Commons Sitting of 28 July 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
Resolutions [July 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bombay Civil Fund [225].
Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue (recomm.) [239]—R.P.
Third Reading—Electric Lighting*[200], and passed.
Withdrawn—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [21].

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIGNATIONS OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What gentlemen have lately resigned the office of stipendiary magistrate in Ireland, and what reasons they assigned for their resignation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the following Resident Magistrates expressed their desire to take advantage of the terms of retirement offered by His Excellency with the sanction of the Treasury; and His Excellency did not think that the interests of the Public Service required that he should refuse to accept their resignation—namely, Sir W. F. Hort, Mr. J. T. Butler, Mr. W. Morris Reade. In addition to these, the following 12 magistrates have been invited to take advantage of the special terms offered—namely, Mr. Miller, Hon. M. J. Ffrench, Mr. Morony, Mr. M'Cullagh, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Franks, Captain Coote, Mr. Parkinson, Major Percy, Captain Wynne, and Mr. Dennehy.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state at whose request the two resident magistrates from Cork and Clare were brought to Listowel to assist in the trial of the charge against Mr. T. Harrington and others?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the two Resident Magistrates—Mr. Butler, R. M., and Mr. Considine, R. M.—were sent

  29
  to Listowel on the occasion referred to, upon the recommendation of Captain Plunkett, the special Resident Magistrate of the district. The local Resident Magistrate, being required as a witness in the case, could not sit on the Bench.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTMASTER OF THE CLEGGAN POST OFFICE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether, on the 28th ultimo, the postmaster at Cleggan, county Galway, used abusive and threatening language to one Festy King, and committed an assault upon him; whether, on the 27th ultimo, at the same post office, Mrs. Molloy, of Aughrisbeg, having called for a letter, a letter addressed to her was opened by the postmistress, who took from it a cheque sent to Mrs. Molloy by her husband, and assaulted Mrs. Molloy so seriously that she has since been confined to bed; and, what steps have been taken, or will be taken, with reference to the charge of the Cleggan post office?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, it was true that an assault was committed, but it was not a violent assault. It was also true that the wife of the postmaster committed the very serious impropriety of detaining a money order contained in a letter which she was authorized to open. He had given instructions that she should refund the money, and he had told the postmaster and his wife that if they gave any further grounds for complaint the post office would be at once placed in other hands.

  PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS—VACANCIES AT THE WAR OFFICE.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the number of General Officers of high rank in the Army now out of employment, the vacancies at the War Office, caused by the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley and. Sir John Adye to commands in Egypt, will be filled up, in the one case on the usual conditions of a five years' appointment, and, in the other, by a Member of this House? The noble Lord added that he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say yesterday that the offices had not been vacated, and that the appointments in Egypt had only been made for three
  30
  months. He wished to ask whether, if the operations went on beyond three months, these appointments would be continued or not; and, further, whilst the appointments are being temporarily filled, pay would be received by these two distinguished officers, both for their appointments at the War Office and in Egypt?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered it desirable that such appointments should be made without the vacancies being filled up?
  MR. CHILDERS: I think Notice should be given of such Questions as that last addressed to me. In reply to the noble Lord, I have to say that I fully answered his principal Question in the debate yesterday; and the noble Lord will, therefore, excuse me if I do not repeat what I then said. If the campaign should last longer than three months it will be necessary to reconsider these appointments.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: How about the pay?
  MR. CHILDERS: The pay, of course, of the offices at home will not be drawn while the officers are on duty elsewhere. In one of the cases—that of the Adjutant General—I stated that another officer was to be appointed for the time.

  ARMY—ARMY HOSPITAL CORPS.
  GENERAL FEILDENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any objection to state the result of the inquiry, by the Committee presided over by Sir Evelyn Wood, into the charges of inefficiency and misconduct brought against the men of the Army Hospital Corps who served in South Africa; and, whether he intends to take any action in the matter?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the gallant General, I think I had better read the two paragraphs in the Report of the Committee which sum up their opinion—
  "The Committee think, as regards the general result of the inquiries, that the more serious allegations against the Army Hospital Corps have not been substantiated; they consider, however, that certain individuals of the Corps have been shown to have been unfit for their duties, but that the proofs have been against individuals who were punished at the time, and that the defects in the treatment of the patients arose principally from the suddenness of the outbreak, which struck down the Army Hospital

  31
  Corps as well as the other corps; and from the dimensions it assumed it could not have been foreseen."
  I have now, with the concurrence of the Duke of Cambridge, appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole organization of the Corps, and I hope to consider its Report before preparing the Estimates of next year.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—TRANSPORTS.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How many of the numerous transports now being taken up to convey troops to Egypt have been supplied by the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, and by the Royal Mail Steamship Company, which receive heavy postal subsidies on the condition of supplying vessels for the service of Government in time of war?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in reply to the Question of my right hon. Friend, I have to say that two vessels belonging to the Peninsular and? Oriental Steamship Company have been taken up in London for the service of the Government—namely, the Carthage and the Nepaul. The former is a fine vessel of 5,000 tons, which will be employed as a military hospital. I am informed that at Bombay the Hydatpes, Khiva, and Zambesi, all belonging to the same Company, have been taken up, and the Tanjore is being used at Alexandria. No vessel belonging to the Royal Mail Company has been offered to the Government.

  EGYPT (THE WAR)—NEWSPAPER REPORTS.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the conduct of yesterday's Evening "Standard" in publishing, with its evening edition, false reports of the defeat of our Troops; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the continuance of a practice which is calculated to cause needless anxiety and alarm to the public, for the purpose of increasing the circulation of newspapers?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Home Office has many miscellaneous duties, without adding the duty which the hon. and gallant Member seeks to impose upon it. We cannot undertake to see
  32
  that newspapers do not make statements which are unfounded in fact. A great many people seem to take for granted that everything they read in a newspaper is necessarily true. My experience does not bear out that belief. It is a mistake altogether. This is light literature which belongs rather to the department of fiction than history. It is intended to be bought and read. It is not intended to be believed. If the public would only understand that they would have really the remedy which the hon. and gallant Member wishes in their own hands. As long as there is a demand for this sensational correspondence, for this imaginary news, it is sure to be supplied. If the demand ceases, in this as in other industries, the supply will fail. The only practical remedy I can suggest to the hon. and gallant Member is one which I offer not at all in an official sense, and it is, that people, when they hear special editions shouted in the streets, should not buy them, and if they cannot resist buying them, at all events they should not believe what they read in them.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the Report of the proceedings of the Belfast Board of Guardians of Tuesday last, as it appeared in the "Belfast Northern Whig" newspaper, in which it is stated that Sub-constable M'Mahon reported that he had found three persons lying at the workhouse gate after eleven o'clock at night, who had previously obtained provisional orders for their admission from the relieving officers marked urgent, and whom the workhouse master refused to admit; if it be true that one of the persons is an old man seventy years of age, who, at the time of seeking admission, was suffering from a severe attack of hemorrhage, and, notwithstanding this fact, was kept lying on the roadside all night; if it be true that another of the persons is an infirm old woman sixty-seven years of age, who was also, according to Constable M'Mahon's Report, "kept sitting on the wet, cold, ground, outside the workhouse gate, all night;" if it be true that a majority of the guardians not only refused to inquire, or cause an in-

  33
  quiry to be made, into the circumstances, but actually adopted a Resolution approving of the master's conduct; if it be correct that the master has no legal or discretionary power to refuse admission to persons holding provisional orders for relief; if it be true that, on the preceding week, Sub-constable Burke made a similar complaint against the master for refusing to admit to the workhouse a destitute woman with two young children, and she and her children were kept lying on the roadside from eleven o'clock at night to half-past one on the following morning; and, what steps have the Local Government Board taken to prevent a recurrence of such conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the matter referred to in this Question, and they have had before them Reports on the subject made by the constable and by the master and porter of the workhouse. I understand the statements in the constable's Report substantially agree with those in the Question of the hon. Member; but that the workhouse officers' Reports differ from the police Reports, and that further inquiry is therefore necessary, and is now being instituted by the Local Government Board. The Guardians do not meet until Tuesday next; and I cannot answer the Question more fully until I learn the result of the further inquiry.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (INDIA)—SALARIES OF INDIAN JUDGES.
  MR. PUGHasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the time has yet arrived when he can lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence relating to the reduction of the salaries of all the High Court Judges in Bengal and of the Native High Court Judges in the rest of India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that until the Correspondence was complete, he did not think it would be convenient to lay it on the Table.

  ARMY—ALLOWANCES TO FAMILIES OF SOLDIERS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any improvement has been made in the scale of allowances to the wives and children of soldiers on active service?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; I took up this question last year, and I am happy to say that the improvements which we made in the scale of allowances have been found very satisfactory. Formerly the separation allowances in the case of all married soldiers were 6d. for the wife and 2d. for each of the children up to 14 years, and the soldier was not required to supplement these allowances out of his pay. Now the wife of a non-commissioned officer receives 8d. a-day from the public and 8d. out of her husband's pay, and the wife of a private 8d. from the public and 4d. from her husband. Similarly, the allowances for the children are—from the public 2d. for each child (the limit for female children being raised to 16 years of age), while in the case of sergeants 1½d., and in the case of rank and file, 1d. for each child (up to a certain maximum) is stopped from the soldier's pay.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE—INTERVENTION OF THE PORTE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the Conference which was assembled at the instance of Her Majesty's Government on Friday last requested Turkey to send troops to repress the disorder in Egypt; whether Said Pasha on Tuesday intimated to the Conference the willingness of the Sultan to send a force, and has since decided to despatch a force of 20,000 men, in virtue of his sovereign authority, notwithstanding the First Lord of the Treasury's declaration on Monday that "the opportunity for Turkish intervention had passed away;" whether it is true that the Italian Government, on being asked to co-operate in the occupation of Egypt, referred the British ambassador to the Conference; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any statement to make with regard to their future policy in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, as the hon. Gentleman has referred to me in this Question I will answer it. As regards the earlier part of the Question, we are sensible that it relates to a subject on which the House naturally takes extreme interest, and we shall, with respect to it, take the same course that was taken with the original instructions to Lord Dufferin before the Conference—that is to say, we shall lay upon the Table what

  35
  we have had to say on the subject. Without waiting for that, it may be interesting to the House if I read at once the principal and most important parts of the telegram which has been Bent on its coming to our knowledge that the Sultan has, in the first place, declared his acceptance in principle of the proposal to send troops to Egypt; and, in the second place, has declared that he is prepared to send them in the manner indicated by the Conference, but without pointing out or fixing any time when they will be sent. The material part of that Instruction, which will be laid at once upon the Table, is this—
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What is the date?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is dated this morning. We received the intelligence yesterday. The Cabinet yesterday evening met to consider the basis of the Instruction, and the Instruction was sent to-day—
  "While reserving to themselves the liberty of action which the pressure of events may render expedient or necessary, Her Majesty's Government will he glad to receive the co-operation of any Powers who are ready to afford it. They are accordingly prepared to accept frankly the assistance which the Sultan has now announced his readiness to give in the restoration of order by sending troops to Egypt in accordance with the invitation addressed to His Majesty by the Powers, and subject to the conditions proposed by them. They now desire to learn what number of troops the Sultan intends to send, the date of their probable departure, and the proposed disposition of them. In the meanwhile, the delay which has occurred in the adoption of measures by the Porte, and the feeling of uncertainty which has unfortunately prevailed as to the real intentions of the Sultan, and which has been strengthened by the action of His Majesty in conferring on Arabi Pasha an important decoration and mark of his favour, make it, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, essential, both for the assertion of the Sultan's own authority and of that of the Khedive, that His Majesty should at once, and before the despatch of the troops, issue a proclamation upholding Tewfik Pasha, and denouncing Arabi Pasha as a rebel."
  The hon. Gentleman asks what we have done "notwithstanding the First Lord of the Treasury's declaration on Monday that 'the opportunity for Turkish intervention had passed away.'" I see that the hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension as to what fell from me, and which has been partaken by others, and, therefore, I now repeat that what I stated was, in substance, this—that we looked as long as we were able to look to
  36
  Turkish intervention as the proper and exclusive means of applying military force, should military force become necessary for composing the disorders and difficulties in Egypt. We continued to look to Turkey for that purpose till after the bombardment, and we were, indeed, of opinion that the bombardment itself had afforded extraordinary facilities and great opportunities to the Sultan. It is certainly within my knowledge that these feelings on our part were made known to the Ottoman Government; but the Sultan, in the exercise of his own discretion, did not avail himself of that opportunity, and it was that opportunity of acting as the exclusive agent in the Egyptian disorder that I stated had passed away. But I stated, I think—I forget whether it was in answer to a Question or otherwise—that the question still remained open whether there would be co-operation with other European Powers, or the Ottoman Porte.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There was no mention made of any particular Power; we spoke of co-operation in general. That is the state of the case. The opportunity which had passed away was that opportunity of sole and exclusive interference to be exercised by the Sultan in his capacity of Sovereign of the country. I am not making any addition to the statement I made before, but merely reviewing it. Then the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is whether the Italian Government, on being asked to co-operate in the occupation of Egypt, referred the British Ambassador to the Conference? I think this Question is based on a misapprehension, owing, probably, to reports in the newspapers. I am not able to say more on the subject than that communications with the Italian Government are in progress. With regard to the hon. Member's last Question, I think that, considering how busily we have during the last four days been making declarations as to our policy in Egypt, it is not necessary to make any further declaration on the fifth day of the week.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received any news this morning, either confirmatory or the reverse, of the telegram which has been received with regard to some offer

  37
  of submission on the part of Arabi Pasha?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, there has been a telegram received this morning from Mr. Cartwright, in which he alludes to indirect communications made by Arabi Pasha, with a view to the surrender of the Military Party; but no direct communication has up to the present been received from Arabi Pasha.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether, in view of the fact that the Conference was assembled for the purpose of dealing with the troubles in the East, the Prime Minister thought it right to charge the Ottoman Government with unnecessary delay, seeing that the Conference did not give its mandate to Turkey until Friday last, and they on Tuesday accepted the Identic Note?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon, Sir. I made no charge whatever; I stated a fact. I said that a delay had occurred, and it is recited in this telegram, and that a decoration of an important character was conferred by the Sultan at a very critical period upon Arabi. I must correct the hon. Gentleman. He is quite wrong about the time when the Identic Note was sent in to the Ottoman Government. It is before the House, and he should have known it. The adoption of the Identic Note by the Representatives assembled at Constantinople was really an essential epoch, and that adoption was a considerable time back—several weeks back. The sending in of the Note, was, I think, on the 15th of July.
  MR. BOURKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question arising out of his Answer? Are we to understand that the conditions proposed to the Porte as to sending troops to Egypt still hold good; whether the Sultan is to send troops to Egypt on the conditions just mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, or whether those conditions have been in any way altered; and whether, in addition to those conditions which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to, the Sultan's Proclamation of Arabi as a rebel is to be one of the conditions previous to the despatch of the Sultan's troops?
  MR. ONSLOWasked what was to be the nature of this Proclamation? Was it to be issued only at Constantinople, or circulated throughout the whole of Egypt, which at present was in a state of rebellion? What was the nature of
  38
  the indirect communications which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said had been, received, and from whom did they come?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), as I understand the conditions of the Conference, I believe they have been accepted without question by the Porte. I cannot say anything about what the Conference may hereafter do. With regard to the Proclamation, the conditions were framed some weeks ago, and, therefore, the subject is beyond our control. As to the matter of the Proclamation, we have given in our instructions a sufficient indication of its purport which we think is likely to be concurred in by every other Power; but the precise matter of the Proclamation must be left to the discretion of the Sultan. As to its circulation in Egypt, the suggestion of the hon. Member is a very just one. It would be of little use if it were confined to Constantinople; but it is not in our power to make any condition on this subject.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended, before the House rises, to move that the thanks of this House be given to Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour, Captain Hunt-Grubbe, and the officers, seamen, and marines for their conduct on the 11th July at Alexandria?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Her Majesty's Government are deeply sensible of our obligation to the gallant Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour and the officers under his command; but beyond that I cannot go. It is a matter of usage that the initiative in such a case is left to the Government, and they must manifestly reserve to themselves the exercise of their own discretion as to the time and circumstances of such a Motion. It must be borne in mind that the information we have hitherto received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour has been so fax telegraphic. It is only this morning that lengthened despatches giving details of his operations have been received, and with their contents it has not been possible for the Government to acquaint themselves. I take the opportunity of making an addition to the Answer I gave just now. Since then a note has been put into my hands, from which I find that a communication has been received

  39
  this morning from the Turkish Ambassador in London to the effect that the Sultan proposes to send troops immediately.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What day?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no day named; but the word "immediately" is used.
  MR. ONSLOW: Is there anything about the Proclamation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no reference to the Proclamation. It is an entirely independent communication, and has no reference whatever to the steps taken at Constantinople with respect to the Proclamation, and will not in any way delay or interfere with those proceedings. I wish also to say a word with regard to what was said yesterday by an hon. Friend who expressed his belief that the conflagrations in Alexandria were caused by the firing of the British ships. The name of Mr. Easton is, perhaps, as well known in connection with works at Alexandria as the name of Mr. Cornish, who is now there. Mr. Easton writes a letter to me which it is quite fair to quote in competition with an anonymous writer in a newspaper, and he says—
  "It is perfectly clear that the statement that the burning of Alexandria was not caused by the action of the Fleet is correct."

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—A SATURDAY SITTING.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Prime Minister, Whether there was to be a Saturday Sitting this week—["No, no!"]—and, if so, whether he would take into consideration that they had already given one day and nearly the whole of another day to Scotch questions, and give facilities for an English Bill which had come down from the Lords—the Married Women's Property Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the object of a Saturday Sitting, the progress of the Electric Lighting Bill, would, he understood, be accomplished, and there was, therefore, no intention to propose a Saturday Sitting.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired what would be the arrangement with regard to the second Order of the Day—the East India (Expenses of Military Expedition to Egypt) debate. Would it be taken as the first Order on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Tax Bill was the first Order for to-day, after which they intended to take the East India Vote if the Tax Bill were disposed of in the Morning Sitting. If it was not so disposed of, and if the East India Vote could not come on at a reasonable hour after Supply at the Evening Sitting, that Vote would be put down as the first Order for Monday. With respect to the Tax Bill, in deference to the wishes of a body of Gentlemen who were interested in it, it was arranged that it should not be carried beyond the 4th clause to-day.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked whether the Government had absolutely decided to abandon the clause with regard to the Carriage Tax?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I have already stated that.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EXTRA POLICE AT PALLAS GREEN—EXTRA POLICE PENALTY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether some months since a police but was erected in the town-land of Clorenfield, Pallasgreen, county Limerick, to protect emergency men who had taken possession of a farm from which the tenant had been evicted; whether the evicted tenant has now resumed possession and the emergency men have been withdrawn; and, whether, under these circumstances, the police will also be withdrawn, and the heavy expenses consequent on their presence removed from the townland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A police hut was erected about three months ago at the place mentioned in this Question in consequence of the murder of the emergency man Roche. His Excellency is at present considering whether or not the extra force may now safely be withdrawn.
  MR. REDMOND: Was it erected under the circumstances mentioned in the Question, and are the facts stated correct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Quite correct, Sir.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—MICHAEL WALLACE.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  41
  Whether Mr. Wallace, a respectable farmer in the parish of Pallas Kenry, in the county of Limerick, was arrested under the Prevention of Crime Act on the 14th July last, and taken a distance of nine miles before Mr. Hatchell, R. M.; whether he was ordered by the said resident magistrate to give bail for his appearance at Petty Sessions, and kept in custody the whole night until he got such bail; whether the case against him was dismissed at the Sessions; and, whether any compensation will be given to Mr. Wallace for the injuries he has been subjected to, and the costs and expenses he has been put to in defending himself?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Michael Wallace, the son of a farmer, was arrested under Section 11 of the Prevention of Crime Act and brought before the Resident Magistrate, who admitted him to bail to appear at the next Petty Sessions. The case against him at Petty Sessions was dismissed on the legal defence that the Proclamation applying the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act to the district had not been posted therein at the time of the arrest. The Government does not contemplate awarding any compensation to Mr. Wallace.

  ARMY—VACANCIES IN CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that there are a large number of subaltern vacancies in cavalry regiments at present; if so, whether that arises from any want of candidates for commissions; and, whether he will consider the propriety of advising that the examinations should be made more practical and less scholastic, or what steps will be taken in the matter, seeing that we are on the eve of extensive military operations?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; there have been a certain number of vacancies in the Cavalry contemporaneously with a large supernumerary list in the Infantry, the main reason being that the sons of wealthier parents are generally candidates for Cavalry commissions, and do not necessarily take the highest places in the competitions. For the moment we have made arrangements not inconsistent with the present rules as to qualification to meet the immediate exigencies; but the whole subject
  42
  has been for some time under my consideration and is being discussed by a Committee appointed some short time since.

  ARMY—APPOINTMENTS TO THE STAFF.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the express function of the Commander-in-Chief to select officers for appointments to the staff of an army about to take the field; and whether, in the case of the expeditionary force to Egypt, the usual practice has been departed from in this respect; whether he will state the reasons which have instigated the selection of an officer charged with such important duties as those of Surveyor-General of Ordnance to proceed on foreign service at a time when the duties and responsibilities of his department must necessarily be largely increased; whether, in view of the numbers of distinguished officers seeking for employment, it is proposed to fill up the vacancies which have been created on the staff at home; and, whether the office of Surveyor-General of Ordnance was revived on the understanding, and with the intention of Parliament, that it should be held when practicable by a member of the Legislature?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; no change has been made on this occasion in the practice under which officers are selected for the Staff of an expedition. The Secretary of State is responsible to Her Majesty and to Parliament for these selections; but he acts, of course, in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief, and, as to the junior appointments, he interferes but slightly. The present Surveyor General of the Ordnance is peculiarly fitted for the duty of Chief of the Staff, in which his experience, second to none, in connection with the administrative departments will be of great assistance to the officer in command of the force in the field. I have answered the third Question of the hon. Member in the debate on the Vote of Credit; but as to the fourth, I may say that the Office of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance was established on the lines of the recommendations of Lord North-brook's Committee of 1870, from which I will read one paragraph—
  "It would, we think, be unfortunate if the appointment came to be considered as one which

  43
  must, as a matter of course, be conferred on a Member of Parliament. It would be sufficient, in our opinion, that the office should be classed with those of the naval members of the Board of Admiralty who form part of the political administration of the day, eligible to sit in the House of Commons, but need not always necessarily be Members of Parliament."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was in accordance with his views of military discipline that a Staff officer should also be the special correspondent of a London newspaper?
  MR. CHILDERS: I would rather have Notice of that Question. There are difficulties arising out of the practice in a previous case under a former Government, and I should like to look into the matter before answering the Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE JUDGES AND THE ASSIZES.
  MR. HICKSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is now prepared to state what arrangements are to be made with a view of relieving the Judicial Bench and others from some of the burdens consequent on attending at four assizes each year?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that he was perfectly well aware of the inconvenience which four Assizes entailed, and the Government were endeavouring to mitigate it to some extent by a further grouping of counties.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 239.]
  (Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 239.]

