moreton, Lord

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Morley, A.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Walter, J.

  Nicholson, W.

  Waterlow, Sir S.

  Noel, E.

  Waugh, E.

  925

  Webster, Dr. J.

  Wilson, I.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Whitbread, S.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Whitworth, B.

  Woodall, W.

  Williams, B. T.

  Williamson, S.

  TELLERS.

  Willis, W.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Kensington, Lord

  Wilson, C. H.

  NOES.

  Alexander, Colonel C.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Aylmer, Capt. J. E. F.

  Elcho, Lord

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Baring, T. C.

  Ennis, Sir J.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Ewart, W.

  Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Feilden, Major-General R. J.

  Bellingham, A. H.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Biddell, W.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Finch, G. H.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Finigan, J. L.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.

  Boord, T. W.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Bourke, right hon. R.

  Floyer, J.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Foster, W. H.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Brooke, Lord

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Brymer, W. E.

  Galway, Viscount

  Burghley, Lord

  Gardner, R. Richardson

  Burnaby, General E. S.

  Burrell, Sir W. W.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Callan, P.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Cameron, D.

  Gore-Langton, W. S.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Gorst, J. E.

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Grantham, W.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Greene, E.

  Chaine, J.

  Greer, T.

  Chaplin, H.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Christie, W. L.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Churchill, Lord R.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Clarke, E.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Close, M. C.

  Cobbold, T. C.

  Harcourt, E. W.

  Coddington, W.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Compton, F.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Coope, O. E.

  Corry, J. P.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Cowen, J

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Hermon, E.

  Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

  Hicks, E.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Hill, A. S.

  Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.

  Holker, Sir J.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Home, Captain D. M.

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Johnstone, Sir F.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Knight, F. W.

  926

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Percy, Earl

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Phipps, P.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Leamy, E.

  Powell, F. S.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Lee, Major V.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Legh, W. J.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Leigh, R.

  Rankin, J.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Repton, G. W.

  Leighton, S.

  Ridley, Sir M. W

  Lovett, T. J.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ross, A. H.

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Round, J.

  Loder, R.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Long, W. H.

  Sandon, Viscount

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Schreiber, C.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Mac Iver, D.

  Scott, M. D.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Severne, J. E.

  March, Earl of

  Smith, A.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Storer, G.

  Monckton, F.

  Sykes, C.

  Moss, R.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J. R.

  Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.

  Mulholland, J.

  Thomson, H.

  Murray, C. J.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Newport, Viscount

  Tollemache, hon. W. F.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Warton, C. N.

  O'Connor, A.

  Watney, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Welby-Gregory, Sir W.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Whitley, E.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Onslow, D.

  Wroughton, P.

  Paget, R. H.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Palliser, Sir W.

  Patrick, R. W. C.

  TELLERS.

  Peek, Sir H.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Winn, R.

  MR. SPEAKER: The Question not having been affirmed by a majority of three to one, as required by the Resolution of the 3rd February, I have to declare that the Question has not been resolved in the affirmative.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to my second Notice—
  "That, unless the House shall otherwise order, the Committee of Supply have precedence of all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motions, from day to day until the Votes declared urgent have been disposed of,"
  that Notice is consequential upon the first, and I shall, therefore, not move it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I move, Sir, that you now leave the Chair, and in doing so I will only say that, the House having, for strong reasons, thought fit, with regard to the question of "urgency," to place the direction of its proceedings in the hands of the minority of the House, I, of course, accept and acquiesce in that decision. We shall now, Sir, allow the Motion to be made in the ordinary course, and I hope that hon. Gentleman in all quarters of the House will feel a disposition to expedite as far as they can the proceedings in and connected with Supply. As far as the Government are concerned, it will be our duty, of course, to watch the progress that may be made, only reserving our own discretion and liberty to make hereafter whatever proposals we may think may be required by the honour and dignity of the House, and by the convenience and necessity of Public Business.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS, who had on the Paper a Notice of Motion—
  "That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to consider the working of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875,' and the amending Act of 1879, with a view of considering how the expense of carrying out these Acts may be reduced, and also of inquiring into any causes which may have prevented the reconstruction of dwellings for the Artisan Class to the full extent contemplated and authorised by these Acts, and of recommending such Amendments as may be most expedient for carrying out the full intention of these Acts, and also to consider the working of the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Acts, 1872 and 1877, with the same objects,"
  said, that in withdrawing it he gladly fell in with the suggestion of the Prime Minister, and he hoped that other Members who had Notices on the Paper would find some more convenient season for bringing them forward.
  MR O'DONNELL, who had given Notice that he would call attention to proceedings in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill on Tuesday,
  928
  March 8th, with regard to Order, and move—
  "That Mr. Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression in informing the Committee that the Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair,"
  said, that although he felt that he and his constituents had suffered an undeserved wrong, yet in consideration of the exigencies of Public Business and in the hope that the important case involved would receive the fair attention of English Gentlemen, he did not propose to proceed with his Motion that night.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1880–81.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1880–81.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) £2,192, Public Buildings.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished, before the Vote was put, to make one or two remarks upon the conduct of the Government in reference to these Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had represented to the House that they were urgent; but the Government had themselves failed to take the steps that were necessary, if there were any real urgency. The noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had for years been a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, and in that capacity the noble Lord was responsible for sundry paragraphs in successive Reports made by the Committee bearing upon the question. But the Committee of Public Accounts——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Supplementary Estimates generally upon the Vote now before the Committee; but only this particular Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpresumed that it would be in Order to discuss them on a Motion to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a Motion to that effect; but he cannot discuss the Estimates generally on one particular Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought he was at liberty to show the general

    929
    bearing of the Estimates. The Government had failed to take the steps that were necessary to enable the Committee to form a proper judgment upon the proposal they were now submitting, and he thought before these Supplementary Estimates were placed before the Committee, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) should present some Report from the Public Accounts Committee. Nothing could be more emphatic than the language of the noble Lord as Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts upon that point, and although he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was unable to see in what respect he was out of Order, he submitted to the adverse ruling of the Chair. Otherwise, he should have desired to urge the matter, which he regarded as an important one, upon the attention of the Committee. He thought he should have been able to show conclusively that the course taken by the Government in this instance was an objectionable one. In regard to the particular Vote now before the Committee, he should be glad if the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would state whether anything was included for the Engineering Department in the Estimate of £1,500 for the Survey Buildings?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas understood to reply in the negative.
    MR. BRANDasked when the Survey was likely to be completed?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had stated a few days ago, in answer to a Question that was put to him, that if the Committee consented to vote the sum now asked for the Survey could be completed by the end of the year 1890, or about nine years hence.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained that a part of the sum in the Vote was not really for Supplementary Estimates, but for entirely new works, which were not provided for in the original Estimates of last year. Instead of voting a sum to cover a particular expenditure for the year, and then to ask for a Supplementary Estimate in order to cover any additional expenditure for that voted service, the practice now-a-days seemed to be to have two distinct sets of Estimates for two distinct services in the course of the same year. He strongly objected to the practice, and hoped that the Government would do
    930
    something to prevent it from occurring again.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) had a right to be jealous of these Supplementary Estimates; but how were they to avoid cases where unexpected demands were made on the Exchequer for expenditure which was not contemplated when the Estimates were framed? For instance, there was the sum included in the present Vote for the site of the Mint, which might be taken as an illustration. Before the present Government entered upon Office, the question of the purchase of the Mint site was referred by the late Government to arbitration, and the sum now asked for was in payment of the fees of the arbitrators. He could not suppose that his hon. and gallant Friend would wish that the arbitrators should be kept out of their fees, because the question had not occurred at the time the Estimates were originally framed. When it became necessary to pay such an item of expenditure the Government did all they could in the matter by drawing attention to the item in a note. The next item in the Vote was one of a similar character—namely, the payment for Metropolitan improvements. Arrangements had been made for acquiring certain property for improvements, and it was necessary to pay the purchase money into Court, as it was not clear at the time to whom it would have to be paid. As soon as the right to the money was established it was paid out of the sum deposited in Court. In regard to the item for Survey Buildings, the increased expenditure was due to the fact that the House last year desired that the Survey should be expedited, and the Government were endeavouring to comply with the wish thus expressed. It was necessary, in order to do this, that the Survey should be commenced in new districts.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURdid not object to any further expenditure that was necessary for the purpose of expediting the Survey. It was highly necessary, he thought, that the Survey should be completed as soon as possible; but the Vote included a demand for work entirely new. He should be glad, however, to have some information as to the mode in which the sum of £141,000, which was the total

    931
    cost of the Survey for the year 1880–81, was made up. He would not oppose the Vote; but he was strongly of opinion that it was most objectionable to vote money in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate, when, in reality, it was nothing of the kind.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had no wish to object to these Supplementary Votes, and could fully understand the difficulty which the Government found themselves placed in. He presumed in regard to the item for the Mint site, that it only had reference to a preliminary arrangement, and that the matter would, on some subsequent occasion, be brought before Parliament in such a form that a discussion could be taken upon it.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that the present Estimate would in no way interfere with any subsequent discussion.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that he found from the Appropriation Account of the Estimates last year, that something like £120,000 was received from the sale of two prisons. The sum of £49,000 was derived from the sale of the Queen's Bench. It, therefore, appeared to him, that this particular Department did not require any Supplementary Vote at all. Instead of requiring a further grant, there ought to be something carried forward to this year's account. He wished to know if there were any other prisons for sale?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the money was devoted to the relief of the Exchequer.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £3,000, Surveys of the United Kingdom.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYthought that great injustice had been done to certain parts of the country in the manner in which the Ordnance Survey had been conducted. The whole country paid for the Survey—only a portion of the country benefited by it. The work ought to be pressed on as rapidly as possible—more surveyors and draftsmen employed—more money expended, which would be in great degree refunded by the sale of the maps. Sir Henry James, the late Chief of the Survey, had said to him that there ought to be no absolute limit to the number of the men employed in making the Survey, but that whatever
    932
    number of men were found to be necessary should be employed. He trusted there would be no unnecessary delay in completing the Survey.
    Mr. GLADSTONEwas afraid that it was not altogether possible to meet the difficulty referred to by his hon. Friend of an appearance of unequal dealing in the progress made with the Survey in different parts of the country. It was manifestly impossible to proceed with the Survey at an equal rate of progress all over the country. It was the desire of the Government to expedite the completion of the Survey as much as possible so that they might be in a position to invite the House to legislate at an early period upon questions connected with the registry and transfer of land. So far as the registry and transfer of land were concerned, it was a matter of public expediency that they should have the Survey completed as early as possible. They were limited, however, in their operations by the impossibility of proceeding with the Survey beyond a certain rate of progress; but everything that could be done to expedite the completion of the Survey would be done.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked, that the sum now asked for was in addition to the sum of £138,500 included in the original Estimate for 1880–81.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that there was a claim upon the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, in Connection with the Survey, which amounted to a sum of £10,600, and which had been allowed to stand over for a considerable period. The fact that it had been allowed to stand over so long was sufficient to show that the administration of the Department was not all that might be wished. Unless the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was able to give a satisfactory explanation, he should feel inclined to object to any subsequent Estimate.
    LORE FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained that steps had been taken in Ireland to expedite a settlement; but the matter was not a very easy one to deal with. The Treasury were in communication with the Landed Estates Court on the subject, and had called upon them to hasten a conclusion.
    Mr. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the Landed Estates Court in Ireland had no idea of making any payment at

    933
    all. As long ago as the month of May last they promised to pay, and if there was any Public Department that had any control over them they ought to be made to pay.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £5,087, Science and Art Department Buildings.
    MR. RYLANDSthought the Vote required a little explanation. He did not understand why there should be an Estimate of £2,500 for new buildings at South Kensington, in addition to the original Estimate of £15,000, and a further sum of £1,456 for maintenance.
    MR. MACDONALDregarded the state of things displayed by this Vote as most unsatisfactory. The additional sum for maintenance was £1,456, and it included a charge for works and alterations, but without specifying the details. To his mind, this bore all the colour of a job—which was alike to be deplored under whatever Government or Party it was perpetrated. He thought that in all such cases it would be better to give the items. He trusted that, in future, in preparing these Estimates, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would take steps for having them simplified.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, there was nothing more difficult than to decide, on framing the Estimates, what details ought to be given. One hon. Member accused the Government of presenting a mass of details which nobody could understand, while another complained that the details supplied were altogether inadequate. The expenditure at South Kensington was due to the fact that it had been found necessary to erect an additional storey to the offices of the Science and Art Department. He believed the necessity of doing something in the matter was impressed upon the late Government; and when it came before him he found, on inquiry, that a considerable number of the clerks who were employed in the existing offices were absolutely made ill by the insufficiency of the accommodation and the bad ventilation. The number of clerks had been considerably increased, owing to the urgent nature of the work, and still no additional accommodation was provided. In addition, the chimneys of the room in which they were employed smoked, and he had found it necessary to consider whether it was proper to retain a number of valu-
    934
    able public servants in this unsatisfactory condition for another year. He came to the conclusion that it was not; but it was not until after careful investigation that it was decided upon adding a new storey to the building. In regard to the Estimate for maintenance, it was principally duo to the removal of the Metallurgical Laboratory from Jermyn Street to South Kensington, and partly to the renewal of a portion of the internal painting of the Industrial Museum at Edinburgh. When the House in Jermyn Street was given up, a claim of £450 was made for delapidations, and there was a further sum for providing accommodation at South Kensington, and for the expense of removal.
    MR. BRANDasked for some further explanation in reference to the erection of the additional storey to the offices of the Science and Art Department at South Kensington. He wished to know why it had only been found necessary to erect the additional storey recently, and when it was that the additional number of officers were appointed for whom the extra accommodation was required?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the additional accommodation had been urgently required for the last two years. When the matter was brought under his notice, he did not feel himself justified in condemning these unhappy clerks to the room they had been occupying, for another year. He had hoped however, that the cost might have been defrayed out of the Estimates voted last year.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas able to confirm the statement of the noble Lord, that the Department had been pressing for several years for the addition to the building of this storey; and if, like the noble Lord, he had been fortunate enough to possess a large surplus, he would certainly have yielded long ago to the pressure which had been put upon the Government. He was also able to confirm the statement of the noble Lord that the number of clerks had been lately increased, which added weight to the other arguments for additional accommodation. One argument was that the chimnies throughout the building smoked. That was met by altering the stoves, but it did not satisfy the clerks; and he was certainly able to say that, in the last year of his tenure of Office, the grievance had become a substantial one.

    935
    He had no doubt that the noble Lord had been pressed very strongly upon the matter, and that he had acted wisely in providing the additional accommodation.
    LORD ELCHObelieved that the jealousy with which increased expenditure upon South Kensington was regarded was not altogether unfounded.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYhad been informed by Professor Owen that all the ground on the north side of the new Museum would be wanted for the enlargement of the Museum in the course of time; that the new building was sufficient for a generation, but not more; and that the ground now offered for sale for building ought not to be sold. Any buildings erected there would have to be pulled down when the ground was wanted for the extension of the Museum.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the system of dividing these Votes into Ordinary and Supplementary Estimates was very misleading, and was adopted by the Government in order to produce an impression, when they presented their original Estimates, that they were in favour of economy and retrenchment. Yet, having taken that course, they invariably came forward to ask for Supplementary Votes. He believed that the Estimates last year were considerably below what they ought to have been, and the Supplementary Votes now asked for abundantly proved it. They showed that the original Estimates had been largely exceeded; and in some instances there seemed to have been three series of Votes for the same service£an original Estimate, then a first Supplementary Estimate, and now an additional Supplementary Estimate. In regard to the particular items contained in the sub-heads of the present Vote, he found that for the year 1878–9 the Original Estimate was £20,774. In that year the actual expenditure was only £20,400. In 1880–81, the Government asked for £20,706; but they now found that that sum of £20,706 was too little by £5,087, and they therefore presented a Supplementary Estimate for that amount. In the Estimate for next year, he found they were actually doing the same thing—namely, cutting down the Estimate unreasonably, and asking for less than they were likely to require. Under the second sub-head of the Supplementary Estimate for the supply of water, precisely the same thing occurred—
    936
    £270 was asked for 1879–80, and £270 for 1880–81; but £50 additional was demanded in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate. Nevertheless, the Estimate for the present year was fixed at the same sum of £270; and, of course, it would be necessary to ask Parliament for a supplementary grant. The same thing occurred in the sub-head for fuel and light—£1,405 was asked for in 1878–9; £1,447 in 1880–81, and a Supplementary Estimate was required for £250, making the total expenditure £1,700. Notwithstanding that fact, the Government only asked this year for £1,525. It was perfectly clear that upon each sub-head it would be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate next year, and the House had no real check whatever upon the expenditure.
    MR. RYLANDSrose for the purpose of asking the reason for the present supplementary expenditure. He objected to the system of framing the Estimates which placed in the possession of the Departments sums of money far above their actual necessities, and thought that where a Department had the means of estimating expenditure, the exact sum reasonably expected to be required should be laid before Parliament. No doubt, Parliament had a right to complain when Estimates were carelessly prepared, and when items, supposed to have been already provided for, made their appearance in Supplementary Estimates. The foot-note stated that the item of £250 was for water, fuel, and light at the Natural History Museum, for which no provision had been made. But, surely, the Department must have known it was necessary to make provision for these things. It appeared from the note, not only that the Department had not estimated the amount required, but that no provision whatever had been made for purposes that would clearly be necessary. He protested against the Estimates being prepared in such a manner as to prevent the Committee of Supply judging of the total expenditure, and objected to the necessity of being called upon for further sums in Supplementary Votes.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the item in question was a new one, and would probably be larger next year.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £800, British Museum Buildings.
    (5.) £1,838, Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
    MR. RYLANDSconsidered this a most objectionable Supplementary Estimate. He ventured to warn the Committee that the Embassy houses abroad were a standing source of expense to the country. It appeared to him that there was no sufficient control of the expenditure either in Constantinople or St. Petersburg. The alterations, partly made at the suggestion of Ambassadors' and clerks of the works, were continually costing the British Exchequer very large sums of money. In fact, the amounts that had been spent on the Ambassadors' houses, which he thought the country had unwisely purchased, reached an almost incredible total. He thought, also, that large sums of money were spent, not only in this, but in other ways, for which the country received no benefit at all; and he ventured to say that the Department were bound to tell the Committee how they justified the expenditure for the present year. Let the Committee consider that a sum of £3,450 had been laid out in one year upon the palace of our Ambassador at St. Petersburg. That was a sum which he thought ought not to be allowed to pass without criticism, and he trusted the noble Lord would justify so serious a demand.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had only stated about one-fourth of the expenditure. The Estimates for last year only asked for £1,357, which sum showed an apparent excess of £320 over the previous year. But in 1879, after having first asked for £1,440, the Government claimed a further sum in the Supplementary Estimates of £8,356—that was to say, six times the amount originally asked for—and yet, when the Estimates of last year were produced, they showed only an apparent excess of £320 over the previous year. He, therefore, supported the appeal of the hon. Member for Burnley for information as to how much the palace of St. Petersburg had cost during the last 18 years.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could not say how much the Ambassador's palace at St. Petersburg had cost during the last 18 years.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (6.) £260, Treasury.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury for information as to the way in which the sum for preparing Bills, paid in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was laid out, and by whom it was received? In the case of the £800 voted the year before last with respect to Scotland for drafting Acts of Parliament, hon. Members knew how the money was spent, and who it was that received this money; but they had no knowledge of who got possession of the sum now asked for. This extra grant was in addition to the liberal salaries paid for salaried officers kept up to prepare Bills, for which lump sums were now demanded. It would, he thought, be also an advantage if Parliament were informed of the cost of Bills intended to become Acts of Parliament of which no use was made.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had complained, in a former year, that after cooking their Estimate for additional Counsel the late Government were rather misleading the Committee by putting down a sum which, from their experience, they must have known to be inaccurate; and he had suggested that this was done to divert the attention of Parliament from the great charges thrown upon the Treasury in consequence of the Department of Parliamentary Counsel not being sufficiently strong to do the work on Acts of Parliament. He believed his hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was responsible for the sum passed in Committee of Supply last Session. The Committee were again asked to grant to the Government, as an additional charge for salaries and fees to Counsel, a sum equal to the amount of the original Estimate. It was quite true that the Vote the Committee were asked to pass was only for £260; but the actual expenditure of money placed in the pockets of additional Parliamentary Counsel amounted to £1,660, of which £1,400 was met by savings upon other items of the Vote, so that those savings had not reached the Exchequer. The hon. Baronet opposite, when he rose to reply, would, no doubt, be able to tell the

