Commons Sitting of 28 April 1882

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Central Metropolitan Railway, put off.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Commons Regulation Provisional Orders*[117]; Patents for Inventions (No. 2) [104].
Committee—Municipal Corporations (re-comm.) [113], deferred.
Considered as amended—Commonable Rights* [23].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CENTRAL METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill; and I do not take that course from any desire to interpose an obstacle in the way of the construction of any railway that would be of public utility in connecting the North and the South of this Metropolis, but I oppose this Bill in the interests of my constituents, because it proposes to deal with their property in a way which is not authorized by the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. By that Act, Parliament has thought fit to lay down certain regulations in regard to the taking of private property for the execution of works of this kind; and by setting aside the provisions of that Act, my constituents will be affected by this Bill, most of them belonging to the humble and industrious classes, but at present thriving men, and they will be compelled to appear before a Committee of the House of Commons, at a cost that may probably be ruinous to them, in order to protect interests which, as a general principle, Parliament has thought it right to lay down shall be protected by the State. I have also another objection to this Bill, and it is that it appears to be promoted by persons who can only desire to obtain these powers in order to sell them again. The reference to capital contained in the Bill states that—

    1645
    "The capital of the Company shall be the capital of a limited Company at the time of the passing of this Act,"
    such, limited Company being a Limited Liability Company, which the Bill proposes to extinguish, and to re-adopt for the purposes of this Bill. The capital of the Limited Liability Company consists, at the present moment, of 70 shares of£10 each, and there is no security whatever that any other capital will be raised, and no evidence that capital necessary for the construction of the work, if sanctioned by Parliament, will be forthcoming. Hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with the way in which Companies of this kind are worked, are well aware that the provisions contained in this Bill give no practical and real evidence of the bonâ fides of the undertaking. The promoters are persons who can have no interest in constructing the railway; but, on the contrary, their interest is only to obtain power from Parliament to construct it. Having obtained that power, they will then go to one of the Railway Companies, who will become interested, and say—"If you do not purchase these powers, or give us a contract to make this railway, we will go to somebody else, and so expose you to the danger of competition, or to a disagreeable interference with your business." Now, I think it is neither right nor fitting that Parliament should give to speculative promoters powers which can be used, and which, I venture to think, are intended to be used, in that way. In the present Bill there is no substantial Board of Directors provided, whose names would be a guarantee of the good faith of the Company, and of their bonâ fide intention to carry out the undertaking. If there were a substantial Company and Board of Directors, there would still be reasons for opposing the granting of powers of this description. But in this case there is nothing of the kind, and the Bill involves a very grave and serious interference with private rights—private rights that are necessary to the existence of my constituents, because, if the scheme is to be carried out as it is now proposed, it would stop up and close various important thoroughfares while the works are being constructed, such thoroughfares being essentially necessary for the traffic of the Metropolis. I, therefore, think that the House ought to hesitate
    1646
    before it consents to grant such powers as those which are now sought. The promoters, by a statement contained in a document which has been circulated this morning, give notice that it is their intention to abandon Railway No. 1, and also what they call a "Temporary Railway."
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
    The House went;—and being returned;—
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

  CENTRAL METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (by Order).
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I was remarking, Sir, when I was interrupted, that the promoters of this measure have already informed the House that a portion of the Bill has been withdrawn; and I only wish to make one remark with regard to the portion which has been withdrawn, and that is, that it is now rendered inevitable that every yard of earth taken from the proposed tunnel which is to be constructed from Charing Cross to King's Cross should be carted through the whole of the district, to the undoubted injury of the property situated in that part of the Metropolis, and to the great inconvenience of the residents. It is asserted by the promoters that there would be very little interference with the streets. Hon. Members, however, who are acquainted with the construction of works of this character, in London, must be well aware that it is utterly impossible for the promoters, however good their intentions may be, to construct a double line of railway under the public roads without shutting up the streets and interrupting the traffic of the entire district in which their operations are carried out. In this instance the effect of such a proceeding would be absolutely disastrous to the unfortunate traders, who are most of them small traders carrying on their business in the streets which come within the line of these works. I have been speaking so far on behalf of my own constituents, and I will leave my hon. Friends who represent Finsbury to state their view of the

  1647
  case, so far as the interests of their constituents are concerned. I will only point out that the inhabitants of the district generally are without any remedy whatever, unless they can appear before the Committee; and, I venture to say, it is wrong to compel, at great cost, the attendance of individual traders before a Committee of the House of Commons, in order that they may defend their interests against a measure of this kind, unless it can be shown that the measure is one of absolute and paramount necessity in the interests of the public generally. I think that that cannot be shown in this case; but there is every reason to believe that this is a mere speculative measure, got up solely for private interests, in order to obtain a profit hereafter by forcing some other Railway Company to purchase the right of carrying out the works. That being the case, I trust that the House will not consent to read the Bill a second time; and I beg now to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  MR. WHITBREADseconded the Amendment. He said that his attention had been drawn to the Bill in connection with some of the property through which it was proposed that the railway should pass. If it had been a mere interference with the rights of property he should certainly not have resisted the second reading of the Bill; but on looking into the Bill, it appeared to him that it contained several most unusual provisions which might well make the House pause before consenting to read the measure a second time. In the first place, the object of the Bill was set out, in a circular which had been issued by the promoters, as one that was to bring the Great Northern and Midland Railways into communication with the South-Eastern Railway in the centre of London; but there was not a single word in regard to these other railways in the Bill itself, nor was there any indication in the deposited plans that any arrangement was made for communicating either with the Great Northern or the Midland Railway. The Bill was, therefore, of a most misleading character; and it was hardly just to the House that language of this sort should be used, unless the Bill really proposed to carry out the arrangement indicated. The next point was also of an extraordinary nature. The Bill proposed that the
  1648
  Company established under it should undertake the liabilities and responsibility of a Limited Liability Company, whereas the character of the responsibility and the nature of the agreement were not specified or set out in the Bill. He did not think that Parliament would, for one moment, consent to a Company becoming responsible for any number of secret treaties which might have been entered into by a Limited Liability Company, without the nature of the agreement being fully set out in the Bill. He did not wish to waste the time of the House; but he should like to mention one or two other points in regard to the Bill which were of considerable importance. It was proposed to construct this railway under several most important thoroughfares, and the inconvenience to the public while the streets in question were blocked would be very great; but, besides that, the Bill suspended that portion of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act which provided that when a railway took part of a house for its own purposes, it should be compelled to take the whole. The House would easily understand that, by passing up the centre of the road, the promoters might think they were going to acquire the land almost for nothing, and then if they were to suspend the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, they might imagine that they would not be called upon to pay compensation for the house property they interfered with. That was a very serious point for the consideration of the House, and it was one of the reasons why he opposed the Bill. Then again, with regard to the acquisition of land, there were five separate points within the limits of deviation under the Bill in which the plans showed that it was proposed to widen certain streets; but in the Bill itself there was no provision, so far as he could see, to guarantee that that intention would, be carried out. There was no provision whatever to enable the Company to carry out any proposal of the kind; and he held, therefore, that it was not expedient to sanction a quasi-promise for widening the streets, when the Bill contained no provision to compel the Company to fulfil such promise. The Bill altogether was of a most misleading character; and, although he was aware of the desirability of making communications between the Railways serving the North and the South of

  1649
  London, the present Bill had in it such objectionable features that he hoped the House would refuse to read it a second time.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SHERIDANsaid, the Bill authorized the construction of a short and simple line, which he should have supposed would commend itself to everyone. He believed that the proposed line would be made for such a price that it would be the cheapest line that had ever been made in this country, for its length. As he had said, it was a very short and simple line, and he could not understand the opposition which was raised to it. He certainly could not understand the motives which induced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to move the rejection of the Bill. The line proposed to start from King's Cross and the Midland Railway, and to go down to Charing Cross. It was not a new scheme, because the House had, on two previous occasions, sanctioned a similar proposal. The first proposal of the kind that was sanctioned was, however, so associated with the construction of new streets, that it was found impossible to carry it out, and it was, therefore, abandoned; but now the streets were arranged for differently. The Board of Works were to make the new streets, and that objection disappeared. The proposed line could be made for a very small sum of money; and the communications which it was proposed to make between other railway property would be very easy and simple. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) said that the Bill contained no promise that this communication would be effected. He (Mr. Sheridan) could only say that the evidence disclosed this fact—that subways would be made both in regard to the Midland and Great Northern Railways; and it would be for the Midland and Great Northern Railway Companies to complete the communication with this little line, if they were desirous of having communication from the North of the Metropolis to Charing Cross. The line was a little more am-
  1650
  bitious at first than it was at the present moment. It was originally intended to carry it from St. Martin's down Parliament Street, so that hon. Members might go from the Houses of Parliament to the North of London, instead of experiencing the delay and. inconvenience now occasioned by the necessity of travelling in cabs; but the Government thought that the proposal to carry the line down Parliament Street was one which they could not sanction, and that part of the scheme had consequently been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that persons ought not to be allowed to make these railways as a matter of speculation. He (Mr. Sheridan) had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members of that House had embarked in railway speculations of the same kind, and why the right hon. Gentleman should condemn a proposal to make this particular line, he (Mr. Sheridan) was at a loss to conceive, especially when a proposition of the same kind had been strongly recommended by the Parliamentary Committee which sat in that House in 1861. In that year the London and North-Western Railway Company submitted a scheme for opening up a communication with Charing Cross. The House would, therefore, see that this was no new plan. That scheme was not carried out on account of the difficulties it involved in widening the streets and constructing new ones; but, in 1863, a Select Committee of the House of Commons made a special Report, stating that any future railway communication with the lines now in existence should be made by an independent Company, and should not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, proceed from Companies already established. Parliament had not, therefore, authorized the Midland or Great Northern Railway Company to construct a line; but it had specially recommended that the proposal should come from independent persons. He (Mr. Sheridan) thought the Report of the Committee in 1863 was a complete answer, in that respect, to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The fourth recommendation of the Committee of 1863 was that a new communication should be made between these very lines, and that it should be made by an independent Company in the nature of an

  1651
  underground railway. Therefore, if there was anything at all in the Report of a Committee of that House, and if they were to pay any attention whatever to the recommendations of the hon. Gentlemen whom they appointed upon Committees, surely a Report of that kind was worthy of the attention of the House. The right hon. Member for Westminster said that his constituents—"the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker"—did not like the proposal; but he (Mr. Sheridan) should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many of his constituents had petitioned against the Bill? He (Mr. Sheridan) believed that none of them had done so, although there had been some Petitions praying to be heard before the Committee, which was certainly the proper tribunal to dispose of the application. Any persons who chose to oppose the Bill in Committee could be represented and defended by counsel, and would be able to call witnesses in support of their case. It was utterly impossible for the House to deal with a question of this importance in an ad captandum and hurried manner. He might add that the right hon. Gentleman had not truly and fairly stated the case, because, while none of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman had petitioned against the Bill, there were 218 of them who had petitioned in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned that fact. He (Mr. Sheridan) thought the right hon. Gentleman ought, at least, to state his case impartially, and if he mentioned the points which told against the Bill, he ought also to mention those which told in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be acting in the interests of the public. This was a line which was submitted to the House in the public interests, and it was not confined entirely to Westminster, but extended to Marylebone and St. Pancras, and other parts of theMetropolis—which, however, supported the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have told the House fairly that many persons connected with the Metropolis were in favour of the measure. He (Mr. Sheridan) was, therefore, justified in complaining of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground that it was misleading to the House, and founded on assertions which were the
  1652
  reverse of truth. ["Oh, oh!"] He begged to repeat that they were the reverse of truth. [Cries of"Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked if it was within the Rules of Parliamentary debate to say that any statement made by an hon. Member was the reverse of truth?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Sheridan) must be aware that a statement of that kind is altogether irregular.
  MR. SHERIDANsaid, he would withdraw the observation, and say that, at all events, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate, and that it was the reverse of correct. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were no Directors, whereas the Chairman of the Company (Lord Bateman) was at that moment in the Lobby assisting the promoters. The right hon. Gentleman had deliberately assured the House that there were no directors; but that the promoters of the Bill were some unknown persons without a Board at all. He repeated, that Lord Bateman, the Chairman, was in the Lobby at that moment, doing the best in his power to support the second reading of the Bill. He (Mr. Sheridan) thought he was justified, under these circumstances, in saying that the right hon. Gentleman's statement was the reverse of correct. Other statements made by the right hon. Gentleman were equally inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman said that his constituents opposed the Bill; but he did not give the House any evidence in support of his assertion, and there was not a single Petition in opposition. On the contrary, all the Petitions went the other way. The right hon. Gentleman said, further, that the line was not wanted; whereas there was strong evidence that it was wanted. The right hon. Gentleman said that the line should be made by established Railway Companies; but Parliament had already declared that it should not be made by established Railway Companies. The question really was this—the House had determined, in its wisdom, that the questions involved in such Bills should be referred to and reported upon by a Select Committee upstairs. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster mean to suggest that there should now be a departure from that principle, and that the

  1653
  merits of such proposals should in future be discussed in the House itself? Was it in future to be laid down that every proposal for the construction of a new railway was to be considered in the House, and disposed of after 10 minutes' discussion? Was it to be laid down that in future all questions of this nature were to be absolutely prevented from going before a Committee? If the right hon. Gentleman meant that all proposals for the construction of new railways were to be discussed in the House on the second reading, he (Mr. Sheridan) would be prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and, in future, to oppose the second reading of every Bill which contained power to construct a railway. Was that the view of the right hon. Gentleman? If not, what was his view? The House had declared that a Committee was the proper tribunal for the discussion of these matters. Was it a proper tribunal or not? If it was, why interfere to prevent this Bill from being properly considered and properly discussed by a Committee? If they were not to have a Committee upon it, then the sooner it was decided that all these second readings should be opposed, the better; and he, for one, would do what the right hon. Gentleman did now—namely, oppose the second reading of every Railway Bill when it came before the House. Perhaps, in these days of economy, the right hon. Gentleman considered that the best way of economizing the time of the House was to decide these questions on the second reading. But, until such a determination was arrived at by the House, he could only urge the House to allow this Bill, as one dealing with a question of great public interest, to be considered by a Committee in the ordinary way.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I hope the House, in coming to a decision upon the second reading of this Bill, will separate the merits of the subject-matter of the Bill from any defects in the Bill itself. The subject-matter of the Bill has been frequently before the House. It was before a Select Committee in 1861, and an Act, giving power to construct railway communication between the South and North of London, was passed in 1863–4. Therefore, it has already been determined by the House that communication between the North and South of
  1654
  London is a subject that well deserves its attention, and one that ought to be supported. But the question now is whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) has a fair right to oppose the second reading, and so prevent the Bill being sent to a Committee in the ordinary way? There are some peculiarities in the Bill which deserve attention. It is almost the invariable practice in Bills of this kind to disclose various points. In the first place, it is the practice to disclose the names of the promoters of the Bill, and their names are usually mentioned in the Bill itself. There is no such mention of them in the present Bill. It is also an invariable practice to state what is the capital which is required for carrying out the purposes of the Bill; and this is clearly of great importance, because it ought to be known to those whose interests are affected that the capital provided is sufficient for the purposes contemplated. Clause 20 of this Bill says, that the capital is to be the capital of the syndicate mentioned in the seventh section who have formed the Limited Liability Company. But that capital is not disclosed in the present Bill. It can only be inferred what it is, because the sum of£40,000 is deposited, and, therefore, in all probability, the capital is£800,000. It is not, however, stated in the Bill. These are certain peculiarities in the Bill which prevents me from commending it to the House, and I cannot advise the House, under the circumstances, to send the Bill to a Committee. If the House do not accept the Bill at this moment, that would not prevent the promoters from coming here again in a proper way on a future occasion, and submitting a Bill in the regular form required for these purposes. Personally, I do not intend to support the second reading.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSwished to corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated. The Bill proposed to carry a railway through a very important part of the Metropolis which was thickly crowded with dwelling-houses. It was quite true that his constituents had not petitioned against the second reading of the Bill, for they were content to leave their rights to be protected in conjunction with those of the general public. Everybody was agreed that it was desirable to have a

  1655
  subway formed from the North to the Centre of London; and if there was any personal feeling in the House upon the matter, the inconvenience felt from the want of such a means of communication would be calculated to induce the House to support any reasonable proposition for making it. But the case now before the House was this. At the time it was proposed to construct this line, in a district very much congested with population, there was a Committee sitting upstairs to inquire into the best means of dealing with the question of overcrowding; and yet it was proposed to construct this line and to stop up the traffic in very important thoroughfares, and to displace a considerable amount of the population without making any provision whatever for the persons displaced, or for the sanitary interests of the people who inhabited the districts affected. In order to reduce the cost it was actually proposed to exempt the project from the condition required by the Land Clauses Act—that when the underground story of a house was taken for the purposes of any public enterprize or improvement, compensation should be given for the whole of the tenement; which was only equitable as regarded private property, and wise as affecting the health of the community. He objected to the Bill entirely upon that ground; and the fact relied on by his hon. Friend (Mr. Sheridan), that the inhabitants of Finsbury and Westminster had not petitioned against the Bill, was one reason why the House, upon public grounds—and upon public grounds alone—should disregard personal motives and interests, and should hesitate very much before it sanctioned a speculative scheme so crude and inconsiderate as that now submitted to them.
  MR. SHERIDANwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair), whether the amount required by Parliament—namely,£40,000 had not been deposited by the promoters?
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, ho had already mentioned that a deposit to that extent had been made.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—ABOLITION OF THE VICE REGAL OFFICE.
  MR. HENEAGEgave Notice that, on an early date, he would call attention to the present system of Administrative Government in Ireland, and move—
  "That, on political, as well as administrative and economical grounds, it is desirable that the Vice regal Court and its surroundings he abolished, and that the office of Secretary of State for Ireland, with a Parliamentary Under Secretary, be legally constituted in lieu thereof."
  MR. R. POWERrose on a point of Order. He had a Bill with the very same object for the 17th May, and he wished to know if the hon. Member was entitled to take this action?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was a matter entirely for the determination of the House whether it would have before it the two Bills on the same subject. If the House thought proper, it could so determine.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby had just anticipated him by the Notice he had given. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had a similar Resolution ready for some weeks past on the same subject as the one the hon. Member had given Notice of, and, therefore, he would cordially support him.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS—MR. HEADECH.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. J. A. Headech, who has been appointed Sub-Commissioner for Antrim and Derry, is the same Mr. J. A. Headech whose Tipperary tenants have recently applied to the Land Court at Borrisokane?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he was the same gentleman. Eleven cases were listed. In four of the instances he was owner of the lands, and in seven he was only trustee. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) wished to take that opportunity of referring the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and others to reports that appeared in the Tipperary papers regarding the proceedings before the Sub-Commissioners. On reading them he thought the hon. Member

  1657
  would admit they did not bear out his recent assertion that Mr. Headech was on bad terms with his tenants, who, on the contrary, spoke highly of him, and confirmed the impression that he was a very fit person to be appointed Sub-Commissioner.

  PRISON'S (ENGLAND) ACT—GAOL DIETARY.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the verdict at a recent inquest at Chester, on a discharged prisoner, that his death had been accelerated by his dietary in gaol, the prison authorieties intend to modify the lowest scale, "No. 1," of local prison dietary, at least in the cases of prisoners working at hard labour at the same time?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have no reason to believe that the dietary was in fault. That dietary was settled by an order given by my Predecessor, and founded on a careful Report of a Select Committee. In this particular case the misfortune arose from an error and neglect on the part of the medical officer, and the matter is being made the subject of a searching and careful inquiry.

  LAW AND POLICE—CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, considering the great number of burglaries, the perpetrators of which escape arrest, and of violent assaults by gangs of roughs and armed criminals, especially in the Metropolis and its suburbs, the Government will take measures to materially increase the efficiency of the police and to enforce the Law against the carrying of arms by unauthorised persons?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I cannot accept the view taken by the hon. Member that the Metropolitan Police are insufficient for the preservation of order and the protection of life and property. We all know that crime will exist, and that the police may from time to time make errors; and that there may be deficiencies may also be admitted. I am, however, bound to say that I believe there is no great town in the world in which order is better preserved or
  1658
  life and property better secured than in London, with the least amount of restraint on the liberty of the subject. I am not aware that there is a failure to enforce the law against the carrying of arms by unauthorized persons. I do not, however, know that I have any power to prevent the carrying of arms, except under the Licensing Act.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT—MR. JOHN M'CARTHY AND OTHERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. John McNamara has applied for his release on parole from Limerick Prison for the purpose of collecting his debts without getting any reply; and, whether three other men arrested from the same district (Tulla, county Clare) and on a similar charge have been released unconditionally?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that Mr. John M'Namara had already been released by order of the Executive.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been lately called to the case of Mr. John M'Carthy, of Longford County, detained until recently as a suspect in Armagh Gaol, and now removed to Kilmainham; whether Mr. M'Carthy is now in bad health, and under medical care; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will advise the release of Mr. M'Carthy from prison?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that on the 26th instant the medical officer at Kilmainham had examined Mr. John M'Carthy, and certified that although he was suffering from irregular action of the heart, his life was not in danger, nor was it likely to become so by further imprisonment.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can see his way to order the rules respecting visits to suspects to be reasonably modified in the case of wives visiting their husbands; whether it is necessary for the safe custody of such prisoners that visits from their wives should take place in the ordinary visiting cell in which the pri-

  1659
  soner and his visitor are locked in separate cages some feet apart; and, whether the time might not safely be extended beyond fifteen minutes?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am obliged to say that it is a fact, Sir, that on several occasions persons detained under the Protection Act have taken advantage of visits to send out of the gaols what we consider improper communications to the Press and otherwise. Therefore, we have been obliged to enforce much more strictness than we otherwise would have wished. The duration of a visit will always be extended on proper representations being made to the Governor.
  MR. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has scarcely answered my Question, which was with reference to the visits of wives to their husbands.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I should be very sorry in any way to interfere with communications between wives and their husbands who are in prison under this Act; but we are obliged to carry out the prison rules.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not put parties on their parole not to pass out anything improperly?
  [No reply.]
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. C. J. O'Sullivan, Poor Law Guardian of Malestreet, county Cork, was arrested on the 17th of December last, under the Coercion Act, on a charge of intimidation, and continues still in custody on suspicion of that offence; whether, in the month of August preceding his arrest, Mr. O'Sullivan was asked by the local sub-inspector of constabulary if he had paid his rent, and whether again, at 10.30 p.m. on the night of 26th November, the same official called him up out of bed and asked him the same question; whether his arrest, three weeks after the second of these visits, had any connection with the inquiries as to his rent made by the sub-inspector; whether, on the 20th of February last, Mr. O'Sullivan applied for a parole of a week or ten days to attend an arbitration between his landlord and himself as to the acreage and boundary of his farm (involving a difference of£210), whether the ground of the application was verified by a letter inclosed from the Rev.
  1660
  A. O'Reordan, C.C. of Mr. O'Sullivan's parish, and whether this, and a second application, further verified and supported by the Rev. Mr. O'Reordan, were refused, although Mr. O'Reordan testified that Mr. O'Sullivan's presence was "absolutely indispensable for the settlement of his case;" whether Mr. O'Sullivan's health, which was good at the time of his arrest, had since so far declined, through prison life, and been injured by ill-treatment on the part of the prison doctor at Clonmel, that he is affected with hip disease, and cannot walk without the help of a stick; and, whether the Executive mean to keep Mr. O'Sullivan in custody any longer?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have not heard that; but I know he was suffering from sciatica, and has been transferred from Clonmel to Kilmainham for change of air. I will make further inquiry as to the state of his health. Mr. O'Sullivan was arrested on the 17th December last on the charge of being suspected of having incited persons not to pay rent. The Sub-Inspector of Constabulary informs me he has no recollection of having ever asked Mr. O'Sullivan if he had paid his rent, the fact being notorious throughout the district that he had not paid it. It was stated that he had not paid any for three years. The visit to Mr. O'Sullivan's house on the night of the 26th November had no connection with the subject of rent, and Mr. O'Sullivan's arrest had no connection with his not having paid his rent. He had applied on the 20th of February last for a parole of a week or 10 days to attend an arbitration between his landlord and himself regarding his farm. Inquiry was made on the subject, and it was found on application to the landlord that no arbitration was taken. Subsequently an inquiry was received from a priest—Rev. A. O'Reardon—and the Sub-Inspector was directed to see the rev. gentleman on the subject, and also the landlord. The Sub-Inspector arranged to see the Rev. Mr. O'Reardon on the 29th February; but the rev. gentleman was not able to come forward to keep his appointment. The Sub-Inspector wrote arranging for an interview later on, but received no reply from the rev. gentleman.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr.

  1661
  John Kavanagh, now detained in Kilmainham Prison under the Coercion Act, has been nearly a year in custody, and that two other persons arrested in the same district, on the same day and upon the same charge, were liberated nearly seven months ago; whether any grave cause existed for this disparity of treatment; and, whether the Executive will now order the release of Mr. Kavanagh?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the arrest in this case was made on May 11, 1881, on reasonable suspicion of shooting at with intent to murder, and he could not order Mr. Kavanagh's release at present without serious danger.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a period of six months' detention in the case of Messrs. Gregory and Murphy, and John Byrne of Wexford, confined in Kilmainham Gaol, expired on the 22nd instant; whether Mr. O'Dempsey, who was arrested on the same charge, from the same neighbourhood, has since been released; and, whether he can advise the release of the other two prisoners?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, these cases had been considered, and he would order the release of both these persons.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Bernard McHugh, arrested under the Coercion Act fourteen months ago on suspicion of intimidating certain persons to compel to give up their farms, is still confined in Kilmainham Gaol; whether he is aware that it is alleged on the prisoner's behalf that there was no such intimidation in his neighbourhood at the time, and that his arrest is attributable to police persecution; whether Mr. McHugh is the same person who was arrested and kept in solitary confinement for a year and a half on the information of an informer named Clarke, whose evidence was discredited by the jury who acquitted McHugh; whether the fact of the first charge having been made against him has anything to do with his continued incarceration; and, if he will state how many prisoners are now confined under the Coercion Act for as long a time as Mr. McHugh?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, Mr, M'Hugh was arrested on the 10th
  1662
  March. He was not in Kilmainham now, but in another prison. He was not aware of the allegation mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question; but he had certainly seen a letter of Mr. M'Hugh's, written from Kilmainham, advising in strong terms the non-payment of rent. M'Hugh was formerly arrested in connection with the murder of Mr. Young, the magistrate; but, being acquitted, that had nothing to do with his present incarceration. Two other persons also arrested on the 10th March in the same locality were still in prison, and he could not release him.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Miss O'Connor, Miss M'Cormack, Miss Reynolds, Miss Kirk, Mrs. Moore, Father Feehan, Captain Dugmore, Mr. Abraham, and others, detained under the statute of Edward the Third, are kept in solitary confinement for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four, and are deprived of the rights of association and other privileges allowed to suspects; and, whether he will take steps, in the case of prisoners detained in future under the law of Edward the Third, to put them on the same footing as prisoners arrested under the Coercion Act; and, if he cannot do this, whether he will order their discharge and detain them under the Coercion Act for the period of their sentences?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the prisoners named must be dealt with according to the prison rules applying to persons who have been committed, in default of finding bail. That is a matter over which the Chief Secretary has no control. ["Oh, oh!"] Parliament framed the rules, and I see no reason for altering them. I can only state in addition, that on giving bail those prisoners will all be released.
  MR. HEALY: Are we to understand it is a fact that these prisoners—ladies, a priest, and Captain Dugmore—are kept 22 hours in solitary confinement out of every 24, because they refused to give bail under this obsolete Statute?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: There are certain rules to be complied with which will require to be altered by the sanction of Parliament if they are to be changed. They were adopted, by this House after considerable discussion, and I cannot

  1663
  alter them. The gentlemen and ladies in whom the hon. Member is interested can at once obtain their release by producing bail.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that I shall move, on an early day, that in the opinion of this House it is not contemplated that 22 hours' solitary confinement should be inflicted out of every 24.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, If he is aware that these ladies and gentlemen who are kept in prison in default of finding bail only refuse because they considered that finding bail would be an admission of their guilt, they denying that they had committed any offence? ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not put a Question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I assure you that it was an exact Question.
  [No reply.]