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

  BEER—ABOLITION OF THE MALT TAX.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. CHAPLIN,in rising to move—
    "That this House is of opinion that the repeal of the Malt Tax, by encouraging the use of rice, maize, and other articles, as substitutes for malt in brewing, has proved to be injurious, instead of beneficial, to the farmer; that the manufacture of beer of inferior quality from such articles is contrary to the public welfare, as well as detrimental to the interests of agri-
    44
    culture, and that no financial scheme will be satisfactory which does not amend the Law with regard to the use of ingredients other than sugar, malt, and hops, in the brewing of beer for sale,"
    said, he gave Notice that he would raise this question early in the Session. Since the repeal of the Malt Tax many ingredients had been used in the manufacture of beer, and agriculturists had suffered from the consequent lowering of the value of barley. He was not ashamed to admit that he cordially approved of the repeal of the Malt Tax, because it was unjust to the cultivators of the sail that they should be precluded from using the produce of their farms in the most profitable way. The repeal of the tax, as far as it permitted farmers to malt their own barley, had proved very beneficial; but its other effects had, on the whole, outweighed the advantages of the change. His Amendment set forth several propositions, the first of which was that the repeal of the tax had been injurious for certain specified reasons, such as the use of base materials in the manufacture of beer; the second, that the use of those ingredients injured not only the agricultural community, but also the public welfare; and the third, that the repeal of the tax had been detrimental to the farmers by reducing the price of barley. The other part of the Amendment was to the effect—
    "That no financial scheme will be satisfactory which does not amend the Law with regard to the use of ingredients other than sugar, malt, and hops, in the brewing of beer for sale."
    But his main object was to induce Her Majesty's Government to entertain the case he submitted to them, and then to amend the proposal as they pleased. At the same time, there were a variety of ways in which it might be amended. A duty, for instance, might be imposed on the spurious ingredients of the same nature as the duty on what were called "imitations of coffee," or the desired object might be attained by making it necessary for persons who sold beer to declare whether it was manufactured from ingredients other than sugar, malt, and hops. If the ingredients used at present in the manufacture of beer—such as maize and rice—were advertised in a placard over the doorway of every beershop in which the spurious liquor was sold, it would very soon be found profitable to revert to the

    45
    old process of manufacture. Another proposal, which he was inclined to commend, was that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), who suggested that no liquor not brewed exclusively from sugar, malt, and hops should be allowed to be sold under the name of beer. He hoped that the Government would consider these three proposals, with a view to the adoption of one of them, or of something similar. At one time, he confessed, he had advocated the imposition of a duty on foreign barley, in order to raise in that manner that part of the Revenue which now accrued from beer; but the fact was that at this moment it was not the foreign barley that did the mischief, but the injurious substitutes he had mentioned; and these, undoubtedly, did injure all the agriculturists who depended largely on the growing of barley. It was to be remembered that, owing to the keen competition to which English wheat was exposed, the farmers, who were chiefly interested in barley, were every day increasing in numbers, so that it would probably not be long before a boon that was specially advantageous to them would profit the agricultural community at large. The Commission on British Agriculture had just issued its Report, and would be found to have made, among other beneficial suggestions, a recommendation in this direction. In the long run, the prosperity of agriculture must depend upon good weather and fair prices; and this view was supported by some very remarkable concurrent evidence from three out of the four Sub-Commissioners who pursued their investigations throughout the whole of England. English farmers had contended for a long time with almost unexampled difficulties, and had met them nobly, and had used such rare favourable opportunities as they had had in a way that spoke volumes for their pluck and mettle. He trusted, then, that the right hon. Gentleman—who, he acknowledged, had shown much consideration for the Bills in which the farmers were interested—would show his sympathy with them in a more practical manner. The repeal of the Malt Tax was intended to confer great benefits on them, and was passed at a time when no Government could afford to ignore the agricultural interest; but, from various circumstances, those benefits had been intercepted, or,
    46
    at least, had been greatly diminished, and all he now asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should entertain an Amendment that would make his measure of relief real and effectual. The Amendment was not placed on the Paper in a spirit of hostility to the financial proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, but to enable him (Mr. Chaplin) to state the views of a great many who were interested in the question, and in order to afford an opportunity for the statement of the views of the Government. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    COLONEL BARNE,in seconding the Amendment, said, that he brought in this Session a Bill which would have the effect of carrying out the object of the Amendment; but it was rejected on the second reading, after a short discussion, by a majority of less than 30. If the Bill could have been discussed at length on a Wednesday, it would have had a very fair chance of passing. No one could dispute that ingredients other than sugar, malt, and hops were put into beer; and he held that persons who drank beer ought to know what they were drinking. When the right hon. Gentleman, two years ago, abolished the Malt Tax, the measure was received by the agricultural community with great favour; but they had since found out that they were mistaken in so regarding it, and that, instead of raising the price of barley, it had greatly reduced it, and they were now suffering seriously in consequence. He had been told by one of the largest maltsters in England that the price of barley must fall and keep low, unless some change was made in the law. The consumption of beer had, to a great extent, been reduced, and the working classes were now drinking instead more spirits, and, to a certain extent, more tea and coffee. He viewed with regret the reduction in the consumption of beer as compared with spirits. It was well known that rice and maize made an inferior kind of beer, and that the many injurious substances put into it—not by brewers, but by publicans—rendered the article very injurious to the community. On behalf, therefore, of the community at large, as well as the agricultural population of this country, he considered that this Resolution deserved the serious conside-

    47
    ration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no financial scheme will be satisfactory which does not amend the Law with regard to the use of ingredients other than sugar, malt, and hops, in the brewing of beer for sale,"—(Mr. Chaplin,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am very glad to see that the House has not considered the present a very convenient opportunity for entering at large upon this Amendment. With respect to the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down (Colonel Barne), I think it is rather hard that he should select this opportunity for the purpose of ventilating the ideas which he entertains on this matter; because at an earlier period the hon. and gallant Gentleman took it in hand as a legislator, and proposed a Bill with the objects he has in view, and the House rejected the Bill. Under the circumstances, I think it is rather severe that, after a Bill has been rejected in his own hands, he should endeavour to revive it in mine.
    COLONEL BARNE: The right hon. Gentleman has more influence than I have.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I beg to assure the hon. and gallant Member that my influence would unquestionably fail if I were to direct it to those objects. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman only showed a good discretion in selecting the purposes to which he applied his influence, I think he would find that the influence would become very large, and he need not be afraid to compare it with that of anybody else. In respect to this Motion, I must say that the terms of the Motion appear to cast a disagreeable light upon a policy that has been steadily pursued for half-a-century. Because, since the year 1830, the Party with which the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion is connected have represented the repeal of the Malt Tax as the grand specific for all agricultural woes and grievances. I have had a great deal more experience of these matters than the hon. Gentleman has had; and I can
    48
    assure him that the uniform strain in which the recommendations for the repeal of the Malt Tax were supported was by invoking the Goddess of Freedom. It was the removal of restraint; it was liberating the hands of the producers; and now that that has been done, the hon. Member says—"Oh, yes; liberate the hands of a particular description of producers, but tie up the hands of another class of producers." But, Sir, it is an extremely painful circumstance to me that the unfortunate farmer of this country should, for 50 years, have been taught by those who unquestionably believed themselves the best friends the farmer had, and who often say they are the only friends, to place his hope and reliance on a remedy of which the hon. Gentleman now deliberately declares that the disadvantages greatly outweighed the advantages.
    MR. CHAPLIN: But it is the way in which it was done.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It was done by setting the trade free, and leaving everybody to judge what kind of beer they would like. I will not dwell upon that; but when I recollect that whenever a Tory Government was in power—with the exception of 1835, when Lord Chan-dos was in Office—the question of the Malt Tax was allowed to sleep. A change came over the views of the agricultural interest, and the Malt Tax was of small importance; but when a Liberal Government were in Office, the Malt Tax has always swelled into portentous dimensions. It was invariably exhibited to the country as the means by which the agricultural interest was to be restored to a state of vigour and prosperity; and it is, indeed, a most lamentable fact that this long-continued series of operations should now be admitted, from the mouth of those who were its chief champions, to have been an entire delusion practised on the British Parliament. That is a sad fact. Experience teaches many lessons which we would do well to take to heart. But with regard to this Motion, allow me to point out to the hon. Gentleman what appears to me to dispose of it very briefly. As far as it is true that a mischievous article is produced by the use of certain ingredients in the making of beer, that is not a matter of finance at all, but is a matter belonging to the question of adulteration. It has to do

    49
    with the health of the public, and I must say that it is not a financial subject, or a subject which the Financial Department should entertain. As far as I recognize the views of the hon. Gentleman, he is aiming at raising the price of a particular article by shutting out from competition a number of other articles.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Spurious articles.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No; I beg pardon. The hon. Gentleman by that theory leads us into a maze of confusion. I have said that as far as it is injurious we get rid of it by dealing with it as adulteration. I do not think the hon. Gentleman could expect the House of Commons to proscribe the use of articles other than malt, hops, and sugar in the making of beer, because the introduction of them tends to reduce the price of barley. The Motion, on that point of view, strikes at the very root of all progress and advance in the industry of the country. My firm belief is, that the admission of all these articles will be beneficial to the public, because this is a trade that depends upon the use of bulky commodities; and the more free we are to purchase these bulky commodities, the larger will be the use of them. To give an absolute free choice of material, setting aside the question of adulteration, to the producers of this country, is absolutely the first and most necessary condition of progress in industry and manufactures. If you do not do that, you will undo the whole legislation of the last century, which has tended to set British industry free, and begin again to manufacture the fetters which formerly bound up the energies, the industry, the skill, and the capital of this country, and carry it back as far as you can to the condition of comparative poverty and disgrace in which it lay before those operations began. I could not with honesty pretend to be prepared to entertain in any way the question of restricting the use of any materials in the production of beer which are not obnoxious, on the ground of their sanitary effects. This is no question of finance. I wish the hon. Member every kind of success in an operation of this kind; but I think it is rather hard when we come forward with our Tax Bill to supply the absolute wants of the country, at a period when the House is much exhausted with
    50
    the labours of a lengthened Session, to bring upon the Tax Bill a question of that kind.
    MR. CHAPLINreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had put his Notice on the Paper months ago.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is quite true; but the result of the action of the hon. Member is that this important subject is brought to our notice in the last days of July, when the Government has been obliged to give up the very last of their legislative measures for the Session. I am sure that, under these circumstances, the hon. Member will feel that it is not desirable that the Government should enter at large into questions of elementary principle, or make admissions which, if made at all, must strike at the very root of the legislation which has done so much to render this country content and prosperous.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not suppose that ever in the history of this House had the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill been brought on in the last week of July. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not responsible for this, and the House had no control over it. It was unfortunate, but there it was, and he would not hinder for more than a minute or two the discussion on that Bill. But as the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had put this Motion on the Paper, he would say a word or two upon it. The right hon. Gentleman, in the remarks he had just made, must have forgotten the year 1852, when the late lamented Lord Beaconsfield moved to reduce the Malt Tax by one-half. A Conservative Government being then in power did attempt to deal with the Malt Tax. His next remark would be that he did not know how the agriculturists of this country were to grow in any large quantities rice and maize, which the right hon. Gentleman told them they were at liberty to do, and which, he stated, might be part of the produce of farms hereafter. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had yet to learn that the climate of this country would admit of the growth of rice. He would admit to the full that after the right hon. Gentleman had abolished the Malt Tax, it was very difficult to restrict the ingredients of which beer was composed; but he would point out that the repeal of the Malt Tax had had this effect, which no

    51
    one would deny—that it had materially decreased the present price of barley, and enabled many brewers who were not so particular of what their beer was composed to brew beer from articles which were not for the general benefit of the public health. One thing, however, had been very useful—namely, that a much larger number of people, much larger than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, did now brew at home. The more that was done the better it was for the home brewers and their families. He regretted that for the sake merely of the principle of Free Trade, and the absolute abolition of Protection, the duty of 1s. on corn was abolished. In his opinion, that was a great and grave mistake. That duty produced a large revenue, and during the last two years would have produced a larger revenue than before. It hurt nobody, and it was throwing away a large amount of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that they had much to complain of in the agricultural interest from causes over which they had no control. Their losses had been borne with such a spirit as Englishmen generally showed, with a full determination to meet them to the best of their ability. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to alleviate those misfortunes by the reduction of taxation in some way or other, he would be conferring a great benefit upon an important interest. He had met them to some extent with regard to highways and main roads; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) ventured to hope that the local taxation which would come before the House and the country next year in a far better shape than would have been possible this year would afford in the future some of that relief which was so very much needed.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that he had listened attentively to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, in the expectation of hearing reasons in support of the Motion, but he had listened in vain. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) ought to have been able to show, but had not shown, by an elaborate analytical report, that the ingredients used in the brewing of beer which he complained of were distinctly injurious to the public health. Neither had any attempt been made to prove that the repeal of the Malt Tax had an unfavourable effect upon the price of
    52
    barley. He (Mr. James Howard) contended that the hon. Member was bound to prove the three points he had referred to; happily a large number of analytical chemists existed in the country, and it would therefore have been easy to submit an analysis showing the composition of the articles complained of. With respect to the effect of the repeal upon the price of barley, he had prepared a Return of the average price of malting barley from The Mark Lane Express for 21 years past, and he had taken the price on the first Monday in December in each year, a period when the malting trade was at its highest activity. The average price in 1860 was 34 s. per quarter; in 1865 it was 34 s.; in 1870, 38 s. 6d.; in 1875, 38 s.; in 1880, 38 s. 6d.; while in 1881 it was 44 s., or 10 s. a-quarter higher than in 1860. It was true that immediately after the repeal of the Malt Tax there was a considerable decline in the price of barley. He was somewhat astonished and puzzled at that result, and on inquiring the cause of one of the largest maltsters, he was told that it was due solely to the fact that there existed at the time large stocks of malt which had been left over from the previous season, that owing to the depressing effect upon industries of all kinds through the disturbing policy of the late Government the demand for beer had declined, and he also made the remark that, owing to the depression, it was difficult to give malt away. He (Mr. James Howard) then went to one of the largest brewers in England, and asked whether he could corroborate the views of the maltster? He replied that he could to this extent—that brewers could buy malt almost upon their own terms. It appeared to be the fashion of hon. Gentlemen opposite to decry whatever measures the Liberal Government passed for the relief of agriculture, even though they had clamoured for such measures for many years; they had attempted to ridicule the Ground Game Act, and with respect to the Malt Tax, although he could not, as the Prime Minister had done, go back so far as 1830, he could corroborate the statement of the Prime Minister as to the attitude of the Tory Party during later years; whenever a Liberal Government had been in power they had demanded the repeal of the Malt Duty. The Central Chamber of Agriculture, up to 1874, kept

    53
    alive the agitation year after year; but during the succeeding six years there was a period of quiescence; as soon, however, as the Liberal Party acceded to power the question was revived. He could quote many speeches of hon. Members opposite to show that they had advocated precisely what the Government had done—the transference of the tax from malt to beer. But he would quote one only—a speech by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chaplin). In addressing the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture in the Spring of 1880 the hon. Gentleman, after dwelling upon the importance of local taxation reform, referred to the Malt Tax in the following terms:—
    "Then there was that still more indefensible tax which pressed them heavily, and which was such a burden and hindrance to agriculture in many parts of the country—the Malt Tax. It was sufficient to recount the injurious effects of this tax on agriculture to show the enormous injustice which it imposed on the farmer and the producer of barley in England. He had never yet heard any valid reason why half the Malt Tax should not be placed on beer."
    He (Mr. James Howard) submitted that no case had been made out for the acceptance of the Amendment; the Proposer had neither proved its necessity, nor, indeed, had he made any attempt to prove it.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsuggested that the Prime Minister should, if not now, at some early period consider the advisability of extending his exemptions in the direction of free brewing. He believed that the present exemption in favour of £10 and £15 houses might be simplified and extended to £20 with but slight loss to the Revenue and great gain to the farmer. The principle of such exemptions in favour of agriculture had already been conceded in the matter of farmers' horses and dogs; and he hoped that, as the farmers were at present very heavily handicapped in the way of taxation, the Prime Minister would carefully consider the proposals of his hon. Friend on the possibility of making the change he had referred to.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that a great inequality in licences was occasioned to parties holding licences for the sale of spirits by the mode in which the rent of the premises was fixed. Until lately the old valuation was still in force in Scotland, under which the licences of persons selling spirits were charged upon the value of the portion
    54
    of the promises used for the sale of spirits. But within the last three years the change was made by which the licence was levied upon the value of the whole house, founded on the idea that as the Inhabited House Duty should be upon the whole building under one roof, then that the licence should also follow the charge for the House Duty. No doubt, in most cases, the whole house was often licensed for the sale of spirits; and the duty on the house was the then guide for the Excise to levy the licence duty. In Scotland, in many of the small localities, portions of the house were alone licensed by the magistrates, and kept separate from the inhabited portion; and as the licence was given for the shop, distinct from the dwelling-house, he hoped the Prime Minister would favourably consider a proposal he would bring before the Treasury in the course of a few days, and make the licences applicable to the shop only He merely mentioned this now in order that it should receive attention from the Treasury when he submitted it to them.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 52: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 300.)
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he rose to call attention to the expenditure of the country. The expenditure of the current year would be between £84,000,000 and £85,000,000, showing a slight decrease on the preceding year. There were two questions to consider—first, how the present expenditure contrasted with that of the late Government, of which the Liberal Party were always complaining, and on the faith of which they attacked the late Administration; and, next, how much of the present heavy expenditure was necessary for the efficient government of the country? Nothing, in his opinion, contributed so largely to the success of the Liberal cause at the last General Election as the extravagance of the Conservative Government and the constant preaching of economy by the Liberals. They were, therefore, bound in fairness to their opponents and to themselves to justify their posi-

    55
    tion, and they were also bound to ask whether, irrespective of all contrasts with the previous or other Governments, an expenditure of between £84,000,000 and £85,000,000 was absolutely necessary in order to carry on efficiently the Public Business of the State. With reference to the expenditure of the late Government, since the present Session opened, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote), at a meeting at Liverpool, stated that the expenditure of the year 1882 was higher than the highest sum which had ever been reached by the previous Administration, which was in 1879. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) ventured shortly afterwards to express some doubts as to the substantial accuracy of the contrast, and the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter in which he very severely censured the remarks he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) made. That letter having been published in his constituency, he felt it his duty to justify the remarks he made. The statement on which they joined issue was this. The expenditure of 1882 was£85,472,000, and that of 1879 was £85,407,000; therefore, there was an absolute increase of £65,000 for 1882. But a mere statement of these figures was not a statement of the whole case. They had to look into the points which made up the figures, and, in contrasting them, see whether there was or was not a real increase. The expenditure of the country was divided into three branches—expenditure for the Debt, expenditure for carrying on the Public Services, and expenditure for certain Departments of Public Business carried on by the State for the advantage of the State. In 1879, the amount appropriated for Debt was £28,000,000, and in 1882 the amount was £28,900,000. Three weeks before the late Government left Office in 1880, the right hon. Gentleman proposed, and the House adopted, a means for paying off the deficit which had been accumulated during previous years, and which amounted to something like £6,000,000, by the creation of Terminable Annuities, which were to expire in 1885. Therefore the expenditure for Debt in 1879 was£28,000,000, and the expenditure of 1882 included£800,000 additional expenditure for Debt incurred during the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman, and for which the present Administration was in no way
    56
    responsible. In addition to the£800,000, there was a grant to India of a loan of £2,000,000, which was afterwards made a gift. This made up a total of £990,000 charged as against 1882, but which was not expenditure in 1882, and for which the Administration of that year was in no way responsible. The next item of expenditure of 1882 contained £500,000 voted for the Afghan War. There might be a question whether it was right to put that burden upon the British taxpayers; but there could be no doubt that the extra charge was a direct consequence of the policy of the late Government. This made an extra expenditure in 1882 of £1,500,000, which was chargeable to the Conservative Administration. If the postal and telegraph business carried on by the Government for the benefit of the public was bringing in a larger revenue to the State, it was obvious that there must be a larger cost incurred in the administration of those Departments. Between the years 1879 and 1882 the difference in the cost in the administration of those two Departments was nearly£600,000. His argument was that in the year 1882 there was an expenditure in the aggregate of £2,100,000, for which the present Government were in no way responsible, and on which it was not just to charge them with the increasing expenditure of the country, one portion of it representing expenditure previously incurred, and the other representing business which was a substantial benefit to the country. The result was entirely to refute the assertion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) in his usual epigrammatic rhetoric, that the economy of the Liberal Government was more extravagant than the extravagance of the Conservative. Then, with regard to military expenditure, he found that in 1879 the amount was £32,300,000, and in 1882 £28,700,000, being a decrease of £3,500,000. [An hon. MEMBER: That was in time of war.] Yes; but in 1882 the Government had considerable expenditure on account of the Transvaal War. Whether they were right or wrong in the present expenditure they were incurring, he maintained that the Government had done their utmost to reduce the expenditure since they acceded to power, and that there had

    57
    been a substantial and effective reduction. If they took the gross total irrespective of the Post Office and Telegraphs, it would be found that the gross total was £77,500,000 in 1879, and between £76,000,000 and £77,000,000 in 1882. Coming to the real expenditure of the country, he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had carried out his principle of making the Revenue of the year defray the expenditure of the year. If they contrasted the finance of this country with that of America, which was the popular comparison among the people, he believed we were doing, proportionately, quite as much to decrease Debt in Great Britain as the Americans were in their own country, for though the Americans were raising no less than £13,000,000 yearly, they were raising it by heavy protective duties, which were a present charge on the future productiveness of the industries of the country. Since 1857, the reduction of Debt in this country amounted to £70,000,000, and during the last six years we had paid off £33,000,000 by Terminable Annuities—a large and substantial reduction of Debt, which, having regard to the generally depressed state of trade, he thought that was a result which they were entitled to regard as particularly satisfactory. To be able to make a reduction of between £6,000,000 and£7,000,000 showed undoubtedly a substantial improvement in the financial state of the country. With regard to the general subject of the reduction of expenditure, he wished to point out that it was a thing that was not in the hands of the House, but in those of the Executive Government. Whenever a Member raised a question having in view the reduction of expenditure, it was always seen that the matter was in the hands of the Government; for it ended by being taken to a division, in which it was settled by Government voting. He felt confident of this—that if they were to hope for any considerable reduction of the National Expenditure proposals for the purpose must come from the Executive of the day, who alone could master the Departments, instead of allowing the Departments to master them.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to assure the hon. Member that nothing was further from my intention than to cast any reflection upon him in the expressions which I used, and which
    58
    I cannot withdraw. The statement which the hon. Member addressed to his constituents appeared to me to he most misleading and inaccurate. I do not intend to impute to him that he intentionally misled; but I do maintain that it was the case with him, as with others, that they have imperfectly examined the facts. The point which I brought forward in my speech at Liverpool I do not apologize for referring to here; because it is part of a great question which has been, and which is, at issue between the two Parties in the country, and which is raised as a burning question—I mean the comparison between the expenditure of the late Government and the expenditure of the present Government. I wish to distinguish, in the first place, between the two different charges made against the late Government in regard to what is called their extravagant expenditure. No doubt, their policy involved a considerable expenditure for certain military services which were undertaken for what were considered adequate objects. It is a question always open for discussion whether those objects were or were not worth the cost incurred. But there is a further charge made against the late Government and one that is made an entirely separate charge; that is, that not only have they involved the country in considerable expenditure by the outlay they made for the purpose of carrying out a particular policy, but that they were an extravagant Government, per se, and that in the management of all the expenditure of the country, for which they were responsible, they were extravagant, and spent a great deal more than they need have expended or than a Liberal Government would. That is entirely an inaccurate and a misleading statement. No doubt we had to make provision for very heavy war expenditure in certain quarters. In 1878–9, for instance, we had very large calls upon us in consequence of the preparations we thought it right to make for strengthening the Military and Naval Forces of the Crown; and, of course, when that was at an end, and when you compare a year of peace with a year which was one of great disturbance, and which involved not only those preparations, but involved war in South Africa, of course the comparison must be unfavourable to the year in which the heavier expenditure