    939
    Committee what changes had occurred since lie left Office to account for this item of £1,660, seeing that his original Estimate amounted to £1,700. He could not understand why, after so large a sum of money had been voted for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Committee were again asked for a further large sum for additional assistance, when very little legislation was shown.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, this was one of those Votes which it was almost impossible for the Secretary to the Treasury to estimate with any degree of exactness. Many of the Acts prepared in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel required peculiar knowledge, and it was impossible always to ensure the work being clone in a satisfactory manner without the benefit of technical knowledge which only existed in the minds of particular lawyers. No one, therefore, could pretend to estimate in advance the exact sum required for their remuneration. These were the reasons why, very much against the wish of the Secretary to the Treasury, who, of course, desired that his original Estimate should be sufficient, Supplementary Estimates in this Department became necessary.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was the wish of the Treasury that, as far as possible, all Public Bills should be prepared in the Office of the Parliamentary draftsman; but, however much that was desirable, it was found that additional skilled assistance was in some cases required. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (General Sir George Balfour), the information as to the names of persons, and the particular work to which the money received by them was applied, would, he believed, enormously add to the mass of the Appropriation Accounts.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the Committee had no information whatever with regard to the largo sums spent for drafting Bills. It would be very easy to state in a simple form the exact sum paid for any Bill as well as the names of the persons who received the money.
    MR. W. FOWLERthought the whole sum demanded was very moderate; he wished all the money estimated for was as well spent as in this case. Nevertheless, constant complaints were made of
    940
    the carelessness and unintelligibility with which Bills were drawn. Bills presented to the House ought, of course, to be thoroughly well drafted, and therefore he looked upon any cutting down of their necessary cost as a great mistake. The Accounts altogether only came to something over £3,000, and as he had already said, he regarded this as very moderate.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved, that the salaries alone amounted to £6,000 for that Department, and there was an additional sum demanded, about the appropriation of which no information was given in the audited expenditure, so that nearly £8,000 were taken up; and if the whole of the cost was set out, it would amount to a very large sum indeed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought the explanation of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury as to the source of the £1,400 was partly inaccurate. The question arose from the fact that the Premier had consented to accept £7,500 instead of £10,000 for his joint Office; but, after the Estimates of the previous Government were accepted by the present Administration, a revised Estimate was introduced, showing that a smaller sum would be taken by the Prime Minister, he being also Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Estimate upon which those figures were drawn was a lower Estimate; therefore, the £1,400 could not have accrued from any portion of that saving. He wished also to mention that whereas the Estimates introduced last year showed £700 as the sum voted in the year before, they were misleading, because in the year before there was a Supplementary Estimate of £900, and the total for the year 1879–80 was £1,660. This year, again, there was a Supplementary Estimate of £1,660, and they would be asked for £3,000. He could not understand the Government perpetually putting the original Estimates so evidently below the amount required. The Supplementary Estimates so complicated the Accounts that the Committee had no check upon them.
    MR. BIGGAR, asked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to explain this particular Estimate. The Estimate last year was £2,600 altogether, this year it would be £3,360, which was an advance of something

    941
    like £700. What was the reason of the difference?
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £14,000, Foreign Office.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDwished to call attention to the enormous increase in the telegraphic expenses. The original Estimate was for £7,000, but the additional sum required nearly doubled that amount. In Class V., Diplomatic and Consular Services, he found that £7,900 were spent in telegraphing; and thus there had been £28,300 spent in telegrams for the Foreign Office alone. He should like to know whether, in the beginning of the year, no better Estimate could have been formed—looking at the then unsettled state of Europe—than £7,000? The result of the small original Estimate was that the Committee was now called upon for a supplementary £13,400. He should like to know in what months that enormous increase had been caused, because then the Committee would be able to judge whether the Foreign Office was to blame for having originally framed an insufficient Estimate?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was not the slightest mystery about the matter. The increase in the cost of telegrams had been caused by the character of the negotiations which went on in June last, and especially in August, September, and October. The character of those negotiations necessitated the repetition of almost the whole of the telegrams to five other capitals of Great Powers, besides Constantinople. Every telegram had to be repeated seven times; that accounted for the increase. There was a certain increase caused by the war between Chili and Peru, by reason of mediation, and those telegrams had been exceedingly costly, each word costing £1 6s. or £1 3s. But the main increase was caused by telegraphing to six or seven other capitals of nearly the whole of our telegrams. There was in this Estimate one item which in itself cost £700—a series of short telegrams announcing the fall of the late Government and the acceptance of Office by the present Ministry. Those telegrams were always sent, not only to every Embassy and Mission, but to every Consulate, and the result was a charge of £700. He hoped, however, that as the result of an inquiry that had been made at the
    942
    Foreign Office, that expenditure might be saved, because now such matters were announced in the newspapers in almost all parts of the world, and, therefore, perhaps, it was hardly necessary to send formal telegrams. With regard to telegrams generally, there had been a careful inquiry instituted; and although at the present moment, in consequence of the Greek negotiations, the Government were repeating telegrams to five other capitals, and to the Ambassador in Constantinople very freely, great care was exercised, and he hoped it might be possible to effect a decrease in telegraphic expenditure in future. The increase had been very large this year; but it was almost entirely duo to the negotiations and the repetitions of telegrams.
    MR. RYLANDS, admitting that there was a satisfactory side to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, thought it did not entirely meet the objections to the cost for telegraphing; and he pointed out that the newspapers of Europe and other parts of the world were now supplied with news with such rapidity that foreign Powers would have information of events before the Foreign Office telegrams could reach them, and thus the Government might forego some of this large expense for telegrams. He understood that an inquiry had been made into this matter; but he should like to know by whom it had been made—whether by a Departmental Committee or not? The hon. Gentleman knew as well as he (Mr. Rylands) did—for in former days it had been a joke in common between them—that the Foreign Office, not rarely, was without information which was known to the rest of the community; at all events, it appeared that through the newspapers a large amount of information was obtained in advance of that obtained by the Foreign Office. His impression was that if the matter was carefully looked into it would be found that a very considerable amount of expenditure on telegrams from the Foreign Office might be avoided, and that of many matters—not with reference to special negotiations, but ordinary matters which might affect negotiations—the Foreign Office knew quite as much without their own telegrams as with them. He thought some check ought to be put on the telegraphic expenditure of the Foreign Office.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the inquiry was a very searching one, and one clerks had occupied some weeks in going into the matter. He did not know that a very formal inquiry was necessary, for, if made as suggested, it would fail to elicit any new facts; but he hoped a good effect would be brought about in the future. The exceptional expenditure, to which reference had been made, was due to exceptional circumstances.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsuggested that the Foreign Office should issue a Circular directing that telegrams should be cut down as much as possible. He had dissected several telegrams lately, and he was sure, with a little care, telegrams might often be reduced one-half. Words were used without any regard to expense, and he thought a Circular, such as he had suggested, would tend to lessen the telegraph cost.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think, perhaps, something may be done in that direction.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) £1,550, Colonial Office.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, while agreeing with much of what the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said as to the amount of detail it was necessary to give in regard to some of the Votes, thought the information in this case was not very explanatory.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £5,500, Board of Trade.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he could not agree in the proposal to grant a Supplementary Estimate on account of Law Charges of £5,500. They had seen, under Vote 3, Class II., that the Government proposed to meet an extra charge by appropriated savings on that Vote; but he could not understand why the Treasury should adopt that course in regard to their own Department, and not in regard to the Board of Trade. If the officials concerned would look into it, they would find that under this Vote there would be savings more than sufficient to provide the £5,500 required. On looking at the Appropriation Account for 1879–80 he found that there were savings under no less than 26 out of 31 sub-heads, and the savings amounted to over £4,000. Under those circumstances, he did not understand
    944
    why the Board of Trade should not be allowed to appropriate the savings in aid of this supplementary sum on account of Law Charges. But even if there were no savings at all, he thought the Committee should hesitate, because the Board of Trade did their work so exceedingly badly. There were constant complaints with regard to almost every department of their work. The Public Accounts Committee year after year had complained of the Board of Trade authorizing the continuance of expenses which they know to be unnecessary, and year after year the Governments had taken steps in Parliament to cover the delinquencies of their officials. In the Report of that Committee last year it was stated that, as the Committee were informed, it was intended last Session to introduce a measure dealing with two or three points to which attention lied been called, and a hope was expressed that if such a measure was not passed it would be found possible to introduce it early this Session, "as the present proceedings are of doubtful legality." Nothing, however, had been heard from the Government of any intention to introduce a Bill of that kind. He believed that Committee referred to the legal acceptance of contributions front seamen, who would thereby be entitled to pensions. The Department had, in fact, been constantly getting into trouble. Under the sub-head he found £7 5s. for a seaman detained under the direction of the Board of Trade as a witness upon a prosecution under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. That Act prescribed that no action should be brought after the lapse of six months, and yet this man was paid 5s. a-day for nine months, or three months after the date when it was possible to take proceedings. He also found two payments of £1,600 and £1,270 for damages and plaintiffs' costs in an action against the Board of Trade officials for illegally detaining a vessel. Those costs were exclusive of the cost of maintaining the action. All those things required explanation; and it seemed to him that the Board of Trade had been playing fast-and-loose in a manner which would not be allowed in any other Department.
    MR. LABOUCHEREwould like to have some explanation with regard to the Law Charges, especially with refer-

    945
    ence to the Inquiry into the accident to the Tay Bridge. He believed there were inspectors and other officials receiving permanent salaries, whose duty it was to inquire into such matters, and he did not understand on what grounds the country was charged £5,500 for Law Charges incident to that Inquiry. He presumed the Department had a Law Officer. Another point was this—the accident was entirely due to the Company; and he thought that when that was the case, there ought to be some power to charge the Railway Company with the expenses of the Inquiry. In this case, we were bound to pay an extra £5,500, because the North British Company built a bad and dangerous bridge, and precipitated a large number of persons into the river. He thought the President of the Board of Trade would do well to consider the desirability of throwing the charges on the Company.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURregarded the Board of Trade as one of the worst Departments of the Government, and thought the sooner it was made away with the better. It was an amalgamation of every Department ender the sun, and it was impossible for one man to control it. What he complained of was the mode in which money was paid out. There might be any amount of work carried on by that Department, and the House would have no check upon it. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give instructions for ascertaining what was the mode in which every fraction of money was paid away, and he thought that nothing would be more beneficial to the Board itself than having details of the money payments shown in the Appropriation Accounts. With regard to the Tay Bridge accident, he agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—he thought they ought to look in such cases to the Company for payment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINwas sorry to find that the hon. and gallant Member (General Sir George Balfour) had such a bad opinion of the Board of Trade; and he could not help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member was a little prejudiced by the fact that he (Mr. Chamberlain) himself had recently had to decline an application from the hon. and gallant Member for Railway Returns connected with that Department. He
    946
    had suggested to the Secretary to the Treasury that he should require from the Auditor vouchers for all expenses incurred in the Department.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexplained that what he wished was that the Secretary to the Treasury should require the Auditor to show how expenses were incurred in the form in which the money was shown to have been spent for the Law Departments of Scotland.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN, referring to the Tay Bridge accident, said, the Inquiry was ordered by his Predecessor at the Board of Trade, and there was the greatest public interest in that lamentable accident. The cost, however, did not arise in connection with the expenses of the permanent officials of the Department, nor with the expenses of the Wreck Commissioner, Mr. Rothery, who was appointed to the Inquiry. That gentleman gave a a great deal of extra services to the State in that matter without receiving any extra pay. The charges were for counsel and other persons employed outside the Department, and also for the engineers, one of whom was an assessor. He found that the counsels' fees alone amounted to £1,554, while the engineers' expenses amounted to £2,158. Then there was £620 for shorthand notes, £615 for printing, and a number of smaller items, which made up a rather larger amount than the Government asked for. They were in hopes that some of those items might be reduced, and that it might be possible to confine the expenses to the sum set down. They did not get this sum out of savings from other deductions. He believed that there were savings amounting to something like £3,000; but against that they had set an item of account for the Wreck Commissioner's inquiries, which appeared for the first time as a charge on the Votes. Those charges had hitherto been met by the proceeds of unclaimed wreck; but it was only another way of keeping the Accounts.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: There would have been a separate Vote for that?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied, that there would have been a Vote, but for the saving of £3,000; and, but for the Tay Bridge accident, there would have

    947
    been no necessity for the Supplementary Vote. Then the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) also drew attention to £78 for a witness whose ease was referred to in a Report last year. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not think that strictly arose upon the Vote before the Committee, which was only a Supplementary Vote; but the matter had been referred to, and there would, no doubt, be a Report made upon it. The hon. Member had also said that there was a slight technical irregularity last year in the mode of keeping Accounts, and asked why the Government had not brought in a Bill to regulate that. They had not done so, because they introduced a Bill last year, and it passed the House with out any opposition.
    MR. RYLANDSwas bound to say that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) upon the Estimate was entirely satisfactory; and he did not think the Committee was in a position to complain of the item with reference to the Tay Bridge accident. He quite thought that the Inquiry was necessary in the interests of the public, and that the public would not have been satisfied if the Board of Trade had not initiated it, and no one would complain of a certain amount of cost being incurred. Still, such an Inquiry was made for the benefit of the Railway Company, as well as for the benefit of the public. It appeared to him worthy of consideration whether, when expenses of that kind were incurred, some legal power should not be invested in the Board of Trade to recover from the Company concerned, under certain circumstances, expenses incurred by the Inquiry. Such an Inquiry ought to be made with great care; lawyers and engineers employed should be paid; but it was worth considering whether in sonic of these eases it might not be proper to give the Board of Trade legal power to recoup some portion of the expenditure.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINadmitted that that was a suggestion quite worthy of consideration, and something of the same sort already obtained in regard to inquiries into shipping disasters, the Court having certain power to award costs against the shipowner, if he had contributed by neglect to the accident. But, in this particular case, there was no doubt that the Railway Company had
    948
    been sufficiently mulcted, their expenses being estimated at no less than £500,000 in consequence of the accident.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £1,800, Civil Service Commission.
    MR. RYLANDSthought this charge was scarcely justified, judging from the explanation which was given. It appeared that the original Estimate for assistant Military Examiners was £10,000, and that was an increase of £2,000 on the previous year; but the increase on the previous year was justified by the fact that £4,000 were required for the expenses of examination which were of a new character. In this case, the Committee were not informed what portion of the £1,800 was for the military examinations. He also thought that the Committee ought to be informed how much of the £10,000 was paid to officials already in the receipt of salaries. It was possible the amount paid was insignificant, and, if so, that would remove any criticisms he might have to make; but if it were shown in the Estimate that, of that £10,000, a large sum went to pay gentlemen in the Public Service, it would be a matter well worthy of the attention of the Committee. If they allowed gentlemen who were already in the, receipt of salaries to receive other and additional remuneration, they would be placed in this dilemma—they were either paying those gentlemen salaries which were in excess for the labour they returned, or else they were expecting them to do additional work in the time which ought to be devoted to the Public Service, and, instead of covering that additional work by their salaries, they were giving additional payment. He was not raising any complaint as a principle against the cost of the Civil Service Commission; but the Committee ought to have a distinct explanation as to why the Vote was so largely increased, and how it was that the Department could not estimate more nearly the amount which would be required. A considerable sum was received by the Civil Service Commissioners for stamps as fees. He observed that the sum received in 1880–81 was estimated at £12,500, while the actual amount received in previous years was only £7,428. He, therefore, presumed that there was an increase in the receipts.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORdrew attention to the fact that this Supplementary Estimate was merely following the precedent of previous years, there having been a Supplementary Estimate last year for the same purpose. A system was pursued of loosely drawing up the Estimates, which, when first presented, appeared to show that the Government was practising great economy; but, in a short time, a Supplementary Estimate was brought forward which entirely dispelled that impression.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the long and the short of this matter was that, after two or three years, the candidates for examinations had increased the Vote. With regard to the remuneration for examinations, salaried officials were not the persons employed. The Civil Service Commissioners settled, from time to time, who should be employed, and it was impossible to give the information asked for. For many years, however, the Department had been trying to keep the Estimate down.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £250, Friendly Societies Registry.
    (12.) £4,976, Local Government Board.
    MR. RAMSAYdesired to draw attention to the Supplementary Estimate for Teachers in Poor Law schools, and mentioned that on various occasions he had objected to any such amount being given to the Local Government Board. He had no objection to the education of the pauper children, for whom the schools were provided; but he deprecated the system of educating those children in schools where there were children only of their own class as being detrimental to their progress. If they were taught in ordinary public schools, it would be a very great advantage and a saving to the State. They would, he believed, display equal ability with the children in public schools, and he objected to stamping them as paupers without any effort being made to relieve them of the stigma by having them educated with other children. He trusted that those who were responsible for the grant would take the matter into consideration.
    MR. COURTAULDalso objected to keeping up Union schools for pauper children, and mentioned that the Union with which he was connected had successfully abolished workhouse schools, and sent the children to the town schools. That experiment had answered well, both in giving the children a brighter prospect, and in regard to economical considerations.
    MR. HIBBERTadmitted that there was a great deal to be said in favour of sending pauper children to the common schools, and that principle was being more and more adopted. Most of the small workhouses had lately made arrangements for sending children to the the National Schools, but it was not possible in many districts. Great experiments were going on with respect to pauper children, and during the last two or three years several places had adopted the home system. Instead of having the children educated in the workhouse schools, separate schools had been established on the cottage system. At Birmingham, for instance, the experiment had turned out very successful. Many other places had decided to adopt the same plan. There was no feeling at all on the part of the Local Government Board against sending workhouse children to national schools, and the system was adopted whenever there was a chance of carrying it out.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEreferred to the amount set down for Poor Law Medical Officers, and objected to that on the ground of injustice to Scotland. That question had already been brought before the House that night, and it was stated that the increase of a grant to Scotland could not be entertained until the whole question of local grants in aid could receive consideration. That was unjust to Scotland. The grant to Scotland had only been £10,000 for many years, and although they had received promises on the subject, those promises had never been fulfilled, and they had now to wait an indefinite time. He thought that a re-consideration of local grants in aid was greatly needed, and that it was hard that Scotland should have to wait until a full inquiry was made, without receiving any addition for their Poor Law expenditure. He was aware that the additional payment in England was necessary; but he thought that was further reason for

    951
    Scotland pressing the Government to allow more for Scotland, and to place Scotland in the same position as England. For Ireland, the sum of £75,500 was allowed; but in Scotland, only £10,000, although, in proportion to the population and taxation, Scotland ought to receive from £20,000 to £30,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is talking on the General Estimates more than the Supplementary Estimate, and the proper time to discuss those will be when the General Estimates come before the House.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEwished the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to clearly understand that Scotch Members were not disposed to sit down under this injustice.
    MR. BIGGARwas of opinion that hon. Members for Scotland, if they were not disposed to fight the question, were not entitled to the smallest consideration with regard to this Vote or to any other Vote.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that all the grants in aid ought to be abolished, for they were injurious to the people and to the country. He found that the medical grants in aid to England and Ireland now covered half the amounts expended, and were increasing year by year; but the claims of Scotland were entirely neglected, and no increase had been made to that grant for many years, so that Scotch claims had been sacrificed.
    MR. RAMSAYthought it was necessary he should state, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), that the reason given for the maintenance of the rule in regard to the education of pauper children was not, in his judgment, satisfactory. He could give the grounds upon which he came to this conclusion, if it were not that it was undesirable to occupy the time of the Committee by discussing a general principle. When they came to the General Estimates, an opportunity would be afforded for discussing the subject, and then he should be able to show that whatever loss might accrue it would be of advantage to the State, and of great advantage to the children, that the system should be put an end to.
    Vote agreed to.
    (13.) £5,000, The Mint, including Coinage.
    (14.) £39,750, Stationery and Printing.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDthought the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could hardly expect to get through this Vote without having one or two questions put to him. Those which he (Sir Henry Holland) wished to ask were only short, and he had no doubt his noble Friend would be able to answer them satisfactorily. He would not raise any question as to the first two items—for salaries, wages, and allowances, and for incidental expenses. But he wished to know whether the sum in this last item of £252 for unforeseen expenses connected with legal proceedings for breach of contract, had reference to a matter brought before the Committee on Public Accounts, in which it appeared that a contractor, instead of destroying waste paper, had shipped it off to the United States, to be converted into pulp, regardless of the fact whether it contained communications of a confidential character or not? He wished to know whether the sum of £252 was the charge to the Treasury for legal expenses in connection with that case? Passing over that matter, the item under sub-head F was the one which showed the most important increase, and in regard to it there was a note that—
    "The necessity for the remaining £19,000 is owing to the fact that demands for almost every class of work and supply for which paper is required have increased during the year."
    He was quite aware that a great deal had been done in cutting down the expenses of this Office by his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn); but, looking at the still enormously increasing expense of the Department, he would ask the noble Lord if he was not of opinion that the time had arrived when a Committee might be again usefully appointed for the purpose of thoroughly overhauling the management of the Department? He did not wish to be understood as saying one word against Mr. Pigott. He believed that gentleman had done all he could to cut down the expenses; but what was required was some superior authority and discretion upon certain points—as, for instance, printing Blue Books for Members. Mr. Pigott, of course, could have no authority to deal with that question; and he, therefore,

