Commons Sitting of 16 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BiLLS—Resolutions in Committee—Baron Alcester; Baron Wolseley of Cairo; Messages from Her Majesty [13th April].
Ordered—First Reading—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders* [144].
Second Reading—Patents for Inventions [3], and committed to Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures; Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) [8], and committed to Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
Committee discharged—Referred to Select Committee—Crown Lands* [122].
Committee—Report—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act (18S2) (Audience of Solicitors) [61].
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation* [87], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PABLIAMENT—GRAND COMMITTEES AND PRIVATE BILL COMMITTEES—RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 6).

    REPORT.
    MR. R. H. PAGET reported from the Committee on Group 6 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of the parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was informed that the Committee in question had adjourned over to morrow, in order to suit the convenience of some of its Members who were Members also of one of the Grand Committees which sat to-morrow, and who consequently had to attend that sitting. It would be very inconvenient if the meetings of the Grand Committees and of Private Bill Committees were to clash in that way, inasmuch as, in consequence, the parties were kept in London, at a great expense, who had come up to attend the Private Bill Committee. He would ask his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Paget) whether it was on account of the Grand Committee that the Private Bill Committee had adjourned?
    MR. R. H. PAGET, in reply, said, that, as far as his experience went, it was not usual to go behind the Report of a Committee like this. The Committee reported that the adjournment had taken place for the convenience of the parties. He thought he might say, however, for the satisfaction of the hon. Member, that he had reason to know that there were Members of the Private Bill Committee referred to, who would be otherwise engaged to-morrow in Public Business of the nature indicated by the hon. Baronet.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES AT CAIRO—THE "HOLY CARPET"—ATTENDANCE OF BRITISH TROOPS.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER, gave Notice, that he should ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will cause to be printed, and lay on the Table of the House, the Memorandum with respect to the attendance of British soldiers at the sending of the "Holy Carpet" from Cairo to Mecca?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he could at once answer the Question of the hon. Member. The Memorandum had already been laid on the Table of the House; but he had nothing to do with the printing, as to which the hon. Member bad better consult the authorities of the House.

  ARMY—HEAVY RIFLED GENS—MR. LYNAL THOMAS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Memorial presented to the War Department by Mr. Lynal Thomas and the Correspondence which has passed between Mr. Thomas and the War Office since July 1882, having reference to a claim for repayment of expenses in connection with heavy rifled cannon?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, as I cannot see that any public object would be gained by producing the documents officially, I cannot undertake to lay the Correspondence on the Table. Mr. Thomas has, no doubt, the Correspondence in his possession, and there can be no objection to his publishing it, if he thinks fit.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS ACT, 1882.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps have been taken by the Commissioners of Sewers under "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1882," towards ensuring the building of suitable accommodation on the ground cleared under the Act of 1875?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the delay in this matter has been mainly due to the fact that the Commissioners
  296
  of Sewers, on the 15th December last, submitted a scheme which was not found to be entirely satisfactory, and the Home Office could not sanction it. On the 28th of February they submitted a second scheme. That being also unsatisfactory, was declined; and on the 10th of April a third scheme was submitted, which it was found possible to adopt, and which had been approved of.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Then there will be no further delay?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No doubt, Sir, the matter will be gone on with.

  LAW AND POLICE—DYNAMITE AND EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS—REWARDS TO OFFICERS.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will take into consideration whether some special and adequate acknowledgment can be given to the police officers who were engaged in the discovery or removal of the dynamite and other explosive materials recently captured?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope, Sir, from what I have said in this House as to what I feel, and the Government feel, that hon. Members will not think that there is any disinclination to appreciate and to recognize in all proper ways the services which the police have rendered. But I appeal to the hon. Member and the House generally, whether it is not far better to leave the administration of the police generally—where I think it ought to be—in the hands of the Executive Government in this, as in other matters?
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there were other persons who ought to be rewarded equally as well as the police; and for that reason he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question arising out of the last Question. It was, Were the Government going to reward the experts who had shown so much courage and skill in destroying the large quantity of nitro-glycerine at Birmingham? It was a very dangerous operation, and it was performed with great success. Some years ago they had, in Newcastle, a very serious accident in consequence of attempting to destroy some nitro-glycerine near that town. There were eight persons killed in doing it, amongst them the Sheriff of Newcastle, the Town Surveyor, and, indeed,

  297
  all who were present. He saw that the Birmingham Corporation, with Brummagem generosity, had voted Mr. Mae-ready, who destroyed the glycerine, the handsome sum of £10. He wished to know if the Government were prepared to supplement the gift by recognizing better Mr. Macready's great services?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am not sorry to have this opportunity of bearing my testimony to the courage and skill exhibited by all the gentlemen who were not connected with the Police Force—by Major Majendie, the Inspector of Explosives, by Dr. Dupré, the eminent chemist, and by the other gentlemen to whom the hon. Member (Mr. Cowen) has alluded; and, also, I have no doubt by others who have risked their lives in order to secure the public safety. But again I would ask that the House, feeling that the Government are not insensible of these things, should leave the matter to the Executive.

  GIBRALTAR—THE MARITIME JURISDICTION—THE PAPERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the translation of Papers from the Spanish Red Book concerning Gibraltar will be distributed?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, it was hoped that the Papers respecting maritime jurisdiction in Gibraltar waters would be distributed in the course of the present week.

  SCOTLAND—THE GLENDALE CROFTERS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a statement in the newspapers, that seventy Glendale Crofters have been served, or are about to be served, with notices of eviction; and, if this statement is correct, whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the removal of the people pending an inquiry into their case by the Royal Commission?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have no knowledge of the details to which the first part of the Question of the hon. Member alludes; and with regard to the second part, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that I have no power to suspend the operations of the law. It would, moreover, be a very bad
  298
  thing if we thought that the appointment of an impartial inquiry should offer any justification or excuse for the non-observance of the law. On the contrary, the existence of such an inquiry ought rather to encourage people to be patient, and to observe the law.

  METROPOLITAN CARRIAGE ACTS-THE CAB RADIUS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the proposals made by a Committee presided over by the Lord Mayor having reference to the extension of the present cab radius; if he will take into his consideration the question of its enlargement; and, if he would be prepared to to adopt the plan of limiting the distance for which a cab can be hired for a sixpence a mile to five miles from the place of hiring, and that beyond that distance, whether within or without the Metropolitan limits, the fare shall be one shilling for each mile or part of a mile?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, it is, no doubt, a very interesting matter; but the Report of the Committee presided over by the Lord Mayor is not yet before me. When it is, I shall be willing to consider it. But it should be remembered that there are two parties to be considered in this matter. We must consider the interests, not only of the public, but also of the cabmen, before we deal exhaustively with this matter, and the latter will have to be heard upon it.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—PURCHASE OF MULES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with reference to the mules purchased by Major Carré for the Egyptian Expedition, Whether they have as yet been paid for; if so, it being acknowledged that the Veterinary Surgeon who accompanied Major Carré to Smyrna refused to pass the mules, and that the Committee appointed to report on them on their arrival at Ismalia reported only 198 out of a consignment of 612 animals as fit for service; by whose authority the payment was made?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Sir, the mules alluded to in the hon. Member's Question as purchased at Smyrna, were paid for in London, under the terms of

  299
  the contract, on the receipt of the mules in Egypt being certified by the local military authorities. The Board hold in Egypt declared 198 mules to be fit for immediate service; the majority of the remainder wore fit, and wont to work within five to 14 days afterwards.
  DR. CAMERONfurther inquired, whether it was customary to pay for animals purchased under the inspection of a veterinary surgeon, when that veterinary surgeon had refused to pass them?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: It is not the case, Sir, that the veterinary surgeon refused to pass the mules in question.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT—TRACTION ENGINES—FURTHER LEGISLATION.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether there is any prospect that the Government will during the present Session do anything to satisfy the expectation raised by his right honourable predecessor's answer to a deputation which last year urged upon the Board the need of further regulating the use of steam traction engines upon high roads?
  MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, that the important representations made by the deputation had been carefully considered by the Local Government Board. While the Board admitted the desirability of imposing some further restrictions on the use of these engines, looking to the measures proposed for the present Session, they were unable to hold out any expectation of a Government measure on the subject being introduced this year.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Postmaster General, Whether a Circular has been issued to mail carriers, forbidding them to carry after the 2nd of July next any parcels not exceeding seven younds in weight, otherwise than as part of Her Majesty's mails; and, whether he is aware that the effect of this prohibition will be seriously to cripple the early delivery of newspapers in rural districts; and, if so, whether he will kindly consider the possibility of withdrawing or modifying this Circular?
  MR. PICKERING PHIPPSasked the Postmaster General, Whether the drivers of Mail carts, although prohibited from taking passengers, have been allowed by the Post Office authorities to carry parcels, and have done so to a large extent for the newspaper press; whether, as the new rate for parcels post delivery of newspapers will be much greater than the sums hitherto paid to the drivers of Mail carts, it will be possible to charge the newspaper press, as regular and wholesale customers, a lower rate; whether it is the fact that Railway Companies carry newspaper parcels at half their ordinary parcel rates; and, whether the Government Telegraph Department charges the press a much less sum for telegrams than is charged for private telegrams, without injury to the Telegraph Department and with great advantage to the public?
  MR. FAWCETT: I think, Sir, it will be convenient if I answer the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) and that of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Mr. P. Phipps) at the same time. I believe it will be admitted that it would not be expedient to allow mail contractors to carry parcels which would compete with the parcels to be carried by parcels post; and, in my opinion, it would be very undesirable for the Post Office to depart, as suggested, from the principle of uniformity of charge, and allow parcels of newspapers to be carried at a lower rate of postage than other parcels. I should, however, so much regret that the introduction of the parcels post should in any way interfere with the cheap and early circulation of newspapers in the rural districts, that I will consider whether any arrangements can be made for allowing contractors to continue to carry parcels of newspapers so long as the carrying of these parcels in no way interferes with the delivery of the parcel and letter mails.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—CLASSIFICATION OF MERCHANT VESSELS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether all ship classification clubs are merely for purposes of insurance; and, whether, as almost all the matters connected with merchant shipping are now regulated by the Board of Trade,

  301
  he will consider whether it is not advisable that a more strict survey and classification of all merchant vessels should be placed under the supervision of the Board of Trade?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the clubs mentioned in the Question do exist chiefly for purposes of insurance. As regards the proposal to secure a more strict survey and classification of all merchant vessels under the supervision of the Board of Trade, I am not prepared to propose any legislation which would so largely increase the duties of the Board, and so largely interfere with private responsibilities.

  SCOTLAND—THE KEEPER OF THE REGISTER OF SASINES.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Keeper of the Register of Sasines (salary £1,000) assumes the position that he is not responsible for the discharge of the business of the office by the staff engaged therein; whether, during the past six months, after intimation of supposed defalcations, he allowed weeks to elapse before taking the trouble to call at the office to institute personal inquiries; and, whether John Calder Bryce, one of the inculpated clerks, after admitting his guilt, was for several days allowed to frequent the Register House, or at least went about so publicly as to permit of easy capture?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I am not aware of any ground for the suggestion that the Keeper of the Register of Sasines assumes the position described in the Question. He informs me that he has never done so, and that he does not consider his position to be different from that of any other head of a Department of the Civil Service. When the suspicion of defalcations arose in the Sasine Office, the Keeper was absent on holiday in the month of August. He considered that it would be injudicious for him to return to Edinburgh at an unusual time, as his doing so would have given rise to remark throughout the Office, and not improbably have defeated the discovery of the suspected frauds; but he immediately gave the necessary instructions for inquiries being instituted, and they were well and properly conducted. John Calder Bryce never admitted that he had participated
  302
  in the frauds. On his admitting that he knew that two other clerks had made higher charges than they were entitled to, he was immediately suspended, and the fact of his having made the admission was communicated to the Procurator Fiscal. A few days afterwards, he absconded; and, up to the time of his doing so, there was no evidence to warrant a criminal charge against him.

  NAVY—NAVAL STORES—ENGINES AND BOILERS SUPPLIED BY PRIVATE FIRMS—GUARANTEE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether engines and boilers built and engined by private firms for the Navy, are guaranteed and upheld for six months, according to custom in orders for supplying merchant shipping; and, whether there will be any objection to laying upon the Table of the House a Return of the costs and expenditure on Engines and Boilers so supplied since 31st March 1880?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, by a clause in the form of contract for machinery, contractors are held responsible for the efficiency of the machinery for a period of 12 months after it has been accepted, and any parts which may, during that period, be found defective, or showing symptoms of weakness, owing to faulty design, materials, or workmanship, must be removed, and others substituted for them at the contractors' expense. This condition is always enforced; and there have been no costs or expenditure on the part of the public, such as my hon. Friend suggests might be included in a Return.

  NAVY — VICTUALLING, &c—SEAMEN'S RATIONS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What is the cost to Government of the ration allowed to a seaman in Her Majesty's Navy; whether, for convenience and economy to the Government, as well as for the comfort of the men, they are allowed to take the whole or part of this ration in money; if so, what sum of money does a man receive for his ration; and, if he would state what has this difference, between cost and value paid, amounted to annually during the last ten years, and in what way has it been made good to the men?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the seaman's rations cost between 11 d. and 1s. a-day. For the convenience of the seaman, ho is allowed, within certain limits, to save such part of his rations as he may think proper, and for the quantities saved he is paid at fixed rates, averaging nearly three-fourths of the cost price. The terms are intended to have the effect—except in the case of rum—of somewhat discouraging the practice, as the full ration is presumed to be the best for the maintenance of the seaman's bodily health. The difference between the sums so paid and the cost of the provisions had they been issued, is estimated in the Department to be about £60,000 a-year, and the money required to be voted by Parliament for provisions is diminished by that amount. Any such payments as I have described are, I believe, unknown in the Merchant Service, and are a free boon to the men of the Navy; the arrangement is voluntarily entered into on their part; and they have no claim to the difference between the actual cost of the articles and their savings prices.

  INLAND REVENUE—COLLECTION OF THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing the urgent necessity for an adjustment of the levy and administration of both Local and Imperial Taxes, with a view to their being brought under a common principle of assessment and a more convenient system of collection, he will consider the expediency of effecting the requisite reform of the Income Tax before its administration be removed from the agencies now employed, and its enforcement, with all its inequalities, be more largely confided to Government officials?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, my promise was given to look carefully into this question. My right hon. Friend has frequently urged a common principle of assessment for Income Tax, under Schedules A and B, and local rates; but he has not as yet secured the approval of Parliament for his plan, and I do not myself see why his advocacy of it should stand in the way of a very necessary reform in the manner of collection under Schedules D and E. I am afraid that I cannot comply with his request.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDgave Notice that, in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he would take an early opportunity of eliciting the opinion of the House on the subject.

  ARMY—UNDRESS UNIFORM OF THE INFANTRY.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in consequence of the contemplated change in the undress uniform of the Infantry of the Line, viz. from red to grey, it is intended to carry out the instructions for officers to provide themselves with the badges, forage caps, &c. of the new Territorial Regiments to which they now belong; and, whether any allowance will be made to officers, towards providing these new uniforms, after having already been put to a considerable expense during the last few years by frequent changes of uniform?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the badges and forage caps of officers will not be affected by the proposed change of uniform; and, therefore, there is no reason for modifying the instructions which have been given. The new undress uniform would be in substitution for the present uniform; and as officers would be allowed time to wear out their present uniforms, the change need not involve any expense to them. The new dress would probably cost less than that now worn, and officers would not have, as at present, to incur the charge for a new outfit when proceeding on active service.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he wished to know whether it had been decided to change the colour of the uniform from red to grey?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether, if any change in the colour of the uniform was made, the noble Marquess would give the House an opportunity of discussing this very serious question? A fit and appropriate opportunity of doing so would arise when the Clothing Vote for the Army was brought forward. Pending the discussion, he trusted the noble Marquess would not give instructions to carry out the alteration.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), I have to say that I stated, in moving the Army Estimates, that no steps would be

  305
  taken to carry out the change of uniform, but that there would be an experimental trial as to the change of colour recommended by the Committee. In answer to the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I admit it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the subject, and I think a convenient opportunity will arise when the Clothing Estimate is proposed. No step can possibly be taken before that Vote is agreed to to prevent the House from coming to a conclusion on the matter.

  ARMY—CHELSEA AND KILMAINHAM HOSPITALS—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Committee appointed to inquire into matters connected with the Royal Hospitals of Chelsea and Kilmainham have sent in their Report; and, if so, if it will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have received the Committee's Report; but I have not yet had time to consider its recommendations and the representations made to me by the Governing Bodies of the various institutions affected. I hope shortly to do so, and then the Report will be presented to Parliament.

  POST OFFICE—RURAL POST OFFICES.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Postmaster General, If, when an application is made in a town or village for a post office, it is the practice to require the inhabitants to give a guarantee that the number of letters will cover the cost of the establishment, &c., and, if it is not usual to enforce such a condition with regard to a post office, why it is required in the case of a telegraph office, seeing that the Postal and Telegraph departments yield a large surplus revenue?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the practice of the Department is similar in both the eases to which the lion. Member refers. When the estimated revenue is insufficient, a guarantee is, as a rule, required.

  NAVY—WARRANT OFFICERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whe-
  306
  ther his attention has been called to a Circular issued on behalf of the Warrant Officers of the Navy; and, whether the Admiralty will consider the expediency of remedying the grievances of that class of public servants?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I have seen a copy of the Circular referred to; but I have no means of knowing how far it really represents the views of the warrant officers, as it is published anonymously. The Board of Admiralty have shown, by their recent action regarding what my hon. Friend will know as the "other ships" clause, that they are not indifferent to the claims of this class of public servants; and, while not holding out any expectation of a general increase of pay or retirement, if anything that requires attention is brought before the Board, it shall be carefully considered.
  MR. PULESTON: Do I understand that the question is now before the Board of Admiralty?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If anything requiring notice, as I have just said, is brought before the Board of Admiralty, it shall receive consideration.