    59
    took place. What I wish to point out is, if you deduct, as the hon. Gentleman proposes to do, from the year 1881–2 all the expenditure which belongs to the policy of the late Administration and all the war charges which devolve upon the present Administration in consequence of the action of their Predecessors, you must, in order to get a fair comparison, make a similar deduction from the year you compare with it, the year 1878–9. If you do that, you will arrive at these results:—The total expenditure of 1877–8 was £82,400,000, of which £3,500,000 was for the Vote of Credit, leaving £78,900,000 as representing the ordinary expenditure of that year. In 1878–9 the expenditure was a little over £85,400,000, of that £4,770,000 was stated at the time to be extraordinary expenditure, which belonged to the war service of the year. Of course, we did not provide for the whole war service of that year, because we threw a part upon Exchequer Bonds, which ultimately were converted into the Annuities to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If you deduct that sum, you will find that the ordinary expenditure for 1878–9 was only £80,630,000. Now, let me compare that with 1881–2. Then the total expenditure was £85,472,000, and of that we were informed, the other day, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sum for war charges, including the Annuities, the charges for the Transvaal War, and everything of that sort was £3,842,000. If you deduct that from the actual expenditure you find that the ordinary expenditure of 1881–2 was£81,630,000, as against £80,630,000 in 1878–9, showing that the ordinary expenditure, irrespective of the special war charges, had increased by the sum of £1,000,000. If that is the case it disposes of the charge that we were, irrespective of special policy, a more extravagant Government than our Successors have been. I am not now desirous of making any charge against the present Government for the increase of expenditure—there may be a great deal to be said as to the causes for it—but I say it is utterly unfair and misleading to put them forward as though they were a rebuke and a reproach to us, when, in fact, their ordinary expenditure has increased to the extent it has done. I will illustrate this by going a little more into detail. Take the Civil Services, in
    60
    which we keep clear of war expenditure. The Appropriation Accounts show that in 1878–9 the Civil Services cost £14,886,000; in 1879–80, £15,148,000; and in 1880–1, £15,436,000. These were the three years for which we were responsible. In 1881–2 they spring to £16,087,000; and in the present year, I think, they are estimated at £ 16,502,000, and a Supplementary Estimate is already announced of £500,000. All this, irrespective of the expenditure which will be caused by the Egyptian troubles, or anything else of that sort. Take the Revenue Services. In 1878–9 the charge was £8,000,000; in 1879–80 it was £8,116,000; in 1880–1 it was £8,158,000. In 1881–2, the first year of our Successors, it was £8,392,000; and in the present year it is £8,790,000. But it is said by the hon. Gentleman that this increase is incurred by the process of carrying on a profitable business, and that if you increase the business you carry on by the Postal and Telegraph Services, you must expect an increase of expenditure to carry them on. But I meet the hon. Gentleman even on that point. It is quite correct that there has been an increase of Revenue, and that that may be, to a certain extent, set-off against an increase of expenditure; but the fact is that the excess of Revenue from the Postal and Telegraph Services over the expenditure upon the Services has not been increasing, but has been falling off of late. While the Government have had an increasing expenditure, they have been receiving a less proportionate income from those sources. In 1880–1, the charge for the Post Office and Packet Services was £4,130,000, and the receipts were £6,700,000. In 1881–2, the charge was £4,247,000, and the receipts were only £7,000,000. The surplus in the first of these years was £2,570,000; in the next £2,753,000; and now it is but £2,697,000. In respect of the Telegraph Service the surplus of receipts over expenditure was in 1880–1 £390,000; in 1881–2 £344,000; and this year it will be £215,000. Therefore, if we take the trouble to look at the figures, it is seen to be fallacious to regard the increase of expenditure as accounted for by the growth of Departments and accompanied by increase of Revenue. There was a glimpse of the truth in the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he re-

    61
    marked upon the increasing expenditure upon the Revenue Departments. He said, with a sigh, that his Predecessors did contrive somehow to keep down these charges upon the Post Office and other Services, and that the present Government did not find the means of doing the same thing. It is a very difficult thing, no doubt; and my right hon. Friend who sits near me (Mr. W. H. Smith), as Secretary to the Treasury, and others who followed him in that Office, have the credit of what was done; and I will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether their administration of those Departments was not as sound and economical as, and even more successful than, his own? I have gone into these particulars because I think it is not right that the country should be under an extremely false impression with regard to the relative economy of the two Governments, when you are dealing with matters that are in pari materiâ, and the country should be made aware that, to a great extent, increase of expenditure is unavoidable, and is the natural growth of circumstances. The present Government is ready to call attention to circumstances which cause increase of expenditure, like the taking of the Census; but when we are in a similar position, we are always told that if there is an increase in one direction, we ought to cut down in another. I do not know how far it is always possible; but it is not what is done by the present Government. I have shown that the ordinary expenditure, which in 1878–9 was £80,630,000, had grown last year to £81,630,000; but what is it to be this year? The hon. Gentleman opposite, in his answer to me, said he would wait for the Budget speech. I do not know how far he is satisfied with what he heard. By the same method of computation I have pursued, the ordinary expenditure of this year will be £83,869,000, which is an enormous increase, demanding the attention of the House and of the country. I am sorry to have to go into details of this kind; but it is necessary we should endeavour to make Gentlemen look a little more closely into the figures they use. One would expect the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to be particularly careful and accurate; but it seems as if he thought the first stick he could seize was good
    62
    enough to beat me with. I will give an instance of one of his errors; it was this—In the statement I made as to the expenditure of the year 1880–1, I said that I left the expenditure at an estimated amount of so much; that my right hon. Successor had added to that to the amount of about £1,300,000, and that subsequently the expenditure had risen in the way I described. The hon. Gentleman takes up my allusion to the addition of about £1,000,000 of further charges in 1880–1, which I had not challenged, and says I omitted to say that those further charges represented the cost of the repeal of the Malt Tax. Of course I omitted to say that, because they did nothing of the sort. The repeal of the Malt Tax had no more to do with them than the repeal of the Corn Laws. The hon. Gentleman said the repeal of the Malt Tax cost £1,319,000, and I daresay it did; indeed, I know that was the cost of the operation; but that came out of the Excise revenue in the shape of drawback. It meant so much less Revenue received, not so much for expenditure incurred; and that is an admirable illustration of the way in which these amateur financiers, not intentionally, mislead the people. Now, I hope there will be no particular feeling on the part of the hon. Gentleman towards myself, because we are perfectly prepared to discuss any questions of this sort, and it is to the interest of the truth that this discussion should take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the beginning of his Budget Statement, made an observation germane to the matter about which we have been talking, when he said that this is a time of growing expenditure and sluggish Revenue. I am afraid that is true. It is one of the difficulties with which we have had to contend for some years past. No doubt for the last seven or eight years the Revenue has been sluggish, and it is a fact that we can lament over, but which we are powerless to check. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made one observation on the expenditure of last year, which I think requires to be noticed and corrected. He said that the estimated expenditure for the year 1881–2 being £86,191,000, and the actual expenditure £85,472,000, the latter fell short of the Estimate by £719,000. That is the sort of statement which sounds extremely well if it is

    63
    really a comparison of the expenditure of the year with the Estimates the Chancellor of the Exchequer formed at the beginning of the year; but that is not the case in the present instance. The Budget Estimate of expenditure for the year 1881–2 was only £84,805,000; and, therefore, as the actual expenditure of the year was £85,471,000, we find that it exceeds the Budget Estimates by £666,000. The other Estimates, which brought the total for the year to £86,191,000, were Estimates presented later in the year. I was always very severely taken to task, and told that I must not compare the actual expenditure with the Estimates of the whole year, including Supplementary Estimates, but must compare the Budget Estimates, and if we do that we obtain much less satisfactory results than we otherwise should in this case. This is important, because it shows that we are not yet sure how far we are out of the wood in the present year; and that when we are told in the present year that we are to provide for an estimated expenditure of £84,630,000, or, if certain allowances are made, of £85,430,000, it is by no means sure that this will be the total amount, to be provided for—of course, without reference to the extraordinary circumstances that have occurred and rendered necessary an alteration of the Income Tax. I should like to make one remark on the alteration of the principle of bringing in the Miscellaneous Receipts in order to reduce the amount of the Estimate. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton told us just now that we had to provide for an expenditure of between £84,000,000 and £85,000,000. The amount is, in point of fact, now put at £84,630,000, and the result mentioned by the hon. Member is obtained by placing the sum of £809,000, which would have been expenditure under the old system of accounting, as a deduction from the expenditure. Consequently, if we add to the Estimate the amount of the difference in the old way the Estimate would be £85,439,000, or between £85,000,000 and £86,000,000. The new method may be a very convenient way of keeping accounts; but it tends to relax the vigilance of Parliament when you have this system of receipts in aid being brought into the Budget. I should like to know the reason for this change, and whether it presents any counterbalancing advan-
    64
    tages for what appears to be a decided disadvantage. Of course, there are various points that I noticed for comment at the time when the Budget was before us. But in the circumstances of the year we have gone so far from that time that I should hardly feel justified in troubling the Committee at any length upon them. I wish now to know what is the prospect we have before us with respect to the year as we now find it? We used to hear of the inconvenience of having more than one Financial Statement in the year, and it was said that such things ought never to happen. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Who said that?] If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, I will not attempt to tell him. But I remember expressions, which I do not mean at all to borrow, as to the inconvenience of having more Budget Statements than one in the same year. Well, we have a second Budget brought forward, and I do not for a moment complain of it; but I sometimes think the same measures might have been meted out to us as the Government now receives. We are really anxious to know what the calculations of the Government are with regard to this alteration of the Income Tax; and I hope we shall be told also how far, according to the progress of the year, they are able to estimate their ordinary expenditure, and especially how far it is likely to be kept within the limit fixed in the Budget in April. We feel that the circumstances in which we stand are peculiar, and we shall listen with gratitude to any explanations.
    MR. MONKsaid, he had refrained from placing any Motion on the Paper, partly in deference to what he believed to be the wish of the Prime Minister, and partly because he did not propose to call in question any of the financial arrangements for the present year; but he was under the necessity of trespassing for a few minutes upon the attention of the House, in order to call attention to a subject intimately connected with the Budget, and which was of the deepest interest to the commercial community. He must remind the House that although there was no question of a reduction of the Wine Duties at present, yet that subject had occupied the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on many occasions; while the recent failure of Treaty

    65
    negotiations with Spain had brought the subject prominently before the country. At the same time, he had no desire to force the hand of the Prime Minister, or to take any step which might tend to fetter his discretion, when the proper time for action arrived. He wished, therefore, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would take that opportunity of replying to the Memorial placed in his hands about a month ago by himself and other Members of Parliament with respect to our commercial relations with Spain? The result of the failure of the negotiations for a Treaty of Commerce with that country had been to place this country under the General Tariff, which was absolutely prohibitive. Spain for many years had a feeling that this country had not behaved in as liberal a manner towards her as it had towards other countries. When his right hon. Friend was in Office in 1869 there was a Free Trade Ministry in Spain, which made great efforts to introduce Free Trade doctrines. Their object was to reduce all the duties to a maximum of 15 per cent. Unfortunately, that policy was suspended, but it had never been abandoned. Under the Act passed by the Cortes in the present Session steps had been taken to reduce the duties to that maximum. But we were absolutely precluded from the benefit of such a reduction, until we had entered into a Treaty with that country. It was believed in Spain that a very small reduction in our wine duties would cause an enormous increase in the import of Spanish wine into this country, and he thought that was true. There was a very strong conviction among many that our trade with Spain must come to an end unless a Treaty was made with that country. A very favourable Treaty had been negotiated between France and Spain; but it was no longer possible for us to send our products into Spain through any other country, because it was necessary to state whence the products originally came. The latest Returns relating to the export trade of Spain showed that no less than 60 per cent of all the exports from that country came to Great Britain in spite of all difficulties. He hoped his right hon. Friend would give some assurance that negotiations would be opened with Spain as soon as an opportunity arose, because, as he had already said, unless this coun-
    66
    try had a Treaty with Spain, it must remain under the General Tariff, which was prohibitive, and would not receive any benefit from the law recently passed "for the removal of the Suspension of the Fifth Base," so called in reference to the fifth section of the law of 1869, which contained the fifth basis of the proposed reforms and reductions, the first of which was about to come into force on the 1st of August, 1882, and the last on the 1st of July, 1892.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I am anxious to follow the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down without any delay, because I confess I have very great doubts as to the effect which a speech of such a kind will produce upon our commercial relations with Spain. As I understand my hon. Friend, he recommends when another country chooses to adopt the most exceptionally unfriendly measures towards the trade of this country that it is to be almost encouraged to persevere in those measures by showing that, in consequence of them, we must make haste to alter our fiscal arrangements, or else the full effect of those unfriendly measures will fail. Before I accede to that doctrine, I must ask myself what would be its effect upon all the countries of the world. It would be to hold out to them a premium for treating us in an unfriendly manner, and saying to them—"You have only to make your tariff sufficiently hostile to British goods, and you can produce any effect you please upon the internal fiscal arrangements of the United Kingdom." My hon. Friend invites me to enter on a question which is to me a most painful one, painful because I believe the trade of England is likely to suffer in that particular from the conduct of Spain; but painful on still higher grounds. It has been my duty in Office and out of Office, for the last 40 years of my life, to watch the proceedings of foreign countries in their commercial relations to this country, and I have never known any proceedings approaching the character of those recently taken by Spain. I am very loth to censure them. Spain has a perfect right to do what she pleases; but I hope speeches will not be made in this House which will appear to imply on the part of Gentlemen sitting here, and connected with the trade and commerce

    67
    of the country, that these things are viewed by us as matters of course—as matters of which we have no right to complain, and that the only question is how soon we are to meet them by endeavouring to buy them off. I must place upon record my conviction that this is a year marked by proceedings in a foreign country, and that foreign country, Spain, for which I know no precedent in its bearings upon the commercial interests of this country. [Mr. MONK: Hear, hear!] I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with me in that. It would be quite a mistake, therefore, if anybody supposed from his speech that he would give any encouragement to such proceedings. With respect to the question of the wine duties, and the complaint the Representatives of Spain make against this country, their complaint comes to this—they do not think that our scale of wine duties is sufficiently favourable to Spain. But, at any rate, it is favourable enough for this—that under the operation of that scale the imports of wine from Spain have enormously increased, and for that increase it is proposed to repay us by enacting a tariff against us which my hon. Friend says is likely to extinguish the British export trade to Spain. That is the encouraging state of relations in which we are to show some readiness to alter our wine duties to meet the wishes of that country. I am very sorry, Sir, to say this; but as the question has been introduced I really do not think I could say less in justice to the interests of my country and to the principles which I hope will always inspire its legislation. Having said that I will say also that I entirely adhere to the opinions I expressed in 1880, and that I should be extremely glad when, not for the purpose of compensating a country for its unfriendly proceedings, I should find myself in a position, if I should be Finance Minister, or when my Successor should find himself in a position, to deal further with the wine duties of this country in the way of reduction. I regard that as a question which has serious claims upon the attention of the Government; and if we can get our expenditure a little more within bounds, and our revenue less sluggish, I hope that our wishes may be realized in that important matter. I will now, Sir, come to the statements, as far as I am
    68
    concerned, of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and notice the points raised in them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether I considered that the ordinary receipts and expenditure of this country would balance themselves in comparison with the Estimates which have been submitted. I should have answered that question with great confidence had it not been for the constant emerging of new and rather important civil expenditure in connection with the state of Ireland. It has been the view of the Government that considerable sacrifice ought to be made for the purpose of facilitating the working of the recent measures, and that the expenditure of £100,000 or £200,000 in the year ought not to be allowed to influence us in such a way as to place serious barriers against the access of the people to the Land Court. One imperative and urgent consideration has been that connected with the state of the country, and with the monstrous amount to which the charge for police in Ireland is now raised—one of the most grievous burdens, taken in all its particulars, that I have ever known imposed upon the people of this country. I estimated at £500,000 the extra civil charge imposed upon the people of this country by the recent condition of Ireland; but that is possibly a low estimate, and the matter is one of those which have disturbed my view of the possible relations of the ultimate ordinary Expenditure of the year to the Estimate submitted at the time of the Budget. With respect to the general balance of the year, as the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly admitted, we have passed into a state of things that is exceptional. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that I have in former times indulged in the practice of objecting, irrespectively of circumstances, to a re-adjustment of the amount presented at the ordinary period of the Financial Statement of the year. If I have done so—which I do not believe has been the case—I have done what is extremely wrong. When circumstances of war arise, or other very great circumstances of disturbance not due to the arbitrary action of the Executive, it is most absurd to suppose that the accounts submitted to Parliament at one period of the year are to be considered as binding the Government and binding

    69
    Parliament for the whole year. What I do object to is that the statements made to Parliament at the period of the Financial Statement should be wantonly or unnecessarily disturbed, and if I have ever tat en an objection it has been when I thought they were thus wantonly or unnecessarily disturbed. But what I wish to do is this—to impress deeply upon the minds of those who listen to me that the entire efficiency of Parliamentary control depends upon a steady maintenance of the principle that once a-year our accounts are to be adjusted. If accounts are to be adjusted at irregular times and with uncertain balances, Parliamentary control will be at an end. This is one of the great misfortunes of a series of war expenditure. A new set of considerations is introduced into the financial position of the year, and the year becomes an exceptional year. What is to be feared is that these exceptional years should by degrees become the general rule, and I wish to record my conviction that the House ought to be carefully upon its guard against any tendency in that direction. With respect to the actual balance of the coming year, I believe I have already stated as much as I can now state at the time when I made my Financial Statement. We arrived at a Budget Surplus of£305,000, to which I now have to add £2,262,000 for the Income Tax, making £2,567,000 in all. Of course, that is not a normal expenditure, nor can I prepare a normal account in the present uncertainty of the matters before us; but I should not have thought I was justified, when asking the House to make so large a provision towards the military charge in Egypt, in asking it likewise to disturb the trade with carriages in this country for the purpose of obtaining £250,000 that the new rate would probably have been found to yield. I have taken, of course, this into view, that the provision we are now about to make of £2,262,000 from Income Tax is not the entire provision which our measure will bring into the Exchequer; but that there will be a further sum of £565,000, taken, I think, at a very moderate estimate, which will, in virtue of the present law, come into the Exchequer, although not until after the 31st day of March. I think, with regard to war charges of this kind, the reasonable proposal is that we should
    70
    provide for them as far as we can, and invite Parliament to make a large immediate effort for the purpose. There is nothing more dangerous than to bring forward heavy war charges and asking the House to postpone providing for them. I do not say everything should be provided at the moment, and we shall be fortunate if this provision covers all that the operations in Egypt may involve; but, at all events, we ask you to make a large and immediate effort to cover, so far as we are able to judge, the expense that we are about to incur. The right hon. Gentleman asks for an explanation of the change in the method of account for receipts in aid. He has pointed out an objection to the change which I am not inclined to question. On the other hand, I think he is familiar with the argument for the change. The argument for the change is a practical argument connected with the actual amount of expenditure. The argument against the change is in one sense a practical argument, as it relates to the supervision of finance by this House; but in another sense it is rather a speculative argument. The practical argument for the change is merely this—that the exertions made for economy in public Departments are greater when the Department itself is allowed to take credit for its economies than when those economies are carried to another head of account. It is for the House to judge whether that is a sufficient argument. I am inclined to think that it is so, and the Committee on Public Accounts have also inclined to approve the change which has been made. I now come to the controversial portion of this subject, which the right hon. Gentleman has treated in a spirit as little polemical as possible. The right hon. Gentleman has done two things, with regard to one of which I am inclined to accede to the claim which he makes, while, with regard to the other, I am inclined most resolutely to dispute it. The right hon. Gentleman distinguishes between the extraordinary charges entailed by our policy and the ordinary expenditure of the country; and he proceeds to complain that their opponents nave not always observed this distinction, and have complained that throughout the Departments a lax administration prevailed. I must say that if that has been the case, the opponents of the late Government have been far from being