    953
    asked the noble Lord if he was not of opinion that the time had arrived for appointing a Committee of the House to go into the whole question of printing, and the distribution of Blue Books?
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURjoined with the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) in recommending that a Committee should be re-appointed to inquire into the results attained tince the former Inquiry. The Committee appointed a few years ago worked exceedingly well, and he believed it was only by some such means that they could bring a proper control to bear upon the public expenditure for printing and stationary. It was found that the publication of the expenses of the different Offices for printing and stationery was an excellent mode of keeping down the expenditure. There were no other means so well adapted for exercising a control over these charges as by printing the amount. Seeing that the different Offices made their own requisitions, it was very difficult indeed for the head of the Stationery Office directly to interfere with any effect. He could always show up the cost of the several supplies, such as for paper, small stores, and printing, in as full detail as might be practicable. It was only by the action of an efficient Committee of the House of Commons, and a careful examination, that any wholesome supervision could be exercised in the matter over the results of the head of the Stationery Office.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he had no wish to find fault unnecessarily with the Vote; but he could not conceive how those who had the charge of the Estimates could make such a preposterous blunder as to give an Estimate amounting to £40,000 less than was actually required. His hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) talked of the expense of Blue Books; but he would find that the expense of Members' Blue Books only amounted to £5,000 or £6,000, and really formed a very small matter in these Estimates. The heads of Departments always prided themselves on being wonderfully accurate in their calculations, and therefore he was unable to understand how it was that they could have miscalculated to the extent of £40,000. He did not intend to move any Amendment; but he would recommend the heads of Departments, in the
    954
    time to come, to keep the expenditure a little nearer the mark if they could. There were hon. Members who professed to understand all these matters, and to sift the Estimates when they were brought on. They were not at present in their places, and he had no desire to act for them. All he wished to point out was the desirability of entrusting the management of the spending Departments to persons of sufficient capacity to enable them to understand what they were doing.
    MR. THOMASSONwished to direct the attention of the Committee to an excess of £5,000 in the item for Parliamentary printing. He believed that some portion of this excess arose from the excessive number of divisions which had taken place this Session, and the necessity of printing the Lists. He would venture to suggest that when a state of "urgency" was declared in future—upon the Irish Land Bill, for instance—it would be desirable for Mr. Speaker to prohibit divisions on purely formal matters, such as the Chairman leaving the Chair, or on the Question that the Bill do pass.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Thomasson) had thought it necessary to repeat that dreadful word "urgency." The less they heard of it in future the better. He hoped, in the constitution of the suggested Committee, the Government, during the long tenure of Office they seemed to expect, would consider the desirability of inquiring into the whole question of Parliamentary reporting. He could speak feelingly of the want of anything like a trustworthy record of their Parliamentary proceedings. He had had, in the course of his professional duties, to refer to many speeches delivered in Parliament, and the great obstacle he had experienced was the uncertainty of knowing whether the speeches when discovered could be relied upon as accurate representations of what had really been said. The difficulty in regard to Parliamentary reporting of late years had rather increased than diminished. Owing to the vast increase in the number of subjects of interest which were now dealt with in the newspapers, there did not at present appear in most of the cheap journals that fullness of Parliamentary reporting which characterized the London papers some years ago. In The Morning

    955
    Chronicle, and other daily papers published 30 or 40 years ago, the speech of every Member, however humble, was reported almost at entire length. In these days it was only the speeches of prominent Members of the Government and of the Opposition that were reported at anything like length. The speeches of private Members were cut down to mere lines, or the names of the speakers only mentioned. He thought it was disgraceful to a wealthy country like this that the British Parliament, of all Parliaments, both in the Old World and the New, should be alone in that respect. We were even behind the Colonial Legislatures, which were the children and offspring of the Parliament of this country. It was deeply to be regretted that we were so much behind everybody else in regard to a full and faithful record of the proceedings of the House.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the short conversation which had just taken place comprised a wide range of topics. In the first place, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), he might say that his hon. Friend would be aware, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that the legal proceedings to which reference had been made, although taken by the direction of the Treasury, applied to the Stationery Department. With reference to the great increase in printing, and, the consumption of stationery, he did not think he could add anything to the explanation already given in the printed Estimate. It was extremely difficult to foresee what the expenditure would be; but he was inclined to believe, if they looked at the enormous mass of printing lately done in connection with the Election Commissions, that much of it would be accounted for. One thing which had attracted his attention, and, no doubt, that of other hon. Members, was the steady increase in the amount of correspondence connected with all the Public Departments. He could give no other reason for the incessant and steady increase than the interest which was taken in the work of every Department, owing probably to the stimulating effect of education being more generally diffused. He believed there was not a single Department in which it would not be found that there had been a large increase in its general correspondence, and it would certainly
    956
    be impossible to diminish the Stationery Vote by checking that correspondence. In regard to the suggestion thrown out that there should be a Committee appointed to consider this Vote, it would be remembered that a Committee sat in 1874. That Committee made a number of most important recommendations, most of which had been acted upon. The Report of the Committee, over which the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) presided, met with full approbation, and it would be found that the suggestions made by the Committee had been adopted, and that the expenditure had been kept down as much as possible. As to the suggestion that the Government should watch more closely the expense connected with the printing and distribution of Parliamentary Papers, the Committee would be aware that all the arrangements connected with the distribution of Parliamentary Papers were under the superintendence of the Speaker, who had the assistance of a Committee when he considered it necessary. Although, on the one hand, some hon. Members received more information than they ever attempted to digest; on the other hand, some hon. Members did not receive quite as much as they desired. It was not easy to draw the line between the distribution of too much information and too little. The great expense in connection with the production of Blue Books was not the printing of an extra number of copies, but the setting up of the type was the most serious part of the cost. He could only suggest, as a possible means of effecting economy, that hon. Members should, as far as possible, avoid moving for unnecessary Returns. The various Department were disinclined to discourage the moving for a Return, for fear it might be thought that the Department itself had some object in withholding it; but very often it turned out, after Returns were obtained at considerable trouble and expense, that they had added nothing new to the information already in the possession of the House. If the House would like to have a Committee to consider the whole question, he could only say, for his own part, that he would have no sort of objection. There was one point upon which he thought that the investigation of a Committee would be of service, and that was in reference

    957
    to the printing of the Division Lists. Those Lists were adopted on a Resolution passed by the two houses of Parliament; and he saw no reason why there should not be a Joint Committee to consider the subject. In regard to the question of the official reporting of the debates referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he had only to remark that the question was fully considered a few years ago by a Committee of that House, and an arrangement had been come to which he believed to have worked satisfactorily. A grant was made to Mr. Hansard for reporting certain debates in the House of Commons—such debates, for instance, as that which was going on at that moment in Committee of Supply, the discussion in Committee of the clauses of Bills, and also the debates which occurred at a late hour of the night, when they were not ordinarily reported at length. If hon. Members would refer to the Estimates for the present year they would see that there was a considerably increased grant for that purpose. This had been rendered necessary owing to the late hours to which the House was now accustomed to sit and also to the increased length of the Session. He believed that the full reports supplied by Mr. Hansard, at times when the debates were not reported by the newspapers, had given very great satisfaction. He had only heard of one complaint in regard to them, and that was that some hon. Members were so anxious to secure that their speeches should appear in Hansard that they were inclined to delay their remarks until after 12 o'clock rather than rise to address the House at an earlier hour. By taking this course an encouragement was given to protracted Sittings and long speeches, which he could not say was altogether required at the present moment.
    MR. BIGGARwished to make a remark upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson). The hon. Member thought that in order to reduce the printing expenses the Division Lists should not be published, and that certain divisions should be prohibited altogether. He (Mr. Biggar) entirely differed from the hon. Member, and was of opinion that it was most desirable to retain the power of dividing upon every Question that a Bill should pass a particular stage. It might have
    958
    a most prejudicial effect if the House were to consent to delegate its authority either to the Speaker, or to the Prime Minister, or to the Government for the time being. If they could not divide upon the vital question whether or not a Bill was to become law, he did not see what question they ought to divide upon at all.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that the present Vote was an instance of the imperfect manner in which the Estimates were drafted and introduced into the House. Last year the Estimate was supplemented by Votes under sub-head A, of £600; under sub-head E, of £10,000; F, £9,700; H, £3,500; I, £750; J, £5,000; K, £6,000; and M, £400—making a total of nearly £36,000 upon an original Estimate of £453,000. With that experience before them, the Government introduced Estimates for this year amounting to £459,979. They ought to have known perfectly well that that sum would not be enough, and the only object they had in putting the Estimate at that figure was to make a show of reduction. The result was that they were compelled again to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, wasting the time of the Committee and preventing the Committee from having that check over the Estimates which it ought to have, and rendering it necessary to vote more money this year to make up the deficiency. Nor was there any assurance that there would not be an excess upon the present Vote. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury one or two questions which arose from the Report of the Controller of the Stationery Office. That officer, very much to the surprise of most people, but very much to his (Mr. O'Connor's) satisfaction, in order to show how clean a new broom could sweep had presented a Report in the first page of which appeared an extraordinary statement that the actual outlay of the Department was considerably more than the actual sum voted for the Department—that large sums which did not appear in the Estimate were spent for the India Office and for other Departments which had, in most cases, funds independent of Parliamentary Votes which they expended in stationery and printing. He (Mr. O'Connor) wished to know what the Departments, other than the India Office, which had funds independent of Par-

    959
    liamentary Votes were. He thought the news was news of a startling character to most hon. Members of that House. Personally, he was certainly not aware that there were Departments which had funds entirely independent of Parliament. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord had reference to the Foreign Office printing. The Controller said—
    "Your Lordships may observe from the figures that the confidential printing executed for the Foreign Office is still paid for at an extratravagant rate. Messrs. Harrison, who receive the sum of £150"—
    the Report did not say why they should receive it—
    "are paid for confidential work executed for the Foreign Office 27 and 28 per cent more than they receive for confidential work executed for the War Office, and about 41 per cent more than they receive for the ordinary work executed on their own premises, all of which they are expressly bound to treat as confidential work."
    Now, that was a point upon which he thought the Committee ought to ask for an explanation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Then, again, in regard to binding, the Office seemed to have made some curious arrangements in regard to that matter. The Irish binding appeared to be done at a cost of 50 per cent less than that which was done in this country. Surely if there was so important a difference in favour of Irish binding, it would be better in future to have all the work done in Ireland. Furthermore, the Controller said—
    "The responsibility for the arrangements with regard to the distribution of Acts of Parliament is divided between your Lordships, as the Treasury, the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Controller of the Stationery Office, the latter of whom makes a provision in his Estimates for the sale of the Bills; but he has no means of testing their accuracy."
    It appeared very extraordinary that the Controller of the Stationery Office was obliged to pay bills furnished for work done for every Department when he was utterly unable to tell whether the bills were accurate or not.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was not responsible for the Estimates submitted last year, and if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would refer to the figures, he would see that the Estimates for this year were
    960
    £41,000 more than last. He did not wish to cast any blame upon his Predecessor; but he had reason to anticipate a considerable reduction. Apart from any desire there might be last Session to keep down the Estimates, it must in justice be remembered that the Estimates were framed at the commencement of what was expected to be an ordinary Session, whereas the Dissolution made two Sessions, and the second was unusually prolonged. With respect to the offices receiving stationery paid for by Government, if the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would refer to Appendix D, he would there find the offices specified. As regarded confidential printing, the word "confidential" covered a wide range of documents. When it was recollected that there was a vast number of secret documents, and that it was of the first importance to the country that not the smallest part of their contents should become known, it would be seen that it was quite possible that a higher class of men must be employed in printing these documents than in printing others. For instance, the Foreign Office was obliged to conduct many confidential and secret negotiations with foreign Powers, and on this account the confidential printing connected with that Office was greater than that of any other Department of the State. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that the subject was not being lost sight of, and if they saw their way to reduce the cost they would be only too glad. The binding contracts were, he believed, put up for public tender in 1877–8. The lowest was a good tender; it was accepted, and the result had been most satisfactory.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the noble Lord had not dealt with the payments by the Controller of the Stationery Office which he was not able to check.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the matter should receive very careful consideration.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the stationery in the Library was not quite as good as it ought to be. It was of an inferior quality, besides which the ink was thick, and the pens were bad. Many counting-houses in London were much better supplied in this particular, and he mentioned the matter in the hope that something respectable would be given

    961
    them in the Library where they wrote their letters.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750, 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 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
    MR. PARNELLtrusted the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would consent to postpone the Irish Votes. There were several English Votes on the Paper to occupy the remainder of the evening. The Irish Members did not expect that the Irish Votes would be reached that evening, and few of them were present. At the present moment, he and his hon. Colleagues near him were not prepared to discuss the very important questions of principle which were involved in the Votes for the late Political Prosecutions in Dublin and the Irish Constabulary. There were several matters of importance connected with those Votes which could scarcely be taken at this Sitting, and he hoped that, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would agree to postpone the Votes until to-morrow.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not know whether to-morrow would be at the disposal of the Government; but that was a matter which applied more to his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) than to himself. With respect to the Vote now before them, he was quite prepared to give any explanation.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had no objection to the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office; but he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would not take the two Votes he had just mentioned. Perhaps he ought to say it was very necessary, too, to postpone the Vote for the Board of Works Department, because under this Vote would arise questions regarding the Relief of Distress in Ireland.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office simply provided for extra remuneration for certain clerks.
    MR. LEAMYwould like to have some explanation of the item of £450 for gratuities to clerks for extra work.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the gratuities had been granted for extra labour in connection with the state of Ireland, more especially with respect to the Relief of Distress. The £450 was to be distributed amongst eight clerks, and he considered the money had been well earned by them. He had had some experience of public offices, and he had never seen an office so hard worked as this Irish Office was last year. The clerks were engaged from 10 o'clock to half-past 6 every day, and very often up to 10 o'clock. They had frequently to attend on Sunday, and frequently they had to attend on public holidays, and in many instances had to forego their usual vacation.
    MAJOR NOLANtrusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the postponement of the Vote. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No; not this Vote.] There were three Votes—the present one, that for the Board of Works, and that for the Local Government Board—under which the question of administration might be raised. The question of relief works in Ireland might very well be raised under any one of the three. He had some experience on the subject; not so much from his own observation, but from the reports of many people. His constituents were anxious to know what was going to be the future policy of the Government in regard to the relief works. Many of the works for relief purposes were left unfinished. The Chairman did not live in Ireland, and therefore he did not understand the Vote, which provided for the remuneration to Royal Engineers in the supervision of relief works, and for the gratuities to certain extra clerks who went into the details of the works. Unless there were these works they could not pay the Engineers or the clerks, so the question might be fairly raised on this Vote as to what would be the policy of the Government with respect to the relief works when the spring work was over. There was not the same general distress in Ireland as last year; but in certain isolated spots in the country there was even mere distress. In a town like Loughrea, for instance—
    THE CHAIRMANdid not quite understand how the general subject of

    963
    relief could be raised under the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office, which merely provided for the remuneration to clerks.
    MAJOR NOLANdrew attention to the fact that the first Vote had no reference to clerks, but to the remuneration of Royal Engineers employed in the supervision of relief works presented for at the baronial sessions. The Chairman could not understand how his arguments applied to the Vote. No Chairman could he expected to understand it. No Scotch Member could be expected to understand it in the absence of his (Major Nolan's) explanation. They had a baronial presentment session instituted by the late Government, and followed up and amplified by the present Government, and this presentment session could present up to the 1st of January. They had ceased to be able to present, and consequently there was no power at the present moment for instituting any relief works whatsoever in Ireland. Several of the works presented were, as he had previously said, unfinished, and he desired to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended those in certain distressed districts to be re-commenced? If the Chief Secretary for Ireland could give a reason why the works should be left unfinished, or why the works were not wanted, he would raise no objection to the £300 for the remuneration of Royal Engineers. He pointed out that some relief works were commenced last year a few weeks before the harvest was gathered, and on this account the relief works and the harvest competed with one another. The right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, say whether, after the spring work was over, he would, in certain exceptional cases, consent to the completion of the relief works. In short, he desired to know what policy the right hon. Gentleman intended to pursue between the completion of the sowing time and the harvest?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Question of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) was perfectly proper; but it would have presented itself more conveniently when the next Vote was reached. With regard to the presentments which had been made, work had been stopped on account of the spring agricultural labour. He was anxious that it should be resumed when it was
    964
    most needed—that was to say, before the harvest. It became desirable last year, on the assumption that the distress in Ireland would be greatest before the harvest was gathered in, to know how far the loans made had been really used for the advantage of the people. Consequently, the Government took power to appoint four engineers to report upon the matter, and it was for that purpose that the sum of £300 in question was asked. He believed the money had been well spent. As he had already explained, the £450 was rendered necessary by the exceptionally hard work which had been done.
    MAJOR NOLANhad no objection to the Vote, although he had thought it necessary to take up a little time in explaining its bearing upon Irish distress. He was anxious to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had really taken into consideration the necessity of executing works in certain parts of the country when the spring sowing was over, and before the harvest was got in. In other words, had the Board of Works made preparation and the Local Government Board given orders on that point? He could hardly over-state the importance of this to the poor in isolated cases in which distress was sure to be felt.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not do more than the Act of Parliament allowed him to do. He was aware that one or two districts would require all the aid the Government could give, and he was as anxious as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) to make use of the powers they possessed to get the works into operation by the time when they would be of most use.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman having spoken of the four officers who were employed to see how the works were going on, he begged to ask whether those officers had made any Reports; whether these were of a confidential or public character; and if of the latter character, whether the right hon. Gentleman would submit them to the inspection of hon. Members?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: We have had Reports almost from week to week.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORbelieved the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the anxiety which existed with regard to this question amongst hon. Members for Ireland last year as to the extent to which this relief would be carried out.

    965
    Several Questions were then put as to the manner in which the Act affected the relations of debtor and creditor as between the landlords and tenants. Therefore, he asked, whether the Reports received by the right hon. Gentleman did show that the persons who received the money under the Act took advantage of the loan for the payment of debts?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the Question was one to which, on account of its importance, he could hardly be expected to give an immediate answer. Looking at the Reports, however, they did not give him the impression that the money had been applied in the way suggested by the hon. Member—certainly not to any large extent?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then it was so applied to some extent?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not admit that. The Reports related to the extent of the works, and not to the conditions on which the money was being applied. He could not, however, reply off-hand, and without looking into the matter.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the great inconvenience that was felt last autumn when the works were suspended. There was at that time much misunderstanding between the Irish Government, the Board of Works, and the Standing Committees. The Committees considered they had no power to resume the works, while the authorities in Dublin were of opinion that they had such power. The result of the opinion of the Committees that they had not the power of resuming the works was that a large number of persons were left without employment. He now understood that the works had been again suspended, and, if that were so, he could not but regard it as a very deplorable error, because in many of the localities where they had been carried on the spring work was of little importance. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say that discretion should be given to the Standing Committees for the resumption of any particular work.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to know why it was that these allowances were placed under this head. He thought that they would more properly come under the next Vote for the Irish Local Government Board.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the item of £450 was strictly for the purposes of
    966
    the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. No doubt, the item of £300 might have been placed under the Vote for the Local Government Board; but he believed his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury thought it better to include it in the present Vote, in order to make him (Mr. Forster) almost personally responsible for the money being required. The officers were employed by the Department of the Chief Secretary in Dublin to find out how matters were proceeding. As he had already pointed out, there had been a great deal of additional work cast upon the Department on account of the relief works. Many applications came there, and a large correspondence had to be conducted in addition to the ordinary work, which caused a great deal of extra labour to be cast upon all persons connected with the Office. With regard to the suspension of works in the spring, he believed in one or two cases it might be well to continue them; but, generally speaking, when these works would interfere with other employment, he thought it wise that they should be postponed.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the question of the administration of the Relief of Distress Act of last Session was very important; but it would, in his opinion, be much better discussed upon the next Vote. Could not the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would postpone the next Vote upon which this question might be raised, and thus avoid discussion on the present Vote? He suggested that Votes 24, 26, and 35, including the Constabulary Vote, should also be postponed. The right hon. Gentleman had not replied fully to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan).
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Constabulary Vote was still a long way off. With regard to the next Vote, he did not see why the Committee should not proceed to discuss it. Returning to the Reports of the Engineer officers, the impression left by them upon his mind was that generally speaking, the loans had not been used in a way to give advantage to creditors.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the advisability of postponing the eight Irish Votes. There would then remain 47 English Votes which could be proceeded with. He