  MADAGASCAR—THE ENVOYS.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have held communications with the Envoys from Madagascar since their return from the United States; and, if they have given any information as to their late negotiations with the French Government, and as to the attitude of that Government towards Madagascar?
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked, Whether the noble Lord would lay upon the Table the replies to the "Documents Diplomatiques Affairs de Madagascar 1881, 1883," in the French Yellow Book, which have been sent to the Foreign Office by the Government of Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, in reply to these Questions, I may state that the Madagascar Envoys, on the 7th of February, handed in to Lord Granville, for his personal information, an annotated copy of the French Yellow Book, together with a few brief notes on those parts of it which related to the recent discussions in Paris. These documents contain a personal defence of the

  307
  conduct of the Envoys during the negotiations, rather than an answer to the French claims, as to which the Correspondence already laid shows the views of the Hova Government. As these Papers turn entirely upon the negotiations between the French and the Hova Governments, they cannot with propriety be presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—POSTMORTEM EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. BLAKEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the statement be correct which appeared in the Dublin "Freeman's Journal" of the 11th instant, that:—
  "At a meeting of the governors of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum, a letter was read from the Lord Lieutenant forbidding in all cases post-mortem examinations of lunatic patients, even when ordered by coroners at inquests;"
  and, if so, if he will be good enough to state the reason why His Excellency has issued such an order; if similar orders have been addressed to the governors of other district asylums in Ireland; and, if for the future at the Limerick Asylum, and any other asylum to which the foregoing has been issued, no post-mortem examinations can take place, no matter from what cause a lunatic patient may appear to have died, whether from violence or causes other than natural, or how necessary it maybe to have such an examination in the opinion of the coroner, the jury, or the relatives of the deceased?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the newspaper paragraph referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend states only a part of the case, and is therefore misleading. What His Excellency has expressed his disapproval of is, not the holding of a post-mortem examination, but the conducting of such examination by the resident medical superintendent of the asylum in which the patient lived previous to his death. The ground of the objection is, that it is quite conceivable that a case might arise in which the chief officer of an asylum might be, to some extent, blameable for the death of a patient; and it therefore appears desirable that whenever a post-mortem examination is considered necessary, it should be conducted by an independent medical authority.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the manner in which the Belfast Workhouse master's books have been kept for some time past; if it is correct that goods have been charged in the provision books as having been supplied to paupers, which were never supplied; is it true that at a meeting of the Belfast Guardians on the 10th of April 1883 the said books were examined by several of the Guardians and found to contain false entries, erasures, and numerous alterations, &c.; did the Local Government Board Inspector examine the books also, and declare publicly before the Board of Guardians on the said date that the master's books were "cooked;" is it true that, in the face of this information, the Guardians made no minute of the facts nor took any action in the matter; and, will he be good enough to say whether or not he will direct further inquiry into these disclosures?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Local Government Board inform me that they have been in communication with their Inspector at Belfast on this subject, and that he has reported that it is the case that at the meeting of the Belfast Guardians last week, certain irregularities in the master's provision books were observed and commented on, and the Inspector suggested to the Guardians that the manner of keeping the book adopted by that officer called for examination. The Guardians seemed to concur in the necessity of such a course, and the Chairman said the matter would receive attention. No formal resolution, however, on the subject was passed. The Local Government Board, with whom I entirely concur, think it necessary that further inquiry should be made, and will so direct.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS—LIEUTENANT-COLONEL DAVYS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that one of the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act is also Lieutenant Colonel of the Longford Militia; if so, whether he will be allowed to continue to hold both offices;

  309
  and, what is his alleged qualification for the position of Sub-Commissioner?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Sir, Lieutenant Colonel Davys, recently appointed to be an Assistant Commissioner under the Land Act, is Major and Honorary Lieutenant Colonel of the 6th Battalion Rifle Brigade. He was appointed to be an Assistant Commissioner by the Viceroy, who, after careful inquiry, believed him qualified to discharge the duties of that post. The discharge of those duties will, in the opinion of the Irish Government, prevent his presence with his battalion if called out for training during the period of his appointment as Assistant Commissioner.
  MR. BIGGAR: The right lion. Gentleman said the Lord Lieutenant had satisfied himself that this gentleman was qualified. I would like to know what the qualifications are?
  [No reply.]

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MODEL SCHOOLS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Whether it is stated in the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland that one of the chief objects of model schools is to promote united education; whether there are any model schools in which there is not even one Catholic teacher of the rank of principal or assistant; and, whether he can inform the House as to the number of separate Model School Departments in which there is no Catholic teachers, or none above the rank of pupil teacher or monitor?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is the case that one of the chief objects of model schools is to promote united education. There are four such schools in which there is no Catholic teacher of the rank of principal or assistant; but, in three of these, there are Catholic pupil teachers or monitors. There are 28 separate departments of model schools in Ireland in which there is no Catholic teacher above the rank of pupil teacher or monitor; but hon. Members from that country will agree with me that the majority of the children attending most of the model schools are Protestants, and in filling vacancies in the office of teacher in any school, the Commissioners have thought it reasonable
  310
  and just to appoint persons of the same religion as that of the pupils who constitute the actual attendance at the school. I only make this addition to make the answer more complete.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether that rule had always been observed?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he could not say.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would like to know, whether, in most of the towns in which the pupils attending the model schools are Protestant, the vast majority of the children of the locality are not Catholics?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not think the hon. Member really requires my answer to that Question.

  ARMY—THE ARMY AND THE MILITIA —NUMBERS.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the Secretary of State for War, What was the number of officers and men wanting on the 1st April 1883 to complete the establishment of the Army and the Militia respectively in the United Kingdom?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, on the 1st of April the Army at home was 6,256 under its Establishment. A large part of the deficiency in the Army at home is to be accounted for by a cause of which the action has been constant, with the result that the Army is at its lowest numbers about April in each year. The Establishments voted cannot be exceeded, and, therefore, they are only reached just before the departure of the Indian drafts in the winter season, and consequently, after that period, the regiments have to be recruited again by a gradual process up to their full complement. In the Estimates of this year I have arranged to meet this difficulty in a measure. The Militia Force was, on the 1st of April, 22,174 men below its Establishment. Of this number 6,500 belonged to the Irish Militia, for which recruiting has, in recent years, been suspended. As regards this force, the actual numbers have never amounted to the Establishment, which is the extreme limit up to which regiments would be permitted to recruit, and it never can be full, in consequence of the incessant drain upon it caused by recruits passing to the Line,
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Perhaps the noble Marquess will state what the actual number of the Reserve was at that time?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without Notice.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER: May I ask whether, in consequence of the great number of men wanting on the Establishment, the noble Marquess will take into consideration the suggestion I made last year, that a certain number of soldiers, on completing their Army engagements—say, up to 25 per cent—shall be allowed to re-engage instead of wandering idly about the country?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The subject of the deficiency in the Army and the difficulty of recruiting is under consideration, and many suggestions have been made; but I can hardly be expected to enter into the subject on this occasion in reply to a Question.

  GIBRALTAR—RELIGIOUS DISSENSIONS —DR. CANILLA.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLEFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any report has been received from Gibraltar of the continued refusal of the Roman Catholic community of the place to acknowledge Dr. Canilla as Vicar Apostolic, notwithstanding that he was forcibly placed in possession of the temporalities of the Roman Catholic Church by order from Lord Kimberley; whether, in consequence of this refusal, the Roman Catholic community are practically deprived of the religious ministrations of their Church at baptisms, weddings, and funerals; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken or will take any steps to restore a more satisfactory state of things among the Roman Catholics at Gibraltar?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, a renewed protest has been received against the appointment to this post of Dr. Canilla, adopted at a meeting held at Gibralter on the 2nd of March. The Papers presented to Parliament last year show that beyond the dispersion of a mob, which unlawfully obstructed Dr. Canilla's installation, the Government did not interfere. The Governor reports that the services are well attended, and civil funerals are diminishing. Beyond preserving the peace. Her Majesty's
  312
  Government do not consider it their duty to interfere in these affairs of the Roman Catholic community at Gibraltar.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The Question is, Whether the Roman Catholic community are not obliged to go out of Gibraltar for the ministrations referred to?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: In the form in which the Question is asked, that result is put as an inference, and not as an inquiry as to a fact.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Are they not, in consequence of their refusal to accept the services of Dr. Canilla, compelled to go outside for baptisms and weddings?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, a great many do, no doubt; but they go of their own free choice.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, What opportunity, if any, the Joint Committee on the proposed Submarine Railway between England and France will have for considering its effects on our Mercantile Marine; and, seeing that it is not the business of any person or body to bring forward evidence on the subject, he will invite representatives of Chambers of Commerce and of the shipping interests to attend?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the consideration of the subject mentioned in the Question will be entirely within the discretion of the Joint Committee as soon as it is appointed. They will be able to call witnesses on that or any other branch of the matter; and, if any person desires to communicate with them, no doubt he will be able to do so through the Chairman.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882, SEC. 16—PRIVATE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES—UNTRIED PRISONERS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will communicate to the House the names of the witnesses for the defence of the prisoner Brady, who were examined by Mr. Curran at the private inquiry held under the provisions of section 16 of the Crimes Act, and the dates of such several examinations; and, whe-

  313
  ther a prison official was present within hearing at any of the interviews of Brady and his legal adviser; and, if so, whether he can give the dates of such interviews?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the only witness for the defence who was examined by Mr. Curran at the inquiry held under the Crimes Act was Thomas Little. He was examined on the 5th and 22nd of March; and I am informed, in a letter from Mr. Curran, that the reason he was examined was because persons who are under the suspicion of belonging to a secret society were known to have met frequently at his house, and he was examined because it was thought useful information could be obtained from him. In reply to an hon. Member, I have already stated that it was on the 7th April the names of the witnesses for the defence were communicated to the Crown Solicitor. I am informed that the prison officials were not within hearing at any interviews 'between the prisoners and their solicitors, and the Governor of Kilmainham Prison informs me that this rule was strictly observed in the case of Brady.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of the Question to the Chief Secretary, Whether he intends to take a similar course with reference to the prisoners charged with being concerned in the illegal possession of explosives as that adopted by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—that is to say, whether he intends to have the prison officials at interviews between prisoners and their legal advisers out of hearing, although within sight?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have given instructions that the persons accused of being in possession of nitroglycerine, and acting in concert with persons outside, shall have no opportunity of making any communication to those persons outside which is not known to the police.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he proposes to carry out the provisions of the Statute passed by this House in 1877, with regard to the treatment of untried prisoners; whether he will carry out the Rules framed by his Predecessor in the Home Office, which provide that persons who are awaiting trial shall be permitted to have interviews with their
  314
  legal advisers in the presence, though not in the hearing, of a prison official?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, if I should find that the Prison Rules, as laid down, are, in my opinion, inconsistent with the public safety, I shall ask the authority of the House to act as the necessity of the ease requires.
  MR. PARNELL: That is no reply to my Question, which is a plain one. I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to it—for he has twice evaded doing so—otherwise I shall put it on the Paper. It is, Whether the Prison Rules, made under the authority of the Prison Act of 1877, by his Predecessor in Office, and the Statute which was passed by the last Parliament will be carried out?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the answer I have given is, I think, certainly distinct enough. If the hon. Member does not think it so, it is open to him to take any measures he thinks fit to obtain a more explicit answer. My intention is plain, and it is to take those measures which, in my opinion, are necessary for the public safety.
  MR. PARNELL: I shall put the Question to-morrow to the right hon. Gentleman?

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS—DUTY ON SILVER PLATE.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to persevere in his proposal to allow silver goods to be warehoused, so that the payment of Duty might be postponed until sale?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I proposed the plan of the optional warehousing of silver, in show-rooms under the Queen's lock, with a view to duty being paid when the articles were sold, under the impression that that arrangement would be considered as a boon by the trade, who are subject to unequal treatment compared with other manufacturers of dutiable articles upon which duty is not required until they go into consumption. I find, however, that the plan is not considered a boon; and I have, therefore, no wish to press it further. As regards the repeal of the duty, seeing that it involves a demand

  315
  on the part of the trade for drawback to an extent which it would be quite out of my power to admit, I have come to the conclusion that it will be to their advantage that I should positively say that I do not propose to touch the duty at all.

  ARMY—VETERINARY DEPARTMENT—RETIRED PAY.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is contemplated, in the forthcoming Warrant, to apply the same principles which regulate the ratio of pay between effective and non-effective pay in other Departments of the Army to the Veterinary Department?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: No, Sir; it is not proposed to make any change in the retired pay of the Veterinary Department. My hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware that the present rate of retired pay for a veterinary surgeon is one-half the rate of full pay of their rank at retirement after 20 years' service, and seven-tenths of the same after 25 years' service. It is not proposed to disturb these rates at present.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS DEPARTMENT—APPOINTMENT OF CONTROLLER.
  MR. KENNARDasked the Postmaster General, If he will state the cause of the delay in filling up the vacant Con-trollership of Savings Banks, and the reason for transferring a clerk from another office to the Department during the late Controller's recent absence from ill-health?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I may state that during the absence of the late Controller of the Savings Bank from ill-health, I thought the interests of the Service would be promoted by the office being held by Mr. Cardin, who was at the time principal book-keeper in the Receiver and Accountant General's Office. The late Controller, Mr. Ramsay, I regret to say, has recently died, and I have come to the conclusion that it it is desirable that Mr. Cardin should continue in charge of the office. I do not think it would be expedient to come to any decision at present with regard to the arrangements that may be ultimately adopted.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—THE TRIBUTE OF BULGARIA.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made towards giving effect to the Treaty of Berlin with respect to the annual tribute of Bulgaria, and the portion of the public debt of Turkey assigned to Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Servia; and, what portion of the public debt is to be assigned to Greece?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have been in consultation with the other signatory Powers with a view to an early settlement of these questions, which are now being dealt with by the Ambassadors at Constantinople; but no agreement has yet been arrived at. The question will continue to engage the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BOURKEgave Notice that he would call attention to the subject on going into Committee of Supply.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS — THE RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.
  MR. BUXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in his Railway Passenger Duty Bill, he will propose to grant exemption from Duty to any season tickets where the single fare exceeds one penny a mile; and, when he proposes to introduce this Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I stated, in introducing the Budget, that we did not propose to exempt from duty receipts from season tickets based on single fares exceeding Id. a-mile. In urban districts the duty on the receipts from such tickets will be 2 per cent instead of 5 per cent. The Bill will be introduced shortly, but some details are not yet settled with the Board of Trade.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— APPEALS FROM THE KING'S COUNTY.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether certain land cases in the neighbourhood of Roscrea, King's County, which wore adjudicated upon by the Land Commission, and appealed against by Lord Ross, the landlord, have been listed for hearing in Mullingar, at a

  317
  distance of forty miles from the neighbourhood of the tenants; and, whether, considering the poverty of these tenants, he will appeal to the Land Commissioners to change the venue of this appeal to Maryborough, which will be within reach of the tenants, and so enable them to attend the appeals and watch their own interests?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inforn me that there are nine appeals by Lord Ross from the King's County, listed for hearing at Mullingar. They further state that on the application of most of the solicitors engaged in appeals from that county, they have intimidated their readiness to hear such appeals, with the consent of both parties, in Dublin, but they could not make arrangements to hear them at Maryborough.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISES—FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would grant to the House a Return of the different qualifications required for the Parliamentary Franchise at present in force in Foreign Countries, and of the proportion borne by the number of the electorate to the population in such countries?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, some information on the point to which my hon. Friend refers is contained in the "Reports on the Practice in certain European Countries in Election Contests," which were laid before Parliament in 1881 and 1882 (C. 2,987, 3,061, 3,159). As, however, it maybe desirable that the House should possess the information in a more convenient form, there will be no objection on the part of the Foreign Office to instruct Her Majesty's Representatives abroad to forward special Reports upon the subject.
  MR. BRODRICKasked, whether the noble Lord would also cause Reports to be made of the duration of Parliaments and of the changes of Governments in foreign countries?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, that involves a further Question of which I should be glad to have Notice.
  MR. BRODRICKgave Notice, that he would move for a Return giving the desired information.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE UPPER SHANNON.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Treasury to impose increased tolls on the Upper Shannon Navigation, pending the discussion of the Bill to be brought in on the subject of the transfer of the Navigation; when the last increase of tolls took place; and, whether the Canal Company trading on the Upper Shannon has given notice of withdrawing its traffic on account of a proposed increase of tolls?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, there is no intention of raising the scale of tolls at present in force, pending a decision on the question of transfer. The last increase in the tolls was proposed in November, 1881, published in March, 1882, and slightly modified in July last. The Grand Canal Company has threatened to withdraw from the Shannon traffic, but I hope it will not carry out its intention.
  MR. GABBETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence which has lately occurred between the Canal Company trading on the Upper Shannon and the Treasury and Board of Works, and between the Chamber of Commerce of Limerick and the same Government Departments?
  MR. COURTNEY: Assuming that the hon. Member refers to the question of the tolls on the River Shannon, I have to say that the correspondence on this subject is still proceeding, and that it would therefore not be to the public advantage that it should be published.

  LAW AND POLICE—SPECIAL PREVENTIVE POLICE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is proposed to establish a special body of police for the prevention of crime against the public safety; and, if so, whether the cost of its maintenance will be defrayed out of the taxes and not out of the rates?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; there is no such intention.

  METROPOLIS—WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether

  319
  his attention has been drawn to the fact that every month reports of London analysts, on the character of London water, purporting to be addressed to him, are widely circulated, although, as stated last year in the House, they are neither authorised nor paid for by the Local Government Board, but are authorised and paid for by the London Water Companies; and, whether, as such a form of report is calculated to mislead the public, and to give an appearance of official authenticity which is not consistent with fact, he will either decline to receive any more of such reports, or require their form to be modified?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, as was stated last year by my right lion. Friend, these Reports are not made under the authority of the Local Government Board. It must, therefore, be presumed they are made on behalf of, and at the expense of, the Water Companies. I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that such Reports, purporting to be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board, are misleading, and I should expect that after this expression of opinion they would be discontinued.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the Cabinet decided on proposing to this House the Resolution of the 1st of July, 1880, the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor had considered the accuracy of the opinion subsequently expressed by the Solicitor General during the Debate, to the following effect:—
  "A doubt has been suggested whether a Court of Law could decide this question. Ho was unable to understand how such a doubt existed. He asserted, with the utmost confidence, that if Mr. Bradlaugh were sued for penalties, no Resolution of the House could for a moment stand in the way of those proceedings. It was said, 'once get Mr. Bradlaugh into the House, and no one will sue him for penalties.' Those who said so must have very little confidence in their view of the Law. Did they really believe that no one would speculate upon their Law with £500 as a prize;"
  or, whether it was decided that the Attorney General alone could sue for penalties; whether, if any doubt existed on the subject, the Attorney General was instructed or not by the Cabinet to institute proceedings himself; and, fur-
  320
  ther, if it is usual for a Judge to sit judicially upon a question upon which he has advised as a Minister?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This Question divides itself into several parts, and I will give the answer to these parts in succession and briefly. In the first place, neither the Cabinet, nor the Lord Chancellor, nor the Law Officers, before proposing the Standing Order of July 1st, 1880, considered it any part of their duty to examine the subject in respect to what would follow from a breach of the law, or attempted breach of the law. In the second place, in regard to the opinion subsequently expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, that opinion was not the result of any formal reference to the Law Officers of the Crown; and he only gave expression to the opinion that an informer could sue, which was very widely prevalent in the Profession, and was subsequently confirmed by the judgment of two Courts of Law, although reversed by the House of Lords. In the next place, there was no instruction to the Attorney General to institute proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh; nor, in truth, was there any opportunity for that question to be considered, because immediately after the voting—absolutely within an hour or two hours of the voting of the hon. Member—proceedings were taken by a private person. With regard to the last part of the Question, it is not usual for a Judge to sit judicially upon a question on which he had given his advice as a Minister, nor has it occurred in the present instance at all, because the Lord Chancellor has never given us advice on the matter, inasmuch as the matter had not been taken into consideration by the Cabinet or the Lord Chancellor beforehand.
  SIR H.DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, if they were to understand that the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman in proposing the Standing Order on the 1st of July, 1880, was made by him to the House without having been previously submitted to the Cabinet?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the question which I said was not considered in anticipation by the Cabinet was, whether, if any presumptive cause for proceedings at law should arise, the state of the law was to be presumed this way or that, or proceedings were to be taken by the Cabinet?
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the Prime Minister, whether, in consequence of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of "Bradlaugh v. Clarke," he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman, on the previous Thursday, to state that it was not his intention to direct the Attorney General to institute proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh for having sat and having voted in the House on the 22nd of February, 1882, or on any other occasion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would rather not be understood to be bound by the date quoted by the hon. Gentleman, because my impression is that that is not the exact date.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Hansard, he will find that the Speaker called the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member was sitting in the House, after he had been ordered to withdraw on the 7th of February; and he will also find appended to the Division List a note to the effect that the Speaker called the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh had voted, but no proceedings were taken by the House thereon.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question now put by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire refers to a different matter from the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff); and I had better, to avoid the risk of misunderstanding, ask him to put it on the Paper.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I wish to ask whether the present Lord Chancellor, when Attorney General in 1866, at the time the Parliamentary Oaths Bill was brought forward by the then Government, did not inform the House that henceforward action under that Bill could only be taken by the Attorney General; and whether, as a Member of the Cabinet, he was not responsible for the Resolution of July 1st, 1880, and for the reason then given by the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Government, for the adoption of the said Resolution?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There can be no doubt that my noble Friend is responsible with us for that proposal made for the Government in 1880; but with regard to the declaration made by him in 1866, as I have not the matter fresh in my mind, perhaps it would be better
  322
  that that Question should also be put on the Notice Paper.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that when the Government pressed the House to pass a Resolution which invited Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm, they had not considered, by seeking the advice either of the Lord Chancellor, or of the Law Officers of the Crown, whether, if Mr. Bradlaugh complied with the Resolution, he would not render himself liable to an action brought against him by the Attorney General under the Statute?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As the Question relates to a matter of law, it would be better that Notice of it should be given.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask whether the Government repudiate the plea on which the House was invited to pass the Resolution of the Solicitor General?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may now say that I cannot answer the Question without taking exception to its terms, because they do not represent the issue before the House at the time.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I will repeat the Question to-morrow.