    71
    justified in making that charge. I have myself, when in Opposition, tried to do credit to particular Departments and persons for their endeavours, and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty, for his endeavours to carry economy in detail into the ordinary public administration; and this is a matter of great consequence, because, unquestionably, much of what is to be realized in the way of public economy depends upon attention in detail to secondary and minor charges as well as to greater questions. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in referring to the Post Office as a Department in which great care was taken by the late Government in economical administration. He has pointed out a great diminution in the present quarter in the estimated net increase from telegraphs; but he is, no doubt, aware that it is mainly owing to the excessive, the quite irresistible pressure of the persons employed in that Department for an improvement in the emolument that they receive. However, no accusation is actually made, and it is not necessary for me to defend what has been done further than to say that I regard the financial administration of the Post Office under the late Government as an example which the present Government ought to be very glad to follow; and I am not aware, as far as I am concerned myself, of ever having adduced a charge of universal laxity or extravagance against the late Government. If we come to compare these things it is a comparison of detail, in which probably no satisfying result can be attained except it be made very searching and complete. There are some things in connection with which we might, perhaps, compare favourably with the acts and intentions of our Predecessors. For example, I think we have wisely and judiciously adopted plans which will result in a large saving in connection with the Mint. In regard to the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), whom I do not now see in his place, we have been able to effect a saving to the public of from £250,000 to £500,000. But I do not wish to stand on this or on that point in these matters, which do not contain any just result, except by the most searching examination, which it is not possible now to make. I agree with the
    72
    right hon. Gentleman that it would be very unfair to say that in all branches of the public expenditure a system of laxity pervaded the actions of the late Government. Therefore, I admit there is a distinction to begin with between the ordinary and extraordinary expenditure of the late Government. When we come to the latter expenditure, then I am sorry that I am obliged to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that because that expenditure was connected with policy he is in no way specially responsible for it. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I never said so.] No; perhaps not; but that was the amount of his claim. I am ready to make this admission—that the late Parliament were ready to spend more than the Government required. Whatever they asked for was granted, and they might have had double if they had liked. The right hon. Gentleman, by his gesture, implies that we are in the same position. I will show him that he is in the wrong. There are on record in every Session most important cases in which in this House, we, although enjoying the confidence of the large majority, yet have been beaten in this House on questions of great importance and difficulty; one case occurred even in the last three weeks. Is there any parallel for that in the late Parliament? No, Sir; not from the beginning to the end was there a single instance where that faithful majority rebelled or refused to obey those instruments of government by which they were kept in such admirable order and discipline. Therefore, I entirely dispute and repudiate the parallel which, the right hon. Gentleman by his gesture suggests. But the country took the matter into its own hands, and pronounced its opinion; and now, while I quite admitted, and always urged in those Mid Lothian speeches, which are so frequently the subject of reference in this House by hon. Gentlemen who never read them—who are far too wise to read them—I said that the responsibility which rested in the first instance on the Government has been taken by Parliament. It is right that the majority, and the Members of that majority, collectively and individually, should look into these questions. But, then, the claim of the right hon. Gentleman which surprises me is this—that it was Lord Beaconsfield, in this House, in one of his many

    73
    sententious declarations—a class of declarations for which he had an innate faculty—who laid it down that expenditure depends on policy. In the main, I believe that is true. We have no longer men of the calibre and policy of Joseph Hume who go through their work without reward and probably without gratitude as he did. But in the main, no doubt, it is policy which governs expenditure. But the right hon. Gentleman makes this extraordinary claim. He says—"I quite agree that in the estimate of expenditure of the present year you may be justified in deducting that portion of the year which is due to the acts of a former Administration"—such, for example, as the £1,200,000 or £1,300,000 which we have to pay on account of the £6,000,000 Vote of Credit. So far, all is well. But what does he append to that? He says he is also justified in deducting them from his total of expenditure for his own years. I really can hardly express the astonishment with which I view that proposition. He has injured our years and laid on them a very heavy burden, and yet he says that he is entitled to deduct the amount from his own years. It is like this. Supposing that I am a gross and irreclaimable spendthrift and I get heavily indebted to a tradesman. The tradesman says he has suffered a heavy loss from my having had dealings with him. According to the comparison of the right hon. Gentleman, I should have a perfectly good answer to the tradesman if I were to say—"My dear Sir, it is quite true that you have been heavily injured by me, but I have injured myself just as much. Therefore, we are entitled to set off the one against the other." A more portentous or extraordinary claim was never advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. Sir, with regard to the finance of the country, I am very far from being satisfied with the economy with which expenditure is being conducted. I am very far from presenting myself in this place to claim any credit from Parliament for what I have been able to do in this respect. I think, for one thing, I am bound to say it requires a younger man than I am, and one with greater force, to withstand the pressure that comes in from every side, in order to face the task of such a difficulty. But I have the greatest doubts whether any Executive Government will be able to
    74
    produce the changes which I think ought to be proposed in the public expenditure. There was one thing which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He spoke of the Departments as being the cause of serious extravagance in expenditure. But it is not the Civil or Permanent Departments which are open to that charge. I myself must bear my testimony to this. As a general rule, they have laboured manfully, honestly, and perseveringly to maintain economy in the Services which they govern. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that hardly a week passes without Questions being put in this House directly tending to weaken their hands and to increase public charges in every branch of the Public Service. And if it were possible for this House to adopt a Rule which forbade Questions of that kind, as regards the emoluments of public officers, I do not hesitate to say that it would have a most beneficial effect in point of economy in the future administration of the country. I do not wish to introduce polemical matters into this debate. I have made the admission that expenditure is, to a certain extent, dependent on policy, and that I am not satisfied with the Liberal finance of the country. As to our relative finance, I think we show pretty well. I am bound to say it was a happy time for the country when there was no polemical relation between Parties in relation to public economy. For the first 20 years of my life that was so. But those days have gone by. In those days the Tory Party was undoubtedly the more strict of the two in relation to sound financial economy. As regards the question of maintaining a due relation between public income and charge, the Conservative Government of Sir Robert Peel undoubtedly excelled the Liberal Government of Lord Melbourne. In regard to that item of sound financial administration—namely, the keeping down of the public charge, the two Parties vied with each other in that most zealous and honourable service to the country. As regards these questions, I do not know whether I ought to enter upon them; probably it is better not to do so. I am prepared to contend that a just balance has been maintained between public charge and expenditure by the Liberal Party of late years, and that they have come nearer the true standard

    75
    than the Conservative Party. I refrain from details in this matter. I have endeavoured to make the right hon. Gentleman see clearly my position in regard to his argument. For my part, I am very glad, even in the present pressure of Business, that these challenges should be passing backward and forward between the two sides of the House, for they keep alive the public mind on that subject, which otherwise would be likely to fall away from it. I hope that we may more zealously vie with one another in endeavouring to keep down public charges. There were Conservative Governments, those of 1852 and 1858, for instance, which showed no disposition whatever to augment the public charge by a great extension of establishments, or by a policy which tended only to lay heavy burdens on the country. In 1866 the change first became evident. Since that time those who carefully examine the figures of the case will find that though there has been a steady tendency to increase in the Expenditure of the country, yet that tendency on the average of years has been comparatively slight when Liberal Governments have been in Office, and has been multiplied many-fold when Governments have been in Office from the Party opposite. Again, with respect to the action as to the public Debt, which I, for one, hold to be a vital part of sound financial policy, I will not say that that action has been what it ought to have been under any Administration. Yet it has been less unsatisfactory when Liberal Governments have been in Office. When I say this it is not for the sake of getting credit, because I admit that I do not claim credit for the present state of the finances of the country. But I do wish to inspire hon. Gentlemen opposite—I hope they do not think it impertinent—with a sense of the great importance of a return to the old state of their Party with regard to economy in the Public Service, and I am sure in making that recommendation I am consulting their own interests—though I am not doing it on that account—butit will greatly tend to their own interests as a Party, and to the welfare of the whole community, if they will emulate the Conservatives of 30 or 40 years ago, both in their care for minute economy—in which I fully admit they retain their desire to serve the public—and likewise in their disposition to
    76
    shun those ambitious and needless acts of public policy by which they have recently added so much to the burdens of the country.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that that was the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman had made anything like an appeal to the House on the subject of economy, or proposed to proceed in the direction which they had a right to expect him to follow. The right hon. Gentleman had treated the Conservative Party with great injustice on the charge of extravagance. The Conservative Party were quite as anxious for economy as those who sat on the opposite side of the House. He rose to ask for some explanation as to the sums of £250,000 and £150,000 which were to be received from Natal and the Cape respectively. The latter amount was to be received, by monthly instalments of£50,000 each in June, July, and August of this year. He wished to know whether those payments were being or would be made? With respect to Natal, he believed the original claim was for about £1,000,000; but it had been "whittled" away to £250,000, which the Natal Government had managed by means of a loan to discharge. He had been greatly alarmed by the excessive expenditure of the present Government. The policy of despatching troops from India was in flagrant contradiction of the former conduct of the Ministry. He could only suppose that the charge imposed on this country on account of the expenses of the Afghan War was intended by way of punishment to the country for having sanctioned that war. He would add a word with respect to the new system of accounts under the head of Extra Receipts, which the present Government had introduced, and which almost amounted to a system of cooking the accounts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that he had failed properly to control the expenditure of the Admiralty and the War Office; and the new system was introduced, he supposed, to effect an apparent economy. It might be good banking, but, as it struck him, from a Treasury point of view, it was very bad finance.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he ventured, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, to trouble the House with a very few remarks upon

    77
    the question, referred to by previous speakers, of the expenditure by the Naval and Military Departments of sums formerly paid into the Exchequer as Extra Receipts. He was afraid that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had read the Third Report of the Public Accounts' Committee of 1881, which approved of a scheme prepared by the Treasury for giving effect to this change. In truth, this important subject had been for a long time under the consideration of the Treasury and of the Departments, and had been brought under the notice of Public Accounts Committees for several years. Those Committees had constantly pressed the Treasury to frame and introduce some scheme of reform in a system which was admittedly imperfect. Last year a scheme was brought before the Public Accounts Committee, which had received the general approval of the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), and of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), and of other persons most competent to form an opinion upon the vexed question. The Committee took further evidence, including that of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who was, as the House would remember, the officer appointed by the Exchequer and Audit Act to examine, on behalf of Parliament, the accounts of the different Departments. That officer also reported generally in favour of the scheme, with a certain modification, which the Committee adopted, and embodied in their Report. The Committee, after full and careful inquiry, approved of the Treasury plan, which had now been put in force. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke was, therefore, not justified in treating this change as one made by the present Government for the purpose of diminishing their Estimates, nor, as he seemed to think it, as a cooking of the accounts. The change was made after an exhaustive examination extending over many years. He (Sir Henry Holland) would point out that Parliament would have as full means as before of controlling the accounts and checking any errors. The Appropriation Accounts would afford a comparison between—(1) The gross estimated expenditure with
    78
    the actual gross expenditure; (2) the estimated receipts with the actual receipts; and (3) the net estimated expenditure with the net actual expenditure. Thus the whole expenditure of the two Departments, and the whole receipts, would be before them. The limitation or modification of the original scheme, to which he (Sir Henry Holland) had before referred as accepted by the Committee, secured that, should there be an excess of receipts beyond the aggregate amount estimated, such excess should be paid into the Exchequer. Whether this change of system would work well it was impossible as yet to say; but in a few years this point would be decided, and the scheme could then, if necessary, be given up or modified. But the Public Accounts Committee believed that the change would really effect an improvement; and he (Sir Henry Holland) saw no reason to doubt the correctness of that view.
    MR. ECROYD,who had given Notice of the following Amendment:—
    "That Customs Duties ought to lie imposed upon manufactured articles of a luxurious character imported from Foreign Countries, in order to render possible a reduction of the Duties now levied upon tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits, which are articles of necessity for all classes,"
    said, it was not his intention to propose the Resolution; but he would offer a few words to show that the importance of the questions raised by it became greater every day. They were becoming more and more dependent upon the Income Tax for the large sums required to be raised from time to time for extraordinary charges which came upon the country unexpectedly. He was not at all disposed to interfere with the Income Tax as applied to incomes derived from property; but there was a large class enjoying precarious incomes, dependent upon the continuance of their health and strength, who would severely feel the pressure of the extra 3d. in the pound to be charged in the next half-year. A great fine was imposed on the breakfast table of all ranks by the imposition of taxes on such articles as tea and coffee, which were, moreover, to a considerable extent, produced in India. If these taxes were abolished, and taxes imposed instead on such articles of luxury as furs, feathers, and Parisian finery, a great act of justice would be done, not only to the poorer classes of this country, but also to the inhabitants

    79
    of our great Indian Dependency. Under the extraordinary circumstances which had entirely changed the fiscal aspect of the present year, this question could not be taken up now; but he hoped that it would be raised and effectively dealt with another year.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, a more vicious system never existed than the mode in which Extra Receipts had been dealt with. These Extra Receipts were derived from the sale of stores belonging to the Department which had paid for the stores, and almost entirely realized from the sale of stores of the Army and Navy; and, instead of being allowed to the Department where the money accrued, the Civil Departments took possession of the money, and actually credited the sums as if derived from the Civil Services, thus destroying all inducements to the Admiralty and War Office to practise economy in the sale of old stores. He could state several instances where the Treasury had interfered with the War Office in utilizing old stores, by insisting on these sales in order to obtain the funds by which to swell the receipts of the Civil Votes. Under the new arrangements, he hoped strict economy and watchfulness would be observed in dealing with stores; and he thought it would be wise to provide for an audit of the expenditure and receipts in respect of stores. Now that the values of old stores are to be credited to the Army and Naval Services, it would be seen that the Civil Service expenditure had increased far more in proportion than the Naval and Military expenditure. The Treasury had no useful control over the accounts in this Department; and he urged that it was desirable that there should be a check placed on the accounts, and that an improvement in them should be effected.
    MR. HICKSsaid, one expression of opinion had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he could not agree, and on which he begged to offer a few remarks. The right hon. Gentleman, in announcing the withdrawal of the increased duty on carriages, claimed credit for the soundness of his policy, and said that, if carried out, it would have realized the estimated sum. The right hon. Gentleman had been spoken of as a great Finance Minister; if so, it was the more
    80
    surprising that he should have made such an assertion, which was in opposition to the experience of former years. In 1840 the Whigs, being then in Office and short of money, put on an additional 10 per cent on the assessed taxes. At that time the assessed taxes, instead of being paid in the middle of the year, were not paid till about eight months after the expiration of the year during which the articles had been kept, and so the first year there was no escape, and the taxes produced £305,000 increase, or £30,000 more than the Estimate; the second year they only produced about 5 per cent increase, instead of 10 per cent; and the third year only £38,000, or less than the natural increase from growth of population. Now, during this time the right hon. Gentleman was in Office, and must have known this. Then, at the time of the Crimean War, being again in Office, with a different Party, he carried a large increase of the Malt Tax; and the result was that the quantity malted fell from about 6,000,000 quarters to 5,500,000 the first year, and to 5,000,000 in the second, or, at least, 16 percent. How, then, the right hon. Gentleman could make such a statement certainly was a surprise to him. If the additional tax had been tried, he had a strong impression that in two years, instead of producing 50 per cent, it would not produce 1 per cent.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was satisfactory to have learned from the best possible authority—namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that he did not agree either in the criticism or the charge that the late Conservative Government had been guilty of extravagance in either the normal or abnormal expenditure of the country. He contended that the Leader of the Opposition was justified in making the deductions he did in order to compare the normal expenditure of different years. The expenditure of this year promised to exceed that of 1880 by£3,600,000. Of this, nearly £500,000 was for the Army, and £300,000 for the Navy; but the largest expense was in the Civil Service, which would show an increase of £1,178,000. The Conservatives bad no reason to be ashamed of the ordinary Estimates of 1880 as compared with those of the present Government. He feared that at the end of this year there would be a deficit instead of a surplus.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, no doubt there was constant danger in the increase of the Civil Service Estimates; and he hoped the Government would always have the assistance of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) in keeping them down. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), that we should revert to the system of raising a large sum by import duties upon luxuries, the true answer to all suggestions of that sort was that they defeated their own end, and you could not raise a large revenue by such imposts. The only argument he had heard for a reversal of the financial policy of the Government was the contention that it was unjust to lay the whole burden of the new charge on the Income Taxpayers. Perhaps some would think there was force in the criticism; but the answer to the objection was that, taking the financial system of the country as a whole, the Income Taxpayers were not more hardly dealt with than the other classes of the community. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had asked whether the war contribution of£150,000 promised by the Government of the Cape had yet been received? He had to say, in reply, that the first two instalments of this sum had been paid, and the third was not yet due. They had as yet received no sum from Natal; but the Government there must raise a loan very soon, out of which they should make the repayment in question. There was no intention to give a Government guarantee upon that loan.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he hoped that before his next Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his attention to the mode in which the foreign wine duties in this country were imposed, as the alcoholic test operated unfairly on our Colonies, particularly the Cape, which was a wine-producing country.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONthought that the Government had not made out a very clear case for their intention of charging the Income Taxpayers with the whole of the additional fund to be raised. He was aware of the desirability of defraying the annual expenses from the annual income; but it was possible to push that principle to an extreme and inconvenient length.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman opposite had said
    82
    of the results of the taxation of luxuries was not consistent with the fact that up to the year 1861 the taxes on articles of luxury brought in an annual sum of £16,000,000.
    MR. W. H. LEATHAMsaid, he would not detain the House more than two minutes; but he wanted to draw the attention of the House to the way the Expenditure of the country had increased since 1869. He felt much obliged to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) for drawing the attention of the House to this subject earlier in the debate. He found that the Expenditure of the country, in round figures, in 1869 was £68,000,000—this increased gradually to £71,000,000 in 1873. Now, in 1874, the Expenditure was £72,000,000,andthisgraduallyincreased to £81,000,000 in 1879. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Premier made the Expenditure of 1880, £81,000,000, and that of 1882 had risen to £84,000,000; to this they had to add the War Tax. Now, that sum seemed very large to people in the country; but he was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would take it into his serious consideration. He was aware that it was permanently increasing by certain taxes which were added by the late Government, and taken from local taxation about £2,000,000; and he did not object to those taxes being so added as charges upon the Treasury. And then there was a large increase in the educational grant annually made; but the amount was now so large altogether, that he hoped, before the next Budget was brought in, some mode of reducing it might be devised. It was in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and could not be in better hands.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the taxation of luxuries could not be supposed to be absolutely unproductive or wholly wrong in principle. As long as the French imposed an import duty on British manufactures there could be no reason why French produce, such as silk, should be treated by us more generously. He thought the Income Tax was the best mode of raising money for the military proceedings in Egypt; and that Irish spirits were unfairly taxed as compared with beer and wine.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Import duties on tea).
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he wished to raise a question as to the levying of the tea duty, and it appeared to him that the proper place to raise it was upon this clause. He had had a Motion upon the Paper in regard to the matter for some time; but he had had no opportunity of bringing it forward. He, therefore, proposed to discuss it now. Its object was to call upon the Government to take into consideration the propriety of effecting a reduction of the tea duties. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister state that day that he hoped in a short time some Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not himself (Mr. Gladstone), would find himself in a condition to reduce the import duties upon wine. Now, he (Mr. Macfarlane) trusted that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would think of reducing the duties upon wine until something had been done to diminish the tea duties. On the contrary, he should be glad even to see the wine duties increased for the purpose of supplying any deficiency which might be occasioned in the Revenue by the reduction of the duties upon tea and other articles which entered into more general consumption.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL, 21.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL, 21.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for resuming the consideration of this Bill in Committee be discharged."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry the Government was obliged to withdraw the Bill, which had been looked forward to with interest by the
    84
    country. He begged to thank the Attorney General for the Amendments he had put on the Paper, and for the way in which he had conducted the measure. The Amendments which the hon. and learned Gentleman had put upon the Paper were an indication that he was disposed to entertain favourably Amendments by other Members. He hoped another Bill would be introduced next Session, and that the Amendments, of which Notice had been given, would be carefully considered in the interval.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he fully recognized the fairness of the opposition given to the Bill. A small class of Members were sincerely opposed to it, and a second class, while not opposed to it, desired to be present when the Bill was under discussion. The Prime Minister and himself had been very desirous of accommodating both classes. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that he should be perfectly willing to accept the experience and views of others. He had learnt much from the Amendments which had been placed upon the Paper; and, having accepted some of them, he promised that he would employ the time which might fall to him until the Bill was again introduced in considering how it might be improved.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order for Committee discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.
    The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  MALTA—ADMINSTRATIVE REFORMS—BRITISH RULE.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. ANDERSON,in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, said, it was not his intention to detain the House at any great length upon this question, at so late a period of the Session; but he considered it was a subject

  85
  of great urgency and interest to one of our dependencies, the dependency of Malta. Our Maltese fellow-subjects had always been remarkable for their devotion to us, and yet we had done very little to encourage them. The Maltese were not a conquered people; they asked to come under the protection of England about 80 years ago; but, notwithstanding that, we had done almost nothing during that lapse of years to conciliate their devotion and loyalty; and whilst we had been neglecting them, other people had been cultivating them, until we found an Italian party had grown up in the Island, who desired them to throw off their allegiance to this country and join Italy. Our misgovernment in Malta was gradually creating a small Ireland in the Mediterranean, and it was long periods and slow processes of misgovernment which was the way that Irelands were created. That had been going on in Malta for a considerable number of years, and was still going on, and it was time there was a change in the management and government of that place. Certainly, England had given Malta a Legislative Council; but it was less than half elective, and the minority was elected by so small a constituency that it did not fairly represent the people of the island. The franchise in itself was not very narrow, if it were not for a bar that was put upon it in the shape of a language test, because no Maltese was allowed to have the franchise unless he could speak a language other than his own—either Italian or English. It was just the same as if they said that no Welshman should be allowed to vote if he could not speak any other language than Welsh. The result of that language test was that there were only about 2,000 voters out of 150,000 people. Naturally, under such circumstances, the financial arrangements of the country were in a bad state, because the system of taxation was one for the relief of the rich, and thus pressed heavily upon the poor. One-half of the taxation was levied upon bread, and as it was evident that a poor man and his family consumed more bread than the family of the rich man—the rich man having other and better diet—the poor man was not only taxed beyond his means, but paid a far greater share of the taxes than his rich neighbours. But as the question of the taxation of bread had been brought
  86
  before the House on several occasions, he would not now go further into that question. Then, again, the English language had been discouraged. Sir Adrian Dingli had practically governed the Island for 35 years, a man of great ability, but with Italian proclivities, and he had put Italians in all the public offices until the Italian language was becoming the language of the place more than the Arabic. Therefore it was high time something was done for fostering the English language. At the present date they were absolutely accustomed to treat the Italian language as the superior one; and even the Government Ordinances were printed in Italian, to which was appended an English translation, in place of their being printed in English with an Italian translation. Such action as that had the effect of making the people believe that the Italian was really the superior language. Under those circumstances, there was a growing discontent in Malta. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) when in Office was alive to that. He thoroughly understood Malta, and promised reforms; but before they could be entered upon the present Government came into Office. The Maltese had hoped great things from a Liberal Government; they thought that a Tory Government would only give them reforms grudgingly, while a Liberal Government would do it cordially; but, in place of reform, they found the new Government was rather reactionary in its character. A Petition had come from Malta in 1879, signed by 9,000 people; but, finding nothing was being done, a second Petition and an Address were sent in 1880, but the reply sent by Lord Kimberley in August, 1880, created a most painful impression among the friends of England; it was most discouraging, telling the Maltese in plain words they were nobody and nothing, that the fortress was everything, and the welfare of the people was of little consequence indeed. That was the spirit, not, of course, the words, in which the despatch was written, and that spirit had continued until quite recently, and the discontent continued. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire when in Office was so satisfied that reforms were needed that he sent out Mr. Rowsell, Sir Penrose Julyan, and Mr. Keenan as successive Commissioners, all three reporting in