    967
    thought Thursday would meet the convenience of Irish Members.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought it better to wait until the Votes ware reached. He did not think the next Vote should be postponed.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEcould not find any account of the manner in which the Inspectors were employed, and therefore asked for information upon that point?
    MR. PARNELLthought the right hon. Gentleman should meet Irish Members in their request for the postponement of the Votes, seeing that an Irish Member had withdrawn his Motion on the Paper in order to allow the Government to go into Committee of Supply. If that Motion had been discussed, it would probably have lasted all the evening. The right hon. Gentleman had been reminded more than once that the Estimates had come on unexpectedly, and it had been pointed out that questions were involved in them of considerable importance which ought not to be passed over without inquiry and discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said the Constabulary Vote was a long way off. If the Votes were not postponed, Irish Members would be kept while the Committee were wading through a number of English Votes in which they did not take much interest, when after all, perhaps, they might not be reached.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was hardly reasonable to expect the Government to postpone Votes indefinitely which were so urgent. He differed from the hon. Member for the City of Cork when he said that the Irish Members did not take much interest in, or were not familiar with, the English Votes. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had shown considerable interest and knowledge with regard to them. It was only right that Irish Members should take an interest in the English Votes.
    MR. LEAMYthought it unreasonable that, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rylands) wished, the Irish Members should discuss the English Votes, while the Supplementary Irish Estimates were, it would seem, to be taken without any discussion at all. He trusted the Chief Secretary would accede to the request made for the postponement of the Irish Votes, the Irish Members having shown their disposition to assist the Govern-
    968
    ment in passing their Business through the House.
    MR. MACDONALDthought that, looking at the whole matter, the Government should allow the Votes to stand over for a short time. He protested against these attempts to press forward Irish Business without giving a fair opportunity for discussion and criticism on the part of Irish Members. Was it to be coercion and rushing in the Votes as well as in everything? For one, he thought the Members for Ireland were showing a very commendable spirit. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for Burnley on the subject, he would tell that hon. Gentleman that the Government could attend to their own business nicely without his pleading or defence for their actions. He did not think the remarks of the hon. Member would do them any good. These Votes were not to be the happy hunting ground of the hon. Member for Burnley and a few others.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, it certainly appeared to him worthy the consideration of the Government whether they would not postpone the Irish Votes and pass the remaining English Votes. Time would then be afforded to Irish Members for looking through the Estimates, and a greater number of English Votes would be got through. Irish Members had certainly shown no desire to delay the passing of the Estimates. He earnestly pressed the Government in their own interest to adopt this course.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not see the necessity of postponing the Votes.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, it was unkind on the part of Irish Members to say they took no interest in the English Estimates. The Government were acting very fairly in going through the Estimates in order; and he appealed to hon. Members opposite not to be so selfish as to require the English Estimates to be hastily passed for their convenience.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I point out to the Committee that there is a particular Vote before them, and that it cannot be postponed. It may be withdrawn by the Mover. Any question with regard to the other Votes must come when the present Vote has been disposed of.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, he had no particular objection to urge against the Vote. Nevertheless, if the proposal of

    969
    the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were not agreed to, he should be placed under the painful necessity of moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the suns necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."—(Mr. Finigan.)
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he could not vote for any such reduction. He did not think the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) could justly accuse the Irish Members of selfishness. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) for the postponement of the Irish Votes perfectly reasonable, and that it should be accepted. As there remained very little need for further discussion upon the present Vote, for his own part he should be willing to allow it to pass if the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the remaining Irish Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. BYRNEjoined the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Major Nolan) in asking the Government to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He would remind the Government that confidence begot confidence, courtesy begot courtesy, and resistance begot resistance. If the proposal of the Irish Members were accepted, they would assist the Government as much as they could to facilitate the progress of Business; but, if not, very little in the way of assistance could be expected of them. He should like to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland acceding to the proposal in the spirit in which it was made.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that surely one of the Irish Officers of the Crown would get up and say "Yes" or "No" to the appeal. He strongly urged that the Government might be allowed to have the Votes they were now discussing; but any information they wanted as to subsequent Votes should be now given, otherwise, when another Vote came on, Ministers would be able to say, as an excuse for not yielding to the proposal—"Oh, but the Vote has been moved, and it must be proceeded with."
    970
    It would be, practically, too late to ask for information after the present Vote had been disposed of, and it would be too late to ask for the delay of the Vote after it had come on, as it was too late to ask for the withdrawal or postponement of the item before the Committee now that it had been proposed. In the best possible spirit he would say that there was no need at all for any mystery in this matter. The Irish Members could not shut their eyes and go on with the Votes, and if they were told that the Government intended to force on all these serious Irish Votes to-night, the Irish Members would make the best preparation they could. The Committee knew very well that it could not get through all the Votes to-night. Some of them must be postponed, and he would be bound to say that if the Committee were polled at this moment the majority would be of opinion that the best way to facilitate the progress of Public Business would he to postpone the three Irish Votes. For himself and his Friends round about him, he could say that they had no desire except to facilitate the rapid despatch of that Business. They only asked that they might be treated with fairness and courtesy, and only wished to point out that if an intimation were not given to them now, it would be too late when the next Votes were reached. He would strongly appeal to the Members of the Treasury Bench to give some reply; if they remained silent, the Irish Members would be obliged to construe that silence into a declaration of war.
    MR. HOPWOODwould like to add a word in support of what had been said by hon. Members opposite. The Chief Secretary might fairly yield to the appeal made to him, because, really, the Irish Votes to follow were of a serious character from the point of view of the Irish Members.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, hon. Members placed him in a difficult position when they appealed to him, because the matter of taking the best means to get through the Business of Supply was not one which merely concerned the Chief Secretary. Other Ministers—especially the Prime Minister—were concerned as well as he himself, and he did not know, therefore, that he was in a position to describe what the progress of Business should be. It seemed quite

    971
    clear that the Irish Members wished to have a discussion on one or two questions to be raised in the course of the Estimates. He had hoped that that discussion could be taken on the present or the next Vote—he had thought that hon. Members could have raised the points they wished to raise when they came to the items for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions and for Constabulary. He might be going beyond his province in making the suggestion; but he would ask them whether it would suit their views to dispose of the present Vote and the next, which was not a matter likely to lead to much debate, on the understanding that the other two Irish Votes should follow the remainder of the Supplementary Estimates?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that if the Irish Votes were postponed, he saw no reason why all the other Votes should not pass that evening; but if the Irish Votes were not postponed, there was no chance whatever of the English Votes passing through. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly expect Irish Members to sit there whilst English Votes were under discussion and to remain altogether idle. He, for one, should decline to vote public money without knowing why and wherefore he was voting it. On almost every English Vote he might have something to say—he should feel disposed to raise questions on every single English Vote; but if the Treasury Bench would consent to what the Irish Members asked—namely, that one or two days should be given them to enable them to thoroughly appreciate the value of the figures presented to them in the Irish Votes, he should consider that he discharged his duty in giving consideration to those Votes and allowing the English Votes to pass. Other Irish Members, he thought, would be actuated by the same feelings, and this alone ought to show the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it would conduce to the economy of public time if he consented to the arrangement they proposed—namely, that the present Vote might be put from the Chair and disposed of, and the rest of the Votes postponed. They did not want to impede the progress of Business, but to elicit, whilst there was time, a clear declaration from the Treasury Bench as to whether the Government would consent to the postponement of the other
    972
    Irish Votes. As to the next Vote, which was in respect of the Local Government Board, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the subject was one of considerable interest in Ireland. Almost every one of the Irish Members had had correspondence with the people of Ireland on the subject-matter of the Vote, and the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a considerable misapprehension if he thought it would be possible for them to discuss it now in a few minutes. If, however, they were able to devote a day or two to the consideration of these matters, they might find that this question did not need discussion at all.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had been looking at the way in which they could get through most work in the rather awkward circumstances in which they found themselves this week. The hon. Member who had last spoken must not suppose that he (Mr. Forster) admitted his argument, which was that as this and some of the following were Irish Votes he took great interest in English Votes, and could not think of public money being voted for English purposes unless he approved of those purposes; but that if the Irish Votes were put off, his interest in the English Votes and leis desire to form an opinion with regard to them would altogether disappear. The hon. Member had hardly advanced the argument seriously. Still, the Committee must look the thing in the face and see how they could best make progress with Business; and he should be prepared, although he was, perhaps, going beyond his powers in doing so, to say that the best practical mode of dealing with the matter would be to take the Votes he had mentioned at once, and postpone the remaining Irish items until the English and Scotch had been got rid of. There was one slight exception which he would ask the Committee to make in favour of a Vote which came in the middle of the ordinary Votes—namely, £41 for Endowed Schools Commissioners; and it was only a technical matter to which, he did not suppose, any hon. Member would object.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman raised a doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to whether or not the Irish Votes would be taken to-night. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed that the Irish Votes should be postponed

    973
    until the other Votes had been disposed of; but that would leave it open as to whether the Irish Votes were to come on to-night or on some future day. The hon. Member for Wexford County had said that confidence begot confidence; but, for his own part, he had not the confidence of his hon. Friend in the Chief Secretary—as a matter of fact, he had not any confidence at all in him. Let the right hon. Gentleman state whether or not he intended to move any further Irish Votes that night.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, that on the understanding just arrived at, that the Irish Votes would not be taken until some other day, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,100, 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 1881, for the Salaries of the Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Queen's Proctor for Divorce Interventions; the costs of Prosecutions, including those relating to the Coin, and to Bankruptcy, and of other Legal Proceedings conducted by those Departments; and various other Legal Expenses, including Statute Law Revision, and Parliamentary Agency."
    CAPTAIN AYLMERcomplained that the details of this sum of £30,100 were very imperfectly shown in the Estimates. It was set forth that the deficiency under the sub-head of "Legal Proceedings" was occasioned by the heavy costs of the proceedings in the Lords of the Admiralty v. Union Steamship Company, the Lords of the Admiralty v. Dunn, and in some recent Ecclesiastical cases. The costs of the prosecution of the West of England Bank Directors and the Directors of the Northern Counties Assurance Association were mentioned; and he thought that some explanation ought to be given of these items, to show whether the cases were such as ought to have been taken up by the Treasury. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. It was stated in the printed
    974
    Votes that the recent depression in trade, no doubt, accounted for the increase in the number of cases in which the Judge had directed the Solicitor to the Treasury to prosecute fraudulent bankrupts, and £6,500 was put down under the subhead "Bankruptcy." This was a very large sum over and above the original Estimate, and some explanation of it ought to be given.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to know whether the cost of the prosecution of the chemist and druggist, Titley, was included in the Vote asked for? In this case the police had laid a trap for the man, and were, in his (Mr. A. M. Sullivan's) opinion, equally guilty with the prisoner, as though they had been convicted of a crime. He wished to know whether any money was included in the charge for that prosecution, because he considered the prosecution was one that ought to be fully discussed in the House by English Members, and those who took an interest in the administration of English justice, and desired to see that administration fair and above suspicion? There was an item in the charge—a delicate one for him to allude to, but he did not think he would be doing his duty if he did not refer to it—to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee—namely, £4,200 for a religious prosecution, "Regina v. Lord Penzance, re Pelham Dale, re Enraght, re De la Bere." He thought the ratepayers of the country ought not to be asked to vote this £4,200 for an Ecclesiastical dispute, and he strongly protested against the charge. It was a disagreeable thing and, in a certain sense, an invidious thing for him to do, because the parties interested in the prosecution belonged to a religious communion which was not his (Mr. Sullivan's); but he was not speaking from that point of view. He emphatically protested, and he was sure the people of England would as strongly protest, against payments of any kind being saddled on the country in regard to the discipline or internal domestic affairs of any religious communion. For his own part, on two occasions before this he had raised his voice in the hope and the desire that the Episcopalean Protestant Church of this country might have restored to it its ancient powers of Convocation, so that it might enjoy Home Rule in its domestic affairs, and no longer

    975
    have its business brought into an Assembly such as this to be in any manner determinable by gentlemen like himself. It was humiliating to any religious communion that they should have to come to this Assembly, where gentlemen like himself, who belonged to another faith, had a voice in the settlement of their affairs. Every religious communion in the country should administer its own affairs, and none of them should be allowed to come to the taxpayers for money to enable them to enforce their discipline.
    MR. WEBSTERwas glad the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had spoken his mind on this question, and he (Mr. Webster), on his part, was likewise bound to express the pain and vexation which the passing of this Vote would give himself and Nonconformists generally. The Estimates did not show how much of this £4,200 applied to ecclesiastical cases, and how much to the actions brought by the Lords of the Admiralty; but, whatever the amount, he stood here to complain of the country being compelled to pay for that which in no way concerned the nation at large, but which had reference only to an agitation within the intestines of the Church. It was very hard, and against the conscientious conviction of many hon. Members, that the national funds should be saddled with such expenses, and he would now give Notice that on Report, in the event of any support being given him, he should move to reduce the Vote by such a sum as would correspond with the charge for sectarian as against national purposes.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, before the discussion proceeded any further, he should like to be allowed to say a few words as the variety of topics alluded to was likely to create some confusion. First, in regard to the prosecution of the West of England Bank Directors and of the Directors of the Northern Counties Assurance Association. These were two most important inquiries instituted last year by the late Government. In the case of the West of England Bank, the prosecution was directed by the Home Secretary, on the advice of the Attorney General, against the Directors, several of whom were convicted. The amount of the failure of the Bank involved a loss of over £1,000,000 sterling. The case lasted
    976
    12 days before the magistrates, and six days at the Central Criminal Court. There were 37 witnesses, and naturally the expenses were very heavy. The other prosecution was ordered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Before the magistrates, charges wore preferred against eight Directors and five officials of the Company. The case lasted 15 days before the magistrates, and nine days at the Assizes, and, in the end, four of the directors and two officials were convicted. With respect to the bankruptcy prosecutions, he believed the increased charge was simply due to the bad times and depression through which we were passing, and the consequent increase of bankruptcies. The prosecutions in these cases had been transferred to the Treasury Solicitor, and the cost of each one had largely decreased from that of other years. Formerly, the estimate used to be £13,000, and the cost of each case about £260; but now the total charge was reduced to £8,000, and the cost of each case only a little more than half—namely, £135. Thus, these matters were being economically dealt with. But to come to what was the most important of all the questions—namely, the ecclesiastical trials, he wished to point out that there was a considerable mistake prevalent in respect to this matter. People thought that the prosecutions of these clergymen had been undertaken by the Government, and that the taxpayers were charged with the cost. This was not the case. An action was brought against Lord Penzance, and the question considered—first of all by the late Government—was whether or not his Lordship, who had tried the original cases, should be defended in this action, which was in respect of a judgment he had given in his judicial capacity. It was decided that he should be so defended; and the course then taken was only in accordance with the general practice, which was, when a servant of the Crown, in his public capacity, was tried for an action which he had committed in that capacity, to defend him at the public expense. There had been various similar cases, though he could only refer to one—namely, the prosecution of Mr. Edmonds. In this case the Lord Chancellor, Cabinet Ministers, and various other Crown Officials had been proceeded against for action they had

    977
    taken in their public capacity. There had also been an action against Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Mellor, and they had been defended at the public expense. He could assure the Committee that there was nothing really ecclesiastical in the matter. An action had been brought against a Judge for a judgment he had given, the contention of the plaintiff being that the Judge had exceeded his powers in having made that judgment, and the State had defended him.
    MR. MACDONALDthought the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had not given the Committee a very clear explanation on this matter. There were a number of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House who cordially sympathized with the views of the hon. and learned Member for Meath on this question, and who did not wish to have the religious differences in the Church brought before them at all. Why should hon. Members be asked to vote money for that in which they did not take the slightest interest? It was true that the charge was in respect of actions which had been brought against a Judge; but they could not help recognizing the fact that those actions were the result of differences as to the discipline of the Church. Therefore, as he considered, that House should have nothing to do with the actions. He felt so strongly on this matter as almost to be inclined to move the reduction of the £4,200. He would, however, in deference to the desire of some other Members, allow it to go on this occasion; but, assuredly, if he were in the House next Session, and a similar Vote came up, he should divide the Committee on it. It was a most unseemly state of things that they should have brought before them the quarrels of the Church that they had no interest in.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked for information as to expenses incurred under this head for a Provisional Order, amounting to £200, when it was obtained from the Board of Trade for the bankrupt harbour of Anstruther, practically the property of the State?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, certain expenses had been incurred; but he would make further inquiries into the matter.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: The noble Lord has not answered me as to the case of Titley.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I do not believe any charge was included for the prosecution the hon. Member has referred to; but I will ascertain.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the statement of the noble Lord had, to some extent, removed the objection to the charge; still, the actions against the Judge had arisen out of Ecclesiastical prosecutions. If it had not been for these prosecutions the State would have been relieved of these expenses, directly or indirectly. It was very painful for persons who belonged to other communions to be called upon to vote money in this way for actions arising out of internal quarrels in the Established Church. It was especially disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen who came from parts of the Kingdom where there was no Established Church at all to be asked to vote this money. He was therefore disposed, in order to test the feeling of the Committee, to move the reduction of the Vote. Though by so doing he might delay the proceedings of the Committee, he thought it his duty, in the interests of civil and religious liberty, to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £28,100, 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 1881, for the Salaries of the Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Queen's Proctor for Divorce interventions; the costs of Prosecutions, including those relating to the Coin, and to Bankruptcy, and of other Legal Proceedings conducted by those Departments; and various other Legal Expenses, including Statute Law Revision, and Parliamentary Agency."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought the objection made by the hon. Member to the expenses incurred through appearances having had to be made on behalf of the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court was well founded from the hon. Member's point of view; but he (the Attorney General) could explain that the view presented to the Committee by the hon.

    979
    Member had proceeded entirely from a misapprehension. The rule which prevailed in regard to these matters was a fair one. When a Judge was sued for acts done in his official capacity, it was the practice for the Crown to represent and defend him if it were necessary for him to appear. It was always desirable that no Judge should unnecessarily take part in litigation, and in many cases when questions of this kind were raised the Judge put them aside and took no notice of them But if a Judge was compelled to appear as, for instance, to defend the jurisdiction of the Court, it was impossible to cast on him the expense of defending his action in such capacity, for if such expense were east upon him very often he would be ruined. Actions might be brought against him on the weakest grounds, and very often without even a show of foundation. The Judge, if the burden of these expenses were allowed to fall on him, would say—"What am I to do? I cannot bear the cost of this litigation—I cannot take any part in it." And if he did not take part in it, the Public Service might suffer. Under the circumstances, it had been the rule for the Government to interfere to protect the judicial office. Magistrates had often claimed this protection, and had received it; Judges also had asked for it, and it had never been refused them. The same rule applied to the protection of officers in the Army and Navy in respect of acts done by them in the course of service. This was a question which might arise in connection with any suit, however temporal in its character. Lord Penzance exercised temporal jurisdiction by virtue of a statute which, no doubt, affected ecclesiastical subjects; still he was a temporal Judge. These proceedings were taken against him; he was charged with having acted without any jurisdiction at all. Proceedings were taken against him which rendered it necessary for him to appear in order to protect the jurisdiction of the Court. How could it be expected that as an individual he should pay the cost of defending it? He hoped the Committee would understand that there had been no exception in this case, and that the Government had only followed the general rule.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was quite impossible for him to support the Motion
    980
    for a reduction of the Vote. Supposing the question had been whether these matters should be dealt with in an Act of Parliament and the existing arrangements should be interfered with, probably he would have found it necessary to vote with the hon. Member. He should have been quite ready to support a Bill levelled against the Act which had caused these ecclesiastical proceedings to be taken; but when the question was one of the jurisdiction of a Court, they were bound to support that Court in upholding its jurisdiction without any reference to the particular subject which had brought about the proceedings. It was impossible for him to support the proposal.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said that depression in trade was the cause of all these prosecutions for fraudulent bankruptcy. He ventured to differ from the noble Lord, and would tell him and the Committee that the cause was the present bad Bankruptcy Law. It would be better for both the Committee and the Government—and it would have been better for the past Government if they had done so—to turn their attention a little to England and the wants of the country; for instance, to the Bankruptcy Law——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that he is travelling beyond the Motion before the House.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, it was not depression of trade which would account for the great expense to which the Treasury had been put in the prosecution of fraudulent bankrupts. He was sorry to hear the observations which had fallen from some hon. Members. They did not appear to be educated up to the mark, for they seemed to forget that so long as we had an Established Church we must maintain that Church. It was for the Legislature that made it to keep it in order. He was astonished to hear hon. Members speak on this subject in the manner they did. [Cries of "Divide!"] When hon. Members wished to discuss anything with regard to England, some hon. Gentlemen would not listen to them; but if the subject had reference to Ireland—if anything was wanted in Ireland—there was no difficulty for anyone to obtain a hearing.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had only to state that his object was served in having brought on the discussion. He would withdraw the Motion.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANwished to point out that no one had objected to the principle of defending the Judges. It was this particular case of paying for a defence in connection with an ecclesiastical quarrel that had been objected to.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (17.) £1,230, Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice (England).
    (18.) £26,755, Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he saw under this Vote an item for the trial of Election Petitions. He had understood that the charge was to be borne by the district in which the Petition was tried. He should like to know what distinction was made between the various items, and how it was that these charges were not borne by the boroughs?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that all the expenses in connection with the Election Petitions were paid by the candidates or persons interested. These allowances were for officers in attendance on the Judges during the trials, for travelling expenses and other statutory expenses.
    Vote agreed to.
    (19.) £650, Wreck Commission.
    (20.) £160, Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
    (21.) £3,010, Police—Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was not present, or he should have called his attention to this Supplementary Vote, because of the view he (Mr. Rylands) had expressed over and over again when the proposal for transferring the management of the prisons from the local authorities to the State was before the House—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the next Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    (22.) £14,624, Prisons, England.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had to apologize for having made a mistake in turning over the pages of the Votes. He was not prepared to oppose the Vote; but he thought it desirable that the Committee should keep an eye to the additional expenditure that was going on in this Department. He had reason to believe, from certain sources, that next year the expenditure would be considerably in excess of the Estimate laid on the Table by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department—which Estimate was altogether illusory. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had told them that the adoption of his proposal for taking the prisons from the control of the local authorities and handing them over to the State would conduce to economy. But instead of proving a means of economy, the arrangement had been a means of additional expenditure; and he was very much inclined to think that nothing had been gained by that additional expenditure. All they had done was to strike a great blow upon local management.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTdid not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was present; at any rate, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to draw the attention of the Government to the item—"Police claim in consequence of the decision in Mullins v. The County of Surrey, £2,000." This was an important matter to the ratepayers of the country. It had been decided by a Court of Law that the Government were to pay the cost of the conveyance of prisoners from the place where they were committed to prison to the place where they were to be confined. The decision was given in favour of the county of Surrey, and notice of appeal had been given; and what he wished to know was whether that appeal had yet been settled, and, if it had, whether the Government now undertook to pay the cost of conveying the prisoners? The question was a very serious one, as it affected the interests of the whole country, and it was one to which they had been looking for an answer from the Government for a very long time. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that the case was in abeyance; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) hoped the Under Secre-