  AFGHANISTAN—SIR LEPEL GRIFFIN'S "LIBERAL POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN."
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a letter addressed to the "Times" of the 6th April by Sir Lepel Griffin, entitled "Liberal Policy in Afghanistan," and which contains the following paragraph:—
  "Our obvious interests demand the early construction of a broad gauge railway to Quetta, and the enlargement and strengthening of that important position, so as to enable it to command Candahar and the surrounding districts. The Ameer whom we placed on the throne in August 1880 is no more friendly than his predecessors were, and Russian intrigue is as unceasing and audacious to-day in Afghanistan as it was in the days of Shere Ali;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose taking any, and, if so, what steps to carry out the measure so strongly recommended as absolutely necessary by a gentleman who describes himself as—
  "The person chiefly concerned with the political arrangements in that country, under Both the late and present Administrations?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that Her

  323
  Majesty's Government do not in any manner adopt the statement in the passage quoted by the hon. Member, and have not arrived at any decision to extend the railway in question.

  SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR—THE DEBATE.
  SIR B. ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, On what day he can give facilities for discussing the question of the release of the Cuban refugees?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that, looking to the limited fund of time at the disposal of the Government, ho must make the best arrangements he could; and he did not conceive the subject to be one so urgent as to lead him to put aside any of the Business that stood more immediately for consideration. He should be happy, however, to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman, because, although he could not see his way to an immediate discussion, he should be very sorry indeed to contemplate any unreasonable delay.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE TRANSVAAL DEBATE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Prime Minister whether he could name any day for the resumption of the debate on the Transvaal?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that he was not in a position as yet to deal with this subject at all, because, as he had before stated, until the issue was simplified, the matter did not come before them in such a state as that they could have a reasonable expectation of getting through it. He had been in the hope of hearing that some change would take place with regard to the issue to be presented to the House, for a series of issues such as stood on the Paper they were not prepared to deal with by making an arrangement that would interfere with the progress of Government Business. He made that a condition and preliminary to giving a definite answer to the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry. With regard to the Business to-night, the House would understand that they would first proceed with the consideration of the Queen's Message with respect to Lord Alcester and
  324
  Lord Wolseley, upon which he did not believe that there would be any lengthened discussion. When he proposed the second reading of the Bill on the subject, which he would do on Thursday, then his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would have an opportunity of raising any question he might think proper. After the Queen's Message had been disposed of they would go on with the proposal to refer the Criminal Code Bill to the Standing Committee, and would then proceed with the Patents for Inventions Bill. On Thursday, after the Business already mentioned was disposed of, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Tax Bill would be taken. As to the second reading of the Affirmation Bill, they wished to propose that that should be taken on that day week.

  AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—OCCUPATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENSLAND.
  SIR JOHN HAYbogged to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there was any truth in the report that Her Majesty's Dominions had been extended by the occupation of New Guinea by the Queensland Government?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, all the information Her Majesty's Government have was received to-day, in reply to a telegram sent on Saturday to the Governor of Queensland, in consequence of the report which appeared in the newspapers. The Governor telegraphed as follows: —
  "To prevent Foreign Powers from taking possession of New Guinea, the Queensland Government, through the police magistrate of Thursday Island, took formal possession in Her Majesty's name on the 4th instant, pending the decision of the Government on my despatch just gone this mail."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether the action of the Queensland Government in taking possession of New Zealand—[Laughter]—he meant New Guinea, was the action of Her Majesty's Governor of Queensland; and, if so, whether that action of the Governor was authorized or sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Question answers itself. I have given the House the whole information we possess.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  DR. LYONSbegged to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government have arrived at any decision with regard to the Irish Mail Contract?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that we have decided not to propose to Parliament the confirmation of the Contract for the conveyance of the Dublin Mail made with the London and North-Western Railway Company. Before arriving at that decision we communicated with the Board of Directors of that Company, who, when informed of our reasons for not thinking that the Contact should be confirmed, at once stated that they had no wish that the House of Commons should be asked to ratify it. Indeed, nothing could be more straightforward and honourable than the conduct of the London and Northwestern Railway Company throughout the negotiations with them. Without going into details, I may say that the reason which has mainly actuated us in arriving at this decision is the importance of making provision in the Contract for the accommodation of passengers, as provided in the Treasury Minute of 1855. We shall, therefore, at once call for fresh tenders for a service providing satisfactory passenger accommodation as well as the most efficient postal arrangements.

  PARLIAMENT — PALACE OF WEST-MINSTER—THE STATUES IN WEST-MINSTER HALL.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTgave Notice that he would, on Thursday, ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he did not consider that Westminster Hall would be much improved by the removal of the statues now standing there on wooden pedestals?

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS—GUN LICENCES—DUTY ON SILVER PLATE.
  In reply to Mr. MONK,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that he expected the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be circulated to-morrow. It
  326
  would provide that the gun licences in force up to April should continue in force up to July, after which the new gun licences would be issued in the form prescribed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether they were to understand that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would contain no alteration of the silver plate duty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, that he had already stated that it would not.
  In reply to Mr. W. H. SMITH,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that there was no intention of interfering with the duty at all. In fact, he had not proposed to interfere with the duty, except to allow its payment to be postponed until the articles went into consumption.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsubsequently asked if it was to be distinctly understood that it was not the intention of the Government, either now or at a future time, to propose to repeal the duty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he could not speak for the future. But, as he had already said, there was no present intention to interfere with the duty at all.

  AFGHANISTAN—SIR LEPEL GRIFFIN.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, it had been laid down by Sir Lepel Griffin that the Ameer, whom we placed on the Throne of Afghanistan in August, 1880, was no more friendly than his Predecessors, and that Russian intrigue was as unceasing and audacious to-day in Afghanistan as it was in the days of Shere Ali. Could the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister confirm that statement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated very succinctly that Her Majesty's Government do not adopt the view of Sir Lepel Griffin.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
  In answer to Mr. LEWIS,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he was not in a position to state when the Bill would be read a second time; but due Notice would be given.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LORDS ALCESTER AND WOLSELEY—MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN.

    COMMITTEE.
    BARON ALCESTER, Message from Her Majesty [13th April],—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Message from Her Majesty read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir Arthur Ot-way—In rising, according to Notice, to move a Resolution upon this subject, I may say that, if the Resolution is agreed to by the Committee, I shall have to propose a corresponding Resolution with regard to Lord Wolseley. This Motion can hardly be termed a mere matter of form; but, at the same time, I may say that the period is so recent when I had the honour of asking the House of Commons to pass a Vote of Thanks to Lord Alcester, and the reasons for that request were then so fully stated by me, and heard with so much patience by the House, that I think I can assume that what I then said is still within the recollection of the Committee; and, at all events, that there still remains in the minds of the Members of the Committee a sufficient recollection of what I stated as to the ground upon which this proposal is made to justify me in asking them, without further preface, to take the first step towards the introduction of the Bill which will be brought in. Any question that may arise with respect to the correspondence of the Bill with the precedents applicable to the case I think I may postpone until a future stage, when it will be my duty to enter upon the merits of the Bill upon any Notice that may call it in question. I shall, therefore, content myself, in substance, with this reference to what happened upon a former occasion, and I now place the Resolution in the hands of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the annual sum of Two Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to he settled upon Admiral Frederick Beauchamp Paget, Lord Alcester, and the next surviving Heir Male of his body, for the term of their natural lives."—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman has said that this is only a mere matter of form; and I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, further, that it is desirable the discussion and the vote on the question should be taken upon the second reading of the Bill rather than upon this stage. Of course, that being so, we shall all be anxious to comply with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman; but I wish it to be understood that, in abstaining from discussing the matter on the present occasion, we are in no way prejudicing our case, nor must it be implied that we consent to the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is so; and the Committee is in no way committed by entertaining this preliminary proceeding. When I said it was a matter of mere form, I merely intended to excuse myself from repeating on this occasion the statement which I made some time ago.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I only wish to say that I fully understood the spirit in which the proposal was made; and, of course, it was only in consequence of the proposal being made in that form that I did not take upon myself the duty of seconding the Resolution.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the annual sum of Two Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled upon Admiral Frederick Beauchamp Paget, Lord Alcester, and the next surviving Heir Male of his body, for the term of their natural lives.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    BARON WOLSELEY OF CAIRO, Message from Her Majesty [April 13th],—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Message from Her Majesty read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to move a corresponding Resolution with regard to Lord Wolseley. This proceeding is, like the last one, in most exact conformity with what we can find to have been the form of proceeding in analogous cases. Therefore, as my statement in reference to the services of Lord Wolseley upon a recent occasion was still more full than my statement in regard to the

    329
    services of Lord Alcester, I may dispense, I think, with troubling the Committee with any further statement at the present moment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the annual sum of Two Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled upon General Garnet Joseph, Lord Wolseley, and the next surviving Heir Male of his body, for the term of their natural lives."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. LEWIS: I quite understand that the general feeling of the Committee is, that no discussion should take place today on this Resolution, as none took place on the preceding one; but, for my own part, I have been particularly struck with the dilemma in which the Committee and the country are placed— namely, that supposing we heap honours on men who have had to do nothing, or practically nothing, what are we to hold in reserve for those officers who may be called upon to uphold and defend the honour of the country in some real engagement? I do not hesitate to say that I look upon this Vote and upon these proceedings as part of the new "Jingo" policy which Her Majesty's Government have lately adopted for their own glorification and the amusement of the British public. I do not forget the mean way in which Sir Frederick Roberts was treated. I do not forget the mean way in which Sir Frederick Roberts, who was a General who not only distinguished himself, but cut his way through a piece of work beside which Lord Wolseley's operations appear to sink into insignificance. I do not forget what Her Majesty's Government did with regard to Sir Frederick Roberts; and I want to know, if these honours and these emoluments are to be hung around the necks of such men as Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester, what are to be conferred upon men who perform deeds like those which, in times past, reflected glory upon our Army and Navy? The matter requires, not only at the hands of the independent Liberal Party, but at the hands of the Conservative Party, a little more investigation than it seems to have received hitherto. What has been the meaning of all the theatrical display which the country has witnessed since last September or October? Does any man think that it was for the real glorification or
    330
    elevation of England in a military or moral sense? I would venture to suggest that what happened in the Park and in the public streets with regard to the parade of the Indian Contingent was as much connected with the glorification of Her Majesty's Government as the glorification of England; and I would not, on this occasion, have ventured to say one word, if I had not noticed that the extreme calmness of the Liberal Party is somewhat remarkable. We have recently had an explosion from that side of the House on the subject of economy; but it did not last very long, for hon. Members opposite were satisfied with the pat on the back they received from the Prime Minister. On this occasion they seem inclined to sit quiet, or, at all events, to postpone their opposition. I think we have a great question to discuss with Her Majesty's Government in regard to this Vote. They thought it right and necessary, with reference to the policy of their Predecessors, to proclaim that right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House were always wrong, and that the new policy they intended to substitute was always to be right. Yet they have imitated the policy of their Predecessors in various particulars, and they desire to imitate it now, in heaping Peerages upon Peerages and pensions upon pensions, notwithstanding the fact that their most recent ally is one of the most distinguished opponents of pensions in any form extending beyond the present possessor. If it is desired to defer the discussion until Thursday, I trust that, on that day, the House will be put in possession of some of the principles upon which Her Majesty's Government are at present guided; and I venture to hope that a large contingent from these Benches will join hon. Gentlemen on the other side in endeavouring to find out what honours this country will have in reserve for its distinguished Generals and Admirals who may have to fight the enemy in the open, and to perform deeds similar to those which have rendered our country famous in the annals of the world.
    MR. RYLANDS: I do not rise for the purpose of continuing this debate, but merely to say that the reason why none of my hon. Friends think it necessary to discuss the question at the present moment is, that the postponement of the discussion is demanded on the

    331
    ground of public convenience, and the Prime Minister has already promised that there shall be a full discussion on the measure. We therefore think that the proper opportunity for discussing it will be when the Bill has been brought in, and it is proposed to read it a second time. I understand that it will then be placed as the first Order of the Day; and we propose to reserve, until that time, an expression of the views which we entertain in regard to the present proposal, it being distinctly understood that the fact of our allowing the present Motion to pass without comment will, in no way, prejudice our future action.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is perfectly plain that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lewis), when he rose from his seat, had no intention of making the speech which he has delivered, because he said he approved of the arrangement under which all opinions were to be reserved; but the torrent within him could not be pent up, and it burst forth in spite of his better judgment. I do not wish to travel over the ground which the hon. Gentleman has traversed on this occasion; but I may make this observation—that if Her Majesty's Government behaved so meanly towards Sir Frederick Roberts, admitting for the moment that they did so, which, however, I do not at all admit—but assuming, for the sake of argument, that they did so, surely the fact ought to put us on our guard against a repetition of similar meanness now. I certainly cannot see how that argument supports the contention of the hon. Member. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled, if he likes, to make our proposals the occasion of any accusation against the Government, and, of course, we shall be prepared, at the proper time, to defend ourselves; but I should not be justified, after having obtained from the kindness of other hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House the reservation which they have been content to make—I should not be justified in entering upon the matter of the speech of the hon. Member, and I only wish it to be known that our silence in reference to it must not be supposed to imply agreement with any part of it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the annual sum of Two Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of
    332
    the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled upon General Garnet Joseph, Lord Wolseley, and the next surviving Heir Male of his body, for the term of their natural lives.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES PROCEDURE) BILL.— [BILL 8.]
    (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

    ADJOURNED DEBATE OX MOTION FOR COMMITMENT.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th April], "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that it appeared hardly respectful to the House or to the Bill that no Law Officer of the Crown was present on the resumption of the debate, the Government being solely represented by the Postmaster General and the Judge Advocate General, who had nothing to do with the question before the House. He would remind the House that this was not one of the Bills which it was intended to refer to Grand Committees when these Committees were instituted. The measure proposed to revolutionize the whole criminal procedure of the country; and, therefore, it ought to be discussed by the whole House, and not by a mere section of it. He had heard the speech in which the Prime Minister laid his proposals on the subject before the House, and he distinctly stated that the Bills to be brought before those Committees were to be Bills of an exceptional character, or Local Bills, and Bills of a non-partizan character; and he further stipulated that, with regard to all Bills referred to those Committees, the right of full discussion by the House should be preserved. Now, he asked the House whether a Bill which was of a partizan character and made an entire revolution in the criminal procedure of the country was a Bill fairly coming within the conditions he had adverted to? It was not a general, but a sectional, Bill, and it was not a Local Bill, but an Imperial one. It was not of a non-partizan character, for almost every one of its clauses

    333
    raised considerations that embittered and envenomed party differences in that House. The Prime Minister declared that the establishment of these Committees was not intended to destroy the responsibility of the House. That the House was losing its responsibility was pretty clear from the thinness of the House during the discussion of the Bill. This Bill was obviously partizan in its character, and would be administered with that view in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that the Bills to be referred to the Grand Committees should be Bills that concerned only sections of the House, and not the whole body of Members. That, again, was a condition which the Attorney General's Motion did not comply with, as this Bill directly concerned public rights.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing the Bill. He cannot discuss the merits of the Bill on the Motion before the House.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wanted to prove the partizan character of the Bill, to show that it was not one of the class mentioned by the Prime Minister to be referred to Committees. They were left absolutely without information as to the grounds upon which the Bill was to be referred to a Grand Committee. The Bill had been recommended to the House by one speech only from the Treasury Bench, that of the Attorney General, which did not exceed 20 minutes in duration. It was said that the Bill was practically identical with that which had been introduced during the late Parliament. But that was not so, as the latter abolished all the White boy offences of former Statutes, which were left untouched by the present Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing the Bill on its merits. He is out of Order in doing so.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was almost impossible to discuss the Motion without referring to the Bill. He regretted the indifference the House was beginning to show in regard to its gravest responsibilities since the establishment of these Grand Committees, and the disposition manifested to delegate its duties to those Bodies. He further objected that rights of discussion would not be preserved if the Motion of the Attorney General were adopted. The control which the House had over its legis-
    334
    lation should not be given up lightly and without full consideration; and he could only characterize the Motion as an audacious attempt on the part of the Government to carry through before a Grand Committee a measure whoso nature required that it should be reserved for the whole House. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the Bill was a very comprehensive one, and when the Bill of last Session was introduced, it was promised that there should be an opportunity for the House to discuss every clause and word in it. It was true that even on important subjects there was frequently a very small attendance in Committees of the Whole House; but the discussion might, at any time, be put an end to if fewer than 40 Members were present. That was a great safeguard. But the most important principles might be settled in Grand Committee by a quorum of 20 Members. He was far from saying the Bill was a bad one; but it was a Bill of a character which made it dangerous that the ordinary safeguards with which discussion in Committee of the Whole House surrounded public rights should be taken away, as they would be if it was withdrawn from the consideration of the Whole House. He begged to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "committed" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Committee of the whole House."— (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he presumed that they were at a stage of the Bill corresponding to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." If he was wrong, then one opportunity for discussion had been lost. He feared that the reference of Bills to the Grand Committees would deprive the House of much of its power in respect to measures that had passed the second reading. He was inclined to think that the Bill might be rejected at the present stage under the Rules of the House. The Grand Committee system, he thought, was admirable in the case of important mea-