  87
  favour of very great reforms in the administration; but those reforms, so far, had never been carried out. The Maltese, however, believed that if the late Government had remained in power they would have been carried out. Consequently, they were disappointed with the present Government for not carrying them out. The only reform given of any importance was in 1881, when Her Majesty's Government appointed an Executive Council to assist the Government; but in place of being a reform it made matters worse, because the wrong men were appointed. It consisted of Sir A. Borton, the Governor, General Fielding, the Second in Command, Sir Victor Houlton, the Chief Secretary, and Signor Carboni, the Crown Advocate. The Governor, to keep things pleasant, left the civil administration alone, and his second in command assisted him in doing so; thus the civil administration of the Island was left in the hands of the Chief Secretary and the Crown Advocate—men who were known absolutely to hate all reforms, and yet they were put there to administer and carry out the reforms recommended by the three Commissioners. The result was that either no reforms were carried out, or small re-forms were carried out in such a way that it was admitted they entirely disgusted the people with the idea of reforms. Her Majesty's Government were entirely to blame for that, because they knew the character of the men who formed this Executive Council. They knew they were not friendly to reforms, therefore the reforms never would and never could be properly carried out. It was the business of the Government either to put better men in their places, or to strengthen the Executive Council by appointing men who were known to be imbued with a reforming spirit. At present, all those in the Island, known to be in favour of reform were looked upon with an unfriendly eye; and, as proof of that, he might remind the House that at the time Mr. Rowsell reported in favour of the abolition of the Bread Tax the better classes got up riots against him; and the instigator of the riots, a man of the name of Gatt, had been made the chief of the Government printing office, so that he had been rewarded in place of having been punished. That office, he might also say, was a great abuse, and was one of the things the Commissioners recommended the abolition of. Under
  88
  these circumstances, discontent was growing, and everyone of position and independence of character shunned the Legislative Council, six of the Members the other day having threatened to send in their resignations in consequence of the desires of the Maltese people being entirely neglected. In fact, matters had gone so far that the Maltese the other day elected a man known to be utterly unfit for the post, simply as a snub to Sir Victor Houlton, because Sir Victor Houlton had set up one of his own nominees. The only thing that had been done to give the Maltese encouragement was the despatch recently sent out under the auspices of the hon. Member who represented the Colonial Government in that House; and he sincerely hoped that would not give rise to hopes that were again to be disappointed, and that the reforms hinted at would be carried out, so that the discontent might be put an end to. What should be done was to supersede Sir Victor Houlton and appoint a friend of the people and of reform in his place. It would be still more agreeable to the Maltese if, on the next vacancy, they would appoint a Civil instead of a Military Governor. In the second place, the Executive Council should be strengthened by some new men, as there were good men in Malta who, if appointed, would make the Council cease to be the utter farce that it was at present. In the third place, the Bread Tax should be abolished. Then the language test for the franchise should be abolished; and though it would give the franchise to many uneducated men, they should remember their own experience was that there was no such educator as the franchise. There ought also to be municipal institutions, which should levy a police tax to make the burden of taxation fall more equally, and the Government Ordinances ought invariably to be printed in English with an Italian translation. Lastly, as there had been great abuses in dealing with public property, a Commission ought to be appointed to inquire into that, and see how many officials and the friends of officials had purchased or obtained leases of public property at very insufficient prices; and in future it should be an ordinance that no lease should be given and no sale made of public property except by public auction. He would not now go further into the question, as he had told the House what he thought ought to be done; and he

  89
  hoped the Colonial Under Secretary would be able to tell them that some of these reforms would be made before next Session, otherwise it would be necessary for him to bring the matter again before the House in a stronger form.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is the opinion of this House that the long tried loyalty of the people of Malta to British rule deserves more consideration than it has received; that the several reports of Mr. Rowsell, Sir Penrose Julyan, and Mr. Keenan, as well as the numerously signed Petitions of the people, prove that great changes in the civil administration of the island are urgently required, and that Her Majesty's Government ought to he doing more than they have been doing to carry out the needed reforms, and so to promote the prosperity and secure the contentment of the Maltese people,"—(Mr. Anderson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that his hon. Friend had set a very good example by recognizing the fact that time was very valuable to the House of Commons at this late period of the Session, and by confining his remarks accordingly within a small compass. He should try to imitate his hon. Friend's example and be as brief as possible. He congratulated the hon. Member on the fact that he showed symptoms of extreme youth—in other words, the disposition of very young people to have everything which they desired done at once, and to think that they obtained nothing if they did not obtain all. He admitted that for a considerate number of years little or nothing had been done in Malta; but he could not agree with his hon. Friend that nothing had been done since the initiation of the first inquiry by Mr. Rowsell into Maltese affairs. Efforts had been made for the improvement of the state of things in Malta both by the present and by the late Government; but the great difficulty that had to be contended with had lain in the constitution of the Legislative Council of Malta. The hon. Member was right when he said that the franchise was too limited, and that the Members of the Council represented but a very small class of the population. All
  90
  efforts at reform had been thwarted by the Council. The Colonial Office was so thoroughly convinced of that fact that they had determined that the Legislative Council should be placed upon a more liberal basis; and, accordingly, they had prepared a measure for that purpose; but they had thought it right that, before enlarging the franchise, they should submit to the Council the measure they proposed in order that the Council might express an opinion upon it. The difficulty in a proper constitution of the basis of the franchise was the education test difficulty. He would now refer to the Reports of Mr. Rowsell, Sir Penrose Julyan, and Mr. Keenan, in order to show what had been done and what had not been done. As to the question of the abolition of the duty on wheat, dealt with in Mr. Rowsell's Report, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in his despatch of the 4th of May, 1878, adopted a proposal for a remission of half the duty. But on the 14th of May an anti-repeal demonstration was got up in support of the elected Members, which ended by breaking the windows of Dr. Savona's house, where Mr. Rowsell was staying. The question came on again in April, 1879, when the proposal for a remission was again opposed by the elected Members. Then came the General Election of 1880, and the new Council met in December of that year. On the 12th of February, 1881, Lord Kimberley wrote to the Governor of Malta, expressing his concurrence in his predecessor's views about the remission of half the Wheat Duty; and he directed the Govenor to propose a Resolution affirming generally the expediency of reducing the Grain Tax. Again the Legislative Members came forward, and gave notice of their opposition; but there was no discussion, and the matter stood thus—that in April of last year Lord Kimberley sent a despatch expressing his regret that opportunity of argument had not been afforded, and requesting that the Government would consider what would be the best time for bringing forward the subject again. So that the failure of the objects his hon. Friend desired was entirely due to the action of the Legislative Council. Then, Sir Penrose Julyan made those elaborate Reports to which his hon. Friend had re-

  91
  ferred. He recommended that the office of Treasurer should be abolished, and that a Registrar General should be appointed with his seat in the Council. Another recommendation was that the Public Works Department should be placed on a proper footing. This was done by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). Another recommendation was that in the Customs Department fractional duties on dutiable goods should be abolished. This was not done on account of the opposition of the elected Members. Then there were further recommendations, among others with reference to the marine police, police and prisons, the printing office—which was about to be abolished—the Post Office—the reforms in which had been ordered and would benefit the Island to the extent of £2,000 a-year—the Public Registry, and the Law Courts, the amalgamation of the clerks of various offices into one establishment, the discontinuance of transport allowances, and the revision of the Civil List. A great deal had been done in the way of carrying out the recommendations in Sir Penrose Julyan's Report. With regard to Mr. Keenan's Report, he would state what had been done since that Report had been received. Mr. Savona had been appointed Director of Education, and Dr. Carnana, Secretary and Principal of the University. Then, in 1881, the question of improvements in the Education Department was brought before the Legislative Council, and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject. The scheme involved an expenditure of £4,000, and it was consequently resisted by the local Government. But Lord Kimberley was bent upon its being carried out, and there was reason to hope that a satisfactory change would be made. The moral to be drawn from all this was that patience was necessary. Malta was a very peculiar place. There was a large and ignorant population, governed by a small class, and that class were naturally indisposed to reform. Things, therefore, had to be done slowly. The question of a civilian Governor was, no doubt, a burning one. There was, however, something to be said on both sides, and he was not at present in a position to say that the Colonial Office had resolved upon a change. He could assure the House that the interests of the people of Malta would be carefully studied. He
  92
  could not accept the Resolution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, because it was not in accordance with the facts of the case; but he accepted his speech as a support to the Colonial Office in the task it had to perform, which was to carry out all necessary reforms in Malta, and to foster and strengthen the loyalty of the people.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he desired to say a few words on this subject, as he had, during several years' service in the Colonial Office, to consider many of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He thought the statement of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was most satisfactory, and that the House would agree that not only the late Government, to whose exertions the Under Secretary had rendered full justice, but also the present Government, had done good work towards improving the condition of Malta. He (Sir Henry Holland) trusted that the hon. Member for Glasgow would not press his Motion to a division, as it was impossible, even for those who desired to see further improvements effected, to vote for a Resolution which practically condemned the Government for inaction. He did not desire to detain the House, and he would, therefore, only refer to one or two of the points which the hon. Member for Glasgow said that the Maltese desired to see carried out. In the first place, they were anxious that Sir Victor Houlton should be removed. Now, it might be admitted that a younger and more active man would be more efficient as Colonial Secretary, and it was not unnatural that the Maltese should press for a change; but he wished to point out that Sir Victor Houlton had served the country well for many years, and such services should not be overlooked when the question of retirement was considered. In the second place, they wished to have a Civil instead of a Military Governor. Now, this had been, as the Under Secretary justly said, a "burning question" at the Colonial Office for many years. Looking to the peculiar position and conditions of Malta, the question was by no means free from difficulty. From the Colonial Office point of view it might be considered that a Civil Governor would be preferable; but the decision did not rest with that Department, and the War Office naturally inclined to a Military Governor,

  93
  Upon the whole, he (Sir Henry Holland) doubted whether this point could be usefully pressed by the Colonists. Then as to the Executive Council. If the hon. Member for Glasgow wished to see elected Members on that Council, he (Sir Henry Holland) could not agree in that view. The proper constitution of Executive Councils had often been considered by the Colonial Office; but it might be taken as finally decided that, except, perhaps, in some very special case, an Executive Council should be entirely composed of officials with whom the Governor could advise confidentially. Whether the best officials were on the Executive Council at Malta, which seemed to be doubted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, he (Sir Henry Holland) did not presume to say, as he was not acquainted with the facts. But, in truth, at the bottom of the whole subject lay the great question whether the franchise should be enlarged, even at the risk of some uneducated persons becoming voters. Upon this point he concurred substantially in the view of the hon. Member for Glasgow. The elected Members had, beyond doubt, set themselves against proposed improvements; and it did seem desirable that Members should be chosen under an enlarged franchise, who were more alive to the wants of the poorer classes, and more ready to assist in social reforms. But as it appeared, from what the Under Secretary of State said, that the Government had set to work to effect this reform, and were prepared to press it on, he must again express his hope that the hon. Member would not trouble the House to go to a division.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFremarked, that the difficulties of the Governorship had been increased by the fact that latterly an unfortunate choice had been made of a Civil Governor, he being either a military man, between whom and the Military Governor jealousies arose, or a civilian of extreme views. It would be impracticable to make the faculty of speaking Italian a qualification for electoral rights. The language of Malta was not Italian, but a dialect of Arabic, and not more than one man in five knew Italian.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1869.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GREGORY,who had given Notice that he would call attention to the Bankruptcy Act of 1869, and the Rules made under it; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, many of the complaints with respect to the present administration of the Law might he removed by alterations of such Rules,"
    said, there were many grievances which the commercial community complained of with regard to the Act of 1869, which some simple alterations of the rules would easily obviate. The first of these complaints was that the trustee in bankruptcy was not bound to give security, as he ought to do, under the Act of 1869. Secondly, no proper provision was made for the costs and charges of the trustees. Thirdly, there was no rule with regard to the collection of the sums of moneys remaining in the hands of trustees. Fourthly, there was the abuse of proxies. Now, all these things would be easily removed if the Act of 1869 were carried out in the spirit; but, unfortunately, that had not been done. With respect to the security that would be taken from the trustee, that was a most important matter. Trustees could not always be relied upon; and, therefore, a provision of this kind was absolutely necessary. It was a fact that in all cases where a receiver under the Court of Chancery was appointed security was given as a matter of course. Indeed, the Act of 1869 provided that security should be taken from trustees in all cases; but it so happened that, by the rules made under that Act, the want of security on the part of the trustee did not invalidate his appointment, so that, although the Act expressly provided for security, the rules went in a contrary direction. The consequence was that the giving of security was utterly neglected. Trustee after trustee was appointed without any compliance with the provisions of the Act. Again, with respect to the costs and charges of the trustee, there was no control so far as he knew. The Act contemplated the taxation of all costs and charges; but, as a matter of fact, the rule provided for the taxation of all parties with the exception of the trustee. As regards the case of proxies, he considered that a very grave matter. At the present time a bankrupt

    95
    gathered the proxies, or they were gathered for him, so that the meeting was ruled by him, and the independent creditor was absolutely swamped at every stage of the proceedings. In this respect also the spirit of the Act was defeated by the rule. Again, instead of proxies being confined to their proper destination and applied for the purpose originally intended, the person from whom the proxy happened to be secured found that it applied to all the proceedings under the bankruptcy, and that, consequently, he was absolutely excluded from any further part in the transactions, and was committed hand and foot to the person to whom he gave the proxy. That also was done in accordance with the rule, and not in accordance with the Act. With regard, again, to the assets, the Act of 1869 provided for the collection of estates in the hands of trustees in bankruptcy; but, unfortunately, no rules had been made applicable to trustees under liquidation. It was well said that all the rubbish went into bankruptcy, and all the profit into liquidation; and the consequence was that a large amount of property was now in the hands of trustees under liquidation which could not be recovered. The Act of 1869 provided that all estates not applied or distributed within five years should be vested in the Crown. That would be the case where the rules had been made as in the case of bankruptcy; but, unfortunately, no rules, as he had said, had been made applicable to liquidation, and consequently those sums were still outstanding, and had not been carried over to the Crown. He would not object to those sums going over to the Crown by the Act of 1869, because the Crown had power, which it would, no doubt, exercise, to distribute them upon application. What he complained of was that those estates had been outstanding for years and years in the hands of persons who were no more entitled to them than he was. By that means the creditors were defrauded of money to an enormous extent. There was another point he would like to refer to—namely, the mode of dealing with creditors holding security. What he would venture to ask was that the Scotch system, which was a much more equitable one than the English, should be adopted. That system provided that the creditor holding the security should be
    96
    able to dispose of it, and that the trustees should have the option of taking it up at its value. If the trustees did not take it up, the creditor held the security and made what he could out of it, and was not, as in England, barred from proving until he had given up his security. That, in his opinion, was an equitable arrangement. He had no desire to detain the House at any length, his object was to put those points before the Government, so that when they proposed to amend the Bankruptcy Act they should proceed on the lines which he had just indicated. In default of their being able to close, it was in the power of the Lord Chancellor to so alter the rules as to obviate a great deal of the injustice that now existed, which was sorely felt by the commercial classes. It was the rules that caused the friction; and these, he contended, should be altered. He trusted that his suggestions would receive the favourable consideration of the Government, and that a remedy would be found for the grievances to which he had the honour of calling the attention of the House.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member as to the abuses that existed under the present bankruptcy system. Those abuses had been forcibly exposed by the President of the Board of Trade last Session. He (the Solicitor General) assured the hon. Member that had the exigencies of Public Business not prevented it, the matter would have been dealt with during the present Session in a Bill which had been prepared. That Bill dealt with the whole of the abuses that had unexpectedly arisen in the administration of the Act of 1869. The theory of that Act was that the creditors would look after their own interests; but the vast majority of estates were administered under the Liquidation Clauses, and by professional men, and not by the creditors. In this respect the Act of 1869 had failed. He did not, however, think that the bulk of the existing abuses could be remedied by a mere alteration of the rules, as suggested. He thought something more was needed if the system was to be made satisfactory; but he quite admitted that if it were not possible to carry a Bankruptcy Act dealing with the whole question, it was worthy of consideration as to whether some of the

    97
    details to which attention had been called might not be attended to, pending the passing of a comprehensive measure. He assured the hon. Gentleman that the subject would receive the attention which its importance demanded.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) £29,105, to complete the sum for the House of Lords Offices.
    (2.) £36,461, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
    (3.) £35,653, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
    (4.) £62,234, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
    (5.) £46,847, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
    SIR HENEY HOLLANDsaid, that the original Estimate for Telegrams in the Estimates of last year was £7,000. He observed that the same sum was put down for 1882–3; but he reminded the Committee that the amount was nearly doubled for last year in the Supplementary Estimates, where it was set down at £13,400. Now, he thought the Committee would agree that it was not desirable when the Estimate had been very largely exceeded in one year to put down the same amount for the year following, unless the circumstances of the case had very materially changed. The large increase last year was accounted for by the fact that, at that time, Europe was in a disturbed state, and this country had in consequence to communicate constantly with five foreign capitals. But it seemed to him that this year Europe could hardly be said to be in a very quiet state, and certainly within the last few weeks communications had had to be carried on with at least five capitals, if not more. He should, therefore, be glad to know why the sum of £7,000 had been put down in this Estimate, seeing that the same troubled state of things existed in Europe now as existed last year? Then
    98
    there was a point also raised last year with regard to the custom of sending formal telegrams on any change of Government to all the officials connected with the Foreign Office. He again called attention to this subject, because the Under Secretary of State had undertaken that this custom should cease, and his object was to ascertain whether any steps had been taken to put an end to these useless telegrams which caused great expense? Finally, he asked whether any advance had been made in the direction of shortening the telegraphic messages?—a subject which it was also promised last year should receive the attention of the Under Secretary.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken into consideration the expediency of paying the attaches in the Diplomatic Service from the time of their appointments? These gentleman had to go through a competitive examination, and then continue for two years without any salary at all. He was aware that it was a very hard matter to get anything out of the right hon. Gentleman; but the case of the diplomatic attachés was one that he thought deserved to be taken into favourable consideration for the reasons stated.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was impossible to forecast with accuracy the amount that would have to be paid for telegraphic messages in the course of the year. He agreed that this form of expenditure ought to be very closely watched, and that it should be kept down by the Departments to as low an amount as possible. But it was an item of extreme variability, as would be seen from the following figures which related to several years' expenditure under this head. In the year 1874–5 the total amount spent on telegrams was £2,200; in 1876–7 the amount was £11,700; in 1877–8 it was £5,800; and in 1880–1 the total charge amounted to £20,000; and, as his hon. Friend opposite had pointed out, it amounted to £14,000 for last year. The sum of £7,000 represented the average charge for a certain number of preceding years, and that was why this amount appeared in the Estimates for 1882–3. But it was impossible to anticipate the course of events in the Mediterranean, and he was afraid that the Estimate of the current year would

    99
    have to be exceeded. He repeated, that pressure was being put upon the Departments to keep the expenditure within the lowest possible limits.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDreminded the Secretary to the Treasury that he had not replied to the question as to the shortening of the telegrams.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could assure the hon. Baronet that he felt very much indebted to him for having drawn attention to the expenditure under this head. It was scarcely necessary to add that he fully concurred in the desirability of reducing the charge by shortening the telegrams. The Foreign Office bad adopted certain measures with the object of bringing about that result; but, although some of the messages were undoubtedly of unnecessary length, the hon. Gentleman must say that there were many cases in which it was almost impossible to abridge them. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman should certainly be kept in view; and he trusted that the steps already taken by the Foreign Office would be satisfactory in their result.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £25,220, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
    (7.) £20,438, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
    (8.) £1,855, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.
    (9.) £116,270, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, the Public Accounts Committee had, last year, to deal with a considerable deficit in connection with this Department, arising out of the law charges. It was suggested that this might be avoided by putting pressure on some of the accountants to make earlier returns of the actual law costs incurred, and also earlier returns of the estimated law costs. He trusted the Financial Secretary would turn his attention to this subject, and put pressure on the Board of Trade Department, in order that the suggestion of the Public Accounts Committee to the above effect might be carried out.
    MR. MOOREsaid, he wished to draw attention to the large and increasing importation into the country of spurious butter, which was now, and had been for some time, seriously prejudicing the
    100
    agricultural interest. He had brought this subject already under the notice of the House, and had urged upon the President of the Board of Trade the desirability of his gaining some control over the Board of Customs, which would result in the Customs Returns giving further particulars in regard to the large importation of oil and lard, under which designations this spurious butter was introduced. These articles, which were made up into spurious butter in the United States and in Holland, were exported to this country in very large quantities, where they were entered under the designations he had referred to. It was not his purpose at that moment to go into the question as to whether or not they were fit for human food. He believed, however, they were, in the condition in which they arrived here, for the most part unwholesome, although they were not in all cases to be objected to. But his contention was, that the agriculturist—the butter producer in this country—and the public had a right to the fullest possible information on this subject. The Customs Returns did not give any indication of the enormous importation of spurious butter that was taking place, and he repeated that the public was entitled to know exactly what it was that came in under these designations of oil and lard. Millions of pounds of spurious butter arrived here in the course of the year, and all trace of it was lost by the Customs Returns being made up in the manner he had described—that was to say, by manufactured butter being entered as oil and lard. It was known that steamer after steamer from Holland brought the substance in question to this country packed in oil-casks, in order to facilitate its passing the Customs. Again, the difficulty of getting at the actual facts with regard to spurious butter was increased by the absence from the Customs Returns of the names of the ports of shipment. The result of all this was that deleterious substances found their way into the English markets, and were there sold in a way that constituted a gross fraud on the consumer as butter. When he brought this question forward last year, the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to say that he fully appreciated the force of the arguments put forward, and that, although the Board of Customs

    101
    were a body very difficult to move, he would endeavour to have the Returns made up so as to show distinctly the quantity of so-called butter imported, and where it came from. Now, he would like to know whether the Board of Customs had refused to do this; if so, whether the Board of Trade had any authority to require the Returns to be furnished in a form that would supply the desired information; and whether any further steps would be taken by the Board of Trade to obtain it?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not in his place to answer the questions of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee. He would, however, take note of the point of the hon. Member's remarks, which he understood to be simply that he desired to have it stated in the Returns what was the exact nature of the substances imported into the country under the heads of "Oil" and "Lard."
    MR. MOOREsaid, he would repeat his questions on Report. The right hon. Gentleman had said very truly that there was no desire to stop the importation of the articles in question, which, as he (Mr. Moore) believed, largely consisted of wholesome fat. The object he had in view was to ascertain exactly what it was and where it came from, so that some check might be placed on the sale of it as butter.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, it was noticeable that the law charges in this Department showed a considerable increase in amount over the Estimates of former years. He had on previous occasions drawn attention to the form in which this and other charges were presented in the Estimates, as affording no materials for criticism or means of exercising proper control over the various branches of Public Expenditure. The item of £18,300 under the head of Law Charges in the Legal Branch of the Department was an instance of this. To criticize that item as it stood on the Paper could have no practical or useful result whatever. There were no details, and, consequently, no opportunity of examination or comparison; in short, the information conveyed by the Estimate was nothing more than that a certain amount of money had been spent in law charges.
    102
    With such a system of accounting it was difficult to see what control the Departments could have over their own expenditure; while, as he had shown, any useful criticism of the charges when the Estimates came forward, was rendered impossible. He had succeeded in getting some improvements introduced into the Scotch Estimates, and one was now able to obtain something like a clear idea of the expenditure that was going on; but, with regard to the English Estimates, the matter remained as before—in a state of obscurity. Under the circumstances, he ventured again to submit to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates that which he had urged year after year on the attention of the Government—namely, that the whole of the expenditure now dispersed over the Estimates should be brought together with full details, and under different heads, in one general statement—the only form of accounts that afforded the means of examining, comparing, and controlling expenditure.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDregretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not present to give the Committee some assurance that a better supervision would be exercised over the law charges incurred by the Department. There had been an increase of expenditure under this head in almost every case. This pointed to the necessity of exercising great care and attention at the time the law charges were being incurred, because, after that, there was no option but to pay the bills. The amount incurred by the Board of Trade for law expenses, which were, to a considerable extent, the result of carelessness on the part of officials, was very large; and, therefore, he would impress upon the Financial Secretary that the strictest supervision should be exercised over the expenses in connection with public inquiries at the time when that supervision could be of any use.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he failed to see that the form of accounts advocated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir George Balfour) would lead to the reduction of expenditure. As far as he was able to understand the proposal, it was that the charges for all the Departments should be collected under one head.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that was not his point. He desired