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DEATH IN NAAS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he caused inquiry to be made relative to the death of William Rooney in Naas Workhouse, as he promised; and, if so, what was the result?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had inquired into the matter by writing to the Local Government Board, and, from their answer, he did not consider that any blame was to be attached to the relieving officer. An Inspector of the Local Government Board had examined the case narrowly, and his and the other evidence was such as to induce the Coronor who presided at the inquest, which lasted two days, to sum up as follows:—
  "I suppose you will find a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence, and that you will agree with me that no blame is to be attached to the relieving officer."

  STATE OF IRELAND—COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the total number of persons arrested in the county Wicklow and imprisoned under the Coercion Act; whether all the suspects belonging to the county Wicklow but two (Hely and Dowling) have been released; whether
  1664
  the county has been almost entirely free from crime and outrage for the last two years, and is so still; and, whether he will order the release of these men?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, there were five. Three of these have been released. Inquiry is now being made into Dowling's case. Hely's case was considered on the 18th instant, and I cannot order his release. It is true the number of crimes committed in the county has not been many; but notices have been extensively posted recommending and encouraging "Boycotting."

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—THE QUINQUENNIAL RETURNS—REPORT OF THE REGISTRAR.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, in which he states, in reference to the quinquennial Returns of sickness and mortality, that,
  "If the present Returns supply adequate data, the Chief Registrar is advised by the Actuary to the office that the purpose for which the quinquennial Returns of sickness and mortality were devised, viz. the collection of statistics on which to base Tables for the use of Friendly Societies, will have been, in his judgment, fulfilled; that the obligation to furnish this information has been a heavy burden on Societies, the continuance of which can only be justified by its necessity;"
  and, how soon the Registrar will be able to give the information with respect to these data mentioned in his Report, and what has been the approximate public cost involved in their preparation?
  Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I learn that it will not be possible to say whether the data supplied by the Returns of 1880 are or are not sufficient until they have been tabulated, which work will, I believe, occupy some time. When that has been done, the Chief Registrar proposes to report to the Treasury on the subject. As regards the cost, it is estimated that the collection of the data supplied by the present Return has cost the public about£50 up to the present, paid from the Vote for the Office. I cannot say how much it has cost the Societies.

  FISHERIES—TRAWLING—LEGISLATION.
  MR. SYKESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whe-

  1665
  ther the Government propose during the present Session to introduce a Bill to regulate every kind of close in shore sea trawling, and to prevent undersized fish being exhibited for sale?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, the Government had no idea of legislating on the subject referred to during the present Session.

  POST OFFICE ANNUITIES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. H. G. ALLENasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will introduce, during the present Session, a Bill to facilitate the grant of small annuities and life policies, such as the Select Committee in their Report recommended should be passed without delay?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that, immediately the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of Post Office Annuities and Insurance was laid on the Table, instructions were given to prepare a Bill embodying the recommendations of the Committee. This Bill is nearly ready, and I hope to introduce it in the course of a few days.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true, as reported in a Bombay paper of 7th April, and copied into the "Homeward Mail" of 25th April, that a Russian force has left Samarcand, and was 50 miles on the high road to Balkh at the date of the report; and, whether the Russian Frontier is being pushed forward to Saracks, in the South of the Turkoman Country, a distance of only 150 miles from Herat?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have no information as to any Russian march southwards from Samarcand; but the Russian Frontier near Shahr-i-Sabz is itself some 30 or 40 miles on the road to Balkh, so that the hon. Baronet's Question is not very clear, because for 30 or 40 miles south they would be within Russian territory. As to Sarakhs, I have nothing to add to the reply which I made on the 3rd of March.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE GALWAY SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1666
  Whether it is the fact that while Mr. Rice, a tenant farmer, was removed from his district in county Cork, where he acted as Sub-Commissioner, Mr. J. J. O'Shaughnessy, a landlord, of Ballinas-loe, is acting in the district with which he is connected, in county Galway, and in the very parish where he attends service; and, whether Messrs. Reeves and O'Keefe, previously associated with Mr. Rice, who also hold land in Cork, still adjudicate in that county; and, if so, why Mr. Rice was removed to Mayo?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the hon. Member must have put the Question under a misapprehension of the facts.
  MR. CALLANasked whether Mr. Rice was not connected with the county Roscommon?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he might be. He was not prepared to answer that.
  MR. HEALY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer; but would he have any objection to state the districts in which all the Sub-Commissioners operate? We have no means of ascertaining except from the Dublin newspapers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member will find them advertised in The Gazette.
  MR. HEALY: No person ever sees The Gazette.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Sub-Commissioners were changed from time to time. A Return would be laid on the Table.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTED LABOURERS AT RHODE, KING'S COUNTY.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that on Monday the 24th instant at Rhode, in the King's County, the erection of huts to shelter poor labourers evicted by David Kerr was prevented by force under the orders of the resident magistrate; if it be true that these evicted labourers were thus left without any shelter, and without any means of subsistence, and under what law or by what authority the resident magistrate acted; and if he will take all necessary steps to prevent all further opposition to the erection of these huts, and against a repetition of such action; whether on the above occa-

  1667
  sion a most respectable farmer named O'Brien was taken into custody by order of the resident magistrate, and then and there sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour for questioning the right of the magistrate to prevent the erection of the above huts; and, if he will order his immediate release?
  Mr. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had only that morning seen the report that the erection of huts to shelter poor labourers evicted in King's County had been prevented by force, by order of the Resident Magistrate. He would make inquiries, and answer the hon. Gentleman's Question in the course of a few days.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MAJOR TRAILL, R.M.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the resident magistrate at Claremorris is the Captain, now honorary Major, Robert Gayer Traill, of the 1st Battalion, 19th Foot, whose conduct was the subject of a Court of Inquiry when that Battalion was last at Sheffield; whether the General Commanding the Brigade at Aldershot was directed by the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief to administer a rebuke to Captain Traill in the presence of his Staff and the whole of the officers of his Battalion; whether the Colonel Commanding the Battalion requested to be relieved of Captain Traill's services; and, whether it was in consequence of the special quarterly report ordered to be made on Captain Traill's conduct that that officer was informed that the Commander in Chief would not promote him to his Majority, and Captain Traill consequently retired when he was senior Captain of his regiment?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that Major Traill, whose appointment to a resident magistracy in Ireland was dated the 20th of March, 1880, was the same officer who had served in the 1st Battalion of the 19th Foot; but his conduct in the Army had never been the subject of a regimental Court of Inquiry. It was, however, the fact that Major (then Captain) Traill had been reprimanded in the presence of his brother officers, as stated in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, and that his commanding officer had, in consequence, represented the
  1668
  desirability of his removal from the battalion. Captain Traill had not been refused promotion to his majority, the fact being that no majority was vacant at the period mentioned in the Question, and his retirement from the Army was voluntary; and he received a pension, with the honorary rank of major, on being appointed Resident Magistrate.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Since these facts have come to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, does he intend to retain the services of this reprimanded officer?
  Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, this officer was appointed by the late Government, and I have no doubt they had all those matters under consideration. I think the House will agree with me that when the gentleman has been some time appointed it would be an act of great harshness, if not of injustice, to re-open the matter and dismiss him.

  PRIVATE HYBRID BILLS—THE FORTH BRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it be not the fact that, in the case of the hybrid Committee on the Tay Bridge, the Board of Trade asked and got power to appear by Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, in order that the public interest, irrespective of opposing Petitioners, might be protected; and, whether he intends to take the same step in the case of the Forth Bridge; and, if not, in what way the safety of the public, and of the navigation of vessels seeking shelter at St. Margaret's Hope, are to be watched over?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, it is a fact that, in the case of the Hybrid Committee on the Tay Bridge, the Board of Trade asked for and obtained the power of appearing by counsel, agents, and witnesses, before the Committee, in order that the public interests, irrespective of opposing Petitioners, might be protected. But in the present case of the Forth Bridge, in so far as the proposed structure of the Bridge is concerned, the Board of Trade do not think it necessary to appear before the Committee, as the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade were in frequent communication with the engineer in trusted with the construction of the Bridge, and they made certain stipulations for the safety of the public, which were at once

  1669
  accepted. Neither do the Board of Trade think it necessary to appear before the Committee with regard to the question of the navigation of vessels going to the anchorage above the site of the Bridge. In the spans of this Bridge, of which there are two, there will be 500 feet of 150 feet of headway, and 930 feet of 125 feet of headway at high water, and at low water 850 feet of 150 feet of headway, and 1,100 feet of 125 feet of headway. Under these circumstances, the proposal has been well considered by the nautical advisers of the Board of Trade; and they see no objection, in the interests of the public, to the Bridge as it is now designed.

  CARRIAGE ROADS (METROPOLIS).
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the great superiority manifested in the construction of the macadamized roadway on the Thames Embankment, which is under the management and control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to the construction of all other macadamized streets and roads in the Metropolis; and, whether he would consider whether it would be for the public advantage, both as to construction and repairs, if all Metropolitan highways were placed under the management and control of the Metropolitan Board of Works?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, he believed that many of the macadamized roads in the Metropolis were in a far less satisfactory condition than was desirable; but he had no means to determine, by a comparative examination of them all, which was the best. The second part of the hon. Baronet's Question involved large questions of municipal government, which could not be entertained without much consideration.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS—THE CHARITY COMMISSION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the purpose of renewing or modifying the powers now exercised by the Charity Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, and of subsequent Acts, which will expire at the close of the present year?
  MR. MUNDELLA,in reply, said, that it would be necessary, in consequence of the expiry that year of the Endowed Schools Commission, to introduce a measure this Session, which was at this moment under the consideration of the Government.

  THE LADIES' LAND LEAGUE—IMPRISONMENT OF MISS KIRK.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, a few days since, Miss Anne Kirk, of Dublin, a lady who had gone to Tulla, County Clare, for the purpose of providing shelter and food for the families of evicted tenants, was arrested by order of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M. and sentenced by him to three months' imprisonment, which she is now enduring in Limerick Gaol; whether the case was heard in private; and, if so, why, and upon what charge, and upon what evidence, the lady was convicted; whether he has observed the following passages in the published Letter of the 22nd instant, from the Rev. Michael O'Donovan, C. C. of Tulla, to the Member for Sligo:—
  "When the Chief Secretary visited the priests here, I asked him if it were legal for me to assist the lady (Miss Kirk), who had just arrived from Dublin for the sole purpose of erecting huts for the evicted tenants, and giving them temporary relief. Here are Mr. Forster's words: 'It is perfectly legal, and nothing could be more legal, than for man to assist man; and, so long as the lady confined herself to these duties, she should not be molested.' I then promised the Chief Secretary that I would act as a special policeman, and see that this lady did not in any way incite the people to pay no rent. I now assert that this lady did not, either directly or indirectly, interfere in anything outside what Mr. Forster had declared to be 'perfectly legal,' and that she always declined to answer any question outside the building of the huts and the distribution of a little charity. Miss Kirk is now in Limerick Gaol for acting 'legally.'…Intimidation and outrage in this district have ceased. By Miss Kirk and myself telling these people that, if any outrage or intimidation took place, we would immediately break off all connection with them, we brought about a condition which the vast police force, and military force too, had failed to effect;"
  and, whether, in view of this testimony, he will either order the release of Miss Kirk, or direct an independent and public inquiry to be held into the cause of her detention?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I think it is very likely that the words quoted are substantially and literally correct,

  1671
  and I am quite prepared to abide by them at this time. They were these—that it was not illegal for man to assist man; and then I proceeded to say, what may have been somewhat of a bull, that so long as the lady confined herself to these duties she would not be arrested. I abide by that. This lady has been bound over to good behaviour.
  MR. SEXTON: No, no; not bound over—imprisoned.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: She was bound over, and on refusing to give bail was sent to prison.
  MR. SEXTON: No, no; not bound over.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: That was a matter the magistrate did on his own responsibility, believing there was sufficient reason to show that she was not engaged in a work of charity, but in intimidation. ["Oh, oh!"] There has been much intimidation of that kind, and I want the House and hon. Members to understand that my position is very different with regard to action taken under the ordinary law from what it is under the Protection Act. It devolves upon the Lord Lieutenant—upon either or both of us—to decide who shall be arrested or imprisoned under the Protection Act. When action is taken by a magistrate, it is done on his own responsibility; and it would be a most serious matter to suppose that I, as representing the Executive, have power to interfere with the action of the magistrates. I may inform hon. Members that Mr. Lloyd tells me—and I have no reason to doubt him—that he has sufficient warrant for what he did; but the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) is perfectly well aware that, at the instance of the aggrieved persons, his action can be reviewed by the Court of Queen's Bench, as the acts of other magistrates have been reviewed by superior Judges who are not members of the Executive.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE MAGISTRACY—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Wilfred Lloyd, R.M. Miltown Malbay, county Clare (brother to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M.) recently refused to accept bails in a case before him on the ground that the parties tendering bail had not paid their rents (said rents being more than
  1672
  double the Government valuation of the holdings); whether MR. Clifford Lloyd, R.M. lately telegraphed to the constable in charge of the police station at Carre-gaholt, county Clare, ordering him to send in the names of eight or ten of the principal tenants on the property of Major McDonnell, so that he might have them arrested if they did not pay their rents; whether the brothers Lloyd are authorized by the Executive to make the non-payment of rent a reason for refusing bail, or for arrest and imprisonment; and, if they are not so authorized, what notice will be taken of their conduct; and, whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd, or any other magistrate, is supplied with signed blank warrants under the Coercion Act, to be filled up at his pleasure?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that Mr. Clifford Lloyd informed him that, on several occasions, he had accepted bail from persons who had not paid their rent. He asked the question when he was inquiring as to their solvency; but the fact that they had not paid their rents would not of itself prevent him accepting the person's bail. As for the second paragraph of the Question, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had sent no such telegram. With regard to the third part of the Question, the Chief Secretary had no power to interfere with the judicial discretion of the magistrates. With regard to the last part of the Question, he wished to state emphatically that no more false notion could possibly prevail than the idea that magistrates were supplied with signed blank warrants under the Coercion Act. No such warrants had ever been issued, either by the Lord Lieutenant or by himself, without full examination.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, on Monday last, Mr. William Abraham, of Limerick, Chairman of the Limerick Board of Guardians, was arrested by order of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M., and sentenced by that magistrate to six months' imprisonment on a charge of having held or attended a Land League meeting at Tulla; whether the fact is that Mr. Abraham was requested by a friend of his, Mrs. Burke, a Dublin lady, who

  1673
  desired to ascertain the condition of the evicted tenants at Tulla, to accompany her to that place, as she did not know anyone there; whether the "meeting" charged against Mr. Abraham by Mr. Clifford Lloyd was simply a visit paid by Mrs. Burke, accompanied by Mr. Abraham, to two of the parish clergy in the sacristy of the Church; and, whether the Government will order the release of Mr. Abraham, or permit the sentence inflicted to run its course?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, Mr. Abraham was ordered to enter into security for his good behaviour, and refused to do so. The Government would not interfere with the discretion exercised by magistrates. He had no reason to think that the facts were as stated in the second and third paragraphs of the Question. The object of the meeting was, he believed, to carry out the "no rent" organization.
  MR. SEXTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Lloyd was now holding Star Chamber Courts, sitting in private, and even refusing all applications for adjournment?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am not aware of it. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask a definite Question in regard to a particular case.
  MR. O'SHEAasked whether it was not the fact that the district of Tulla was now in a better condition than it was when Mr. Clifford Lloyd went there?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that was the case; and he believed it was mainly owing to the action of Mr. Lloyd.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that he would on Monday ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether several murders had not been committed in Mr. Lloyd's district since he had taken charge of it, while there was no murder in the corresponding period before he went there; also, whether outrages generally had not increased in that district since his appointment?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hope the hon. Member will put that Question in detail, and I hope the House will not form any judgment in the meantime on this Question.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE RIOTS AT CAMBORNE, CORNWALL.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
  1674
  What steps he has taken, if any, with reference to the conduct of the magistrates and police during the rioting at Camborne?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he must say, what he had often said in the House, that he was not responsible for, nor had he any authority over, the magistrates or the police. When magistrates asked his advice he gave it as well as he could. By the Constitution of this country, those who were in the Commission of the Peace had control over the police, and they were not under the orders or direction of the Executive Government. He thought that ought to be clearly understood, because he saw Questions founded on the notion that the magistrates and the police throughout the country were subordinate to, and under the direction of, the Secretary of State. That was not so. The Secretary of State was ever willing, when an occasion arose, to give them such advice as he could; but they acted upon their own responsibility, and upon their own responsibility only.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, advice did not seem to have been given. ["Oh!"] He would conclude with a Motion—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan must be aware that he could not enter upon a debate on this matter.
  MR. O'DONNELLthen gave Notice that he would ask a further Question on the subject on Monday, and especially he would ask the Home Secretary, whether it had not been brought to his notice that the Irish population in Camborne were left entirely without the protection of the law through the misconduct of the magistrates and the police of that district?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought he could answer that at once. He did not believe, from such information as he had, that that was the case. There had been disgraceful riots, which there was considerable difficulty in quelling; but the information he had was that the magistrates and police had made every effort to put down these riots; that at present they had succeeded, and that the population of all nationalities was now protected.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not sufficiently answered the Question, and he would repeat it on Monday.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (SCOTLAND) —EVICTIONS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the state of feeling existing amongst the Crofters in the Island of Skye; and, if he proposes to ascertain, by the appointment of a Commission, or by any other means, the condition and grievances of the Crofters in that Island, the other Western Islands, and the Orkney and Shetland groups?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this is a Question of a serious nature, and I do not feel that I could answer it advantageously in the form of a reply to a Question. I think that a Notice has been given upon the subject, in which it will be raised in more convenient form; and the Government will, before that Notice comes on, carefully consider the whole matter, and give Parliament the view we take.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked whether there was a Notice on the Paper on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
  Subsequently—
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Prime Minister, Whether, considering the importance of the question, and the state of matters in Skye, and considering the very great difficulty which private Members had for bringing matters under debate, the Government would afford any facilities for bringing on that question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, if it were in my power to add to the manufactures of this country, I would, in the first place, add the manufacture of time. Unfortunately, it is not in my power. While I fully admit, and much regret, the difficulty of private Members, yet I do not think any impartial man will say the difficulties of the Government are less with respect to time than those of private Members. I heartily wish I could give any such assistance; but it is not in my power.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, with reference to the Prime Minister's answer, that the Motion on the subject which stood on the Paper had no day fixed for its discussion. As the Government professed to attach so much importance to the question, might he ask if it were necessary for them to wait until the
  1676
  question had been discussed in the House before taking steps to deal with it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to enter upon the question at the present moment.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE CARRIAGE DUTIES.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can give some particulars as to Establishment Charges for Post Office Department stated in Budget speech at £200,000, and whether that is for new works and buildings, or for repairs and maintenance; if he can state generally in what form the relief for roads, estimated at £250,000, would be proposed to be paid; whether it would be collected and dispensed locally or generally; and, whether the new Tax would affect the carts and carriages of brewers, bakers, and builders beyond the six shillings increase on two-wheeled vehicles?
  MR. SCHREIBERasked, From what source the auxiliary letter carriers of the United Kingdom were to derive their long-expected increase of pay?
  THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): The Question put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Schreiber) ought to be addressed to the Postmaster General. In answer to the first Question, I have to say that, in stating the increase in the Postal Service for the present year, I was comparing the Estimates for the present year with the Exchequer issues of last year; and that is, in point of fact, the only mode in which, at the time the Financial Statement is made, a comparison can be instituted. The Exchequer issues are not identical with the private accounts; but the comparison with the private account cannot be given for some little time to come. With regard to the other questions associated with this, I could not enter at present upon a discussion of the mode in which it is proposed to grant relief for high roads. Indeed, I am not yet in prospective possession of the funds absolutely necessary for the purpose; but that will be done on the present occasion by the President of the Local Government Board. With regard to the carts and carriages of brewers, bakers, and builders, there is to be no charge with

  1677
  respect to them. There is no change intended, I may say, in the law of exemption. We do not think that a measure of this kind, which is necessarily impartial, and in some respects judicial, affords an appropriate opportunity for raising the various and rather difficult questions that are connected with the exemption of particular vehicles from taxes.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked in what form it was proposed to levy the tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE)said, that would connect itself with the Vote, which he could not possibly propose until he had Ways and Means in prospect by which the charge could be made.
  MR. PENNINGTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, by the proposal to increase the Duties on private carriages, it is intended to include carriages let on hire to private persons for short times or special purposes, or at funerals or weddings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE),in reply, said, he thought he had already answered the Question. He did not propose, nor did he think it possible, to make a general law of exemption on this occasion.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, taking into consideration that tenant farmers are the largest contributors towards the cost of maintaining roads, he will exempt them, under his Budget proposals, from increased taxation for vehicles?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE),in reply, said, he had no intention of proposing any new exemption on behalf of tenant farmers.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ARREARS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are prepared, pending the introduction of their measure regarding arrears, to discourage evictions in Ireland by withdrawing all support to assist landlords in executing eviction decrees?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, without entering into the very important subject of evictions in Ireland, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I must frankly own that I think that the measure which he suggests and indicates, that the Government shall discourage evictions by withdrawing support to assist landlords in them, is a matter beyond the discre-
  1678
  tion of the Executive Government. It is our public duty to assist the execution of the law, not always taking into view our own opinion of the reasonableness of what may be intended, and we have no title to adopt the measure which the hon. Member suggests.

  NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH.
  MR. FIRTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the important constitutional issues involved, he will afford facilities for the discussion of a Motion on behalf of the electors of Northampton, that they be heard at the Bar of the House in accordance with the prayer of their Petition recently presented to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he could not say that he thought the present state of the Business of the House left it in the power of the Government, with a due regard to the calls of other subjects which were immediately coming before the House, to facilitate the discussion of a Motion with regard to the representation of Northampton.

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL—LOCAL OPTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the announcement in his Budget speech that the County Government Bill will not be proceeded with at present, Whether the Government contemplate the introduction of any other legislation during the present Session for giving effect to the Resolution which this House has already twice passed in favour of giving localities control over the Liquor Traffic "by some efficient measure of Local Option?"
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, it was certainly quite true that they had contemplated action on the subject of County Boards, which would indirectly, but materially, bear upon the question in which his hon. Friend was greatly interested—namely, Local Option; but, being compelled reluctantly to abandon the County Boards Bill for the present year, he did not believe the Government had any means of making any proposal during the present Session on the subject of Local Option.