    335
    sures full of detail, and upon the general purposes of which the House was agreed; but this Bill was certainly not of such a character that it could be safely left in the hands of a Grand Committee. They could all recollect what important Amendments had, within recent experience, been introduced into the Prisons Bill and the Army Discipline legislation in Committee of the Whole House. Now, a Grand Committee was wholly unsuited for, and incapable of, any operation of that kind. As a measure was sent up to such a Committee so must it come down, except in regard to the smaller and more minute details. ["No!"] The other night, when they were about to discuss this measure, they were told every moment that the principle of the Bill was settled, and that they could not discuss details on the second reading. But some of these so-called details were most important innovations, making a wholesale and momentous change in the legislation of this country. There were four of these so-called details to which he invited special attention. He thought the powers given to the Justices to examine anyone they thought could give evidence, and to commit from week to week, was a most important innovation in the Criminal Law of this country, and one which ought to be discussed fully in Committee of the Whole House.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already ruled that he could not allow discussion on the details of the measure. The Question before the House was merely a sequel to the second reading; and at this stage the House never allowed any general discussion on the merits of the Bill.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was endeavouring to assign reasons why the Bill should be considered by a Committee of the Whole House instead of being relegated to a Standing Committee. He would, however, only refer in general terms to the fact that certain portions of this Bill could not be adequately discussed in a Standing Committee.
    MR. DALYentered his protest against the Bill going to the Grand Committee, on the ground that the objections entertained against the Irish clauses would not receive adequate consideration there. There were only five Irish Members on the Committee, and these could not state
    336
    all the objections to the Bill which, as had been pointed out, contained many objectionable clauses. Public opinion would be better represented if the clauses to which objection was taken were allowed to be discussed in that House. With regard to the powers given to Justices of the Peace—
    MR. SPEAKER: I must again remind hon. Members that the merits of the Bill cannot be discussed upon the Motion before the House.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the ruling of Mr. Speaker amply justified the opposition offered by Irish Members to the second reading. The Bill would effect alterations which did not come within the definition of procedure at all, but which would revolutionize the law to a considerable extent. They had not been allowed to discuss the Bill on the second reading at any length, and how it was to go to a Grand Committee. He supposed that they must draw consolation from the fact that the Bill would again come down to the House, and that the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, find on the Report stage that he had not gained so much as he thought he would by referring the measure to a Standing Committee instead of to a Committee of the Whole House.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he did not entertain the same objections to this Bill as some of his hon. Friends. It was introduced first in 1879, on the recommendation of three eminent Judges, one of them being an Irish Judge in whom the people had more than usual confidence. He thought that time would be saved if the Bill was not referred to a Grand Committee; and, if it was discussed in the House itself, that would afford a welcome excuse for postponing the Affirmation Bill. On the Grand Committee, there was only one practising barrister representing a Home Rule constituency. Unless the constitution of the Committee were changed, its proceeding could not give satisfaction to the Irish Members. It embraced 14 Whig lawyers, and the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was the only practising barrister upon the Committee from the Home Rule Benches. The other Irish Members upon the Committee were a gallant Colonel of Artillery, a country Gentleman fond of following the hounds, and a literary Gentleman. If the Bill were referred to the Grand Committee,

    337
    Irish Members would have to discuss it at great length on Report.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he protested against the Bill being taken away from discussion at the hands of Irish Members. They had been precluded on the second reading from discussing the clauses, and now they were told they could not discuss them on the Motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee; and, moreover, the Government had not replied to the criticisms which had been passed on the Bill. The Bill did not come within the description of those which the Prime Minister said were to be referred to Grand Committees, and it would be a breach of faith so to refer it. Only five Members of his Party were included in the 79 Members, and only one of the five was a lawyer. It was a penal measure, and Irishmen were specially affected by penal measures. The discussions of the Grand Committees would become practically mechanical, because they were shut in from the public Press. ["No, no!"] He thought they were. Their proceedings were practically conducted in the dark, and nothing was laid before the House to enable them to form an adequate judgment of those proceedings, the Minutes and Reports being useless to those specially interested in the subjects under discussion. He again protested against the Motion to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee; and in the Committee he should take the opportunity of raising several points which he, nevertheless, thought ought to be decided by the House itself.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, there were several provisions of the Bill that were so dangerous and so new that they required the assent of all the Members of the House; and, unless they had some assurance that the Bill would come before them in such a way that these points could be discussed, he should oppose the reference to a Grand Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)reminded the House that the proposal to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee could not have been unexpected. The Grand Committees were called into existence for the very purpose of dealing with such Bills as the one before the House; and he failed to see how the Bill could be properly dealt with in any other way, as it would be an almost impossible task to amend it in Committee of the Whole House without
    338
    the aid of a Parliamentary draftsman. There would be an opportunity of discussing the Bill upon Report; but he was sure, notwithstanding what had been said in the course of that discussion, that there would be nothing more than fair discussion when the Bill came back from the Standing Committee. Hon. Members, having made their protest, could not expect the Government to act in the face of the statement of the Prime Minister in the Autumn Session that this was one of the Bills which would go before the Standing Committee. He would do his best to see that there was no undue haste; and he was sure that the Standing Committee would be a more satisfactory tribunal to protect the interests of the public, and reduce the Bill to a proper form, than a Committee of the Whole House. With reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that he should criticize the Bill clause by clause, he did not receive that statement with alarm. On the contrary, he looked forward to some alteration being made by the Committee; and he had no doubt the hon. Member would contribute materially to the improvement of the Bill. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to be referred to the Grand Committee.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, if the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) went to a division, he should certainly support his Amendment. He did not think the Grand Committees would be of much service, and the House would never know their reasons for accepting or rejecting Amendments. A Bill such as that before the House was essentially one for a Committee of the Whole House to consider.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he should support the Amendment, on the ground that a Bill which touched the liberty of the subject in several new ways ought to be dealt with by the Whole House. It was a Bill more for laymen than lawyers to deal with; and, therefore, laymen should have a full opportunity of discussing it. The measure was no mere codification of the existing law, but contained novel and objectionable principles, that ought not to be lightly sanctioned.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that the House would in future be very loth to send Bills to Grand

    339
    Committees if it there by lost an opportunity of discussing them. He rose because he understood Mr. Speaker to rule that any Bill which was referred by the Government to a Grand Committee could not be discussed again on its clauses. He wished to know at what stage the House would have an opportunity of again discussing the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that when a Bill had been read a second time altogether without reference to the New Rules, the Speaker invited the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to say whether he proposed to refer it to a Committee of the Whole House or to a Select Committee; and upon that question, as upon the pro-sent question, no debate upon the merits of the Bill had ever been allowed.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, this was a new departure, and he thought the House would be very 10th to part with any of its privileges. He wished to ask whether the House was not to have an opportunity of reviewing the proceedings in the Grand Committee on the Report?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether he was right in supposing that, when a proposal was made to refer a Bill to a Grand Committee, it was competent for the opponents of the measure to discuss its principle in order to show that its very nature made it expedient to deal with the Bill in Committee of the Whole House?
    MR. SPEAKERpresumed that, at the period contemplated by the noble Lord, the principle of the Bill had already been discussed on the Motion for the second reading. It would, therefore, be irregular to renew that discussion on the Motion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee.
    MR. BIGGARasked whether the Amendment did not authorize the Mover of it to raise the question whether this was a suitable Bill for a Standing Committee; and whether, on that Amendment, it was not competent to discuss the merits of the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Main Question before the House is the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that this Bill be committed to a Standing Committee. Upon that an Amendment has been moved, and the Question will be put in this form—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." If
    340
    that proposition be affirmed, no other Amendment can be moved.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the House was already in possession of the intention of the Government that this Bill was to be referred to a Grand Committee; and, therefore, he could understand the ruling that it would not be competent for the House now to discuss the principle of the Bill. But if the House was not in possession of the intention of the Government to refer a Bill to a Grand Committee, would it not be competent, after the Bill had been read a second time, for hon. Members to oppose the Motion to refer it to a Grand Committee, and, in doing so, to refer to the principle of the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the principle of the Bill has been decided on the second reading, no further discussion on the merits of the Bill can be allowed.
    MR. WARTONasked whether this Bill could be said to have a principle, as it was a Codification Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has propounded an argument. It is not for me to decide what is a principle.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked in what way the Motion to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee differed from the Motion that the House go into Committee on the Bill, on which occasion the discussion on the principle could be revived?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion differs in this way. The House has now read the Bill a second time, and, according to the ordinary practice, the Speaker has to ask the Member in charge of the Bill what course he proposes to take with respect to the Committee on the Bill. He makes a Motion either "That the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House" or "to a Select Committee." The right hon. and learned Gentleman moves, "That this Bill be referred to a Standing Committee," and upon that Question no debate on the principle can be allowed, as upon a Motion to refer a Bill to a Select Committee.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that undoubtedly it was a common practice for Members opposing a Bill to allow the second reading to pass, because an opportunity would be allowed of discussing the principle on going into Committee. He wanted to know whether, upon referring a Bill to a Standing Com-

    341
    mittee, that opportunity passed away? He did not think that in discussing the new Standing Order it was understood that such would be the effect.
    MR. ONSLOWasked what opportunity there would be for any hon. Member to move that this Bill do not go before a Standing Committee, and to give his reason why the Bill should go before a Committee of the Whole House?
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsubmitted that the Motion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee was equivalent to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and that, therefore, there should be the same right of full discussion.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated my view. According to the immemorial practice of the House, after a Bill has been read a second time, the Speaker calls upon the Member in charge to say what course he intends to take with regard to the Committee, who would then propose to refer the Bill either to a Committee of the Whole House or to a Select Committee. Sometimes a debate arises upon that; but no discussion upon the merits of the Bill is allowed on such an occasion.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether, when this Bill had come from the Grand Committee, it would be competent for the House to review the whole of the proceedings in the Grand Committee, if the Motion were made to recommit the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: The New Rule has made no alteration whatever in that respect. On the Report the House can go through the Bill clause by clause and line by line, and a proposition may be made to re-commit the Bill.
    MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether, when a Bill was going through in the ordinary way, a second opportunity was not afforded of discussing the principle of the Bill on the Motion for going into Committee? He reminded the House that second readings were often allowed to be taken on the promise that another opportunity of discussing the principle of Bills would be forthcoming. If that were so, then the House had a right to discuss the principle of the Bill twice.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it had been distinctly laid down that this was no automatic procedure, that in each case there must be a distinct Motion, and that a Minister could not by his ipse dixit deter-
    342
    mine to what sort of a Committee a Bill should go, but must satisfy the House that the Bill was a proper one to go to one of the Standing Committees on Law or Trade. It did not follow because a Bill dealt with a question of law that it should go to the Standing Committee on Law. Supposing there was a Bill to destroy Trial by Jury, that would be a Law Bill in one sense; but it would be unfair if one of the most cherished institutions of the country should not be discussed in that House, and the House would wish to have it so discussed. It was of immense importance to the House that the power should not be taken away from them of expressing an independent judgment on the question as to what Committee any particular Bill should be referred to. Many hon. Members might be of opinion that a Bill would interfere with one of the most cherished institutions of this country; and, surely, it should not be competent to the Minister in charge to refer such a Bill without full debate to a Standing Committee.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the House was indebted to the Prime Minister, towards the close of the Autumn Session, for the insertion in the Standing Order of the words—
    "Provided that there should in each case be a distinct reference of any Bill to either of the Standing Committees."
    Having regard to that fact, and to the spirit of the interpretation put upon those words by the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the Bankruptcy Bill this Session, he would now submit to the Speaker whether it was not, as a matter of fact, within the Privileges of the House, whenever a Bill came back from the Standing Committee, to move, as an Amendment to the proposal for the consideration of the Bill, "That the Bill be re-committed," a course which had always been open at the Report stage of a Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWpointed out that on the Ballot Act Continuance Bill, in the Orders of the Day, there was an Amendment, on the Motion for going into Committee, "That this House will, on this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee." Would it be possible on that Amendment to discuss the merits of the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be in

    343
    Order to discuss the principles of that Bill. In regard to the question which has been put to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), I have to say it is open to the House, when the Bill comes up from the Standing Committee, to move that the Bill be recommitted as a whole, or re-committed as to certain clauses. There seems now to be a desire to discuss the principle of the Bill a second time; but the House will bear in mind that on Thursday last the principle of the Bill was discussed, and I cannot see anything in the New Rules which justifies me in saying that under those Rules the principle of the Bill can now be discussed a second time.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, anxious as he was to support the ruling of the Chair, he must ask this question— Did not the new procedure create a new state of things? On Thursday last the House read this Bill a second time, and the question now was, whether the character and quality of the measure was such as to make it properly a Bill to be discussed by a Standing Committee, or in Committee of the Whole House?—and he sought guidance as to the limits of the discussion, for he could not conceive how the matter was to be discussed without, at least, touching the fringe of the principles of the Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the distinction just laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) opposite, as to the right of discussing the nature of the Bill upon the Motion that it be referred to a Standing Committee, was precisely applicable to the old and familiar practice of the House, that, in certain cases, a Bill should be referred to a Select Committee—nay, more, the distinction was broader, because the reference to a Select Committee was more widely severed from a reference to a Committee of the Whole House than was a reference to a Standing Committee; and, therefore, if the argument which they had just heard was good, it would follow that they should find the argument sustained by reference to the practice of the House in debating Motions for the reference of Bills to Select Committees. If that argument was good, it would have found its way into the practice of the House, and the occasion of moving that this Bill or that Bill be referred to a Select Committee would have an occasion still more suitable for the
    344
    use of the liberty of the House in discussing the Bill in detail than it could possibly be in moving to refer it to a Standing Committee. He was himself pretty confident that it never had been the usage of the House to debate at length the nature and character of a Bill upon a Motion for referring it to a Select Committee. If that was so, â fortiori, it ought not to become the usage of the House to debate the Bill in its details or particulars on a Motion for its reference to a Standing Committee, and for this reason, because the House was introducing not only a new process to facilitate its own labours, but a process which deprived it of none of its power, because, as pointed out by the Speaker, he apprehended that a Motion could be made for the re-committal of the Bill, in case of need, when it returned from the Standing Committee, and that then whatever was requisite could be stated with regard to the principles and matter of the Bill, as showing that it still required the revision of a Committee of the Whole House. He did not wish to convey to hon. Members the idea that anything he had stated or anything that the Government had thought could in the slightest degree bind the House; but, at the same time, it might be right that they, like others, should put their own construction on the discussion of the proceedings that took place in the autumn. With reference to what then took place, he at that time frankly admitted that there might be cases where the operation of the Standing Committee might have broken down, and been so insufficient that a reference to a Committee of the Whole House of the entire Bill would be necessary. But there arose this question—that there might be, in a Bill generally fit to be disposed of by a Standing Committee, special and important clauses which ought not to be exempted from consideration in a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, he frankly stated in the Autumn Session, and it was generally admitted by the House, that it would very probably happen that there would be particular clauses for which it might be right to re-commit a Bill, even when a Standing Committee had performed its duties in the most satisfactory manner, not because the Standing Committee had failed, but because the weight, character, and importance of the clauses might be such that they ought on no account to

    345
    be removed from the jurisdiction of the Committee of the Whole House. He, for one, was not prepared to assent to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last—namely, that the debate on the reference of a Bill to the Standing Committee amounted to a renewal of the debate on the second reading. It might be alleged with truth that now the House had, on an ordinary Bill, an opportunity of discussing it twice before it went into Committee of the Whole House; but it was also true that the House had an opportunity—it had not chosen to make an opportunity—of debating the Bill twice on its principle and details before referring it to a Select Committee. And the analogy of the case was with reference to a Select Committee, because it was when the Bill came back from the Standing Committee that the House would have to consider whether it required a reference to a Committee of the Whole House; and, if so, it would be in a position to debate the principles and details upon the Motion for the re-committal. Therefore, it was quite clear that the debate now in hand ought to be regulated—he would not say by the Rules, but he might say by the same usage as, he believed, had traditionally prevailed in the House when it had been moved to refer a Bill, after the second reading, to a Select Committee.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the distinction which had been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman between a Bill that went to the Committee of the Whole House and one that was referred to a Select Committee in regard to the opportunities of debate that were afforded was a correct and just distinction; but the Prime Minister had not pointed out the reason for it, which was that, under the old practice, when a Bill was referred to a Select Committee, there was no discussion of its principles and details on the Motion that it be so committed, because the House had a subsequent opportunity of discussing those principles and details on the Motion that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House after it returned from the Select Committee. Under the New Rules, however, when a Bill was referred to a Standing Committee, the stage of a reference to a Committee of the Whole House was expressly abolished. In these circumstances, the reason on which the
    346
    Prime Minister relied was cut from under his feet. Having had two opportunities hitherto of discussing the principle of a Bill, he did not think the House ought now to be deprived of its right in that respect.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to Order. He wished to know what Question was before the House. He understood that a point of Order had been raised, and that Mr. Speaker had decided it, and, therefore, that it could not be further discussed.
    MR. ONSLOWalso rose to Order. If the Prime Minister made a lengthened speech, had not hon. Members a right to reply to it?
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that he had no desire to go one step beyond the point under discussion. He should like to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was not competent for any hon. Member to move to add, at the end of the Attorney General's Motion, the words—"Except any particular clauses of the Criminal Code Procedure Bill."
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the proposition of the hon. Member is so novel that I cannot give an affirmative answer. I never heard of a Bill being referred to a Select Committee in part only.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, those who sat in that part of the House were under the impression that Mr. Speaker's ruling was directly contrary to what fell from the Prime Minister in his speech.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have endeavoured, according to the best of my ability, to state what I believe to be the proper construction of the New Rules. I cannot withdraw from the ruling I have laid down without special instructions from the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the observation he made—with the deepest possible respect for the Chair—was that those who sat near him were under the impression that Mr. Speaker's ruling was directly contrary to what had fallen from the Prime Minister.
    MR. COURTNEYrose to Order. He wished to know whether, the noble Lord having already spoken on this point, it was competent for him again to speak in reference to it?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the noble Lord raises some new point he will be in Order: but otherwise he will not.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had not spoken. He had ventured to put two questions to Mr. Speaker on a point of Order; but that, he apprehended, did not preclude him from replying to the speech of the Prime Minister.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYrose to Order. The noble Lord had distinctly admitted that he was going to refer to a point of Order which had already been decided by the Speaker.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the question proposed to be put by the noble Lord on a point of Order cannot be made plain without a reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, then, perhaps, the House may be disposed to give the noble Lord some indulgence.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to know whether he was right in interpreting the Speaker's ruling to be that, on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and that the House do go into Committee upon any ordinary Bill, it was not within the competence of any hon. Member to discuss the principles and the details of such Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: In replying to the question of the hon. Member for Guildford I stated precisely the reverse.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to Order. He wished to know whether, in the event of the Attorney General's Motion being carried, he should be in Order in moving that certain clauses of the Bill proposed to be referred to the Standing Committee should be excepted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the Motion of the Attorney General is carried, that will be conclusive of the matter.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 98; Noes 27: Majority 71.— (Div. List, No. 59.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)moved—
    "That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to consolidate the said Bills into one Bill."
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it he an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to consolidate the said Bills into one Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General)
    MR. GRANTHAMinquired how this was to be done, and whether the Committee would be bound to consolidate the Bills?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Motion only gave the Committee power to consolidate them, which they could exercise at their discretion.
    MR. PARNELLhad little doubt that the Motion, if agreed to, would be taken by the Committee as authoritative, and that they would feel bound to consolidate the Bills. He thought that coupling the two Bills together would be likely to delay both. One Bill—that relating to appeals—was of a non-contentious character, while the other was highly contentious. It was most undesirable that the passing of the Appeal Bill, which would not give rise to lengthy discussion, should be imperilled by its incorporation with the other Bill. Therefore, he suggested that the House should not pass the Motion, in order that it should be left to the discretion of the Committee to act as they thought best.
    MR. R. H. PAGETwished to move that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the feasibility of making the Bill harmonize with the spirit and the letter of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.
    MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that it is competent to the Committee to do as he desires without Instruction. It would be against the Rules of the House to instruct the Committee in the manner proposed.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, as that was the case, he was, of course, prevented from moving; but he would draw the particular attention of the Attorney General to the point, with a view to the matter receiving his consideration. An enormous part of the Criminal Law was dealt with by the Summary Jurisdiction Act; and it was of the highest importance that any further alteration of the law should be in strict harmony and accord, not only with the letter, but the spirit of that Act.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to know whether it would not be possible, in order to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), to pass the Criminal Appeal Bill, and then consolidate the provisions of that Bill in the new Criminal Procedure Bill.