    103
    to see in one statement, but placed under separate headings, the whole of the sums now dispersed over the Estimates.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he understood his hon. and gallant Friend to mean by that the collection together of all the Estimates for Law Charges. But he again pointed out that this would afford no means of controlling the amount of expenditure under that head. It seemed to him that greater pressure would be exercised over the Department by making the Board of Trade responsible for so much money under the head of Law Charges, than by merely collecting together in one item the expenses of the year. The Estimate, in its present form, seemed to bring home to the Department their responsibility for the expenditure incurred in the most direct manner. With regard to the increase in the Charge for law expenses, he would mention that a considerable proportion of this was the result of an action for damages in consequence of the Department having arrested a vessel as un-seaworthy which was held not to have been in that condition. The owners of the ship having brought their action for the wrongful arrest of the vessel, obtained a verdict against Mr. Farrar. But this was a matter over which the Board of Trade had no control whatever, because if a person were wronged by the action of the Department, he had a right to have that wrong rectified, if necessary, in a Court of Law. On the other hand, he quite admitted the desirability of such supervision being exercised over the action of the officers of the Department as would prevent, as far as possible, the recurrence of mistakes of the kind mentioned.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the hon. Gentleman still appeared to misapprehend his point. He was not disputing the charge for law expenses. As he had already shown, the Estimate, in its present form, gave no information upon which any useful criticism of the item could be founded. His contention was, that if the House of Commons wished to get control over the financial Estimates, and to exercise it with advantage, they must have before them at one view—in one general statement—the detailed expenditure of all the law charges for the whole Kingdom, classified under several heads, and divided between the respective Departments, all items being
    104
    fully stated, so that the mode of expending, and to whom paid, should be clearly set forth, so that any abuse might be seen at a glance, and thus practically exercise a powerful preventive check over improper outlay.
    MR. MOOREsaid, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had taken his place on the Treasury Bench; and he would now venture to ask him whether any steps had been taken by the Board of Trade with reference to the importation of certain substances, to which the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called when the present Vote was before the Committee last year? The right hon. Gentleman would probably recollect that upon the occasion referred to he led the Committee to understand that he would endeavour to move the Board of Customs to furnish Returns of the substitutes for butter which were imported into the country under the designations of oil, lard, and so forth. He would like to know how far the negotiations with the Board of Trade had proceeded in the direction indicated?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had, in accordance with the promise made last year to the hon. Member for Clonmel, referred the question of the improved classification of imports to a Departmental Committee, which was still sitting for the purpose of considering that and other subjects. The Report of that Committee had not been finally decided upon; but he believed it would be found practicable to make the distinction in the Returns which his hon. Friend wished for—that was to say, that all the imports of butter-substitutes should be distinguished from the imports of butter proper. He hoped, also, that the same result might be obtained with regard to cheese. Of course, he did not wish to be understood to pledge himself positively; but, as far as he could see, it would be possible to obtain the classification which his hon. Friend desired.
    MR. BUXTONsaid, he observed, under the head of Law Charges, an item of £500 for expenses under the Crown Lands Act, 1866 (29 & 80 Vict. c. 62) (Foreshores), and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could state, for the information of the Committee, if any extra expense would be incurred this year in connection with the

    105
    Channel Tunnel? He was not certain that the expense with regard to the Channel Tunnel came under this particular Vote; but seeing the item of charge he had alluded to, he thought the question might with propriety be raised upon this branch of the Estimates.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, at the commencement of the year it was not contemplated that there would be any expenditure in connection with the Channel Tunnel; but circumstances had since arisen that rendered it necessary for the Department to apply to a Court of Justice. Some expense might, in consequence of this, fall upon the Department; but he had no reason for assuming that the present Estimate would be exceeded.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he desired to call attention very strongly to the growing evil of adulteration in the articles of butter and cheese. Although the question was one of extreme importance to the great bulk of the people of the country, yet the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade appeared to think it a very small matter whether or not the unfortunate inhabitants of large towns and cities who bought in the shops should pay the price of butter and get in return an article that was not butter and not worth more than two-thirds of the money they paid. He had listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) with reference to the manner in which the spurious butter imported into the couutry was dealt with in the Returns of the Board of Customs, and he was bound to say that he believed the hon. Member's intentions would not be fulfilled by the mere classification of the substances in the manner indicated. The impossibility of distinguishing the deleterious from the genuine article would remain even if the suggestion of the hon. Member were fully carried out. His own opinion was that the Government ought to insist that where pure butter was imported, it should bear some distinguishing mark to show that it was genuine; and, on the other hand, that where a substance purporting to be butter, but which was not butter at all, was imported, this also should bear a mark to show what it really was. These adulterated articles, it was well known, were sold to people over the counter by
    106
    shopkeepers, who, as a rule, did not commit themselves to any statement that they were selling genuine butter. Nevertheless, the consumer, as the right hon. Gentleman would be aware, was grossly imposed upon. They knew that when the retailer was detected in selling a purchaser an adulterated article as pure butter, he could, by the existing law, be taken before a magistrate and fined for the offence; but he pointed out that the wholesale manufacturer, who sold the adulterated article in large quantities, did not suffer the slightest inconvenience in consequence. Now, as butter was one of the most important articles of trade in the country, one would have thought the Government, and particularly the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, would have given great attention to this question of adulterated and spurious imports; but it seemed to him, from the manner the subject had been dealt with, that the Government had really become the patrons of adulteration. They appeared to think it a good joke to foist upon the public, as butter, lard valued at, say, 63 s. a cwt., or about two-thirds the value of butter. But the result of this was, besides the imposition put upon the consumer, that the sale of the genuine butters produced by English and Irish farmers was prejudiced in the market; they were exposed to unfair competition, and it became increasingly difficult for the manufacturers to keep up the quality of their goods. He could assure the Committee that not one-tenth of the substances sold as butter was butter at all. Moreover, a large number of persons who were able to judge for themselves had ceased altogether to buy the articles offered to them, and in this way again the action of persons who simply wanted a genuine article for their money depreciated the value of English and Irish butter. For these reasons he contended that some check ought to be placed on the importation of deleterious articles manufactured in other countries to the prejudice of English and Irish farmers; and he trusted that the whole subject would receive the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he considered it possible to draw a distinction

    107
    between imports that were genuine and those that were spurious? Would the Adulteration Acts cover the selling as pure butter of any of the articles referred to by the hon. Member for Clonmel? Supposing they did not, would the right hon. Gentleman go a step further and take in the case of butter the same measures as had been adopted with reference to coffee—that was to say, that some penalty should attach to the sale of oleomargarine as butter? It seemed to him that the law now applied to the sale of articles pretending to be coffee should apply also to articles pretending to be butter.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the noble Lord appeared to confuse the duties of two separate Departments. It was his (Mr. Chamberlain's) duty to answer for the import and export statistics, and, in connection with those, he had replied to the inquiry made by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore). He had promised last year that he would endeavour to cause a distinction to be made in the Returns between what was called pure butter and those mixtures which were sold as substitutes for butter. The remark applied to cheese, or any other articles of great interest to the consumer. But he had no authority in the matter of adulteration of those substances when once imported into the country. In his opinion, the Adulteration Acts afforded a sufficient protection to the consumer against the sale of adulterated articles. Under the 8th section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act any person selling oleomargarine as butter, without telling the person who bought it the nature of the article sold, rendered himself liable to a penalty of £20, which penalty might be enforced on prosecution by a private individual, or by the local authorities.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he ventured to think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would afford little comfort to the farmers. He supposed, however, that if no satisfaction was to be obtained from the Board of Trade, they would have to look to the Department presided over by the "farmers' friend," the Home Secretary.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the fact that the Secretary to the Home Department, in answer to
    108
    a question put by him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) a few days ago, had stated that some alteration would be made in the system of appointing Sanitary Inspectors, and that he did not propose to fill up the next vacancy. This was a matter closely connected with the Office of the Board of Trade, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the alteration which the Secretary to the Home Department had said it was his intention to make, he proposed that there should be an Inspector connected with the Board of Trade to carry out those duties which were originally performed by the Sanitary Inspectors in respect of Sea Fisheries?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would communicate with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary to the Home Department, and ask to be allowed to have some voice in the settlement of this question. As the two subjects referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite were closely connected, it seemed to him that it would be advantageous to the public interest if they were dealt with by one Department.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his only object was to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the answer given by the Secretary for the Home Department. He had no doubt that the communication with the Home Secretary, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, would effect the desired result.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he would appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to use the power and influence of the Treasury to induce the Board of Customs to expedite the presentation to Parliament of the annual Trade Report. He (General Sir George Balfour) had for many years been trying to have this thin volume more speedily rendered; but his application to the Board of Customs, and his many requests to the Board of Trade, had hitherto proved useless from the fact that the Customs Department, although performing duties connected with trade, did not consider that the Board of Trade had any right to interfere with the internal office duties of the Customs—the Treasury alone having the right. The delay in presenting this Trade Report might be judged of by the fact that, although the Navigation Tables of Shipping

    109
    were as voluminous as the Trade Reports, yet they were presented to Parliament within two months after the close of the calendar year, a result due to the activity of the office of the Board of Trade in which these tables were compiled. In contrast with this, the Trade Report was never made available by the Customs till towards the end of August, when, as a rule, Parliament was not sitting. In addition to this delay, there was a defect in the Returns of the Board of Customs to which he would again refer—namely, the enormous amount of unenumerated articles entered in the Trade Tables. In the Report for the year 1881 the value of the unenumerated articles imported amounted to £14,597,090, and that of the exports of goods, the produce of the United Kingdom, also unenumerated, amounted to £12,102,101; and, moreover, the figures under these heads were increasing year by year. He contended that this defect should be removed; and although it was, no doubt, unavoidable that the tables for comparison should be kept uniform in regard to entries, it would have been an easy task to have furnished a Supplemental Table of the new imports and exports that had taken place since the present set of tables was commenced. He trusted that these subjects which, from their importance, were of great interest to many Members of that House, would receive the early attention of the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that, although he was responsible in that House for the Trade Returns, his hon. and gallant Friend was aware that these were compiled partly by the Board of Trade, and partly by the Board of Customs. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that he was deeply impressed with the importance of publishing these statistics as soon as possible in the financial year, and he believed that arrangements had been made which would materially hasten their publication in future. As regarded the question of classification of imports and exports, he was glad to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that the whole subject was under consideration, and he hoped it would be found practicable to reduce the amount under the head of Unenumerated Articles.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked whether the right hon. Gentleman
    110
    the President of the Board of Trade had made any arrangements for the presentation to Parliament of a Statement of the value of crops produced in the United Kingdom? The subject was, no doubt, a large one, yet he believed it was not beyond the power of the Department to produce a Return of the value of our agricultural produce. It had already been done, with more or less approximation to accuracy, by scientific persons, and he sincerely hoped that, having regard to its great importance, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some assurance that steps would be taken by the Department to furnish the Return in question.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not add anything to what he had said on a former occasion, when, in answer to an inquiry on this subject, he acknowledged the importance of having in the Agricultural Statistics some estimate of the value of the crops, but, at the same time, pointed out that there were some considerable difficulties in the way of obtaining it. It would be a most interesting estimate, if it could be arrived at; but it must, under any circumstances, be too late for the Returns of the present year.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, if the estimate could be made by private individuals, it was not unreasonable to expect that it could be also arrived at by a Public Department. The estimate was to be found in M' Culloch's Dictionary; and he ventured to think that if the right hon. Gentleman meant to have it done at all, it was not beyond the resources of his Department to get it included in the Returns of the present year.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £19,496, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
    MR. HINDE PALMERasked whether it was the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Canon Robinson? He desired to call attention to the desirability of consolidating the many Acts of Parliament which related to Endowed Schools. He had seldom seen such a list of Statutes relating to one particular Department. There were enumerated on the Estimate seven or eight at least, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on

    111
    Education to consider whether the Acts on the subjects of Endowed Schools and the Charity Commission ought not to be consolidated. He trusted that some steps would be taken in this direction.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the time had arrived for considering whether the Charity Commission ought to be self-supporting, or whether it ought to constitute any longer a charge upon the country. The Charity Commissioners took charge of a very large amount of property; they administered it, and they exercised a control over it for the benefit of the parties interested in it, and he thought it was only right that the cost of this supervision and administration should be borne by the parties who were benefited. He could not help thinking that this matter was well worthy the attention of the Government. There would be no difficulty in the matter, and it would not be unfair to make the beneficiaries contribute to the expenses of managing the funds or property placed under the control of those Commissioners. It would relieve the country to a considerable extent of the expenses of the Commission, and he thought it would only be right to impose a burden upon those for whom the Commission was intended, and so to relieve the general taxpayers of the country.
    An hon. MEMBERasked whether it was intended to renew the powers under the Endowed Schools Act which would expire on the 31st September next?
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that it had been the intention of the Government to re-organize the Endowed Schools Commission, and, if possible, to accelerate their procedure. It was, no doubt, in the highest degree desirable that much more progress should be made; but the pressure of Business this Session would not allow of that being done, and the Government would propose either a Continuance Bill, or a short Bill similar to the one brought in by the late Government, to continue the present powers for one or two years longer. It was the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Canon Robinson, for at present there was only one Endowed Schools Commissioner. The work of the Charity Commission was largely increasing, and something would be done to strengthen that Commission. He hoped before the end of the Session to be able to appoint a successor
    112
    to Canon Robinson, and to do something to accelerate the work of the Commission. The Vote had diminished to the extent of about three-fourths of a year's salary for one Commissioner and one Assistant Commissioner. With respect to the charges made by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), they were matters which it appeared difficult for any Government to touch, especially when there was not much time, because whenever the question had been raised it had given rise to a great deal of opposition, especially from the other side of the House; and the history of the question had been unfortunate for every Minister or Member of the House who had started it. He was afraid any Government who attempted to deal with the matter would find their task a very difficult one.
    SIR R: ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the decrease in the Vote seemed to be caused by a decrease in the staff. It was important to get on with the work as fast as possible, and he did not think it right to reduce the staff or the salaries of the Commissioners.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £18,738, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
    (12.) £10,416, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was anxious the public should know, as far as information could be conveyed in a few words, what a bad bargain this Office was. There was probably no Public Department in the whole of the United Kingdom which returned to the public so little value for the large amount it cost. The Vote was now£16,900. The theory of the Office was that copyholds should be enfranchised compulsorily, either on the demand of the lord or the tenant. It would be well in connection with another matter that people should remember this. Either the landlord or the tenant might compel the enfranchisement of a copyhold, and the State made a contribution, because the operation of the Act was compulsory. Parliament granted this money to carry on this Office, which was practically a subsidy to the lords and tenants of manors to the extent of £16,000 or £17,000 a-year.

    113
    He should not object if enfranchisement were proceeding at such a rate as to promise, within a measurable distance, the extinction of copyhold and customary tenures. For the last year the business of the Office in the enfranchisement of copyholds had only amounted to 300 transactions. He did not intend to represent that as the normal work of the Office, because, practically, the average was about 600 transactions a-year. No man had a more settled conviction of that unsatisfactory rate of progress than the distinguished gentleman who presided over the Office—namely, Sir James Caird. He had expressed himself strongly as to the unsatisfactory progress made by the Department, and Sir James Caird urged such a reform of the law as would bring about the extinction of copyhold tenure in 30 years, which was too long by at least 20 years. He only wished on this occasion to call attention to the great waste of public money in this Department, which, cost over £16,000 a-year, and was not worth £1,000 to the country.
    Vote agreed to.
    (13.) £4,350, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts, Imprest Expenses.
    (14.) £38,974, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.
    (15.) £3,972, to complete the sum for the Friendly Societies Registry.
    (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £358,145, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board a Question that he had asked earlier in the Session, as to the Alkali Acts, which materially affected that part of the country which he represented. An Act was passed last year to enable the Local Government Board to appoint additional Inspectors; and he wished to know what had been the result of those appointments, and whether those Inspectors were appointed to
    114
    reside in the districts where the works were carried on, for he had found that in some cases the Inspectors resided in a different place from the works they had to inspect, and there was no practical result from their inspecting, for it was known that the alkali works bottled up all their noxious vapours until everybody was asleep, and then let them out in a thin white stream which was poisonous? If the Inspectors were to be of the smallest use they must be on the spot where they could see for themselves, and be up and doing. With regard to the alkali manufacturers, he believed all the best of them were agreed that the letting out of these noxious vapours was not in the least necessary, and it had been proved before the Commission that all the mischief had been done by those persons who, when the trade was profitable, rushed into it without having the proper appliances for the consumption of the vapours, and let out the vapours to the great injury of the country, and to their co-traders who had done all that could be done. It was essential, not only for the best manufacturers, but also for the agricultural interest in the districts, which was being destroyed, that these Inspectors should be more active and efficient. He had himself seen a field of wheat blackened and destroyed in one night. It was no use appointing Inspectors unless they did their work; and he wanted to know whether more Inspectors had been appointed; whether they had done their work; whether they resided in the districts under them; whether they could be up at night to see where the mischief came from; and what had been the practical result of the Act?
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the Act of last year was not only applied to alkali works, but to other manufactures, and in the Estimate before the Committee there was £5,000 for salaries. He was informed that there were 250 of these works in the Manchester district, which came under the operation of the Act; that there had been no adequate inspection, and he had actually seen a report that that district included the Isle of Wight as well as Manchester. The districts were so ill-arranged that, as he was told on authority which could not be impugned, the efficient inspection of these 250 works was, in the present

    115
    state of things, impracticable. In the opinion of a philanthropic person, who had interested himself in this matter, the injury to public health arose mainly from such works, and not from the smoke of the factories. This was a matter of great importance to the public health, and he hoped the Government would give attention to it.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished to call attention to the inspection of Metropolitan vagrant wards, and to ask whether the notice of the President of the Local Government Board had been drawn to a matter in connection with the Act just passed relating to vagrancy throughout the country? By a provision of the Bill there was now a larger power of detention in casual wards than there had hitherto been. The object of that was that persons should not only be detained longer, and in that way possibly a check be given to vagrancy, but that when they were detained they should be properly treated. He thought a great deal of success in these matters depended on the way in which the vagrant wards in the country were organized, and on the way in which the Boards of Guardians paid attention to the treatment of this class of paupers. He did not suppose it would be possible to have so elaborate an inspection of the whole of the vagrant wards in the country as was done in London; but he wished to know whether it would be possible for the Local Government Board to draw the attention of the Inspectors to this matter, so that there might not be anything in the future which would cast a slur on legislation of this Session? Then, with regard to the medical question, there were a number of persons who went about preaching an Anti-Vaccination Crusade. He was not sure that the crowding-out of the Bill of the hon. Member for Leicester was an altogether unmixed good, for he was afraid the consequence of that was that the mischievous agitation would be kept simmering in the public mind without its being brought to the test of figures which would show that the apprehensions of the agitators were unfounded. It seemed to him that the only foundation for any clamour against vaccination, which had done so much for the public health of this country, lay in the fact that vaccination was not always done in a proper manner. No doubt,
    116
    there were exceptional cases in which vaccination produced evils which would not have ensued if the operation had been carried out under proper conditions. If the hon. Gentleman could give some assurance that the Department would direct its attention to this particular subject, and would take care that the vaccinators supplied pure lymph, a great deal of practical good would be done, although it might not stop the agitation altogether.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he thought a great deal of misapprehension in the minds of people had been produced by the fact that vaccine matter of a deleterious character was frequently supplied, and produced disease. The attention of the Department ought to be directed not only to having a supply of pure vaccine matter, but to having an adequate quantity. If the Department did that, one of the chief causes of complaint would disappear.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, with regard to the Alkali Inspectors, four additional Inspectors had been appointed, and particular care had been taken to inquire which were the districts in which there was the greatest number of alkali works. It was impossible to appoint a number of Inspectors in each district; but it was the intention of the Government to have the Inspectors living in the districts where the alkali works were the greatest in number. Information was given to the Government that there were a great number of works in the St. Helen's district, and it was suggested that the Department should appoint an Inspector for that one place, and that had been done. He was quite sure the Department had the question of damage by alkali works under their consideration, and would, as far as possible, make arrangements to prevent it. With respect to casual wards, the Metropolis was made into one Union; and, under the existing Act, any person who visited any vagrant ward more than twice within a certain period could be detained for a certain number of hours, and that system had produced the best results. He had no doubt, when the new Bill came into operation, that it would be possible to adopt the same system throughout the country. With regard to vaccination, he could not be expected now to go into the merits of vaccination, or of the objections raised