  GENERAL PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT—CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his

  1679
  attention has been called to the fact that, under the Prisons Act, 1877, English counties are relieved from the charge for the conveyance of certain prisoners, whereas, under the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, Irish counties are still liable for a similar charge; and, if so, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to establish equality in the Law, in respect of this charge, between England and Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I thought that I had stated, in the Financial Statement of the year, that the heavy charge which has now come upon the Treasury for the conveyance of prisoners had come upon the Treasury in consequence of a sheer error, and contrary to the intention, not only of the late Government, but contrary to the intention of Parliament. I cannot, therefore, look upon that charge, with which we are now dealing for the most part retrospectively, as establishing a principle from which arguments can be drawn for the extension of the area to other parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering the course which it will be their duty to take in relation to the state of things which exists under the English Prisons Act in that particular.
  In reply to a further Question by the hon. Member,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I am quite prepared to say that I have done nothing, and said nothing, and arrived at no conclusion in my own mind, favourable to the creation of any new inequality between England and Ireland in regard to Public Expenditure.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of recent circumstances and recent declarations of the Government, Whether he does not think the time has come when he will release the three honourable Members of this House who have been in jail in Ireland for several months?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think the House will feel, and I believe the hon. Member himself will feel, that it will be hardly possible for me to enter upon any statement, either of our opinions or
  1680
  of our intentions with regard to a matter of so much importance, and a matter so intimately connected with other circumstances in Ireland, perhaps still more important, in reply to an inquiry. We can only do it, I think, upon an occasion when there should be a perfect liberty of free statement and argument upon what we might say, or what we might not say—that is to say, in a regular debate. We have an opportunity of that kind in immediate prospect. I cannot at present enter upon the subject; but on Tuesday next my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. W. E. Forster) will be prepared to enter upon it fully.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TUESDAY SITTINGS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Prime Minister when it was intended to take the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that he hoped the second reading would be taken early next week. It would not, however, be taken on Monday or Tuesday.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked, whether there would be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he thought the announcement that was made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) in his absence had been sufficiently explicit—namely, that it was the intention of the Government to ask for consecutive Morning Sittings on Tuesdays.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I think it would be convenient if the House were better informed as to what is to happen on Tuesdays. The right hon. Gentleman has, in rather a remarkable manner, abstained from entering into a subject of high importance, the policy of the Government in regard to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, and abstained even from answering a Question connected with it, because, as I understand, there will be an opportunity afforded on Tuesday for a full debate on that subject. I am not quite sure that I am aware of what opportunity the right hon. Gentleman refers to, unless it be the Notice of Motion given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay). If there is to be an important statement made on the

  1681
  part of the Government—and its importance can hardly be exaggerated—on the occasion of such a Motion, I wish to know whether we are to understand that it is to be put off till 9 o'clock, and, if so, what Business it is proposed to take at the Morning Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we propose to take the question of Procedure continuously next week. As to the debate which may arise on Tuesday evening, if the House should be pleased to allow us to go on, I am not aware that it is likely to require to be a debate of great length and detail, although it may be difficult to say now what debate does not require to be pursued at great length and detail. But, so far as I can judge, I think there will be no inconvenience to the House in taking the discussion which has been referred to at the Evening Sitting. What I said, however, was that it was desirable that an answer to the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) should be given in a regular debate, when hon. Members would have an opportunity, if they wished, of commenting upon it.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether they were to understand that the Procedure debate would be taken continuously every Government night next week? Would the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill be taken if the Procedure debate was not concluded?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we propose to take it on Monday, and at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday. The Customs and Inland Revenue Bill will not be taken on Monday or Tuesday next. We hope to be able to state by Tuesday whether that Bill will be taken on Thursday or not.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that, in view of the important announcement which they were led to expect on Tuesday, he hoped the Prime Minister would reconsider his decision with respect to the Morning Sitting for Tuesday; and, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of doing so, he would ask him on Monday, Whether it would not be desirable to allow the Morning Sitting for Tuesday to lapse, so that they might have a full discussion on so important a question as the condition of Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have had debates on the condition of Ireland to the extent of nearly half, or more than
  1682
  half, the present Session; and, although this may be an important matter, it must be remembered that every matter of importance does not necessarily require a long and detailed discussion. In the view of the Government, there will be ample time for the discussion on Tuesday evening; and the other pressing subjects before us make it our duty, unless we wish the country to believe that we are paltering with them, to ask the House to give us Morning Sittings.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has seen a statement in the "St. James's Gazette" of this evening, to the effect that, notwithstanding the order of the Board of Trade, the "promoters of the Channel Tunnel scheme are pressing forward the work;" and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to enforce compliance with his own order?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that I have not seen the newspaper this evening to which he refers, and I think that the statement which he says is contained in it must be incorrect. At all events, I gave the most explicit directions to the South Eastern Railway Company that the works were not to be allowed to proceed below the level of low water; and if that instruction has been disregarded I shall certainly take steps to see that it is properly observed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  £1 BANK NOTES.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. FOWLER,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the prohibition of the issue of bank notes of £1 each in England and Wales is unreasonable and ought to be removed, and that all needful steps should be forthwith taken to authorise the issue of such notes,"
  said, that it was a long time since they had had a discussion on the currency of

  1683
  this country. He was glad that was so, because it showed that we were in a much better condition than we had been many years ago. At the same time, it was a very remarkable fact that the conditions of the currency in the Three Kingdoms were so different, and had remained so for so many years. He believed that Sir Robert Peel's legislation on that subject was wise legislation, and he was not the least disposed to break it down in any way. Bank notes in this country were not the machinery by which the great business of the country was conducted. They were merely used in the minor work of trade, and for the common convenience of mankind in the ordinary details of life. Anyone who knew anything of business was aware that business was conducted, not by bank notes, but by credit. Deposits had increased enormously, whereas circulation had practically not increased at all. In 36 issuing banks the deposits had increased from 100 in 1844 to 350 in 1874; while the proportion of circulation to deposits was, in 1844, 17 per cent, and in 1874 only 4 per cent. He would now refer to one or two points in the history of this question. The House was aware that £1 notes were, and had been for many years, in circulation in Scotland and Ireland, though successive Prime Ministers, in 1826 and 1844, had desired to do away with them. But the feeling in their favour was so strong, that the Prime Ministers had to give up the idea, and accordingly they were retained in Scotland and Ireland, though they were abandoned in England. On reference to the debates of the year 1826, when £1 notes were abolished in England, it would be found that the main reason given for their abolition was the panic of 1825, which, it was said, was caused by bank notes of small amount being in circulation. But Lord Liverpool combated this view, for, in writing to the Bank of England on the 13th of January, 1826, he said this—
  "Though a recurrence to a gold circulation might he productive of some good, it would by no means go to the root of the evil. We have abundant proof of this in the events which took place in 1793, when a convulsion occurred more extensive than that which we have recently experienced. Nearly 100 country banks stopped payment, and Parliament granted an issue of Exchequer Bills, yet in 1793 there were no £1 or £2 notes in circulation in England. We have a further proof in the experience of Scotland, which has escaped all the convulsions which
  1684
  have occurred in the Money Market of England for the last 35 years, though Scotland, during the whole of that time, has had a circulation of £1 notes. The issue of small notes, though it be an aggravation, cannot, therefore, be the sole or even the main cause of the evil in England."
  The fact was that the main cause of the panic of 1825 was the enormous amount of speculation that then prevailed. Then, after the notes were abolished, there was another panic in 1837, and again in 1844, and there had been several more since, although during the whole period there were no £1 notes. The truth was that panics arose from great causes, such as excessive speculation and increase of prices, and not from comparatively small causes, such as the circulation of notes. If he was correct in his view, the Abolition Act of 1826 was passed under an entirely erroneous impression. Lord Liverpool was unable to carry out his project of abolishing the £1 notes in Scotland and Ireland, on account of the great attachment those countries felt towards them, an attachment as strong now as it was then. It might be asked—why raise this question at all; things were going on very well? That was, no doubt, a fair question; but he had recently, while travelling on the other side of the Atlantic, noticed the great convenience that was found in these small notes. In Scotland and Ireland they were found to be a great convenience to the poorer classes. Though the richer classes, with large balances at their bankers, and the power to draw cheques to any amount, might not feel any necessity for them, still, in dealing with this question, they must consider the humbler classes as well as those of the upper ranks. Postal notes and orders, although a convenience for the transmission of money, cost a commission for each order, and that consideration was a somewhat serious one to the working man. In Scotland, in Ireland, on the Continent of Europe, and in America, these small notes were found to be a great convenience to poor people. It was notorious that in Scotland and Ireland the people were determined to keep them. He had been informed on good, authority that the best way to bring about Home Rule in those countries would be by abolishing the £1 notes. Then it was a great convenience to be able to send small sums by post in this way without charge. Also, these notes were a great convenience in the small

  1685
  transactions of trade, such as in paying wages. He would not propose to circulate the whole issue on credit; but a certain amount might be issued on security, and a certain amount on bullion, as proposed with regard to English notes by Sir Robert Peel in 1844. What was the circulation of bullion at the present moment? In 1835 Sir Robert Peel said there were from 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 in circulation; in more modern times it was said to amount to from 100,000,000 to 120,000,000. His impression was that there must be, at least, 100,000,000 in circulation. Therefore, we might circulate a large amount on securities and the balance on bullion, as at present under the Act of 1844. He wished to refer to the character of the present circulation. The state of the coinage of this country was very unsatisfactory. Every other coin was light. In Ireland the people would not take sovereigns, because, on presenting them at the bank, they were so often charged for light weight, notes being preferred because of the depreciation of the sovereign. If small notes were put in circulation, it would not become necessary to recoin the whole of the sovereigns and half-sovereigns. The matter was one of considerable importance, and ought not to be lost sight of. Various objections were raised to his proposal, the most attractive of which, was the forgery question. In the early part of the century bank notes were wretchedly engraved, a great many forgeries occurred, and many unfortunate men lost their lives. But bank notes were now engraved in so superior a manner that forgeries seldom occurred. He believed that, at the present moment, a forgery of any importance had not occurred on any of the Scotch or Irish banks in respect of notes issued for the last 20 or 30 years. A similar state of things also prevailed in America, where there was also a circulation of small notes. When at Washington, figures were furnished to him showing that in the year ending June 1881 there were eight times as many notes of the value of £10 forged as of notes of £1. That showed that, at the present time, the skill and labour required to forge bank notes was so great that it did not pay to counterfeit notes of small value. In one case that occurred in Scotland he was told that it took a man six months to produce and circulate six £1-notes.
  1686
  In his opinion, they had passed that period when the forgery of bank notes was a serious question. Formerly, the punishment for the crime was so severe that people were unwilling to prosecute, and forgery was much more frequent than it had since become. The Judicial Statistics for 1880 showed that in that year no persons were committed for the forgery of bank notes in England and Wales. In Ireland there were eight cases, but in Scotland none. The figures with respect to Mint offences were very different, and proved that more than 2,000 persons were punished for the offences of coining, of having in possession implements of coining, and of uttering false coin. Another objection which he knew some hon. Members entertained to his proposal was the liability to the occurrence of panics. It was said that the holders of £1 notes would be more liable to panics than the holders of notes of larger amount. On that point he would quote the opinion of Mr. Tooke, who said that the only instance of a panic within the century with respect to Bank of England notes occurred in 1832, and that partook of the ridiculous, and was only remarkable for the use made of it by the partizans of a particular currency theory. The Glasgow Bank failure six years ago, affecting, as it did, a very poor population, and occurring under circumstances of fraud, was calculated to cause panic. That, however, did not happen, and the circulation of Scotch bank notes was in no way affected. He did not think that the liability to panics was as great now as it used to be. It had also been urged that they would lose bullion by the issue of small notes. In 1826 Mr. Huskisson said that notes and bullion could not exist together; but experience had not shown that to be true. He did not propose to issue the notes upon nothing; he considered that, for the most part, they should be issued upon bullion. The effect of the issue of small notes would be that the bullion would be kept in one place, instead of being scattered over the Kingdom. It was a mistake to suppose that the banks kept their reserves in gold; they only kept sufficient gold for their usual requirements. Gold would be much safer and much more available if held as a security against notes than if it were scattered over the country. It by no means followed that because

  1687
  there was a circulation of small notes there was no gold in a country. Although there was a large circulation of notes of various values in the United States, it was estimated by the Director of their Mint in November, 1881, that there were 112,000,000 sterling of gold and 36,000,000 sterling of silver in the country. It had been alleged that a £1 note issue would be costly; but it would not be so in reality, if we could save the interest on a large amount of bullion. Indeed, the saving on the bullion would pay all the expense of the circulation, and a good deal more. Moreover, the issue of £1-notes would prevent the wear and tear of our sovereigns, which at present amounted to a very considerable sum. It had been estimated that the restoration of our existing coinage would cost nearly £1,000,000. He calculated that the cost of the £1 note issue, as now existing, varied from 5s. to £1 per cent per annum. He had heard it suggested that the adoption of £1 notes would cause a great deal of trouble to bankers. Well, the Scotch and the Irish bankers were very happy to have that trouble as long as they had likewise the convenience for themselves and their customers. Then it had been said that the extension of banking facilities was less important now than it was formerly. There were, however, some figures on this point, which showed that, after all, the use of notes was a very important consideration even now. The amount of notes issued in Scotland and in Ireland was still very large, and there had been a very material increase in it. The circulation in Scotland had, between 1844 and 1874, increased 95 per cent; while in Ireland, owing to famine and loss of population, the increase had been 14 per cent during the same period. It would probably be said that some of the experience of the Continental States went rather in the other direction. It was a curious thing that in France the lower denomination was not that which was most in circulation; but the condition of France was so totally different from our own that we could not compare the two countries. Again, it was true that Germany had adopted something like our system in not issuing very small notes; but he did not see why we should follow Germany either in her politics or in her finance. He had endeavoured to show that the abolition of
  1688
  £1 notes was accomplished under a false impression as to the facts. He desired to impress on the House the truth that the great panic of 1825, on which all the burden was placed, was not occasioned by any issue of notes whatever, although it was aggravated, no doubt, by the conduct of both the Bank of England and the country banks. That panic was caused by enormous speculations and gigantic commercial operations of every conceivable degree of folly. As we had abolished the issue of £1 notes on unfair and ridiculous grounds, it was only right that we should reconsider the matter. It might be said it was impossible to prove that there was any public demand for the change in this country. He did not assert that there was; but he thought it was well worthy of the consideration of the House whether that which was so extremely convenient to Scotland and Ireland would not confer a boon on our own people, without doing them any conceivable harm. He had heard it suggested that there was one point about the bullion question which ought to be borne in mind—namely, that there would be more danger of gold being attacked in case of disaster if it were in one place than if it were scattered over the whole community. They ought not, however, for this purpose to consider what might happen once in a century, and to legislate with a view to an improbable contingency. He feared this was an abstract question, and, therefore, not an exciting one. But he must repeat his belief that no comparatively small change in the ordinary affairs of life would confer more real benefit on the humbler classes of the community than providing them with a well-secured currency of small denominations. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. EWART,in seconding the Resolution, said, he heartily approved of it as an Irishman who had all his life been accustomed to £1 notes, and had seen the advantages of that system. He thought it seemed unreasonable that Ireland should have the advantage of the £1 note, while it was prohibited in England. One pound notes were merely promises to pay £1 in gold, and they were perfectly safe as £5 notes. In Ireland they found paper much more convenient for use than gold. Of course,

  1689
  there was the fear of forgery; but, as was said by the hon. Member, it was scarcely known to exist in Ireland, and they were a great deal more afraid of light gold than they were of forged notes. He believed that no people who had ever used paper would ever revert to gold. He might instance Ireland and Scotland, and the United States of America and the Colonies, where paper was much more popular than gold. The use of £1 notes had, no doubt, been objected to from the fear of inflation; but so long as they were convertible into gold there was, in his mind, no danger of inflation, provided a sufficient reserve was required. It might be feared that if the measure were adopted, it would be the germ of something further. Well, he hoped that no chimera of that sort would prevent the House from adopting what he considered would be a most valuable measure.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the prohibition of the issue of hank notes of £1 each in England and Wales is unreasonable and ought to be removed, and that all needful steps should be forthwith taken to authorise the issue of such notes,"—(Mr. William Fowler,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Sir JOHN LUBBOCK,who had given Notice of an Amendment, which, however, he was unable to move, to the effect—
  "That it is undesirable to remove the restriction from the circulation of £1 notes (if at all) without a careful inquiry into the effect which such a change would have on the general currency of the Country, and into the conditions under which such notes should be issued,"
  said, no one would deny the importance of the subject brought before them that evening by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), whose knowledge of the subject and great practical experience enabled him to state the views he entertained with so much weight and effect. Generally, on such subjects, it was his good fortune to be able to co-operate with his hon. Friend; but, on the present occasion, he felt bound to express the hope that the House would pause before it assented
  1690
  to the Motion which, the hon. Member advocated. The subject of £1 notes was no new question in this country. They had a long trial, and eventually were abandoned with general consent. The main arguments against them were three in number—first, the desirability of keeping up a large stock of gold in the country; secondly, that the £1 notes were more liable to be suddenly presented for payment during panics than notes of higher denomination; and, thirdly, they were found to lead to a very large amount of forgery. The result of the experience acquired at the commencement of the century was that almost all the highest authorities on the subject h ad unhesitatingly declared themselves against the issue of notes for smaller sums than £5. He might quote, for instance, the strongly-expressed opinion of Huskisson, Canning, Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Norman, Lord Overstone, John Stuart Mill, and, among more recent authorities, Mr. Weguelin, Mr. Kirkman Hodgson, Mr. Grenfell, the present Governor of the Bank; and Mr. Palgrave, the Editor of The Economist. He believed the very general opinion of the City at present was also decidedly opposed to the issue of £1 notes. There were Gentlemen in the House—for instance, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Edmund Lechmere)—who could speak more authoritatively for the country banks than he could; but he was naturally brought into contact with a considerable number of country bankers in all parts of England, and he believed that the very great majority were of the same opinion. The gold circulation had been regarded by the highest authorities as a reserve upon which they could fall back, if necessary, in case of adverse exchanges. Doubtless, the great extent to which what were called International Stocks were now held in this country weakened, to a certain extent, this argument. Still, it could not be omitted from consideration, and before it was summarily dismissed they ought to obtain the careful opinions of those most qualified to judge on the question. Again, it could not be denied that if we should, unfortunately, become involved in any great war with a first-rate Power, the gold circulation would be a source of much financial

  1691
  strength. During the Franco-German War the French found the practical advantage of this. By issuing small notes to replace the metallic circulation, they were able, with only a slight disturbance of values and at a very moderate cost, to obtain immense funds. But for this resource, they would either have had to borrow at very high rates or to purchase on credit, which would have been even more ruinous. He sincerely hoped that we should never have occasion to adopt a similar course; but the power of doing so must be taken into consideration when they were considering the respective advantages and disadvantages of a circulation of small notes. Again, the deposits in the Savings Banks amounted to nearly £80,000,000, and were steadily increasing. Against this immense liability the Government, according to the last Returns, held less than £500,000 of reserve, a reserve which, to a banker, naturally seemed, to say the least of it, extremely meagre. No doubt, however, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had tolerated this state of things, partly on account of the exceptionally realizable character of the securities held on account of the trustees, and partly, also, because of the latent reserve existing in our gold circulation—a reserve which, although, of course, it would only be used as a last resource, and in case of absolute necessity, was still of great importance. Nor did he quite understand why his hon. Friend should stop at £1 notes. There were some considerations which afforded even stronger arguments for smaller notes than for those of £1. The half-sovereign was, in proportion, a more expensive coin than the sovereign. The wear and tear were more rapid. Again, our silver circulation, as everyone knew, consisted only of tokens, which did not, like the gold, constitute any solid national reserve. And, so far, the advantages of introducing a circulation of notes for 10 s. and 1s. would be even greater in proportion. But even his hon. Friend did not propose to go so far as that. He would not occupy the time of the House by dwelling on the second consideration—namely, the liability of £1 notes to be presented for payment under panic. It would be sufficient to say that all practical authorities were agreed upon that point. It was possible that the spread of education—the
  1692
  greater amount of knowledge on such subjects possessed at present by the bulk of our countrymen might have removed this danger; and he quite believed that it had had much effect in that direction. Still, the consideration was not one which could be entirely ignored. Mr. Henry Burgess, Secretary to the County Bankers' Association, before the House of Commons' Committee of 1832, said that—
  "Nine out of 10 of the country bankers are decidedly opposed to the issue of small notes under £5. They have found from experience that all great demands upon the banks have commenced through the demand for small notes."
  As to the profit which would be derived from the issue of £1 notes, he was not disposed to rate it so high as it had been estimated. Much, of course, would depend on the conditions under which the notes were issued, and especially whether such notes, when once paid, were to be re-issued or not. He would not discuss the question whether they should be issued by country banks or the Bank of England, though, if the subject were to come to a practical issue, that would be a question which would demand most serious consideration. He would assume that the notes were not to be re-issued, and he would shortly state to the House a calculation made by the late Governor of the Bank of England on that basis. That gentleman assumed that £21,000,000 of notes would be issued, and that one-third would be retained in gold as a security. That would leave £14,000,000 to be invested in Government securities, which would give £400,000 in interest. The present cost of a note was 1·26 of a penny; but on the manufacture of so large a number the cost might, no doubt, be reduced. He took it, therefore, at 7–8ths of a penny, and £21,000,000, then, would cost £76,600; and, assuming each note to live about three months, they must multiply this by four for a year. This would give £300,000, to which must be added the cost of prosecutions for forgeries and various minor expenses. The balance would be less than £100,000; certainly not more than enough to compensate the issuing bank or banks for their trouble. The Government, therefore, would gain but little in interest; and, if at all, would save little more than the wear and tear of the gold coins. It seemed evident, therefore, that if the notes were

  1693
  to he issued on this basis the pecuniary advantage would be comparatively small. Of course, if the notes were to be reissued the cost would be less; but to this there were other objections. If, on the other hand, the notes were issued against gold the profit, of course, would vanish altogether. He now came to the question of forgeries. In the year 1820, though the circulation of £1 notes was less than £7,000,000, there were over 400 prosecutions for forgery, at a cost of £53,000, the great majority of these being forgeries of £1 notes. From 1816 to 1820, the last five years during which £1 notes were issued, no less than 131,000 forged notes were presented to the Bank of England, being at the rate of over 25,000 a-year; while at present, with our much larger population and vastly greater commerce, the average number was only 20. Moreover, out of these 131,000 forged notes, no less than 127,000 were notes of £1, and only 400 were over £5. It was a remarkable fact that, though £1 notes had been out of circulation for more than half-a-century, the majority of forged notes brought into the Bank were still £1 notes. From 1869 to 1874, the last year for which they had any return, the total number of forged notes presented was £369. Of these, 36 were for sums above £5; 88 were £5 notes; and 245 were notes for less than £5. It was sometimes said that the improvements in engraving had practically done away with the risk of forgery. He did not wish to undervalue the security afforded by skilful engraving. It was, no doubt, considerable. But practical experience showed that the number of forgeries at the beginning of the century was not mainly ascribable to any roughness in the engraving, for in that case it would have applied to £5 notes, as well as to those for £1. Nay, the temptation being greater, it might even have been anticipated that £5 notes would have been the more frequently forged. But far from that, as he had shown, the overwhelming preponderance of forged notes were for £1. That proved that the real determining condition was not the facility of counterfeiting, but the opportunity for issuing without immediate risk of detection. The life of a note—that was to say, the length of time it remained in circulation—was inversely as the amount; and, consequently, the smaller the note the
  1694
  less the risk of detection. He was told, however, that there was little or no forgery in Scotland or Ireland; and, no doubt, £1 notes were popular in the Sister Kingdoms—though the late Member for Waterford (Mr. Delahunty) did regard them as the source of all the trouble of Ireland, from the creation of the world down to the creation of the Land League. But the whole banking and economical conditions of Scotland and Ireland were unlike those of England. In Scotland, for instance, these notes remained in circulation for a very short time—mainly because, as all the banks enjoyed the privilege of issue, none of them used the notes of any other bank as till money. Hence anyone who issued a forged note knew that the forgery would be detected in a very few days, which acted in two ways. Firstly, the chance of punishment was greatly increased; and, secondly, the opportunity for issuing any considerable number of forged notes, and, consequently, the temptation to do so was greatly diminished. We had tried £1 notes in this country, and they were abandoned with general consent. No doubt, since that date many years had elapsed, and circumstances had greatly changed. It was possible that the objections then felt might now no longer exist; it was possible that the advantages might now be greater. He did not say that his hon. Friend might not make out a case for a Committee or Commission of Inquiry; but when he called upon the House, without inquiry and without consultation, to decide off-hand that the prohibition of £1 notes was unreasonable, and that steps should be forthwith taken to authorize the issue of such notes, he (Sir John Lubbock) believed that he represented the general opinion of the mercantile and banking community in expressing a hope that the House would not be carried away by the persuasive eloquence of his hon. Friend.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The House, I think, will not be surprised when I say that the Government is not prepared to consent to put aside the Motion for your leaving the Chair, Sir, in order to adopt the Amendment, as the decision of the House, and it will be a sufficient reason against such a course, if I found myself entirely upon one word in the Motion—the formidable word "forthwith," I cannot conceive for the Go-

  1695
  vernment, in existing circumstances, a more formidable word, for undoubtedly it was found in 1844 that to deal with the currency of this country—and by no means to deal with the whole of the questions that may be raised—was an affair that required to be the main subject of legislation for a year, and was found quite sufficient to occupy a very great deal of the time of Parliament, certainly shutting out the consideration of any great measure during the same Session. Under those circumstances, my hon. Friend will judge that the Government must be either unduly sanguine or unusually unscrupulous, if it were prepared, by adopting this Resolution, to deal "forthwith" with the question which, I admit, is not of itself necessarily involving the whole question of currency, but which would be found, practically, to require that the whole question of currency should be considered. This question of currency is one of that long list of arrears which ought to be considered legitimately and positively as such. The House is probably aware that the old practice of Parliament, both with regard to the East India Charter and with regard to the Bank Charter, was to consider them once in 10 or 20 years—I think once in 20 years as regards the East India Charter, and once in 10 years as regards the Bank Charter—and I recollect very well that Mr. Goulburn, reflecting on the matter, was of opinion, when the Act of 1844 was framed, that it was an inconvenience to have the House tied down absolutely to consider the matter decennially, because there might be exigencies of a particular order which might make a short postponement rather convenient and desirable. Consequently, the Act of 1844 was enacted, not to remain in force for 10 years, but during the pleasure of Parliament, distinctly indicating, by its own phraseology, that the subject was one that ought periodically to be brought under review. And I do not entertain the smallest doubt that Sir Robert Peel, who was himself a great master on the subject of the currency, himself regarded the Act of 1844 not as a passing measure, but as a measure that laid a firm and strong foundation upon which a superstructure was to be raised, which the Act of 1844 imperfectly and partially supplied. I believe that both Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn would have been
  1696
  immensely astonished if anyone could, by the gift of prophecy, have announced to them as a fact that, 38 years after the Act of 1844, nothing would have been done in prosecution of the views with which that Act was introduced to lead onwards the system of the currency of this country to what may be called its perfection. That admission I make to my hon. Friend, accompanying it with the hope, which is more sincere than sanguine, that the vigorous labours on the Parliamentary Benches may, in a certain time, bring about a state of things so propitious that this great question may be dealt with for the benefit of the country. Having made that concession, Sir, I must make a further concession to my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I think it clear, looking to the importance and complexity of the issues involved, that no important change ought to be introduced into our system without a previous Parliamentary inquiry. The last Committee sat, I think, with the hope that legislation might take place which has not taken place; but, undoubtedly, that Committee grew also out of the circumstances connected with the commercial crisis; and my hon. Friend has observed, with great satisfaction, and, I think, with great justice, that the administration of the Bank of England—the enlightened administration of the Bank of England—appears, in a great degree, to have solved the practical question connected with these disturbances of the currency which marked the years 1847, 1857, and 1866, and which were so irregular, both in principle and in practice, that they might well be described as intolerable. As long as those crises occurred, at periods of eight or ten years, they themselves proved an irresistible argument for the review of the Currency Laws. As matters now stand, it may be said that the argument has lost a great deal of its force, because we may state that the days of those crises will have passed by, and that, from administration and early anticipation of difficulties on the part of the governing influences of the Bank of England, may prevent their return. While I quite admit that, on other grounds, there are reasons why this matter should come under the view of Parliament, I imagine there can be no doubt among us that the three great conditions of a good currency are these—

  1697
  its safety, its convenience, and its cheapness. I must say, for my part, T would give a fourth condition to a perfect currency, which is that the profit of that currency ought to be the profit of the nation. But with regard to our system as it exists—and I think we have only yet got a very partial acknowledgment of the principle that the profit of issue belongs to the State—we have to look at the qualities of safety, convenience, and cheapness. As regards safety, no doubt, the question would be raised whether metallic currency or paper currency in small notes is the more liable to forgery; but my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment will at once see that we are not in a condition in this House to determine a question of this kind without a very close and careful inquiry. The question of how to deal with light gold is also an important and difficult one. As to the position of the gold coinage—which the country will have to face—I own that I am one of those who think that it is a fair and proper matter for inquiry, whether the country ought to make a charge, not in the nature of seigneurage, not in the nature of an artificial value attached to a commodity as an exercise of the Prerogative, even as we do in silver and in copper, but whether the country ought to make a charge for the labour of manufacture, by which it certifies in a particular form its value to the gold in circulation. Undoubtedly, the effect of our present system is that everybody melts gold at his convenience, and wastes to an enormous extent the costly labour we have bestowed upon it. I believe that a very proper subject for consideration. As I see the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) in his place, I may say I was very sanguine in the hope that he might have felt himself strong enough in the time of the late Government to have attempted to deal with this whole question. I felt that the position of affairs was favourable; for I am quite certain that as regards all those who now sit on this side of the House, they would have been found in very general concurrence with the right hon. Gentleman in his views on monetary questions, and I believe he would have had their most cordial and faithful support. I had a stronger reason for entertaining that wish, and it is, that I believe there is no person, either in the House
  1698
  or in the country, who more thoroughly comprehends that question than the right hon. Baronet, or who would have been more likely to lead the discussion of it to a favourable issue. I will enter briefly into one or two of the points which have been raised. I do not think the Mover of the Motion open to any just exception that there is no public demand for a change, because this is one of the questions as to which we cannot expect that there should be what is called a popular demand. After the War, and in 1834, the raising of questions of this kind was undoubtedly due to the few—and the number was a very small one, only, in fact, a fraction even of the educated classes—who took an interest in those questions. I would, indeed, say that there is no subject which interested a smaller number of persons, considering its importance. I will go one step further, and say that among the many sound arguments which contributed to the establishment of our metallic circulation, there was one argument that was less sound than the rest, and that was the notion that for whatever monetary crisis might occur, the possession of a metallic currency for ordinary cash transactions constituted an element of security, and afforded an available reserve. I do not now enter into the case of a great war. I can well conceive that in the case of a great war, Parliament, legislating for the purpose, might avail itself of the existence of a vast body of gold in circulation in the country for temporary purposes, which it might have in view, in the extreme exigency of the case, and might in that way, on that particular occasion, supply itself with a large quantity of gold by legislation, perhaps more easily than if it had not a very large metallic circulatian to deal with. But, undoubtedly, as far as my recollection goes, there was a belief that upon every occasion of monetary pressure such as we used constantly to be subjected to in the case of bad harvests—although, happily, the vast extension of the freedom of our trade has rendered these occasions of pressure comparatively insensible—that even upon these occasions we were better able to encounter them by having a large metallic circulation. I believe that was an entire fallacy, because, in point of fact, that large metallic currency is hard at work in the daily business of life conducting the cash