    983
    tary of State would be able to give a more definite answer.
    MR. COURTNEYwas sorry to say he could not give any definite answer to his hon. and gallant Friend. The question was an important one, and the Home Office was fully alive to the fact; but the matter was still in abeyance.
    MR. PUGHwas not inclined to go so far as the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in regard to this matter; still, he must say, it was a singular thing that the Estimate had been so considerably under the mark. He had had a good deal of experience in the country in matters of this kind, and he could assure the Committee that there was great attention paid to them amongst local authorities. How was it that the original Estimate of £8,000 had been exceeded by so largo a sum as £5,500? He was sorry to be obliged to confess that he had no knowledge of the case of Mullins v. The County of Surrey.
    THE CHAIRMANput the Question.
    MR. PUGHsaid, certainly he was entitled to an answer. The matter, as he had said, was one which excited a great deal of interest in the country. It might be wrong on his part to take such an interest in it; but other hon. Members besides himself took an interest in the question and desired information with regard to it. The original Estimate for moving prisoners from place to place was £8,000; but there seemed to be an additional sum of £5,500 required, and he respectfully asked for some sort of an explanation which, apparently, neither the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) nor the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department were inclined to give. Unless some explanation were given, he should be obliged to move the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he could give the hon. Member some information on the point. The Supplementary Estimate was in consequence of the decision in the ease of Mullins v. The County of Surrey. The counties objected to pay the expenses of taking prisoners from the place where they were committed to the prisons where they were to be confined, and the Government thought that under the Prisons Act the counties were liable for the expenditure, and not the central
    984
    authority. The dispute ended in litigation, which was still going on. The case had passed through the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal; but it had not yet reached the House of Lords. So far as it had gone the decision was that the central authority, and not the counties, had to pay. The Government had put down in the Estimate the amount they thought would have to be paid by the country if the final decision went against them.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought it had been explained that part of the expense was due to the decision in the case of Mullins v. The County of Surrey. There was a great deal of uncertainty in the matter.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, no doubt that was the explanation; but he did not wonder at the Members of the present Government repudiating the Estimates at the time the Prisons Act was passed. The officers connected with the prisons themselves and the Prison Commissioners were aware that the Estimates were entirely fallacious. This item for police escort was occasioned by its having been necessary to do a great deal in the way of moving prisoners from one place to another in consequence of the number of prisons having been decreased. They had been informed that the Prisons Act would bring about great economy; but in the presence of right hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the late Government, he had no hesitation in saying that the Estimates of that Government had been decidedly inaccurate and misleading.
    MR. CAINEsaid, that the Government had not given a sufficient answer to the Question. If the appeal in the case of Mullins v. The County of Surrey was in favour of the Government, what would be done with this money the Committee were about to vote?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: If the appeal is in favour of the Government, this account will be adjusted, of course.
    Vote agreed to.
    (23.) £5,500, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (24.) £652, National Gallery.
    (25.) £500, Learned Societies and Scientific Investigation.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, this was a grant for the Metereological Society; and he merely rose to express his sincere thanks to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury for what he had done in the matter.
    Vote agreed to.
    (26.) £256, London University.
    (27.) £54, Universities, &c. in Scotland.
    (28.) £41, Endowed Schools Commissioners, Ireland.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, there was an item in this Estimate which appeared to him to be extraordinary—namely, £31 for the "requirements of one of the Commissioners, who lived at a distance from Dublin." It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the public should be charged this amount, because one of the Commissioners lived a certain distance from Dublin. The official ought to bear the expense himself in the ordinary way.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The Commissioner lives at Belfast, and he does not receive a salary.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (29.) £21,730, Diplomatic Services.
    MR. MONKwished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question as to the Special Embassy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). The expense of his Special Embassy was £6,950, and he (Mr. Monk) wished to know whether this was a sum in excess of the charge made when Mr. Layard was Ambassador at Constantinople? He should be glad if the Government would explain whether a portion of this sum was salary to the right hon. Gentleman, and the rest for his outfit, or for what purpose the sum was asked. He should also like to know what was the meaning of the next item—"Sir Charles Rivers Wilson's expenses on Commission of Liquidation in Egypt £950?" This charge, it appeared to him, ought to be borne by the Egyptian Court. Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was sent out at the request of the Khedive, and surely his expenses ought not to be paid by this country.
    MR. NORTHCOTEhoped that some explanation would be given to the Committee of the great discrepancy in the charge in the original Estimate for Special Missions and Services and the actual expenditure. He also concurred with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) in asking for information in reference to the charge of £950 in connection with the expenses of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson. The items for the International Commission for revising Mixed Tribunals in Egypt, and the charge for the expenses of the British Commissioners in the Mixed Commission for inquiring into and defining the Limits of the North-Western Boundary of the Liberian Republic, also required explanation. He further asked if it was not possible to include the cost of telegrams in such cases as the Special Embassy to Constantinople in the ordinary Vote for the Mission?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he saw no reason why the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote), in regard to the cost of telegrams, should not be adopted. In reply to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he might say that there had been no salaries paid in connection with Sir Charles Rivers Wilson's Mission to Egypt. The expenses of Mr. Goschen's Mission to Constantinople, which were of a public nature, had been paid, and also the cost of the whole staff employed by the right hon. Gentleman. Included in the Vote were several charges for journeys backwards and forwards between this country and Constantinople, and also for the outfit of one of the Secretaries (Mr. Jervis). He held the details in his hand; but he did not suppose that the Committee would desire that he should enter into minute details. The principal items in connection with the Special Missions were as follows:—1st, the journey of Lieutenant Vincent to Bulgaria. Lieutenant Vincent went out with the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) upon the European Commission. He was afterwards asked by Her Majesty's Government to go up to Bulgaria, and he accordingly went to Bulgaria and Greece. This Mission involved a charge of £200. There was also a charge of £200 for Colonel Wilson, for performing certain duties on the Asiatic side of

    987
    Turkey. Colonel Wilson was also sent to Bulgaria. Lieutenant Chernside was the British Turkish Commissioner at Batoum, and there was a charge for his expenses. Generally speaking, these extra sums for Special Missions were caused by the difficulties placed in the way of our Military Consuls in travelling on the Asiatic side of Turkey in consequence of the disturbed state of the country.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked, that his hon. Friend had not explained the item connected with Sir Charles Rivers Wilson. He should like to know how long Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was engaged upon his Mission. He was sent out to assist the Khedive in a somewhat unprecedented manner; but while he was absent from this country, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson actually retained an important office under the Crown as Controller General of the National Debt Office. Although placed officially in connection with the Khedive, he still retained this important office under the Crown, but did not receive the salary of Controller General of the National Debt Office. It was a most singular arrangement altogether, and at the time it was made he (Mr. Rylands) raised a strong objection to it. As soon as Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was able to return to England from the important employment in which he had been engaged, he resumed his office of Controller General of the National Debt Office. He then went out again to Egypt as Commissioner of Liquidation. He (Mr. Rylands) wished to know how long Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was so engaged, and if he received a salary during that time from the National Debt Office; also, generally, what arrangement took place with the Government both with regard to the salary and the expenses incurred by him?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that all the arrangements were made by the late Government, and he was not personally very conversant with them. He believed that Sir Charles Rivers Wilson had rendered important services both to this country and to Egypt.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwas afraid that he could not recollect offhand exactly what the arrangement was; but he believed that the gentleman who filled the second position in the National
    988
    Debt Office undertook the duties of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, and that Sir Charles Rivers Wilson gave up, at all events, a portion of his salary to that gentleman. He regretted that he was not aware that the question was likely to be brought forward. If he had been he would have refreshed his memory. No additional expense was thrown upon the public; the duties were discharged by a person who was perfectly competent to undertake them, and they were paid for out of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson's salary.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was perfectly true that when Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was appointed to assist the Khedive and became a Member of the Egyptian Cabinet, he ceased to receive a salary as Controller of the National Debt Office; but the singular arrangement was that in the absence of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson £500 a-year was paid to the Assistant Controller, so that the Assistant Controller was paid for time which had already been purchased by the State, and was able to do the duties of another person who was receiving a large salary as Administrator in Egypt. What he (Mr. Rylands) wished to ask now was, whether during the time Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was serving upon the Commission of Liquidation he received any salary, or whether the former course was adopted and, while Sir Charles Rivers Wilson received no salary as Controller General of the National Debt Office, the second officer received £500 a-year for doing his duties?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would make inquiries and give an explanation on the Report.
    Vote agreed to.
    (30.) £4,365, Consular Services.
    (31.) £12,188, Colonies, Grants in Aid.
    MR. MONKwished to point out that a large sum amounting to £4,000 was asked for the passages of Governors, in addition to a sum of £6,500 included in the original Estimate, and making £10,500 altogether. He thought the Committee was entitled to have a little more information than was contained in the heading "Passages of Governors, &c." He would, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Grant

    989
    Duff) to explain what number of Governors there were, or for what purpose this large sum of £4,000 was required?
    MR. GORSTalso wished to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—namely, what the present and future arrangements wore respecting the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific? He believed that Sir Arthur Gordon, who had been removed from Fiji to New Zealand, still retained the position of Western Pacific High Commissioner? He wished to know if the office of High Commissioner was to continue to be held by the Governor of New Zealand. It was obvious that this would be a most inconvenient arrangement, seeing that the Governor in New Zealand would be at so great a distance from the seat of his jurisdiction as High Commissioner. He wished to know whether the arrangement by which Sir Arthur Gordon retained both appointments was temporary or permanent?
    CAPTAIN O'SHEAasked, what was the meaning of an item of £2,500 for "Half of cost of Conversion, &c.?"
    MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would answer in the first instance the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Nothing could be more reasonable than that Question, for he admitted that it would be most inconvenient to make provision that the Governor of New Zealand should be in perpetuity also High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. The present arrangement was a purely temporary one. As the hon. and learned Member knew, Sir Arthur Gordon was the First Commissioner of the Western Pacific, and he had shown considerable ability in directing the affairs intrusted to him. With regard to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Captain O'Shea), who inquired what was meant by the item of £2,500 for "Half the cost in 1880–81 of Conversion, &c.," it had, of course, no sort of reference to the conversion of the Natives to Christianity, but referred to the conversion of the ship called the Cruiser. He was not at all surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) should ask for an explanation of the large additional sum included in the Estimate for the passages of Governors. The fact, however, was that during the last few months there had been, from various causes, a very unusual amount
    990
    of movement among the Colonial Governors. In the first place, Sir George Strahan came home from Barbadoes and then went out in temporary charge of the Cape when Sir Bartle Frere returned. Then Sir Hercules Robinson was brought to England from New Zealand to confer with the Government and was then sent out to South Africa. In the next place, General Lefroy was sent out to Tasmania, Sir George Strahan was brought back from the Cape, and Sir Hercules Robinson was sent to the Cape. There had, consequently, been an exceptional number of passages during the last few months.
    Vote agreed to.
    (32.) £7,800, Tonnage Bounties, &c. and Liberated African Department.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he should be very glad if he could induce Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider this Vote, which was, he believed, under an Act of Parliament. The charges under this Vote, which were incurred in the suppression of slavery, were a very serious matter. When a cruiser captured a slave dhow, the value of the prize was determined by the tonnage of the vessel, if she carried no slaves, or by the number of slaves captured. Experience had shown that the adoption of that system had led to a very serious amount of abuse, and many mere smuggling dhows had been captured and treated as slave dhows. The captains engaged in the suppression of the traffic under the existing system were enabled to stretch their power to a most unwarrantable extent. In a particular case mentioned in the Vote, we were called on to pay £10,566, because the captain of one of our cruisers had seized a vessel which was proved afterwards not to be a slave vessel. That was to say, that a captain employed in a certain service, and receiving his ordinary pay, was also allowed to run the chance of augmenting that pay by the receipt of a large bounty, provided that he was able to seize a vessel which he presumed to be a slave vessel. It amounted to this, that a premium was given to the captains of these cruisers, which was sufficient to induce them to run considerable risk in seizing vessels which, after all, might turn out not to have been engaged in the slave trade. He would be glad if the noble Lord the Financial Secretary

    991
    to the Treasury would tell the Committee the circumstances under which this country was called upon to pay this enormous sum of money, and what arrangement was made with the captain of the cruiser who captured the vessel wrongfully, and for whose mistake we were called on to pay, in regard to his responsibility, or whether there was any arrangement at all by which the action of the captains of cruisers in these seas might be checked. Was it a fact that we offered them a bounty which had the effect of inducing them to stretch their authority in taking possession of vessels that were not actually slave vessels? He entertained grave doubts whether the present system was not open to great abuse, and he hoped the Government would be able to say that something would be done to prevent the possibility in future of such an occurrence as that to which he referred.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the occurrence in question happened several years ago—in 1876, he believed—and the reason why the amount of damages awarded had not been paid, was that there had been an appeal which had only recently been decided. The appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on behalf of the Crown had been dismissed with costs, and, in consequence, the sum of money included in the Estimate became payable.
    Vote agreed to.
    (33.) £6,369, Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
    MR. RAMSAYasked for an explanation of the object for which this sum was paid in the shape of the subsidies to the Telegraph Companies? He asked the question, because it happened that the island in which he lived on the West Coast of Scotland had been deprived for something like four months of all means of telegraphic communication, in consequence of some accident which had occurred to the cable. He did not dispute the desirability of extending telegraphic communication to distant parts of the world, but he thought the British Islands had also a claim to consideration; and, so far as he could learn, in the case he had mentioned, there had not even been an attempt to find out what had been the cause of the interruption he certainly thought that when they were voting money to Telegraph Com-
    992
    panies for enabling us to communicate with foreign parts, we were entitled to expect some explanation of the cause why communication was not properly maintained at home. He knew he should be told that the revenue derived from this particular quarter was not such as to warrant a large expenditure of money; but he understood that one of the main grounds upon which Parliament agreed to hand over the telegraphs to the Government was that all parts of the Kingdom should be put into telegraphic communication. On the whole, the revenue derived from the telegraphs was profitable; and an isolated district which was not profitable was not to be wholly ignored on that account. He hoped he might receive an assurance that steps would be taken to put an end to the interruption of which he complained. The telegraphic communication in question had been enjoyed for many years, and he hoped to have some explanation of the reason why it had been restored. He had no wish to object in particular to this Vote; but he would certainly move a reduction of the Vote unless the noble Lord the Financial Secretary was able to give such information as would satisfy the Committee that there had been good grounds for withholding the expenditure necessary to restore the communication.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that subsidies were paid to the Telegraph Companies for keeping up certain telegraphic communications which it would be inconvenient for the Post Office to maintain. He did not think this was the exact time for discussing the question whether the service abroad was better kept up than at home. All he could say in regard to the interruption of the telegraphic communication referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) was that it had been occasioned by an accident, and that it had been extremely difficult to get a vessel adapted for this particular service to restore the communication. He hoped, before long, that the communication would be restored.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES.
    (34.) £11,000, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked for an explanation of an item in this Estimate of £1,900 for "the public offices in Scotland—Universities, &c." He confessed that he should very much like to know what these additional superannuation allowances were for the Scotch Universities?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the allowances were granted to certain Professorships connected with the Scotch Universities which came under the Superannuation Act. The salaries of these gentlemen appeared in the Estimates; but there were certain additional allowances in the shape of fees.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the Professors had been entitled to superannuation allowances for some years. Had there been any re-arrangement?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the sum asked for—£1,900—was a very large one for a single year. He should really like to know what it was.
    MR. LITTONalso asked for information in regard to an item of £900 for Public Offices in Ireland in connection with the Queen's Bench Division?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Aylmer) said that the Scotch Professors had been entitled to these allowances for a number of years. It was easy, therefore, to discover what they were really entitled to. He would make an inquiry as to what the exact details were in regard to the University superannuation allowances, as he did not like to speak from memory. In regard to the item for Public Offices in Ireland, he believed that it was connected with the re-organization of the Irish Judicial Establishments last year.
    DR. WEBSTERsaid, the superannuation allowances to the Scotch Professors were granted under the Universities (Scotland) Act of 1858, which entitled the Professors, after a certain time, to superannuation allowances. They were all granted, after proper investigation, in accordance with the terms of the Act; and all the arrangements were carefully considered on the spot, and approved and provided by the Treasury. No public money could be better applied.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (35.) £2,764, Treasury Chest.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (36.) £1,100, Temporary Commissions.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDnoticed, from the details, that there had been heavy expenditure in connection with the Commission relative to the War in South Africa Expenditure. Had the labours of the Commission now terminated?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, both of the officers sent out on that Commission had returned after making inquiries.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked if all the expenses had now closed?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought they had.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would tell the Committee whether the Government were taking action upon the Report of the Commission. He understood that a portion of the expenditure of the Transkei War had to be borne by the Cape, and he now desired to know whether the Imperial Government were receiving any considerable amount?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Commission was sent out, not only to consider the apportionment of the expenditure, but to see there was no unnecessary waste. The Estimates made were most accurate, and the manner in which the work was done reflected credit upon everyone concerned. In reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he had to say that the expenditure at the Cape during the last few mouths had been so large that it had not been thought desirable to press for any payment as yet. With respect to Natal, they had every reason to believe that as soon as the Colony raised the loan they now proposed to do, the Imperial Government would receive a considerable sum of money.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he only wished to bear his testimony to the extremely good service that was done by the gentlemen to whom reference had been made. The two War Office gentlemen were men of high

    995
    position in their own Office, and Mr. Gurdon, who went out from the Treasury, was sure to distinguish himself by his services. The duties which the Commission performed were of a very valuable character. There was no doubt the question might arise as to the claim made on the Colonies; but the Reports of the gentlemen sent out were valuable, because they showed what were the circumstances under which the claim might be made. That, however, was by no means the greatest part of the value of their services. They were able at once to settle the question, the discussion of which by the War Office and the Treasury and different Departments and Members of the Colonial Government would have led to the waste of many months, and possibly years. Mr. Gurdon, so far as the Treasury was concerned, was specially empowered to speak on behalf of the Treasury—to say what they were likely to allow and what they were not likely to allow, to say what charges ought to fall on the Imperial Treasury, and what charges ought to be borne by the Colonial Treasury; and from all he (Sir Stafford Northcote) saw of the work the Commission did, he was persuaded they did it thoroughly well, and that they very well deserved whatever the expenses of the Commission might have been. He hoped, no matter what might be said on the subject, full justice would be done to those gentlemen for work they did in a very difficult and irksome capacity, having everybody against them whenever they were at all economical, and having to go through physical labour, and even physical danger, in the cause of the Service.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, of course, it would be remembered the present Government had nothing to do with the appointment of the gentlemen in question. It had, however, fallen to their lot to judge of the result of the Mission; and, speaking for the War Office, he was able to say that upon the Report presented they had been able to base arrangements which would have a highly economical character, and might enable the Department to satisfactorily settle the transactions which had recently occurred in South Africa. They had been able to put South African matters on a footing which would, at any rate, avoid delay and lead to considerable economy.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the total amount required was £1,100, after deductions were made. It would be much more satisfactory to the Committee if the whole expenses of the South African Mission were specified. At present hon. Gentlemen were completely in the dark in this matter.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, they could not refuse the Vote after the very valuable testimony to the services of the Commission. He must, however, express his disappointment with regard to the debt due from the Cape Government. The debt was incurred, not on account of Her Majesty's troops, but on account of the expenses of the Colonial troops engaged in fighting their own battle. Because the Cape Government had, contrary to the wish of the Home Government, and contrary to the dictates of justice, chosen to enter into a fresh war, was no reason why the Cape Government should not be pressed for payment.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would give the hon. Member (Mr. Dick-Peddie) exact particulars of the South African Commission at a later stage of the Estimates.
    Vote agreed to.
    (37.) £350, Miscellaneous Expenses.
    MR. PUGHsaid, he must ask for some information in respect to this Vote. The Committee would see there was considerable obscurity, both on the subject-matter and the details. They would see that the original Estimate for "fees on patents of creation" was £500, and that now an additional sum. of £350 was required, making, in all, £850. But then, when they got lower down, they found the
    "Excess of Expenditure over Grant for Fees to Heralds and others, in consequence of increased number of Patents of Creation issued from the Crown Office in Chancery"
    was £1,305. It appeared from this that £500 was not the original Estimate. There was a considerable disparity in the figures, and he would be glad to know who were created, what they were created, and what was the cost of the respective creations?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, upon all these creations there were certain stamps to be paid for, and certain persons were entitled to a portion of the fees. Last year there were a considerable number of creations by the late