    349
    The Criminal Procedure Bill was not a complete Code, because there was at least one subject—public prosecutions—with which it did not deal. The Judges had spoken of the institution of a Public Prosecutor as a failure. It was a matter of great importance, and he hoped the Attorney General would take care that the question of public prosecutions should be adequately dealt with. He had a Motion on the Paper to make it an Instruction to the Committee to take this matter into consideration, which, if in Order, he should wish to move.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion of the hon. Member would be distinctly out of Order, because the Committee is competent to consider the matter without Instruction.
    MR. WARTONwished to know whether, as the Committees on the Criminal Appeal Bill and the Criminal Code Bill were differently constituted, it would be possible to consolidate the two measures.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is competent for the House to give power to the Standing Committee.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 17: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 60.)

    PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
    (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms.)

    [BILL 3.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he need not make many remarks upon the second and third parts of the Bill, which referred to the registration of designs and trade marks. Those parts contained provisions that involved details of importance; but still they were details, and did not raise any question of principle. Speaking generally, the discussion on those parts of the Bill might be better taken in the Grand Committee than they could be in the House. With regard to designs, he might mention that there were six Acts which the Bill proposed to consolidate; of these the two principal ones were 40 years old; and there had arisen under them a number of little questions which it was desirable to settle. According to the present law, there was a two-fold
    350
    classification of designs, as "ornamental" or "useful;" and the latter classification had been largely used in order to obtain what might be called a cheap patent, because under this provision a mechanical invention could be registered for a period of one year's provisional, and three years' complete registration, for a sum of £10. Practically, registration under these provisions constituted a patent for four years for the sum of £10; but as this Bill, in the changes it would effect in the Patent Law, would now give to an inventor a patent for four years for £4, it did not appear to be desirable any longer to keep up this distinction. Accordingly, it was proposed in the Bill to have one classification of any novel design. At present there were provisional and complete specifications. The object of provisional specification was to enable a novel design to be submitted to buyers to see whether it was saleable before the inventor proceeded to complete registration. That arrangement had not worked well, and it was thought it would be better and simpler to allow the owner of the original design to leave at the office, not, as now required, an exact copy of the design, but a representation of it sufficient to identify it. Upon that being left at the office complete registration would be granted if the design were original. It therefore seemed to be unnecessary to continue the granting of provisional registration. The present term of the registration varied from nine months to three years, and the Bill proposed a uniform term of four years. The largest number of designs were in the cotton printing trade, and the manufacturers complained that the present term of three years was rather too short; and four years appeared to be a satisfactory average term. With regard to fees, no mention was made in the Bill; but at present the fees varied from 1s. to 20s. for each specification. It was proposed to reduce them to two fees—one 1s., and the other not exceeding 10s. There would be a branch office for registration at Manchester, where a large number of designs were registered. In the present arrangement there was a class for sculpture, which would be abolished. Only three objects a-year had been registered in it on the average of the last five or six years; and on conferring with leading sculptors he

    351
    found that they did not value the arrangement at all. The alterations as to trade-marks would be still fewer. The Acts affecting them were more recent, the principal one being passed in 1875. The principal change was in the definition of trade-mark, which would be considerably extended so as to include, for instance, a fancy word, and also brands such as were used in the tobacco and cigar trades. Power was taken to clear the register of complications resulting from trade-marks that had not been proceeded with. A proposal had been made by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to give to trade-marks indefeasible registration after five years. At present registration of a trade-mark was primâ facie evidence of the exclusive right of the owner to the user, and after five years it was to be conclusive evidence; but the Court had held that it might still be attacked on the ground that the original registration was illegal or improper, and that the Registrar might have passed the marker per incuriam, or through negligence or fraud. The hon. Member proposed that five years should give an indefeasible right. He was unable to agree to that, because, either by negligence or collusion, a trade-mark which was at present the common property of a whole trade might get upon the register, and be attributed to a particular person. He might not use it or call attention to the fact. His competitors in the trade might not be aware of it; and it would be very hard if, after waiting silent for five years, he should then be able to assert an exclusive right to what hitherto had been a universal property. He now came to the most important and most interesting provisions of the Bill—those, namely, which related to the Law of Patents. He did not think it necessary to argue at any length in favour of a Patent Law; but he might remark that in recent years there had been a very great change of opinion on this subject. In the year 1865, when a Commission was appointed to examine the question, there was a strong feeling against granting monopoly rights to inventors, and the Commissioners were evidently impressed with the objections then urged; but most people now held that some sufficient and adequate reward should be assured to the inventor by means of a temporary monopoly. The country benefited by
    352
    invention, and everything that stimulated invention was, therefore, advantageous to the community. No one had put the case for the Patent Laws more strongly than Sir Frederick Bramwell. That gentleman had pointed out, in a valuable Paper read before the Society of Arts, that most inventions were made by poor men, and by outsiders to the trade to which their inventions applied, and that inventors were not usually in a position to work their inventions, but had to take them to manufacturers and capitalists, who had the means and appliances for working them. If there were no patents the tendency of the manufacturers would be to let well alone, and they would not take the risk or cost of the changes involved in making improvements, except under the fear of competition or with the assurance of a satisfactory profit. So far from patents acting in restraint of trade they really developed it. Sir Charles Siemens had said, on one occasion, that he was so convinced of the fact that the Patent Law led to the development of trade that if a patent were found lying in a gutter, it would be in the interest of the State to take it up and assign an owner to it in order that it might be worked. At any rate, it could not be said that patents barred the way to other inventions. The first patent sewing machine, for instance, was immediately followed by a score of others; the Bessemer furnace had been the subject of several patents that would otherwise have never been heard of, while the discoveries of Edison and Swann had developed an extraordinary and unexpected amount of inventive talent. The late Master of the Rolls, whose death all deplored, and from whom he received great assistance in framing this measure, had told him that he never knew a bad invention stand in the way of other discoveries. A good invention might now and then retard subsequent discovery; but the provisions of the Bill with respect to compulsory licences would effectually remove the chief inconvenience that was now the subject of complaint. He might proceed, then, on the assumption that the House would grant the necessity of a Patent Law, and would pass to the objects the attainment of which was specially desirable. The objects of a good Patent Law appeared to be four-fold. In the

    353
    first place, the protection granted should give adequate protection to the inventor without creating an undue monopoly In the second place, the cost of obtaining patents should not be so great as to put them out of the roach of any class of inventors; in the third place, the protection should be as real and effectual as possible; and, lastly, where litigation was inevitable, it should be both cheap and efficient. As to the first of these objects, the Bill did not make any change in the duration of patents; but an important change was proposed with regard to the extension of patents. The Commissioners of 1865 were unanimously in favour of the existing term of 14 years, which was also about the average term in foreign countries. In most foreign countries there was a classification of patents, and they were granted in Franco for 5, 10, and 15 years; in Russia, for 3, 5, and 10 years; in Italy and Austria, for terms varying from 1 to 15 years; in Spain, for 5, 10, and 20 years; in the United States, for 17 years; and in Germany, for 15 years. In all these oases the patent expired with the earliest of any foreign patents for the same invention; but in the present Bill he had repealed this provision, and the term of 14 years was independent of the duration of foreign patents. All things considered, it was best for the interests of the English manufacturer to tempt him to take whatever protection the foreign laws afforded him, and not to prevent him from doing so by making the term of his English patents conditional on the term of foreign patents. The term of 14 years was, of course, arbitrary; but it had existed since 1852, and he proposed to leave it unchanged. Changes, however, were introduced by the Bill in the extension of patents. At present the Privy Council decided every application for an extension upon certain rules which were practically laid down, although they did not exist in any legislative enactment. They considered, first, whether the inventor had made a sufficient profit from his business—that was to say, they took into account the profit he made in his business independently of any profit in his patents. That seemed to him altogether unfair. What was wanted was the securing of the reward for the invention. Another rule that had prevailed with the Privy Council was that where it was shown that the
    354
    inventor had made a sum of £10,000, in that case no application should be granted for the extension of a patent. That seemed to him an arbitrary rule, for while a sum of £10,000 would bean enormous profit, say in the case of the invention of a window-fastener, it would be an insufficient reward for such an invention as that of Bessemer, who had revolutionized the whole iron industry. Under these circumstances, he proposed to introduce in Sub-section 4 of Clause 25 a provision which should be a direction to the Judicial Committee to the effect that they should have regard to the nature and merits of the invention in relation to the public, to the profits made by the patentee as such, and not by the ordinary course of his business, and to all the circumstances of the case; and he hoped this would meet the complaints which seemed to him to have some foundation in regard to this matter. He came now to the most important question of all — the question of fees. They had not interfered in this Bill with the amount of the second and third payments now demanded by law; but they had deferred the second payment until the fourth year, giving one year longer. They had extended the term of provisional protection from a nominal six months, though practically only four, to 12, and in some cases to 15 months. They had reduced the fee for provisional protection from £5 to £!, and the first payment for a patent from £20 to £3. The total reduction was from £25 to £4, for which sum an inventor might get a patent good for four years. Adding to that the second and third payments, £154 was the total sum for which an inventor could get a patent for 14 years. Before 1852 the fees were £300. Since then they were reduced to £175. In Lord Cairns's Bill, in 1878, no alteration of fees was proposed; in the Bill of Sir John Holker, in 1877, the first payment was reduced to £12 10s., the second payment was increased to £55, and the third to £110—total of £177 10s. Now, what would be the cost of these proposals to the Exchequer? In 1882 there were 6,241 applications for patents; the total receipts were £202,000, and the expenditure £40,000. In 1884 he estimated that the number of applications would be increased by nearly 50 per cent; on that estimate the number of applications

    355
    would be 9,000, and the total receipts would be £62,400. The reason why the receipts would fall off so much was that they would get no second payments that year, having postponed them for four years instead of three. There would be an illustrated journal; and as better indexes and other improvements would be made, the expense to the Exchequer was estimated at £60,000, and the present profit to the Exchequer, supposing the applications increased 50 per cent, would be reduced from £160,000 to £2,000, which was really no margin at all. For 1885 the receipts were estimated at £122,000, and the loss of income would be reduced to £80,000. In 1890 the loss of income, he estimated, would be only £40,000—that was to say, the receipts would have increased to £l60,000; but whether they should still be taking the same fees in 1890 was a question on which he offered no confident opinion. The immediate effect of the Bill would be to give a very large boon to the inventor, and practically to make the Patent Office, instead of yielding a large revenue to the State, yield no revenue at all. After consultation with his Colleagues, and especially with the Treasury, lie made these proposals, he must frankly say, as the best it was in his power to make; and he could not undertake to accept, on behalf of the Government, any Amendment which, at the present time, would lay a heavier burden upon the Exchequer. He noticed that the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had been withdrawn; and he took that as an indication that his hon. Friend would not press it so as to endanger the passing of the Bill. He was quite prepared to admit that there was a great deal to be said against large payments; but the change proposed in the Bill was so great, and the benefits conferred so large, that he thought his hon. Friend had acted wisely, and that the working classes generally would declare that what was offered should be taken without further delay, although without prejudice to future claims. The effect of the large payments at deferred periods had not, he thought, discouraged invention. He had no proof that they had. But he had no doubt that the first payments did discourage invention, and were an insurmountable
    356
    obstacle in the way of the poorest inventors. But when a poor inventor was able to get protection for £1 for 12 months, and to obtain for £4 a patent good for four years, he was not likely to be discouraged. He did not believe that if there was a useful invention, persons would not be found in the course of four years to advance the necessary money for the other payments. On the other hand, those largo deferred payments would have a useful effect in weeding out useless patents. The second payment killed two-thirds of all the patents, and the third payment killed 19 per cent of those left, leaving only 11 per cent, which went on for 14 years. The fact was that a great number of patents had lived their lives by the end of four and seven years, and it was undesirable that they should continue to stand in the way of other improvements. He had seen the English system contrasted unfavourably with the American; but he doubted whether the comparison was fair or complete. At all events, there was the curious fact that foreigners had recourse to English Patent Law in remarkable preference to that of America. He found that in 1882, in the United States, out of 16,584 patents 995 were foreign, or only 6 per cent; but in the United Kingdom out of 5,751 patents 2,139 were foreign, or 37 per cent. The conclusion he drew from this was, that those foreigners who took advantage of our despised law did not think it worth their while to take advantage of the American Patent Laws.
    MR. PARNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman knew how many of these foreign patents were American?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not at that moment answer; but a very large proportion came from the Continent, chiefly from Germany and France. In connection with the question of the cost of patents, it had been pointed out that the charges of the patent agents were often more considerable than the fees; and, accordingly, in the present Bill an attempt had boon made to simplify procedure; and thereby lessen this cost. At present no less than seven personal applications had to be made at the Patent Office to secure a patent; but under the new Bill that number would be reduced to two, and forms would be provided at the post offices by which any inventor who could intelligibly de-

    357
    scribe his invention would be able to transmit his application for a patent by post, without being compelled to leave his work if he were a working man. There would be a £1 stamp on the application for provisional protection, and a £3 stamp on the application for a patent. These were the arrangements of the Bill with regard to fees; and he had only now to add, in reference to this part of the subject, that provision had been made for altering and reducing the fees with the consent of the Treasury if it should appear advisable. Under the present law the fees were statutory, and could not be altered without fresh legislation. He went on to consider the third object of a good Patent Law—namely, the security which a patent should afford to its owner. In reference to this, he had considered, in framing the Bill, how far it would be possible to institute an examination into the novelty of the alleged invention before the patent was granted. There were, however, many difficulties in the way of such an examination. If it was to be effective it must be an examination in every case, and it must be conducted by the most experienced persons, because it frequently happened that valuable patents had been partly anticipated, and nobody but the most practised experts could decide on their validity. He might instance the cases of "Bessemer's furnace" and "Betts's capsules"—cases in which the differences between those and previous patents appeared to be slight, but where the patents were, after litigation, properly upheld. The expense of such an examination would be enormous, for it would be necessary to supply the investigators with the evidence of the most skilled persons, and in this fact was to be found the explanation of the costliness of patent litigation. The interests involved were often vast, and the subject-matter of a highly complicated character. The examination, therefore, for novelty, if it was to be adequate, would practically involve a costly litigation in every case, instead of in the few cases in which it now happened. If they gave up the idea of a thorough investigation they must necessarily have a perfunctory one, with all its unsatisfactory results. This was the experience of the American system, to which he had already referred. They had in the United States more
    358
    than 100 Examiners; and yet it was stated in The Engineer, in an article on this question, that—
    "Not a week passes in which the Examiners do not pass old inventions as if they were new. A very clever American writer, some time since, devoted a paper to a single subject— namely, the incompetence of the Examiners in one department alone—clock and watch-making; and he published a stupendous list of American patents, every one of which had been anticipated."
    But this was not the worst result to be anticipated. If the examinations were lax, and allowed inventions to pass which had been anticipated, the harm done would not be very great; but what was to be feared was that the Examiners would reject inventions which ought to be the subject of a patent. They might stifle the inventive genius of the country in accordance with the crotchets of a few permanent officials, or they might even, as he understood had actually been the case in the United States, make the grant of a patent dependent on the voice of persons who might be accessible to interested motives. He was convinced that the inventors of the country would never accept any system which left them absolutely at the mercy of a select class of official Examiners. But it had been suggested that the result of such an examination should be endorsed upon the patent, but should not prevent the patentee from proceeding at his own risk. This would practically come to the same thing as the rejection of the patent, as no manufacturer would deal with a patent so endorsed. Again, it had been suggested that such result of the examination should not be endorsed on the patent, but should be privately communicated to the inventor. That was a proposal of a very specious character; but there were serious objections to it. In the first place, the examinations must necessarily be confined to previous specifications, and would not include the cases in which the invention had been anticipated, though it had not hen previously patented. Then it must not be forgotten that the examination suggested could be far better made by the inventor himself, who could tell much better where to put his finger on previous specifications affecting his own than any other person. Lastly, he did not see why the Government should make an exception in favour of the inventor, as compared with every other per-

    359
    son, and exercise a paternal care for him, and assist him in his own business, taking upon themselves, in fact, the duties of a patent agent. Sir James Stephen suggested that to do so would he very much the same as for a Court of Justice to advise a suitor whether or not he had a good cause of action. But the Government would give the inventor every faculty in prosecuting his search, although they could, not take upon themselves to make it for him. The examination under the Bill would be confined to seeing that the invention was a proper subject for a patent, and that the description was sufficient and accurate, and that the complete and provisional specification substantially agreed. The last object they had in view was to cheapen and render more satisfactory the process of litigation where it had to be resorted to. Proposals had been made at different times that a special Judge should be appointed for the administration of the Patent Law; but he thought the whole tendency of public opinion was against the appointment of special Judges, and, under those circumstances, no proposal of that sort was made in the Bill. He believed, however, it was almost certain that patent cases would be put into a separate list, and that the Judges who felt themselves best qualified to deal with them would probably select that list and hear the cases. A complaint was made of the present system that under it a case had to be brought before a Judge who had to be taught in open Court by counsel, often as ignorant as himself, the technical merits of the subject. To meet this objection he proposed that either the Court itself or either of the parties without the Court should have the right of claiming that an Assessor should be appointed to assist the Judge. The Assessor so appointed would be paid by the Government just as a Judge was paid. There was also a new provision as to disclaimer. Where no action was pending, and the patentee desired either to amend his specification or disclaim any part of it, he could do so by leave of the Law Officer. Where, however—and this was the new portion to which he called attention—an action was pending, they provided that the patentee could by leave of the Court disclaim, and that the action might still be continued; but it was provided, in
    360
    that case, that no damages should be obtained for any previous infringement of the patent, unless the inventor showed his original claim was made in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. The principle of this provision was that the inventor who knowingly or carelessly claimed bad matter was not an object of sympathy. On the other hand, an infringer who knowingly infringed the good and valid part of a patent because he had discovered some portion, perhaps unimportant, which was bad or invalid, was not entitled to sympathy or protection; and, accordingly, he had provided that while, in the first case, the inventor would lose the advantage of his patent until he had amended his claim, in the second case the infringer might be made to suffer and pay damages for his infringement without benefiting by the technical defects or misdescription of the patentee. The next point was the question of licensing. Their position was that, while the inventor was entitled to a reward, he was not entitled to anything in the nature of unreasonable monopoly; and it had been pointed out, especially in an interesting Memorial presented on behalf of the chemical industry, that under the present law it would have been possible, for instance, for the Gorman inventor of the hot-blast furnace, if he had chosen to refuse a licence in England, to have destroyed almost the whole iron industry in this country, and to have carried the business bodily over to Germany. Although that did not happen in the case of the hot-blast industry, it had actually happened in the manufacture of artificial colours connected with the coal products, and the whole of that had gone to Germany, because the patentees would not grant a licence in this country. In this and similar matters the patentee was only the first discoverer. Others were working on the same lines, and it was only a question of time which would arrive first at a satisfactory result. It was all very well to reward the first inventor; but it was not necessary nor just to give to the first inventor an absolute right of monopoly, which might be used for purposes of extortion, or to the injury of the country which granted these rewards for invention. Accordingly they had put in the Bill—Clause 22 —that where the patentee had been shown to have refused to grant a licence