  1699
  transactions absolutely essential to the operations of civil society, and so far, I believe, the argument is not well-founded. I hope I shall not shock anyone when I say I see no fundamental unsoundness in the main intention and demand of my hon. Friend. We have already applied to a certain number of notes over £1 the principle that it is wise, to a certain extent, to economize the monetary circulation by the issue of such notes, provided we take care to keep that issue of notes within the limits of demand which we know the necessary purposes of the country will always make, so that there can be no possibility that those notes should become superfluous. If that be so, I own, although I believe in quarters of very high metallic doctrine there was a notion that something heretical lurked in the very idea of the £1 note, yet I must say I do not see why that principle, cautiously applied, should not apply to £1 notes which applies to notes of higher denomination, provided it may be found that convenience would be attained, as well as some degree of economy. With regard to that question, my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) has suggested that it would necessitate a modification of the practice of banking. I am the last person to propose that the practice of banking should be changed by the Executive. If it were so changed, it should only be after full Parliamentary Inquiry. I will only add, in conclusion, that I hope the present discussion will do good in tending to turn the mind of those who are not in the habit of thinking on this question of currency to consider it; and I entertain not a very sanguine hope for myself, but a hope certainly for younger Members of this House, that they may have the happy duty of developing and applying the principles of the Act of 1844, in the way of giving it full effect, and to fulfil with still greater efficiency and equal safety the great purpose for which a currency is established.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that, although his right hon. Friend had stated that the Motion could not be accepted by the House, it might, nevertheless, not be superfluous that a few remarks should be made on the topics which had been raised in the debate. His right hon. Friend had alluded to the
  1700
  fact that the Bank Act had been allowed to remain without change. It was a most fortunate circumstance for the country that that Act had not been, revised on the various occasions when revision had been called for. For if a revision directed at certain minor points had been granted, it might have led to a revision of vital provisions of the Act. He thought he could discern, through his right hon. Friend's speech, that there were certain points in that Act which he would like to have changed. He thought his right hon. Friend was led in that direction by the desire to secure some profit to the State. In that respect he could entirely sympathize with his right hon. Friend. The profits of issue he would himself wish to see secured to the public. But he would impress upon the House that what had been desired by others on many occasions was to introduce relaxations into the Act, which the experience of years had shown not to be necessary. He thought there was no greater proof of the wisdom of Sir Robert Peel than that he had secured to this country a currency which, with all its drawbacks, had through most trying times and difficult crises proved to be a great success. His hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) had introduced some dangerous proposals in a very seductive form. He admitted what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the proposals of his hon. Friend were not by any means so dangerous in his hands as they might be in other hands. His hon. Friend had stated in his opening that he was a Bullionist. But here was a Bullionist proposing in that House to diminish the amount of bullion. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had already called attention to this point. These £1 notes were, in part only, to be issued upon the security of bullion; and it had been admitted by the Head of the Government—and, indeed, it had been admitted by his hon. Friend—that the result of the proposal would be to diminish the amount of gold in the country. His right hon. Friend had naturally, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, looked to the amount of profit which might possibly be derived from these notes. But

  1701
  he himself confessed to being one of the straitlaced school of economists, and no desire for profit would induce him to lessen the extent to which our currency rested upon gold. His hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge had told the House the stupendous amount of transactions carried on by banks without any reserve of gold at all. But, notwithstanding that, it could not be understood too clearly that the whole of the vast transactions of this country rested ultimately in gold. The Bank of England was bound to find gold for its notes, and bankers were bound to find gold for their deposits. Every promise to pay was, in fact, a contract to deliver gold. The commerce of the country was conducted on that basis. His hon. Friend had called attention to the fact of the small reserves of gold existing in the country as compared with its enormous liabilities. But did not this increase the importance of avoiding any diminution of the stock of gold in the country? This decrease of that stock was a matter of the highest moment. It was well known how, in times both of external and internal pressure, gold flowed from a thousand channels into the coffers of the Bank of England, strengthening its reserve. The strain put upon gold was greater than it was before Germany had adopted a gold coinage. Gold, silver, and notes had, if he might use the phrase, been partners together, conducting jointly the business of the circulation of the world. Silver had now been thrust out of the partnership, and heavier responsibilities now rested upon gold. Hence it was more than ever important to look to a sufficiency of gold in the country. That was a matter in which they could not proceed too carefully and anxiously. His hon. Friend had referred to the motives which induced him to make his proposal. He, on the other hand, had brought forward some considerations which made him think that very strong arguments would be required to induce the House to introduce a change which would diminish the gold circulation in the country. Were those arguments strong? He admitted there were some arguments, and that some of the objections against the proposal had been successfully dealt with by his hon. Friend, especially those which related to forgeries. Nor did he base his own
  1702
  objections on the score of expense, but upon principles affecting the general currency of the country. As regarded the advantages which the proposals would bring about, they were alleged to be mainly in favour of the humbler classes. He thought his hon. Friend would not contend that they would bring any advantage to the richer classes. He agreed with his lion. Friend the Member for the University of London that it had not been sufficiently elaborated how the humbler classes would gain. They were told that Scotland, Ireland, and America had notes of £1 in value. It had always been a matter of notoriety that the population of Scotland had clung to their £1 notes with great tenacity; but that proved nothing as regarded other countries. Custom seemed to play a most important part in all questions of the use of different forms of money. It was urged that the transmission of small sums would be facilitated by the existence of £1 notes, and that the commissions on Post Office Orders would be saved. It might be convenient to have these notes for those purposes; but would the working classes prefer to be paid in them rather than in sovereigns? He believed it would be as hard to convince an English mechanic that the £1 note was better than a sovereign as it would be to convince a Scotchman that the sovereign was better than a £1 note. He did not feel disposed to legislate in order to make an experiment of that kind. His hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge had alluded to Germany, where the smaller notes had been abolished with a view to the introduction of gold currency, and he made an appeal to the patrotism of the House, saying that we ought not to follow Germany, either in her politics or in her financial transactions. The observation was an ungracious one, for, in point of fact, Germany had in this matter been following us. Germany had believed that in abolishing her smaller notes she had been adopting the soundest and most admitted English principles. With regard to America, the circumstances of that country were at present quite abnormal. His hon. Friend had stated the fact that an immense amount of gold had been accumulated there in order to prove that the stock of gold might increase, notwithstanding the cir-

  1703
  cumstance of bank notes being issued. But his hon. Friend did not remind the House that it was the resumption of specie payments which obliged America to collect so large an amount of gold. We had not yet seen how America would settle down permanently. The resumption of specie payments, and the importance America showed she attached to a large stock of bullion, ought, in his judgment, rather to be put on the other side of the argument. His hon. Friend thought the humbler classes would receive considerable benefit from the ease with which £1 notes could be transmitted by post. In all other respects it appeared to him that gold coin was more convenient for the humbler classes than bank notes. The experience of many travellers was the reverse of that of his hon. Friend, and went to show that notes were more liable to be lost than gold; that they were less "get-at-able," and in many ways less convenient than the English sovereign. It was argued that £1 notes might be transmitted through the post in preference to Post Office Orders; but it should be remembered that if it were necessary to send odd amounts, the £1 notes would not be available. Consequently, the advantage to the humbler classes would be very slight indeed. In his judgment the arguments in favour of the proposal had been shown to be exceedingly weak. On the other hand, he had endeavoured to establish that there were strong arguments against any measure which would diminish the aggregate amount of bullion in the country, and that even the coin in the pockets of the people was an ultimate reserve which it was most important to maintain. Looking at all the circumstances, he could not vote with his hon. Friend, though he entirely acquitted him of any desire to weaken our currency system, because he knew it had few firmer supporters than himself.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that in discussing a question of this nature it was above all things necessary to have a clear idea of the issues which were placed before them. He did not desire to repeat the arguments the House had already heard. The question of the £1 notes might either be a very large or a very small question. Unless they could multiply the bank notes and make money for the time cheaper, so as to increase the wages
  1704
  of the working classes, he was afraid a great portion of those benefits to the working classes that had been pointed out would disappear. In the case of Scotland there was, no doubt, a great attachment to the notes, arising not so much from the fact that it was a piece of paper instead of a piece of gold, but very much on account of the operation of issuing £1 notes giving the banks a profit which enabled them to multiply the number of banks and provide additional banking facilities all over the country. As a Scotch Member, he should say there was no doubt that the people of Scotland were most firmly attached to the £1 note; and he thought they would encounter very serious opposition from Scotland if they attempted to abandon the system. Scotland being, as it were, a separate portion of the Kingdom, it had been possible to continue the advantages of the £1 note to that country without interfering materially with those general monetary rules that regulated the money market in London and the national relations with other countries. If the question were merely between £1 certificates as against the sovereign it would be a small question, and he thought argument would resolve itself into the question whether the loss of issuing the £1 notes would be less than the loss by the wear and tear of the coins that were in circulation. If the question were limited to the possibility of forgery it might be a fair question of investigation for any Government or Select Committee. The question of providing security against panics was one of the largest that could be raised, as that was a question which involved the whole currency system of this country, which was based exclusively on the metallic basis. That was a question on which he might say a great deal; but after the speech of his right hon. Friend it would be unnecessary for him to detain the House upon it. He concurred entirely with the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward as to the importance of not tampering in any way with the great principles of the Act of 1844. Looking to the future, it could be denied that, seeing the wants of the nation for gold were constantly growing, that population was increasing and commerce was spreading, whilst the quantity of gold was spparently diminishing by natural causes, it was, of

  1705
  course, a possible question of the future whether the quantity of gold in the world might not be found insufficient for the wants of the community. When that became the case, some means might be devised to meet the difficulty; but, in the meantime, when they had a system that was working extremely well, and which was improving in its working every year, he could not imagine why they should desire at the present moment to depart from it. Many years ago there was a series of panics, and the Government were obliged to interfere and authorize deviations from the Act of 1844 in order to prevent the Bank of England from stopping payment, and to save the City of London from a great crisis. That was done by raising the rate of interest. Periodically panics had occurred which were milder and milder each time; and within the last few years they had many instances in which a slight rise in the rate of interest by the Bank of England, taken in time, had been sufficient to secure confidence and prevent anything of the nature of a crisis. They could not have a better instance than what occurred in the present year. A great financial crisis had occurred in Paris; an immense amount of over-speculation collapsed that suddenly sent a mass of international stock to the market, and it was thought it would extend to this country; but the Bank of England raised its rate of interest by successive steps up to 6 per cent, on which gold gradually flowed in from all parts of the world, and within a very short time without any perceptible disturbance or panic the Bank bullion accumulated, and the reserve rose to a point at which the whole apprehension of evil was dissipated, and they again found themselves in possession of easy money. It would be unwise, he thought, as London was becoming the central money market of the world, if they tampered with the existing system; and on those grounds he should feel bound to vote against the Motion.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he desired to thank the Prime Minister for three clear principles he had stated to the House. One was that the profit of a paper circulation ought to belong to the State; the next was that they were not bound to wait for a change of this kind until there was an apparent public demand for it;
  1706
  and the third one was that the currency in the pockets of the people was in no sense a reserve currency of any value for any other purpose. That last he considered to be the most valuable point that had been stated in the debate. He had himself endeavoured to expose the fallacy of the contrary position in the House on several occasions, and he was pleased to see it stated so clearly by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) endeavoured to controvert that; but he considered his argument was entirely fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman said that a reserve of golden currency in the pockets of the people acted as a reserve, and could be got out of them by means of a high interest. He denied that entirely. It might have been the case in old times when private individuals hoarded large quantities of gold; but now-a-days private individuals did not do that, they merely retained sufficient for their daily wants; therefore, no temptation of high interest would bring that out. The Prime Minister said in the event of a crisis, such as a war, legislation would be necessary to bring the reserve out of the pockets of the people, and that would be a forced paper currency, as that was the only way by which they could bring the gold coins used by the people for their daily wants in use as a national reserve. No advocate of the £1 note currency had ever desired to see a forced currency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon said it would be as difficult to persuade the mechanics of England to take a £1 note in place of a sovereign as it would be to induce a Scotchman to take a sovereign in place of a £1 note. He would never wish to persuade the English mechanics to do anything of the kind; neither would he seek to force or persuade them; all he desired was to give them the option of taking it if they chose. Let them have which they liked best. The English mechanics were too enlightened not to do the same thing that every other civilized nation had done—namely, to take the symbolic in place of the actual currency. The symbolic was the scientific currency. The other was the barbarous system of mere barter. The paper note was a symbol, and was, therefore, the more scientific and more modern form of currency, and was sure to be taken when the people

  1707
  had the option of taking it. But what the State was bound to do was to take care the paper currency was in every respect thoroughly sound and secure, and that could be done perfectly well by legislation. He agreed with almost all his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) had said. The only objection he had to him was that last year, when he introduced a Bill to confer the inestimable boon of paper currency on England, the hon. Member opposed it; and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) also opposed it, and in his speech to-night in opposition he endeavoured to frighten the House with a large array of great authorities. It might be a deficiency in his character, but he confessed he had not got the reverence for antique authorities that the hon. Baronet displayed. Upon any other question the hon. Baronet would be the first to say they were better able to judge for themselves than any of these antique authorities; and, as far as he was concerned, he said they had the experience of these authorities as well as their own, and there would he no advantage in living in modern days if they were not able to use the experience of those who had gone before to add to it, and to benefit from it. The advantage of having a paper currency was so great that he did not think it required any argument at all; but he admitted that, before making so great a change as that proposed, it might be well to have the advantage of some inquiry before the House. If the hon. Member had proposed an inquiry of that kind, he would have got a great deal of support for his proposal. He could not, therefore, recommend the hon. Gentleman to divide the House; but if he did he would support him.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, his hon. Friend had laid himself open to the charge of raising expectations without any definite prospect of fulfilling them. There were some very novel theories current about property. They had before them a scheme for dealing with property in a way in which they had never dealt with it before to his knowledge. But, whether it was held that the State ought to adopt a system of expropriation or not, compensating the owners of property for what was taken from them, he hoped that the House would set it face firmly
  1708
  against any attempt to manufacture money for meeting any schemes of that kind. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had told them he had no great faith in the antique authorities cited by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London. But, surely, the Governor of the Bank of England and other distinguished men now living, whose names he had mentioned, were not antique authorities.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MAGNIAC,resuming, said, that the system of the Banks Act of 1844 had come triumphantly out of whatever examination it had been subjected to, and he did not think that it had been proved to be unfit for the present time. As far as his own knowledge and experience went, he had never heard that it was contended in any quarter unconnected with the Scotch banks that £1 notes would be of benefit to the commercial classes of this country. In his opinion, it was a question not of theory, but of practice, and one for the people to decide for themselves; and although there might he a demand prevailing in Ireland or in Scotland for those small notes, that of itself was no reason why England should follow the example of those countries. He deprecated the use of small notes to be used for transmission through the post as an incentive to crime, which the institution of postal notes had been expressly created to obviate. The Prime Minister had laid it down, without qualification, that a metallic reserve in the hands of a nation was no reserve and of no use. He entirely, but respectfully, differed from so high an authority. What more ample disproof of that assertion could possibly be given than the case of France after the German War? The French Government, by a very wise arrangement, placed their Stocks at the command of every class of the community in such sums that the smallest peasant was able to buy into those securities, and they were paid for in gold—£180,000,000 going in that way into the French Treasury. In conclusion, there ought to be no alteration made in our system of currency which was not well considered and investigated by a com-

  1709
  petent Committee; and he earnestly hoped that nothing would be done which would tend to shake the confidence of the world in the English bank note.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he could not but think that it would be greatly for the convenience of the people that £1 notes should be issued. In Scotland and. Ireland £1 notes were not only regarded with satisfaction, but were preferred to gold. In England they would also be found useful, more especially for the transmission of small sums of money from one part of the country to another. That was shown by the demand for the Postal Orders now issued, though it was an argument against the Motion that Postal Orders were not used as currency after their issue. One great advantage would be a reduction in the heavy loss now incurred by bankers through light gold. He spoke feelingly on this subject, for, as a banker, he was one of the small body of men in the country who bore the whole loss through light gold.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Membere being found present,
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he believed great profit would result to the country through the issue of these notes. No doubt, there were drawbacks to the proposition by reason of the danger of forgery and the diminution of the bullion reserve of the country. With respect to the diminution of the bullion reserve, he believed that that was a very serious objection to the proposal. The stock of gold was none too much, and a very small drain upon it might cause serious inconvenience at any moment. He should have preferred to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), affirming the undesirability of removing the restrictions on the issue of £1 notes without careful inquiry as to the effects of the change, had it been possible to do so. As that Amendment could not be moved, he feared that he must vote against the Resolution.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was the only consolation that could be derived from the debate, as it showed that the English mind was not yet willing to yield to the fallacies that had
  1710
  been so lightly brought forward. He objected to the Motion, because no Act of Parliament could make a piece of paper of any value.
  MR. WILLIAMSONconcurred very much with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had dealt with the question. At the same time, there might be some value in the proposal that £1 notes should be issued in England. If, however, they were to be issued, it must be made clear that they could only be issued by the Bank of England, and that there should be a deposit of bullion for each note issued. In that case there would certainly be an advantage to the community. It would be easier to carry in one's pocket a small bundle of notes than 20 or 30 sovereigns, and there would be a great saving in the deterioration of the coinage which at present took place by friction. If the hon. Member had limited himself to inquiry, and had omitted the word "forthwith," he should have been inclined to support the proposal; but as the matter stood he could not do so, because it was evidently the hon. Member's idea to economize the metallic currency, and that, he believed, would be a thing fraught with the utmost danger. Considering the vast extent of our commerce, the enormous amount of the transactions that took place, and the very small amount of bullion in this country used for the liquidation of our international indebtedness, the proposal, as it stood, could not but be dangerous if it were adopted. If, however, the hon. Member introduced a Resolution for an inquiry into this subject, and at the same time let the House clearly understand that he so guarded his proposals as to make the issue of £1 notes to be solely by the Bank of England, and expressly and only on the, deposit of coin or of bullion, then he (Mr. Williamson) should most cordially support it, because he believed it would be one of great public advantage.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he would never advise an unsecured issue of £1 notes. As a very interesting debate had taken place, if the House would allow him, he would withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SLAVERY—THE SLAVE TRADE IN ASIA AND AFRICA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE,who had given Notice to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is improper for any British official to lend his sanction to, or to aid directly or indirectly in, retaining any person in or consigning any person to slavery,"
  said, that when he placed his Resolution on the Paper he had in his mind to call attention to the action of the Foreign Office and of the Consuls of Turkey and Egypt in regard to slavery in these countries rather than to any other subject; but, on looking into the matter, it seemed to him that this country was hardly in a position to make any complaints to any Foreign Government on the slavery which took place within their territories until it had entirely removed from its own the stigma of permitting slavery to exist. It had been the traditional policy of this country to put an end to slavery everywhere; but the was sorry to say that of late years it bad fallen away from that traditional policy, for he found that slavery existed in many parts of the British Dominions. A Blue Book that had recently been presented to the House, treating of Slavery in Hong Kong, revealed a state of things which it was perfectly monstrous to allow to exist under the English flag. On the Gold Coast certain protected States became, after the Ashantee War, British Colonies. One was the British Colony of the Gold Coast, and the other was the Colony of Lagos. After the assumption of Sovereignty, a Proclamation was issued in the former, putting an end to what was called debt slavery; but he was credibly informed that no such Proclamation was issued in Lagos, and at the present moment there was a considerable amount of that debt slavery existing within that Colony. Then, with respect to the protected Malay States, not one word was said in the Blue Books presented of late years as regarded the slavery which they knew existed there. But there appeared in The Times of March 25 a letter from Sir Benson Maxwell, who had long been Chief Justice in these protected States, in which be stated that—
  "We govern as absolutely—nay, more absolutely—than any Crown Colony. The Malays
  1712
  have two kinds of slaves, the ordinary menial creature, and the debtor slave. There is no good reason why slavery in any form should be tolerated in our Malay possessions."
  After that letter had appeared in The Times, a Question was put to the Under Secretary for the Colonies respecting it, and the hon. Gentleman then said that the Colonial Office was about to call the attention of the Governors of these Colonies to debtor slavery. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped that had been done, and that they should speedily hear that not only debtor slavery, but all slavery, had ceased in these Colonies. Again, in North Borneo, which was now a State affiliated to the British Empire, provisional regulations had just been laid down respecting slaves. One was to the effect that all slaves absconding would be for the present returned to their masters, unless they could purchase their freedom, or showed that they had been cruelly treated. He hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would take these regulations into his serious consideration. The state of things existing in Hong Kong was a disgrace to this country; the Free Trade, which was said to account for its progress, included free trade in slaves; indeed, the place was literally an entrepôt for slavery in the East. The statements showing this were made by Chief Justice Smale and other authorities, and they were quite sufficient to justify us in demanding that the system should be put an end to at once. It might be inferred that Chief Justice Smale had done his best to induce the Attorney General of the Colony to institute prosecutions, and the Attorney General appeared to have held that there was no use in doing so in the present state of the law. But the law in Hong Kong was precisely the same as it was in this Metropolis; that was the effect of Ordinances passed in 1843 and 1845. A Report had been made to Chief Justice Smale by Mr. Francis, a barrister, who said that relatively there was little or no family life in Hong Kong among the Chinese, and, therefore, no legitimate demand for either adopted male children or for female domestic servitude; that from three-fourths to five-sixths of the Chinese women in Hong Kong were prostitutes or lived directly by prostitution; that the bulk of these prostitutes were slaves bought and trained up at considerable

  1713
  expense for the purpose; owned there, at Canton, or Macao; prostituted for the sole profit of their owners; redeemable only by purchase, and rarely able to purchase their freedom; that every Chinese woman who was not in the actual practice of prostitution engaged, if she could get the means, in buying and rearing girls for the work; that Singapore, Australia, and San Francisco were supplied from Hong Kong with prostitutes, kept women, and concubines; that the profits of this trade were so great and the demand so strong that Chinese men and women were daily tempted into a career of open crime as kidnappers of women and children to supply the demand, not sufficiently supplied by the breeders; that there was a veritable slave class, and a genuine slave trade carried on in Hong Kong, and that on a very large scale indeed; that the prosecutions under the local Ordinances only touched the fringe of this garment of crime—only the abuses that had grown out of this tolerated slavery and slave trade; and that until this slave holding and slave dealing were entirely suppressed, the grosser abuses arising out of them and incidental to them—kidnapping of women and children—could never be put an end to. Girls of 13 or 14 were brought from Canton or elsewhere, and delivered according to bargain, and as a regular matter of business, for large sums of money, which went to their owners, and frequently, it would appear, to their own parents. Their regular earnings went to the same gaolers, and the unfortunate creatures were subjects of speculation to regular traders residing beyond our jurisdiction, There were from 18,000 to 20,000 prostitutes in Hong Kong, and from 4,000 to 5,000 respectable Chinese women. Mr. Francis said—
  "When some of the girls are sent away on account of age, new ones are got from Canton. There are about eight or ten changes a year (among 20 girls); they remove into other Chinese brothels or go hack to Canton. No woman is kept in a first class Chinese brothel after 24 years of age. Then, if they are not married, the parents (pocket mothers) take them away. What becomes of them is not known. They become, perhaps, hairdressers, servants, or prostitutes in other brothels. If these girls are not slaves in every sense of the word, there is no such thing as slavery in existence. If this buying and selling for the purpose of training female children up for this fife is not slave-dealing, there never was such a thing as slave-dealing in this world."
  1714
  In October, 1879, Chief Justice Smale, from his place on the Bench, called attention to a placard offering rewards for the detention or restoration of a slave girl, and he said—
  "Has Cuba or has Peru ever exhibited more palpable, more public evidence of the existence of generally recognized slavery in these hotbeds of slavery than such placards do?"
  Writing in October, 1879, Chief Justice Smale said—
  "The more I penetrate below the polished surface of our civilization, the more convinced am I that the broad undercurrent of life here is more like that in the Southern States of America when slavery was dominant, than it resembles the all-pervading civilization of England. Nothing less powerful than a Commission, with legislative powers to investigate and to examine on oath, will ever lay bare the evil which, from suggestions I have received, I believe to underlie our seemingly fair surface. My suggestion that the mild intervention of the law should be invoked was ignored. It was also met by the assertion that custom has so sanctioned the evil in this Colony, that they are above the reach of law, and that by custom the slavery was mild. I must leave it to the Government to decide whether there shall or shall not be investigation, and whether the status in quo of public morals in this Colony in these particulars shall be allowed to continue as one of the many evils which neither law nor legislation can cope with. That is a question which, fortunately, is not within the province of the Judge; it is for the statesman only to decide."
  And in another communication he said—
  "I take shame to myself that the appalling extent of kidnapping, buying, and selling slaves, for what I may call ordinary servile purposes, and the buying and selling young females for worse than ordinary slavery, has not presented itself before to me in the light it ought. It seems to me that it has been recognized and accepted as an ordinary outturn of Chinese habits, and thus that, until special attention has been excited, it has escaped public notice. The practice is on the increase. It is in this port and in this Colony especially that the so-called Chinese custom prevails. Under the English flag slavery, it has been said, does not, cannot ever be. Under that flag it does exist in this Colony, and is, I believe, at this moment more openly practised than at any former period of its history."
  [The hon. Member read the text of a bill of sale under which a boy had been sold, and also the statement made by a Chinese girl of 14, who, at the age of 11, had been sold by her parents to a Chinaman, who in Hong Kong sold her to a young Chinese gentleman, who took her to his family house, from which she ran away, because she was beaten by her mistress.] He observed that there was a disposition to represent that these girls were well

  1715
  treated, and were benefited rather than injured by being thus dealt with. On that point he would quote from a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Smale in a case that came before his Court. The victim was brought into Court in the arms of an Inspector of Police. She could not stand, and was placed in a chair, much emaciated, with pale and hollow cheeks, to the eye of a non-medical man almost dying; and she then narrated the history of her sufferings. This child, of about 13 years of age, lost her father, and about a year ago her mother sold her to someone, who brought her to Hong Kong and sold her to the female prisoner. The female prisoner beat her very often, sometimes with a rattan, and sometimes with firewood, taken from the ordinary bundles of split firewood, perhaps two or three times a week. She was beaten with firewood on the 3rd of November last, when her leg was broken. She could not walk even now. Some time after that the female prisoner burnt her on the arm and hand with a hot crimping-iron. The little girl showed eight places where the marks of the burning remained. One neighbour described the beating on the 3rd of November last—that the little girl was tied up by her hands to a bamboo, which hung from the ceiling, by the clothes line by the male prisoner, and that she was beaten by the woman with a piece of firewood, described as being about 2 feet long and 2 inches in diameter. This witness saw the female prisoner strike the little girl two or three times on one of her legs; then the man struck the little girl, still tied up; and he then untied her, and on the support of her being tied up failing her the little girl fell down. It would be said, perhaps, that this was an isolated case; but Chief Justice Smale was not of that opinion. He said—
  "I fear that, though it may be pre-eminently atrocious, hundreds, nay, thousands, of cases of a like kind have existed in this Colony and under the British flag."
  In Hong Kong a regular Slave Market existed for the purpose of supplying Australia and California. The price was various—bought in Hong Kong, the women cost from$50 to$150; and when sold in California, they were to be disposed of for from$250 to$350. That was stated in evidence in the course of a trial at Hong Kong. In such a matter
  1716
  the public opinion of an Eastern Colony was sure to be wrong, and the view taken of it by the Chinese might be gathered from a Petition published in the Blue Book. The petitioners (Natives) set forth that the decisions of the Lord Chief Justice had "put all Native residents of Hong Kong in a state of extreme terror;" the merchants and wealthy classes fearing that they might be found guilty of an indictable offence, and the low-class people that they might be deprived of a means to preserve their lives—that was, by selling children to be domestic servants. Now, his hon. Friend might, perhaps, argue that there was a defence for that state of things; and, if he did so, would probably take the line that the adoption of children was for their advantage, and that they were educated as domestic servants at Hong Kong. But there was the authority of the Chief Justice of the Colony to the effect that very few of these women became domestic servants, and that the children who were brought to Hong Kong were sold from one home to another, till at last they were exported to Australia and California. His hon. Friend, who had so often raised his voice on behalf of humanity, would, he was sure, not defend such a system now that he was in Office. He need say no more on this subject; the facts he had brought forward were incontestable, and he only hoped that the Government would do all in their power to prevent Hong Kong from becoming an entrepôt for the most infamous slavery.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought that the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Northampton for bringing this important question under the consideration of the House—a question, indeed, second in importance to none of those ordinarily brought under their notice. But he desired, before the Under Secretary for the Colonies made a full reply to the speech of the hon. Member, to point out some curious mistakes which the hon. Member for Northampton had made in his statement. In the first place, as regarded our Possessions in West Africa, he seemed to think that Lagos and the Gold Coast became protected Territories after the Ashantee War. Now, they never were protected Territories at all; but they were Crown Colonies long before the Ashantee War, and no slavery had existed in them for many years. The hon. Member com-

  1717
  plained that no Proclamation against slavery had been issued in Lagos; but there was no reason why any such Proclamation should have been issued, in as much as the law of England against slavery always was in force. Some States, however, bordering on the Gold Coast, we did take under our protection after the Ashantee War, and in these domestic slavery was being gradually extinguished under the conditions imposed by Lord Carnarvon. The result of Lord Carnarvon's efforts had been most satisfactory; and, as far as he (Sir Henry Holland) knew, no complaints of the existence of slavery in those protected States had been received at the Colonial Office, nor had the hon. Member for Northampton brought forward any cases. Then, as regarded the Malay States, the hon. Member had quoted from a letter of Sir Benson Maxwell, whom he stated to have been the late Chief Justice of those States. But Sir Benson Maxwell was Chief Justice of Singapore and the Straits Settlements, and had no jurisdiction over the protected Malay States. Nor had the Colonial Government, so far as he (Sir Henry Holland) knew, such absolute jurisdiction over those States as to enable them directly to enforce the abolition of domestic slavery there. But it was well known that the late Secretary of State for the Colonies took most active steps to check domestic slavery there, and those efforts had been attended with considerable success. Then, as regarded the new Company in North Borneo—as he (Sir Henry Holland) had ventured to point out in a former debate—the Charter imposed with regard to slavery the only practicable conditions which could be imposed. The Company were bound to use all their efforts to put an end, as soon as possible, to the system of domestic slavery. They could not have been called upon to put an end at once to an institution which was firmly rooted in the country, and which had existed there for years. Lastly, as regarded Hong Kong, he (Sir Henry Holland) entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton in his strong condemnation of the abominable practice of selling young Chinese girls for the purposes of prostitution, and he trusted that the Colonial Office would use their best endeavours to stamp out that practice. But that practice, however iniquitous, was entirely
  1718
  different from the system of slavery; although, judging from what the hon. Member had said, it would almost seem as if the Chief Justice, Sir John Smale, must have confounded that system of selling for prostitution with the question of slavery, from which it was really quite distinct. It did not, however, appear whether the bill of sale, which the hon. Member read to the House, was brought before the Chief Justice in his judicial capacity. If it had been, it might possibly have been held to be null and void, and then those who relied upon it would have failed. But, at all events, as regarded slavery, the hon. Member was forced to admit that the law of England prevailed in Hong Kong; and if any ease had been brought into Court, the presiding Judge would have been bound to act on that law and to free the slave. If, then, any fault was to be found, it was not in the law, but in the fact that sufficient care was not taken to see that the law was put in force. No evidence, however, was produced by the hon. Member to show that there was any failure in this respect; and even if there were, it would not bring the case within the terms of the Resolution before the House. But, although the question of slavery was immediately brought before the House, a question which he had shown to be quite distinct from that of Chinese Prostitution, he could not conclude without again expressing his earnest hope that the Colonial Office would not relax in any efforts to check that iniquitous traffic, and would not hesitate to introduce and enforce any legislation which might be found necessary for that end.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it was matter for great satisfaction that there should be a discussion on Slavery at a time when that horrid institution was showing a new activity, and when we had just received information with regard to it from all parts of the world. That the Slave Trade was increasing at the present time was beyond doubt. From Jedda, in the Red Sea, our Consul reported that the stock of slaves was so increased by importation that prices had gone down 50 per cent, and that he could buy any number he pleased. From other quarters they had news which proved that the Circassian and Georgian slave dealings were also increasing. This was the White Slave Trade, and

  1719
  many of those were as fair and as lovely as the handsomest of our own people. That this trade was nourishing was chiefly due to the preference which the Turks had shown for the Circassian law with regard to slavery over their own. According to the Circassian law, the children born of slaves were themselves slaves, whereas, according to the Turkish law, the children of slaves were not slaves; The Turks, therefore, who were engaged in a general traffic in domestic slavery, habitually purchased large numbers of Circassians, especially children, and those children, being born in slavery, were themselves slaves. He reminded the House that just a year ago a Circassian female slave sought refuge from ill-treatment in the British Consulate at Larissa. In taking part in this debate his deliberate object was to encourage those of Her Majesty's representatives in different parts of the world who did what they could at all times to uphold the doctrine of this country in reference to freedom, and to show them that when they took that course they would have the sympathy and support of the House of Commons. He was aware of the great difficulty which surrounded those who were resident in a country in which domestic slavery was practically universal; but he also knew something of what could be done, and was persuaded of the great importance in the eyes of our Representatives of having, not an evanescent, but a persistent encouragement from this House and from the people of this country when they set themselves with discretion, but with firmness, against the institution of Slavery. He did not wish to discourage efforts so praiseworthy and zealous which had long been made, and which were now being made, by the gallant Naval Forces of this country to annihilate slavery; but he had long been convinced that we should never succeed in the abolition of slavery unless our efforts, which were entirely directed against the supply of slaves, were devoted more earnestly and more thoroughly than they had been against the demand for slaves. In this case at Larissa there was no question of the ex-territoriality of the Vice Consulate. The Civil Governor told Mr. Longworth that this female slave was not amenable to the local laws while in the Consulate, but that when she went out
  1720
  she might be lawfully seized and restored to her owner. Upon hearing that, Mr. Longworth called the girl, and, in his own words, "told her plainly that she must return to her master." The cause of freedom would be advanced if that House would join in reproving Mr. Longworth for this flagrant disregard of the rights of this woman and the British flag. The Consul said—"The excitement and terror caused by my words on this poor woman were beyond description." He contrasted Mr. Longworth's dealings in this matter with that of the Vice Consul at Angora in a case which occurrred lately of a slave girl named Hosheda. Her owner was about to sell her to some nomad Kurds, and she took refuge at the British Vice Consulate. Lord Granville telegraphed—"If the girl takes refuge at the Vice Consulate she should not be given up." It would be easy to quote much evidence to show that slavery was practically universal in European and Asiatic Turkey and in Egypt. There was a public Slave Market at Mecca, and there was a Slave Trade carried on by private brokers in every city of the Turkish and Persian Empires, including Egypt. Our operations, he held, ought to be directed against the demand for slaves. They were attempting the impossible when they supposed they could accomplish the abolition of slavery by attacking the traffic in the most remote parts of Africa from which black slaves were originally imported, while in every Mussulman city in the world, except in India and Algeria, there was a rapid and a constant and a certain demand for slaves from whatever quarter they might come. What a most painful contrast there was between effort and result, when we compared the brave energy of Captain Brownrigg with the fearful report that not fewer than 8,000 mutilated males, the survivors of 40,000 who had been subjected to the same cruelty, were annually imported into Turkey and Egypt. Consul Burton truly said that closing the Red Sea and hanging eunuch-manufacturers would not arrest slave importation into Egypt and Turkey, and that the absolute abolition of the legal status of slavery was the only effectual measure to adopt. He trusted the House would be of that opinion, and that the best efforts of the Government would be directed to that end. He believed that

  1721
  he had seen slaves imported under the British flag from Egypt to Turkey and from Turkey to Morocco, the slaves being entered as servants of the dealers with whom they were travelling. The Representative of Portugal reported that from the single province of Mozambique there was an average export of from 2,000 to 4,000 slaves per annum. There could be no doubt that two great centres of the Slave Trade were the cities known as "Mecca the venerated and Medina the resplendent," where, by an exception to the capitulations, no Power could place Consuls. Slavery was practised all over the coast of the Persian Gulf. It was not uncommon for slaves to take refuge on British vessels in those waters; but they were sometimes restored to their owners on the recommendation of the British political Residents. In fact, his observation led him to believe that a fugitive slave seeking refuge in a British ship had a better chance of escape if the British Crown had no Representative on the shore from which he had fled. In conclusion, he expressed an earnest hope that the European Powers would make strenuous efforts to procure the abolition of the status of slavery. He trusted all the Powers of Europe would unite with England in adopting a more robust attitude in opposition to slavery, so that we might hope, at no very distant date, to secure the abolition of that most grievous traffic.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies would answer that which formed the main portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He should like to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) on one point that had not been touched by the hon. Member for Northampton. The first complaint of the hon. Member for Salford was that there had not been a general distribution of Slave Trade Papers. Previous to the year 1851, 2,000 Copies of those Papers were printed. The expense did not seem to be justified by the amount of interest taken in those Papers by the public. The number of the Copies was reduced in 1852. Alterations were made in the number of printed Copies in subsequent years. From 1862 to the present year about 900 Copies had been
  1722
  ordered. If another change was to be made on the subject, he thought it ought to be this—that, in all cases, such Papers only as were asked for should be delivered. The hon. Member for Salford made an attack, not based upon any evidence, upon Consul Longworth. The fact was, that a very large number of slaves had been emancipated through the exertions of that gentleman. That was shown by the Papers themselves. As regarded domestic slaves employed, or seeking refuge on board British merchant vessels in territorial waters of States in which the status of slavery was recognized by law, the language of the Motion was so vague that, if adopted, it would prevent the restoration by a Naval or Consular officer of any fugitive slave to his master, whatever might be the circumstances of the case. If such a rule were adopted it would be in violation of the principles of International Law; domestic slaves would flock to our ships; enormous claims for compensation would arise; and riots and hostilities would necessarily ensue. In the discussion which took place in 1876 on the Slave Trade Circular, the present Judge Advocate said—
  "The Attorney General had argued that merchant ships were liable to the law of the territory in whose waters they were—a proposition which no one denied."
  And the present Home Secretary said—
  "The first Circular was founded on a supposed obligation on the part of a ship to submit to the local law of the port. If that was so, all he could say was that they reduced the Queen's ships to the condition of a merchant vessel, because that was the situation of a merchant vessel."
  "Merchant vessels were not extra-territorial within the waters of Foreign States." As regarded British merchant vessels, it was well known that a slave did not obtain his freedom by having been on board a private ship, and that a slave who had come to this country or who had been on board a British ship on the high seas, when he returned to the place where he had been a slave, resumed, on so doing, his condition as a slave. It could scarcely be supposed, therefore, that the Motion was intended to apply to cases in which fugitive slaves were returned by Her Majesty's Naval and Consular officers to the local authorities, although thereby "retained in or consigned to domestic slavery." It might be that what was

  1723
  meant was that no British official in whom might be vested the exercise of jurisdiction over Natives in a country where the status of domestic slavery existed should recognize such status, and give any decision whereby such Natives should be retained in or consigned to slavery. But when could that happen? If the hon. Member referred to the probability of some of the officers of the Borneo Company being made British Consuls while the status of domestic slavery was recognized by the law of that country, and would point out that officers might be called upon to enforce that law while holding Her Majesty's Consular commission, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would explain that the status of domestic slavery would only exist pending its gradual extinction among the Natives. There were Courts of Justice for the Natives, in which that status would, no doubt, be recognized by the judicial officers who might preside over them. There would necessarily be also Courts of Justice for Foreigners, and in these the status of slavery would, of course, not be recognized. It was not contemplated that Consular appointments should be conferred on any officer of the Company who would preside over the Courts of Justice established for the Natives; consequently, the state of things which the hon. Member deprecated would not arise, as no officer of the Company, holding Her Majesty's Consular commission, would be called upon to recognize the status of domestic slavery, or have it in his power to retain in, or consign anybody to, slavery. In conclusion, he could only say that this subject was not only of general interest, but was one of the highest interest that could be brought before the House. No one could ever maintain that hon. Members were not entitled to bring the subject before the House from time to time; and certainly nothing but good could result from the minds of hon. Members being directed to it. It had always been the policy of this country, and he believed it would continue to be its policy, to take steps for the suppression of slavery.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he could not regret that the subject had been brought before the House. The Blue Book dealing with this question showed that a system of slavery had been practised in the neighbourhood of Hong Kong, not only for domestic purposes,
  1724
  but also, in the case of women, for much viler uses. The highest praise was due to the Governor—Sir John Pope Hennessey—for the efforts which he had made to counteract these evils. It was true, as the Governor had pointed out, that a distinction should be drawn between the binding of boys and girls to domestic service, which was practised in that part of the world, and actual slavery. But the Governor had done all he could to vindicate English ideas and to prevent the importation into an English Colony of Chinese notions on the question of domestic service, and had laid down the principle that the parent was entitled to the support and aid of his children. There could be no doubt that slavery did exist in Hong Kong, although it was prohibited by English law. He trusted that the inquiry which was going to be held by Lord Kimberley into that matter would be made by impartial persons. He attached considerable importance to that debate, because he thought there were indications that we were not so vigorous in our efforts against slavery as we formerly were.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in his statement that the Government viewed the purport of the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton in a spirit of friendship. It would be admitted, he (Mr. Courtney) thought, that it had always been the desire of recent Governments to use their influence to prevent, not only slavery, but everything approaching thereto. The hon. Member for Northampton did not appear, however, to be of that opinion; and he had brought a charge against the Government which seemed to have no foundation whatever. He must point out to the House that the hon. Member had brought an extraordinary accusation against the Government. He said that he was credibly informed that slavery existed in Lagos. But he had not deemed it necessary to adduce a single fact or circumstance in support of that statement. How was it possible that the Government could meet such a charge as that? He should have thought that it would have been the duty of the hon. Member, before bringing such a charge, to make inquiry as to its correctness. It was the belief of the Government that slavery had ceased to exist, not only in Lagos, but in all the other places to

  1725
  which the hon. Member referred. Every attempt to revive it had been checked and punished by all recent Governments; but if the hon. Member furnished them with new facts they would cause further inquiry to be made, and take steps for the extinction of slavery where it was found to exist. The same observations applied regarding the alleged existence of slavery in the Malay States. The hon. Member complained that there were no Papers on the subject. But several Papers were published in reference to the West Coast of Africa in 1875, and many others dealing with other places had also been published from time to time. The hon. Member surely could not require that Papers on that subject should be issued year by year, when no fresh case of any description had arisen. As regarded the question of slavery in the Malay States, however, some Correspondence with the Governor of that district was in existence, and would be shortly laid before the House. The hon. Member for Northampton said he was going to rest his observations upon a substantial foundation—upon the remarks of Chief Justice Smale, and not upon the statement of any newspaper correspondent. He thought the hon. Member ought to know the value of newspaper correspondents, though he seemed to speak somewhat slightingly of them. The fact was, the hon. Member used the word "slavery" with some degree of looseness. His remarks chiefly referred to Hong Kong, and to the slavery in existence there. But, as a fact, the state of things in Hong Kong, though, no doubt, deplorable, did not amount to slavery. Slavery he defined to be a condition of life in which one person was held under the authority and compelled to work for and fulfil the will of another in such a way that the subjugated person could not escape, which condition, also, the law of the country enforced. He defined slavery so, and so, indeed, it was. Nothing of the kind existed in Hong Kong, because in that city the English law prevailed. The hon. Member for Northampton considered the whole strength of his position lay in the fact that people were so bought and sold for the purpose of prostitution. Now, there were special laws in Hong Kong affecting purchases and sales for that purpose. It was enacted in 1875 that the sale or purchase of a
  1726
  woman or child for the purpose of prostitution, or the harbouring of any woman or child for that purpose, should be a misdemeanour. Every person, therefore, who affected to buy or sell, or to hold out that any woman or child had been bought or sold for the purpose of prostitution, was guilty of a misdemeanour. There was a vast number of people who were bought and sold for other purposes, and such sales constituted no offence. It was so in England. They all knew of the common accusation of husbands selling their wives in Smithfield, and how the practice was not unknown even at the present day. The transaction, however, was a pure nullity. That was the state of facts as at present existed in Hong Kong, and perhaps it might be the concomitant of a very dangerous state of society; but when they remembered the situation of Hong Kong, placed in the centre of a teeming population that could with difficulty obtain a livelihood, they could not be surprised at it. In quoting the Petition of the Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong, with the view of showing how rotten public opinion there was, the hon. Member for Northampton omitted that part of the prayer in which they condemned the purchase of free people for the purposes of prostitution, and prayed that kidnapping and selling for such purposes should be severely punished. If the hon. Member had quoted this passage, he would have answered this part of his case, for the Chinese were most eager in their desire to help the Government in checking the evils which they admitted to exist. He admitted most fully the existence of the practice of buying and selling children for the purposes of adoption and apprenticeship; but he would point out that none who were so adopted could be held in servitude against their will, that they could escape, that they could apply to the Courts, and that anyone could apply on their behalf. The fact of their having been sold, Lord Kimberley had pointed out, did not deprive them of any rights. Undoubtedly the position of children so placed was one of peril, which required to be safeguarded; and his noble Friend had suggested for consideration whether the entering into agreements should be made a misdemeanour, whether specified conditions should be exacted, whether all transactions should be registered, or

  1727
  whether some combination of these provisions should be adopted, in order to prevent abuses. The Government would continue, not only in the task of preventing slavery, but also in doing what they could do to avert the growth of a servile class of a different race from the dominant class, conscious as they were of the dangers that were inseparable from such a condition of things.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he must confess he was generally disappointed at the tone adopted by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and he could not help comparing the hon. Member's official utterances with those he used before he accepted Office. The hon. Member's speech was a half-hearted condemnation, amounting almost to a defence, of gross abuses. He was sure the reply of the hon. Gentleman would produce a general feeling of disappointment in the country, and he regretted the Government would not give a frank condemnation of the monstrous practices prevailing in Hong Kong. Whether there was legal slavery or not, there was practically slavery in its worst form; and the more the actual condition of things was realized the more would the country feel that the hon. Member for Northampton deserved thanks for having called attention to it.
  MR. CROPPERsaid, that it was satisfactory that the Colonial Office had laid before the House the result of their investigations into that matter, and that it was not merely drawn from them by the investigations of any private individual. Lord Kimberley had expressed a desire that a full and trustworthy inquiry should be made into the facts and into what measures, if any, should be taken to remove the evils which might be brought to light. He had great confidence in Sir John Pope Hennessy and Sir John Smale, and he fully believed that what they would see was that in some way the system of Colonial Slavery, which it could not be denied existed at Hong Kong, would be abolished. The great evil of retaining girls in houses of ill-repute at Hong Kong was a much larger question, and it could only he removed when the question as to contagious diseases at Hong Kong was thoroughly gone into. He was convinced that the feeling expressed in England some years ago on the subject of the Slave Circular had had a good
  1728
  effect, and that it was now a point of honour in the Navy that wherever the British flag waved slavery was to be discouraged.

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS—PRIVATE SECRETARIES TO MINISTERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,who had given Notice of a Motion—
  "That the practice of appointing clerks of the Treasury Office, and other gentlemen who have acted as private secretaries to Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer, to important posts in Departments of the Civil Service other than the Treasury, is calculated to discourage zeal and industry in such Departments to the prejudice of the Public Service,"
  said: Being precluded by the Forms of the House from moving the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper, I rise now for the purpose of calling attention to the question, which is a very important one. I wish to disclaim, at the very outset, any desire to make any special attack upon the present Administration, because I am not aware that the practice which I ask the House to disapprove is followed by the Ministers who are now in power more than it has been followed by any of their Predecessors. Under all Governments it has been pretty much the same. My present object is not to blame or to disparage the Members of any Government, past or present, however much I may he, upon other grounds, opposed to a particular Administration. Still less do I wish to make an attack upon any of the gentlemen who have been exceptionally promoted, or to detract in any degree from the reputation they have acquired for more than ordinary strength of character, ability, and zeal. I am very ready to admit that they may all be considerably above the average. In fact, it is obvious that they must be able and qualified men; the interest of the Ministers themselves secures that in the selection of Private Secretaries they will have regard to those qualities of readiness and dispatch in business, tact, urbanity and firmness, and a certain aptitude for administrative work, which are all of the first importance in the direction of a Department, and without which they would scarcely be efficient assistants to a hard-worked Minister. There is, therefore, no question of their character or their qualifications; and the Motion

  1729
  which I placed upon the Paper was intended to be far removed from anything of a personal nature. I desired to bring it forward solely in the interest of the Civil Service, with which for years I was myself connected, and in which I must always take a lively interest. The Civil Service Departments may be divided into two great classes—the first class, comprising the Departments of Secretaries of State, which may be called the administrative and spending Departments; the other class, including the Revenue Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue, which are not presided over by Secretaries of State. Intermediate between these two classes is the Post Office, which partakes of the character of both, being at once a Revenue and a spending Department. And over all is the Treasury, the centre of administration and of patronage. The Departments of the first class are strong and influential; strong in the fact that their own Chiefs are Cabinet Ministers, able to protect the interests of their subordinates, and influential from the social position and connections of large numbers of their members. These Departments have, accordingly, little to complain of in consequence of the practice to which I refer. On the contrary, they sometimes, but only occasionally, receive some of those undue advantages of which the Treasury itself keeps the lion's share. A case in point, which. I mention only incidentally, is that of Mr. Mitford, a clerk in the Home Office of 12 or 13 years' service, but who, having acted for some time as Private Secretary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt), was appointed by him, some six weeks ago, to be a Commissioner of Prisons, and the colleague of an experienced officer, Admiral Hornby, to the exclusion and discouragement of experienced Inspectors and Governors. The Home Office, therefore, does not suffer much, neither does the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, or the War Office; although there was a case in connection with the War Office, not many years ago, which gave rise to a discussion in this House. The Post Office, again, is able to offer a considerable resistance to any outrageous encroachments upon its own field attempted by anyone outside the Treasury. Thus, when some years ago the noble
  1730
  Marquess, now the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), but formerly Postmaster General, after having been Under Secretary of State for War, attempted to appoint Mr. Hobart, a junior in the War Office, who was his Private Secretary, to one of the most lucrative postmasterships in the Kingdom, the design had to be given up. But when the encroachment is made by the Treasury itself, the Post Office sees its best prizes snatched away from its own officers, and given to junior outsiders. But the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments are still less influential, and their Chiefs are not Cabinet Ministers. The appointments they offer to the rapacity of outsiders are more numerous and more tempting to those who can strongly influence the actions of the chief Ministers of the Treasury; and these Departments, accordingly, are the principal sufferers. But these Departments are also the largest; and the discontent engendered by appointments such as I refer to is more extensively propagated, and, in its effects, more generally injurious to the Civil portion of the Public Service. Let me now give the most prominent cases of Private Secretaries of Ministers who have been appointed to posts of profit in the Civil Service. What are these appointments? I will content myself with a limited number of them; all notable cases, and all still in being. They are Mr. Herbert Murray, who was a clerk in the Treasury and Private Secretary to a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who was appointed Assistant Paymaster General and a Queen's Remembrancer in Ireland, and is now Secretary of Customs, at a salary of£1,400 a-year; Mr. Algernon West, Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, Prime Minister, appointed Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and recently promoted to be Chairman of that Board—salaries,£1,200 and£2,000; Mr. Walter S. Northcote, who was not in the Civil Service at all, but was Private Secretary to Sir Stafford Northcote, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed Commissioner of Inland Revenue—salary,£1,200 a-year; Mr. Charles G. Turner, a clerk in the Treasury, appointed Accountant and Comptroller General of Inland Revenue—salary,£1,000 a-year; Mr. Stevenson Arthur Blackwood, a clerk in

  1731
  the Treasury, appointed Secretary to the General Post Office—salary,£2,000 a-year; Mr. Algernon Turner, clerk in the Treasury and Private Secretary to Lord Beaconsfield, Prime Minister, appointed Assistant Secretary at the General Post Office—salary,£1,500 a-year; Mr. (now Sir) Rivers Wilson, clerk in the Treasury and Private Secretary to Mr. Lowe, Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed Controller of the National Debt—salary,£1,800 a-year; Mr. C. W. Fremantle, clerk in the Treasury and Private Secretary to Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed Deputy Master of the Mint—salary,£1,200 a-year; and Mr. C. L. Ryan, who was a clerk in the Treasury and Private Secretary to the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, was appointed to the post of Assistant Controller and Auditor General, with a salary of£1,500 a-year. I do not wish to canvas any of these appointments; but, in order to show what may he said as to some of them. I may mention that, in regard to Mr. Ryan, he was not originally in the Treasury, but was in the Audit Office, and was not transferred to the Treasury for promotion, but was made Private Secretary. Whether he was an efficient Private Secretary or not, it is not for me to inquire; but he was afterwards appointed to the post of Assistant Controller over the heads of a considerable number of very efficient men, under whom he had previously served in a very subordinate capacity, to do very inferior work, and he was appointed, notwithstanding a protest sent in to the Treasury by these officers. The House will readily understand that Members of the Civil Service, knowing my own quondam connection with it, and knowing that they may, with perfect confidence and safety, make to me any communication they think fit as to their grievances—knowing, also, I am at least as well able to appreciate them as any other Member of the House, and that no man is more qualified to enter into them, or more desirous of having them removed—knowing this, they have, during the last two years, sent an immense number of representations to me. I have never been on the look-out for grievances. One has enough to do, in all conscience, without that; neither have I put forward a complaint at any
  1732
  time without having first assured myself that it was well founded. I think I may claim credit from the House for not having unnecessarily put forward any grievance in connection with the Service, unless it was clearly my duty to do so. When, the year before last, and again last year, I made some observations upon the Customs Department, I knew very well how well founded was that dissatisfaction which has now at last forced itself upon public attention, and is now known to the whole of the House, with regard to the re-organization attempted on its Staff. But when the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) brought forward the grievances of the Outport Officers, though I appreciated fully the hardship of their position, I contented myself with a silent vote, and did not address one single word to the House upon the matter, because I saw that it was unnecessary, as it was in perfectly safe hands. But with regard to the matter to which I now wish to draw the attention of the House, I do feel that it is my duty to appeal, not to the Government, and not to the ex-Ministers, but to the House of Commons generally, and to declare, from my own knowledge and experience in the Service, that these appointments of specially-favoured individuals, however high their qualifications, to the best posts in Departments where they have never served, and over the heads of all the Staff of those Departments, produce evil effects, which it may be difficult exactly to define, but which are none the less real, and none the less injurious. Now, Sir, I have alluded to a number of these appointments, and I might have doubled the list if I had thought fit. It is obvious that each such appointment must necessarily produce great discontent, heartburning, and disappointment in the Department invaded. If the promoters had gone within the Department itself, not one man alone would have been advanced, but through every grade below him an official would have risen in his turn, and a healthy tone would have been imparted to the entire office, with that stimulus to exertion which the sight of fair promotion is always calculated to engender. But with the introduction of an outsider from the Treasury, you have first a disappointed man in the person immediately superseded, you have discontent at every step

  1733
  in the ladder below him, where men have been baulked of anticipated promotion, and you have a sense of injustice permeating that branch of the Service which naturally tends to render the entire Staff sullen and inert. The Treasury Staff secures the whole advantage, for the man removed from Downing Street obtains for himself extraordinary advancement, and his removal secures an improvement in the position of all below him on the Treasury list. It will, Sir, be in the recollection of many hon. Members of this House that during the last Parliament the House was invited, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. John Holms), to express its opinion upon an individual case somewhat akin, but not altogether on all fours, with the case to which I allude. At that time Lord Beaconsfield saw fit to appoint a junior from the War Office to the headship of the Stationery Office—I mean Mr. Pigott. Knowing Mr. Pigott personally, I was, for his own sake, glad of his advancement, and congratulated him upon it, and I claimed for Mr. Pigott the well-earned credit of having acquitted himself singularly well in a difficult and responsible post. But the hon. Member for Hackney would have been inclined, if he had been a friend of Mr. Pigott's, to congratulate him also, and he probably would have been ready to give that gentleman the credit which is his due. But the terms of the hon. Member's Motion were—
  "That the recent appointment of Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is calculated to diminish the…interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State."
  The hon. Member pointed out that Mr. Pigott had been Private Secretary to several Under Secretaries of State, and denounced the appointment as unfair to the country, and unfair to the Civil Service. The hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. Brown), in seconding the Motion, said that the appointment must tend to discourage all those gentlemen who had been superseded, and could not be for the benefit of the Public Service. It fell to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day to say what he could in defence of his Chief. With regard to the personal qualifications of Mr. Pigott, he had not a very difficult task; but he went on to contend on the general question that—
  1734
  "It was not a necessary rule that promotion must always take place within each Department, and reasons might easily he. suggested why a man might be advantageously brought in from another Department. He would come with a fresh mind, and bring a fresh eye to bear on any abuses which might exist."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxv. 1338.]
  I am prepared to admit that there is a great deal of force and a certain amount of truth in that statement; but what did the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) say in reply? Mr. Childers said—I quote from Hansard—
  "That he was not at all disposed to regard the affair from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). At a time when they were doing their best to improve the status of the Civil Servants, it would be an unfortunate course to adopt, and altogether a departure from sound principle and common practice, if they were to say to men who had nearly reached the top of the tree:—'No matter how long your services, or how great your efficiency may be, you will not be promoted to the headship of your Department, but we shall take a junior clerk out of another office who knows nothing about the business and appoint him over you, in order to have the advantage of a fresh mind.'"
  He went on to say—
  "He did not know how far that doctrine might be carried; but if a man was to be appointed, not because of his knowledge and experience, but because he came from somewhere else, and knew nothing of the particular business he would have to discharge, then, indeed, it would be a sorry look-out for the members of the Civil Service, who entered through the painful door of Competitive Examination in the hope that if they did their duty they would be promoted to the highest offices in the Department in which they were placed."—[Ibid., 1339–40.]
  Such were the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War then, and such are his sentiments now. His action in respect of recent promotions in the War Office has been in accordance with them. Throughout that debate it was unanimously admitted that Mr. Pigott's character was of the highest; there was no imputation upon it, and no one questioned that his abilities were equal to his character. The House of Commons did not consider that question at all. It put it aside, and the decision was arrived at upon totally different grounds. The Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney was carried against the Government. And why was it carried? It was carried

  1735
  because the general sense of the House was that the appointment was given not altogether because of the qualifications of Mr. Pigott, high as they might be, but also because, over and above that, there were some kind of relations of a personal or political character between Lord Beaconsfield and Mr. Pigott or that gentleman's family, and that, but for these relations, the appointment would not have been made. Lord Beaconsfield afterwards, in his place in the House of Lords, made an explanatory statement, and emphatically denied that any such relations existed. On that explanation, and solely and only because of that contradiction, this House, with a loyalty and generous promptitude which did it honour, rescinded the vote. The House on that occasion was not only loyal and generous, but its position was strictly logical and as simple as a syllogism. Such a syllogism reduced to the simplest form would be: The appointment of a gentleman to the headship of an important office, in which he has not served, over the heads of the Staff of that Department, if made on account of his personal relations with the Minister in whose gift the appointment lies, is calculated to diminish the interest and zeal of officials employed in Public Departments of the State. That is the major premiss. The minor was this. Mr. Pigott was so appointed to be Controller of the Stationery Office. This the House accepted on the representation of the hon. Member for Hackney; and, having so accepted it, the House drew the logical conclusion in the shape of the Resolution which the hon. Member submitted. But when it was shown, as Lord Beaconsfield showed, that the minor premiss was false, the House properly abandoned its conclusion, and rescinded its vote. But what I want to point out is this—that it never abandoned its major premiss, and that, if Mr. Pigott had been Lord Beaconsfield's own Private Secretary, such a defence could not have been made, and the vote would have stood. I take it, therefore, that the vote on that occasion may be regarded as a proof that the House is prepared to condemn any such appointments, which would not have been made if the recipient of the benefit had not stood in some close personal relation to the Minister in whose gift the appoint-
  1736
  ment lay. Now, there voted on that occasion, in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney, as shown by the Division List—the Hon. Evelyn Ashley, Mr. Thomas Brassey, the Right Hon. John Bright, Lord Frederick Cavendish, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Leonard H. Courtney, Sir Charles W. Dilke, the Right Hon. John G. Dodson, Henry Fawcett, Sir Charles Forster, the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, Sir William Harcourt, Arthur Divett Hayter, Sir Henry James, Lord Kensington, G. Osborne Morgan, Anthony J. Mundella, the Right Hon. Dr. Lyon Playfair, and George Otto Trevelyan. Now, Sir, that was in the last Parliament, of which I was not a Member, and, therefore, I cannot be supposed to know anything about the individuality of the persons to whom these names belong; but the list induces me to think that many present occupants of the Treasury Bench are not altogether indisposed to give a mental adhesion to the principle of my Motion. But, Sir, it may be said by those who do not agree with the majority of the present Ministry with reference to some of their appointments, that the gentlemen promoted had served as Private Secretaries to successive Ministers of different Parties, and that, therefore, no charge of undue partiality can be brought against the Minister who actually makes the beneficial appointment, because he is promoting a gentleman who occupied the same post with regard to his Predecessor as he did with regard to himself. But I may point out that any man who makes use of that argument—and it has been made use of on former occasions—by so doing entirely misses the force of the complaint which is made. It has absolutely nothing to do with the question. What matters it to the Staff of the Customs that the man who takes the prize of their Department has been Private Secretary first to one Minister and then another? Tory patronage or Liberal patronage, it is all one to them if the Treasury Staff is benefited always at their expense. Then, again, we may be told that these gentlemen are all singularly able men, and specially qualified beyond others for the posts to which they are translated. But, surely, we are not expected to believe—and I hope the House will not believe, and I am certain the Civil Service will not

  1737
  believe—that, from some unexplained and mysterious cause, one Department is so provided with an abnormally gifted Staff, that from its own ranks it is able to furnish a regular and constant supply of officials pre-eminently fitted to occupy all the most lucrative posts in other Departments, while not a single instance can be adduced of a junior of the Customs or Inland Revenue Department being recognized as so gifted as to be fit for preferment to the Treasury itself. No, Sir; however gifted an officer in the Inland Revenue Department may be, however long and faithful his service, however fully qualified he may be, by work and experience, to obtain one of the prizes which he is legitimately entitled to hope for, he must be a man of marvellously sanguine temperament if he does not find his zeal chilled and his assiduity clogged by the consciousness that when within reach of his goal he may be called upon to place his knowledge and his capacity at the command of a junior from the Treasury, who, with half his service and none of his special experience, will supplant him in the post which he has fairly earned. It was well remarked, some three weeks ago, in an article in The Times newspaper, that—
  "The mere sense that years of labour and application may, and probably will, go for nothing in procuring promotion to the highest posts is the most serious damper to departmental zeal that can well be imagined."
  That is the result of my experience. I scarcely like to refer to a third argument—for it scarcely deserves the name of argument—in favour of some of these appointments; but I allude to it because it will possibly be put forward on this occasion—namely, that the man who has passed the whole of his service in one Department is sure to have his favourite hangers-on and favourites, who will be certain to establish a clique around him, which will influence promotion for the benefit of themselves or their friends. It is scarcely worth mentioning at all; but, I would answer, it is precisely this cliqueism of the Treasury that we object to; and, besides, an outsider is just as likely to be swayed by his likings and dislikings as another, while he cannot possibly be so well able to form a correct judgment of the qualifications of his subordinates as that man can who has watched their career for years. If
  1738
  cliqueism is what it is necessary to prevent, it is very much more necessary to prevent it in the Treasury than in any other Department. Cliqueism in a Department may produce evils, and unquestionably it has done so; but the evils produced by a clique in a Department are confided to the Department itself, whereas cliqueism in the Treasury extends its baneful influences all over the Services. In dealing with this question, I have been told that I am dealing with a difficult and a delicate question. I have endeavoured to avoid the least expression which might be calculated to irritate or provoke anything of personal feeling; and if I have made use of any expression calculated to produce such an effect, I have done so unwittingly. I have brought forward the matter, not for the purpose of attacking any Minister, or of offending any gentleman who may have been previously promoted; but solely in the interest of the Public Service. I have pointed out that the Treasury clerks who have acted as Private Secretaries are apparently endowed with abilities far exceeding those of all other clerks and Private Secretaries in the Public Service. It is a good thing for a young man in the Treasury, when a good post falls vacant, to be Private Secretary to a Minister, and to have his merits recognized; but it is not necessarily for the good of the Public Service that he should be rewarded with the prize post of another Department. It is a practice which has produced evil effects in the past, and must continue to produce evil effects as long as it is continued. I appeal, therefore, to the House of Commons—not to the present Ministry, but to the House of Commons—at least to do their duty in providing safeguards for our great Public Departments, and, by so doing, promoting the general interests of the public.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had no intention of following the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) into all he had said upon the subject, because he was quite prepared to admit that, with regard to both political Parties, very much the same system was pursued in reference to these appointments, and neither Party could reproach the other as to the course that was taken. The Government were now engaged in dealing with corrupt practices at elections, with a view of rendering electoral

  1739
  contests more pure in future; and they were imposing heavy penalties upon venal candidates and agents. Yet it nevertheless appeared that they practised analogous arts themselves in the distribution of patronage. His object, however, in rising was not to enter into the cases which had been submitted to the House by the hon. Member; but rather to call attention to a matter that occurred a very short time ago. He had no doubt that it was sometimes possible to find in a Department a man fitted for any place—a man of super-eminent ability, who was naturally fitted to fill any position. There was, however, an Order in Council which provided for the promotion of these extraordinary geniuses, so that their services should not be lost to the public. He referred to the Order in Council dated 4th of June, 1870, in reference to promotion in the Civil Service; and the 7th Rule of that Order was as follows:—
  "In ease the Chief of a Department to which a situation belongs, and the Lords of the Treasury shall consider that the qualifications in respect of knowledge and ability deemed requisite for such situation are wholly or in part professional, or otherwise peculiar, and not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service, and the said Chief of the Department shall propose to appoint thereto a person who has acquired such qualifications in other pursuits, and in case the said Chief of the Department and the Lords of the Treasury shall consider that either for the purpose of facilitating transfers from the Redundant List, or for other reason, it would be for the public interest that examination should he wholly or partially dispensed with, the Civil Service Commissioners may dispense with examination, wholly or partially, and may grant their certificate of qualification upon evidence satisfactory to them that the said person possesses the requisite knowledge and ability, and is duly qualified in respect of age, health, and character."
  He had felt it his duty, in the month of February last, to call attention, by a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, to an appointment made by him of a gentleman who had been acting in the capacity of Private Secretary to himself. That person had been appointed, in defiance of all the safeguards provided by this Rule—a person neither qualified by age, nor distinguished by ability, and not in the Public Service at all, to a position in the Post Office. If hon. Members would look at the Rule he had just read, they would see at once how far the Postmaster General, in making this appoint-
  1740
  ment, had obeyed the only Rule which could shield him from the charge of improper favouritism. The individual in question certainly did not come under the first part of the Rule or Order. There was neither any wonderful amount of knowledge or ability possessed by the gentleman who was appointed by the Postmaster General; and if it was for the public interest that an examination should be wholly or in part dispensed with, surely it was necessary that there should be some qualification as to age and so forth. Yet this person was considerably beyond the specified age, and possessed neither the qualification of ability, public service, or age. He (Mr. Warton) had put a Question to the Postmaster General on the subject, and the only answer he received was that he did not know what the age of the gentleman was. But there were hon. Members who recollected what Ministers said from time to time, and who occasionally brought them to book at a moment when it was not quite convenient to be reminded of their former statements. He had considered it his duty to move for a Return of the age of the gentleman who had obtained exemption from the stipulations of the Rule laid down in 1870. The Return was granted as far back as February last; but the Minister had not chosen to comply with it, and no steps had been taken to produce it.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down (Mr. Warton) has kindly stated that he is ready to make every allowance, both to the present and to any other Government, for the difficult circumstances under which they are required to exercise their political patronage. I regret very much that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not present to answer any attack which may be made upon him in regard to this particular question; and I can assure the House that the absence of my right hon. Friend is not intentional, but that it is simply owing to the fact that he did not expect that this question was likely to come on. I hold that no function of a Minister of State is more important than the exercise of the higher class of patronage in connection with appointments in the Civil Service, because the efficiency of the Civil Service depends mainly upon the character of the appointments which are made. From time to time these ap-

  1741
  pointments have been called in question, It is perfectly proper that that should be the case, and that, if necessary, the person who has made them should be held strictly responsible and called to account. But I would venture to say that of all the appointments which have been made by the present Government, those which have been made by the Prime Minister, although I am not here to speak upon his behalf, are the least open to any challenge whatever. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) has thought fit to make an attack upon my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General for an appointment which he has made in the Post Office, in connection with a gentleman who had previously occupied the position of his Private Secretary. It will scarcely be credited that the appointment thus called in question was not one of any important character whatever, but simply to a subordinate clerkship in the Post Office. I think I shall be perfectly within the recollection of the House, when I say that, after the explanation of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) is alone the hon. Member who continues to regard the appointment as unsatisfactory. I think there are very few Members of this House who will be of opinion that the faithful services rendered by the gentleman in question to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General did not deserve the small recognition which they have received. As I have said, the patronage of the higher class appointments in the Civil Service is a very important question. I fully recognize the force of the observation of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), that it is discouraging to any branch of the Civil Service to find that they have been deprived of their well-deserved hopes of advancement. But the appointments which have been made in the Inland Revenue Department show that the Prime Minister is by no means insensible to that consideration. For instance, the appointment of the present very able Vice Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue has, for the first time, placed a man who has fought his way from the very bottom of the Service in that responsible and important position. It is even more important still, than any other considera-
  1742
  tion that can be named, that the best man should be selected for such a post. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) has, at some length, dwelt on what he considers the unfair proportion of lucrative posts which have been awarded for political services to gentlemen connected with the Treasury. I was somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not illustrate his remarks by a reference to the Treasury itself; but it is a remarkable fact that for many years the Treasury has not had at the head of its own permanent Department a Member selected from the Treasury itself. Sir Ralph Lingen is not a Treasury man; his immediate predecessor, Mr. Hamilton, was not a Treasury man; and Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was the predecessor of Mr. Hamilton, was not a Treasury man. The reason of this has been that the head of the Treasury has felt that it was a most important object to obtain, in this responsible position, the man who was the best man for the Office; and, therefore, the Government of the day has altogether disregarded what the hon. Member has spoken of as the natural feeling of the Department in looking forward to promotion. I could illustrate the course which has been pursued still further; but I do not think that it is really necessary. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) adverted at considerable length to the harm which he said was effected by Mr. Pigott's appointment; and he has called attention to the Resolution which was passed by this House in reference to that appointment, a Resolution in favour of which I myself voted. Now, that appointment was of a most important nature, and the accusation which was made was that it was conferred not on account of service or ability, but because of the close personal relationship which existed between the Minister by whom it was made and the individual on whom it was conferred. I am not ashamed of the vote which I gave in favour of the Resolution. It appears to me to have been a most reasonable vote, if the appointment was made simply on account of personal relationship. Under such circumstances, I hold that such an appointment would be a bad appointment. At the' same time, I do not hold that it is necessarily a bad appointment because the man appointed happens to have a

  1743
  personal relationship with the Minister by whom the appointment is made. Personal relationship should, by no means, be a matter of disqualification; but the appointment should be fairly judged upon its merits, and upon its merits solely. I do not think, after the explanations that were made, that the appointment really came within the terms of the Resolution which was subsequently passed by this House, and afterwards rescinded. It appears to me that the hon. Member has also been inconsistent in the treatment of the case of Mr. Herbert Murray. It so happens that Mr. Herbert Murray never bad any personal relationship whatever with the Prime Minister. I believe that Mr. Murray was not even known to the Prime Minister, except by reputation as one of the most able of the members of the Civil Service.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I interrupt him. I did not ground anything upon the particular appointment of Mr. Herbert Murray. I only mentioned his case incidentally with other appointments.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Then I have some difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman, because I certainly understood him to complain of the appointment of Mr. Herbert Murray. I understood him to complain that Mr. Herbert Murray, not having belonged to the Department to which be was appointed, had been selected over the heads of other Civil Servants; and all I have to say is, that I do not see how the Prime Minister could have been actuated by improper partiality towards Mr. Herbert Murray, seeing that he had had no previous acquaintance with him. The appointment was made for this reason, and this reason only—that, able as the officers of the Customs are, as there were important changes in view, it was considered desirable to have a man from the outside, who should be able to view the difficult questions under consideration from a different standpoint from one who had been brought up in the Department. And I venture to say that the appointment will be justified before long. The hon. Gentleman has complained not only of appointments from the Treasury generally, but of the appointment's of Private Secretaries. The idea that Private Secretaries are gentlemen appointed
  1744
  simply because they are connections or friends of the Minister is an antiquated one, and has long since been exploded. So very much of the personal convenience of the Minister, and of the possibility of his discharging his duties, depends upon his appointing the man best fitted for the post, and best qualified to aid in the discharge of the duties of the Department, that such appointments can no longer be called in question. The Minister who has the appointment to make naturally looks out, in his own interest and convenience, for the best man he can get. I will take the case of a gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) has referred—Mr. West. Mr. West, when he was first appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as his Private Secretary, was not in the Treasury; but he was simply selected for the office of Private Secretary because, from all my right hon. Friend could learn, he was the man best fitted for the post. He discharged his duties in the most able manner, and, having proved himself to be so thoroughly qualified for that position, he was made a Commissioner of the Board of Inland Revenue; and when the post of Vice Chairman of the Board became vacant, he had so well performed his duties that Lord Beaconsfield, who had had no connection with him in a private capacity, appointed him to the vacancy.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Lord Beaconsfield refused for a long time to promote Mr. West.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The hon. Member is very ingenious in discovering a discrepancy with regard to the facts. I venture to say that anyone who knows anything about the working of the Department is fully aware that the reason why Mr. West was promoted to the Vice Chairmanship was, that he was looked upon as the best man for the post, and I will add that the appointment has been amply justified by the services which Mr. West has since rendered. I have already said that it is well Ministers should be called to account for the manner in which they discharge the important function of exercising patronage in regard to high appointments. The names which the hon. Member has read out contain those of some of the most able members of the

  1745
  Civil Service; and they afford convincing proof that the high function of patronage has, at any rate, in their case, neither been disgraced nor badly discharged. The hon. Member has referred to the case of Mr. Ryan. I appeal to every hon. Member who has sat upon the Public Accounts Committee to say how the important duties which fall to the lot of Mr. Ryan have been discharged. It would be absolutely impossible to obtain a better man. I could go through the other names which have been referred to by the hon. Member—Mr. Fremantle, Mr. Rivers Wilson, Mr. Stevenson Blackwood, and others—but all I will say is, that the Ministers who appointed them ought to be proud of having done so, and that there is nothing to regret or be ashamed of in appointing them.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to offer a few words in confirmation of the view which the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had expressed. It had been his duty for some time to act as Secretary to the Treasury; and when he arrived at the Department he found it necessary to select a Private Secretary from amongst gentlemen in the office. This gentleman was, to all appearances, adverse in politics to himself, but possessed the best qualifications for the appointment—that was to say, great experience and knowledge of the office, added to a spirit of loyalty to the Department and to the State. It was urged that the Administration might suffer from the Party politics of gentlemen appointed to these offices; but, with his experience in administration, he could say that in his Department, no matter what the politics of gentlemen might be, their one desire and object was to serve the State and their superiors in office with vigour, loyalty, and perfect diligence. During the four or five years that he was Secretary to the Treasury, he was served, and the Exchequer and the State were likewise served, by a gentleman of the highest possible credit in the position which he then occupied—a gentleman who was since promoted to the position of Secretary to the Governor General of India. This gentleman was no sympathizer with any of his (Mr. W. H. Smith's) political views, but was, on the contrary, his political opponent; but, notwithstanding that, he served, him with fidelity as Private Secretary, in
  1746
  which capacity he regarded him not so much as he did in the light of an important officer doing his duty to the Government and the State. He understood the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) to refer to Mr. Herbert Murray, who was an officer in the Treasury Department in Dublin. It was a matter of great regret to him (Mr. W. H. Smith), when he heard that it was the intention of the present Government to remove that gentleman from the position which he held in Dublin, and which he exercised with so much advantage to the public. It would be a very hard thing, indeed, if, because an officer had done his duty to the State in one position, he was not to be promoted to another—in other words, that Mr. Herbert Murray should be disqualified for any other position in the Public Service. Reference had been made to the fact that gentlemen who had filled positions in one office had been promoted to positions in another. He would only quote the case of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who was advanced to his present position from that of Under Secretary in the Education Department. This was an instance of the advantage of being able to remove gentlemen from one Department and utilize their services in another. He could say from his own experience that it was very much to the advantage of the Public Service that it should be possible to move gentlemen in this way, and that there should be no exclusive right that promotion should follow from step to step in any one Department. If a contrary rule were laid down, the Public Service would, in his opinion, suffer exceedingly; and, therefore, he trusted that the House would give its sanction to the principle that the responsibility in these matters must lie with the Minister in whom the patronage rested. If that Minister made a mistake in the exercise of his patronage, the consequences of that mistake would fall upon himself. He ventured to say that, if mistakes were occasionally made, it was better, on the whole, that some should occur than that it should be the recognized right of any Department to have a monopoly of the highest posts in that Department. He abstained from expressing any opinion whatever upon the appointment which the Prime Minister had thought it right to make,

  1747
  because that was a matter which must remain for his discretion alone; but he might be permitted to express his regret that Mr. Herbert Murray should be removed from Dublin, because he was doing good work there; but, in as much as the responsibility in that matter rested with the Prime Minister, he considered that the present arrangement ought not to be disturbed.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, when he saw right hon. Gentlemen rising to take part in the discussion of this subject, which naturally excited the sympathies both of the actual occupants of Office and those who expected to be in Office again, it occurred to him that it was time to give way. The present was a case in which it was likely that the old Parliamentary saying would be verified, that when the Front Benches did agree their unanimity was wonderful. They had before them an example of the great value which the Government attached to this very important class of patronage, and he was not surprised at that, because it was, undoubtedly, an important branch of the patronage of which they were the dispensers. He by no means wished to convey that he believed in the theory that, in every case in which they exercised their powers of patronage in this respect, they must necessarily be in the wrong; but he had been struck, as anyone must be, by the remarkable manner in which some members of the Civil Service, and sometimes those who were not members of it, found themselves in a position to have their merits closely scanned by the dispensers of patronage, and to have those merits recognized in a degree and manner in which other Civil Servants did not succeed. He referred to those Civil Servants who spent long and laborious lives in the ordinary work of administration, and who, however much they might deserve the confidence and praise of their immediate superiors, were overlooked, because they did not happen to be brought within the charmed circle which surrounded the high dispensers of patronage in the Service. He had listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), which certainly rose to the level of the occasion. But, at the same time, he did not think the noble Lord could have believed that hon. Members, in raising this question, were bent on
  1748
  ascribing bad motives to anyone on account of the appointments referred to. It was not bad motives that hon. Members found fault with; but the little foibles and weaknesses of human nature, as displayed by the dispensers of the powers of patronage. The speech of the noble Lord consisted partly in prophecy, and partly in solemn declarations that the best men were always chosen for these appointments. With regard to the prophecy, he was not sufficiently acquainted with the future to be able to test the accuracy of the noble Lord's vaticinations; but with regard to the declaration that the best men were chosen, no doubt, men were selected who, it was believed, would justify the choice made, although, by a remarkable coincidence, these fortunate Private Secretaries to Prime Ministers and other high personages were not promoted to the positions in which, as the House was informed, they were so much required, until just before the departure from Office of the Prime Minister to whom they acted as Private Secretaries, and who, while their services as Secretaries were required, did not see the necessity of promoting them over the heads of others. It was only when irreconcilable constituencies removed the Prime Minister that he thought of the merit of his Private Secretary, and at once promoted him to a position of£1,500 or£2,000 a-year. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had no doubt that, as a rule, Private Secretaries who were promoted were men of capacity. It was not likely that they would be chosen as Private Secretaries without capacity; and, therefore, that question need not be raised. The question was that, in the ordinary service of the State in various Departments, there were men who, by length of service, were working their way to the top, and were close to the top—men of equal ability with these Private Secretaries—who had their chances of promotion stopped on a sudden by someone being brought into the office from the immediate vicinity of the dispensers of power of the day, who might be able men, but who had not served long and well in the Department in which they obtained such high promotion. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury had challenged his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who brought this question before the House on the present occasion, to say anything, if he had any-

  1749
  thing to say, against the recent appointment of Mr. Young to the position of Deputy Chairman to the Board of Inland Revenue. There was nothing to be said against that appointment, but against the system of appointment, for, if the merit of service alone had been considered, Mr. Young ought to have received promotion a very long time before. A Paper had been placed in his (Mr. O'Donnell's) hands, written by someone who appeared to be acquainted with the facts, and it gave the history of the appointment of Mr. Young to the following1 effect:—It seemed that Mr. Young was one of the best Secretaries which the Inland Revenue Office had seen for a generation, notwithstanding that, when it was deemed advisable to promote Mr. Algernon West, the Premier of that day, who was also the Premier of the present day, did not hesitate to appoint him to the position of Commissioner in the Inland Revenue Department, over the head of Mr. Young. Again, when, after a while, the merits of Mr. Northcote appeared to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of another Administration to require marked appreciation, Mr. Northcote was appointed Commissioner to the Board of Inland Revenue, again over the head of Mr. Young. Then, when Mr. Charles Herries was obliged to retire from the Board on account of ill-health, it was found absolutely necessary to promote Mr. Young, over the head of one Commissioner who had been promoted over his head without any previous service. The conclusion was, therefore, that Mr. Young's promotion was delayed as long as possible; that Mr. Algernon West, Private Secretary, was brought into the Department over his head previously, as was also Mr. Northcote, doubtless a very capable gentleman, but who, he (Mr. O'Donnell) believed, had not possessed the advantage of being a member of the Civil Service at all, until he was bombarded into the position of Commissioner of the Inland Revenue. Under the circumstances, he could not but think that the noble Lord had put forward a somewhat unfortunate example of the present system of promotion in the case of Private Secretaries. The fact remained that a surprisingly large number of Secretaries, clerks in the Treasury, and gentlemen in the immediate vicinity of the chief dispensers of power and patronage, had
  1750
  obtained promotion over the heads of old, tried, and experienced members of Departments. The right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) left to the present Prime Minister the entire responsibility of the appointment of Mr. Herbert Murray to his present position, and regretted he should have been removed from Dublin, where he regarded him as the right man in the right place. That gentleman had been rather fortunate in his career of promotion. He had been promoted to the Assistant Postmaster-ship, and afterwards to the Secretaryship of the Customs Board, with the present salary of£1,400 a-year. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty that, in the general opinion of the Service in Ireland, Mr. Herbert Murray was by no means that success, departmentally or socially, which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. Few interesting strangers from England ever earned less personal favour from the Staff of Irish officials than Mr. Herbert Murray, and it was not from Dublin that any wish would be expressed to have Mr. Murray back again. He (Mr. O'Donnell) understood that the only real justification for Mr. Murray's present appointment was that he was free from the traditions and free from the experience of the Customs Board; he had been specially selected for the purpose of pressing upon the Customs officials an entirely new view of Customs policy which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it advisable to adopt. If Prime Ministers would promote their Private Secretaries, as a rule, at some date much earlier than their own approaching retirement, there would be much less ground for the suspicion that the promotions were made as a reward for faithful service as Private Secretaries to the Prime Minister, in which capacity they could be no longer retained. He could assure hon. Gentlemen sitting on both Front Benches that the dissatisfaction in the Service generally was extreme at the habitual interruption of promotion; at the habitual disregard of the merits of experienced officers; and at the habitual way in which private acquaintance, if not personal affection, seemed to interfere with the claims of the old and experienced servants of the; State. Both the Government and the

  1751
  Opposition Front Bench could depend upon the applause and the votes of the Parties which they were in the habit of leading, upon this, as upon every question; but the fact remained that there was a wide-spread dissatisfaction in the Public Departments at the manner in which all the best prizes of the Public Departments seemed to be reserved for gentlemen within the immediate cognizance of the occupants of the Treasury Bench. The occupants of the Treasury Bench might assure the House in perfect good faith that they always desired to choose the best men; but so long as they seemed to confine their appreciation of the best men to the men whom they happened to know best in their own immediate circle, so long would that dissatisfaction in the Public Service continue. If it was possible to appoint any constitutional test by which the opinions of the Civil Servants at large could be laid before the House, he was persuaded the result would be something startling. They who had the advantage of the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman, of course, did not for a moment entertain the idea that any unworthy favouritism had prompted the appointments under review; but amongst the mass of Civil Servants who had not the same opportunities of becoming convinced of the entire disinterestedness with which the occupants of the Treasury and Front Opposition Benches devoted themselves to the service of the State there was considerable doubt as to the impartiality of these appointments. He hoped that out of regard for the feelings of the public servants at large, every effort would be made in the future by the Treasury Bench to give, more frequently, chances of promotion to those servants of the State who seemed to have earned promotion, not in the immediate vicinity of Ministers, but by hard service, and by gradual rise in the State Departments. A few well-advertised instances of promotion as a result of long service and merit within a Department would go an immense way towards removing the impressions which a long series of, to outsiders, strange appointments had produced upon the Civil Service at large.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (re-committed) BILL.— [Bill 113.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he rose to object to the Motion, and to repeat the protest which he made last week against what they must term those violent inroads upon the rights of private Members at that early period of the Session. ["Oh, oh!"] He hoped hon. Members opposite would allow him to express his opinion. He spoke on behalf of private Members, and he protested against the assumption of their time by the Government. Ho was bound to say that, after the announcement made that morning by the Prime Minister, he could not think hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House could be surprised at the course he was adopting. They had been told by the Prime Minister that their Tuesdays were to be taken for the purpose of proceeding with Resolutions which were not only repugnant and obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, but to a great many hon. Members opposite. But that was not all. The Prime Minister made another statement of great importance, and which afforded them stronger ground for resisting the present proposal. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, in answer to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), that he would take advantage of a Motion to be made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) to state whether or not the Government intended to release the "suspects" now in prison in Ireland. He need scarcely point out that the position of the Government was this—that whatever answer they made to that Question, it must lead to a protracted, and, in all probability, an acrimonious debate. If the Government announced their intention of releasing the "suspects"—and there were a great many rumours flying about the Lobbies to that effect—he (Mr. Chaplin) supposed they themselves must be prepared to expect a considerable

  1753
  debate upon a subject of such great and vast importance as that. He did not place any reliance upon the rumours he had alluded to; he did not believe the Government intended to pursue such a policy; but if, on the other hand, they stated they had no intention of releasing the "suspects," but were prepared to reject altogether the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle, they must be sure that such a declaration would undoubtedly lead to a long and protracted discussion, and one of great importance. He was bound to say that, under those circumstances, he did not think the Government were justified in proposing to take a debate of that nature at an Evening Sitting on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if they did not take Tuesdays, it would be considered by the country that the Government was faltering in its duty. He (Mr. Chaplin) had no doubt they were considered by the country to be faltering in their duty, because they had neglected their elementary duty in Ireland, and that was to give security to life and property in that country. He begged to move the omission of the words "at Two of the clock."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) was in his place, because his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) had omitted to notice what struck him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) the other evening; and that was that, when the question of Morning Sittings on Tuesdays was before the House last Friday, the noble Marquess said that although the Government wished to take last Tuesday, for reasons then stated, the question of Morning Sittings in future would be decided when it arose. That was a very different statement to that made by the Prime Minister at 4 o'clock that day, and lie (Mr. Sclater-Booth) hoped the discrepancy would be explained.
  MR. HEALYrose for the purpose of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). It would be in the recollection of the House that on this day week the
  1754
  noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India stated that the Government did not intend to ask for Morning Sittings on all Tuesdays, if occasions of importance arose as to justify the whole of the day being appropriated to private Members. He (Mr. Healy) would remind the noble Marquess that an occasion of extreme importance would arise on Tuesday next, and that it would not be wise or convenient that a debate on the release, or otherwise, of the "suspects" in Ireland should commence at 9 o'clock in the evening, instead of at half-past 4. Of course, it was not intended to resist Morning Sittings on every occasion that the Government should demand them; but Tuesday next was a special occasion. Seeing the importance of the subject involved in the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), a good case had been made out for resisting the present proposal. The question was important under any circumstances; but it was still more important owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated that day that the Government would take the opportunity, on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, of making a statement upon their general policy in Ireland. He (Mr. Healy) would put it to the noble Marquess, who at this moment led the House, whether it was wise that the Government should, as a matter of course, ask for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next, seeing that the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) stood first on the Paper for that day? He would remind the noble Marquess that, as far as his recollection went, a sort of pledge was given to the House on Friday last that the Government would not ask for Morning Sittings without due Notice; and certainly it could not be considered that, in as much as it was now 1 o'clock on Saturday morning, due Notice had been given in this instance. It was considered by those who were in the House at the time that due Notice would be given, owing to the form of the Motion. He would ask the noble Marquess if, by the attitude they had assumed, the Government were treating the House in the way it had a right to expect, remembering the tacit understanding arrived at last week, and seeing the importance which attached to the Motion

  1755
  of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay), and to the statement to be made upon that Motion by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The Irish Members desired discussion, and although they could not expect to go into all the circumstances connected with Ireland, there were various matters connected with the pacification of Ireland which would arise on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet, which required serious consideration. Under the circumstances, he trusted the Government would not persist in their Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid the Government must persevere in the proposal now made to the House, and of which due Notice was given more than a week ago. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. Healy) that there had been any want of Notice. He stated last Friday that the intention of the Government was to ask the House to grant Morning Sittings on all Tuesdays during the remainder of the Session, and Notice was given at that time. In the subsequent discussion which took place, the noble Earl the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) asked whether due Notice would be given, in order to enable hon. Members who wished to do so to oppose any Morning Sitting being taken; and he (the Marquess of Hartington) stated, on the part of the Government, that they would not take any steps to secure a Morning Sitting for next Tuesday until Thursday in the present week. It was now Saturday morning; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave Notice, when the House was very full indeed, that it was the intention of the Government to ask the House to grant them a Morning Sitting on Tues-ay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had called attention to what he considered a discrepancy between the statement made by him (the Marquess of Hartington) last week and the statement made that evening by the Prime Minister. He (the Marquess of Hartington) ventured to think there was no discrepancy at all. He stated last week that the intention of the Government was to ask the House for a Morning Sitting on every Tuesday in future; and he also stated at that time that, owing to the form in which the House
  1756
  decided the matter, it was impossible to make any general Motion on the subject; but the point must be determined on each occasion that the Sitting was asked for. He further stated that, if there was an occasion on which the House thought it wise to withhold a Morning Sitting, it would be quite possible for it to do so. The only question was, whether, on Tuesday morning, the whole time should be given to the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay)? The hon. Member who opposed the Motion (Mr. Chaplin) had frankly stated that one of his objections to giving a Morning Sitting was that it would be for the purpose of discussing a measure which he disliked. That might be very natural; but the fact that a particular matter might not be agreeable to one section of the House was hardly a reason against granting a Morning Sitting. The subject must be discussed some time or other, and it was possible that the measure might be made, by discussion, somewhat less objectionable to the hon. Member. At all events, he (the Marquess of Hartington) did not know how they were to progress with the Business, unless the House would grant some greater facilities. The hon. Member opposed the Motion, and said that, whatever might be the nature of the announcement to be made by the Government, it was sure to lead to discussion, and the time for that discussion would be longer than was possible in a Morning Sitting, and that the discussion would be acrimonious.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I said it was certain to be long, and probably acrimonious.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he misunderstood the hon. Member; but if it was likely to be acrimonious, then it was desirable that it should be short; and he must protest against the statement of the hon. Member, that the Government had announced their intention to make an important statement with regard to their whole policy in Ireland. His right hon. Friend was asked a Question that evening, and he said it would not be convenient to give an answer to that Question in a form which did not admit of discussion, but that it would be more convenient to answer the Question when a discussion might be had if necessary. They all knew that the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) had

  1757
  a Motion on the Paper; but, considering the amount of time that they had already devoted to Irish subjects, he did not know why it should be necessary for any of them to speak at any great length. He did not know whether it might not be possible to have a very interesting discussion, the speeches averaging not more than a quarter of an hour in duration. If they were limited to that extent, he did not know that a discussion of that kind would be inadequate to the importance of the question to be raised. He did not think it was necessary to discuss at greater length the general subject of Morning Sittings; and he ventured to think he had shown sufficient reason why they should not depart from that intention.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was very much surprised at the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), for, if there was one thing at the present moment which the country was anxious to hear, it was a statement from the Government with regard to the preservation of peace in Ireland. The course they intended to pursue, and the new measures which they intended to bring in, were matters of great interest and importance to the country; and he was much struck with the statement of the Prime Minister that at 2 o'clock on Tuesday he intended to bring forward the clâture Resolutions, as against any statement with regard to peace and order in Ireland. The country was looking with great anxiety to the statement to be made by the Government; and there was not a man in any part of the House who did not regard with the gravest apprehension the present condition of Ireland. There was nothing which deserved the serious consideration of the House more than that subject; and when he heard from the noble Marquess that there was to be a short statement made on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet, and when he knew that the Prime Minister was able to make long statements whenever he liked, he thought it was not treating the House or the country with proper respect when this statement, which was so much expected, was put off from day to day, as it had been, by the Prime Minister. He, therefore, rose to enter his protest against taking the clâture Resolutions on Tuesday at 2 o'clock, when the House ought to
  1758
  have a statement of far greater importance than the clâture could be to the House or the country.
  MR. WARTONhoped the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would not consider his answer as final, and said he made this appeal in obedience to one of the noble Marquess's strongest supporters—the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian). When the first discussion arose about taking last Tuesday for a Morning Sitting:, that hon. Gentleman asked the noble Marquess to consider his unfortunate position; and he (Mr. Warton) was now speaking in the interests of that hon. Member, because, although he (Mr. Warton) himself was opposed to the hon. Member's Motion, and believed he would not be able to carry it through, yet it was fair, as an opponent, to state the position in which the hon. Member would be placed. The Statutes to which the hon. Member's Motion related were laid on the Table of the House on the first day of the Session, and they were then to remain on the Table for three months. That period would expire on Sunday, and therefore next Tuesday was the last occasion on which the hon. Member would be able to bring forward his Motion. When the Prime Minister intimated his intention to take all the Tuesdays for Morning Sittings, an appeal was made, which he had thought was successful, to the Government to reserve next Tuesday for private Members; and he hoped the noble Marquess would well consider that appeal, and spare next Tuesday for private Members.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he must confess that, on a general consideration of this question, he regretted, on the whole, that the Government had not allowed the Business to proceed in the usual way on Tuesday, because, although he fully sympathized with their wish to push the Procedure Resolutions, yet, nevertheless, there was no doubt that the question which was to be brought on next Tuesday was one of such great and pressing and vital interest that nobody could complain if hon. Members opposite desired a full Sitting for its discussion. On the other hand, it seemed to him that the noble Marquess had asked a very fair question—namely, whether it was not the fact that this question, important and vital as it was, could not be discussed in the five

  1759
  hours of Tuesday's Sitting, if the House chose. The House would meet punctually again at 9 o'clock in the evening, and there was no reason why the debate should not be continued till 2 o'clock or later. They had all had the great misfortune, during the last few years, of often sitting up in the House for Business of much less importance until a much later hour than that. Therefore, if the Government intended to press the point, he should certainly go into the Lobby with them; for he felt that the attention of the House and the country was now fixed on the question of what progress was to be made with the Procedure Rules. He believed that to get those Resolutions settled, and order and decency in debate restored in the House, was the very first condition to a restoration of order in Ireland, which he understood to be the question which the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) was anxious to bring before the House. He believed until that was done it did not much signify what else was done. They must first restore order in the House, and then he believed that the disorder which originated there, and spread from there elsewhere, would be limited. For that reason he hoped that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs would not oppose the Government, and that hon. Members representing Irish constituencies would realize that they, objecting, as they did, to the principle of the Coercion Act, would have an opportunity of showing, by not offering anything approaching to what might be called factious opposition to the proposals of the Government, that they desired to do what was right by their own country—namely, to enable the House to get its Business into such a condition that it might be able to discuss fairly and fully questions relating not only to the good of England, but to the good of Ireland, which he believed many of them had sincerely at heart.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) is very sanguine if he imagines that merely by securing a Morning Sitting on Tuesday the Government will be able to make such progress with the Procedure Resolutions as will lead to the desirable results which he has at heart. I regret very much that the Government have deter-
  1760
  mined to appropriate the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, because it appears to me that, above all things, it is desirable that the present condition of Ireland should be fairly and fully discussed in this House. I am not by any means prepared to say that the Motion of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) affords the very best opportunity for initiating such a discussion; but what I do feel is, that such a discussion must take place before long; that it is absolutely demanded by the country, and that it is, in the mind of the country, a matter of far greater importance than the Procedure Resolutions. If, as appears to be probable, the Government think it best to take part of Tuesday for proceeding with those Resolutions, one result will certainly follow. There will be an imperfect discussion on the Motion of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs, and then it will be felt to be necessary, I think, by every Party in this House, that the discussion shall be renewed upon an early occasion, and shall be thoroughly thrashed out and completed. Therefore, the whole of Tuesday evening will probably be wasted, and that simply to enable the Government to make some fancied progress with the Resolutions, with which I do not believe they will really make any progress in the Morning Sitting.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has advanced any argument which is at all conclusive on this matter. He said he did not think the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) was a Motion which would adequately raise the general question of policy in Ireland, and I should have been very much surprised if the right hon. Gentleman had been of opinion that it would do so. So far as I recollect that Motion, I doubt whether it is one which the right hon. Gentleman would support. If you want a general discussion and a Motion on the policy of the Government in Ireland, you will not raise such a discussion upon that Motion. That Motion will be discussed as an isolated matter, and if there should be a Motion with reference to the whole condition of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman can hardly suppose that a single Morning Sitting would dispose of that

  1761
  subject. Therefore, neither of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments is addressed to the question of a Morning Sitting. We are not going, and nobody proposes, as I understand, to raise the whole Irish policy on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the Wigton Burghs, and the matter with which that Motion deals might very well be disposed of on Tuesday evening. We, in the present state of Parliamentary Business, ask the House to support us in getting on with the Business. That is the meaning of this appeal, and we must take the responsibility of asking the House of Commons to allow the Business of the country to be gone on with. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) complained bitterly that the noble Marquess had said that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would make a short speech, and said that if you have an early Sitting the Prime Minister would have an opportunity of making a long speech. I do not think that is a reason for a Morning Sitting. Then the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) said—do not let us have a Morning Sitting, because that might interfere with the Motion of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian)—whom he has taken under his wing for this occasion only. But if we are to do what the country wishes us to do with reference to the Public Business, the Government must ask the House to agree to their proposal. They take the responsibility of making that request, and those who oppose it must take the responsibility of resisting it. That is a very fair and proper issue; and upon that only the House of Commons will be able to decide whether there is any reason for making an exception of this Tuesday over any other Tuesday. I do think that the country, looking at what happened on former Tuesdays during this Session, will not consider that the Government are proposing any very great sacrifice of the time of private Members, of which we hear so much; but with regard to which, when hon. Members have the time, they prefer not to take it, but to take the Government time. That being so, I think we are not unduly encroaching on their manor, or making unjust demands on the House; and I do hope that the House will support the Government.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had told them it was the intention of the Prime Minister to make, on this forthcoming occasion, a speech which would not exceed a quarter of an hour's duration. ["No, no!"] Well, he would say half an hour; at all events, it had been intimated that the speech would be a brief one. Supposing the Prime Minister was able to fulfil his intention and to make a brief speech, no doubt, within the compass of a brief statement, the right hon. Gentleman would be capable of giving the House material for a very long debate—he would be capable of saying enough to make it a matter, he (Mr. Sullivan) would almost say, of necessity, to enter very fully into the matters the right hon. Gentleman had touched on. The Irish Members were bound to claim for themselves a pretty fair amount of time to deal with the topics that would be touched on by the Prime Minister. Not only the Irish Members, but, perhaps, the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench, might have a great deal to say with regard to the statement of the Prime Minister. It was all very well for the noble Marquess—a Member of the Government—to say that hon. Members should content themselves with quarter-hour or ten-minute speeches; but it was possible that so materially might they find themselves affected by the Prime Minister's statement, that the Irish Members would not be able to do justice to themselves, or their country, or the matter in hand. Even if 4 o'clock were decided upon as the hour for commencing the Business of the evening, he (Mr. Sullivan) did not suppose they would be able to get to the discussion of this matter for an hour or two hours afterwards; but if they got to it almost immediately the limit of time would be short enough. He only hoped that in the event of their commencing Business at 4 o'clock they might have a fair prospect of being able to give the matter full and adequate discussion. It would not be at all satisfactory to commence the discussion of such an important matter as that at 9 o'clock. They should, at least, be allowed the ordinary time for considering what was looked upon, not only by the people of Ireland, but also by the people of England, with the greatest amount of interest. Let the Prime Minister give them the

  1763
  day they required, and he would find that he would lose nothing by the transaction.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had laid so much stress on the Government running the clôlure against this debate on the evening in question that those of them who took deep interest in the 1st Resolution being passed were bound to support the Government on this occasion. The Government had stated, on their responsibility, the great necessity there was for making progress with this Resolution; and hon. Members opposite had shown that their objection to the Resolution entered largely into their objection to giving up Tuesday morning. At the same time, as the evening would be short, he trusted that an opportunity would be afforded, by the shortness of the speeches to which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had alluded, for English Members, as well as Irish Members, to take part in the discussion that would occur. It had been too much the custom for these important questions to be made the occasion of a duel, if he might say so, between the Home Rule Party and. the Front Bench, and many had been the times when hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would have liked very much to have supported Her Majesty's Government, and to have stated their views in opposition to views which had been urged by Home Rulers; but the value of time was felt so strongly by them that they refrained, and perhaps in that way it might have appeared, more than once, that Her Majesty's Government were not sufficiently supported by their followers. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been attacked, it had often been a matter for deep regret on the part of a great many hon. Members on that side of the House that, except under the penalty of speaking on a Motion for the adjournment of the House, or of interrupting at Question time, they were unable to support the right hon. Gentleman to the extent to which he had deserved support at the hands of his Party. He (Mr. Goschen) had ventured to say those few words, because he hoped that when the important question of the release of the "suspects" was discussed it would be possible for all sides to take part in the debate. Though it was the fashion for some
  1764
  hon. Gentlemen opposite to refer to this as a foreign House of Parliament, and though the question might affect only Irish hon. Members, they (the supporters of the Government) knew that their constituents expected them to take part in the consideration of the position of their fellow-subjects in Ireland. Their constituents wished them to join in the discussion not only of what affected England, but of what affected Ireland also; and he believed the time had come when it was necessary that many English Members should take part in such debates as that they were to have on Tuesday. He trusted, therefore, that the advice of the noble Marquess would be followed on Tuesday, and that, by shortness of speeches, it might be possible for Her Majesty's Government to hear the opinions of all sides of the House on a question of first-rate importance.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had no doubt everyone had the highest respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Goschen); but the right hon. Gentleman's observations were a most conclusive reason why they should not have a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. He had said that there were many hon. Members sitting behind Her Majesty's Government who were anxious to speak in support of their Irish policy, and who had hitherto been unable to do so through want of time. The right hon. Gentleman arrived at the some-what in convenient conclusion that it would be right for those who had hitherto been prevented through want of time from taking part in these debates to take part in the discussion on Tuesday night, if a Morning Sitting were granted. There was one fact with which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) did not seem to be acquainted, and which, to his (Lord George Hamilton's) mind, very materially altered the position of affairs. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) was about, on Tuesday, to make a Motion relating to a certain portion of the Irish Question. The noble Marquess stated that upon that question very short speeches would be made—in fact, he gave the House to understand that the Prime Minister's observations would be confined to about 15 minutes. With all deference to the noble Marquess, he (Lord George Hamilton) very

  1765
  much doubted that, because it was absolutely impossible for any Minister to say how long he would be on his legs, when he did not know the arguments he would have to answer. But since his right hon. and gallant Friend had put this Notice on the Paper, a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party—the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross)—had put a Notice which would raise the whole Irish Question, because it was to the effect that those persons in prison in Ireland only suspected of a certain class of offences should be released. That Notice could only have been put on the Notice Paper with or without the knowledge of the Government. If it were put down with the knowledge of the Government, it was not fair for them to defer their observations until so late a period of the evening that it would not be possible to thoroughly discuss the matter. If, however, the Notice had been put down without the knowledge of the Government, and represented the views only of a considerable section of the Liberal Party, it was only fair that that section of the Liberal Party should have a proper opportunity of expressing their views. It therefore seemed to him that these circumstances must so change the aspect of affairs that the Government would be able to see their way to the withdrawal of their Motion for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was one of those who would be very glad to hear any English Member who felt inclined to speak on the Irish Question favour them with an expression of his views. He should be especially glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) express his opinions in that House, because he would then be spared the necessity of hearing him give them out, not perhaps in season or in due place. The right hon. Gentleman had favoured a non-political gathering at a dinner he himself (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had attended with an expression of his views, not with standing that most of the company were of an opposite way of thinking to the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman had revenged himself for the privation from speaking he had experienced of late in the House by declaiming, with a greal deal of acrimony, upon the wickedness of the Home
  1766
  Rule Members, and of the Tory Members who did not help the Government to crush them. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) hoped the Government would give them such an explanation as would save the Irish Members the necessity of entering into any prolonged discussion. While he should vote for giving the whole of Tuesday to the debate, he should not express his views in answer to the statement the Government might make at any great length.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had raised a new question in regard to this debate, having pointed out that there was an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), which would raise the whole Irish Question. Under these circumstances, he wished to say that it was perfectly impossible that they could have the whole question of the state of Ireland—which, as every Member of the House knew, and as the Government would not deny, created great anxiety in this country at that moment—discussed in a three or four hours' debate. It was most important that they should have the whole evening to discuss that question; and, under those circumstances, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) made a point of wishing to get on with the Resolutions, upon which he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) hoped, by the favour of the House, to have an opportunity of saying something when they came before them. He referred to what were called the Procedure Resolutions, but which he looked upon as gagging Resolutions. He believed that every hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House felt very strongly on this question, and that they would only be doing their duty to their constituents by expressing, at the fullest length, their views on the subject. The time might come when they might not have an opportunity, because, when the Resolutions were passed, they would be tongue-tied, and would have no liberty left them. While they retained their liberty, however, they thought they were only doing their duty by giving expression to everything they felt in the matter. There had been a former discussion with regard

  1767
  to a Tuesday Morning Sitting, the noble Marquess having, on a previous occasion, made a similar appeal. Well, they had a Morning Sitting at that time; and, as regarded that (the Opposition) side of the House, they had faithfully carried out their pledges to the Government in endeavouring to bring the question under discussion to a division. It was talked out, however, by an independent Member, or, at any rate, by one who owed no allegiance to the Opposition—he did not know whether the noble Marquess opposite would claim him as a follower. He referred to the hon. Member for the County of Louth (Mr. Callan). Under the circumstances, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) submitted that if they had a Morning Sitting on Tuesday they might have the Procedure discussion, with regard to which Members felt very strongly, carried to such a length that the subject would be talked out. He did not think Her Majesty's Government were likely to gain anything by having a Morning Sitting The Prime Minister had stated that his Colleague the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to make a very important statement; and, such being the case, it Seemed to him it would be for the advantage of the Government that the whole question should be discussed at full length. To give an opportunity to the Government to have this matter discussed, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SEVERNE: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter before the House was called on to decide the question. The Prime Minister had deliberately selected Tuesday to make his statement, notwithstanding that several opportunities had been given to him on other occasions for making it. There was no one, either in or out of the House, who denied that the position of Ireland was serious. It was a matter which not only excited the anxiety of Irishmen, but it was idle to deny that in every part of England they looked forward to the statement of the Prime Minister for guidance, and as giving some solution of the present difficulties.
  1768
  Under circumstances of that character, would the time of the House be in any way saved, he asked, by forcing on a Motion for a Morning Sitting in that way? He must say that he himself, though an Irish Member, had had very slight opportunities in the House of discussing these Irish questions, and he did not think it was right to have to speak on them on Motions for Adjournment. And as the Prime Minister had selected an occasion, every Irish Member who appreciated the condition of his country was bound to take advantage of the opportunity to record his independent opinion. He would ask, therefore, was it fair and right that they should be forced to give a Morning Sitting on Tuesday? There could be nothing more convincing against the proposal than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), which was to the effect that a number of English Members intended to take part in the debate. He would desire to remind the House that the Amendment which had been given Notice by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) was of a wide character, and would be likely to open up a discussion on the condition and present aspect of affairs in Ireland. Would it be, then, desirable that independent Irish Members should, in a crisis such as the present, be prevented from stating their views on the questions likely to arise on such a discussion? It could not be contended that the hon. Member for Bolton could have taken this course without having taken the advice and opinion of the leading Members of his own Party. They had now a very serious question raised in a very serious and critical state of affairs in Ireland, and yet the Government wilfully insisted upon having this Morning Sitting. Looking at all the circumstances, there would be at the disposal of the House only a very short amount of time—if, indeed, any at all—for that discussion upon the state of affairs in Ireland, which on all hands was admitted to be necessary.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the great importance attached to what was to take place on Tuesday was that the Prime Minister himself had deliberately selected it as the occasion for making a statement of vital importance on what must be acknowledged by everybody to be the

  1769
  most vital question of the day. It would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to confine his statement within very narrow limits. That was not a usual weakness on the part of the Prime Minister. Even if he desired to do so upon so important a question, and to confine himself to the topics raised by the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), the right hon. Gentleman would find himself compelled, by the new Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper, to enter into a much wider field, because, when the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs sat down, the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) was to get up and to move a still wider Amendment. [Cries of "No!" from the Ministerial Benches.] That was certainly the way in which he (Mr. Gibson) read the Amendment, and he hoped to have an opportunity of studying it still more carefully before the hon. Gentleman submitted it to the House. Any hon. Member who read the Amendment and the Motion would see at once that it was altogether impossible for the Prime Minister not to make a statement of supreme importance. The statement must demand important public criticism from that (the Opposition) side of the House, and it would not be giving fair play either to the House or the country to compel the Opposition to deliver a crippled and imperfect criticism upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as announced in the speech of the Prime Minister at a late hour of the night, when it was impossible that any remarks they desired to make could be reported. Under those circumstances, he contended that the statement about to be made by the Prime Minister might and would demand prolonged and close criticism and examination; and it might become necessary, therefore, if there was a Morning Sitting, to ask respectfully for an adjournment of Tuesday's debate until the following Thursday.
  MR. LEAMYwould venture to express a hope that, in the event of the Government insisting upon having a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, and thus throwing over the important statement of the Prime Minister until a late hour, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to accept the Suggestion thrown out by
  1770
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and to adjourn the debate until Thursday. No doubt, there were many English Members among the supporters of the Government who would desire to express their opinions, and he was quite satisfied that most of the Irish Members would desire to express theirs. It was understood that the Government intended to declare their Irish policy; and it was not at all unlikely that many of the Radical Members, who had consented to give exceptional powers to the Irish Executive, might feel themselves called upon to say that they were not prepared to support any further coercive measures which the Government might have determined to take. It was, therefore, most improbable that the debate could be concluded on Tuesday night; and if the Government insisted on taking a Morning Sitting, the House ought to receive some intimation that there would be no opposition to a proposal for the adjournment of the debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I trust that the House will not consent to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate; and I hope it will be perfectly well understood that, although many hon. Members opposite may take exception to the course now proposed, there is no desire to adopt an obstructive line of policy. The question of having a Morning Sitting has now been fully discussed, and the House is perfectly competent to come to a decision upon it. All I wish to say is, that it is impossible to come to any understanding whether it will be necessary to adjourn the debate on Tuesday or not. No doubt, a discussion may arise which may make it necessary that the debate should be adjourned; and if it be necessary, of course the Government would not oppose the demand. It is impossible, however, to know now whether an adjournment will be desirable or not. I would venture to suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who think that they will not have a fair opportunity for discussion, that it is impossible for them at present to judge whether it will be requisite to discuss the statement which is to be made from these Benches at all or not. It would, therefore, be much more convenient that they should hear the statement before they arrive at any conclusion in regard to it. After they have

  1771
  heard it, they will have an opportunity, if they consider it necessary, of distinctly expressing their opinion upon the conduct of the Government in the form of a Motion. Full opportunity would, of course, be given for the consideration of such a Motion; but it by no means follows that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be one which will require such a Motion or discussion. As to the question of adjourning the debate on Tuesday, no doubt, if the discussion should be of a nature that would appear to demand discussion, it must be adjourned; but it is perfectly impossible, until the nature of the discussion is better known than at present, to decide now what course it may be desirable to take.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) hardly realizes the gravity of the position. There has been a disposition to minimize the present condition of Ireland and the present state of affairs in that country. ["No!"from the Ministerial Benches.] My right hon. Friend opposite shakes his head; but we are told that a statement of the greatest importance is to be made on Tuesday evening after 9 o'clock, and that, as the House has so frequently discussed Irish affairs, short speeches and a limited discussion will be quite sufficient to dispose of any questions which may arise out of the statement. I venture to think there never was a period in the whole history of the country when the affairs of Ireland were of so grave a character. They do not concern Ireland alone, but the whole of the United Kingdom. In point of fact, they concern the stability of the Empire. We are told that at 9 o'clock on Tuesday evening a short statement is to be made by the Prime Minister; that it will only be necessary to make very brief speeches upon that statement; and that the whole matter may be reasonably disposed of in the short interval between 9 o'clock and midnight. It is not with a view of embarrassing the Government, but with every desire to assist Her Majesty's Ministers in the discharge of their responsible duties in connection with the administration of the affairs of Ireland, and with every desire to afford the greatest possible facilities for the re-establishment of peace, law, and order in Ireland, that we ask for a better opportunity than an Evening Sitting on
  1772
  Tuesday will give us for the consideration of the statement which the Prime Minister proposes to make. It is scarcely courteous, then, for the noble Marquess to say to the Opposition that, if they are not satisfied with the statement made by the Government, it will be in their option, if they think fit, to give Notice of a Vote of Censure, for the discussion of which, of course, the Government would find an opportunity. I certainly do not believe that that, upon the whole, is the best way of disposing of the time of the House; nor, on the whole, is it the best way of arriving at the object we have in view, not only on this side of the House, but on both sides of the House. We can have but one common object, and that is, by any means in our power, to restore peace, law, order, and tranquillity in Ireland. As I have said, peace, law, order, and tranquillity in Ireland have never been so seriously disturbed and threatened as they are at the present moment. They have never before been so seriously compromised; and everyone who has the slightest feeling of regard for the interests of the country must view with the deepest possible concern the present state of things in Ireland. We are not so much concerned in the Motion of which Notice has been given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) as in the intimation which has been given by the Prime Minister, that on that Motion he proposes to make a statement to the House in regard to the condition of affairs in Ireland. I believe that the whole country is waiting for that statement with the greatest possible interest and anxiety, putting Party questions altogether aside. Our object is to aid, by every means in our power, the efforts of the responsible Government to do what they can to place life and property in Ireland in a position of perfect security. It is out of the question to suppose that considerations of so important a nature can be discussed in the short interval of two or three hours in an Evening Sitting on Tuesday. If, after the discussion has been introduced, and the Prime Minister is afforded the necessary opportunity for making his statement, it is understood that the debate will be adjourned until the Thursday following, then we shall have nothing further to say; but if anything in the

  1773
  nature of an important statement is to be made by the Prime Minister, then three hours will certainly not be sufficient to enable the House to discuss it satisfactorily.
  MR. J. K. CROSSremarked, that allusions had been made in the course of the debate to the Amendment of which he had given Notice in the early part of the evening. It was said that he had placed the Amendment on the Paper with the knowledge and at the instance of the Government. All he had to say was that his intentions had been entirely unknown to the Government, and that he had given Notice of the Amendment solely upon his own account. Not only was the Notice given without the knowledge of the Government, but he had given it without consulting more than one, or at most two Members of the House. He had no wish to say a single word upon the merits of the question itself. He apprehended that at the time the House met on Tuesday that matter would be entirely in the hands of the Government; and if the statement which the Prime Minister proposed to make were of such a character as to be acceptable to the majority of the House, it might probably not be necessary that the Amendment of which he (Mr. J. K. Cross) had given Notice should be brought forward at all.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was glad that the Motion had been made for the adjournment of the debate, because, undoubtedly, it had had the effect of eliciting from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) a reply which he did not think would have been made under other circumstances. He confessed that the reply of the noble Marquess was not altogether satisfactory, because, although the noble Marquess made a sort of qualified concession that the debate should be adjourned if the statement of the Prime Minister was not satisfactory, that concession did not altogether get rid of his (Mr. Chaplin's) objection that private Members were deprived of their legitimate opportunities for bringing important questions before the House. He did not know whether his hon. Friend who moved the adjournment of the debate (Mr. R. N. Fowler) proposed to go to a division or not. If he did, he (Mr. Chaplin) should vote with him, because ho wished to record his protest against the course
  1774
  which the Government were taking. The noble Marquess seemed to think that there was an intention to oppose the proceedings of the Government by moving successive Motions for Adjournment. He (Mr. Chaplin) did not believe there was any intention of the kind; but the noble Marquess must not be surprised, having regard to the manner in which the Government proposed to deprive private Members of their rights, if private Members took measures on their own account to protect their own interests. If the practice now pursued by the Government were persisted in, and if it led to further delay in Public Business, they would be entirely to blame.
  MR. CALLANpointed out that if the Government accepted the proposal which had been made on that side of the House, and gave up the idea of a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, the discussion consequent on the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to Irish affairs would, in all probability, terminate on Tuesday night; but if not, and the question came on at 9 o'clock at night, as it was probable that the right hon. Gentleman would not rise until after 10 o'clock, and would very likely not sit down until after midnight, there would clearly be no opportunity for discussion on the part of the Opposition. The manœuvre of the Government was evidently to give 48 hours' start in the country to the Ministerial Statement, without affording any opportunity for the comments of hon. Members on that side of the House to reach the public. The effect of that would be that Thursday night also would have to be given up to the discussion of the Irish Question; and so, instead of concluding the debate on Tuesday, the half of that day and the whole of Thursday would be lost.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was not disposed to throw any difficulties in the way of Her Majesty' Government. Since he had seen an indication on their part of a desire to treat the Irish Question in a manner in which it ought to have been treated long since he was certainly not inclined to offer any unnecessary opposition. However, he could not but think that the disposal of the public time which was now proposed to the House was not calculated to carry out the intentions of the Government. There

  1775
  could be no doubt that the question of the release of the "suspects" was one which, until it was settled one way or the other, impeded the progress of every kind of Business in that House. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had put off until Tuesday his definite answer upon that subject, and he also regretted that such an important matter as the Resolutions on Procedure were to be taken before the Irish Question had been dealt with. Those Resolutions raised serious questions in many minds; and although the discussions upon them might be calm, even to dulness, he could not but think that the State of anxiety in which the Government had left the House was not calculated to lead to even a business-like debate upon them next Monday. On the other hand, he believed that a calming and encouraging statement upon Irish affairs would do more towards facilitating the progress of Public Business than anything that could be devised. He thought that the Government had really indulged in a kind of cat-with-the-mouse treatment of the prisoners, their friends, and the Irish people generally; and he could not but express the hope that they would state, one way or another, what was their policy in this matter. The sooner they did so, the better he believed it would be for all parties interested. He repeated that the manner in which this question was kept hanging over was certainly not favourable to the progress of reform of Procedure. Moreover, he did not believe the Government would be gainers in the smallest degree by taking several hours from the discussion of the Irish Question on Tuesday next; and, therefore, in the interest of the Liberal policy as well as of fair play to all Parties in the House, he begged them to devote the whole of that day to its discussion. Although he would not say that there was a deliberate manœuvre to place the Government Statement before the country without comment on the part of the Opposition, there was a strong opinion that the time and circumstances under which they had chosen to make that statement were calculated to give undue advantages to the Ministerial Statement, and give, so to speak, 48 hours' start to it, no matter how much time might be required for the statement of the Opposition. Therefore, he urged upon the
  1776
  Government the necessity of avoiding even the suspicion of unfairness in this matter. There could be no Ministerial Statement on Tuesday, under the proposed arrangement, until 11 o'clock; and, consequently, there could be no fair criticism of it which could appear in the papers of the following day. That fact would be known through out the country, and would give the appearance of dodging to the Government policy, which he trusted and believed was quite undeserved, so far as this matter was concerned. Notwithstanding that, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that both the Government themselves and the independent Parties in the House would suffer by the proposed arrangement.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Government were doing what he had known many Governments to do on former occasions. They were trying to save time, and by their way of doing it they were throwing away twice as much as they expected to save. He could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), that the result of the Government proposal would be that, instead of the whole of Thursday being devoted to Public Business, it would be taken up entirely by the continued discussion upon the question to be brought before the House on Tuesday. Therefore, he suggested that the Government should appoint the whole of Tuesday for the discussion of the Irish Question, which certainly could not be concluded if it commenced after 9 o'clock in the evening. It was all very well for the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) to allege that a subject of that importance could be discussed at 2 o'clock in the morning; but hon. Members must know very well that no important question could be properly discussed after 1 o'clock in the morning. The probable effect of the Government proposal would be that the whole question would be raised again, and that another day would be wasted. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had expressed his opinion that it was desirable that a number of English Members should take part in the debate on Tuesday night, and that the Irish Members should abstain from doing so. That would certainly be another effect of the Government arrangement, because, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member, a considerable number of

  1777
  English Members were to speak; and he (Mr. Biggar) could not, therefore, understand how it could be said that Irish Members would have any opportunity of expressing their views. What portion of time would be at the disposal of Irish Members, after the evening had been occupied by speeches from English Members and Members of the Government? The right hon. Member seemed to think that it was more important that hon. Members who knew nothing of the subject should state their opinions, than that those who were thoroughly acquainted with it should do so. It was needless to say that the reverse of this should take place; and, therefore, he appealed to the Government, in their own interest, and in the interest of all Parties, to afford Irish Members every opportunity for the discussion of the present question, by taking the debate at the ordinary time on Tuesday next, with the reasonable expectation that it would be concluded the same evening, and thereby secure the whole of Thursday for Government Business.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 36;Noes 90: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 73.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BIGGARbegged to move that the House do now adjourn. It was now after 2 o'clock, and he thought the best thing to do would be to adjourn.
  MR. HEALYrose for the purpose of seconding the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House on the Main Question; therefore, he is not in Order.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he would second the Motion, and he did so with very great regret. He assured the House that he should be very sorry to second the Motion; but its adoption was advisable in the interest of the Government themselves, and in the interest of economy of time. If the Government would consent to sit at the usual hour on Tuesday—namely, 4 o'clock, they would be able, most likely, to conclude the discussion upon the Irish Question about 2 o'clock the following morning. What was the real position of affairs? The Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman
  1778
  the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) would certainly give rise to a long debate, and the Prime Minister had told them that he himself was going to make a most important statement. He (Mr. R. Power) supposed that in the whole history of Ireland there never was a time when the people of that country looked forward with more interest and with more anxiety to any statement from any English Minister, and the idea of discussing an Irish difficulty in three or four hours was most ridiculous. If the Government acceded to the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), who had asked that the Members of Parliament who were now detained in Kilmainham should be released, the Irish Members on the Opposition side of the House would, in a few brief speeches, congratulate the Government upon the decision they had arrived at; but he was not quite certain that the Conservative Members would do the same. He believed they would get up, and, in very violent speeches, condemn such a policy. It was all very well to say that the Prime Minister would only take 15 minutes to make his statement as regarded the future policy of the Government towards Ireland. Although he very much doubted whether the Prime Minister could confine himself to 15 minutes, he was persuaded the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would give rise to a very long and protracted debate. If they knew exactly what they were to discuss on Tuesday, they might be able to form an opinion as to the amount of time the debate would occupy; but, at the present moment, they were quite in the dark. They might be asked to discuss the necessity for martial law in Ireland, or the release of the political prisoners, or the continuance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Office; but no matter what they were required to discuss, as long as it related to Ireland it was absurd to suppose that the debate could be of short duration. He was very sorry, indeed, to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) thought that the clôture was a far more important question than the Irish Question. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who had been so successful in solving the Eastern difficulty, would have devoted some of his ability, and some of

  1779
  his time, to solving the Western difficulty. He was, however, glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express the opinion that English Members ought to interfere in Irish debates. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Members intended to interfere in English debates. The idea of an Irish debate, like that which would take place on Tuesday, only lasting three hours, was perfectly ridiculous.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it seemed to him that every speech that was made in the debate to which the House had listened for some time past showed very plainly that the proposal for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday was ill-advised, and was not really likely to facilitate the progress of Business in the House. The House, however, had pronounced, by a very considerable majority, in favour of that Morning Sitting being taken; and, so far as he was concerned, he did not think the present was an occasion in which they should endeavour, by repeated divisions, to prevent the majority from carrying their wishes into effect; therefore, he should take no further part in resisting the Government proposal.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would remind the House of the different position in which they found themselves that night to other occasions in which Morning Sittings had been asked. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said that, inasmuch as the House had decided by a considerable majority, he would execute the characteristic operation of "backing out." When it was proposed to take a Morning Sitting to consider the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire and the Tory Party cared little for the decision of the House. Majority after majority declared they would have a Morning Sitting; but minority after minority obstructed the Government and refused a Morning Sitting. Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No, no!] Well, the right hon. Gentleman might not have been present on that occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman said he was not present on that occasion, at least his Party were. Two or three of the right
  1780
  hon. Gentlemen now sitting near the right hon. Baronet were certainly present, and they cared little as to what the opinion of the House was. But now the Tory Party, after having got up a row as to whether there should be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, found, when it got half-past 2 o'clock, that it would suit their purpose to go to bed; they told the House that as a large majority had decided in favour of a Morning Sitting they would bow their meek heads and go home to sleep. That was not the way in which these things ought to be met. If hon. Gentlemen set out by denouncing the Government as iniquitous for certain proceedings, they ought to be consistent. It seemed somewhat inconsistent to give way because they found themselves in a considerable minority. It was not a question whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire was right, but in a minority, but whether he was in the right. If the right hon. Gentleman was in the right at the onset, he was in the right now, and ought to continue his opposition to the Morning Sitting. He (Mr. Healy) never cared a button whether he was in a minority or majority. He and his hon. Friends were so used to finding themselves in a minority that it did not matter much to them how they were situated. Passing from that point, however, he must remind the House of the inconvenience they suffered from discussing these questions in the absence of the authorities who were competent to deal with them. They were dealing with a number of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who had got instructions to get a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next. They knew there was an important Irish question down for consideration on that day, and they would be glad to know what the decision of the Government was going to be. If they knew the decision was going to be in the direction which many hon. Members desired, there would be no objection on the part of those hon. Gentlemen to grant a Morning Sitting, because they would know they would not occupy more than an hour with any remarks they would have to make on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay). But they were altogether in the dark, and because they were in the dark they were obliged to resist

  1781
  the proposal to take a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. The most straightforward course for the Government to have adopted would have been to have announced earlier what their action was going to be with respect to the "suspects." If they had told the House that day, in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), what their intention was, they would not now he wrangling about a Morning Sitting. He had no objection, on principle, to the Government having a Morning Sitting; but he did object that on special occasions, such as next Tuesday, the day should be whittled away by the Government scooping out the most material part of it. The Prime Minister himself was absent, and the right hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench had not power to deal with the question; therefore, there was to be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. He was sure that if the Prime Minister, who, as regarded the convenience and time of the House, had an open mind, were present, he would see the force of the observations which had been addressed to the Government during this debate, and would yield to the wishes of a large number of hon. Members.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that when the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) talked of his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) "backing out" after the Tories had got up a row, he must remind the hon. Member of how the discussion arose. As an Amendment to the Motion made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), he (Mr. Chaplin) took the liberty of moving that the words "Two o'clock" should be omitted; and he stated at the time that he did so in order to have an opportunity of recording his protest against the course which was being adopted by the Government. During the debate he also stated that there was no intention whatever on the part of hon. Gentlemen sitting in that quarter of the House to prolong the discussion. He had no desire to engage in a fight with the large battalions he saw sitting opposite; but he had taken part in the division, and was satisfied with having entered his protest against the action of the Government in the matter.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would not have arisen at that time, were it not for the observations which had fallen
  1782
  from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman had informed them that out of the few hours which the Government proposed to place at the disposal of the House for the discussion of the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) a large number of English Members wished to occupy some time; that a considerable number of English Members wished to take part in the debate; and he asked if it was possible to suppose that a considerable number of English Members could intervene in the debate without uttering a great deal of contentious matter, and giving rise to a great deal of exasperation on that side of the House? If the Prime Minister made a conciliatory speech—a speech which would be in some degree satisfactory to the Irish Members—it would inevitably be unsatisfactory to the Conservative Members. If, however, the speech was pleasing to Conservative Members, it would, unquestionably, be displeasing to Irish Members. However that might be, it was impossible to suppose that a considerable number of English Members could intervene without giving the Irish Members occasion, which they could not resist, to reply to them. If English Members attacked the Irish Members, if they attacked the "suspects," if they attempted to traduce the Irish National Land League, it would be the business of the Representatives of Ireland to reply, and, of course, they would discharge their duty. It was entirely ridiculous to suppose that the debate on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) would only last three or four hours; therefore, the Government would act wisely in giving them more time.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the question could be put in a very narrow compass. That day the Prime Minister said he would make a statement on Irish affairs on Tuesday next. That statement, whatever it might be, would be of great importance; but, in the interval between now and then, he (Mr. Sexton) confessed he was unwilling to draw the House into a sustained contest on a collateral issue. He did not know what the statement might be; he hoped it might be of such a character as to call

  1783
  for no reply from his hon. Friends and himself. Let the Evening Sitting on Tuesday be sufficient or insufficient, he confessed he was willing to abide by the decision then arrived at. He understood the noble Marquess to entitle him to infer that if a large number of Members found it imperative on them to speak on the question the Government would not oppose an adjournment until Thursday for the purpose of concluding the debate. On that understanding, he should be disposed not to quarrel with the arrangement made. If the speech of the Prime Minister were satisfactory to the Irish Members, they would not be under the necessity of entering into a debate at all; and, therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) the desirability of withdrawing his Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, however anxious he might be that this controversy should terminate, he should be unwilling it should terminate under any misapprehension; and there were two misapprehensions he thought it his duty to correct. It had been altogether erroneously assumed throughout the discussion that the Prime Minister had announced an intention of making a general statement with regard to Irish affairs on Tuesday next. All his right hon. Friend said, in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), was that he thought it would be more convenient to answer the Question put to him by that hon. Gentleman on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), because that Motion would give an opportunity, if necessary, of debate. His right hon. Friend never said that it was his intention on Tuesday to make any general statement with regard to Irish affairs. The other misapprehension was that he (the Marquess of Hartington) had given any undertaking that the debate would, if it was thought desirable, be adjourned from Tuesday until Thursday. What he said was that it was utterly impossible, until the debate had taken place, for them to come to any decision as to an adjournment. Of course, if it was the desire of a large portion of the House that the debate should be adjourned, the Government would not offer any unreasonable opposition; but
  1784
  he had never said—indeed, it was not within his power to say—that the debate should be adjourned until Thursday. He did not know what the arrangement of the Business for next week would be, and it was quite out of his power to give any undertaking as to an adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, after the appeal made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and after the explanation of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, he begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (DISFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he could state on what day it would be possible to take the second reading of the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill? It was a Bill on which it was obviously necessary that there should be considerable discussion; and he thought it was also desirable that before long that discussion should take place. He did not know that it was possible for the Government to say when the Bill would be taken; but he hoped they would be able to say that it would be before a certain day.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am afraid it is impossible to say when that discussion can take place.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, If he could say when Ways and Means would be taken?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman might have seen by what had taken place that it was perfectly impossible to say.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.
  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
  (Sir John Lubbock, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Compton Lawrance.)

  [BILL 104.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it was necessarily one of much detail; and he would suggest that it should be read a second time, and then be referred to the same Committee as the Bill about to be introduced by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had been good enough to say that the Government would agree to that course; and he (Sir John Lubbock) hoped the House would also consent to it. The Bill had been very carefully prepared by the Society of Arts, and in their name he asked the House to consent to the second reading. It was of a comprehensive character, and went into the whole question very fully; but it was made up of a great number of separate points, which could be better dealt with in Committee than by the House.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—Sir John Lubbock,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 22nd May.

  JUDGMENTS (INFERIOR COURTS) BILL.
  (Mr. Monk, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Corry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

  [BILL 44.] CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  On the Motion of Mr. MONK, new Clause brought up, and read a first and second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. Monk.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to the clause being added.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said,
  1786
  the Amendment was introduced in order to produce complete reciprocity between the Three Kingdoms, in which at present the jurisdiction was not the same. The words of the clause were—
  "Nothing contained in this Act shall authorize the registration in an Inferior Court of a certificated judgment for any greater amount than might have been recovered."
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Notice ought to be given of a new clause brought up on the consideration of a Bill. Therefore this new clause cannot be proposed without Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Healy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would agree to the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MONKsaid, he would name Monday for the further consideration of the Bill.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to Monday decidedly, and complained that the Bill had been hurried on, simply because of the rapid action and low tone of voice of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). The other evening he (Mr. Warton) had done what he could to help this Bill; but it was very awkward for the hon. Member for Gloucester to try, by sharp practice, to pass the Bill through the House. He therefore asked that time should be allowed for considering the effect of this clause, and if the hon. Member would consent to name Thursday that time would be obtained. He was not going to have Bills passed in that way. He always accepted what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said; but there must be proper time given for consideration.
  MR. BUCHANANhoped the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Monk) would listen to this appeal. The new clause had not been put on the Paper; but it affected the interests of Scotland, and he hoped the hon. Member would accede to the request.
  MR. MONKsaid, the Amendments made to the Bill had been on the Paper for three weeks. [Mr. WARTON: Not this clause.] That new clause had been approved by the right hon. and learned

  1787
  Lord Advocate; and he (Mr. Monk) understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that it only affected Ireland. He, therefore, should name Monday for the further consideration of the Bill.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's explanation that the proposed limitation would affect the whole of the United Kingdom. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Monk) would allow the Bill to stand over until the following Thursday.
  MR. MONKsaid, if it was the general wish of the House he would postpone the Bill until next Thursday.
  Further Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.