    997
    Government, and that might account for the amount of the Vote.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish). He desired to know if they were really called upon to pay out, of the taxation of the country the expenses connected with the making of Peers?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the stamps were paid into the Exchequer.
    Vote agreed to.
    (38.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,585, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, as a matter of curiosity, he would like to have an explanation of the item of £24 3s. for the "Temporary Seal for the Transvaal Government." What was the meaning of the word "temporary?" Were they to infer that there was a permanent Seal as well?
    MR. CAINEasked for some information respecting the item of £572 8s. 10 d. which he saw was put down in the Estimate as the "expenses connected with the conveyance to England of the body of the late Prince Imperial." He would like to know why the country was called upon to pay these expenses?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, in respect to the temporary Seal for the Transvaal Government, he thought he might assume that the Seal was ordered when the Colony was annexed. He imagined the word "temporary" was employed in the hope that the Colony would repay the cost subsequently. With regard to the expenses connected with the conveyance of the Prince Imperial's body to this country, it was thought right to incur these expenses inasmuch as the Prince died in the service of the country.
    MR. GORSTwished to ask another question in reference to the Seal for the Transvaal Government. How came an item of the kind in this Estimate at all? It was a very small amount; but, small as it was, ought it not to have appeared in the accounts of the Transvaal Government?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, at the time the Transvaal Government was appointed, £120,000 was voted by this House for the necessary expenses. It was an extremely prudent thing to provide a a temporary Seal only; but it ought to have been paid for out of the grant made by Parliament.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, there was a curious entry under this Vote. It read thus:—
    "Representatives of the late J. Gibson, Q.C., as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, County Donegal, in respect of a Pension which would have been granted to that Gentleman, and charged on the Consolidated Fund, had he not died before the necessary formalities were carried out."
    And the item was £178 0s. 7d. He would like to know whether it was the custom to give money to the relatives of those who would have been entitled to pensions had they lived long enough?
    MR. CAINEunderstood from the reply of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) that the Prince Imperial was in the service of this country. He was under the impression that the Prince went out as Volunteer.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Prince Imperial was acting as a Volunteer, but fighting in our service. He was sorry he could not give the circumstances connected with the grant to the representatives of the late Mr. Gibson. He believed that gentleman died whilst the formalities were being determined; and, therefore, this item could not be charged against the Superannuation Vote.
    MR. LITTONdid not think any hon. Member of the House would object to the sum charged for the conveyance of The Prince Imperial's body to this country. That illustrious young gentleman occupied a very noble position, and he met an unfortunate death while engaged as a Volunteer in the late Zulu War. It would, indeed, be very ungracious to challenge the item. There was, however, a matter upon which he would like some explanation; it was with respect to the payment of two Treasury Chest Bills which had been cancelled, and the amount—£200—paid to the Exchequer. As to the grant to the representatives of the late Mr. Gibson, the only question he would raise was as to whether Mr. Gibson had not, prior to his death, tendered his resignation, because he (Mr. Litton) could well

    999
    understand that the representatives would be fairly entitled to the grant if that were so. On the other hand, if Mr. Gibson had not resigned, it would seem unreasonable to make the grant.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that, although the Mr. Gibson in question was no relative of his, he knew the facts very well. The late Government were in power, and Mr. Gibson died a short time after he sent in his resignation, and, he assumed, before the formalities connected with the carrying out of the pension were completed. The personal representatives were, of course, entitled to be paid the sum as if the necessary formalities had been completed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed a desire to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury two or three questions, because he always felt very suspicions when a Vote for contingencies was asked for. In the first place, he wanted to know whose distinguished conveyance had cost £1,312? He desired information, too, as to the meaning of the sum of £2,769 as Equipage Money on the appointment of Earl Cowper as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. With regard to the conveyance of the body of the late Prince Imperial to this country he was not prepared to make any Motion; but if some hon. Gentleman opposite would put the item to the test of a division he would certainly follow him into the Lobby. He was afraid, however, he would have to divide the Committee upon the points he had raised, if the explanations were not satisfactory.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had to inform the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Litton) that the two Treasury Chest Bills he had mentioned were two bills drawn by the Treasury Chest in 1873, but which were not presented for payment until 1880. Owing to the lapse of six years, it was expected the bills would never become due. The special packets for conveyance of distinguished persons were packets provided for Members of the Royal Family. As to the Lord Lieutenant's Equipage Money, he had to state that the matter was inquired into by a Select Committee in 1831. That Committee reported that they were unable to recommend any reduction in the salary of the Lord Lieutenant, and also that equipage money should be allowed. It was quite evident anyone
    1000
    occupying such a position as Earl Cowper must be put to a very large expense.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNORwould like to be informed who were the Royal and distinguished persons for whose conveyance special packets were employed; what were the occasions on which the packets were employed; and whether the distinguished persons were being conveyed on their own personal pleasure, or in the public service?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied that it had always been the custom, when any of the Royal Family went to the Continent, to provide special packets for them.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would move the omission of the item of £1,312 for special packets.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,273, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advauces."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (39.) £12,000, Customs.
    (40.) £18,200, Post Office.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, there was only one point to which, at this stage of the Estimates, he wished to call attention. Since the present Government had been in Office he had been favoured, as he presumed other hon. Members had been favoured, with a request to nominate someone to act as messengers in the Post Office. It was a very paltry piece of patronage, involving a salary to the person appointed of 18 s. or 20 s. a-week. They had done away with a large amount of patronage, and it would be an extremely desirable thing if this remnant of a bad system were also abolished. It would be better to intrust the appointment of these small officers to the postmaster in the district. He mentioned the matter because he was sure it only entailed upon an hon. Member a larger amount of trouble than was necessary, and often it provoked ill feeling amongst his constituents. On a recent occasion, in the county of Northumberland, where it so happened that neither of the hon. Members were supporters of the Liberal Mi-

    1001
    nistry, this small piece of patronage was not exercised, but a gentleman who lived entirely out of the district was asked to make the appointment. It would be well for the Post Office and for all parties if the practice of asking Members of Parliament to nominate persons for these small offices were discontinued altogether.
    EARL PERCYsaid, it was perfectly true that since the present Government came into power the appointments to these small offices had been placed in the hands of gentlemen who had not lived in the county, and whose sole claim to the patronage was that they were defeated candidates. Although it was not for him to criticize the motives which induced Her Majesty's Government to distribute their patronage in this manner, and although he had nothing to urge personally against the gentlemen whom they had appointed, yet, at the same time, he would point out to the Committee that whether or not it was desirable, for purely political purposes, to intrust to unsuccessful candidates all these appointments, it was extremely undesirable that they should be in the hands of persons entirely unacquainted with the requirements of the districts in which their patronage was exercised. A good deal of interest was excited with regard to these appointments in the various districts, and much competition arose with reference to them; and for that reason the matter ought to rest, at any rate, in the hands of persons well acquainted with the needs of the localities. He rather inclined to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was better to take the appointments out of private hands altogether.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he never knew when he could recommend for patronage, and he wished his constituents, at any rate, knew when he could not do so. There was great uncertainty with regard to these Post Office appointments at the present time, and he should be very glad if the Government would put a Return on the Table of the House showing the names of persons who recommended in each constituency. The Report would be received with much interest both in Ireland and by Irish Members in this country.
    MR. J. W. PEASEfully agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the pa-
    1002
    tronage conferred on Members of Parliament, especially upon county Members, involved them in a great deal of trouble; for it was generally found that when one person was pleased by an appointment a great many more were disposed to quarrel with the appointment made. The change suggested would, no doubt, be of advantage to Members of Parliament; but he was not sure it would equally benefit the country. It had always been the practice to confer this patronage on defeated candidates. In his own county it had been exercised during the last Administration by the defeated candidate, the noble Lord the Member for the County of Down; and he was glad to say that he believed that whatever Party bad been in power it had been exercised with great advantage to the public, and as he believed was always the ease, with fairness.
    EARL PERCYexplained that he had no objection to political patronage being placed in the hands of anyone who agreed with the political opinions of the Government in power, and who was resident in the county and understood its requirements. He said it was more important that the service of the Post Office should be performed in an adequate manner by those who knew the country than to allow the appointments to be in the hands of defeated candidates.
    MR. BEAUMONTsaid, he had some acquaintance with Mr. Clay, to whom allusion had been made, and he was able to say that gentleman had a perfect knowledge of local requirements.
    MAJOR NOLANthought the Postmaster General would see there was good reason for the proposal that a Return of the persons who exercised patronage in the matter before the Committee should be included in a Return and laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, the question raised rather concerned the Secretary to the Treasury than the Postmaster General. The appointments made were purely Departmental so far as the Office over which he presided was concerned. If his hon. and gallant Friend desired to move further in this matter he suggested that a Question should be asked on Notice.
    MR. LITTONsaid, if he thought any good would result he would be glad that the Return asked for by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan)

    1003
    should be given. There was, however, a great distinction between an officer appointed in the country districts, and one in the Office of the Postmaster General.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member (Mr. Litton) that the Question before the Committee is a Supplementary Vote of £18,200 for the Post Office, and that the present discussion would more correctly arise upon the general Estimates.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, in deciding not to press his question, he did so entirely because the subject had been ruled out of Order.
    Vote agreed to.
    (41.) £9,000, Post Office Packet Service.
    (42.) £34,390, Post Office Telegraphs.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTremarked that the excess of £16,500 under this head was very largo, and thought some explanation ought to be given to the Committee as to how it had been occasioned.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, the revenue under this head had increased beyond the sum estimated to the extent of £100,000. The hon. and gallant Baronet would see that it was quite impossible that so large an additional revenue could be received without some increase of expenditure. The whole of the Supplementary Post Office Estimate was due to the fact that the entire postal revenue had increased by upwards of £400,000 beyond the Estimate.
    DR. CAMERONobserved, that a portion of the Vote was due to the litigation in connection with the Telephone Company, the result of which had been to place a monopoly entirely in the hands of the Post Office authorities. It appeared to him that under the spirit of the Post Office Telegraph Act, on given conditions, any member of the public was entitled to demand any service or licence that might be performed or granted by the Post Office. Now, the Post Office had granted licences to certain individuals, enabling them to start telephonic exchanges; but it refused to grant licences to others under precisely similar conditions. That, he thought, was rather an infringement of the spirit of the Telegraph Act, and would therefore be glad of some information upon the point.
    1004
    He understood that one reason alleged for refusing the licences in question was that so many wires would interfere with the safety of the public. The safety of the public, however, was a subject for the consideration of the various local authorities, and had nothing whatever to do with the Post Office authorities, who, so far as this matter was concerned, had only to deal with the licences in accordance with the spirit of the Act. The more the competition created by these means the better, in his opinion, for the public good.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, at that moment it would be almost impossible to give any decision upon so complicated a question. The Government had allowed existing Telephone Companies to continue their business under certain conditions; but numerous complaints had been made by the local authorities of the increase of wires, and the Post Office had concluded that it would generally be better to carry on the business themselves rather than to licence new Companies. As far as he was concerned, he would do everything in his power to supply the public with telephonic communication at the lowest rate, and with the least possible inconvenience.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he should call attention to the subject on a future occasion.
    Vote agreed to.

    CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES).
    (43.) That a sum, not exceeding £12,109 4s. 2d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1880, viz.:—

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

    £

    s.

    d.

    The Mint, including Coinage

    64

    2

    2

    Lunacy Commission, Scotland

    44

    10

    7

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

    County Courts

    2,124

    17

    11

    Land Registry

    12

    19

    7

    Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

    2,205

    8

    6

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.

    Endowed Schools Commissioners, Ireland

    167

    12

    6

    Queen's Colleges, Ireland

    517

    0

    10

    1005

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

    Consular Services

    5,421

    12

    6

    Suppression of the Slave Trade

    1,550

    19

    7

    Total Amount to be voted for Civil Services

    £12,109

    4

    2

    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the principle involved in this Vote was most important. The Committee were now asked to vote a series of excesses on Votes which already, in many cases, had been increased by Supplementary Estimates. This Vote, therefore, showed the importance of that scrutiny without which it was impossible for the House to check the expenditure of the Government. As far back as 1870 the Public Accounts Committee recorded their opinion that it would be of much value to the House if the examination of the Appropriation Accounts could be completed before the time arrived when Parliament was asked to grant the difficiencies found to have arisen in the grants of the previous year. The same Committee, in 1877, stated that it was of great importance that the attention of Parliament should be especially directed to all cases in which excess of expenditure had been incurred beyond that originally sanctioned by Parliament. They also thought it desirable that the excesses should be reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts before it was voted in Committee of Supply, in order that attention might be called to any cases involving questions of principle. The Treasury in their Minute agreed with that view. Again, the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in 1877, as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, recorded his opinion that none of the Votes of the kind now asked for should be taken in Committee of Supply until the Public Accounts Committee had had an opportunity of investigating every one of them and reporting upon them to the House of Commons. What steps, then, had the noble Lord taken to carry out that recommendation? He complained, in 1877, that the Appropriation Accounts of the Civil Service and Revenue Departments were not delivered until the 22nd February, and that the Public Accounts Committee had not, in consequence, had the opportunity of reviewing them. Again, the noble Lord had since been charged with the duty of
    1006
    nominating the Public Accounts Committee; yet, knowing that there were Supplementary Estimates and excesses, he had delayed for six weeks after the meeting of Parliament the nomination of the Committee; and the Appropriation Accounts for the present year had not been presented until two days later than they were in the year when the noble Lord recorded his objection to the system. The Committee, therefore, had no materials upon which to found a judgment on the Vote; and he thought hon. Members had a right to complain of the action of the Government, who, having proposed urgency for these Estimates, had not furnished the House with the Appropriation Accounts.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was glad to inform the hon. Member for Queen's County that the Committee had already had the Excess Estimates before them, and had reported thereon.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But the Accounts are not complete.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Yes they are.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Lord Frederick Cavendish,)—put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  INDIA OFFICE (SALE OF SUPERFLUOUS LAND) BILL.— [BILL 91.]
  (Lord Frederick Cavendish, The Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  INDIA OFFICE (SALE OF SUPERFLUOUS LAND) BILL.— [BILL 91.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwished to know whether the India Office would gain or lose by the sale of this superfluous land?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I am happy to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that the India Office will gain by the transaction.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  SEA FISHERIES (CLAM AND BAIT BEDS) BILL.— [BILL 83.]
  (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Ashley.)
  SEA FISHERIES (CLAM AND BAIT BEDS) BILL.— [BILL 83.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    DR. WEBSTERdid not know whether the Amendment he had given Notice of could properly be inserted in this part of the Bill; but he had understood from the authorities he consulted that it should be taken before the 1st Clause was passed, otherwise he might be prevented from proposing it in a subsequent part of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, after the words "sea fisheries," to insert the words "fishing banks and."—(Dr. Webster.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend is one of a series of Amendments which, if carried, would have the effect of very largely extending the scope of the Bill, to which, I am sorry to say, I am entirely unable to agree. Before dealing with the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I must trouble the Committee with one or two general observations. The fact is, this Amendment arises out of a contest between two classes of fisheries—between the hook and line and the drift net fishery, as it is called, on the one hand, and the trawlers on the other. Trawl fishing is the more modern of the two kinds of fishing. I believe that, in some form or other, it has been practised for 80 or 90 years; but it has received considerable development within the last 30 or 40 years. It is by far the most successful method of fishing, and it may be said to be a mechanical method. The largest amount of fish brought into the market, which forms a considerable item of the food of the country, is procured by trawling, and, not unnaturally, the other fishery, finding its business considerably injured by this successful competition, readily believes all the accusations that are brought against it. The general question for the House in reference to this matter would be whe-
    1008
    ther they ought by legislation to protect one class of tradesmen against another, and especially whether they ought to protect the most successful and most scientific class of tradesmen against the less successful and scientific. It is something like calling on the House to interfere by legislation to protect the hand loom weaver against the spinning jenny, or protect the omnibus against the tramcar. The only ground for interference would be, that the trawlers, in the exercise of their trade, either intentionally or unnecessarily damage the business of the hook and line or drift net fishery. As to this matter, there have been several thorough investigations. There was a Commission appointed some time ago, which consisted, I think, of Mr. Maxwell, Professor Huxley, and you, Sir, the present Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair). Later, in 1866, a Royal Commission was appointed, on which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and Professor Huxley sat. There was also a Sea Fisheries Commission appointed in 1878, which consisted of Mr. Buckland and Mr. Walpole, to deal with the same subject. I must trouble the Committee with some extracts from the Reports of the Commissioners. I find that, in the Report of the Commission of 1866, which was signed by Professor Huxley and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, these Gentlemen said—
    "1. That fishing by the use of the beam-trawl is the source of by far the greatest and most progressive supply of fish, other than herring, to the principal markets of this country; that certain descriptions of fish, such as soles and plaice, could not be largely supplied by any other mode of fishing; that it engages the largest capital, employs the most numerous body of hardy fishermen, is the least under the control of the weather, and obtains the greatest returns of fish for the labour and capital employed."
    Now, it seems to me that clearly it would not be right for Parliament to interfere to put down one form of enter-prize because it interferes with another and less important form of trade. I am informed by Professor Huxley and others who have given great attention to the subject that if anything were done to interfere with the trawling enterprize the effect on the great markets would be something extraordinary. The supply of flat fish, soles and plaice, now

    1009
    so largely consumed by the working classes, would be at once enormously reduced. On the same subject, the Commission I have already quoted has said—
    "The prohibition of one method of fishing on account of its interference with another could only be justified on the ground that the latter method yielded a far more valuable supply of fish to the community than the former, which is not shown to be the case in any of the complaints which have come before us."
    And then, in regard to the various allegations made as to the damage done by trawlers to other fishing, the Report goes on to say—
    "It has not been proved to our satisfaction that to prohibit, even partially, any of the modes of fishing complained of would result in a greater take of fish of all sorts in other ways. We are, therefore, of opinion that even granting a certain loss to drift, line, trammel, and other fishermen, it would not be advisable to make such prohibitions, even for certain times or in certain limited places."
    Well, in the same Report there are, further, very strong conclusions with regard to the evidence—the want of conclusive evidence of any damage really done by the trawlers to the other kinds of fishing. I should say, however, that the complaints of the other fishermen are of three or four kinds. They complain, in the first place, that the trawlers injure their nets and gear—that they cut and damage them deliberately whilst pursuing their own employment. That is a complaint made with equal force by the trawlers against their competitors, and it is really a matter of police, having been dealt with by the Sea Fisheries Act 1878, which imposes a heavy penalty and declares that no trawlers are entitled to come within three miles of drift-net fishermen when at work; and the trawlers complain, and, I believe, with great reason—and we are taking steps to put an end to the ground for the complaint—that the drift-net fishermen, when working, do not use proper lights, and the trawlers really do not know where they are. The second complaint is that these trawls injure the spawn of fish. It is alleged that the trawl—which, I should explain to the Committee, most of whom are probably not acquainted with them, is a net attached to a beam and dragged along the bottom of the sea—is carried over beds where there is herring spawn, that it takes up the
    1010
    spawn and destroys it, preventing it from being subsequently vivified. The evidence as to that is of the most complete character. In the first place, experiments have been made which conclusively prove that the spawn, after having been removed in this way—after having been taken away—if returned to the water is not injured, but is still capable of being vivified. It is clear that the trawlers, when they accidentally take up spawn in their nets, make a practice of returning it again to the sea. In the second place, it is proved that in the places in which the trawlers work, and are alleged to destroy the spawn, the drift-net fishermen also work and take the herrings whilst they are spawning; so that, in fact, these persons actually desire legislation to protect the spawn, whilst they themselves are engaged in destroying the spawning fish. But there is a still more conclusive argument than either of those I have used, and it is rather an interesting illustration of the danger of unnecessary legislation on these subjects. The great case which is made out for interference is in connection with the Pittenweem beds, off the coast of Scotland. In this place, which is three or four miles in extent, the herrings have been accustomed to spawn, and it is proved that at the spawning time there is an enormous accumulation there of white fish of all kinds. These white fish come and eat the spawn, and before the Commission, upon which Professor Huxley sat, the fishermen gave evidence that they had removed as much as two or three handfulls of spawn from the stomach of a single turbot. The fishermen, therefore, who go to these beds to catch the turbot are really catching the animals which interfere a great deal more with the spawn than any human being possibly can do. Proof was given that one cod fish would consume in the course of a single year 420 herrings, and that the total catch of cod fish off the coast of Scotland prevented the destruction of a number of herrings equal to the total catch of herrings caught by the whole of the fishermen in Scotland, and 6,000 to boot. The effect of our interfering with the trawlers would be to give full play to the flat fish, the cod fish, and ling, which are more destructive to the spawn of herrings than any trawl can be. Another contention has been that the trawls