    117
    to vaccination by some people. But the Local Government Board had, through their Inspectors, got this system entirely under control, and a great deal of trouble was taken with regard to inspection. The Inspectors went over the country and inspected vaccination in different districts. They could not, of course, inspect all vaccination; but they took a certain number in each vaccination district, and a system of payment by results was established, so that the Inspectors obtained an additional sum over and above their salaries for each inspection. Some of the Inspectors had received as much as £40 and £50 additional for successful vaccinations; and, so far, the system had worked well. This year a system of animal vaccine had been adopted, and was now in operation, and there was no difficulty in obtaining lymph from animals. He quite agreed that, to a great extent, the agitation against vaccination arose from careless vaccinations. The Local Government Board were always prepared to have an inquiry made into such cases, and, as far as possible, to secure proper treatment.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the inspection of workhouse schools under the Vote. He had seen a great deal of the inspection of workhouse and other schools, and there was an immense difference between the two methods. The inspection of workhouse schools was conducted by Inspectors who confined themselves to this sole class of schools, without experience of other children; it was, therefore, of a cramped nature, and there was, of course, only a small scope for suggestion and classification. If the workhouse schools inspection were absorbed in the inspection of schools generally, then workhouse children would be examined side by side with other children to their great advantage. There was a great waste of money under the present system. If the workhouse school was inspected along with other schools in the same town, that would only involve a half-day's work; whereas now an Inspector inspected a workhouse school in one part of the country in one day, and then rushed away to another part of the country to another workhouse.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not know to what extent the hon. Gentleman's experience had gone; but pro-
    118
    bably he was not aware that a very large number of these children were not in schools which would be inspected only in respect of their educational advancement. They were in separate establishments, which required inspection as such. There might be difficulties in the way of placing workhouse children under the general inspection, although in small country districts that might, perhaps, be of advantage, yet in the neighbourhood of London there were, most important and elaborate establishments which could not be dealt with in that way.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, his remarks applied to smaller schools throughout the country workhouses. He referred rather to the workhouse schools than to the large district schools.
    MR. MOOREsaid, he wished for some information as to the Roman Catholic children in these schools. Last year he had brought forward many cases of bigotry on the part of local authorities. There was in a Lancashire Union a Roman Catholic church within 15 minutes' walk of the workhouse, and the paupers were not allowed to go to it; and in many institutions in Lancashire the boys had been flogged into conforming to the Protestant services. Children were sent to various employers, and in some cases their relatives could not ascertain were the boys were. Roman Catholics in England were in a minority, and they could not expect to have all the officials in the parish chosen from their body; still he maintained that they had a right to have their interests fairly looked after. The question was not one of money, although whatever Boards of Guardians might be disposed to give would be acceptable; but there were four Unions which would not in the slightest degree yield to the reasonable demands of the Roman Catholics. This was a miserable religious persecution, and, naturally, Roman Catholics felt it very deeply. At present the parents and guardians of children could be, if the Guardians thought fit, deprived of all access to the register. There was no law to compel the Guardians to grant that access, and that measure of security could only be obtained by a roundabout process. What he maintained was, that Roman Catholics ought to have perfect religious freedom, and in the case of those who were paupers the fact of their being paupers ought not to be a

    119
    reason for forcing on them religious opinions that they did not entertain. Roman Catholics said their Church ought to be absolutely free of access to them—the Roman Catholics should have perfect freedom of access to their Church within reasonable limits, so as not to disturb the necessary rules and order of the house—that was to say, when time and season permitted. They should be allowed to attend the services of their own Church when there was no epidemic disease in the house, and when the Roman Catholic place of worship was not too far distant. In addition to the right of visiting their churches, they ought to have the right of being visited by their clergy. Then, when there were so many Catholic children in the workhouses, having due regard to proportion, Roman Catholics had a right to some kind of representation on the official staff of the houses. They did not expect to have the whole staff of a workhouse Catholic, but they did insist upon having at least somebody on it who understood them and sympathized with them. Where it was certified that the children were Roman Catholics, and their parents were anxious that they should be under the care of persons of their own religion, it was clearly wrong to prevent the transfer of those children to institutions under the Catholic religion.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was aware that on various occasions attention had been directed to the question of the education of pauper children; but he thought they should go somewhat further than had been suggested by hon. Members who on previous occasions had spoken on this question. The fact was that no attempt had been made to absorb the pauper children for the purpose of education in the common schools established throughout the Kingdom. It was a great blunder to mass children in workhouse schools—that was to say, a great blunder so far as the interests of the children themselves were concerned. Let these children be so placed that they could be educated in the common schools of the country, and many of the evils the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) complained of would not be heard of. The parents would be able to select the schools; and the Roman Catholic children would be sent to Roman Catholic schools, and the children of other re-
    120
    ligious denominations to the schools of those denominations. As it was, the children were being brought up as paupers, and they naturally imbibed the idea that they should never look to any other source than the rates for their subsistence. So long as such a system as this existed it was a great evil. The country was spending on this pauper education an enormous sum of money that would be much better expended in providing education for these children in the common schools of the country. The Government had expressed, in the earlier part of the Session, some sympathy with this view; and he would, therefore, like to know whether any progress had been made in detaching children from the workhouses and having them maintained in families throughout the country and educated at the common schools? Bringing them up altogether in workhouses imbued them with the idea that they were paupers, and never could be anything else. Such an idea had a great effect on the character of the children; and he hoped it would soon be put a stop to. He would not move the reduction of the Vote on the present occasion; but another year he should be inclined to do so, unless there were some change effected. If there were such a mass of pauper children in the country that they could not be accommodated in the public schools, schools should be established for them; but, under any circumstances, they should be removed from the workhouses.
    MR. WARTONbegged to draw attention to the large sum put down for "incidental expenses" in regard to the inspection of workhouse schools.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, he need not say that he was in full sympathy with almost everything that had been said by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore). The hon. Member, however, had made a statement with regard to a gross piece of tyranny which had taken place, without mentioning the name of the place or the names of the guilty persons. This was most unfortunate. The statement was one of the most important which had ever been made in the House of Commons during the time he (Mr. O'Shea) had had the honour of a seat in it. It was that a Roman Catholic child or children had been flogged in some school in Lancashire to make

    121
    them conform to some other religion. The hon. Member, he thought, ought to state the Union or school in which such a frightful atrocity occurred, in order that the authorities of the Local Government Board might inquire into the matter at once, and bring the guilty parties to justice.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he felt great sympathy with the hon. Member for Clonmel as to the condition of the Roman Catholic paupers in the schools and workhouses. The statement of the hon. Member to which reference had just been made by another hon. Member (Mr. O'Shea) was a most important one. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would not ask the hon. Member to mention publicly the Union in Lancashire to which he had referred; but, after the statement he had made, he was surely bound to mention the name of the Union to the Secretary of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was sure he need not ask his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), when the information had been given to him, to lose no time in communicating with the Inspector of the district, in order that he might inquire into the charge which reflected such grave discredit on the administration of the Union.
    MR. ROUNDsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Local Government Board to the subject of the salaries of the medical officers under them. Was it not the fact that those salaries were now paid out of the Imperial funds? Superannuation allowances were granted, and those, he believed, were charged on the local ratepayers. He thought it only just that the whole community should bear the burden of the charge for medical relief to the poor; and it was equally proper that the whole community should pay the whole superannuation allowances of these officers. He (Mr. Hound) would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he had ever considered the subject from this point of view?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the law allowed the superanuation allowances, and those only, to be charged on the rates. He did not know whether the Committee would be prepared to adopt the change suggested. With regard to children who at present attended the workhouse schools being placed under the Education Department, he must say he was
    122
    favourably impressed with the plan, and he had gone so far as to suggest it to the Education Department; but there were so many difficulties raised that it was almost impossible to hope that the change would be effected. It would not save expense—the salaries would not be appreciably lessened. It might save the salary of one Inspector—that was the conclusion which had been come to—but it must be borne in mind that the question of health and many other matters had to be gone into as well as education. Some years ago, the inspection of workhouse schools was under the Education Department; but the system had been changed. He could not hold out very much hope that the views of hon. Members who had spoken on this subject would be carried out; but the matter was still under consideration. As to the condition of the pauper children generally, a great improvement had been made in it, particularly as regarded those children who were sent to the National schools. Many more were sent to those schools now than last year, and, so far as the Local Government Board was concerned, they offered no difficulties in the way of the extension of this change in London. Where, however, Guardians had already established schools for pauper children, it was not likely that they would put them aside at once, and send the children to the common schools of the country. Then they had to take into consideration the objection of managers of schools to workhouse children being sent to them. All these points had to be considered; still it was a fact that the system of sending workhouse children to public schools was growing in the country. The practice of boarding out children was now beginning to be largely adopted. Last year between 7,000 and 8,000 children were boarded out by the Unions in different parts of the country. Also, during the past two or three years schools had been built on a new principle—on the cottage instead of the block system—and the result was likely to be very beneficial. The buildings were laid out in separate blocks, each having a "mother" to attend to it, and in this way the mechanical system was avoided, a greater home feeling was introduced, a better knowledge of the children was obtained, and also a better chance of teaching them—especially a better chance of teaching the girls do-

    123
    mestic work. This system had been adopted in Chelsea, also in Birmingham and several other places. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore), he could assure the hon. Member that if he would furnish the Local Government Board privately with the names of the Unions where the occurrences to which reference had been made had taken place, he (Mr. Hibbert) would see that they were inquired into at once. Whenever anything of this kind occurred, if it was only mentioned in the newspapers, the Local Government Board immediately sent instructions to its Inspectors, requiring them, without delay, to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation. In regard to the question of the treatment of Roman Catholic children, he (Mr. Hibbert) quite agreed with the hon. Member that there had been and still was a great amount of intolerance in the country; but it was satisfactory to know that it was lessening year by year. He was informed on very high authority that there were only three or four Unions in the country where any complaint was made in respect of the treatment of Roman Catholic children, and he trusted that before long, even in those places, the grievance would be removed. In Sheffield the Guardians had not done what could be considered quite fair to the Roman Catholics in that Union; but he hoped that, in the future, those Guardians would treat the Roman Catholic children in a manner more satisfactory to the Roman Catholic ratepayers of the district. He (Mr. Hibbert) had not quite made out what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport with regard to "incidental expenses." He could not gather the hon. and learned Member's point, and was, therefore, sorry he could not offer a reply.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was sorry he had failed to make his meaning clear. With regard to the workhouse schools, his points were two. He could not make out how salaries rising to£400 and £600 by increments of£25 could at any time amount to £156, which was an item in the Vote. He was at a loss to discover where the £6 came from. Then, under the head of "Incidental Expenses," there was an item of £35 given without explanation.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was afraid he could not give the hon. and learned
    124
    Member satisfaction on any point he (Mr. Warton) had raised; but he would undertake to see that these matters were carefully inquired into.
    MR. MOOREsaid, that as to the names of the workhouses to which he had alluded, he was not in the habit of making statements in the House which he was incapable of supporting. The statements he had made to the Committee he had made on the best information. One of the workhouses of which he had spoken was the Sheffield Workhouse; but that case did not include the more serious charge of flogging the boys because they would not obey certain religious observances. The Rochdale Workhouse was amongst those which he had referred to as being situated so near the Catholic church that the Catholic paupers might be allowed to attend its services. He should not care to mention publicly where the flogging took place. [Mr. HIBBERT: Tell me privately.] He would do so. The officer who was guilty of the harsh conduct to which he referred had been promoted directly after he (Mr. Moore) had heard of the occurrence. The Committee must not think he was taking any advantage of them, or misleading them in any way. He was prepared to give the name of the Union; but, considering that the officer who had been guilty of the objectionable conduct had been promoted, it would be as well not to mention the name publicly.
    MR. O'SHEA: I beg to give Notice that I will, this day week, ask a Question on this subject.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the reason his hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) gave why these facts should be kept private was just the reason why they should be made public. If this officer had been promoted, why should not his conduct be made public—why should not he be shamed before the world? [An hon. MEMBER: It may not be true.] That would be so much the better. Let the man stand the test. He objected to this privacy just as he objected to the hearing of cases in camera in the Divorce Court. Cases were heard in private because they were scandalous—the very reason why they should be made public and the guilty parties should be held up to public shame. Where was the silent Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)? He was sorry the hon. Member was not in his place, because in the borough the hon. Member represented a

    125
    majority of 18 out of 28 Guardians had refused to allow the Roman Catholic children to go to the Roman Catholic church. The attention of the Government had been drawn to the matter, and an Inspector had been sent down. He (Mr. Callan) had moved for a Return in regard to these matters some time ago, and last year he had altered the form of it so as to facilitate its preparation. He had desired to have the Return printed so as to be placed in the hands of Members when this Vote came on; but for some inscrutable reason the document had not yet been printed. It had been laid on the Table of the House within the past 10 days, but it had not been printed, therefore it was not available to show how deficient were the regulations and how illiberal was the course of conduct pursued by the Dissenters. He wished to make a distinction in this matter between the people of the Church of England and the Dissenters. The former, as a rule, were fair to Roman Catholics and mindful of their feelings, but the Dissenters were as cruel and persecuting to them as in the days of Oliver Cromwell. The prisons, he was glad to say, were under Government; but the workhouses were not, and in these wherever there was bigotry to be found at work—he thanked God such places were now few in number—it was always in cases where a majority of the Guardians were Dissenters—Independents, Congregationalists, Baptists. The chaplains in workhouses in Ireland were not paid according to the number of people to whom they had to minister. Take the Dundalk Workhouse, for instance. There the Roman Catholic chaplain was paid at the rate of 1s. a-head, the Protestant at the rate of £4, and the Presbyterian at the rate of £30; but, notwithstanding that in Ireland the Protestant and Presbyterian chaplains were paid so handsomely, in London and Birmingham they did not pay one penny to the Roman Catholic chaplain, and there was no legal provision for such payment. This Liberal Government, that was so fond of removing grievances, would they be so good as to give the Local Government Board in England the same control and power in this matter as that possessed by the Local Government Board of Ireland? The Guardians in Ireland were compelled to pay the chaplains, but in England such payments
    126
    would be illegal. Under a sealed order the Guardians in Ireland had to pay any salary that was fixed by the Local Government Board. If that was fair in Ireland, why did they not extend the same principle to England? If it was fair to pay Presbyterian ministers in Ireland, why should not Roman Catholic priests be paid? Could any Dissenter in the House—any Member of that most bigoted lot in Parliament—get up in his place and say why this should not be done? He would challenge any Dissenting member of those Boards of Guardians, famous in this country for their luncheon-eating and beer-swilling, to get up and answer him. He appealed to the common sense and honesty and sense of fair play of the Committee. If it was right to pay Protestant and Presbyterian clergymen in the Irish workhouses, was it not equally right to pay Roman Catholic clergymen in English workhouses—to compel the Guardians to pay them?
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he agreed with what had been said as to the desirability of sending workhouse children to the National schools. He had been for many years Chairman of a Board of Guardians in his own county, and during that time he had used his best endeavours to further the system in question. He should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question on this subject. In his county amongst the different Boards of Guardians the main difficulty experienced was in respect of sending workhouse children to the National schools in workhouse clothing. This had been the great difficulty he had always experienced, and perhaps the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) would be able to tell him whether the children must retain the workhouse clothing, or whether they could discard it? He (Sir Henry Fletcher) agreed that workhouse schools proper should be done away with, and that hon. Members should use their best endeavours to send the children to the National schools; but he had found, after some years of experience, that if the children went to those schools in workhouse clothing they were subject to derision and laughter, and that was why, in his own Union, he had not, to the extent he might have done, take upon himself the responsibility of sending workhouse children

    127
    to the village schools. If this difficultly were got rid of, many Boards of Guardians would use their best endeavours to do away with the workhouse schools, and to get the children attending the village schools to associate with the pauper children in those establishments. Whenever he had had a village feast at home he had always made a point of inviting the workhouse children, and of insisting upon good fellowship between the village children and them. Still, there was this vexed question of the pauper children wearing the workhouse clothes, and not being fit to associate with the others.
    MR. PUGHsaid, that, some years ago, he presided over a Board of Guardians in Wales. At the time he became connected with it the pauper children were all wearing the workhouse clothes; but he gave them decent clothes, and made them very like other children, and ever since then they had gone to the Board school, with great advantage to themselves and to the school.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £20,000, on account of the grant in aid of Poor Law medical relief. He was sorry to be obliged to do this, as he did not wish to deprive England of the full amount she was entitled to receive; but, as the Committee were aware, it was impossible for him to move the increase of the Scotch Vote. He simply moved the reduction of the English Vote as a protest against the stationary character of the Scotch Vote. The English Vote was constantly increasing, and there had been additions to the Irish Vote; but the Scotch Vote always remained where it was. Last year the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) brought forward the matter in a very able speech. It had been introduced several times, and on one occasion—last Session, he thought—the Prime Minister happened to be present, and made an important declaration on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, although he could not do anything at that time, he would undertake to look into the whole question. He had said, further, that if, after carefully considering the matter, they found themselves unable to approach it with more comprehensive views, they would examine the Votes to see whether they could
    128
    not establish real equality in the treatment of the countries North and South of the Border. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had expected this would be done, and, with his Colleagues, had looked with satisfaction upon the fact that the right hon. Gentleman represented an important Scotch constituency, regarding it as an additional assurance that the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest, and would see that something was done. He (Colonel Alexander) supposed the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest, and that the excuse would be that there had been no time to go into the question. It would be said the House had been too busily engaged with Land Acts, and the payment of arrears of rent; and next year, no doubt, there would be some other plausible excuse for inaction. He (Colonel Alexander), therefore, had no alternative but to make a stand this year, and insist upon some definite promise from the Government.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £338,145, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."—(Colonel Alexander.)
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was sorry he was not in a position to answer the hon. and gallant Member opposite upon the point he had raised. He (Mr. Hibbert), of course, was aware that the Motion was not aimed at the Vote for the Local Government Board in England, but was intended to call attention to the want of a proper Vote for these purposes in Scotland. The Prime Minister had been present during the discussion which took place on the subject last year, and it was a regrettable circumstance that what had been promised at that time had not been carried out. A Select Committee had sat to consider the matter, and, if the subject of local taxation had been dealt with, as had been anticipated, no doubt this question of the Scotch Local Government Vote would have been settled. This was the only reason he could give why the matter had not been dealt with since the Prime Minister gave his promise last year—because the question of local taxation had not been dealt with. He (Mr. Hibbert) hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not

    129
    insist upon dividing the Committee on the Vote, but would raise the question later on, when someone better able to give an answer was in the House. The hon. and gallant Member could bring it on on Report. As to the clothing of workhouse children, that matter was entirely in the hands of the Guardians, and they were at liberty to make some modification in the dress, so as not to offend the managers of the public schools, or the parents of other children who were sent to those establishments. Of course, due regard must always be had to economy.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) would take a division on this question. The hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) had told them that the subject could be mooted with greater advantage on some other occasion; but he (Sir John Hay) was not aware that a more favourable occasion could arise. This was the only point in the whole of the Estimates on which a protest could be made by Scotch Members at the neglect of the Government to fulfil the promise made last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who had made the promise, was Member for a Scotch Metropolitan county; and hon. Members might, naturally, have expected that he would have taken some interest in a question of such importance to the Scotch people. At any rate, he (Sir John Hay) trusted that the other Scotch Members would, by their votes, enter a protest against the growing neglect of Scotland by the Government. He trusted they would be allowed to see how many Scotch Members would support the hon. and gallant Member in the action he was now taking.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that on the 25th April of the present year, either the hon. Member for North Ayrshire or the Falkirk Burghs asked a Question of the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to this subject; and the answer received was that the Government intended to double the amount in the Estimates—that was to say, to raise it from £10,000 to £20,000.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had paid great attention to this subject, and it was, in his opinion, high time that the Scotch Members showed the Government
    130
    that they did not intend any longer to submit to such treatment as this. If only £60,000 instead of £143,000 was voted for England every year they would hear a great deal about it. He had heard the Financial Secretary give the answer referred to, and he was much surprised to find that in spite of that the Vote for Scotland stood exactly as it was last year. In order to impress the matter fully on the attention of Her Majesty's Government, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member opposite would press the matter to a division.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had often taken part in divisions on this subject, and he should not mind going into the Lobby with the hon. and gallant Member on this occasion; but he would remind the Committee that they had received a distinct assurance from the Government that the grant for Scotland would be doubled, and that a Supplementary Vote would be brought in for that purpose. If his memory did not deceive him, it was the Prime Minister himself who made the statement that the Vote should, in the future, be £20,000 instead of £10,000. An hon. Member near him observed the fact that the amount on the Estimate stood as it did last year; but that arose from the fact that the Estimates were prepared before they had the assurance of increase from the Prime Minister. If, however, there was any doubt about it, he (Mr. Ramsay), as he had said, should be very glad to vote with the hon. and gallant Member opposite by way of protest against delay.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken placed the Committee in a difficulty; but, at the same time, he could not help remarking upon the fact that there was no Member of the Cabinet on the Front Bench opposite. He would propose that the Vote should be postponed in order to enable a Member of the Cabinet to be present.
    MR. HIBBERT: This is not the Scotch Vote—it is the Vote for England.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The Scotch Members are in this difficulty—they cannot move to increase the Scotch Vote. The question comes to this—whether a pledge has been given by the Prime Minister, and, if so, whether or not it is to be carried out?
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had handed him the note he took down at the time the matter was last under discussion, when Lord Frederick Cavendish—whose loss they all so deeply regretted—stated that the grant would be increased from£10,000 to £20,000. That promise was made, and subsequently repeated by the Prime Minister in answer to some remark from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick). Under these circumstances, he could not doubt that the Government intended to fulfil the promise made by the Predecessor of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not think it was a very business-like way of proceeding to oppose the English Vote in order to obtain an increase in the Scotch Vote. No doubt the pledge referred to had been given, and that being so, no doubt, also, it must be fulfilled by a Supplementary Estimate. An attempt had more than once been made to deal with the subject by legislation; but, up to the present, owing to the impotency of the House to transact its Business, without success. He trusted the Motion would be withdrawn.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member that it was not business-like to oppose an English Vote for the purpose of drawing attention to a Scotch one; still, it was customary for this wrangle to arise whenever the English Vote was proposed. It did not seem to him that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was very clear what the Government were going to do. If he had a Supplementary Estimate in his pocket, why did he not say so, and bring it forward on the earliest opportunity?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he simply heard it stated that the pledge had been given—personally, he knew nothing about it. He had the fact on the authority of the hon. Members for Falkirk and Kilmarnock Burghs. These hon. Members assured him that his noble Predecessor had made the promise that the estimate should be doubled; and unquestionably, if that promise was made, it would have to be fulfilled. He would ask the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire to accept this statement,
    132
    and, in a business-like way, withdraw his Motion.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not say that he was satisfied with what had fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member had said that an attempt had been made to deal with the subject by legislation, but that, owing to the impotency of the House, the attempt had failed. The hon. Member, he thonght, would find, if he inquired, that the Scotch Members did not agree with this proposed legislation. Whatever arrangement was to be made in order to fulfil the pledge which had been given, no doubt the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) was justified in what he had said. In the course of a few days there ought to be a Supplementary Estimate placed on the Table in the redemption of the pledge given to the Scotch Members. It was singular to him how the Secretary to the Treasury could have overlooked such an item as this for so long—he ought to have seen the items that were to be asked for despite the short time he had held his Office. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had intended to ask about the Supplementary Vote in connection with prisons, and the funds that were to be distributed in aid of highway rates; and for the Secretary to the Treasury to say that these matters, or a similar matter, were still in abeyance on which he had no knowledge seemed to be most extraordinary.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that, looking at the hour of the night (12.35), and the progress they had made, the proper thing to do now would be to move to report Progress.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had described the course he had taken as an unbusiness-like way of pressing a Scotch Vote on the attention of the Committee. He (Colonel Alexander) should be very glad if the hon. Member would inform him in what other way he could now bring the Scotch Vote under the notice of the Committee. The hon. Member knew very well that it was not competent for him (Colonel Alexander) to move the increase of the Scotch Vote. He moved the reduction of the present Vote in order to call attention to the mean sum that was given to Scotland. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) seemed to have some vague recollection of some

    133
    promise having been made by Lord Frederick Cavendish; but beyond that they had no assurance that this Vote was to be increased by£10,000; and, seeing that it was certain this subject would be discussed to-night, he thought there ought to have been someone in the House to tell them what was to be done in the matter. He must insist on taking a division. They had been told every year that the wishes of the Scotch Members were to be met; but the promise had never been fulfilled—and in this he was not blaming Her Majesty's present Government any more than the late Government, for the latter, in this respect, had been quite as bad as the former. On this matter there was an old standing feud between Scotland and England; and he would be no party to the making up of that feud until Scotland had obtained justice, and substantial justice.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he should not complain if the hon. and gallant Member carried his just claim to a division; but, seeing that the Secretary to the Treasury was in his place and had promised to make an inquiry into what he (Mr. Ramsay) believed was an honest pledge on the part of Lord Frederick Cavendish to the Scotch Members, that the Vote should be £20,000 in future, it would, perhaps, be as well to postpone the division until the stage of Report. It would be desirable to withdraw the Amendment if the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) gave them a definite promise that he would look into the matter, and subsequently make a statement in the House as to the manner in which the Vote would be augmented.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he protested against the principle upon which this claim for an increased Vote to Scotland was demanded. He did not believe in asking for an increase in a certain Scotch Vote because a certain English Vote and a certain Irish Vote had been increased.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER: There never has been an increase in the Scotch Vote.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the hon. and gallant Member had the right to make an explanation afterwards if he desired to do so. As he (Sir John Lubbock) understood the matter, the Government had given a distinct promise to consider the question. Surely,
    134
    having got that, the hon. Member would do well to be satisfied.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that the Scotch Members had from the Government something more than a promise to consider the matter. They had the distinct assurance that the£10,000 would be increased to £20,000.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The Secretary to the Treasury has made a distinct promise, and of course it will be fulfilled; therefore, it seems to me it would be wise not to insist upon a division.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that in view of the statement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) he would not press his Motion. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) said the fact that the English and Irish Votes had been increased was no reason why the Scotch Vote should be increased also. But he (Colonel Alexander) would point out to the hon. Member that there had never been an increase in the Scotch Vote since it had been established, whereas the English and Irish Votes had gone on constantly increasing.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to expenses in connection with Provisional Orders. Last year a most extraordinary transaction took place in regard to one of these Orders. The Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage Board wished to obtain some land compulsorily, and there was a considerable amount of opposition to the scheme. The Local Government Board appointed an Inspector to conduct an inquiry into the matter; and the shorthand-writer's notes during the inquiry were, he believed, paid for by the Local Government Board. It was mentioned at the outset that the inquiry would be a very short affair, perhaps not extending beyond a week; but in the end it turned out that a great many weeks were consumed by the inquiry, and Gurney and Company, who furnished the shorthand notes, sent in a bill for no less a sum than £698. After the inquiry had proceeded two or three weeks it was discovered that the parties on both sides had agreed to defray the expenses of the notes between them.