    361
    on reasonable terms, and that, as a consequence of such refusal, the patent was not being worked in the United Kingdom, or the reasonable requirements of the public in regard to the invention could not be supplied, or that any persons were prevented from working other inventions to the best advantage—
    "The Board of Trade may order the patentee to grant a licence on such terms as, having regard to the nature of the invention and the circumstances of the case, the Board of Trade may deem to be just."
    Besides these, there were a number of minor provisions in the Bill. As regarded the Patent Museum, they proposed that it should be transferred to the Science and Art Department, with a power to demand from any inventor a model of his invention, paying a fair sum as the cost of such model. They proposed that an illustrated journal of inventions should be published by the Patent Office, containing not only a drawing of the chief inventions, but also a report of patent actions, and other matters specially interesting to patentees. They proposed a penalty for the use of the Royal Arms without a licence, because of the abuse of the Royal Arms in the case of certain patent agents, owing to which, in a great number of cases, inventors had been deceived by thinking they had been attending a Public Office, while all the time they had been incurring heavy charges in the private office of a professional person. He would only say, in conclusion, that the Bill proceeded upon the assumption that an inventor was a person to be encouraged, and not repressed, for he was a creator of trade; and, accordingly, they desired in every way in their power to stimulate his inventive capacity and the capacity of others similarly situated. The object was one in which he took a deep interest, having had some experience of patents, and knowing the obstacles in the way of inventors. He had observed that his own borough, in proportion to population, was the most inventive place in the United Kingdom. But the matter was not of interest to himself alone, or the borough which he represented; it was a matter of general interest and importance. There was no article which we used, there was nothing connected with the necessities of our life, or that contributed to the health or happiness, or security of the population, which had
    362
    not, at some time or other, been the subject of a patentable invention; and, accordingly, he would be very glad indeed if, with the assistance of the House, he was able to do anything to stimulate the inventive capacity of the people, and to add in that way to the resources and the prosperity of the country. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had correctly described his motive in withdrawing the Amendment which he had on the Paper up to the last day or two. He felt that to press that Amendment to its just conclusion would be to imperil the Bill; and as he recognized much that was good in the measure he was very unwilling to move its rejection on the second reading. Still, he was not without hope of getting some amendment in the Grand Committee, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said about the determination of the Government. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the advance he had made in this matter, which, he dared say, was the result of the communications he had alluded to with Sir George Jessel, because both the Bill and the speech they had just heard were far more liberal than he (Mr. Anderson) had been led to expect from the speech of two years ago. He thought some of the changes proposed were excellent. He did not know that, to a large extent, it would be possible for inventors to do without the patent agent; but it was, at least, a very considerable thing that applications might be made by post, and on a very small number of forms. The extension of provisional protection, he thought, was also an exceedingly good provision. It had long been asked for, and they were glad to see it. As regarded the obligation to licence, there was a good deal to be said on both sides of that question. It might be said that the capitalist would not be likely to buy an invention, or to assist a poor man in taking out a patent, if he were not afterwards to be allowed to do what he pleased with it. The other side said that when the public gave a monopoly it should not be an exclusive monopoly,

    363
    but one held with fair consideration towards the public, and therefore giving the public a reasonable use of it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one important case, and he could mention another, which was well known to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) —namely, the manufacture of alizarine, a licence for which the Germans refused to grant to this country, in order that they might keep the monopoly in their own hands. He said that, upon the whole, the balance of opinion was in favour of compulsory licences. There was one very great change in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman gave now, but which he had spoken against two years ago; and that was, taking away the management of the Office from the Law Officers. He (Mr. Anderson) had proposed at that time that it should be in the hands of three Commissioners.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had never defended the management of the Office by the Law Officers, because the Law Officers never had managed it.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, everything was appealed to them. They were the Commissioners under the Act. Whether the Law Officers managed or mismanaged the Office, the light hon. Gentleman now proposed not to adopt his suggestion that there should be three Commissioners, but to put it into the hands of one Controller. That was meeting them half-way. He himself thought the three Commissioners would be better, because he looked forward to three Commissioners sitting on an appeal against the decision of one; but he was quite ready to accept the Controller. As regarded the duration of 14 years, he was not at all satisfied with the absence of any extension. He thought an extension to 21 years would be a suitable thing. That there ought to be extension was conceded by the late Government, because by the Bill of 1879, introduced by Sir John Holker, and which the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to, it was proposed to extend the time to 21 years, and make a considerable reduction in the initial fees. But he would be quite ready to accept, as a compromise, an extension to 17 years, which was the period in force in America, and which had been proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) and by the Society of Arts. He should certainly endeavour to get the limit ex-
    364
    tended in the Grand Committee from 14 to 17 years. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt a good deal upon the facility of extension through the Privy Council. He (Mr. Anderson) thought it would be far better to give the power of extension either to the Controller, the Board of Trade, or the Law Officers, rather than perpetuate the present clumsy mode of appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That continuation he considered thoroughly bad; its characteristics were circumlocution and costs. Tie knew of a case where even a claim for extension, that was not opposed, cost £800. In America the Commissioners could extend; he would propose to give that power to the Board of Trade. As to what was said with respect to inquiries for novelty by the Examiners he did not altogether agree; but he would have opposed any such system as that of giving the Examiners the power of veto on the question of novelty. He was also opposed to the American system of endorsing on the patent any objections which the Examiners found. He thought the duty of Examiners ought to be to aid and assist the inventors by pointing out to them previous patents that might prejudice the patent, but without any power of veto. He objected to the provision in Clause 5, that an inventor must state his whole claim at the very first, instead of being allowed to correct it in the final specification. Another thing that would be objected to was public inspection of the final specification before the patent was granted, as that was to invite opposition. He now came to the principal part of the Bill—namely, the fees. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the payment of £50 in the third, or, as was now proposed, the fourth year of the invention, would kill off 70 per cent, or, in other words, a poor man was robbed of his invention if not able to perfect it within a period of four years. The same might be said of the payment of £100 after seven years, which killed off other 20 per cent; and why, he asked, should so many be killed off? The fact that only 10 per cent of the patents lived for half the time for which the patents were granted was a proof that the system was bad. Killing off at seven years was simply robbing inventors, and, even for the country, was a short-sighted policy. The charges were too high, and they were faced by this fact, which the

    365
    right hon. Gentleman could not get over in any way—that America granted for I £7 a patent for 17 years complete; and the Government were proposing, even now, to charge £154 for a patent for 14 years, which appeared to be extortionate. So far as the changes in fees went, they were extremely good, being on the initial stages, and would be an enormous boon to the inventor, whose patents were only to last a year or two; but they would be little boon to inventors who looked forward to their inventions lasting for more than four years, or which failed to be brought to a profitable use within that period. He quite admitted this question had hitherto been a matter of revenue, and, to a certain extent, it must be so considered still; but he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that if they paid the costs of the Office, that should be enough; but he could not follow the right hon. Gentleman's figures when he said that, by his proposed reduction from £175 to £154, the surplus of £163,000 would be brought down to only £2,000. He had tested the figures in every way he knew how, and could not make anything like that result out of them. It appeared to him that even if there was not a single patent added to the many applications under this Bill as it stood, there would be in the first year a surplus of £14,000, and in the second year of £70,000—that was supposing that the costs did not increase. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said the costs were to increase, and that, of course, would take something off; but not so much as the right hon. Gentleman said. The right hon. Gentleman said he estimated an increase to 9,000 applications, and increase of costs to £60,000; but when he came to test the right hon. Gentleman's figures he could make nothing of them, because in the first year it appeared to him there would be a surplus of £57,000, and in the second and subsequent years a surplus of £113,000. These figures, however, could not very easily be dealt with in the House, and must be left for the Grand Committee; and he should like to see the figures on which the right hon. Gentleman based his calculations before dealing with them. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the Board of Trade might reduce the fees with the consent of the Treasury; but he should like to see some guiding prin-
    366
    ciple stated in the Statute showing on what grounds they might in future ask for such reductions, otherwise he feared the Board of Trade would never be able to get the consent of the Treasury, because the Treasury was never very anxious to give up anything in the shape of Revenue. The only defence that was ever made for the high charges in England was made by the right hon. Gentleman two years ago, when he stated that the English patent covered as much as three or four American patents. Probably there was some truth in that under the old system; but by this proposal it was not so, because the 31st clause stipulated that the patent should not cover more than one invention, and therefore, in future, it might take several new patents to cover as much ground as one old one; and, if that were so, where was the reduction of fees? That was why the Government should adopt the same fees as were in force in America. Then, again, if there was any surplus from the fees, he thought it should not go into the Revenue, but should go to provide for the erection of the new Patent Office and Museum which the Bill proposed to give power to build. Then, with regard to the subsidiary fees, which were left entirely in the hands of the Board of Trade, he thought it would be well to have some stipulation that they should not be higher than at present, and the same observations applied to fees for trade marks and designs. But he would not now go further into that question, as he thought it would be better that the whole subject should be dealt with by the Grand Committee when the Bill was committed to them.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he regretted that the Bill did not go further than it did in the direction of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee which inquired into the subject of the Patent Laws, and of which he had the honour to be a Member. The President of the Board of Trade had expressed his regret that he had been unable to go further, and he had pointed out the difficulties which stood in the way of doing so. He (Mr. Gregory) fully admitted the difficulties of the case. But when monopolies were granted to individuals by the State it was bound to see that they were not needlessly extended, and were only granted under proper conditions. The Committee desired, as

    367
    far as they could, to limit the creation of these monopolies; hut, to his mind, the Bill failed somewhat in that direction. The only matter to be inquired into on the grant of a patent was to be whether the invention was a subject-matter for a patent. He did not know what was meant by that. It might be something, or it might be nothing. In his opinion, it was very desirable that, at all events, the Examiner, acting upon his own knowledge and experience, should point out to an applicant any deficiencies that occurred to him in the utility and novelty of such invention, and the patentee would then proceed with it at his peril. They had it upon the evidence of Mr. Justice Grove that the multiplicity of small patents that were of no general utility had been a serious impediment to scientific discovery and experiment. They wanted, as far as possible, to discourage frivolous patents and experiments which only wasted the time of men who would have been bettor employed in their legitimate business; but he feared that the Bill would rather tend to encourage them by giving a reduction of fees and an extension of time. He did not say that he objected altogether to this; but they ought, at the same time, to see that these facilities did not enable a man to waste his own time and injure the public. He felt that stringent provisions should be laid down by the Examiner or the Controller for the consideration and prevention of frivolous inventions and schemes, which in themselves were of no public utility. He did not think the Government could have gone any further than they had done in the way of reducing fees. They gave absolute protection for £4 for a period of four years; and he thought that period would be ample, in the great majority of cases, to decide the utility of the patent. With reference to the question of licences, which was a very important one, he hoped that would have very careful consideration, because he felt that when they were granting patents that was the time when they should make terms with the patentee, and compel him, on reasonable terms, to grant licences. That was a point which he hoped at the proper time would be closely considered.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that one remarkable feature in attempted Patent Law legislation was the extraordinary progress made in it by every Minister
    368
    year after year. Since the introduction by the Attorney General of the late Government of his first Bill on the subject there had been a definite progress in every measure; and, as far as he had followed the subject, that now before the House showed a marked advance on any which had preceded it. He much preferred the proposal of a Controller than a Board of Commissioners, as had been suggested in some quarters of the House. The part of the Bill which interested him most was that which dealt with charges on patents; and he must say that he would have been much more satisfied with the Bill if it had given 14 years' protection for £4 instead, of only four years. He did not think they should seek to make a profit out of the men who, by their genius, were increasing the wealth of the country ten-fold. Indeed, he was not sure that the granting of pensions of £2,000 a-year would not be very much better bestowed upon many of their inventors than in certain other directions. The reduction in cost proposed, however, would meet with general approval. He sincerely believed the proposal of the Bill to give opportunities to inventors to obtain patents without going through the Patent Office was an honest attempt to assist the working inventor. While he heartily supported the second reading, he reserved to himself the right to propose Amendments in Committee, especially with regard to the financial portion of the Bill.
    MR. JACKSONconsidered that some definition of the subject of a patent ought to have been inserted in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the number of foreign applications in this country was very much larger than in America. But the fact was that foreigners who were not the original inventors might obtain patents in this country; but in America it was absolutely necessary that the applicants should be the inventors. The proposal in the Bill that the applicant must be the first inventor was an improvement. In America the examination that was held resulted in the rejection of more than 30 per cent of the applications, and that was a conclusive proof that where there was a cheap system it was essential to have as complete an examination as possible. Another very important question was that of compul-

    369
    sory licences. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out two cases—those of the German hot-blast and of artificial colours—in both of which patents had been granted to foreigners; but licences were refused by them to have the patents worked in this country. It was quite right that power should be taken that the patents granted should be worked in this country. He did not think, however, that whore a man had made some small improvement he should have power to call upon the inventor to grant him a licence. He approved the proposed alteration of the law, by which in future the applicant for a patent would be required to make a declaration that he was the first inventor. With regard to the question of fees, he thought nothing could be more satisfactory than the fee for the first year; but when the Bill got into Committee he hoped it would be possible to get the fee for the second and third year reduced one-half at least. In America the amount received from fees was about £170,000 a-year, which left a profit on the working of the Office of £50,000 a-year. He thought, therefore, that the figures given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the probable working of the fees would be found to be inaccurate. He commended the Bill, on the whole, as a good one, and as likely to give great satisfaction throughout the country. But there were points of importance which would require modification before the measure could be entirely satisfactory.
    MR. B. SAMUELSONcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman, not only upon the very lucid exposition he had given, but upon the great improvement which the Bill would effect in the law. He said this with some degree of pride, because he had the honour of presiding over the Committee to which the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had alluded, and the recommendations of that Committee were in reality the substance of the Bill. The Committee were unanimous, except so far as those were concerned who were opposed to patents altogether; but that school was now defunct, and all acknowledged that there should be a Patent Law. He believed that the Bill would require amendment in the direction of giving early publicity to the claims of patentees. He did not think a system could be said
    370
    to be sound which enabled anyone who believed—or, perhaps, it should be said, who did not believe—that he had an invention, to go to the Patent Office and claim a monopoly. That was a point which would require careful examination in Committee. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had referred to the numerous improvements which were being made in regard to electric lighting. That matter now occupied many minds; and it was, therefore, of the utmost importance that each inventor should know as soon as possible what the others claimed. The recommendation of the Committee of 1871–2 had been adopted in the Bill in respect to the power of granting licences. The instances in which the absence of such a power had proved mischievous might be multiplied to a great extent. One of the most important provisions in the Bill related to the appointment of Assessors to assist the Judges. The present Lord Chancellor had declared that the expert witnesses who appeared in patent trials were absolutely the masters of the Court, the suitors, and the jury. A suitor would sometimes give au expert a retainer, in order that he might not appear as a witness against him; and there were even some witnesses of this class who would give an opinion precisely in accordance with the views of those who subpœned them. The appointment of skilled Assessors would, however, provide a check to these lamentable abuses. The Board of Trade reserved to itself the power to vary the form contained in the Schedule. That, he thought, should not be left to the discretion of the Board of Trade, but should be dealt with by legislation. It might be worth while to consider whether the period of 15 years, which was adopted in nearly all Continental countries, might not be adopted in this country also; but this was one of those matters of detail which, he thought, might be safely left for the consideration of the Committee. The main principles of the Bill were excellent. It appeared that the entire management of patents was to be in the hands of a Controller, and he supposed that this officer would be subject to the Board of Trade. He hoped that the power conferred on the Board of Trade would be actively exercised. He thought the greatest possible facility should be given to workmen to inspect patents in an Office which was at least as accessible

    371
    as the present one; therefore, he hoped whatever might be done with regard to models, that the Patent Office would not be transferred to South Kensington. He did not attach much importance to the exhibition of models in museums, for if a man could not understand drawing he would not understand models.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the approximation he had made towards satisfying the public demand for alterations in the Patent Law, so as to give greater facilities to working men by lowering the cost of patents. The right hon. Gentleman had made certain calculations of the effect which these changes would have on the Exchequer. The President of the Board of Trade had access to information on which to base his calculations which others not in his position could not command, and therefore, no doubt, his calculations were well founded; but he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) thought it ought now to be recognized that the unappropriated surplus in the hands of the Commissioners of Patents was not a surplus upon which the taxpayers had a right to come. The patent fees did not constitute a source to which they should look for an increase of the Consolidated Fund. He hoped that, whether by appropriating the surplus in the hands of the Commissioners or otherwise, they would see in future years another reduction of the charges for patents. Nothing would satisfy the working classes, as all his communications from them showed, but a reduction of the later as well as of the initial fees. It was said that the applications by foreigners for patents were fewer in America than in England. If in England the applications were more numerous, though the fees were higher, the reason must be that there was a better market for inventions, counteracting the deterrent effect of the higher fees. He noted with satisfaction that part of the Bill which dealt with trade marks, and also that the Bill made, so far as his present instructions went, a fairly satisfactory recognition of the claims of the Sheffield Cutlers' Company, and of the public services by which that distinguished Corporation had justified its ancient privileges.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYbelieved that the majority of the country was in favour
    372
    of the maintenance of the Patent Law?, though there were, no doubt, many persons whose opinions were entitled to respect who thought that a system of monopoly tended to check invention rather than to promote it, and that it was not the meritorious inventor who made the profits from an invention, but the fortunate person who bought it from the meritorious inventor. But there was a good deal more to be said upon the other side of the question than was supposed. He agreed that the general question as to the expediency of granting patents was not, at the present moment, a practical question; in the present state of opinion it was a question more fit for a debating society than for the House of Commons. But, assuming that Patent Laws ought to exist at all, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had, on the whole, taken a right view of those laws, though he differed as to the expediency of those parts of the Bill which ad received commendation from previous speakers. The principles of the Bill were, he thought, in the right direction, for they were the simplification of the procedure in obtaining patents, the diminution in the expense of obtaining them, and the providing greater security for, and giving greater validity to, patents when granted. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had taken a sound view in not directing an examination into the novelty of a proposal for which a patent was asked, for he thought it would be calculated to work a great deal of injustice, besides being illusory and impracticable. He did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman intended by his Bill to make the examination conclusive, but that the only object was to assist the parties to put their patents into a proper form. Another point upon which, he wished to say a few words was one in which he had had some experience, and that was as to the compulsory assistance of an Assessor, which he thought was unnecessary and mischievous. The Judge already had power to call in the assistance of experts; but he had never known a single case in which either party or the Judge himself desired to avail himself of such assistance. It had been said that the Judge and counsel were pretty much at the mercy of an expert witness; but, in his opinion, the allegation was altogether unfounded.