    1011
    can injure the white fish, and caught immature fish. This question, however, is simply one as to the size of the mesh, and legislation has been put into force that has prevented any but large fish being caught. It is contended by the drift-net fishermen that the spawn of white fish has been destroyed by the trawl; but it has been recently proved that the spawn of the white fish does not, as the fishermen suppose, go to the bottom of the sea, but floats on the surface, consequently the operations of the trawl are innocuous as to the spawn of the white fish. Lastly, it was contended by these same men that in certain cases the trawl injured the clam beds, the clams being a description of bait they use together with cockles, mussels, and some other bivalves. Evidence was given before Mr. Buckland and Mr. Walpole that, in some cases, this damage was wilfully done; and it seemed to the Government that this was a case in which the interference of the Legislature was necessary—that though we should not do anything to prevent legitimate enterprize, we should take the necessary steps to prevent anything like unnecessary damage. The Bill is directed to that one point alone, and I cannot say I see that any case has been made out for any extended interference. The only ground at all I can find for such a thing is in the recent Report of Mr. Buckland and Mr. Walpole, and in that the recommendation appears to be inconclusive. They say, on the one hand, that they have not been able to discover that anything which has yet been done by man has in any way interfered with the supply of herrings in the sea; they say that legislation hitherto has not had the slightest effect in increasing the supply of herrings; they say that it is not proved to their satisfaction that trawling has interfered with the supply of herrings or damaged the spawn; and then they go on to say that notwithstanding all that, inasmuch as it may be possible that some cases may arise, they think it desirable that the Government should take power to prohibit them. For my part, I think it would be much better for the Department to wait until some case has been made out for their interference before they meddle in the matter. Applications would come from all parts of the Kingdom from hook and line,
    1012
    or drift-net fishermen, for protection against the trawlers, which the Department would be placed in the invidious position of having to refuse, and great dissatisfaction would be the result. We have now the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) before us; but there are several others, and I must, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, oppose them.
    DR. WEBSTERthought if his right hon. Friend had been good enough to wait until he saw what the case for the Amendment was, he would have been spared a considerable part of his argument he (Dr. Webster) was going to touch upon hardly any of those questions which the right hon. Gentleman supposed he was going to bring before the Committee. He wished it distinctly to be understood that he did not come there as an advocate of one class of fishermen more than another, and he did not wish to say or advocate anything with regard to spawn. He did not pretend in the least to come forward to contest any question on behalf of the hook and line fishers, commonly called "white fishers," as against the trawlers. He came here acknowledging the principle of the Bill to be a right one; and, having full confidence in the Board of Trade, he wished to extend the advantages of the Bill by giving the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) power in a wider direction than he himself claimed. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in one thing, and that was, that the great authority on this subject was to be found in the three Royal Commissions which had reported as to the effect of trawling in the seas surrounding our shores. He wished to say—and he should be as brief as possible—that of the three Commissions, the first into which it was desirable to enter, was the one composed of Professor Huxley, Mr. Caird, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. That Commission reported in 1866. Its province extended not merely to in-shore fishing, to which the Bill applied—to fishing within our own territorial waters—but it extended to deep-sea fishing. The scope of the Inquiry was to consider the effect then, and in the future, of trawl-fishing on the supply of fish, and its effect upon other kinds of fishing. The right hon. Gentle-

    1013
    man the President of the Board of Trade had not pointed this out—that there was a great and deep distinction drawn in Professor Huxley's Report between deep-sea fishing and in-shore fishing. With regard to deep-sea fishing, it was quite true that the Commission reported that, in their opinion, no substantial case of injury to fishing existed from the operation of trawling; but as to in-shore fishing the case was different. The Commission of 1866 reported that, with regard to the trawl fishing in territorial waters, great complaints had been made of the injury caused to these fishings by trawlers. As to the whole question of the destruction of fish, he would wish the Committee to observe what that Commission—the most important and influential that had ever sat—said on the subject. They reported that the evidence satisfied them that great injury and great destruction had been caused to fishing by the operation of trawling. They granted that injury was done to immature and young fish, but did not consider that the destruction which was occasioned was a "wasteful" one, because the loss occasioned by trawling bore no proportion to the loss through natural causes. The Commission reported, not that destruction had not been done to immature fish, even in deep waters, but that the destruction was not a wasteful one. Why was it not a wasteful destruction? Because, in their opinion, the ratio of injury done to immature fish by trawling bore no proportion to the loss and injury to immature fish by natural enemies. He wished to put this fairly, and would therefore repeat the view of the Commission in their very words. They said—
    "We think that there is no evidence that the use of the trawl net or beam trawl, or any other mode of fishing, involves the wasteful destruction of fish or spawn."
    He would ask the Committee to observe, in the whole of the Reports of these Commissions, this word "wasteful;" and they would, he thought, come to the conclusion that the whole thing was a mere dispute about words. The "destruction" was admitted; but the "wastefulness" was not admitted. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Professor Huxley's Report negatived the idea of there being any injury to in-shore fishing by the use of trawls; but, with all sub-
    1014
    mission, that was not so. Professor Huxley, in that sense, spoke only of deep sea fishing, with. which he (Mr. Webster) had nothing at all to do, his appeal to Her Majesty's Government and the Committee being confined entirely, as was the present Bill, to in-shore fishing. This was what Professor Huxley said with regard to in-shore fishing—
    "With respect to it, though the evidence, so far as it is conclusive, appears to us to prove that the taking of small and immature fish has not yet produced any injurious effect upon fisheries, it is undoubtedly possible that by the use of improved engines the destruction of fry might reach such a pitch as to bear a large instead of, as at present, an insignificant ratio to the destruction effected by natural enemies of fish and by conditions unfavourable to their existence."
    And Professor Huxley's warning had been borne out, because they knew, according to the Report of the Commission of 1879, that within the few months immediately preceding that Report trawling had very considerably extended into territorial waters. The Commission of 1879 did not deny that there had been a destruction of fish, but reported, like their predecessors, that there had not been a wasteful destruction; yet such was the force of the evidence brought to bear upon them that they reported—
    "That the Secretary of State should have power, after inquiry by some competent person, to issue a Provisional Order prohibiting the use of the trawl net or beam trawl in any of the territorial seas, such Order to come into force only after its approval by Parliament."
    It was on such a recommendation as that that the Government were justified in bringing in the present Bill; but he did not know any part of the Report which recommended that such a power by Provisional Order should be confined to clam or bait beds. The Commission distinctly reported that, in their opinion, the Secretary of State should be allowed the power of issuing a Provisional Order, after due inquiry, to prevent the use of the trawl in-shore. The other Commission of 1878, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, had reported to the same effect. Speaking with regard to certain cases of injury to line fishing, they had said—
    "We cannot take on ourselves the responsibility of saying that it may not be necessary to interfere with beam trawling in-shore. No such necessity, indeed, has been proved to our satisfaction. But so strong a case primâ facie has been made out that the Legislature, we think, should give the Secretary of State power to stop in-shore trawling, if necessary to do so."

    1015
    The Commission of 1878 said that no such necessity had been proved to their satisfaction; but no such case could have been proved with regard to white-fishing, because that Commission was confined in its scope and powers exclusively to herring-fishing. The abuses which came before that Commission with regard to white-fishing were brought under their notice incidentally, and there was no opportunity for the white-fisherman to give evidence. The Commission, then, of 1879, and also that of 1878, distinctly recommended, not power to forbid clam and bait-fishing by trawlers, but that the Board of Trade should have a power of inquiry, and upon cause shown, and with other safeguards, to issue a Provisional Order for the protection of the fishing by forbidding trawling within a reasonable area, and with certain restrictions as to time. He did not speak as the advocate of protection for any one class of fishing more than another; but there was an undoubted and real risk within the shallow waters in-shore—where the banks were so shallow that they did not exceed 10 fathoms—of such a quantity of immatured fish being brought up by the trawling nets as might destroy the fishing. The proposal would not be at all disagreeable to the trawlers themselves; and the most influential of the Commissions, that of Mr. Huxley, said the trawlers themselves had become sensible and alive to the danger of in-shore trawling, and the destruction of immatured fish. So strong was the impression made upon that Commission that they reported that even many of the trawlers themselves were not indisposed to some restrictions with a view to the advantages which they knew would ensue. They had become satisfied that the banks were being rapidly destroyed, and felt that the fish there should not be trawled for in the summer and spring, the proper time for their protection. He had had many applications made to him, and much information given directly to him; but he would not trouble the Committee with that, because he thought the recommendations of the three Commissions should be sufficient. But he wished to impres upon the Committee the serious risk that would be run of the destruction of immatured fish. He had received a letter from a gentleman who was not
    1016
    engaged in white-fishing, Mr. Adam, of Aberdeen, who was known in connection with salmon-fishing; and that gentleman said he felt bound to add his testimony as to the great destruction of fish. He said that he had seen several hundred weight of immatured fish thrown out from the nets of the trawlers.
    MR. BIRKBECKhoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. He had trawled a good deal in the North Sea, and he could assure the Committee that if the Amendment was agreed to, the whole trawl-fishing along the coast would be utterly destroyed. The whole question of the close-time would be an International matter, and he was sure it was not desirable to agree to the Amendment, or any of the Amendments proposed. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) upon the very clear way in which he had placed the matter from the Front Bench.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSobserved that the Amendment under notice was of the same character as all the rest, and one division would settle the whole of them. He must join issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he announced his attitude of utter inflexibility. This was not a question between line and drift-net fishermen on the one hand, and trawlers on the other. A part of all fishery was carried on within the three miles' limit; but the amount of line and drift-net fishing within that limit was very small, as was also the trawling. The Amendment was intended to comprehend the whole of Messrs. Buckland and Walpole's recommendation that the Secretary of State should have power, after inquiry, to issue a Provisional Order prohibiting the use of trawling nets in territorial seas, such Order to come into force only after the approval of Parliament. He did not wish trawling to be prohibited within the territorial seas altogether, but only where it was shown to be doing definite harm to fish or fisheries. Everybody who knew anything about fishing would know that it was in the shallow waters that the fish spawned, and where they first lived; and that consequently it was in the shallow waters that so much harm was done by trawl-fishing. The right hon. Gentleman had described trawl-fishing as fishing with iron hoops trawled along the bottom of the sea.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was very difficult to describe a machine of that kind; but what he had said was that it was a net carried on a beam supported on iron hoops and trawled along the bottom of the sea.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, a trawl net was a long, purse-shaped net attached to a heavy wooden beam, varying in length from 20 to 60 feet. That beam was kept away from the bottom of the sea by the trawl heads, and the net was dropped down and dragged along by the trawler; the ground rope in front of it stirring up the fish, which rose up and fell into the long net. That machine being dragged along the bottom of the sea, by the admission of the Bill which the Government had introduced, crushed the shells of, and brought up the shell-fish. It also brought up and killed in these shallow waters a vast qnantity of small, immature fish and fry. The Bill did not even include oysters, though he thought it might have included them, as well as bait and clams. Then, another reason why he thought some restriction might be put on trawlers was that trawlers had the power of lifting up their nets at any moment they chose. If they were steam trawlers, they were, besides, so far independent of wind and tide that they could go where they liked, and raise their nets when and where they chose. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way a little in the direction asked, and not be afraid of a little more trouble being thrown on his Department.
    MR. R. W. DUFFhad no objection to include fishing banks, if he understood what fishing banks meant; but he thought that in the Interpretation Clause there ought to be something showing what was meant by fishing banks, because we had no jurisdiction over foreign countries beyond three miles from the shore, and consequently foreign boats could fish in these banks within three miles, while our fishermen could not. If the fishing banks were to be defined as meaning three miles from the shore he would support the Amendment; but if the limit was to be general, that, he thought, would defeat the object in view. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had said that trawl fishing was by far the
    1018
    most important of the English fishing. He (Mr. R. W. Duff) had no doubt it was, with regard to English coast fishing; but it was not true with regard to Scotch coast fishing. The most valuable fishing they had in Scotland was herring fishing by drift-nets. He bad no objection to trawl fishing; but he believed that within three miles of the shore it often did a good deal of harm. Something ought to be put into the Interpretation Clause to say what fishing banks meant; and the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) should supply the words. If the words had any meaning at all, they must mean fishing banks within three miles of the shore; but if they extended to the whole of the ocean they could have no meaning whatever.
    CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEsaid, it appeared to him that to leave fishing banks unrestricted was going too far. Those who had read the evidence before the Commissioners knew that it went only to the length of three miles, or five miles at the outside. He wished to draw attention to the wanton damages which the Commission was informed had been done on the East Coast of Northumberland by the numerous steam trawlers from Shields and Tynemouth. Owing to the slackness of trade, those steamers had nothing to do, and so they went out to the fishing ground and spoilt the fishermen's trade. He was bound to say, however, that the fishermen who gave that evidence stated that when they got to Yarmouth they had nothing to complain of, for the steam trawlers kept off, and did not interfere with them; whereas off the Northumberland coast they ran into the vessels and destroyed the nets. If the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Webster) went to a division he should support him, on the understanding that fishing banks only extended to three miles from the shore.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) was well acquainted with the views of the industrious fishermen on the Scotch North-East Coast; and he (Sir George Balfour) himself had received several representations with regard to the injury done to these fisheries by the trawlers. He must complain of the way in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen was met by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he asked for that protection of the

    1019
    business of innocent men engaged in the line fishings. He was certain that if the hon. Member for Aberdeen appealed to the vote of the Committee he would get better treatment than from the President of the Board of Trade. It was useless appealing to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. WILLIAMSONpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) and his own Amendment followed the words "within territorial waters," and, therefore, did not touch deep sea trawling.
    LORD HENRY SCOTTthought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman went so far as he could be expected to go. The object of the Bill was to protect clams and bait beds from injury; and the object of the right hon. Gentleman, as he understood it, was not to set up one class of fisheries against another. It would be an unfortunate thing if they were to contest a matter of this kind, and set up one class of fishing against another; but he was sure that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) were to be carried, and the subsequent Amendment following upon it was carried, that would be fatal to the trawl fishing in this country, especially in shallow waters, and to a very profitable industry which did no harm itself to other fishing. As he understood it, the Board of Trade took power to protect clams and bait beds when they thought it necessary, and the Bill, in his opinion, went far enough in that respect; and he hoped the Government would resist the proposal to extend the Bill in directions which would be fatal by setting up one class of fishery against another.
    EARL PERCYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick (Captain Milne Home) had forestalled him with respect to the harm done by trawl fishing on the North-East Coast. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the trawlers did very little harm to the spawn of herrings, because when the spawn was returned to the water it was always capable of being developed. He (Earl Percy) did not doubt that in some instances that might be the case; but anyone who knew anything about fishing knew that a great deal of the spawn was spoilt by the machinery used in trawling.
    DR. WEBSTERwished it to be understood that the object of his Amendment was merely to extend the scope of the Bill, and the powers of the Board of Trade within territorial waters. With that exception, every provision of the Bill would remain as it was.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, as he understood, the hon. Member (Dr. Webster) based his contention almost entirely on what he considered the recommendations of the various Commissions. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not know whether the hon. Member was aware of a Report which formed the basis of the knowledge of the Government with regard to Scotch fisheries, prepared by Professor Huxley in 1863. On page 31 of that Report the Commissioners said they were bound to state that the repressive Acts of 1860 and 1861 restricting trawling were altogether unnecessary, being especially for the protection of class interests, and interfering with a new and more productive mode of industry. They also said that that demand for restrictive legislation was only another instance of what happened always when a new industry arose and interfered with an old one. He did not think it was possible to state the case more clearly than Professor Huxley had, and that if his hon. Friend relied upon Professor Huxley, he would find the evidence of that gentleman directly in opposition to his conclusions. Referring to the Report of Messrs. Buckland and Walpole, the hon. Member had laid stress on their statement as to the destruction of fish; but what those Gentlemen meant was that it was impossible to carry on that fishery without interfering with other fisheries. It was absolutely impossible to prosecute one of these methods of fishing without some slight interference with the other; but all the allegations of the wonderful injury done by trawling were without foundation. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had recently consulted Professor Huxley, in order to ascertain if he had received any recent information which induced him, in the slightest degree, to alter his opinions; and he had received a letter from him, the most important paragraph of which was to the following effect Professor Huxley wrote—
    "Under the Circumstances I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that all legislation tending to restrict the operation of the trawlers on this ground is an interference with the freedom of trade."

    1021
    Professor Huxley went on to say that he did not see any contradiction between the conclusion thus arrived at and the conclusion expressed by Mr. Buckland and Mr. Walpole. Wherever it could be shown that the trawlers did wanton damage there should be power to restrain them. Professor Huxley further said that he had submitted his observations to Mr. Walpole, the sole surviving Commissioner of the two who hail given in these Reports, and Mr. Walpole authorized him to say that he agreed with the opinion expressed in them. If, therefore, his hon. Friend the Member for Aberbeen (Dr. Webster) was content to be bound by the opinions of the Commissioners, he would see that there was not the slightest ground for the Amendment. There was a further proposition to restrain the use of the trawl in territorial waters. If they did that, he was afraid they would materially interfere with the business of the trawlers, as they wore compelled to work in-shore in rough weather, and would have to be laid up unless they were so allowed to work. He did not think that it was expedient to hamper or trammel them by any such restriction. Before they attempted to impose serious restrictions upon one of the most important industries of the country, there ought to be some clear evidence to show that the take of fish had been injured by the practices complained of. At present, as far as he was able to see, there was no evidence that the take of fish had been in the slightest degree injured.
    DR. WEBSTERremarked, that new evidence from his distinguished friend, Professor Huxley, had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Dr. Webster) had already quoted the statements of Professor Huxley in 1866. At page 26 of the Report of the Sea Fisheries Commission, presented in 1866, there was this passage, which he (Dr. Webster) thought was conclusive testimony in his favour. Professor Huxley said—
    "We do not know enough of the number, or the mode of multiplication, or of the condition of existence in any locality, of any given kind of fish, to be able to form the slightest estimate as to the effect which will be produced upon the number of that fish by a given amount of destruction of its young."
    He (Dr. Webster) asked for no restriction, but only that the Board of Trade
    1022
    should make an examination into the matter.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 83: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MAJOR NOLANasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade why the provisions of the Bill had not been extended to Ireland?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had applied from the Board of Trade to the Irish Office, to know if he should make the provisions of the Act extend to Ireland; but he was told not, because they had already, under the Irish Act, even greater powers than this Bill gave.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Power of Board of Trade by Provisional Order to protect bait beds from injury by beam trawls).
    MR. WILLIAMSON MR. WILLIAMSON moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 3, after the word "bed," to insert the words "or bed where herrings are known to spawn." He had been afraid that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) would meet the fate it had received; and therefore he had drafted his Amendment more in harmony with the spirit of the Bill itself. The object of the Bill was to prevent specific injury to shell-fish and to increase the supply of food. He had kept that idea strictly in view in drafting the Amendment; and the object of the Amendment and that of the Bill were, he believed, identical. He did not intend to enter into the wide question of trawling versus net fishing; but he believed that specific injuries were inflicted on certain grounds on the East Coast of Scotland on which herrings were known to spawn by the operations of the trawlers. He had presented various Petitions in favour of the Amendment from various parts of Scotland, and one from the Convention of Royal Burghs. It was alleged, and the fishermen all bore corroborative testimony, that at Pittenween a valuable fishery had been destroyed by trawling within territorial waters. There were 700 fishing boats belonging to the district he represented, more than 500