    135
    The Inspector declined to accept the shorthand-writer's notes paid for by the parties, for the reason, as he stated, that he was not authorized to receive them, and there was a shorthand-writer appointed by the Local Government Board. The end of it was that the parties refused to recognize their liability to pay the double charge for the same service; and the Local Government Board had to pay this monstrous charge of £700 for the shorthand-writer's notes of this single inquiry in reference to a Provisional Order. In the item out of which it was found that this charge should be defrayed, there was not sufficient money, consequently the required sum had to be taken from the fund for "travelling expenses." It seemed to him that the arrangements connected with Provisional Orders required overhauling. The accounts must be kept in a very loose way, and there must be something very loose about the Estimates to admit of such a thing as "shorthand-writer's notes" being charged to "travelling expenses." He should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he thought that all the items under this Vote had been pared down to a reasonable closeness, or whether it would still be possible to take off £700 from one item to put it on another? He should like, further, to know whether there had been any revision of the rules in connection with Provisional Orders?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could not give the hon. Member any information as to this particular item of £700. The ordinary expenses of Inspectors were paid by the Local Government Board; but any additional expenses were paid by the local authorities. As he had said, however, he could not give a precise answer as to the matter in question. He had no doubt there was a satisfactory answer to be given; but he was not able at the moment to say what it was. It was impossible that such an amount as £700 could be paid without its being known and being capable of some explanation.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is it not the fact that this particular amount for shorthand-writer's notes was paid out of the item for travelling expenses?
    MR. HIBBERT: I cannot say.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (17.) £10,571, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wanted to ask a question about this sum. He wished to know whether the Government could not give them some little information as to the duties of the Commissioners, and the number of visits they paid? If hon. Members would look at the Act of Parliament, they would see words to the effect that ordinary lunatics should be visited and seen by one of the Inspectors four times, at least, in every year; and that such visits should be so regulated that no interval between two visits should exceed four months. Of that he approved; but then there was another class of lunatics—namely, Chancery lunatics, which were only to be visited once a-year. One visit, however, had been found to be insufficient; therefore it had been found advisable to allow them two visits a-year. There was at this moment on the Paper—indeed, down for discussion to-night—a Bill dealing with this question. The Government said it was true the Chancery lunatics ought to be visited twice a-year; but it would not be possible so to visit them, as the Commissioners were too full of work; at any rate, they could not be visited twice a-year unless the number of visits paid to the other lunatics was reduced to two a-year. This was a singular mode of reasoning. If their Commissioners were not sufficient in number, there ought to be another appointed, or some arrangement should be made whereby not only the ordinary lunatics, but the Chancery lunatics as well, could be visited four times a-year. When the Bill came on for discussion, he should have to oppose the clause affecting the number of visits—in fact, he should oppose anything like petty dealing with this important subject. The matter had been referred to frequently of late. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had made inquiries concerning it, and there could be no doubt that no exertion should be spared to safeguard people from being put into lunatic asylums when their condition was not such as to warrant it, and to prevent them from being detained in those institutions when they ought to be sent out as cured. He did not think, however, that the

    137
    petty way of dealing with it which was proposed by the Government, was worthy of the House; therefore, he should most violently oppose it. Was it true that the Commissioners had not time to carry out the work of inspecting efficiently, and ought there to be another Commissioner? If they had not sufficient time, unquestionably there ought to be another Commissioner; but, simply because another one of lunatics required to be visited more frequently, do not let them reduce the number of visits at present paid to another class.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Chancery lunatics in private asylums were required to be visited four times a-year; but those in public asylums were only required to be visited once a-year. The Bill before the House sought to alter that system; but he should not be in Order in discussing the measure on this Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members may not enter into a discussion of the principles of a Bill which has been introduced, but which is not yet before them.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would have a full explanation of the subject when the Bill came on. He (Mr. Hibbert) was not aware that the Commissioners were unable to perform the work they had to do. At present they made all the visits which by law were required to be made.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to express great satisfaction at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He objected most strongly to this petty method of dealing with the Lunacy Commissioners proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had, over and over again, urged the Government to deal with the subject in a bold manner, and he still hoped they would do so. He would not discuss the Bill before the House, which, he supposed, would have to be withdrawn. It was evident it could not be discussed, and that full consideration could not be given to it at this time of the Session. He rose to second the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and to urge on the Government the absolute necessity of dealing with this question in a
    138
    large—in a wholesale manner. In this evening's newspapers there was a letter complaining of gross breach of duty on the part of the Lunacy Commissioners. Well, there were a great many cases of this kind constantly arising, and, no doubt, a great deal could be said in support of the allegations made. This he mentioned only to show how necessary it was that the Lunacy Laws should be carefully considered and amended by the Government. The measure Her Majesty's Government brought forward was very small, and would only have the effect of putting off a larger one. He was glad to see small reforms carried out except when they put off larger measures which were imperatively demanded at the hands of the Government. He earnestly urged the Government to take this question of the Lunacy Laws in hand with determination, and carry out the required reform without loss of time. He had been nibbling at the matter for a good many years, and had amply shown, he thought, that something was required to be done. He had satisfied himself that the Government must move in the matter before he could rest content.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one point in connection with this subject on which he trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) would be able to give the Committee some information—he referred to the enormous number of poor men and women who were placed or detained in lunatic asylums improperly, who were sent from the workhouses to the asylums, because they gave trouble and bother to the master and matron. These people were little more than harmless imbeciles; but, because, for some reason, someone could certify that they were mentally afflicted, they were drafted off to the lunatic asylums in spite of the protests of the medical officers of the districts. These persons could be numbered by hundreds and thousands. He had himself seen many cases of hardship of this kind in Middlesex—cases in which poor, weak-witted persons were sent by the Guardians to the lunatic asylum, which was admirably suited and conducted for many of its patients, but was a singularly unfit receptacle for the people he was alluding to. He wished to know whether the Local Government Board had now in hand any scheme for the

    139
    treatment of these people? The point had been raised year after year, and they had always received the same information from the Government—namely, that the matter was under consideration. However that was, nothing ever seemed to come of this consideration.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he should like to ask a question with regard to this subject. As he understood it, there were nine Commissioners altogether—six who appeared on this Vote, and three who did not. He agreed that in whatever arrangement was made it would be a serious mistake to reduce the number of visits which were made by the Inspectors. At present, there were something like 12,000 Chancery lunatics, and for visiting them there were three Commissioners. There were 60,000 other lunatics, however, and only six Commissioners for them. If three Commissioners could not visit 12,000, how could six visit 60,000? Surely, if there was anything the country ought to be willing to properly pay for, it was the proper inspection of these unfortunate people. There was no class of the community who had a stronger claim upon our sympathy than this; and he hoped and trusted that arrangements would be made for an increase of the Commissioners, because it was only by the aid of these officers that the lunatics could be properly looked after.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee more than a minute or two; but there was one point as to this Poor Law and lunacy which deserved attention. It had been frequently pointed out that the Guardians were induced to send the pauper imbeciles to the lunatic asylums by the subvention given to the rates in this matter. He had intended, but had postponed it, to-day to move for a Return which would show what the effect of this subvention had been. But it was another point to which he now wished to draw attention. As he understood the law, and as he found it acted on, in the county in which he resided, the magistrates, when certified lunatics were taken before them, had no option but to send them to pauper lunatic asylums. He knew of his own knowledge that cases constantly occurred where there were committed to the pauper lunatic asylums persons who ought never to have been sent there—who were able to maintain themselves, or whose friends
    140
    were able to maintain them. So far as he knew, it was impossible for a magistrate to send persons brought before him as lunatics to other than pauper lunatic asylums. This was a matter which should be considered and attended to by the Government.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should be very glad if the subvention could be altered in some way, so as to do away with the pressure on the Guardians and give relief to that class of lunatic referred to by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The Local Government Board used their influence with the Guardians to induce them to avoid, as much as possible, sending this class to the public lunatic asylums. There had only recently been a case in Yorkshire where 30 or 40 persons had been sent from a workhouse to a lunatic asylum when they really ought to have been retained in the workhouse. The Local Government Board had used all their influence to induce the Guardians to take the poor people back again, but to no avail. As to the point put by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley)—namely, that an additional Commissioner should be appointed instead of altering the law as to inspection—he (Mr. Hibbert) must point out that the inspection of Chancery lunatics was a matter really in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The Chancery lunatics were entirely visited by his visitors; and this proposal to increase the number of visits had been proposed, he (Mr. Hibbert) believed, by the visitors themselves. If an additional visitor could be appointed, however, he should be glad to see it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not press this Motion to a division, inasmuch as there were several Votes next following that it would be for the public advantage to pass, and which related to matters of a non-contentious character. As Supply would not be taken to-morrow, he hoped to be able to finish the English Votes of Class II. before Progress was reported, and, if possible, to get through some of the Scotch Votes of the same class, which he believed would also give rise to no discussion.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that, although the hour was late, he had no wish to delay the Votes referred to by the Financial Secretary. He should, however, he glad to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill when Progress was reported?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was not intended to proceed with the Bill on that occasion.
    MR. BIGGARprotested against the argument used by the Secretary to the Treasury against the Motion to report Progress—namely, that the remaining Votes of this class were not likely to give rise to much discussion. In the first place, he did not see why the hon. Gentleman should assume that there would be no criticism of the Votes in question; and, in the second place, he thought that some limit should be placed to the growing custom of voting enormous sums of money without any discussion whatever. Until a few Sessions ago it was always the rule to report Progress in Supply at half-past 12 o'clock. Since when, on the constant representations of Her Majesty's Government as to the pressure of Public Business, they had got into the habit of bringing forward Supply towards the end of the evening, and continuing in Committee until hours when no efficient examination or discussion of the Estimates could take place. He had protested against this mode of procedure so often that, notwithstanding the argument of the Financial Secretary, he felt it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on his Motion.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Vote agreed to.
    (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £42,357, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31at day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of the Coinage."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give some explanation of the last item under this Vote for the supply of silver and bronze coin to Colonies. He would like to know to what class of Colonies the coin was
    142
    supplied for which this charge of £1,500 appeared in the Estimate?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, before the Financial Secretary replied to the question of the hon. Member for Salford, he wished to draw attention to the fact that included in the charge for supply of silver and bronze coin to the Colonies was the cost of packing, freight, &c. This, in his opinion, rendered the charge all the more extraordinary; and, therefore, he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the item in question. In doing this he should be following the excellent example of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, when he was in Opposition, made a similar Motion, and very nearly succeeded in carrying it—at least, he obtained for it such an amount of support as made him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) feel confident that he should be able to reduce the Vote that evening, because on the occasion referred to there went into the Division Lobby, in support of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, no less than 65 Members of the Party now in Office, while there were not at present 65 Members of the Opposition in the House. Under the circumstances, he thought there was a very good chance of carrying the proposed reduction of the Vote. The Conservative Party, as he had pointed out, resisted the former Motion; but the Liberals were now in power, and had an excellent opportunity of giving effect to the wishes they expressed when in Opposition. As he believed half of the charge had already been taken by a Vote on Account, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £750.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £41,607, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of the Coinage."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was no loss to the country upon the items of freight and packing, because, while they charged the Colony with the nominal value of the coinage, the real value was much less—that was to say, if £10,000 was wanted in silver coin they supplied the nominal value only, and the difference between that and the actual value just

    143
    balanced the cost of freight and packing.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that if the difference between the nominal and actual value of the coin did no more than balance the cost of freight and packing, and they had to pay for the coinage of the silver which the Colonies used, to that extent the country must suffer loss.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he thought it desirable that in the Estimates of next year the cost of freight and package should be separated from the cost of the coinage. As the account was made up, there was no means of knowing what these several items amounted to. Further, he thought the amount of profit, if any, on the transaction should be shown, so that the Committee might next year know exactly what was being done in the matter of supplying the Colonies with coin. The hon. Member was perfectly right in his description of what occurred in the House when this Vote was resisted by the Party now in Office. It was then purely a question of Birmingham versus the Government.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped, after this Vote was taken, they would agree to report Progress.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (19.) £9,121, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the next Vote was one on which a good deal of discussion was likely to arise. He knew that one hon. Member, who was absent at the moment, desired to move the reduction of this Vote; and as it involved questions of considerable importance he thought it desirable that Progress should be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must appeal to the Committee to make some further progress with the Votes. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had said the next Vote would lead to some discussion, and that an hon. Member had given Notice of an Amendment
    144
    with respect to it. It was quite true that Notice of Amendment had been placed on the Paper; but the hon. Member who gave the Notice had gone away. He could not agree that the fact of the Notice being on the Paper was a sufficient reason for reporting Progress, because if the hon. Member still wished to proceed with his Amendment he retained the power of doing so at another stage.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 58: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 301.)
    (20.) £20,849, to complete the sum for the Patent Office, &c.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he very much regretted that the Vote should be proceeded with on that occasion. It was a Vote as to which he thought there were good grounds, as well as ample material, for useful and interesting discussion. It largely concerned the commercial community throughout the country; and the questions relating to Provincial Museums, of Patents, and Technical Schools, might very properly be raised in connection with it. But at 25 minutes to 2 in the morning it was a perfectly hopeless task to enter upon a discussion which, however interesting and important it might be, could not reach the public.
    Vote agreed to.
    (21.) £17,626, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
    (22.) £5,768, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would like to be informed by the Member of the Government in charge of this Vote, what was the present position of the Public Works Loan Commissioners towards the harbour authorities at St. Ives? A great many years ago a loan was made to the harbour authorities for the construction of harbour works; but, as a matter of fact, these works were never completed. On the contrary, they were at that moment a wreck, and were doing a great deal of harm to the harbour itself. A very large sum of money had been, as he was informed, levied on account of the loan, illegally and improperly, from the ratepayers of the

    145
    town, who had just cause of complaint; and he believed a great amount of litigation was about to arise between the Local Board and the collector, the latter having even gone the length of urging the ratepayers not to pay any more money, on the ground that the levy was illegal. He asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he could give the Committee any information as to the present position of this business; whether the Public Works Loan Commissioners were determined to levy from the people of St. Ives this very considerable sum of £12,000 or £14,000 for works which were not complete, but which, on the contrary, as he had already pointed out, were in a state of wreck?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was not sufficiently informed in the matter of the harbour works at St. Ives to reply fully to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County. He knew that a dispute existed, and that earlier in the present year an application had been made for a Provisional Order; but he was not able to inform the hon. Member how the matter had been settled, although he had heard, a few weeks ago, that it would be adjusted in a manner that was likely to be satisfactory to all parties concerned.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Do the Commissioners intend to wipe off the debt?
    MR. COURTNEY: I cannot at present say.
    Vote agreed to.
    (23.) £14,466, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked for information as to the publication of the Sagas.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would like to know who it was that conducted the examination of documents in the archives of Venice? These papers were of great interest to Irish scholars; and perhaps the Financial Secretary, in addition to the other information asked for, would be able to state whether any results of the investigation had been published.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, notwithstanding the great expenditure of time and money on the examination
    146
    of documents in the Venetian archives, it was still unfinished, and there seemed to be no prospect of its coming to an end. He was not aware that any report had been made which compensated for the expenditure incurred; and, therefore, he thought it would be satisfactory if the Secretary to the Treasury would state what had been the fruit of the expenditure of recent years.
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, that anyone who in the last few years had paid attention to the interesting work of Mr. Gardiner on the Reign of Charles I., would understand how useful these documents were for a thorough knowledge of English history.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would make inquiry with reference to the publication of the Sagas. With regard to the documents in the archives of Venice, he could inform the hon. Member opposite that four or five volumes had already been published. The work was proceeding, and he could assure the Committee that the publication of the documents was recognized as of the greatest possible historical value. The copies of the documents were deposited in the Record Office.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought they would be more accessible to the public if they were deposited in the British Museum.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the class of persons was a limited one to which the documents were of interest; and he believed the documents would be more conveniently accessible to that class at the Record Office than at the British Museum.
    Vote agreed to.
    (24.) £43,426, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he had received a large number of papers lately relating to the Census in Ireland. He hoped the results of the Census with regard to England and Scotland would be published without delay.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  BOMBAY CIVIL FUND BILL.— [BILL 225.]
  (The Marquess of Hartihgton, Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he did not wish to take any advantage of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) or the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), who opposed this Bill; but he thought it right to state that, in the opinion of the authorities of the House, this Bill was a Money Bill, to which the Half-past 12 Rule did not apply. He did not wish to take any unfair advantage of the hon. Members, and if they really wished to discuss the Bill he would not press it to-night; but he should, on a future occasion, press the second reading. If the hon. Members who objected to the Bill would give some reason for their objection he would endeavour to meet it; but at present he had not the slightest idea of the grounds of their objections. He hoped that they would not object to the second reading, on the understanding that he would give as fair an opportunity as he could for discussing the Bill on the next stage.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not imagine that his objection was placed on the Paper simply for the purpose of blocking the Bill in the sense in which that term was often understood. He wished to prevent the Bill from being taken when there could be no decision upon its merits. He wished to secure a discussion before the Bill passed, and he opposed the Bill because he had received two letters from gentlemen who were interested in the Fund, who had served in India, and who had assured him that they had ground for believing that their interests would be compromised, and that the Civil Service in India, which had contributed largely to the funds, and every Presidency, would suffer to an extent which astonished him. He had moved for certain Returns of despatches sent by the noble Lord to India with regard to this matter, and he had not yet got through them.
  148
  It was a very difficult matter to understand, and at present he did not understand altogether the way in which these funds had been worked in the past, or how the interest of the beneficiaries would be affected by the transfer. One of his objections to the Bill was that it appeared that though the Government would gain by the transfer of the Bengal Civil Fund, in all probability the Revenues of India would be saddled with unfair liabilities in connection with the funds of the other two Presidencies. He believed that would be the case, although he was not now in a position to prove it by figures. He doubted very much whether this Bill could be considered a Bill which came under the designation of a Money Bill pure and simple. It was not a question of raising funds or imposing burdens; but it was a question of altering altogether the relations in which the beneficiaries stood to those who had the management of the Fund. It was proposed to transfer to the Government all the funds which they at present had not got. That seemed to him to be something altogether different from the provisions of an ordinary Money Bill. But he did not want to block the Bill merely for obstructive purposes; and if the noble Lord would state that it was a matter of importance that the second reading should be taken, and that he would make arrangements that before a further stage was passed an opportunity would be given for the discussion of the Bill, he should be willing to withdraw his Notice tonight.
  MR. CALLANwished to ask formally whether this was a Money Bill which was excluded from the operation of the Rule. The Government were the parties who had set the example of blocking Notices. He always understood that it was the duty of the Whips to keep a House and to cheer a Minister. He did not at all allude to the superior Whips, but to one of the inferior Whips. Formerly the Whips were to make a House and to keep a majority, and not to prevent a House from discussing any Motion made for a Return; but since the present Government came into Office, either from laziaess or incompetency on their part, the unprecedented and irregular proceeding of blocking Notices had been introduced. He had a Notice with reference to a Return of offences

  149
  which would raise a Constitutional question, and also a question of the faithfulness and bona fides of the pledges of the Government when they obtained the Prevention of Crime Bill; but he found that Notice blocked. He had asked for a reason, and was told it was not desirable to have a discussion after half-past 12.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that Notice was the reason why, in self-defence, he had wished Government Business not to be discussed after half-past 12.
  MR. SPEAKER: As to whether this is a Money Bill, I see that it was introduced by a Resolution of the House. Having regard to that Resolution, I cannot hesitate in considering that it is a Money Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he thought it would be out of Order for him to follow the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) on the subject of blocking Notices; but he desired to acknowledge the very fair manner in which the suggestions he had made had been met by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). He had no desire to unduly hurry this Bill through the House. The terms offered by the Secretary of State in Council had been accepted by a large majority of those interested, and there were only three opposed to the arrangement suggested. As the hon. Member had not had an opportunity of fully considering the matter, he would agree not to take the further stage of the Bill until Thursday next.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.