    373
    He believed, from conversations he had had with various gentlemen, that he knew the source from which that allegation had come, and he believed that Sir Frederick Bramwell had said something of that kind; but he thought, if he might say so, that Sir Frederick Bramwell a little overrated the influence he possessed; for if one side had export witnesses, the other side had them too. So far as his experience went, this proposal was the result of a fear and an apprehension which had no sufficient basis whatever, and the best proof of this was that the Judge had for a great number of years had the power of calling in expert assistants; and yet, as far as he knew, there had not been a single case in which that power had been exercised. As regarded trade marks, the present Bill appeared to him to consolidate the existing law on that subject, while, at the same time, it introduced some novelties about which he wished to make a few observations. It perpetuated the blot of the Act of 1874, which attempted to define what a trade mark was; but that measure was so framed that it was impossible to bring them within the meaning of the law. He wished, therefore, to see some words of a negative character introduced into the Bill which would enact that no person should be allowed to use a trade mark which did not come within the meaning of the Act. He was glad that cognate subjects of this kind were to be grouped together in one Act. He did not think that the patent fees now exacted were too high.
    MR. WILLSsaid, the Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had so fully and clearly explained to the House, was likely to have a very beneficial effect upon future grants of patents, and was also calculated to exercise considerable influence upon the trade and manufactures of the country, and its commercial arrangements generally. In the few remarks he purposed to address to the House, he desired to confine himself to that section of the Bill which had reference to trade marks. The interest of that part of the Bill was, of course, not so great as that of the clauses which related to patents; but it was a part of the Bill which in itself was very useful and important. By trade marks protection
    374
    was not only given to our manufactures at home, hut also, to a much larger extent, abroad, especially where the English language was not understood, because it afforded a guarantee to the public of the genuine character of the articles they desired to have. The present Bill repealed the short Act of 1875, and the still shorter one of 1876, and also the Rules which had been laid down under them; and it enacted the provisions of those Acts, with some additions and alterations. The present practice of the law was, undoubtedly, unsatisfactory; but there were several defects in the proposal now made by the right hon. Gentleman, and there was also a total omission to deal with some questions of very great importance. He believed the Bill did not go far enough in embodying what were called "decided cases." It did not give a definition of what was known as an open or common trade mark, which he believed to be a great omission in the Bill. Hitherto the Registrar had acted on the principle that where three persons had substantially the same mark for the same class of goods, that mark should be regarded as an open or common one, and could not be claimed by any one trader alone. That was a simple principle, and he (Mr. Wills) thought it might be adopted in the Bill, with certain limitations as to publicity in regard to user. Then the Bill did not go far enough in regard to statutory declarations; and he hoped that, as the Bill would in all probability go before the Standing Committee on Trade, &c, it would be thoroughly discussed and threshed out before that Committee, and that this question, as far as possible, would not be left to be dealt with by Rules of Court. Before last year the Rule was that these statutory declarations were required to be made by all the applicants for the registration of old marks. The new Rules preserved the statutory declaration in the case of transmittory marks; but he did not see why it should be required in that case more than in the case of the original applicant. He had a knowledge of several instances in which the statutory declaration had prevented application for marks that were colourable imitations of other marks; and it formed the only possible check against the registration of another man's trade mark, except that of

    375
    opposition. Many men who would have made an application if they had dared had been deterred by the fact that a statutory declaration was required. There was another class of registration, which the Bill did not profess to deal with, and that was representative registration. Many traders had a series of labels for their goods. For instance, a distiller had a series of labels, upon which the name of the particular article was loft in blank, so that the same label might be used for gin, rum, whisky, and other articles; but the design was the same for each article, the name of the article itself only being different. If traders were compelled, under the new Bill, to register each label separately, it would be a very costly process; and he might say that for a long time the Registrar only allowed one general registration, with a blank for the name of the goods. He now wanted a separate registration for each article. The question was a very important one, and he thought it ought to be definitely settled by the Bill, and that one general registration should cover each separate article of the series, and certificates be given accordingly. There was one point to which the right hon. Gentleman had very briefly alluded in his speech in moving the second reading of the Bill, and that was the definition of what were called "fancy words." He (Mr. Wills) had looked through the Bill carefully, and he failed to find any definition of "fancy words" as trade marks; and he thought that was a matter which ought to be carefully considered by the Standing-Committee. The last point to which he desired to draw the attention of the House was that he did not find in the Bill anything as to the extension of the system of registration either to the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man. He hoped, when the Bill got into Committee, a clause would be introduced extending the provisions of the measure to those localities. Altogether, with the exception of the few points to which he had drawn the attention of the House, he was of opinion that the Bill was likely to be a very useful one, and that it would work well for the commerce of the country.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKcongratulated his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) on the favourable reception the Bill had met with on both sides of the House. He
    376
    approved of the simplification of process, and the abolition of the necessity for personal attendance would be a great Boon to many persons resident in distant parts of the United Kingdom. The extension of the term of provisional protection from six to twelve months, and various other portions of the Bill, would also be advantageous. At the same time, other portions of the Bill were open to grave objections. In the first place, he scarcely thought that his right hon. Friend had formed an adequate idea of the very great importance of the Office of Controller of Patents. Considering the great number of patents, and the complexity of the questions raised, he confessed that he was doubtful whether one person would be sufficient to fulfil the duties of the Office satisfactorily. He concurred in the tribute paid by his right hon. Friend to the remarkable ability displayed by the late Master of the Rolls in dealing with patent cases. He had no doubt that Sir George Jessel's action in the matter had been eminently successful; but Sir George Jessel was a very exceptional man, and he believed, with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the proposal that there should be three Controllers, one of whom might be learned in the law, another well versed in chemistry, and a third in mechanics. He regretted that the Bill did not contain provisions to that effect; and, seeing that the Controller was to be a subordinate officer of the Board of Trade, he could not help fearing that it was not intended to appoint a person of sufficiently high standing. It seemed to him that they ought to have someone possessing a similar qualification to the Commissioners of Patents in the United States. It would be good economy, in the long run, to get the very best man for such an important work they could possibly find anywhere. Then, as to the question of examination, he did not wonder, seeing how much his right hon. Friend had had to do in the last few days, that he was not accurate in the statements he had made. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Society of Arts proposed in this Bill to have an examination for novelty; but that was a mistake; their Bill contained no such proposal. What was suggested was, that there should

    377
    be an examination with reference to subject-matter of patents; and that proposal was also contained in the Bill now submitted to the House by his right hon. Friend. But, as he (Sir John Lubbock) understood the measure, it was not proposed that there should be a final examination. He could not help thinking that, as far as the subject-matter was concerned, it might well be asked that the examination on that point should be final. Surely, it was somewhat inconsistent to take foes from poor persons for patents, and then afterwards tell them that they could not have a patent at all, not because their invention was not useful, but because it was not subject-matter for a patent. He thought that was - a question which ought to be decided in the first instance. Then, under Clause 11 of the Bill, any person might give notice of opposition to the grant of a patent. But the clause went on to say—
    "The Law Officer shall, if required, hear the applicant and any person so giving notice, and being in the opinion of the Law Officer, entitled to he heard in opposition to the grant, and shall determine whether the grant ought or ought not to he made."
    He wished to know from his right hon. Friend what was meant by a person being entitled to be heard, because the words did not seem to him to be very clear. The Bill provided that the opposition was to be on open documents. He could not help thinking that, in many cases, this opposition would inflict hardship upon the inventor. The opposition generally rested upon the assertion that the invention had already been made, or that it was in use by the person opposing the granting of the patent. Under the existing system, the determination of that point was comparatively easy; because it required the person opposing to show that he knew what the proposal of the patent really was. That was a matter which, under the present system, could be disposed of in a tolerably easy manner. He was afraid, however, that if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would be very difficult in future to get rid of opposition, because it would be a very simple and easy matter for any person to claim a previous discovery of the process for which the patent was claimed; and, in point of fact, the Bill would lead to lawsuits in a great many cases, and place
    378
    the inventors at great disadvantage. In point of fact, an inventor would find, in many cases, that when he took out a patent he took out a lawsuit also. It was further proposed in the Bill that a patent could only be taken out for one specific invention. As his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had pointed out, that very considerably diminished the boon conferred upon the inventor by the reduction of fees. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that there was some difference of opinion as to the exact meaning of Clause 31, whether it was proposed to allow more than one claim? If that were so, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not object to insert into the Bill the words "from time to time," which would make the matter perfectly clear. It would be very different if it was intended that there should be only one claim on the part of the patentee; and he trusted that, if that were so, the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter. The invention might consist partly of new machinery, partly of a rearrangement or new adaptation of old machinery, or it might be entirely new machinery. It would seem almost impossible for the inventor of a new and complicated piece of machinery to state, in a single sentence, what it was for which he claimed protection. Suppose, for instance, a person invented a new process and a new machine for making a new product, and He desired to take out a patent. It might turn out that the product was not new, yet the new process and the new machinery could constitute a good ground for a patent. Or neither the product nor the process might be new, and yet, if the machinery were so, the patent would be good. The Americans had a formula that the claim was "for the whole invention substantially as described;" but that would scarcely be permitted here. Again, it was proposed in the Bill that the claim should be made at once; but he (Sir John Lubbock) thought that would be hardly found practicable when they came to put it in operation. A man knew what he had invented, and could put it in a particular specification; but he might be quite ignorant as to what he could claim as his own. To determine this would require special knowledge and an intimate acquaintance with all patents that had gone before. It would be very hard to de-

    379
    prive him of the advantage of a valuable invention, because some small part, which he supposed to be new, had, in fact, been previously discovered. It was only fair and reasonable, when a man brought forward an invention, that he should have protection, and be allowed a certain amount of time in order to ascertain how far the invention was novel, and what he had realty a right to claim. To some extent, this difficulty was met by the power of disclaiming; but it would be better, however, somewhat to defer the presentation of the claim itself. He was not quite sure whether his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade intended to permit, as at present, more than one disclaimer. If so, it would be well to insert in Clause 18 the words— "From time to time." If not, this seemed a great mistake. Disclaimers were, practically, omissions. It was found, for instance, that some part of a patent was not new; and it was only reasonable, in that case, that the inventor should be allowed to omit it. Surety, it would be very hard to deprive him of what he had been the first to invent or discover; because, in some detail, which he had, so far as he was concerned, discovered, he turned out to have been anticipated. Take, for instance, the case of the telephone and phonograph. It was considered by Mr. Justice Fry that some points of the latter were not sufficiently described; and Mr. Edison was, therefore, allowed to disclaim them. It would have been very hard if he had lost his claim to the telephone; because, as regards the phonograph, his description was misunderstood. The Bill left the state of the law with reference to the Crown unaffected. The present system was, however, very unjust. As regarded the Naval and Military Services, indeed, they stood by themselves; but it seemed very hard that the Post Office, the Telegraph Service, and other Departments should be allowed to benefit by inventions, without rewarding the inventor. Such injustice must necessarily tend to check progress, and, in the long run, defeat its own object. In conclusion, he could only express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give the points to which he (Sir John Lubbock) had referred his favourable consideration. There were other parts of the Bill to which attention would, no
    380
    doubt, be called when they came to discuss the details of the measure in Committee; but, at that late hour of the night, and considering that other hon. Members were anxious to speak, he would content himself with thanking the House for the kindness with which it had listened to him, and with commending the remarks he had made to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he would also join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) on the Bill, which seemed to him (Mr. Ecroyd) to be a valuable contribution towards the settlement of what were, undoubtedly, very complicated and difficult questions. He thought they would all agree that the Patent Law, in past times, had acted satisfactorily, as far as concerned great inventors, who were able to defend their inventions; but, as regarded those ingenious workmen who were continually developing small improvements, he could not at all doubt that the law had tended rather to repress than to encourage invention. The question of expense was one which pressed most heavily on this class of inventors. He entirely approved of the concessions which Her Majesty's Government made in that respect; but he hoped they might be induced to take a still broader view of this great question, and rather to regard the importance of developing the inventive talent of the working classes, than the more narrow and immediate question of the saving of a few thousands a-year by the Treasury. In the next place, the small inventor had had before him the almost insuperable difficulty of defending his invention in a Court of Law against persons who were possessed of ample means, and who had had experience in litigation of that kind; and it was impossible that he could hope successfully to compete with them. He was disposed to fear that the provisions of the Bill now before the House would not be sufficient to secure the thorough sifting of new inventions for which patents were asked. It must be borne in mind that not only the public and the users of inventions wore harassed by the existence of a multiplicity of unreal patents, but the inventor of small means found this one of the most discouraging circumstances he had to face.

    381
    He had often been appealed to by workmen who had succeeded in hitting upon some meritorious invention, and who innocently imagined they would have no difficulty in establishing their claims; but he must confess that very few of these men had ever succeeded in reaping the reward that justly belonged to them. They had been discouraged at the outset by threats of litigation. They were further discouraged by the existence of numbers of patents, loosely drawn, and capable of being used to the hindrance of the development of their own inventions; and they feared that, if they once went into litigation, they might very easily dissipate their savings without securing that for which they contended. He hoped, therefore, that, in the future progress of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman might be able to give some more thorough means of sifting patents in the beginning; and he agreed in the opinions expressed by one or two hon. Members who had already addressed the House, that one Controller would by no means be sufficient to enable such questions to be satisfactorily disposed of. He trusted that the payments required to be made at the end of four years, and at a later period, would be reduced by at least one-half, although there might be some trifling loss thereby entailed upon the Exchequer. He would not, at that hour of the night, detain the House further, having regard to the fact that the Bill was to go before the Standing Committee on Trade.
    MR. CARBUTTsaid, he was afraid that, at that late hour of the night, it was rather too much to ask the House to listen to him; but he had had some experience of the Patent Question, and, having been a patentee himself, he desired to say a few words. He could not help congratulating his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade upon the measure he had introduced, and upon the great advance he had made in his ideas during the last two years. The right hon. Gentleman showed that he was ready and willing to accept the suggestions which had been made by persons outside. The right hon. Gentleman had seen several Gentlemen whom he (Mr. Carbutt) had requested him to see, and he had availed himself of the information he had received from them. Several Bills upon the subject of patents had been brought in within the last five
    382
    or six years. One was brought in by Lord Cairns, and two or three by the late Sir John Holker; and he (Mr. Car-butt) thought it would be a great honour to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade if he found, after the attempts at legislation which had taken place, that he was able to settle the question for some years to come. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the provisions of the Bill for simplifying the mode of procedure. He did not think that many people could avail themselves of the arrangement for sending patents through the Post Office; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had been rather too timid in regard to the reduction of fees. So far as the third payment was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman would have to reduce it very considerably, if he wished to meet the views of the general public. He (Mr. Carbutt) had had a great deal more to do with patents than probably the right hon. Gentleman had; and he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had been bold in this matter, and had taken the bull fairly by the horns, he would have increased the number of patents very much more than he imagined. He also believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had met the question boldly, he would have found that there would not be a very large falling-off in the Revenue. He had not been altogether able to follow the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, in 1884, he would only have £2,400 towards his expenses. He wished to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Financial Statement the other night, stated that he had a large sum at his disposal, of which he intended to appropriate £120,000.
    MR, CHAMBERLAINwished to remind the hon. Gentleman that, if the present Bill passed, it would only be three months in operation during the first financial year.
    MR. CARBUTTsaid, that what he wished to point out was, that the £120,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to dispose of might be utilized in cheapening patents, and he did not think the money could be better spent. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint a Controller; but he was sorry that the Controller was not to be made a suffi-

    383
    ciently important personage to do away with the Law Officers to the Crown. He entertained very great respect for those Officers; but, at the same time, he thought they had more work to perform than they could possibly get through, and it was most undesirable for them to be continually appealed to in the matter of patents. One clause which he looked upon as a great blot in the Bill was Clause 11. If that clause were allowed to remain in the measure, he believed the new Patent Law would work very badly indeed. No poor man could afford to fight a patent case, because he would have against him a combination of rich manufacturers, who would keep someone watching all patents; and whenever they saw anything calculated to interfere with their trade, as soon as the patent was deposited the invention would be opposed, and if nothing else would carry on the opposition money would. The result would be that, in many cases, the poor inventor would find himself unable to get his patent. The same difficulty existed in the law a few years ago, and people took their inventions to Germany, because the manufacturers hero were on the look-out to fight any new invention. In Germany, a man who deposited a patent was encouraged to go on with it; and, if he was without the money himself, other persons would provide the means for bringing the patent into the market. If this Bill passed with Clause 11 as it stood, he feared that it would make the measure perfectly inoperative by greatly reducing the number of applications for patents; because if a poor patentee was required to fight the question before a Court of Law, they might depend upon it he would never be able to carry out his invention. He was told that the object of the clause was to prevent litigation. Upon the question of litigation he had no means of obtaining information, except from the Paper on the Inspection of Patents read before the Society of Arts by Sir Frederick Bramwell. In that Paper it was stated that, out of a total of 5,000 actions tried in the Law Courts, only about eight were ever brought to an issue upon appeal. The number, therefore, was so inconsiderable, that it was not worth while to endanger the success of the Bill in order to obtain this object. He trusted, when the Bill went into Committee, that the
    384
    President of the Board of Trade would carefully consider the evil effect of this clause. His own opinion was that, if the clause were left in the Bill, the measure itself would be a total failure, and that, in three or four years' time, no patent would ever be taken out in this country. He should now like to say a word or two in support of the statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) in reference to the rights of the Crown. Under the provisions of the Bill, no patentee was to have a claim against the Crown. Now, at the present time, both the Army and Navy were constantly engaged in providing new machinery for the purposes of war, and he thought it would be bad policy to restrain inventions. "We were the richest nation in the world, and were quite as well able to pay as any private manufacturer. He, therefore, hoped that some clause would be inserted in the Bill allowing a patentee to have a claim against the Crown, or by means of which some arrangement might be carried out for the granting of licences. He thought it would be most unfair and unjust not to allow a claim against the Crown. At present, in granting a patent, a provision was generally laid down requiring the patentee to forego a part of his fees in such a case as the use of his patent by contractors who were supplying ships of war for the Government. The contractor was compelled to use the patent; and he did not think that compulsion should be exercised, pure and simple, without allowing the patentee the right of receiving payment for his invention. There was another matter to which he wished to call attention, and that was the objectionable character of the provisions in regard to the publication of provisional specifications. He believed that the publication of provisional specifications would prevent improvements from being carried out. An invention would never be brought to a successful issue; and, if it was not brought to a successful issue, they were only breaking the way for someone else; and unless the publication of provisional specifications was entirely prevented, they would very much hamper the manufacturer in his future transactions. He was glad to find that the hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of the publication of foreign patents. There

    385
    was another matter which had already been referred to by the hon. Member for the University of London—namely, the question of claims. He (Mr. Carbutt) agreed with the hon. Baronet, that it would be utterly impossible for an inventor to state, in the first instance, what it was that he claimed. He knew very well what his invention was; but it was impossible for him to state what it would do, and it would have a discouraging effect to require him to state his claim upon taking out a provisional specification. He thought they might well put away that provisional specification altogether, and enable a man to take out a patent at once, and pay for it at once. Having made these criticisms upon the provisions of the Bill, he was still prepared to admit that the measure, with all its defects, would effect several useful reforms.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he thought the Bill was a very satisfactory one, and he would also congratulate his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) both upon the measure and the very able speech he had made in moving the second reading. There were, however, connected with the Bill, one or two points which deserved the consideration of his right hon. Friend. He (Mr. Illingworth) thought the right hon. Gentleman met the inventors—who were comparatively poor men—very fairly in the initial stages of their inventions, by reducing the fees to be paid in the first four years to £4. On the other hand, he thought more forcible arguments against the serious reduction of fees in the later stages of a patent should be adduced than those which had been advanced in the course of the debate. He was of opinion that when four years had elapsed, and the value of the invention had been established, it was not a very great hardship upon the inventor to call upon him to consider whether he was willing to pay a further fee of £50, and ultimately of £100, for the purpose of securing protection. The public were greatly interested in the successful working of the measure now before the House, and nothing was more important, under the Patent Law, than that the registry should be cleared of worthless inventions within a reasonable period, or many inventions of no particular value whatever would remain upon the registry, in the hope that some subsequent
    386
    invention might render them of value. He thought it was unjust to the second inventor, that he should be hampered by the existence of a useless invention, which was simply hung up in the hope that the inventor might be able to make use of it in connection with some subsequent discovery. In regard to the extension of the patent beyond the period of 14 years, which had been advocated by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) and other hon. Members, he thought the period of 14 years was, on the whole, very satisfactory; and the reasons which had been given to the House were not sufficient to justify Parliament in extending the term beyond 14 years. When the information and knowledge of working men were far less than they were at present, they had to be contented with the period of 14 years. He wished, further, to point out one or two of the general advantages which would be derived from not having in this country a period quite as long as that which was provided in other countries; because, if patents in this country expired a year or two before they expired mother countries, it would give the manufacturers in this country an immense advantage in preparing for the start in open competition as against other countries which would be anxious to compete with them in the open market, owing to their being more free than other inventors would be abroad. He did not think the case with regard to the assistance of experts had been left by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) in a satisfactory position. There was such a thing as the Judge being sometimes at fault in giving judgment upon claims as to which only an expert could assist him in arriving at a decision. There was one other point he would refer to—namely, that relating to foreign patents which had expired. He would ask his right hon. Friend whether patents which had become void abroad, could be taken out anew in this country?
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, an inventor ought to learn, from the preliminary examination, whether he was proposing to patent an old invention. He remembered that when he had the honour of serving at the Admiralty, the same inventions used to be submitted over and over again; and of these, it

    387
    would be no exaggeration to say that the more useless they were, the more often they presented themselves. He objected to the practice by which, when once a patent had been granted, its use was— as in many cases it certainly was— denied to everyone else. It was an acknowledged fact, in the mechanical profession, that the same invention was produced by many persons about the same time. The obvious cause of that was that a large number of inventions grew out of the necessities of the times, and it should not be forgotten that, in granting a monopoly to one person, they thereby probably interfered with the improvements of other people. A case in point came before him a few days ago, of a gentleman in a large way of business, who informed him that he had succeeded in making certain improvements, and had setup machinery to carry it into operation at a cost of £3,000; he had, however, been served with a notice that his improvement was covered by another person's patent, under which he was refused a licence, and the consequences were that he was not allowed to use his own invention at all, the costly machinery which he had erected being thrown upon his hands, and remaining perfectly useless. He would like to see Clause 22 of the Bill carried a little further—namely, to the extent that no person should be allowed to obtain, under the Patent Law, the absolute monopoly of a patent to the exclusion of other people. He would suggest that every person obtaining a patent ought to be obliged to grant licences to any other person, the amount of royalty in case of dispute being decided by the authorities. It was said the Bill contained a novel provision, under which an inventor would not be able to claim for something which was not in the provisional specification. But lie would point out that this was the law at present, and, therefore, no substantial change was introduced by the Bill in that respect. The same might be said of that portion of the Bill which related to the patent only covering one invention; he did not think there was anything in the Bill to prevent any number of claims being put forward, which could be legitimately covered by a patent. As to the question of opposition, the Bill wrought an improvement, by reducing to one, the two hearings
    388
    before the Law Officers, that were now open to persons who opposed the granting of a patent. He hoped that in Committee, the Compulsory Licensing Clause would be so extended as to entitle every one, on proper payment, to practise any invention.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he hoped he should not be thought too pertinacious, if he ventured to bring before the House the question which, had been somewhat discussed before the dinner hour—namely, the extent to which the principle of the Bill might be involved in the Motion to refer it to a Standing Committee. If he might be allowed to do so, he would venture to press Mr. Speaker on this point for some ruling, or, at any rate, indication of his opinion as to what the procedure of the House ought to be in this matter. It was quite clear that, in reference to the Bankruptcy Bill, the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, and the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill, it was in the mind of the House before they were read a second time, that it was the intention of the House to refer them to the Standing Committees. That being so, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) understood that the discussion of those Bills, on the Motion to refer them to the Standing Committees, would have been a breach of the Rules of the House. But the House might have no knowledge beforehand— that was, before the second reading—of the intention of the Government to refer a Bill to a Standing Committee. In that case, it would be a great hardship on the minority to be precluded, by the ruling which Mr. Speaker had given that evening, and which would undoubtedly have great authority with the House in future, from discussing the principle of the Bill proposed to be referred to a Standing Committee, which Bill had not been proposed to be so referred before the second reading. He was not in the least supposing that the present Government would, in any way,

    389
    take advantage of the House in this matter; but it was impossible to foresee I what might be done by future Governments; and, therefore, it was of the highest importance that a Rule with regard to it should be laid down now. He would put a case to the Prime Minister. Supposing that Her Majesty's Government had proposed last year to refer the Prevention of Crime Bill to a Standing Committee, and the ruling referred to had been in force, it was perfectly obvious that it would have been in the highest degree intolerable to Irish Members to be prevented from discussing the principle of that Bill on the Motion to refer it to a Standing Committee, if they had no previous Notice that such Motion would be made. Therefore he asked whether it would not be convenient and regular that, whenever a Motion was made by the Promoter of a Bill that it be referred to a Standing Committee, unless Notice of that Motion were given before the Bill was read a second time, the principle of the Bill might be discussed on the Motion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee? In the absence of any declaration from the Chair upon this point, he certainly anticipated the greatest possible inconvenience in connection with Motions to refer Bills to the Standing Committees.
    MR. SPEAKER: Since the Standing Order relating to Standing Committees has been in operation, four Bills have been referred to the-Standing Committees. In each of those cases, Notice has been given by the Member in charge of the Bill, before the second reading, of his intention after the second reading to move that it be referred to a Standing Committee. It appears to me that that course is proper and convenient; and, if the House think fit, I will, so far as my influence goes, endeavour to see that it is carried out.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise, not only in deference to your authority, but because I think the demand of the noble Lord is perfectly fair and reasonable, to say that, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I will engage, without introducing fresh Rules on the subject, that Notice shall be given, before the second reading of any measure, of the intention to move that it be referred to a Standing Com-
    390
    mittee, in order that hon. Members may have a perfect knowledge of the course to be pursued.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it was regarded as a matter of course that the Prime Minister would at once assent to the very reasonable suggestion, that Notice of the intention to move that a Bill be referred to a Standing Committee should be given before the second reading. The present proposal was so reasonable that it had only to be stated to be accepted. He had no objection to refer this Bill to the Standing Committees, and he ventured to say that, as there had been no surprise, there was no objection to this being done in any part of the House; but he would like to reserve distinctly the point, as a Member of the House, that even after the Notice was given that a Bill was to be referred to a Standing Committee, such Notice did not of itself, being put down by a Member in charge of a Bill, give the right of carrying the Bill to a Standing Committee. It was competent for the House, on a Motion to refer a Bill to the Standing Committees, to indicate, without going unduly into the Bill, or discussing the principle upon which the Bill was founded, to indicate that there were objections to its being referred, and that having regard to the principle itself, and to the many important clauses in the Bill, the House was bound to keep them within its own cognizance, and not hand the consideration of them over to any other body whatever. It would otherwise be impossible to discuss the Motion. The Motion was made by the Minister in charge of the Bill, of course, with Notice, to refer it to a Standing Committee, and anything like a surprise or trick was out of the question; but, putting that aside, his point was, that the Minister in charge having moved that the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee, that was a Motion which those who objected to it should have the right to contest by substantial argument. The only way to do that was to point out that the Bill itself, its principles, and its clauses were of such a character that, without again disputing what the House had just affirmed on the second reading, the House must keep the principle and the clauses within its own dominion and not hand them over to anybody whatever. He (Mr. Gibson) thought it

    391
    essential to guard the rights of the House in this respect, and there were many hon. Members who felt exactly as he did.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he thought it undesirable, at that hour of the night, to open a debate upon Procedure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) seemed to be of a different opinion; but he (Mr. Dodson) could not agree? with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he hoped the House would not In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he wished to point out that it had been distinctly intimated from the Chair, and, as he believed, distinctly understood by the House, that exactly the same opportunity would be given for questioning whether the Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee on the Motion of the Member in charge to so refer it, as was now afforded for discussing a Motion that a Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought there was no analogy between the two cases referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he ventured to agree with what had been stated by several hon. Members earlier in the evening—that the analogy was an exceedingly good one. The discussion would proceed, subject to the ruling of the Chair, in the same manner as on a Motion of reference to a Select Committee. Moreover, in both cases, when the Bill was reported from the Committee, there would be an opportunity of fully discussing it on its consideration as amended, an opportunity which was no longer given in the case of a Bill reported from a Committee of the Whole House. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that there ought to be some power in the House to reserve some of the clauses. [Mr. GIBSON: No!] Then he had not correctly understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he wished to remind him of this—that, by what had fallen from the Prime Minister and from the Speaker, the House had received an assurance that Notice would always be given of an intention to move the reference of a Bill after its second reading, to a Standing Committee. Therefore, the House would debate the Bill on the second reading with a full knowledge of what was to follow.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he perfectly agreed that that was not a very convenient time to discuss Procedure; but the House was now at the beginning of a period when these experiments were being tried, and it was important that hon. Members should understand what they were about. He must point out that no Bill was over referred to a Select Committee, except by previous agreement on both sides. He thought the present stage of the Bill was a reasonable stage upon which to allow the consideration of what was a serious dispute on a question of propriety.
    MR. GORSTsaid, it appeared to him that, after the explanation of the Prime Minister, and the ruling from the Chair, the House had every reason to be satisfied with the present safeguards in regard to this matter. He understood that the practice observed in regard to all the four Bills referred to Standing Committees would be maintained, and that the House had every assurance they had a right to require, and that no injustice or inconvenience would arise because they would be able to discuss the principle of a Bill upon its second reading with the full knowledge that it was intended to propose to refer it to a Standing Committee. If there was any serious objection to so referring it, that narrow question could be discussed.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it would be within the recollection of the House that, during the Autumn Session, he had asked the Prime Minister to state what were the Bills which he intended to refer to the Standing Committees in order to try the new experiment. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned exactly those Bills which had been already referred to Grand Committees; so that, so far as this Session was concerned, the Prime Minister's statement would not be of practical use, because they had now got to the end of the list of Bills which he had pledged himself should alone be referred to Grand Committees. With regard to future Sessions, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade seemed to wish to silence discussion on important points; and he (Mr. Warton) felt that evening that one of the privileges of the House had somehow slipped a way—namely, the privilege of discussing a Bill on what was called the

    393
    principle. He did not much complain of any of the Bills being referred to Grand Committees, except, perhaps, one, of which he defied anyone to name the principle. That was the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill, through which there ran nothing that could be called the principle of the Bill. That Bill contained one provision which he (Mr. Warton) thought worthy of a long debate — namely, the provision under which a man could be called upon to defend himself upon examination. That might be right, or wrong; but, in future, the House must be on their guard, because they would know that even on a long Bill containing a great number of clauses, and with a novel procedure introduced, they would be powerless to discuss it.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that, like his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth), he also agreed that that was not a convenient moment for a discussion on Procedure; but he also thought it desirable, if they were to enter, as they seemed about to do, on this new plan of referring Bills to Standing Committees they should know exactly what that meant in the way of shortening the stages of Bills. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), in the analogy he drew between referring Bills to Select Committees and to Standing Committees, had fallen into this error—he treated the matter as if the House had the same opportunities, in the case of Standing Committees, as in the case of Select Committees. Surely, that was not so. When a Bill was referred to a Select Committee, it came down again and was referred to the Committee of the Whole House, and upon that being proposed any hon. Member could move that the House should go into Committee "that day six months." Therefore, the whole principle of the Bill could be discussed afresh on the Motion to go into Committee; but, as to Standing Committees, that opportunity was entirely lost. He did not say the House was not prepared to abandon that stage, but there was a distinct diminution of the stages of a a Bill in the case of its being referred to a Standing Committee. That seemed to him to be a proposition which was beyond dispute.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he believed it would be perfectly competent, when a Motion was made to refer a Bill to a Standing Committee, for any hon. Member to move that it be referred to such Committee "that day six months." He did not see that there was any difference between that and the case of referring a Bill to the Committee of the Whole House; but he wished to ask for the Speaker's ruling upon that point.
    MR. SPEAKER: That would not be a regular Parliamentary method, and such an Amendment could not be moved on the Motion to refer a Bill to a Standing Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures.

    PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT (1882) (AUDIENCE OF SOLICITORS) BILL.— [BILL 61.]
    (Mr. Findlater, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Givan.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Findlater.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, this Bill had already been before the House, and was simply intended to remedy an omission in the 19th section of the Prevention of Crime Act, in regard to the right of solicitors to practice before Investigators and other officials on the hearing of inquiries.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    Main 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 (Parties may be heard by their Solicitors), read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. Findlater.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Findlater) must see it most unreasonable to press at that hour of the night (1 O'clock). There was not a single Irish Member who understood the Bill present, and no explanation of its provisions had been made. Under the circumstances, he could not imagine that the Committee would legislate on a matter of such importance, and, therefore, he moved that progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question put "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 48: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 61.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, it was really too bad to force the Bill through at that time of the night. It was a Bill which ought to be well considered by Irish Members, and to admit of it he begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolf.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was in earnest. The Principle of the Bill was explained on the second reading, and no objection was to remedy an inconvenience arising from the provisions of the 19th section of the prevention of crime Act passed last year. That was the section of the Act which enabled inquiries to take place in cases of agrarian outrages, with a view to compensation being given to the victims or their representatives; and, at
    396
    the end of the clause, it was provided that the parties might be heard personally or by counsel. It was omitted to say "or by solicitor." The Committee would see that, in many districts, it would be impossible to get counsel, unless at very great expense. It was, therefore, necessary that the parties should be allowed to appear by solicitor, and this Bill was brought in with that object. There were only two clauses in the Bill, and he could not understand why a solicitor should not be allowed to plead as well as counsel.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was glad to receive the explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, because it only made him more determined in his opposition. The Bill was brought forward by an hon. Member who might be designated an Ulster Whig, and any Bill proceeding from that quarter of the House in which the hon. Member sat ought to be received with great hesitation. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said the Bill was intended to remedy a slight error in the prevention of crime Act passed last year, or, in other words, to allow solicitors to practise before the Courts of Inquiry in cases of applications for Compensation for agrarian outrages. There were no more grave or difficult inquiries carried on in Ireland, and none which more required practised legal advice, than the inquiries in question. To allow any local attorney in Armagh, or any other town in Ireland—
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he begged the noble Lord's pardon. Armagh was a city.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, continuing, said, that the cases brought before the Courts of Inquiry were of such a nature that any pettifogging solicitor ought not to be allowed to practise before them. He objected to the Bill on general grounds. It was well known that the hon. and learned Attorney General had, for some time, allowed solicitors to carry off all the practice of the Bar. It was becoming one of the most crying grievances of the juniors of the Bar, with whom, he believed, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not sympathize, that solicitors were monopolizing and carrying off their practice. He hoped the Com-

    397
    mittee would not allow the Bill to proceed at that disgracefully late hour of the night.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had told the House that the Bill was one which ought to be passed. If it was a Bill which ought to be passed, why did he not bring it in himself? It appeared to him (Mr. R. N. Fowler) that the Bill was of such a character that it ought to have been brought in by the Attorney General or by the Attorney General for Ireland, and not by a private Member; and, on that ground, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) should support the Motion proposed by his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff).
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, it was a strange thing that, when the Prevention of Crimes Act wanted patching up, its authors intrusted the job to a private Member.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. D. Sullivan). It was remarkable that the Government should not have taken the responsibility of the Bill upon themselves, but should shunt it on some composite Gentlemen behind them. It appeared to him that if great measures, such as the Prevention of Crime Act, were to be altered, they should be altered on the responsibility of the Government. Why did not the hon. and learned Attorney General bring for ward the Bill? Because, no doubt, he did not thing it worth while.
    MR. HENEAGErose to Order, and asked whether it was competent for the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) to speak twice on the same Motion?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he considered the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was quite in Order.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, it would be wise for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage) to reflect before he interrupted again. The Bill might be insignificant in itself, but, by it, it was sought to amend an important Act passed last year, after a long and acrimonious discussion; and, therefore, it ought to be introduced upon the responsibility of the Government. He must persist in the Motion he had made, and he trusted the Committee would assist him in demanding that the Bill should be taken at an earlier hour of the night,
    398
    or not until it was actually patronized or espoused by the Government.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    The Committee proceeded to a Division, and, the Question being put the second time—
    THE CHAIRMANstated that he thought the Noes had it, and his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to rise in their places.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I rise to Order? ["No, no!"] It cannot be done, except on the Motion for adjournment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have called on the hon. Members who challenge my decision to rise in their places.
    Seven Members only having risen, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clause agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    CROWN LANDS BILL.
    Order for Committee read, and discharged:—
    Ordered, That the Bill he referred to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to he nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee he referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
    Ordered, That the Committee have leave to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL [PAYMENT OF COSTS].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any costs of prosecution or defence which may he incurred under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for establishing a Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases.
    Resolution to he reported To-morrow,

  MOTIONS.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.— RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Five Members of this House to he appointed to serve on the joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Channel Tunnel he nominated by the Committee of Selection."— (Mr. Chamberlain.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he should like the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) to give the House some explanation of the change which had taken place in his mind on this subject. The selection of Members to serve on Committees of this kind was usually made by the House, and he should like to know why it was now proposed that it should be made by the Committee of Selection? The policy of the Government throughout in regard to this Channel Tunnel question had been most curious.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had not the slightest objection to gratify the curiosity of the noble Lord. He had proposed that the Committee should be selected by the House; but, on communication with the Representatives of the Opposition, he found that they were not prepared to nominate their proportion from the Conservative side of the House, and, of course, a selection to which the Opposition were not parties would be one-sided. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) had then suggested that it would be right to leave the nomination of the Committee to the Committee of Selection, and the Government, not considering the point a very important one, had deferred to the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Is it possible to move an Amendment to this Motion?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is perfectly competent for the hon. Baronet to do so.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Then I would move that no military man be put on the Committee, and I would give as my reason for that, that a Committee I of military authorities have already reported on the matter. We have the opinion of military men.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet cannot move an Instruction to the Committee of Selection without Notice.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Shall I have another opportunity of moving this Instruction?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet will be precluded from making the Motion if the House should see fit to pass the Resolution to-night.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Five Members of this House to be appointed to serve on the joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Channel Tunnel be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

    DRAINAGE (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. TREVELYAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 144.]
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.