    1023
    of which were of the first class, and the fishermen had been compelled to go to distant fishing grounds away in the North of Scotland and the Hebrides; whereas, if this injury had not been inflicted by trawling, they would have been able to pursue their ordinary avocation at their own doors. In this case he complained of a specific injury, and on that ground he appealed to his right lion. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to accept the Amendment. He thought that the complaints of the fishermen ought to be listened to without regard to the merits of the question of trawling versus line or net fishing, especially as the Bill itself contained a clause providing that nothing should be done until there had been a legal inquiry by the Board of Trade and a recommendation made. He could not understand why the Board of Trade should object to so reasonable an Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, after the word "bed," to insert the words "or bed where herrings are known to spawn."—(Mr. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had already dealt with this question, to some extent, in speaking upon the previous Amendment. His hon. Friend proposed that they should take power to protect the beds where herrings were supposed to spawn. Now, these were precisely the places where other fish, attracted by the spawn of the herrings, were to be found, and in killing these fish the trawlers were really killing the greatest enemies of the herring; and he therefore doubted whether they would not be doing more harm than good if, under such circumstances, they were to interfere with the trawling. It was alleged that the herrings had disappeared in consequence of trawling. He could only add to what he had already said that the facts were these. Trawling was first practised at Pittenween about 25 or 30 years ago, and for some time the take of herrings constantly increased; but after some years of great prosperity it was true that the herrings seemed to have deserted the beds. But on inquiry he found that the history of the place showed that exactly the same occurrence took place 60 years ago, before the
    1024
    trawlers had visited the place; and if they fully investigated the subject they would find that the herring was the most capricious of fish. Under these circumstances, he very much regretted that, after having given to the matter the most careful consideration, the question having been for a considerable time before his Advisers, he was obliged to come to the conclusion that it was impossible to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    MR. R. P. BRUCEremarked, that the herring generally spawned in rough places where it was impossible to work a trawl; but it so happened that there were on the East Coast of Scotland a certain number of level places where the herrings did spawn and where trawling was practised. It was with a view to protect these few well-known spots that this Amendment had been proposed. There was one other remark that he should like to make in reference to the matter. At the time when Professor Huxley made the Inquiry which had been alluded to, in 1863, the fishermen of the locality were divided upon the question of trawling. While the fishermen of the other villages in the neighbourhood were opposed to trawling, those belonging to the village of St. Monance were then supporters of the system of trawling, on the ground that its interference with the herring fishery was hardly worthy of notice. But since that time the opinion of the fishermen in that village had entirely altered; and a Petition had been sent up to him by the fishermen of St. Monance strongly in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Williamson).
    MR. A. GRANTthought that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Williamson) was a most reasonable one. It was a smaller, and perhaps, on that account, a more manageable proposal than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster). It proposed that a limited number of places—there were probably not more than three or four of them around the coasts of these Islands—to which the herrings were known to resort for the purpose of spawning, should be included in the action of the Bill. Although the right hon. Gentleman appeared to flout the idea that the Bill was intended to protect the hook-and-line fishermen, it was

    1025
    evident that the measure would give protection from a portion, at least, of the damage done to the hook-and-line fishermen by the operations of the trawlers. The Bill admitted, and the right hon. Gentleman also admitted, that actual damage was done by trawling in the case of the bait beds; and he (Mr. Grant) could not see that there was any valid reason for not extending the restraining powers proposed by the Bill to be imposed on fishing in respect to the bait beds, to those other places mentioned by his hon. Friend, if it could be conclusively proved that those other places were damaged also. The fishermen in the neighbourhood said that it was so—that the places which the herrings were known to frequent for the purpose of spawning were really damaged; and they spoke with the light of practical experience. Their contention was that the dragging of a heavy beam along the bottom disturbed and harrowed up the herring spawn; and in saying so they confirmed the evidence given on more than one occasion before the Commission appointed to inquire into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the stirring up of this spawn, and its constant churning up and down, had rather a tendency to improve the chances of its vitality; but that was contrary to the generally received idea that fish spawn required rest for the development of the hatching process. If that were so, it seemed to follow that the disturbance of the spawn must tend to a diminution of the number of fish that were produced. But that was not all, as they had heard in the discussion that night. It was well known that the places where the herring spawned were visited by a large number of other fish; but if the supply of food was interfered with, the natural consequence would be that they would be driven away. Thus a double injury was produced by trawling; and there was no corresponding advantage either to the trawlers themselves, or to the public, in an increased supply of fish. He might say this—that the local fishermen, in making this moderate demand, did not ask that the general system of trawling should be interfered with in any way. They did not ask that trawling should be prohibited in narrow seas like the Firth of Forth, though he must say that a good deal might be said in
    1026
    favour of such a demand. All they asked was that protection should be given to places like that under discussion from operations which were found to be most injurious to them in the pursuit of their legitimate calling. They did not ask that trawling should be peremptorily forbidden even in these places, but that if, after a careful and thorough inquiry by competent persons, it should appear to the Board of Trade that their complaints were well-founded, trawling should then be prohibited, but only then. He might notice a circumstance which had already been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. R. P. Bruce) as a striking proof of the bonâ fide character of the complaints of the fishermen, and it was this—that whereas they had formerly been accustomed to trawl over these very beds, their experience satisfied them that trawling was injurious to the general fishing, and therefore they gave it up. It was certainly somewhat hard, under these circumstances, that they should have to stand by and see strangers coming in with machinery much heavier and more destructive than had ever been used by themselves—the heavy beam trawls with which the steam trawlers work, and wantonly destroying their means of livelihood.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 65: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
    MR. WARTONbegged, with the permission of the Committee, to move the Amendment which stood in his name. It was to insert in page 1, line 13, after "area" the words—
    "Or causes the destruction of any marine animal, or of any sea fish, or of the spawn of sea fish, or of the fry of sea fish."
    [Laughter.] He was encouraged to move the Amendment because the divisions were getting rather more against the Government than at the outset. He would very much prefer the Committee to be discussing, instead of this Bill, some of the Votes in Supply, which were considered so urgent, and which might have been taken had the Government only put them down. He was rather surprised at the merriment of some hon. Gentlemen at the expression "marine animal." He would hardly

    1027
    have thought it necessary to inform the Committee that there were inhabitants of the sea that were not fishes—["Mermaids!"]—and these inhabitants of the sea ought to be included in the Bill. As far as he could understand the matter, these trawl nets were destructive of many fish; and it was in the interest of that part of the public who fed on fish, and in the interest of the much larger part of the population who did not, but who ought to eat fish, that he introduced the present Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, after the word "area," to insert the words "or causes the destruction of any marine animal, or of any sea fish, or of the spawn of sea fish, or of the fry of sea fish."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, if he did not know that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was always serious, he would have thought he had put his Amendments down as a joke, because he (Mr. Chamberlain) found that by one of them he proposed to make it unlawful to fish with a beam trawl, if it caused the destruction of any sea fish. The sole object of beam trawling was to destroy the fish, and the Amendment would he fatal to trawling altogether. In the second place, the hon. and learned Member proposed that the prohibition should take place wherever there was any destruction of any marine animal or of any sea fish. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that a fish was not a marine animal? The hon. and learned Gentleman evidently desired to protect marine animals which were not fish, such as jelly fish, squid, and similar creatures. He could not conceive what good purpose would be served if a division were taken upon this Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked for information as to the extent of the Bill.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINwas sorry he could not give a precise answer. Territorial waters certainly included all within three miles of the shore, and it also included a greater extent in estuaries.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Extent of Act).
    MR. WARTONsaid, after the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, he would not move the Amendments upon this clause which stood in his name.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Recovery of Fines).
    MR. CHAMBERLAINwished to insert an Amendment which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and which would be a great improvement. He proposed in page 3, line 11, to leave out the word "summarily" and insert other words, so as to bring the Bill in accord with preceding Acts.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 (Interpretation).
    MR. R. W. DUFFtrusted the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to add a clause which would strictly define what territorial waters were.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINobserved, that territorial waters under this Bill would be the same as those contemplated by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878. He had not that Act with him; but he would bring one upon the next stage of the Bill.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSasked if other trawls were included in the Bill?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied, that trawls were defined in the Bill as—
    "A net commonly known as a beam trawl net, and any other engine or instrument (not being a dredge for oysters) which is used or capable of being used for dragging along the bottom of the sea for the purpose of taking fish."
    Clause agreed to.
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved the insertion of the following new Clause:—
    "It shall not be lawful at any time to fish with a beam trawl in any estuary, tidal river, tidal bay, or Scotch or Irish tidal loch or lake, and any person so fishing shall be liable to the penalties and punishments provided by section two of this Act."
    The question had been put to him by the right hon. Gentleman whether he objected to trawling altogether. He did object to it; but he would now leave the Amendment to stand on its merits.
    Amendment proposed, after Clause 2, insert the following Clause:—
    "It shall not be lawful at any time to fish with a beam trawl in any estuary, tidal river, tidal bay, or Scotch or Irish tidal loch or lake, and any person so fishing shall be liable to the penalties and punishments provided by section two of this Act."—(Mr. Wanton.)
    Question proposed, "That the said Clause be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. and learned Member had very frankly admitted that his object in proposing this clause was to destroy trawling altogether. The Committee had already affirmed the impropriety of any such interference with a very important enterprize; and, under those circumstances, he (Mr. Chamberlain) hoped they would not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEdid not object to all trawling, but to trawling in inshore waters. In July, 1879, he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on behalf of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). The Question was—
    "Whether, having regard to the losses the fishermen in the Firth of Forth are suffering through injury to their lines and the destruction of the clam and mussel beds by the action of steam trawling vessels, he would take steps for their protection?"
    The right hon. Gentleman replied that—
    "Great injury has certainly been done in the way pointed out in the Question, and he would see that whatever was possible would be done to prevent anything of the kind in future."
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that—
    "The Fishery Commission had agreed to make certain recommendations."—[3 Hansard, ccxlviii. 965.]
    He (Captain Milne-Home) would now be glad to hear from the present President of the Board of Trade what recommendations the Commissioners made with reference to the injury done in the Firth of Forth. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was prepared to come to Parliament for powers to take the necessary steps; and this he said he would do at the earliest possible moment. They all knew what occurred in 1880. The right hon. Gentleman had no power to do anything; and it now
    1030
    only remained with the Home Office or the Board of Trade to carry out the promise the Home Secretary of that day made in respect to this matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Milne-Home) was no bogus one. It was entertained by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had promised the House that if he obtained the power he would remedy the evil complained of. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) would, at a later stage of the Bill, take up that and other similar matters.
    MR. LODERpointed out that, under the new clause proposed, trawling could not be carried on at all.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was suggested that the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, unfortunately, was not now in his place, promised to adopt something like the clause now before the Committee. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was certainly under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) never intended to do that; and he could not give any assurance that in that Bill he would introduce a clause similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). No trawler was permitted within three miles of the drift nets, and, therefore, no wanton mischief was possible.
    Question put, and negatived.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Lords.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Lords.]

    [BILL 107.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, Returns similar to what were proposed by the Bill had been given for a series of years in England and Ireland, and it was desirable to extend the same to Scotland. The authority of Parliament, however, was necessary, in order to compel the local bodies to give the information. He would move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEdid not object to the second reading; but the Bill ought certainly to be in the hands of hon. Members.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that, though the Bill was prepared by the Lord Advocate at his request, and for which he was very grateful, yet they ought to object to the second reading of the Bill until it was in the hands of hon. Members. An extremely bad precedent would be set up by so doing, for he supposed there was absolute ignorance in every part of the House as to what was intended by the measure, except on the part of the Lord Advocate and himself.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, the Bill had come down from the Lords; but he would consent to an adjournment until Friday, so that it might be printed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Debate adjourned till Friday.

  EXEMPTION FROM DISTRESS BILL.
  (Sir Henry Holland, Mr. Rodwell, Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. Cropper.)
  EXEMPTION FROM DISTRESS BILL.

    [BILL 92.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    MR. PELLsaid, the subject was most intricate, and required very careful consideration. With regard to that portion of the Bill which dealt with agricultural machinery taken on hire and use for farming there could be no possible objection. There was no difficulty whatever in knowing to whom agricultural machinery, such as steam ploughs, thrashing machines, and so forth belonged; but when they came to the second part—namely, that which dealt with cattle, he was bound to say they were confronted by a question full of difficulties, difficulties which the draftsman, if he had comprehended, had certainly not met. The Bill enabled a tenant to have on his land whatever stock he chose, to consume the produce of the land, and left the landlord with no
    1032
    remedy for the recovery of his rent. It was, no doubt, considered questionable whether or not it was desirable to continue the system of distress for rent, and he (Mr. Pell) had his own views upon the subject; but it was perfectly clear that a Bill was defective which allowed a tenant the right to do just as he pleased with the land, and yet allowed the landlord no power to obtain his rent. The Bill was a direct encouragement to fraud. The 3rd clause provided for the owner of the cattle giving notice of his agreement to graze the land; but there was nothing in the clause to enable the landlord to know what cattle were put upon the land, or how to distinguish the cattle of the dealer or of the person grazing the land from the live stock of the tenant himself. There would be a jumble, and possibly a law suit between the landlord and tenant, or between the landlord and dealer or banker or person who had found the stock, or who had advanced the money. That was the first objection he had to the Bill. But the serious defect of the Bill lay in the 4th clause, where the framers of the measure desired to do justice to the landlord. They proposed to enact that the landlord might require the owner of the cattle, in the case of a tenant owing rent and holding the farm, to pay any sum or sums of money which might thou be due, or from time to time be due, in respect of agisted cattle, to him, the landlord, in discharge of rent. But it was obvious that the tenant would avail himself of this Act, and would say to the agister of the cattle—"Here I am in difficulty. I have 200 acres of land; I pay £2 an acre to my landlord, and rates and taxes. I do not think I can give you all the grass keeping; but you may have it from the 1st of March to the 1st of September for £400." The dealer would say—"I think that a fair bargain;" whereupon the tenant would say—"I am short of money; if you pay me £350 down on the nail you may have the grass keeping." The dealer would be likely to close with such an arrangement; and where was the landlord to look for his arrears of rent out of money due for agistment when it had been discounted and prepaid? The clause really suggested to people the means of doing that which was hardly fair to the landlord. He ought to apologize for de-

    1033
    taining the House at that hour; but the subject was one of great importance, and one with which he was thoroughly conversant. He had agisted cattle; he had taken in cattle himself; and he considered the Bill had not been framed with sufficient care. He would suggest, therefore, that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill should not proceed with it at that hour, or, what
    would be better still, that he should agree to refer it to a Select Committee.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, after listening to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) he found there was only one point on which it was desirable that some words should be introduced—that was, to meet the case of the tenant receiving money in advance. In all other respects the Bill amply guarded the landlord, because notice was to be given by the owner of live stock to the landlord. If the owner did not give notice his cattle remained distrainable. He trusted the House would allow the Bill to pass through Committee, when he would accept the Amendments on the Paper, which were nothing more than verbal; and on Report he would consider what words should be introduced to meet the special point of detail to which he had referred.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he had been asked by many of his Colleagues to say one word in favour of the Bill. They desired it to be extended to Ireland, where nearly every day cases occurred which illustrated the questions dealt with by it, and they had remained in the House for the purpose of aiding the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) in advancing the measure.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title), and Clause 2 (Interpretation of terms), agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Live Stock and agricultural and other machinery exempted from distress).
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the word "an," and insert the words "a bonâ fide."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    MR. PELLdrew attention to the case of live stock getting upon land, and wished to know how they would be
    1034
    affected by the Bill? Further, a team of horses might be sent upon land for the purpose of removing timber. He thought that in such cases great injustice might sometimes be done under the Bill, which, he thought, hardly went far enough.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, there were many farms in Suffolk, the owners of which were unknown to anyone but the tenants, who generally would not allow the landlord's name and address to be known, particularly if they held their farms at a low rent. Very often, also, no regular agent was employed, the rent being paid into a bank. Therefore, he thought it would, in many cases, be impracticable to give notice to the landlord. He thought the assumption ought to be that the cattle belonged to the tenant, and suggested that if distress was put in the owner of the stock should give notice to the sheriff, who should hold the money until the question was decided. The question of ownership of cattle, even when all the facts of the case were known, was a very difficult one. There ought to be some power to decide to whom the stock actually belonged; but as to giving notice to the landlord, he was quite sure that in his part of the country, at any rate, it would be quite impracticable. He had no desire to delay the Bill, which had, however, come forward rather suddenly. Still, he thought if time were given the clauses might be made more simple and more effectual.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to make it absolutely certain that the live stock which might be put out for agistment did not belong to the tenant farmer; and, therefore, proposed to add words for that purpose.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 23, after the word. "stock," to insert the words, "together with a statement of the number of each kind of such stock with the owner's marks thereon."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Payment by owner of live stock to landlord of sums due for agistment or feeding).
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the clause required consideration on the ground that

    1035
    it only gave power to the landlord to give notice to the owner when there was rent in arrear. He should, therefore, move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDhoped the Motion would not be pressed. The landlord would give notice that when the rent was in arrear the owner of the live stock was to pay any sums due in respect of the agistment to him, and not to the tenant.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, a landlord might let a farm for a year, no rent being due for half a year. In the meantime the tenant might be receiving rent week by week, and when the landlord came at the end of the term he would get nothing.
    MR. J. W. PEASEtrusted the Motion to report Progress would not be pressed, inasmuch as the Amendments that might be necessary could be brought up on Report. As it was exceedingly difficult for private Members to go forward with Bills, it was very desirable that they should not be unnecessarily delayed.
    MR. PELLsaid, that the clause before the Committee was so far from providing what was right and just that he thought time Committee should agree to report Progress. The clause, as it stood, was an encouragement to tenants unable to pay their rent to obtain money down from other parties and depart with it, in which case the landlord would have no remedy whatever. This section, in his opinion, required re-consideration.
    COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEpointed out that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill was prepared to meet all objections; and he, therefore, hoped the Motion for reporting Progress would be withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  RAILWAYS—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

    MOTION FOR AN INSTRUCTION.
    MR. J. W. PEASEsaid, he was sorry to have to trouble the House at that late hour with any observations; but he wished to move an Instruction to the Select Committee on Railways, to inquire into the regulations of the Board of Trade as to Railways. He was aware that the Committee already had a tremendous amount of work to do, having to examine into the question of rates and fares on railways and the working of the Railway Commission; and he was sorry to be obliged to propose anything—that would cast more work upon them; but it would be impossible for them to go satisfactorily into the questions referred to them for consideration if they did not also consider the regulations of the Board of Trade as affecting the making, opening, and working of railways. No accident could take place on a railway without the power and influence of the Board of Trade being brought to bear upon the matter. In many cases the action of the Board of Trade prevented the Railway Companies from granting the facilities they would otherwise grant to the public; and though he knew the Department took every means in their power to insure the safety of passengers, he still felt that the Committee would not be aide to discharge the duties it was intended that it should discharge sinless the question of the regulations of the Board of Trade came before it. He would conclude by making the Motion of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Railways Committee, that they do inquire into the existing regulations of the Board of Trade as affecting the making, opening, and working of railways, and into the Acts of Parliament which authorise such regulations, and into the manner in which such regulations are carried out and enforced."—(Mr. J. W. Pease.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAINwould appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease) not to press the Motion on the House. The hon. Member had truly said that the Committee had already tremendous work to perform, and it would only be

    1037
    by the greatest difficulty that they would be able to conclude their work and report in reasonable time. They had to inquire into the fares and rates of railways, and consider the cases brought before them of special preference given in regard to fares and rates. If they were to open up all the matters the hon. Gentleman suggested, the result would be to choke up the Committee altogether. He really trusted his hon. Friend would rest satisfied with having raised the question, and would not press it to a division.
    MR. MONK: I should like to ask whether, as the Motion is opposed, it is in Order to go on with it to-night?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is now too late to take objection to the Motion being proceeded with.
    MR. MONK: I do not wish to take objection—I merely asked the question.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 26: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 159.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Select Committee on Railways do consist of Twenty-seven Members:—That Mr. BARNES, Mr. CAINE, Sir BALDWYN LEIGHTON, and Mr. PHIPPS be added to the Select Committee on Railways."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    EARL PERCYsaid, he did not wish to detain the House at that late hour for more than a few minutes; but he could not allow the Motion to pass without protesting against the enormous size of the Committee. The original constitution of the Committee was one to which great exception was taken; first of all, on account of its size—23 Members. It was notorious that the only consequence of making Committees so large was that Members did not attend regularly, and they could not get the same attendance day after day. One hon. Member attended one day and another another day; and the result was that, hearing different evidence, they came to different conclusions. Not only was this excessively confusing, but it led to a good deal of repetition in the examination of witnesses. He had no doubt he would be told that the size of the Committee had been increased to meet the views of those who did not like the original composition of it. He did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of this arrangement, having pointed out the inconvenience, as a general rule, of making Committees too
    1038
    large. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in giving his own idea of the composition of the Committee, made a most curious statement—namely, that out of 23 he counted 26, because those Gentlemen who represented two interests were counted twice over. [Cries of "Divide!"] He did not wish the House to divide, because, as he had said, he did not wish to oppose the appointment of the Committee. If the hon. Member opposite wished to divide the House of course he was at liberty to do so. He did not like to see these Committees appointed by the Whips, because the matter was in no way a Party one, and there was no reason why the choice of Members should not be made by the Committee of Selection and the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Railways do consist of Twenty-seven Members.
    Ordered, That Mr. BARNES, Mr. CAINE, Sir BALDWYN LEIGHTON, and Mr. PHIPPS be added to the Select Committee on Railways.

    POOR LAW OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to enable Parochial Boards in Scotland to grant Superannuation Allowances, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 113.]

    TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Select Committee on Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill nominated:—Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. O'SHEA, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. MACARTNEY, Mr. TOTTENHAM, Sir HENRY TYLER, Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, and Major NOLAN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock