Sitting of 28 July 1871

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Fees of Conquest, &c. Abolition (Scotland)* [260]; Local Government Board* [230].
Withdrawn—Municipal Corporations Acts (Ireland) Amendment [210].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—CANDIDATES FOR COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for War, When it was decided at the War Office that the Candidates for Commissions should not be permitted to put their names down for Commissions after the age of fourteen; whether it is true that only one month's notice was given of this change, and whether an advertisement informing the public of this change was inserted in "The Times" newspaper
392
only; whether he considers this notice sufficient in the case of an alteration so interesting and so important to many families; and, what is the earliest age at which the name of a Candidate for a Commission may be put down?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, it was decided on the 27th of May, 1870, in consequence of the large number of candidates already on the list, and the consequent lapse of time which must ensue before any new candidate could receive commissions, that no such candidates should be entered after the age of 14. I am informed that on the 2nd of June notice was sent by the Military Secretary for publication to The Times, Army and Navy Gazette, Telegraph, Standard, Globe, and Morning Post. The object of the limit and of the notice was to prevent disappointment to intending candidates and their families. No limit has been prescribed for the earliest age at which a name can be put down. The notice was to take effect from July 1.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is prepared to announce the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the abolition of Corporal Punishment in the Navy?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, since the abolition of corporal punishment in the Army the attention of the Admiralty has been anxiously directed to the question of flogging in the Navy. The practice has already been brought within very narrow limits, and, on a review of the whole circumstances, I am now prepared to state the extent to which we intend to abolish flogging in the Navy. Corporal punishment has been abolished in the Army in time of peace. It has been retained in time of war. It has been abandoned where other punishments are possible. It has been retained when, in time of war, or on the march, or on board ship, other punishments are practically impossible. We propose to follow the same principle as regards the Navy. We propose to abolish corporal punishment everywhere and on all occasions except in the single case of mutiny, where the offender can, within a reasonable period, probably within seven days, be sent to a suitable prison. We propose

  393
  to abolish corporal punishment altogether for all offences which do not require prompt and immediate punishment, not being contagious in their character, and to limit it to the fewest possible offences. These offences will be mutiny, using or offering violence to his superior officer, and desertion of post under aggravated circumstances; in fact, offences which may imperil the safety of the ship on the high seas. I should add that, except in the case of mutiny, men in the first class will, as at present, continue exempt. The main outline of our plan is contained in the following Memorandum, which I will read:—
  "1. No petty officer, or seaman, or marine in the first class belonging to one of Her Majesty's ships, shall be liable to corporal punishment except for mutiny. 2. No seaman or marine, in the second class belonging to one of Her Majesty's ships shall be liable to corporal punishment in time of peace, except for one of the following offences:—Muting, using or offering violence to a superior officer, desertion of post under aggravated circumstances. 3. A Court Martial shall not in time of peace award corporal punishment for any offence except mutiny, if in their opinion the offender can be sent within a reasonable time to a sufficient prison under a sentence of imprisonment. 4. A commanding officer shall not in time of peace summarily award corporal punishment for any offence except mutiny, if within seven days the offender can be brought before an authority competent to order a Court Martial, or can be sent to a sufficient prison under a summary sentence of imprisonment."
  I should add that most of these changes can be carried out by the Admiralty without legislation. As regards Courts Martials, however, they have no power to prevent them from imposing corporal punishment under the provisions of the statute; but the Admiralty will recommend the course which I have indicated. Special regulations will be necessary for a time of war. In conclusion, I may say that we have great confidence that the higher education of our seamen, and the general condition of the Navy, will enable us to make these changes without detriment to the efficiency of our Fleets and with much advantage to the popularity of the service.
  SIR JOHN HAYobserved that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated what changes were made with regard to boys in training ships and boys at sea.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that these regulations did not refer to boys.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that as it required a little time to consider the effect of these regulations, he should, reserving for
  394
  future consideration the question of the total abolition of corporal punishment, refrain during the present Session from persevering with the Motion he had given notice of respecting flogging in the Navy.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—DEATH OF A CLERK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOLMSasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to certain Statements which are said to have been made at an inquest lately held at the Castle Tavern, Holloway, as to the death of a clerk in the Telegraph Department, and whether those statements are true?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, the statements in the extracts referred to by my hon. Friend give a very incorrect view of the case. The young man to whom they refer had been in the Telegraph Street office since the transfer in February, 1870. Up to January of last year he had appeared to be in good health, and had made no complaint whatever of illness or of excessive work. In January of this year he was attacked with smallpox, and was absent from duty for six weeks, and he does not appear ever to have completely recovered his strength after that attack, as on subsequent occasions he had been absent from duty through illness. Prior to his illness of January he had been on night duty, the night staff in Telegraph Street consisting exclusively of male clerks. When he returned to duty after the attack of smallpox he resumed night duty, but in the middle of June last, on his own application, he was placed on day duty. His proper spell of night duty was on one day a spell from 8 P.M. to 9 A.M., and on the following day a spell of from 8 P.M. to 11 P.M. Thus he had 16 hours of duty in every 48 hours, with an interval of 11 hours between one of the duties and 21 hours between the other. Once in six weeks he had to come on duty on Sunday at 9 A.M., and on these occasions he remained in the office (but of course not on duty all the time) until 9 A.M. on Monday morning, but he was free on all other Sundays. The whole of the Sunday duty was counted to him as overtime, and he might at any time have relieved himself of it by paying to a substitute the amount which he received from the Department for it. This, however, he

  395
  never seemed to have attempted, but, on the contrary, he occasionally acted as a substitute for other clerks, and was paid by them for the extra work. On this point, however, further inquiries are being made. He need not, unless he had pleased, have done more than the 16 tours duty out of 48 hours on week days. Overtime attendance is not compulsory, and no clerk is required to give it who does not wish to give it. As I have stated, he was taken off night duty at his own request in the middle of June, and he had no more than eight hours day duty from that time until the time of his death. It is not true that on the Saturday before he died he was refused permission to go home. On the contrary, having come on duty at noon on that day, he requested permission to go home between 2 and 3 o'clock, and was actually released from duty, and did go home immediately after 4 o'clock. So far from refusing him, the female clerk in charge under whom he worked took especial pains to find a substitute for him, and eventually put herself to much personal inconvenience in order to let him go. There is not the slightest foundation for the imputation that the Post Office in its dealings with this unfortunate young man, or with the other telegraph clerks, has been actuated by parsimony. I am informed that the medical officer at Telegraph Street saw Whittaker on the 12th of July, and did not consider him to be in ill-health. He appears to have died very suddenly from the bursting of a small bloodvessel, although I see no reason to suppose that his state of health was due to overwork. I think it wrong that even voluntarily boys should be allowed to work so long as on some occasions it appears he did, and I will give directions to prevent it.

NAVY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had on a previous occasion stated that the Navy Estimates would be taken on the first occasion of going into Supply. He was, therefore, surprised to find by the Notice Paper that the Navy Estimates were not to be the first business in Supply. It was desirable for the orderly conduct of business that the Government should adhere to the engagements they entered into. He
396
wished to know when the Navy Estimates would be taken?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that what he had stated was the Navy Estimates would be the first taken in Committee of Supply, unless circumstances over which the Government had no control arose; and as the Education Department had no money, the Education Estimate must of necessity be the first taken.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 12 (Admission to polling station) agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Decision of returning officer as to validity of votes).
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, in his opinion, it was difficult to see what was the necessity for this clause.
  On the Motion of Mr. GOLDNEY, Amendment made in page 12, line 4, after the word "paper," by inserting the words—
  "And shall make out a statement of the number of ballot papers declared by him to be void or invalid, and not counted by him; and give public notice of such number at the same time that he gives public notice of the total number of votes given for each candidate."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Publication of names of electors who have voted).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to move the insertion of words to the effect that a list of the voters at each election shall be placed on the church and chapel doors in each district. The clause left the mode of publication to be determined by the Secretary of State.
  MR. W. R. FORSTERsaid, he objected to the Amendment, which introduced a novel practice. He thought it was better not to carry the result of the elections to churches and chapels.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to ask in what manner the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) proposed to make the publication. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not think the Amendment a novel principle. The idea was to ex-

  397
  hibit the list wherever it could be best subject to inspection, and the doors of churches and chapels were selected because they were the places most easily accessible. If the right hon. Gentleman did not accept the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), he should say where the proclamations were to be made.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would support the Amendment. The objection to it could not be on the ground of expense, as an election occurred once in every six years or so. He thought the list of the persons voting should be published wherever the registration lists were published. There could be no better means of preventing personation than the knowledge that the names of the persons voting would be publicly posted up.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must hold that there was no analogy between the notices at present posted at church doors and the list of persons voting, and he deprecated publishing the list on church and chapel doors.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthen moved the Amendment in altered form, to the effect that such portion of the list of persons voting as related to any district should be posted on the doors of any registered place of worship.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that the question really for the Committee to consider was, whether there should be an authorized list published, or whether the publication of a list should be left to the parties themselves.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he did not want the publication to be left to an electioneering agent, or electioneering club. The cost of publishing such a list should not be left to be defrayed by some wretched club, and he wanted the electors to be entirely independent of such clubs. If churches and chapels were objected to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), the list could be posted at the market cross; at any rate there should be some place where the electors could see it.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to point out that in whatever manner the list was published, any elector would have the right to inspect it for the purpose of seeing whether it contained his name.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he should support the Amendment. What was wanted was that the list should be published on some public place where the poor man who had only a few hours a day to spare might have an opportunity of seeing whether he had been personated, and who were the parties who had voted. He would remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Collins) that there were very few market crosses now in England, and, little palatable as church doors might be to some, they were probably the best alternative that was left.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he would recommend that the Amendment should not be pressed. What might be good in one place might be bad in another. A combination of boroughs would require a different form of publication from a large borough, and it was impossible to lay down any inflexible rule such as the Amendment proposed.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he should be quite content with sufficient publication. What was wanted was a fixed place, no matter where, and a real publication.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would suggest that the clause should be made to read—if the Amendment was rejected—that in the event of the Secretary of State not prescribing the time and place of publication, the returning officer should not refuse to allow the list to be inspected.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had an Amendment bearing on this subject on Clause 17. In all the regulations connected with this Bill a very wide discretion was left to some authority, and according to the precedent established by the House that authority ought not to be connected with the House, and should not be a political officer. That the House had decided in a most emphatic manner, by transferring to the Judges the whole jurisdiction in Election Petitions. It appeared to him that it would be better to put into the hands of the authority who was to judge of the proper or improper use of the franchise, the regulations which should become necessary by the operations of this Bill. Either the decision of Parliament was right in having removed from the jurisdiction of this House the whole conduct of Election Petitions, or it was wrong. Assuming it to be right, it was perfectly clear that where regulations were needed under Act of Parliament in order to

  399
  avoid abuses which would become subject of Petition, it would be infinitely preferable to interpose, in the first instance, the jurisdiction of that authority which Parliament had selected to supersede this House and every political officer connected with it. Because one great misfortune flowing from this Bill was this—that it would give the widest scope to suspicion, and he could not conceive any suspicion more disagreeable than that arising from the Secretary of of State, who was one of the leaders of a political party, being compelled to make regulations for an election in which his party and himself had a deep and immediate interest. Parliament had decided to relieve their House from all imputation of unfairness in the jurisdiction connected with seats in the House, and this was why he had introduced an Amendment on Clause 17. He wished to ask whether, in the present state of the discussion, it was competent for him to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member could not competently do so at the present stage of the proceedings.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not wish to press the question, but he felt there should be some place where the list should be published.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that as the Amendment was withdrawn, he would propose an Amendment which would essentially meet all that was wanted. He proposed to omit the words in line 18, "open to public inspection," and to substitute the words "shall be posted in some public place within each polling district." This phraseology would govern both boroughs and counties.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, line 18, after the word "inspection," to insert the words "and a transcript of so much of the same as relates to each polling district shall be posted in some public place in each polling district,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would be guided by the sense of the Committee with regard to the Amendment, but he preferred the clause as it stood.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that it would be wise to adhere to the clause in its present shape, as the words "some public place" were vague.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought it was a waste of time to go on discussing matters which had nothing to do with the Ballot, the only thing the country expected they were discussing. This Bill entirely failed to realize the idea of the Ballot as foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He (Mr. Whalley) denied that this was a Ballot Bill at all.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must call the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to Order. The Question was whether the Amendment before the House should be adopted, and the observations of the hon. Member had no connection whatever with that Question.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPErose, and having been called upon by the Chairman, said that he would withdraw his Amendment, and substitute for it "and the transcript thereof shall be posted in some public place in each polling district."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the Chairman had called him to Order, and he having sat down in obedience to the Chairman's authority, but intending to continue his observations in proper form, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) was called upon to address the Committee. He (Mr. Whalley) asked whether, upon reflection, the Chairman considered that that was a proper course of proceeding?
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he was of opinion that the Amendment would not effect the object sought—
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he rose to Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had asked a Question, and the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) should not have interfered to prevent an answer being given.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I was engaged with another hon. Member as to the terms of an Amendment to be proposed, and I did not hear the Question of the hon. Member for Peterborough.
  MR. GOLDSMIDwas about to continue his observations, when—
  MR. CANDLISHagain rose to Order, and said that the hon. Member for Peterborough, having addressed a Question to the Chairman, had sat down, waiting for an answer. He wished to know whether that hon. Member was not in possession of the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: According to the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) the hon. Member for Peterborough had resumed his place when I called upon the hon. Member for Rochester.
  MR. CANDLISH: He had resumed his seat to await your answer, Mr. Chairman.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had to submit that the Amendment did not provide any machinery for making the copies which were to be posted. He believed that the words in the clause were the best, and should be retained.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he must again inquire whether it was within the competence of the Chairman under the plea of calling an hon. Member to Order to prevent his continuing his observations, provided that he kept within the rules of Order. He wished to advert to what he had heard said by a Member of the Treasury bench—that the reason why the Chairman did not answer his question was that it was not worth an answer. He submitted that it was not becoming in a Member of the Ministry to throw out such an observation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member for Peterborough to Order because he was making observations that were not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee, and the hon. Member having thereupon stopped, I called upon the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. With regard to the observation that is said to have been made by some Member of the Treasury bench, I did not hear it, and I do not know that any such observation was publicly made. Of course the hon. Member is at liberty to address the Committee subject to the condition that he will obey the rule of confining himself to the question before it.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought the discussion which they had been carrying on was really a frivolous one. He wished to refer to observations which he had made on a former occasion, and which in substance he would repeat — that nineteen-twentieths of this Bill had really nothing to do with the Ballot.
  MR. JAMESrose to Order. The question before the Committee was as to the publication of certain notices; and the observations of the hon. Member had nothing to do with it.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that without troubling the Chairman for his opinion he would refer to the objection of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. James). He had been 19 years in that House, and he did not consider it consistent with his self-respect or his duty to his constituents that he should sit silent and see a delusion practised upon the country, and this with such an unconscionable waste of time as must bring discredit upon the House of Commons. There were very lengthy discussions upon details when neither the principle nor the details were in accordance with the promises of the First Minister of the Crown.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to modify his Amendment by saying that—
  "A transcript of so much of the same as relates to each polling district shall be placed upon some public place in each polling district."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he preferred to adhere to the clause as it stood, which provided for everything.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would suggest that the lists should be placed for inspection in the vestry hall.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that he should prefer to take the opinion of the Committee upon the matter.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 39; Noes 118: Majority 79.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would propose in line 19, of Clause 15, to leave out "a Secretary of State" and to substitute for these words "the judges appointed under the statute 21 & 22 Vic., c. 125, for the trial of Election Petitions." The measure for the establishment of secret voting was one, he thought, well calculated to create suspicion of foul play or a political bias in the conduct of the officers, from the highest to the lowest, appointed to carry out its provisions. It therefore behoved the Committee to do everything possible to remove or mitigate that feeling. Now, it must be admitted that the Secretary of State was a political officer, and necessarily connected with the conduct of the political party he represented. It seemed to him that his Amendment, if adopted, would commend the Bill to the judgment and satisfaction of the country, inasmuch

  403
  as it provided that the regulations in respect to elections should be intrusted to some officer who could not be suspected of party bias in respect to the conduct of elections. He did not, however, believe that his Amendment would cure the radical defects of the Bill, but he thought that the promoters of the measure would be acting wisely by adopting his proposal—a proposal that was in complete accordance with the course adopted in respect to the trial of Election Petitions. It might be said that the acceptance of his Amendment would have the effect of burdening the Judges with a task which they had not assented to, and that they would not be always present to frame the rules or regulations in question. Now, he was not aware that the Judges had expressed their unwillingness to undertake this new duty, and though the Judges in the case of Election Petitions acted only as they stood upon the rota, the power for the trial of those Petitions was vested not in a single Judge but in the Judges generally. It could not be said then that the subject of those rules and regulations was wholly unfamiliar to them. It should be also remembered that there were always some of the Judges present. He contended that the duties under this clause would most probably be more efficiently discharged by the Judges than by a Secretary of State.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he trusted that the Committee would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) because it would be introducing a novel arrangement into our legislation—namely, that of adding administrative functions to the judicial business of our legal dignitaries. He questioned very much whether it would be in the interests of justice to impose such duties as those referred to upon our Judges. The hon. Gentleman had remarked that he had not been informed of their unwillingness to discharge this duty, but in all probability they had had no opportunity of consulting together and stating their opinions on the subject.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) that in regard to the Registration Act it was provided that the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas should from time to time make rules for the regulation of the registration. It appeared to him that that was a prece-
  404
  dent very much in point. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was one of those who had objected to transferring the jurisdiction of the House over Election Petitions to the Election Judges, but as the House had been of a different opinion on this point, he approved the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, because it would merely impose upon the Election Judges duties analogous to those which they now had to perform. The Judges, he might remark, were fully qualified to do the work.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the question was not whether the Judges were competent to do the work, but whether the making of regulations respecting the inspection of the registers was congruous to their present duties. In all probability the President of the College of Physicians was perfectly competent to draw up such regulations, but it by no means followed that Parliament ought to select him for the purpose. The duties were purely local and administrative, and he thought the Secretary of State might well be intrusted with them. It was really a comfort and consolation to him (Mr. Beresford Hope) to be able to say something in favour of the Bill. He certainly thought that the proposal of the Government was a reasonable one, and that it would not be prudent to assent to the Amendment of of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he desired further to call attention to the fact that the learned Judges had the appointment of the revising barristers, who had to discharge duties connected with the qualification of voters. If, however, hon. Members desired more time for the consideration of his proposal, he would withdraw it for the present, and would make it again on the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. GORDONsaid, considering that there were at present 6,500 polling-places, and that they were likely to be multiplied ten times under this Bill, he thought the clause would cast upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department a burden almost too great for any individual to bear. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman could not give his personal attention to all the local arrangements under this clause. In his opinion the regulations ought to be made by some official in each locality, the

  405
  right of appeal to the Home Office or to a Judge being reserved to anyone who felt dissatisfied with the arrangements.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, and propose it again on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he wished to draw attention to an ambiguity in the wording of the clause, which said that any portion of the register might be copied on payment of such fees as were prescribed by the Secretary of State. This would seem to imply that it would not be the business of the official in charge of the register to make copies for persons who required them. In order to raise the question he would beg to move in line 20, to omit the word "and."
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment to obviate this difficulty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would undertake to insert words for the purpose of removing the ambiguity complained of.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed in line 21, after "fees" to insert "for copies furnished,"—(Mr. Goldney.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT (for Mr. CORRANCE)moved, in page 12, line 20, after "State" to insert—
  "And a poll book containing the names of such voters shall be published at a period of not less than six months after, upon the requisition of any of the candidates at such an Election, or of the persons signing their names to the nomination paper."
  The information would be of great value in the working of the Act.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must object to the Amendment, which was an entirely new proposition. Under the clause opportunities for obtaining information were given to all persons interested.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he considered no benefit would be derived from printing the names of the voters in one large volume.
  MR. MELLYasked at whose cost it was to be done—the ratepayers, the candidates, or the defeated candidates.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the lists were now printed before the election,
  406
  and he could see no objection to the printing in the same manner, and by the same authority, the names of those who voted at an election.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, any person could, without the Amendment, publish such a list if he thought fit.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, hon. Gentlemen appeared to forget that this was a Bill for regulating Municipal as well as Parliamentary Elections. If the Amendment were agreed to it would be necessary to publish, at very short intervals and at great cost, a volume in some boroughs and counties as large as The London Directory, and when done it would be worth no more than waste paper.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid he intended that the Amendment should only have reference to Parliamentary Elections.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Powers of Secretary of State to make rules).
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the clause authorized the Secretary of State to make rules for the construction of polling-places and the compartments therein "with a view to secure secrecy." He could not understand what was the object of inserting the latter words, and he would therefore beg in page 13, line 14, to omit the words "with a view to ensure secrecy.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not insist on the retention of the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he rose to move an Amendment in page 13, after line 23, to insert the following sub-section:—
  "4a. For enabling masters and officers in the Mercantile Marine, holding certificates of competency, and pilots holding the licence of any licensing authority, and whose names may be on the registration list, and who may be compelled to go to sea between the nomination and the opening of the poll, to vote by means of ballot papers."
  There were exceptional reasons for the exceptional treatment of the claim of persons to whom the Amendment referred. They numbered between 60,000 and 70,000, and unless some such provision as he had moved were adopted they would be virtually disfranchised. The effect of the clause, unless enlarged as he desired, would be to stop the coasting trade for at least one day, because it would be impos-

  407
  sible to provide suitable substitutes to discharge the duties which devolved upon these men, as none but licensed officers or pilots could be employed, and the number so licensed was regulated by the ordinary laws of supply and demand. He should like to see this experiment tried in the first instance with officers holding certificates of competency, but if it answered there was no reason why the system of voting papers should not be extended to all other classes of seamen and especially men engaged in the deep-sea fisheries. He had not drawn up a clause on the subject, as he was perfectly content to leave it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to draw up the necessary regulations.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 13, line 23, after the word "place," to insert the following words:—
  "4a. For enabling masters and officers in the Mercantile Marine, holding certificates of competency, and pilots holding the licence of any licensing authority, and whose names may be on the registration list, and who may be compelled to go to sea between the nomination and the opening of the poll, to vote by means of ballot papers."—(Mr. Graves.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) was, in fact, reviving the question of voting papers, which the Committee, after a long debate had resolved not to adopt. His hon. Friend would not be surprised to learn that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not accept the Amendment. He would not deny that the case brought forward by the hon. Member was a strong argument in favour of voting papers; but the Committee, with all those exceptional cases before them, had come to the conclusion that the public disadvantages of voting papers were greater than their advantages. The hon. Member must perceive that it would be hardly possible to make an exceptional rule in favour of the class for whom he pleaded. If they were permitted to vote without personally attending at the polling-place, medical men and the members of other professions might justly claim the same privilege. Even if the Committee wished to allow marine officers holding certificates of competency to be exempted from attendance at the poll, the power of making the necessary regulations ought not to be vested in the Secretary of State, who would thus be rendered
  408
  liable to charges of partizanship and unfairness. He however thought the proposal enlarged the scope of the existing law. Railway guards were placed under electoral disadvantages as great as those which attached to a seafaring life, and it was only fair, if provision were made to meet the exigencies of the one class, a similar provision should apply to the other as well.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the inherent difficulty was that these men were obliged to vote on one particular day, without that latitude that was given in University elections. As the representative of a maritime borough (Boston) he had seen the great hardship inflicted on the seafaring population by the present state of the law. A fisherman must either forfeit a week's wages or lose his vote. If he remained on shore to vote his friends by some means would have to make it good. It would be a great boon to the maritime population to make a law in accordance with the Amendment which had been proposed, and if the clause were sanctioned he thought it ought to be extended to common sailors; but as there were other classes of the community placed in similar circumstances he did not think the question ought to be dealt with by an incidental Amendment like the one before the House, and therefore he thought it would be as well not to push the proposal to a division.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, as representing a maritime constituency—[Mr. CANDLISH: Oh, oh!] He did not know why the hon. Member should say "Oh, oh!" except that it was the only kind of argument he was permitted by the occupants of the Treasury bench to use. As representing a maritime constituency, he hoped the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) would be adopted by the Committee. He remembered one case in which a number of seafaring voters were blown out to sea in a sailing vessel on the morning of a polling day, and the political party to which they belonged had to charter a steamer in order to fetch them back again to vote.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) inadequate, but would vote for it on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. If the Amendment were passed he should move to in-

  409
  sert words which would extend its operations to persons other than seafaring men, who were prevented by exceptional circumstances from being present at the poll.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he thought the seafaring population deserved to be relieved from their present electoral difficulties.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he hoped the Government would favourably consider this proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves). They should remember that for a long time—more than 40 years—the tendency of all our legislation on this subject had been to reduce the period during which a vote could be given. On the whole, there was no doubt very good reasons for our first efforts in that direction; but within the last few years the time secured to the elector for the recording of his vote by the Bill of Lord Grey, had been reduced to one day, a reduction which amounted to the disfranchisement of considerable classes of the community. Now that the constituencies had been enlarged this grievance was proportionately increased, and it always had appeared to him to be absolutely necessary, whether ballot were adopted or not, that some arrangement should be made by which certain classes of electors — seafaring men and others similarly situated — might be enabled to exercise the franchise without being personally present at the polling-place. Otherwise, this concession of the franchise would become a mere mockery. Considering that this was an insular country, with a very large maritime population, and that we were peculiarly dependent upon the virtues and character of that class of the community, he must say that to give them the franchise under circumstances in which they could not exercise it, was to create a state of affairs amounting to a great public grievance, and a source of national danger. Therefore, he thought the proposition of his hon. Friend was one well worthy of consideration. Nor did he think, whatever might be the decision of the Committee, that this was a subject which could really be neglected. He could not, with the Vice President of the Council, see a similarity between the case of sailors and railway employés in regard to this question. The one class were frequently compelled to go to sea between the nomination day
  410
  and the day of polling, while the other class were always on land, and had the greatest facilities afforded to them by the railway companies to give their votes. For these reasons he hoped the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool would be adopted.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought it a little suprising that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), if he thought the point so important, did not think of it in 1867 when he was passing his Reform Bill through the House.
  MR. DISRAELI: I proposed voting papers in the Bill of 1867.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had quite forgotten the fact; but he did not think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was a very vital one. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman abandoned it.
  MR. DISRAELI: I divided the House upon it.
  MR. CANDLISH: At any rate, the number of persons entitled to vote who were prevented doing so by having to go to sea was very small as compared with the whole number of those whose voting power was crippled by exceptional circumstances, and if personal voting was dispensed with in the case of seamen, it ought to be dispensed with altogether. Why ought commercial travellers, for instance, to be excluded from the advantage now proposed to be conceded to the seafaring class? He did not think the proposal was at all necessary; and, as far as he was concerned, he did not, as the representative of an important maritime constituency, ask for the concession to be made. He believed he served his constituents best by refusing the offer. But if the proposal were adopted, why should it not be made to include the men as well as the masters and officers, the former being much more numerous?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was undoubtedly one of great importance; but he thought the Committee would come to the conclusion that, as the question was altogether new to the Bill, it would be better to adhere to the one day of voting. He did not say the question was not worthy of consideration, but it involved conditions perfectly new to the Bill, and was one of great difficulty. He agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) that this Amendment could not

  411
  be taken by itself. There would really be no consistency in it. The only mode in which the matter could be considered was on making a provision by which any person who might satisfy some official that his calling took him from home should be allowed to vote, not at the regular time, but at some other time between the day of nomination and the day of election. Such a provision would involve an important change, the principle of which should not be adopted by means of the Amendment of the hon. Member. He believed that the opinion of the country would be in favour of one day's poll and of personal voting, and his hon. Friend would see that the Government could not in consistency accept the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) would go to a division and secure to a deserving class the means of exercising the suffrage.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he admitted that the principle was a new one, and that it could not be limited to a particular class; but he thought it was not a new principle in the Legislature. He saw no reason why some indulgence should not be extended to electors engaged in a seafaring life.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it should be borne in mind that this particular class were debarred by law from recording their vote, because a seaman, absenting himself for the purpose when the ship had to leave port, would be guilty of desertion. The law was so set in motion as to prevent such persons from exercising the franchise. For that reason he should support his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves).
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he was surprised that hon. Members could not see the distinction between voters whose avocations took them to sea and others who were employed on land. He maintained that there was no analogy between employés on a railway and seafaring people, since the former possessed the advantage over the latter of being able to provide substitutes while they went to the polling-booth. From his connection with one of the principal railways in the kingdom, he knew that the greatest possible facilities were given to railway officials to record their votes. The subject was of such moment that he should again take it up if no one else would.
  MR. WARD JACKSONsaid, he objected to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) to confine the operation of his proposal to those seamen who were above the rank of ordinary sailors. Officers and men ought all to be included, as all suffered under an equal disability. There were various modes by which the ballot paper might be delivered in the absence of a seaman who had a vote to give. One method he would suggest was to empower the collector of Customs, at the port from which the ship sailed, to receive the signed ballot paper, and give it up on the day of election. A pilot had no option, but was bound to attend a foreign-going ship. Why should he lose his vote for doing so? The collector of Customs was aware of this necessity, and he therefore would be the best person with whom to deposit the voting paper. He denied that the case of seamen, the incidents of whose lives were so exceptional, and who were dependent upon and obliged to watch tides, the action of which no man could control, was in any sense within the rules applicable to working men on shore. Their interests required to be protected just as much as those of any other persons, and those interests would be ignored if they were not allowed to vote as suggested.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 95; Noes 149: Majority 54.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In accordance with the arrangement come to late last night, or rather early this morning, I now propose to report Progress, with the intention of proceeding with Clause 18 on Monday evening. I think I may be allowed to say that the rapid progress made to day has justified me in the idea which I yesterday entertained that we might have proceeded with all the clauses of the Bill, and that if the same rate of progress had been observed complete discussion might have been secured upon each. However, the arrangement was entered into for the convenience of the Committee, and though we may regret the loss of two hours — [An Hon. MEMBER: An hour and a-half.] An hour and three-quarters. ["No, no!"] Well, even an hour and a-half is a very precious commodity at this time, I the

  413
  less regret the delay, however, as I shall have to ask the House to take the Education Vote some time in the course of the day.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
MR. DISRAELI: Her Majesty's Government having entered into an agreement with the House that the first Committee of Supply should be taken on the Navy Estimates, I cannot refrain from saying that I am much surprised at the Order of Business which is now proposed to be followed.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, was not in the House when the statement was made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to a Question addressed to him, that it would be necessary to lay before the House the Education Vote, and that great inconvenience would result if this course were not adopted at once, inasmuch as Monday next is the very last day for taking the Vote. My right hon. Friend accompanied his statement as to the time when the Navy Estimates would probably be taken with a hope that no unforeseen circumstances would arise. This certainly is an unforeseen circumstance, because we were not aware then that the last day for taking the Vote would arrive so soon.
MR. DISRAELI: That is an apology, not an explanation; and apologies only account for that which they do not alter.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the course now proposed to be taken was only a corollary of the extraordinary condition into which Public Business had fallen. So far as he had been able to make certain, there never had been a period, from the year 1834 onwards, when Public Business had fallen into such a state of inextricable confusion, and the incapacity of the leaders on the Ministerial side of the House was such as to call for the reprobation of the country. He hoped that every Member of the House when he visited his constituents would take an early opportunity of stating plainly the real manner in which Public Business in the House was conducted. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would, of
414
course, endeavour to justify themselves, but if they only told the truth to their constituents they would find this a most uphill task.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the First Lord of the Admiralty had twice assured the House that, saving unforeseen contingencies, the Navy Estimates should be taken that evening. Now, it appeared that the reason they were not taken was because the Government had not a shilling left to carry on the Civil Service of the country, so far at least as the Education Estimates were concerned. The House had already voted on account of Navy Estimates a sum of £3,900,000, but there were upwards of £6,000,000 still to be voted; and he was informed that at the present moment contracts were being entered into and dockyard works carried on out of money voted exclusively for the pay of the men and the victualling of the Fleet. The First Minister of the Crown must long ago have convinced himself of the inaccuracy of the statements made by him in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), for he (Sir John Hay) ventured to say that on no previous occasion had the national expenditure been so conducted that for five months of the financial year only two Votes were taken for the Navy and only 16 Votes for the Army. A distinct pledge had been given by the First Lord of the Admiralty that the Navy Estimates would be taken that day. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, the statement made was that "as far as the Government could at present see the Navy Estimates would be taken the first time that the House went into Committee of Supply." Now the excuse made was that the Government could not see so far into the future as to anticipate that they would be short of money for the Civil Service Estimates. This confusion and contradiction, and application of money voted for one purpose to a purpose totally distinct, was only too characteristic of the fashion in which the Government was carried on at present.
MR. GLADSTONE: The question of the conduct of the Government with regard to the Navy Estimates is a very fair question for discussion. I do not doubt that; but I doubt whether it is a convenient subject for discussion on the present occasion. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay) is perfectly justified in challenging the Government as to the nature

415
of the pledge which he thinks they gave; but he is entirely mistaken as to the nature of that pledge. For, first, he recited it without any qualification; but when he came to repeat the words of my right hon. Friend it appeared that these contained a most important qualification. We knew perfectly well when making the statement that they were not masters of the situation with regard to certain Votes under the present Audit and Exchequer Act, and that there might come at any moment a notice to the proper Department that for some particular Vote it would be necessary almost immediately to obtain the sanction of Parliament. Consequently, in speaking of the Army Estimates, we carefully limited ourselves to saying, "as far as we were then informed." The information at that moment in our possession was to the effect that it was not likely that any vote of the Civil Service Estimates would require us to come to the House for money at an early period. It is since then that the intimation has been made to us that by the close of this month it will be necessary to obtain money for the purpose of feeding the Education Vote, and also, I believe, the South Kensington Vote; and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will see that the Government have acted in precise conformity with the declaration which they themselves have made. I may add that the Government, had circumstances permitted, were willing to give the hon. Gentleman opposite an opportunity of bringing on one of his Motions relating to the Admiralty last Tuesday night. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not going on then; but that was an indication of the views of the Government. I trust that the House will reserve that subject for discussion till the pledge of the Government becomes really applicable—for applicable it will become, as far as we can see, when these two Votes of the Civil Service have been taken—and that the hon. Gentleman, with a view of enabling us to reach the Navy Estimates as quickly as possible, will enable us now to dispose of these Votes without delay.
MR. CORRYsaid, the impression which had been created in the House generally was that the Navy Estimates would have precedence of all other Votes in Supply, and that impression rested not merely on the statements of the First Lord
416
of the Admiralty, but upon expressions which the right hon. Gentleman himself had used in reply to Questions put to him. [Mr. GLADSTONE: The words—what were the words?] He did not speak of words, but of the impression which they produced. He protested in the strongest manner against the postponement of the Navy Estimates to so late a period of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman, in one of his recent communications to the House, seemed to be of opinion that there was a precedent for the delay. But the information which the right hon. Gentleman had obtained at the Admiralty was entirely erroneous, as he himself (Mr. Corry) had ascertained by a search of the Journals, that there was no instance on record of any original Vote being taken so late as August, with the single exception of the year 1848, when the Navy Estimates were referred to a Select Committee on Naval Expenditure, and their consideration was deferred by consent until after it had reported. The manner in which the Navy was being treated had caused much dissatisfaction in the service, and he was not surprised at it. One-third of the financial year had passed; money was being daily expended without Parliamentary sanction in an altogether unconstitutional manner, and he strongly urged the Government to fix as early a day as possible for the discussion of the important questions arising out of the Navy Estimates.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £1,103,402, to complete the sum for Public Education in Great Britain.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not know whether the Committee expected him to make a long speech. There was no reason why the fullest details should not be given, but as all matters connected with Public Education were in a transitional state, it was difficult to draw any useful comparison between this and past years, and equally difficult to compare this year with the probable results of any future year. He would therefore, without further preface, briefly explain the cause of the increase upon last year's grant. That increase, no doubt, was very considerable, but not more

417
than hon. Members would probably anticipate—namely, £543,681; the total Vote being £1,458,402. The increase was partly occasioned by the change from the old to a national system of education, and partly by the exceptional expenses of carrying into execution the Act of 1870, but it was chiefly owing to a permanent increase in the number of schools and scholars. The salaries for the London staff, the number of examiners and clerks on which had been added to on account of the enormous increase of business in the Department consequent upon putting the Elementary Education Act in force, were estimated at £32,420, an increase of £8,063 on the grant for 1870. There was also a charge of £5,000 on account of copying clerks, instead of £400 last year, owing to the number of Returns that had been called for. He hoped that increase of charge would not last long. There was a large increase on account of inspection and travelling expenses, owing to the increase in the duties of the inspectors; and, independently of the Act, these duties had been considerably augmented in consequence of the number of new schools applying for inspection. In Scotland they had last year asked for a Vote of £86,000, but it had been found that the sum requisite had been considerably underrated, for, though the Scotch Education Bill had not been passed, Scotland had shared in the educational activity of the year, and the number of fresh schools and of additional scholars was above the average. Instead of £86,000 it was found that £94,000 would have to be spent during the financial year, and the Estimate of last year having been deficient by £8,000, they proposed to ask for £106,000, an increase of £20,000. He did not believe that would be any too much. The chief item of increase, however, in the whole Vote was to be found in the grants to English schools. The day schools and evening schools, it was thought, would this year earn £355,000 more than they did last year, partly because of the increased grant claimable under the Act of last year, and partly because of the larger number of scholars under instruction. The day scholars would, it was thought, increase from 1,196,257 to 1,500,000, and the evening scholars from 79,857 to 91,924. He should explain that 1,500,000 was the
418
estimate made at the beginning of the year, and the experience of the earlier months had borne it out. It was based on the presumption that the attendance would increase 20 per cent instead of 8 per cent as heretofore, and although it was not probable the estimate would be exceeded, it would most likely be reached. The sum paid per head was estimated at 12 s. 6d. instead of the 9s. 10 d. of last year. He now came to the building grants, where they asked for £80,000 as against £35,000, an increase that represented the probable erection of about 450 additional schools. Out of about 3,000 applications sent in for building grants before the end of last year, 1,958 had been approved, 187 had been rejected, and 71 withdrawn; but it should be understood that all those that had been approved would not necessarily come into the Estimates. Of course no money would be paid till the building was completed, so that the majority of the grants would fall on future years, and a difficulty might happen in obtaining the four-fifths of the amount which had to be raised by the promoters of the schools before the Department contributed its one-fifth. If that expectation should be fulfilled, it would not be an occasion for rejoicing, however, because it was a great thing that schools should be built, of which only one-fifth of the cost fell upon the State. The awards since the 1st of January had numbered 418, and involved an expenditure of £75,206, so that the average amount of each award had been about £180. Upon that basis between £500,000 and £600,000 would be ultimately required for the whole of the building grants; but he did not expect that anything like half that amount would be called for in the course of the next year. The estimate for training schools had increased from £87,000 to £107,000, and the Committee would be glad to learn that there had been a steady increase in the number of scholars. In 1869 the number was 2,286; in 1870, 2,600; in 1871, 2,933. The girls' training schools were quite full, and the boys' nearly so. The estimate for "organization" was £70,000—no doubt a large item—but he could assure the Committee that the utmost care and economy had been exercised in preparing it. The organization could not, of course, be begun until the Returns from all the local authorities

419
had been made and recorded. These Returns had been called for from all the boroughs, and nearly 15,000 parishes, in England and Wales last August and September, and, with a few exceptions, they were sent in with a promptitude for which he desired officially to express his thanks. The few, however, who had not made the Returns at the close of the year, the appointed time, had delayed the arrangement of the districts which was still further prevented by the fact that denominational inspection was not abolished till the 1st of May. By the 1st of May they were in a position to send Inspectors though out all England. They had divided England into 64 districts; in each of them there was a permanent Inspector and an Inspector's assistant, and a temporary Inspector of Returns. These gentlemen had been and were now engaged in parcelling out the country into school districts, and in finding out where there was any educational deficiency. He was glad of that opportunity of thanking those gentlemen for the able manner in which they were discharging that task, and that the Department was receiving their Reports quite as rapidly as could have been hoped. Out of the nine districts in London the Inspectors' Reports in three were completed, and they were near completion in the others. He was pleased to be able to say that almost all the large towns in the country had anticipated the Act, by forming themselves into school boards, and they had thus most materially assisted the Department. In many of them the inquiry into the state of the education in the towns had been carried on by these boards, and most excellent and curtailed Reports had in many instances, been sent into the Department, which were now in the hands of the Inspectors for verification. He might mention that he believed the two towns which would have the honour of first receiving the full requisition for supplying the deficiency were Gateshead—for 9,000 children—and Stockton. In five other cases, where there was reason to believe that there would be a considerable deficiency, although all the details had not yet been received, the Department had considered it right to sanction at once the commencement of school buildings. These were Birmingham, for 5,000 children; London, for 20 schools; educational energy and activity through-
420
and Portsmouth, for three schools; and in cases where there was no doubt further school accommodation was needed that sanction had been given. Sanction would be given to an application from the Liverpool Board as soon as it had stated the amount of accommodation it proposed to supply; and it was believed similar applications would come from other boards shortly. The Committee would be interested to know that out of 220 boroughs, having a population in 1861 of 5,511,653, 96, with a population of 4,379,487, had formed school boards. That, added to London, which numbered more than 3,000,000, formed a very large portion of the town population now under the operation of the Act. In addition to this, there were 188 civil parishes, parishes and towns without Corporations, representing a population of 896,257, where school boards had been formed, and he was happy to say that the number of those boards was constantly increasing. Applications for boards were daily being made; he had that very day signed 24 more orders for the purpose, embracing a population of 271,223. This brought the population under the Act to 8,111,971 out of the 20,000,000 by the Census of 1861. It was only fair to add that in the country parishes also, where school boards had not been formed, great educational activity prevailed. These formed the whole of the statistics he could lay before the Committee respecting the working of the last year. It had been usual, in making the statement in this Vote, to institute a comparative view of the number of attendances of the children, and their degrees of proficiency, as shown by the examinations; but in the present instance he should not attempt to do any such thing, because in consequence of the passing of the Act, and of the alteration in the code in the middle of the year, any such comparative view would be fallacious; but he might state to the Committee that the increase in the points he had mentioned was above the average—a fact highly satisfactory in itself—but not such, as to make them in the least degree regret the passing last year of a national measure of education. He believed that the experience of the past few months might lead them to look forward hopefully to the future. Quite independently of the compulsory powers of the Act, it had occasioned a general

421
out the country—a determination that we should no longer lie under the scandal of being so uneducated a people as we had been. This was evidenced in the many applications for new schools and in the increased attendance in the existing ones, even though compulsion had not been enforced. Several of the large towns were grappling with the problem in a very able manner, and he believed that in Liverpool and some other of the principal towns compulsion was enforced. He hoped that London would soon follow the example. Moreover, the idea had gone forth all over England that the State intended henceforth to interfere, and to make it rather awkward for the parents of children who were uneducated; and that feeling was beginning to make itself felt. He knew, of course, that a great deal would remain to be done in carrying out the provisions of the Act; but, from what school managers told him, he believed that within a year or two, and perhaps before the end of next year, they would see an enormous majority of the children of the really working classes going to school. There would then be the exceptional cases to be dealt with—the outcast children, and those whose parents were not workers; and in such cases the compulsory clauses of the Act would have to be relied upon. The first thing he considered was to get the children to attend school at all; next, to attend it regularly; and, thirdly, to give them the best education they could receive during the time they were there. He did not think that a great increase of cost to the country was implied in these propositions. The principle they had laid down—that half the fees were to be paid by the State—ought, he considered, to be maintained, and they would find that as more educational activity prevailed the extent of useful knowledge brought within the range of the children would be proportionately increased, and they would be taught geography and history as well as reading, writing, and arithmetic. He hoped a result would be arrived at which would show that the working of the Act had been beneficial, and that the whole population of the kingdom would receive that sound and reasonable teaching which would render them good and useful citizens.
MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Vice Presi-
422
dent of the Council to the Reports of the Inspectors of training schools. The recent alteration which had been made by the Department was not a good one. The Report of a Church of England Inspector said that all the reading of a certain school he visited in Battersea was of a mechanical character that had no reference whatever to intellectual training. In this respect normal schools required great attention. The same Inspector said that at half-past 10 in the morning the boys were all running about the playground, and appeared to remain there during the rest of the morning. The Report of an Inspector who visited the Borough Schools showed that it was a mere waste of money to send out some of the students to be teachers of others. Would it not be better to abstain from paying for these training schools unless there were more efficient results? The present Vote was wanted no doubt; but he was sorry that, being driven into a corner, the Committee could not thoroughly discuss it. All he could do, therefore, was to call his right hon. Friend's attention to the subject of the training schools, which were the keystone of the country's education.
MR. M'LARENexpressed his opinion that the Minister, so far from asking for too much for Scotland, had not asked for its fair proportion. He expressed his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for having admitted that Scotland had shared in the educational activity which had followed throughout England the passing of the Education Bill of last year; but that activity would probably have been greater in Scotland if the fair share of the educational grant had been allotted to her. In order to prove this, he would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the proportions in which this grant was allotted to the three different portions of the United Kingdom. Of the total grant, he found £1,400,000 allotted to England and Wales, £400,000 to Ireland, and only £106,000 to Scotland. Now, surely that was out of all proportion to the amount of revenue contributed to the Imperial Exchequer by Ireland and Scotland. Scotland contributed one-ninth part of the whole revenue, so that, taking the total grant at £1,800,000 only, she ought, on all principles of fairness and equality, to get at least £200,000, instead of £106,000. But the

423
matter was much worse when they came to look at Ireland, and to see the proportion she received. Ireland contributed one-sixth to the Imperial revenue, in return for which she received as her share of the educational grant £400,000, which was as much above her legitimate proportion as the amount allotted to Scotland was below it. He was quite aware that in Scotland the departmental expenses were charged to the Imperial Government, but that did not make a difference of £94,000. Nobody could deny that the progress of education in Scotland had been remarkable, and therefore, judging by results, the money had been well earned. The object of the provision was to extend education, therefore they might reasonably expect that education would be considerably further extended in that country if she had had her fair share of the grant. As it appeared to him, Parliament would neither give to Scotland the grant in the same proportion as it gave it to Ireland, nor would it, through the instrumentality of the Home Secretary, allow it to spend its own money in its own way and for its own purposes; for although about two years ago Parliament, to save expense, passed an Act providing for the issue of Provisional Orders for the purpose of enabling towns to provide for the maintenance of health and cleanliness, yet it would not allow those Provisional Orders to be extended to the promotion of education. He could not allow these Estimates to pass the House without entering his protest against the gross injustice which was being done to Scotland. There was a general feeling arising there that there was a great deal of unfairness in the manner in which that country was being treated, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman that the feeling was increasing, would increase, and probably would bear fruits that would a little surprise him one of these days.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £176,179, to complete the sum for the Department of Science and Art.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again this day.
It being now Twenty-five minutes past Six of the clock, House suspended its sitting.
House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

IRELAND—CASE OF CONSTABLES M'CARTHY AND MADDEN.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he rose to move for Copies of the Evidence taken before a Public Court of Inquiry held at Glin, in the county of Limerick, by certain Constabulary officers into charges affecting constable M'Kinly and sub-constable M'Carthy; of the Report of the said officers, and of the Order dismissing from the service said sub-constable M'Oarthy and sub-constable Madden. And, in the event of the said Return being refused, to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the dismissal of the said sub-constable M'Carthy, and the confiscation or discontinuance of his pension after nineteen years' service was arbitrary, unjust, and cruel."
  The facts of the case were simply these—sub-constables M'Carthy and Madden had been in the constabulary service in Ireland, but were dismissed the service under the following circumstances:—M'Carthy had been 19 years in the service, and in 1868, whilst stationed in the county Clare, he got into bad health, and was sent by his inspector, with an excellent character, to Dublin for medical inspection. He there entered Stevens's Hospital, where he was pronounced by two eminent medical men to be labouring under heart disease. He was thereupon recommended for a provisional pension, not having completed his 20 years' service, when he would have been fully entitled to a pension. He returned to Clare in 1869, and was soon afterwards sent to Glin, on the Shannon, in Limerick, that place being near the sea. In March, 1870, he was ordered not to be employed on active duty. It appeared that upon a certain day he was sitting in the barrack kitchen, reading his Prayer Book, in company with sub-

  425
  constables Madden and Perrin. Constable M'Kinly, a Scotchman, having entered the kitchen and looked over the shoulder of M'Carthy, observed to him that he was praying to saints. M'Carthy denied it. After some interchange of words between the two sub-constables, Madden, who was listening, observed to M'Kinly, that if he looked into his own Book of Common Prayer he would find that prayers to saints were recommended. The result was a bet of 5s. between M'Kinly and Madden, the former asserting that there was nothing of the kind to be found in the book. Whereupon the book itself was produced, and it was found that it contained a prayer for the intercession of saints. Madden then demanded his 5s., but M'Kinly refused to pay, denying that he had made any bet at all. These facts having come to the knowledge of the sub-inspector he reported the matter to head-quarters. A Court of Inquiry was thereupon held upon M'Carthy and Madden, and the result was that an Order was issued by the authorities in Dublin by which they were both dismissed the service. He (Mr. Synan) submitted that that was a most unjust and arbitrary proceeding, wholly unwarranted by the evidence adduced at the Court of Inquiry. He on-treated the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in considering the case of these men, not to allow himself to be influenced by the prejudices of the local constabulary authorities. In conclusion, he begged to move for the Papers mentioned in his Notice. It was the duty of the House to see justice done to the lowest and meanest of Her Majesty's subjects. M'Carthy had no appeal for justice except to that House, and unless it interfered he was helpless and without remedy. The poor man was on his way to the workhouse with his wife and family.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING, in seconding the Motion, said, he must warn the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) that great dissatisfaction prevailed amongst the Irish constabulary. The best men were leaving the force and emigrating to America, because promotion was not by merit, but of the men who preferred the most cases and most annoyed the public The stereotyped answer to any complaints made to the Government was that they could not interfere with the head of the Constabulary
  426
  Department, and thus there was no appeal even in the case of the most unjust decisions. He had not the slightest knowledge of the circumstances of this case until he heard the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan), which impressed him with the belief that injustice was done to these two men in dismissing them from the service. It was impossible to deny M'Carthy's right to demand a copy of the Papers. The police force in Ireland required re-organization—the time had come when there must be a change in the system, and the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland could not undertake a more useful and popular duty than to inquire into the organization of the Force, with a view to its alteration and improvement.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copies of the Evidence taken before a Public Court of Inquiry held at Glin, in the county of Limerick, by certain Constabulary officers into charges affecting constable M'Kinly and sub-constable M'Carthy:
  Of the Report of the said officers:
  And, of the Order dismissing from the service said sub-constable M'Carthy and sub-constable Madden,"—(Mr. Synan.)
  —instead thereof.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) had given any very valuable assistance to the mover of the Motion, for he had frankly admitted that he knew nothing whatever about it. He regretted that he was unable to accede to the Motion, and he believed that no practice could be more injurious than to set up the House of Commons as an appeal from the decisions of tribunals properly constituted, and in which, speaking generally, the Constabulary felt perfect confidence. The facts of the case were these. A complaint was made by M'Carthy to the effect that sub-constable M'Kinly had unjustly withheld from him a sum of money to which he was entitled, M'Kinly having lost it in a bet. He (the Marquess of Hartington) had no wish to attribute to sub-constable M'Carthy a bad character; but his character was not so absolutely free from reproach as the hon. Member would lead the House to suppose, for there were passages in the career of M'Carthy that gave rise to the impression that he was in the habit, to some extent, of shirking his duty, and of preferring frivolous

  427
  complaints. The Report in reference to this charge of M'Carthy was that it was frivolous, and it recommended that he should be summarily dismissed from the Force. But the Inspector General declined to act on that recommendation, and ordered a Court of Inquiry to be held, before which M'Carthy might substantiate the charge made by him, if he was in a position to do so. The Court, after hearing the evidence on both sides, decided that the charge against M'Kinly had not been proved, and thereupon the sentence followed, which he (the Marquess of Hartington) could not admit to be too severe; for he need hardly say that a more serious offence could scarcely be committed by a police constable than that of preferring false charges against a comrade in the Force. The evidence no doubt was of a contradictory character; but it was material to observe that M'Carthy in his sworn testimony varied from his original statement as to the presence of certain witnesses who when examined denied that any such occurrence as alleged had taken place in their presence. The officers could have no motive whatever for arriving at any unjust finding, and he thought that they, having had the witnesses all before them, were better qualified to form a sound opinion than the House of Commons could be from merely reading the documents. Then as to the pension. It was true that M'Carthy had been 19 years in the Force, and that, on the recommendation of a medical report, he had been granted a temporary, not a provisional pension of £13 10 s. for six months. At the end of that time he was re-examined, and being reported fit for duty was readmitted into the Force, and it was not until a considerable period after that time that he committed himself by the act which forfeited his claim. He (the Marquess of Hartington) could only express his regret that M'Carthy's conduct should have deprived him of the pension which another year's service would have entitled him to receive. There could be no doubt about the facts, for he (the Marquess of Hartington) had telegraphed to Ireland specially for information on that point. Under all the circumstances, he could not help regretting that this case had ever been brought before the House. He did not mean to say that if there were a doubtful case it would not be proper that it should be brought be-
  428
  fore the House; but when the evidence was taken not privately but publicly the case was different. The hon. Member (Mr. Synan) had inspected the Minutes of Evidence in the case, and he (the Marquess of Hartington) must say that the Court of Inquiry was a better tribunal than that House would be in such a case.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he regretted the decision at which the noble Marquess had arrived. It was evident both from his own (the Marquess of Hartington's) statement and that of the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, that considerable doubt, if not positive conflict, existed as to the facts. Much dissatisfaction existed both in the Force itself and in the district with the decision, and the obvious, simple, and satisfactory way to meet and get rid of this dissatisfaction would have been to produce the Papers. The way in which the noble Marquess had attempted to meet the case was, in his opinion, far from satisfactory.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that whatever might be the merits of this particular case the Motion itself was useful, for it was well known that the action of the heads of the Irish Constabulary force was in many cases arbitrary and unjust. One case had come to his knowledge where an officer after 30 years' service, and after being many times complimented publicly, was dismissed without inquiry and without pension, and was now rotting in a debtors' prison. The matter was too important to be passed over sub silentio, and if the Government when appealed to by members of the Force were naturally unwilling to interfere, the only possible appeal was to the House of Commons.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, the question raised in this case was not as to the form of procedure, but whether the man convicted, and punished by the heads of the Force was guilty or not. That was a question which could only be solved by the production of the Papers. It had an exceedingly suspicious look when the Government refused the details of a case which an hon. Member showed conclusively to be one of doubt and direct conflict of testimony.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 9: Majority 49.

BOARD OF TRADE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he rose to call attention to the constitution and working of the Board of Trade; and to move for a Return. He would be very brief in his remarks, as he felt that at this period of the Session even commerce should give place for a little time to the exigencies of Public Business. A great deal of extraneous work was thrown on this important Department, and not more than one-twentieth part of its business was directly commercial. It might be said that the business which was not commercial was nevertheless done well; but he had some doubt on that point, and with respect to harbours, fisheries, and tramways, he thought there was reason to complain of the action of the Board. That House passed an Order that the Board of Trade should report on Tramway, Gas, and Water Bills, amounting in number to 199, and the whole of the Report of the Board of Trade on these matters was contained in 36 pages, stating the amount of capital to be raised, the amount to be borrowed, and the number of miles which the works would traverse. There was no proof of the efficiency of the Board of Trade in respect to these public purposes to which he had referred. It was stated by The Economist that for the last 30 years all sorts of functions had been piled up on the Board; and the Associated Chambers of Commerce recommended that the Board should be confined to its mechanical work, and that a Minister of Commerce should be created and represented in the Cabinet. He, however, believed that the Board of Trade was capable of being so organized as to be able to do the whole of the work properly. He called on the Government to revert to the old principle of a Board. The Customs was a Board; the Excise was a Board; and this very Department had long been regulated as a Board. It was a Board in name, but not in reality. It attempted to do the work of a Board without the human appliances to make its work satisfactory to the public. He thought that with the President should be associated a Board composed of gentlemen capable of giving him advice on matters connected with trade and commerce. Was it not a shame that this Board should be a sham? Was it worthy of the age or of a Liberal Ministry?
430
He would conclude by submitting his Motion.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was not competent to the hon. Member to make the Motion for the Return which he had placed on the Paper, as the House had already agreed to go into Committee of Supply.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he did not think it necessary to make the Motion. He believed the Government were prepared to give the information with a view to the discussion of the subject next Session.

SPAIN—THE "TORNADO."—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had placed a Question on the Paper which involved a point most important to the subjects of this realm. It related to the seizure of the Tornado by the Spanish Government some years ago. The circumstances of the case were well stated in the judgment of Vice Chancellor Malins pronounced on Thursday last, and which he should have read to the House but for its length. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it rather extraordinary that an Irish Law Officer of the Crown should venture to sneer at the decision of an English Judge.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): I rise to Order. There is really no foundation for the remark of the hon. Gentleman. I only said "Hear, hear!" If he wishes me not to say "Hoar, hear!" I will not do so again.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: The hon. and learned Gentleman said "Hear, hoar" in an Irish tone. He would state the circumstances of this case as shortly as he could. In 1866 the British ship Tornado was seized by the Spanish Government, and the crow having been imprisoned and robbed of their effects, they made a claim against that Government, through the medium of the Foreign Office. Mr. Forbes Campbell was employed to defend their rights. They executed an irrevocable power of attorney to Mr. Forbes Campbell to receive any sum that might be recovered from the Spanish Government. That document was held by the Vice Chancellor to be an equitable assignment. After lengthened negotiations, in the course of last year the Spanish Government paid over to the British Government the sum of

  431
  £1,500 as compensation for the wrongs which these individuals had suffered. Mr. Forbes Campbell was recognized after the execution of the power of attorney as the legal agent of these individuals by the Foreign Office, as he could himself testify. He took the opinion of the Attorney General, and paid a large fee for it, and the opinion of the Attorney General in favour of the rights of the claimants would be found in the Parliamentary Papers. The sum of £1,500 was accepted by Mr. Forbes Campbell on behalf of the crew in satisfaction of all claims and demands on the Spanish Government. When, in April last, the money was paid the Foreign Office declined to distribute it, and handed it over to the Board of Trade. He had consulted his right hon. Friend on the subject, who stated that he could not himself deal with the matter, and must abide by such legal official advice as he might receive. All of a sudden he was informed by Mr. Forbes Campbell, who held this equitable assignment, and was entitled to one-third of the money for his commission, that he had been ignored by the Board of Trade. He attended with Mr. Forbes Campbell at the Board of Trade, saw the private secretary of his right hon. Friend, and placed before him the whole circumstances of the case, specially requesting that Mr. Forbes Campbell might be communicated with before there was a division of the money. Unfortunately, though there was virtually an undertaking to that effect, that course was not followed, and the Board of Trade proceeded to distribute the money. Mr. Forbes Campbell again consulted him. He told him there was no alternative but to go to law, file a bill, and move for an injunction against the Board of Trade distributing the money. Mr. Forbes Campbell acted on his advice, moved for and obtained an interim injunction from Vice Chancellor Malins. The following morning, counsel for the Crown applied to the Lord Chancellor to dissolve the injunction, which his Lordship refused with costs, and an expenditure of £200 was thereby uselessly incurred by the Government. Last Thursday week a Motion was made in due form for an injunction to restrain the Board of Trade from proceeding any further in the division of the money; the application was made by Mr. Glasse; it was opposed on behalf of the Board of Trade; and,
  432
  without calling on Mr. Glasse for a reply, Vice Chancellor Malins decided against the Board of Trade. In the course of his judgment, he said—
  "The correspondence on the part of the crew has been carried on between Mr. Campbell and the Government, and at a very early stage of the proceedings the Board of Trade had notice that Mr. Campbell was acting under a power of attorney from the crew. … . Therefore, the officers of the Board of Trade were bound to know, and I very much regret that this Motion should have been caused by a total neglect on their part, of the existence of this assignment, and anybody who had knowledge of its existence, and yet acted as if it did not exist, must have entirely overlooked the powers of the Court of Chancery…… That they did have notice of the assignment here is clearly beyond doubt. … . I consider the whole proceeding a most unjustifiable one. … . I am surprised that the Government should have allowed the time of the Court to be occupied ten minutes with the case. If the Government have distributed this money after notice, in defiance of the notice of Mr. Campbell, they have done that which is exceedingly wrong. … . If in defiance of the rights of which they had notice—if they have paid over the money in derogation of those lights, if Mr. Campbell shall hereafter establish them, the Government have acted in a manner which renders them liable to pay the money over again. I cannot conceive a more unjustiable act. … . Mr. Campbell, for the purposes of his motion, has distinctly shown that he has an interest to the extent of one-third of the sum that has been allotted to each of the persons to whom the Government have made allotment. Is it right that, in defiance of Mr. Campbell's rights, the Government are to invite these men to come and take the whole fund? . … I can only repeat, and repeat most emphatically, that if the Government have paid over any money since the notice of Mr. Campbell's rights, they have acted in a manner which I very greatly regret, which is wholly without justification, and I hope Mr. Campbell will find the means of making them pay the money over again if he establishes his right to it at the hearing of the cause. I therefore limit my injunction to their parting with one-third of the money appropriated to those persons who have executed the power of attorney or any other instrument in favour of Mr. Campbell."
  The Attorney General knew from the first that Mr. Forbes Campbell had been recognized by the Foreign Office as the agent of the crew. The Parliamentary Papers in the hands of Members proved Mr. Campbell's legal position. That position had never been doubted by the Foreign Secretaries in succession, as he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could testify; and now that view was fully and absolutely confirmed by the Vice Chancellor. His object in bringing the matter forward, now that the opinion of the Court

  433
  was known, was to prevent Mr. Forbes Campbell being oppressed by the delay and cost of useless litigation with the Government, when the Government were in the wrong and would ultimately have to pay; and, if the Government thought their dignity would be compromised by stopping the proceedings and paying the claims of Mr. Forbes Campbell, which it was clearly their duty to do, he would suggest that the matter should be referred to the arbitration of the leaders on either side—Mr. Glasse and Mr. Cotton.
  MR. WHALLEYrose to Order. He submitted that it was improper for an hon. Member to enter into the details of a case which was under litigation.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the question whether a matter which was under the consideration of the Court of Chancery was a proper subject to be discussed in the House had often been raised, and the House had always declined to enter upon questions which were sub judice. He was not aware of the exact position of this case, which the Law Officer would perhaps explain.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had carefully guarded himself against this objection, and he had cited only a judgment which was public property, and which had, to all intents and purposes, decided the case; and, having done that, all that he desired to do further was to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, under the circumstances, he will not at once stop the proceedings in the cause, and pay to the plaintiff the amount to which he is entitled, and also all the costs of the suit?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had been many years in that House, but had never heard so irregular and improper an appeal made. A counsel practising in the Court of Chancery, professing to be cognizant of its proceedings, and having advised a person to file a bill against his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), and an interim injunction having been granted almost as a matter of course, and no answer having been put in, while the case was still pending the counsel who had advised the institution of those proceedings now came to that House.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrose to explain, ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member was not entitled to interrupt the hon. and learned Member
  434
  in possession of the House without that hon. and learned Member's consent.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcontinued: The hon. and learned Member had said that he advised Mr. Forbes Campbell to institute the suit now pending, and yet he made a long speech in the House of Commons, and endeavoured to obtain the opinion of that House on a question still sub judice. In his recollection nothing so irregular had ever been done before by a barrister in that House. He would not follow the hon. and learned Member's example by now discussing the case, for that House was not a Court of Appeal from the Court of Chancery, or from any other tribunal. Indeed, he did not know how the proper Business of the House could ever be done if every barrister in it who had advised a client to institute a suit, and who was dissatisfied with the course of the proceedings, was to come and tell his grievances to that House. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK said he had done nothing of the sort.] A Bill had been filed in Chancery by the advice of the hon. and learned Member—and bad advice it was in his opinion—against the President of the Board of Trade, to obtain payment to Mr. Forbes Campbell, the owner of the Tornado, which was condemned as a Chilian privateer, of the sum of £1,500 paid by the Spanish Government to be distributed by Her Majesty's Government among the sufferers—that was to say, the innocent crew, who had been induced to serve on board of that vessel without knowing what she was. He filed a bill praying that the whole of that money, or a large portion of it, might be paid to him, and the Vice Chancellor granted an injunction to a very limited extent—namely, there being 53 persons concerned, and he having originally represented that he was entitled to obtain the shares of all of them, some 11 of them, according to his own showing at present, had entered into some agreement that he was to have one-third. The Vice Chancellor had granted an injunction restraining his right hon. Friend from parting with that one-third of the money of those 11 persons. He had no wish to enter into the merits of the case, and had only to say that whatever might be the ultimate decision of the Court, it would of course be acquiesced in by the Government.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he regretted that the Attorney General had not allowed him to explain. The hon. and learned Gentleman had attributed to him that he was counsel for the plaintiff, and had acted for and advised, him professionally. There was not a shadow of foundation for such an accusation, and it was most improper in every respect. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had only advised the claimant because he was intrusted with the conduct of the Tornado case in Parliament.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie), he was unable to give him his Return precisely as it stood on the Paper, but would endeavour to frame a Return which would give him the information he required. In proposing to substitute a kind of Commercial Council for the present Department of Trade, his hon. Friend rather fell into an anachronism, because the consultative functions of the Board of Trade, from the nature of things and the progress of events, had become comparatively small, whereas its administrative functions, from the same causes, had very largely increased, and by the present staff were very efficiently discharged. The amount of work which fell upon the Department was by no means trifling. The administrative and consultative functions of the Board of Trade were often mistaken and confused by the public, who expected the Department to act in matters over which it had no direct control, and which it could only bring to the notice of other Departments. A case of that kind occurred the other day in regard to the importation into London of adulterated and fictitious tea—a matter in which the President of the Board of Trade would naturally take great interest and endeavour to get remedied, though he had no power to give orders to the officers of Customs. A Commercial Council would not, however, forward nine-tenths of the business now brought before the Board; and his hon. Friend's reforming intentions in that direction were not suited to the present time.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(3.) £4,648, to complete the sum for the National Gallery.
(4.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that he thought that the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery were to be congratulated on the success of the experiment of removing the collection from Great George Street to South Kensington, especially as doubts had been entertained on the subject. It appeared from the Annual Report of the Trustees lately presented to Parliament, that whereas the average number of visitors in the 11 years from the formation of the Gallery in 1859, to its removal from Great George Street at the end of 1869, had been 16,500, the number had increased to nearly 60,000 in the nine months of 1870, during which it had been open at South Kensington, although it was only open to the public gratuitously three days a week. This only afforded another illustration of what he had often previously noticed—namely, that the mere fact of the removal of Institutions from very central situations to places less centrally located, but where proper space for their expansion was provided, so far from being injurious to them, was positively beneficial.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £9,450, to complete the sum for certain Learned Societies in Great Britain.
(6.) £7,242, to complete the sum for the University of London.
(7.) £11,147, to complete the sum for the Endowed Schools Commission.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,380, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1872, for Grants to Scottish Universities."
MR. MONKsaid, he wished to ask why the sum proposed to be voted for the salary of the Principal of Edinburgh University had been increased by £300. He should, move to reduce the Vote by that sum.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,080, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1872, for Grants to Scottish Universities."—(Mr. Monk.)
MR. W. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that formerly it was the practice for the Principal of the University to be also a Professor, and to receive the emoluments of his professorship in addition to the salary of Principal. The present holder of the office was not in that position, however, and as it was thought the £548 paid as the salary of Principal was not in itself sufficient to enable him adequately to perform the duties of this important office, it was proposed to increase the grant to £848.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, in explanation of the increase of the Vote, perhaps the Committee would permit him to state that the three Universities of Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, and Glasgow, had, though by no means a large, yet a certain amount of property, with which they could increase the salaries of their Principal and of their Professors. The most modern University—that of Edinburgh—had in itself no property, but was established by James VI., with a promise to give to the University adequate endowment. That promise was never fulfilled, and the University had to depend upon the liberality of Parliament for the support of its Principal and Professors. The last Principal was the celebrated Sir David Brewster, who was unable to live in Edinburgh in consequence of the lowness of the salary of £500. Sir David Baxter, on a recent occasion, purchased and gave to the University a house for the Principal, in the hope of enabling him to live in Edinburgh; but with the expense of the city it was found impossible to obtain an eminent man to fill the post without further aid. The small addition which had been made to the salary enabled the University to have a resident Principal, and he (Dr. Lyon Playfair) believed, it would be found to be an exceedingly worthy object.
MR. MONKsaid, he deemed the explanation satisfactory, and would withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) £1,600, to complete the sum for the Board of Manufactures, &c. in Scotland.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there was any prospect of the annual demand of Scotland for the sum now proposed to be voted being put an end to? He observed that it had been paid ever since the Union, or for nearly 200 years, and the Board of Manufactures—although doubtless a very useful body at one time—had altogether ceased to exist for the purpose for which it was originally instituted, but was now practically continued only for the promotion of the Fine Arts.
MR. M'LARENsaid, the money was granted in pursuance of a compact entered into at the date of the Union of Scotland with England, and had been employed for years in the promotion of art, education, and kindred subjects.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought an appropriation such as the hon. Member described was a misappropriation, and that the Vote ought not to appear on the Estimates.
MR. M'LARENsaid, the Vote was a compact made at the time of the Union, and they had no more right to take away the money than they had to take away the property of the Duke of Bedford.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, as he had the honour to be a Commissioner of the Board, he wished to give a short explanation of the manner in which the money was spent. It was spent in two ways, and in the most economical manner—in the first place, for the promotion of manufactures by an admirable School of Art, which exercised a great influence upon Scottish art and Scottish manufactures; and, secondly, in the support of a National Gallery in the most economical way in which a National Gallery could be supported; and he thought if his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) would go down to Edinburgh, he would be exceedingly pleased to see the productive way in which that small Vote was spent.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £545, to complete the sum for the Office of Commissioners of Education in Ireland.
(11.) £1,790, to complete the sum for National Gallery, Ireland.
(12.) £1,284, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy.
(13.) £2,803, to complete the sum for Queen's University, Ireland.
(14.) £3,213, to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £170,876, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1872, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he regretted that, in consequence of the late period of the Session at which, the Estimates were brought forward, it was impossible properly to discuss them, and he felt himself precluded from entering, as fully as he had intended, into the particulars of the present Vote. He wished, however, to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the cost of the Diplomatic Service in 1851 amounted only to £159,285, whilst the present Vote was £215,876. The expenditure had, in fact, gone on increasing every year until two years ago, when he called attention to the subject, since which time the expenditure had been diminished by nearly £20,000. He had now to ask the Committee to reduce the Vote by a further sum of £10,000, and he believed that a much larger saving might be secured without detriment to the public service, if proper measures were taken for that purpose. He submitted that a considerable economy might be effected by replacing Ambassadors at Foreign Courts by Ministers Extraordinary. This change was recommended by the Official Salaries Committee of 1850, which was a Committee of great authority, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten), and it was clear from the evidence of Lord Derby before the Diplomatic Committee last year that he attached no great importance to the rank of Ambassador. It was proved, in evidence before that Committee, that the Ambassadorial rank occasioned increased expenditure, and rendered higher salaries necessary; whilst the only alleged advantage was the right of audience of the Sovereign—a right of questionable utility in constitutional Governments, where it must always be desirable that the representatives of this country should
440
communicate with foreign Rulers through their responsible Ministers. He (Mr. Rylands) would suggest, therefore, that it would be advisable to open negotiations with foreign Powers, with a view to see whether the rank of Ambassador might not be reduced to that of Minister Extraordinary. The example of France had been urged as a reason for our keeping up a costly system of representation, and no doubt under the Empire very high salaries were paid; but it must be remembered that the policy of the Emperor was to secure a personal representation, and to attach to his own interests those who were nominally called the Ministers of France. The extravagant system maintained by the Emperor for personal objects would probably not be continued under the new system of Government. Another opportunity for considerable reductions was furnished by the establishment of the German Empire. There was now no reason why the small German Missions should be continued. At present, though, the Mission at Würtemberg had been reduced, a Chargé d'Affaires having been appointed in place of the Minister Extraordinary, there was a large and costly establishment kept up in Bavaria, where we had a Minister Plenipotentiary with a salary of £3,600 a-year, and an allowance of £400 a-year for house rent, and a Secretary of Legation with, a salary of £500 a-year. We had also Secretaries of Legation and Chargés d'Affaires at Coburg and Darmstadt. All these offices might be altogether abolished, for there was no advantage in retaining expensive establishments at those minor Courts. It was urged that such officers were very useful in collecting information, they being the eyes and ears of the Foreign Office; but Lord Malmesbury, who so spoke of them when examined before the Select Committee last year, admitted that their information had not been of much advantage to this country; and certainly, with all our network of diplomacy spread over Europe, we got no warning beforehand of the outbreak of the recent war, because that war broke out at a moment when the Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office informed Lord Granville that perfect calm prevailed all over Europe. In reference to the small Missions in Germany, putting their uselessness out of the question, he thought it was exceedingly undesirable to retain

441
them, not only on the ground of economy, but on the ground of policy, as their maintenance was only an encouragement to the smaller Courts to interfere with the unity of the German Empire. With regard to obtaining information, he very much questioned whether our representatives, even at the larger Courts, were of much value in enabling the Government to forecast future events. He had been struck with a fact stated in The Fortnightly Review in an able and well-informed article upon Germany, in which the writer alluded to the expectations prevalent in Europe in 1858 of an impending war between France and Austria. It was remarked in this article that the military preparations of France made the intention on the part of the French Emperor of attacking Austria known to all the world, with a single exception — and that exception was Lord Cowley, the British Ambassador at Paris. This statement was supported by the Foreign Despatches since laid before Parliament, and which proved that up to the very last moment the British Government fancied that by the measures it was taking it could prevent the outbreak of a war which was, in fact, absolutely determined upon. Turning to another country, what ground or object was there for maintaining a costly establishment in Greece? The recent deplorable circumstance which had occurred there had shown that our representative at Athens had been of little or no use, whilst the members of the Legation appeared to have been ignorant of facts affecting the safety of British subjects which were well known elsewhere. Every object sought for by the Mission at Athens could be secured by the appointment of a Chargé d'Affaires in place of a Minister. A Chargé d'Affaires would also be amply sufficient for the protection of British interests in Switzerland, a country whose Republican simplicity did not require the appointment of expensive representatives. The establishments in South America might also be reduced, as there was not sufficient justification for the costly Missions maintained in the Brazils and the Argentine Republic; and not only could £10,000 a-year be saved easily by the reductions he had suggested, but a much larger economy might be effected if Government would deal with the Diplomatic Service generally in a decided
442
manner. There was a considerable sum included in the Estimates for miscellaneous expenditure, and he wished to direct the attention of the Under Secretary to the fact, that in the Estimates of former years the various sub-heads of expenditure, some of which were very heavy, were included in a statement showing the particulars of the expenditure incurred by each Mission. The absence of that information in the present Estimates prevented the items being sufficiently checked, and he thought the particulars should be given in future years. With regard to military attachés, the only salary he could find mentioned was that of the attaché at Paris, with respect to whom the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had admitted the additional payment of £500 per annum from the Secret Service money—a proceeding which was most objectionable. General Claremont, who had received the salary of £600 a-year as attaché at Paris, and £500 a-year from Secret Service money, in addition to his full pay as a military officer, spent a great portion of his time in England, and he (Mr. Rylands) had reason to believe that his despatches to the Government contained very little information of value. He challenged the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say that General Claremont had made any communications to the Government with reference to the defective organization of the French Army that prepared them for its collapse in the recent war. He was unable to find in the Estimates any mention of the salary for the military attaché at St. Petersburg, and this he regretted, because he wished to ask whether any Secret Service money was granted in addition to the salary of £600 per annum? The post had recently been vacant, and the Committee ought to know whether an allowance of Secret Service money, if such was paid, was mentioned to those senior officers who had declined the appointment. The Permanent Under Secretary had the control of the Secret Service Fund, and the noble Lord therefore probably did not know whether Captain Wellesley would receive anything from this service in addition to his salary. But however that might be, it was most objectionable to appoint a subaltern in the Army, an officer without experience, who no doubt was a gentleman of high connections

443
and accustomed to fashionable society, but who was not required to go to St. Petersburg to spend money in the extravagancies of a gay life, but to get information of value to this country. In his opinion, instead of military attachés, it would be far better and more economical to send occasional military Commissioners to foreign States to obtain the information that was necessary. But if we were to have a permanent representative abroad to take note of military affairs, he ought to be a man of great ability and experience, whose observations and opinions would really guide the decisions of the Government at home. Had the amount of the salary to be paid to Captain Wellesley been upon the Estimates, he should certainly have divided the Committee against it. He would urge even now the Government to retrace a step which had caused a great amount of public dissatisfaction. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving to reduce the Vote by £10,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £160,876, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1872, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Rylands.)
MR. W. C. CARTWRIGHTsaid, as a Member of the Diplomatic Committee, he was rather astonished to find his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) making a Motion which was against the tenour of the evidence taken by that Committee. The abolition of our Missions to Switzerland, Greece, and the smaller German States was not desirable, and if they went our Missions to Portugal, Spain, and Belgium might as well follow. The gist of the speech pointed to the abolition of the small German Missions, but it was founded rather on abstract reasoning than on actual knowledge of what had occurred in Germany. It was not true that the whole political life of Germany was now concentrated at Berlin. The South German States still preserved their political autonomy, and Prince Bismarck himself, in a recent speech, had pointed out that there was no cessation of autonomic action on the part of the smaller States. To part with "the eyes and ears of our Foreign Office" there would, for this reason, be exceedingly impolitic,
444
and no other country had suppressed its Missions in South Germany. At the same time, he thought that certain reductions might be made in those Missions, and he had placed on the Paper a Notice for moving those reductions. One anomaly was quite indefensible. Our Mission in Bavaria was a first-class Mission, costing £4,900 a-year, both the staff and the cost being greater than that of our Missions in Greece, Belgium, Sweden, or Denmark. It was evident that such an arrangement was not required. He proposed, therefore, to reduce that Mission, which was originally a second-class Mission, and by that means to effect a saving of about £1,900. The next proposal which he had to make had reference to Würtemberg. He believed it was desirable to have a substantial Mission there. Events had occurred of late on which a great many future contingencies were likely to turn, such as the annexation of Alsace, and from no point could Alsace and its assimilation with Germany be, in his opinion, better watched than from Stuttgardt. The footing upon which the Mission at Würtemberg had been kept up of late he at the same time thought exceeded what was required. He should therefore suggest the expediency of reviving a post which had lately been very much in abeyance—that of Minister Resident. It was a rank which was attended with a smaller salary, and which had been filled by such men as Sir Henry Seymour in Tuscany, while up to 1867 we had a Minister Resident at the Hanse Towns. By reducing the Mission at Würtemberg from a Minister Plenipotentiary with £3,200 a-year we should effect a saving of the difference between that sum and £2,000 a-year, which would be necessary for the salary of a Minister Resident. There was another post in Germany for which he believed no one could say a word, and that was the post of Charge d'Affaires at Coburg. There was, he thought, no necessity why that should be kept up. The reductions which he would recommend would, in short, result in a saving of £3,800 a-year. It would be said that the pensions of a first-class Minister at Munich and of the Chargé d'Affaires at Coburg would amount to £2,000 a-year. There would still, however, be a saving on the Estimates of £1,800 a-year. Among the most valuable of the recommendations in the Report

445
of the Diplomatic Committee was one with reference to the treatment of the juniors, who really had a great grievance to complain of. By means of the savings which he recommended we should not only be able to have the business of the country adequately performed, but to meet the necessary pensions, as well as to give those bonuses which would, he believed, afford an invaluable stimulus to the younger members of the service. He should not be able to follow his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) into the lobby on this question.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he objected to the Motion of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) on account of its vagueness. The hon. Member proposed to reduce the Vote by £10,000, leaving to the Government the task of apportioning the reduction. The suggestions of the hon. Member who had just sat down were at least definite. There was, he might add, no doubt that the Diplomatic Service of England had hitherto been represented ably, but the services of the ablest men could not in future, in his opinion, be secured if the prizes of the profession were cut down; and it would be a serious injury to the country if Ambassadors were placed in the position of mere Chargés d'Affaires, who would not have access to the Sovereign to whose dominions they were accredited. As to the office of military attaché, it was not one which he particularly loved, nor did he think those who of late years had occupied that post had been very useful, for, from all he had heard, the position of a military attaché in Paris during the late war was anything but creditable to the country. It was very inconvenient to single out for attack the late appointment of Captain Wellesley to St. Petersburg. Here was an occasion on which the principle of selection had for the first time been applied, and the very person who called most loudly for its introduction was one of the first to question the manner in which it had been exercised. If every time a selection was made the Government were called to account for it in that House, it would be quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office to carry out the principle which he was so anxious to establish. He must enter his protest against the course pursued in this matter by the hon. Member for Warrington, and should
446
feel it his duty to vote against the hon. Member's Amendment.
MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, the noble Lord's (Viscount Bury's) estimate of the military attaché at Paris was very different from that which all who had to do with him entertained. General Claremont had rendered the most valuable service in that city during the siege. It was true he did not remain till the end; but he had acted entirely in what he considered the interest of the country. He had rendered the most distinguished military services in the Crimea and other quarters, and had never hesitated to go to the front to obtain information. He had by his conduct won the esteem of all the officers of the French Army. The language used towards him in that House was most injurious to the gallant General, and discreditable to those who used it. The late Lord Clarendon had a very high opinion of General Claremont, and he (Mr. Leveson Gower) had seen letters from Lord Lyons which showed that he, too, very highly appreciated General Claremont's services. When the late war broke out General Claremont was most anxious to join the French Army, but was prevented by a positive refusal from the French Government. He was not going to defend the entire course pursued by General Claremont in leaving Paris; but as that general was now about to publish a statement in explanation of what he had done, it would not be right to condemn him beforehand. He believed that if General Claremont thought his remaining in Paris would have been conducive to the public good, nothing would have induced him to leave that city.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he thought the course taken by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) unfortunate, because there was no good in moving a general reduction of the Vote without specifying the items on which the reductions could be made. On this ground he could not vote for the Amendment. It was desirable, however, that Her Majesty's Government should consider whether it would not be well to abolish military and naval attachés for the future. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had shown that our military attaché at Paris was not allowed to join the French Army in the field, and therefore could not render the services which might be expected from him.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he hoped the Committee would agree to the Motion. He wished to call especial attention to the item for postage, which was more than the Post Office revenue of some small States.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, with regard to the objection of the hon. Member for Warrington to the rank of Ambassador, he thought neither the Committee nor the country would wish to see the prestige of England in any way diminished by reducing the British representatives abroad to an inferior rank, especially when out of our five Ambassadors we had men so distinguished in the public service as Sir Henry Elliot, Lord Lyons, and Sir Andrew Buchanan. The Committee that had inquired into this subject stated in their Report that it appeared that many economies, reforms, and improvements in the administration of the Diplomatic Service had from time to time been introduced by successive chiefs of the Foreign Office. The hon. Gentleman had attacked, as might be expected, the minor German Missions. It was proposed to reduce the Würtemberg Mission, as he (Viscount Enfield) stated the other evening. In the case of Dresden, in consequence of the Treaty in 1866 signed between Prussia and Saxony, in which Saxony surrendered to Prussia the direction of international affairs, our Government withdrew the Mission from Dresden. A saving of £8,000 had also been effected by the abolition of the Mission at Frankfort. But in 1867 it was deemed expedient, in consequence of the considerable number of British residents at Dresden, that there should be a Chargé d'Affaires there, and his salary was fixed at £750 a-year. As to Darmstadt, Russia, Austria, and Prussia had all diplomatic representatives there. The salary of our representative at Coburg was £650 per annum, but Mr. Barnard, the gentleman in question, received £250 out of that from having been 10 years a Secretary of Legation, so that the real salary of the post at Coburg was only £400 a-year. With regard to the minor German States, he need not remind the Committee that, although there had been great changes during the last few years in the consolidation of the German Empire, 21 votes in the Federal Council were distributed among the minor Principalities. To abolish the influence
448
of England in these minor German States would be at least premature. The Committee on which he had the honour to serve with the hon. Member for Warrington expressly alluded to the possibility that our representation in the minor German States might hereafter be gradually reduced; and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not likely to neglect the recommendation of the Committee that he should take an early opportunity of considering whether any, and, if any, which of those Missions should be abolished. With regard to the other States to which the hon. Member referred, he felt sure the Committee would be very sorry if our representatives were taken away from such countries as Switzerland, Brazil, and South America. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), as well as the hon. Member for Warrington, had alluded to the expenditure for journeys in the public service, and for telegrams, printing, stationery, postage, &c. The Estimates showed a reduction in three or four of these items. With regard to our military attachés, the hon. Members (Mr. Rylands and Viscount Bury) were a little hard upon them. The hon. Member for Warrington said he thought our military attaché in France ought to have foretold the collapse of the French Army. He (Viscount Enfield) thought no man could have taken upon himself to make any such prediction. He was quite sure that a distinguished soldier who had seen service would have been the last man to make that prediction. From his own knowledge he could assure the hon. Gentleman that during the last six months our military attachés had, in the shape of confidential Reports, given the Government most valuable information as to foreign Armies. They were generally men of great service and experience. Allusion had been made to the case of Captain Wellesley, and exception had been taken to the expression he (Viscount Enfield) used on a former occasion, that eight officers of different ranks and branches of the service had been sounded as to whether they would take the appointment. Those officers' names were given to him confidentially, and if he were at liberty to mention them, it would be seen that every exertion had been made to make a good appointment. Those officers,

449
however, declined on various grounds; two of them were in the Artillery, one was an Engineer, three had served in the Line, and two were Guardsmen, and it was not until they had refused the appointment that the post was offered to Captain Wellesley. If the hon. Member wished to raise the question of this appointment he might do so by moving a reduction of the Army Estimates. He believed he had now gone through the various points which had been raised. Before sitting down he desired to confirm all that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Leveson Gower), in regard to General Claremont. He regretted that he had not been in his place the other night when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had stated that when affairs in Paris became precarious General Claremont had levanted. General Claremont was an officer who had served his country faithfully, ably, and gallantly, and he thanked the hon. Member for Bodmin for having so generously defended the character of the gallant gentleman from aspersions which had been cast upon it in, as he (Viscount Enfield) hoped and believed, a moment of inadvertence by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 20; Noes 68: Majority 48.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House, That Mr. Speaker was unable to resume the Chair during the present sitting of the House.
Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH, &c. FUNDS) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 242.]
(Mr. Leeman, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Goldney, Mr. Candlish.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH, &c. FUNDS) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 242.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Goldney.)
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), it would be his duty to move the Amendment of which his hon. Friend had given Notice. Even had he no other grounds for doing so he thought the House would feel that half-past 2 o'clock in the morning was very much too late an hour at which to begin so important a discussion. But on general grounds, and in the interest of ratepayers generally, he strongly protested against proceeding with that Bill. In the first place, it was a Bill in which ratepayers were much more interested than the Governing Bodies of towns. He deprecated strongly the arbitrary powers which it was proposed to confer upon those Governing Bodies. He also deprecated very strongly the proposal to take away from ratepayers the checks and safeguards which they now enjoyed against plans and schemes brought forward by those Governing Bodies upon insufficient grounds. He repeated that that Bill affected ratepayers a vast deal more than it affected the Governing Bodies of towns and other places, and the interests of the ratepayers were entirely disregarded and set at naught in that Bill. The powers it created were so wide in their bearing that he believed Governing Bodies, if the Bill passed, would be able to undertake almost any mortal thing they pleased. It was impossible for the ratepayers to estimate the amount of the expenditure for which they would be liable if Governing Bodies were to be at liberty to undertake any schemes they might have a fancy for. The powers given by the Bill were so unprecedentedly wide that he said there was scarcely a scheme which Town Councils and other bodies might not undertake, and whether those schemes were wanted or not, or whether they were successful or not, the ratepayers would be obliged to sanction them, and to pay for them. That would be a very great hardship upon the ratepayers. Again, he considered that that Bill would be a great incentive to litigation. It had often been said that when they had one attorney in a small town he starved; but directly they had two, they prospered and grew rich, because one made business for the other. That would be the case here, for one legal gentleman would promote a Bill, another would oppose it,

  451
  and they would do all this at the expense of the ratepayers. At present the expenditure of every borough was strictly limited and denned by Act of Parliament. That had been so for 35 years, and the system had always worked well. They proposed to remove all those restrictions, as well as the right which ratepayers now enjoyed of appealing to a Court of Law or Equity. Corporations now could only use the borough funds for purposes limited by the Act: but they took away all such limitations by that Bill. Now, he said that at such an hour as that, and at such a period of the Session, they should not be asked to discuss such a question as that. The Bill was a bad Bill when it came into Committee. Hon. Members, however, thought that the powers it conferred would, in Committee, be much restricted. Instead of that, those powers had been considerably enlarged. The ratepayers now were to have no appeal, and where formerly the Bill only applied to towns of 5,000 inhabitants, they had now made it apply to towns of 3,000. Now, it might be true, in large towns like Liverpool or Manchester, where the Corporations were large, respectable, and intelligent bodies, it would be quite right to give such Corporations those powers; but when they proposed to confer them on small towns containing 2,000 or 3,000 people, such a proposal was manifestly absurd. Moreover, there was one clause in the Bill—the retrospective clause — to which he strongly objected. That provision empowered a Governing Body to pay law expenses out of the borough rates in respect of anything done within the last three years. It mattered not whether the ratepayers had opposed those measures. It was notorious that the case which had given rise to that clause, and the Bill generally, was the case of Sheffield. Now, something like 3,000 ratepayers there did not wish the Governing Body to do anything either in the way of promoting or opposing Gas or Water Bills. However, the Corporation persisted, and the ratepayers then subscribed a large amount of money to test the question, and were successful against the Corporation, both in the Court of Chancery and Court of Queen's Bench. Yet, in spite of those proceedings, they were going to legalize and set at naught the decisions given by both those Courts. Such a course was most
  452
  unprecedented. If there was no other reasons for the step he was taking, the notion of their having to consider an important Bill of that description at that hour in the morning would, he thought, justify him in opposing the Bill in every possible way. He would therefore move, as an Amendment to the Motion for now going into Committee, that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill this day three months.
  MR. MELLORsaid, he rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion. The larger ratepayers in the borough he represented entertained the strongest objection to that Bill, and felt sure that if they conferred those powers upon Governing Bodies the amount of rates would greatly exceed those which were now levied. He presented a Petition to that House last week, in which the largest ratepayers in the borough of Ashton stated that they observed with grave alarm the proposal to confer such extensive and unprecedented power upon the local authorities of the district in which they resided, inasmuch as those authorities had involved the district in heavy liabilities for unprofitable undertakings which were not required, and therefore the petitioners emphatically protested against any further powers being granted to the local authorities of the district. He fully concurred in that prayer, and felt satisfied that unless that measure was rejected, it would create great dissatisfaction, and give rise to no small amount of litigation throughout the country.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Massey Lopes,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 31: Majority 24.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Intoxicating Liquors Licenses Suspension* (282); Lodgers Goods Protection* (283); Friendly Societies Commission* (284).
Second Reading—Sasines Register (Scotland) (200).
Committee — Report — Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* (270).
Third Reading—East India (Bishops Leave of Absence)* (268); Private Chapels* (275); Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* (277); Sewage Utilization Supplemental* (254), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.

  QUESTIONS.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, had the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) moved the first Order of the Day for the consideration of the Royal Message, I should have postponed the few observations I have to make, and the Questions I have to put with regard to the course of Public Business; but as I understand that it is the intention of the noble Earl to postpone that Order, perhaps your Lordships will now permit me to make some observations upon the former subject. The matter to which I am anxious to draw your Lordships' attention for a few moments is the state of Public Business in Parliament—a condition of business which so far as my perhaps somewhat limited recollection extends, is perfectly without example. I do not refer to the condition of business in this House. We have to-night a certain number of Orders of the Day which I have no doubt will not occasion much delay or difficulty, and on looking over those Orders of the Day which are filed for future consideration, there do not appear to be any which can occupy much time in this House. We have a discussion fixed for Monday which, perhaps, we may anticipate will be concluded on Monday evening; and we have the Committee on the Bill which will then be moved, if the second reading should be carried, which possibly may not occupy more than until the following evening. Beyond that, there are only about eight public Bills in progress on our Paper, and none of those appear to involve any question of importance, with the exception of the Norwich Voters' Disfranchisement

  361
  Bill, and the House of Commons Witnesses Bill. I do not know whether I am quite right in supposing those to be public Bills, but I am told they came to this House as long ago as the middle of the month of June, and no effort has been made, although there has been ample opportunity, to move the second reading of either of them. I therefore think I may assume that there is no intention of pressing those Bills this Session. With regard to the Norwich Voters' Disfranchisement Bill I have nothing to say, I know nothing of its merits or demerits. As to the Bill which proposes to give power to examine on oath witnesses in the House of Commons, that is a Bill which certainly appears to me to raise questions of very great interest, and without expressing any opinion upon it at this moment, I may say that it appears to be one which would well deserve the full and careful consideration of your Lordships, at the same time when that consideration could be given without embarrassment. But it is rather too much to expect that a Bill, which has been waiting since the middle of June for second reading, should be brought forward at this period of the Session for discussion. That is the state of Public Business in this House, and I think it must be pronounced to be satisfactory. I come now to the state of business in the other House of Parliament; so far as I can gain information from it, and from the authentic records of the other House, I find that although a very considerable number of public measures have already been withdrawn from the other House of Parliament, yet that, taking the Order Book on Monday last, and looking at the Bills which were filed in various stages for last Monday and the days following, there are no less than 55 Bills—not Bills sent from this House, but 55 House of Commons' Bills standing for various stages, from second reading up to third reading, which have to be disposed of in some way or other. Of course, some of these Bills have been originated by private Members, but I believe the greater number are Government measures. In addition to that, your Lordships have sent down from this House for consideration in the House of Commons 18 public Bills; and besides those that remain in the other House, these Bills may again occupy your Lordships' attention, in consequence
  362
  of Amendments which may be made in them. We therefore have of Bills in the two Houses of Parliament, which, require more or less consideration, and which have to be disposed of in the present Session, a grand total of 73 public measures. On the eve of the 1st of August I doubt whether such a statement could ever have been made in any former year, and I think it is a condition of things absolutely without parallel. But that is not all. I find, in addition to these 73 public measures, that the three great classes of Estimates have virtually to be disposed of as a whole after this time. I mean the Army Estimates, the Navy Estimates, and the Education Estimates. Now, of course, your Lordships have nothing to say to those Estimates, so far as they propose to deal with the appropriation of the Supply of the country; but, on the other hand, your Lordships do not, I am sure, overlook the fact that upon the discussion of those Estimates—and upon their discussion alone—can some of the most important questions connected both with the Army and the Navy, and with Education be considered. And the discussion of those questions is of interest, not only to the House of Commons, which imposes taxation, but to your Lordships, and the public individually, for in disposing of them there arise a fair opportunity of revising several most important and interesting questions. That being the bill of fare which has to be dealt with by Parliament in the present Session, the attention of anyone reflecting on that state of affairs must naturally be given to the one measure which, at present, seems to occupy the greatest share of the public consideration, for the purpose of ascertaining what are the prospects of that measure. Tour Lordships will readily understand that I refer to the Ballot Bill. Upon the merits of that Bill your Lordships will not expect to hear from me, nor shall I say one word on this occasion. But, without glancing at its merits, I may say that it is difficult to imagine in what way it can be regarded as a Bill of urgency. There is no General Election, so far as we know, likely to take place within any limited time, and I think Her Majesty's Government themselves can hardly contend that the measure is one which is to be treated in any peculiar or exceptional manner on

  363
  account of its urgency. I had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament for a great number of years, and during the greater part of those years a Liberal Government was in office, and I think I am right in saying that almost all the noble Lords I see opposite, who form part of the present Government, were in office in those former Governments. Yet all those Liberal Governments invariably opposed every proposition made in the House of Commons for the introduction of the Ballot. It is a question that has only of late been taken up by the Government, and I must assume that they have become converted of late to the Ballot from their former opinions. Not only is that so, but it is impossible, moreover, not to recollect that only last year the present Government, although at that time their conversion to the Ballot had probably taken place, were in favour of a form of Ballot altogether different in most material respects from the system which is proposed in the present measure. That being so, I would ask your Lordships to consider—and I am sure your Lordships will be glad of any assistance that the noble Earl opposite can render to us in doing so—witnin what time there is any prospect of that Bill coming up to this House, and what will be the capacity of this House for entertaining it. We find from the records of the other House that the Bill is in Committee. Being a Bill of considerable length, it has reached a certain stage in Committee; but there are still a great number of clauses to be disposed of, and further clauses to be introduced. Without going into any detail as to the length of time that will be occupied by it, I think any person would be undoubtedly sanguine who could imagine that the Bill could leave the House of Commons and come up to this House in less than a fortnight from this time. Well, a fortnight will bring us nearly to the middle of August. Now, I ask, is there any reasonable ground for believing that a measure of that kind, abounding in details, as well as involving a great general principle, can be considered by this House with that care and attention which such a measure ought to receive? I do not speak for one moment of what may be the convenience or inconvenience of particular Members of your Lordships' House, but I speak simply of that which is perfectly
  364
  well known and well recognized in the physical impossibility of any grave and great public measure being carefully considered after this time of the year, having regard to the fact that the arrangements which are made not by Members of this House alone, but throughout the whole of our social system, are founded upon the almost invariable practice of Parliament concluding its business about this period of the year. We cannot have better testimony on this subject than the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government himself; and this was the view of the right hon. Gentleman on the 10th of the present month. Speaking of the Scotch Education Bill, and assigning reasons on behalf of the Government for not proceeding with the Bill this Session, he said that—"The measure was one of national importance, and it appeared impossible to proceed with it during the present Session with any prospect of obtaining such a general attendance as would ensure its proper consideration." The attendance there spoken of was in the other House of Parliament. Again, on the same day, I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking of a proposition with regard to a Royal residence in Ireland, said—
  "At the present period of the Session, and in the present condition of Public Business, when the House was necessarily beginning to feel the sense of exhaustion, caused by debates on questions of great public interest, the Government did not think that it would be possible with advantage to bring the matter before Parliament."
  Now, I ask your Lordships to observe that in both those opinions, so well expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the reason for postponing the measures of which he was speaking was, not the pressure of Public Business, but the physical incapacity of the House and of Parliament to give that degree of attention and attendance at this period of the year which measures of great public importance require. If any more evidence of the impossibility of proceeding further were necessary, it would be found in the course which the Government have taken with regard to measures which I venture to say will be, in the opinion of your Lordships' House and in the opinion of the public, quite of as great importance as the Ballot Bill. What has been done with other public

  365
  measures? The Scotch Education Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman said was of great and Imperial importance, has been abandoned. The measures of law reform, promised in the Most Gracious Speech of Her Majesty, have never been introduced. Those measures of sanitary regulation which have been urgently called for by the Report of the Committee which sat upon that subject, and which I venture to think are still more urgently called for by that fearful pestilence which there is too much reason to suppose is making advances in its progress to these shores, have been entirely laid aside. With regard to measures for the supply of pure water, which perhaps may be classed under the same head, there is no prospect whatever of dealing with them. Then, again, we have got the Report of a Royal Commission dealing with a subject of great delicacy, which excites certainly as much interest, and, perhaps, I might say as much agitation in the country as any public measure of the present time—I mean the question of the Contagious Diseases Acts. But at this advanced period of the Session, we find that the Government are unable to deal with any legislation upon that subject. Measures for the regulation of mines are also urgently called for; but they, too, have been set aside. Here we have a catalogue of public measures, every one of which is as important as the Ballot Bill, which have been put aside because the period of the Session is such that no attention can be expected to be bestowed upon them, such as they would demand in the other House of Parliament. My Lords, it would be a great mistake, in reference to the Bill of which I more particularly speak, to suppose that the only consideration is, whether there would be opportunity and leisure in this House to discuss and deal with the question of the second reading of the Bill? I am perfectly unable to speculate as to what the fate of the Bill might be on the Motion for the second reading, if it should come to this House. Of course, if it were not read a second time, there would be a close to any question with regard to it. But, on the other hand, if it should be read, it is a Bill bristling with details; and those details, which have occupied a considerable time in the other House, might occupy a considerable time in your Lordships' House.
  366
  Not only that, but Amendments might be made in the Bill, and those Amendments would have to go down to the other House of Parliament. They ought to be considered there; but I ask what prospect there would be in the end of August, or the beginning of September, of those Amendments finding in the other House of Parliament Members ready and willing to consider them? In point of fact, it would be a perfect farce, for it would be utterly impossible for the Amendments of your Lordships to be considered by the other House of Parliament, and I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their grave opinion that, under the circumstances I have endeavoured to describe, at this period of the Session there could be any fair or proper discussion of a measure like the Ballot Bill? Moreover, if the measure were brought up to this House, I should be very sorry to suppose that there would be any justification for the feeling which certainly seems to be entertained out-of-doors. I am informed that a right hon. Gentleman, a very distinguished Member of the Government (Mr. W. E. Forster), who has taken a very important part in regard to the Ballot Bill, expressed himself to the effect that the wish of the Government was to pass the Bill in the House of Commons, send it up to this House, and leave the responsibility of rejecting it to your Lordships, if you should be disposed to exercise your right in that form. I should be very sorry to believe that those words were intended to convey the meaning they obviously bear—namely, that the Government felt themselves committed to pass the Ballot Bill in the other House of Parliament, and feeling themselves unable to recede from their engagement, thought their only chance of deliverance from the stringency of their pledge was to send the Bill to this House not to be discussed, not to be considered, not to be received, but to be rejected by your Lordships, thus removing their responsibility. I ask the noble Earl opposite whether he considers that this Bill could at this period be discussed in this House? Then, I am told there might be an adjournment of the Houses; and this has been said as if the adjournment of this or the other branch of the Legislature rested with Her Majesty's Government, than which there could be no greater mistake.

  367
  One of the first privileges of the Houses of Parliament is, that they regulate their own adjournments, and are themselves the judges of when they should rise and meet. Of course, I do not forget that in the earlier periods of our Parliamentary history, it was the practice for the head of the State to regulate this matter by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. But an excellent authority on Parliamentary practice (Sir Erskine May) tells us that the last occasion this power was used was in the year 1814, adding, that the results were such that in all probability it would never be used again. He did not, however, anticipate the use that would be made of the Royal Prerogative by a truly Liberal Administration; and putting aside that violent stretch of the Prerogative, it will be for your Lordships to say, and not for the Government—if the Session is not brought to an end by Prorogation—to what period this House shall stand adjourned. I do not forget that there is the power by statute of summoning Parliament at a notice of 14 days, notwithstanding the lengthened adjournment. But that is a power given to the Government in order to meet some sudden emergency, such as the Crown wishing to recur to the advice of Parliament, and not a power conferred in order by a side wind to overrule the Motion of either House for Adjournment. Now, I have no doubt that, if it were put to your Lordships that the interests of the public service demanded a meeting of Parliament earlier than the usual time, and that this could only be accomplished by means of adjournment to the autumn months, your Lordships would be guided by considerations derived from public advantage rather than from private convenience. But I apprehend the first inquiry would be into the supposed necessity of departing from the usual custom, and into the pressure said to exist; and your Lordships would require to be satisfied of the existence of that necessity and that pressure, before consenting to such an adjournment. Of course, it would be competent for your Lordships, if the Session were not closed by a Prorogation, to adjourn as usual until the month of February next year, and your Lordships might think it right to take that course. At present, however, I have to ask, what are the public measures which the Government anticipate
  368
  they will be able to bring up to this House; at what time they expect they will come before your Lordships; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to make any proposal to this House upon the subject of the re-assembling of your Lordships before the period at which the Prorogation usually takes place?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot at present give a categorical answer to the Questions involved in the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Cairns') speech, but I trust to be able to do so at an early period next week. The noble and learned Lord passed in review the state of business both in this and the other House of Parliament, and I was glad to hear that he deemed the state of business here satisfactory. He put a question with respect to two Government Bills. I have communicated with my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, who will lose no time in making inquiry of the persons who were in charge of them in the other House. The noble and learned Lord stated that within his memory, the condition of business in the House of Commons was unprecedented, and gave same details of the number of Bills and other work remaining to be disposed of. The chief point, however, of his remarks was a desire to know when the Ballot Bill was likely to come up to your Lordships; how Her Majesty's Government intended to deal with it; and whether they meant to ask your Lordships to consider it during the course of next month, or to give effect to a suggestion — much pressed upon the Government by several Members in "another place" — namely, to adjourn both Houses for a certain time in order that the consideration of that measure might be resumed. Now, the noble and learned Lord is quite right in remarking that business is not in its usual state in the House of Commons. It is far from my wish to say a word, either in praise or blame of any parties or individuals in that House; but I think your Lordships will admit, as a matter of fact, that the mode of treatment of some of the business which has been before the House of Commons has also been unusual. With regard to the Ballot Bill, there is no doubt that the privilege of debate has been very freely used; while, with regard to the Army Bill, nobody, I think, will deny that the forms of the House

  369
  were much strained in the way in which it passed through the House of Commons. Nobody cognizant of what has passed can doubt that Amendments to the same effect were proposed one after another; that the same questions were raised over and over again; and that on a great portion of those numerous Amendments the debates on the second reading were begun over again. That has been done to such a degree that Her Majesty's Government, who have been subjected to all sorts of attacks for incapacity and want of knowing how to conduct the business of the House, have thought it necessary to refrain even from defending themselves, lest they should give fresh opportunity of beginning debates upon utterly irrelevant matters. The state of things has been such that two or three months ago the Government declared in the other House that there were two Bills which they thought it their duty to press to a result. Of those, one, the Army Bill, has reached this House; as to the other, the Ballot Bill, it is impossible for me to say definitely when it will come up, for your Lordships are as well acquainted with the circumstances as I am. It is a Bill in which the country takes the greatest possible interest; a Bill which a great majority of the House of Commons approve, as there cannot be the slightest doubt, from their steady, unvarying, and undiminishing majorities; and a Bill of such importance that I think Her Majesty's Government have given a pledge, from which they could not release themselves without the full consent of the House of Commons, to whom the declaration was made. The noble and learned Lord referred to a declaration by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) on the subject. I might have stopped him, exactly as he stopped a noble and gallant Lord when referring to a declaration of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, which the other side apparently wished to prevent him from quoting.
  LORD CAIRNS: I did not stop him.
  EARL GRANVILLE: All I can say is, I never heard such shouts of "Order!" as proceeded from the front Opposition bench on the occasion. Noble Lords opposite had a perfect right to do so, but it is important that any declaration of a Minister should, in a peculiar case, be
  370
  commented upon; and I did not, therefore, interrupt the noble and learned Lord. However, passing from that matter, I must say that he showed a little want of that fairness which generally characterizes him, in putting a certain construction on the right hon. Gentleman's words, without the slightest allusion to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman subsequently gave. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Greene), however, stated that he found an excuse for not voting for the present clause, in some remarks of mine made on a previous evening; but it is clear that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood those remarks. He said that he understood I was pushing forward this Bill in defiance of the other branch of the Legislature; and I am surprised that he or any hon. Member should have such a notion. What occurred was this—The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) asked what was the use of the Government going on with this Bill, when they could not hope to pass it this Session; and to that my reply was, that we were passing the Bill through the House, because the majority of our constituencies desired it, and therefore we thought that the responsibility of its rejection, if rejected it was to be, should rest with the other House. There was nothing unconstitutional and nothing like defiance in that statement. I then went on to state, what I cannot think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) could have heard—that, judging from their past history, I believed that the House of Lords would, at some sacrifice to their own convenience, spend the time necessary in considering this measure, desired by the majority of the constituencies, and relating to the mode of electing the Members of this House by ballot. How the hon. Gentleman could suppose that in stating my belief that the House of Lords would give time to the consideration of such a measure as this, and in basing that expectation on their past history, I was offering a defiance to the other branch of the Legislature, it puzzles me to imagine."—[3 Hansard, ccviii. 185.]
  I must say that the noble and learned Lord, in commenting on what he believed to be a declaration of the right hon. Gentleman's, should have made some allusion to this explanation. I cannot conceive that there is any defiance to this House in the words used by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am rather surprised at so much sensitiveness being exhibited, when I recollect that in a recent debate I heard an allusion made to the other House of graver import than, anything the right hon. Gentleman said, when it was said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), that it was a House which could not pass any measure, except under the influence of the hatred of class against class, and creed

  371
  against creed—and no explanation has been given in regard to that very serious attack on the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord referred to the question of the adjournment of both Houses until the autumn. What happened was this—The matter was suggested in the other House, but the Government have, as yet, expressed no intention whatever. Being asked by several hon. Members to take that course they answered that was one worthy of consideration; that a desultory conversation like that did not indicate what was the opinion of the House of Commons; and that it would be desirable to obtain the opinion of the House of Lords on the subject. I alluded to the question of adjourning till the autumn or prolonging the Session in a private conversation with the noble and learned Lord, who I am sure will forgive me for referring to it, and who stated that he could not conceive how the consent of either House could be obtained, and I did not understand whether he implied that one course would be more agreeable than another. Now, in the statement he has just made, he rather condemned both the courses which seemed to have found favour with the House of Commons, and intimated that one course would, not be more agreeable to your Lordships than the other; but one thing I understood him, there was no doubt about, and that was, that the proposed adjournment to the autumn was unconstitutional. As to the course which he condemned as unconstitutional, I believe there are precedents for it, and that if the case arose we should be able to show good grounds why it is not unconstitutional. It may be a necessary act to adjourn both Houses, and I cannot see, therefore, why it should be unconstitutional. I am not at this moment prepared to yield that extreme deference to the noble and learned Lord's dicta as to the practice of Parliament which I should have paid a few days ago. Your Lordships will remember that the Duke of Richmond gave Notice last week of a rider to the second reading of the Army Bill, which struck us as of an extraordinary and un-Parliamentary character. I asked the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees what he thought of it? and for the first time in his life he refused to give me an answer on a point of form. I have, therefore, no right to quote him,
  372
  but I drew my own conclusion as to what his opinion was. We all know now what the universal opinion of that Resolution has been. The noble and learned Lord said last night it was not altogether without precedent; but we can find no precedent whatever, and the noble Viscount (Viscount Eversley), whose long experience of the other House, and attention to the forms of this House, entitle him to so much authority, declared it to be a dangerous precedent, which the House of Commons would never allow. After taking six days to consider it, the noble and learned Lord, who, I am sure, must have been consulted in the first instance, came down and substituted a Resolution which I admit to be perfectly regular in point of form. I am, therefore, disposed to question his assertion upon matters of this kind at this particular moment. As to the invariable practice of not considering Bills of any importance after the 6th or 7th of August, I find that the East India Charter Act and the Bank Charter Act were considered at a later date, and that the Irish Municipal Corporations Act was not passed till September. So that the noble and learned Lord was not justified in making the statement to which I have referred, although strengthening it as he did with the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, for the noble and learned Lord quoted the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as to the exhausted state of the other House, and concluded by appealing to me whether I thought that, in the present state of business, the Ballot Bill could meet a due consideration at the hands of the House of Commons, and, above all, could it be fully considered by your Lordships. But does he mean to say that, whatever good work we have done this year, we are so exhausted as to be unable to consider anything fresh likely to require a few nights' attention? I have always protested, and shall continue to protest, against this House, which very naturally clamours for work at a time when the experience of nearly a hundred years has shown that it is almost impossible to get it, refusing at a fixed season of the year when even they are not nearly so heavily taxed as the Commons, to give its attention to important measures that may be brought before it. I am sure it is un-

  373
  desirable for this House to hold that language, and I trust your Lordships will not continue to do so. Do your Lordships suppose that the Members of the Government are personally averse from holidays? We were told the other night that the vote of censure on us should be posponed for ten days because noble Lords had made engagements for this week. Now, to tell the honest truth, I would have given the world for the opportunity of making and keeping some of those engagements. There are heads of public Departments who are subject to such a strain of work that I cannot understand how they can bear it; and even though the work is so much lighter here, most of us, after the work and anxiety of last year, would personally be glad of a little holiday, but we think we ought to sacrifice those feelings where the public interest is concerned. I trust that feeling is shared by your Lordships, who have the opportunity of absenting yourselves and returning when you like, and that you will not think it a great hardship to be asked to consider a subject immensely ventilated by the House of Commons for weeks, and to give a few nights' attention to it. I hardly know any case in which your Lordships have given more than three or four or five days to the consideration of important Bills, on the ground that the whole matter has been thoroughly sifted elsewhere, and comes up here chiefly for the purpose of revision, whereas another House has to ascertain facts and make examinations which we have ready to our hands, and, consequently, those Bills reach your Lordships' hands in such a state of completeness as they did not possess before when they were first placed in their crude form before the other House. I assure your Lordships that the Government are desirous in every way of consulting your personal convenience, and where a great public object does not interfere, it is our duty to do so; but I trust you will not think it disrespectful if, when public objects intervene, we urge you to make some sacrifice, in order to settle a subject in which the House of Commons takes the greatest interest, and on which their constituents feel so strongly, that the Conservative Member for Stockport has said it is the one subject which the thousands of workmen, added by noble Lords opposite to his constituency, of
  374
  every shade of opinion, all desire to see settled.
  LORD CAIRNS: The noble Earl has, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresented me on some points. As to the Resolution to be proposed on Monday, I am glad that he likes its present form, and I hope we shall have no difficulty in persuading him to accept it; but I must say the noble Earl's remarks on that matter rather appeared like trailing a herring across the scent in order to avoid answering my Question as to the intentions of the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I stated that I would endeavour to give an answer early next week.
  LORD CAIRNS: The points in which the noble Earl misrepresented me are these—In the first place, I never stated that it was the invariable practice of your Lordships not to entertain any public measures after a certain time. I simply reasoned from the analogy of the past the difficulties likely to arise out of the present period of the Session. Then, as the noble Earl has been good enough to refer to a private conversation with which he was kind enough to favour me, I may be allowed to state what he has probably forgotten. He said I had probably seen what had passed in "another place," and asked me whether I would prefer the House to continue to sit and discuss the Ballot Bill, or have an autumn Session to consider it in. He added—"I suppose you will tell me you don't like either." I said that was exactly what I felt; and that I should like both plans so little that it was difficult to tell which I should like least. The noble Earl then said it was very desirable to obtain the sense of the House generally. I told him I dared say it was, but I could not see how it was to be arrived at. That was the whole of the conversation. If he supposed I meant to say, or did say, that it was unconstitutional for the Houses of Parliament to adjourn either to a month in autumn or until next February, I can only assure him that I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was unconstitutional was the idea that the Government or the Crown could dictate to either House of Parliament as to the period to which it was to adjourn. I said that that might be a proposal coming from the Government; but with regard to your Lordships, it was for you to say to what

  375
  period you would adjourn; and I said expressly that if your Lordships were of opinion that you should adjourn until February in next year, there being no Prorogation, I saw nothing whatever to prevent your taking that course. Let me now correct another matter of somewhat greater importance, because it involves a statement made by a Gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect, and of whom I would not say one word in disparagement—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster). The noble Earl seemed to think that I had accused the right hon. Gentleman of defying the House of Lords. I said nothing of the kind. I said that he—so far from defying this House—begged and prayed for its assistance. But that was what I objected to—that the Government, in order to keep a pledge made to the other House of Parliament, should insist on passing a Bill and sending it up to the House, in order that the responsibility of rejecting it might rest on us. So far from misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, I have here in my hand an explanation much better than that given by the noble Earl, for it was the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, at the moment when he was challenged on the spot as to his observations. He said, in the first place, that—
  "Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House feel they are fulfilling the wishes of the country in supporting the Bill, and in doing their utmost to obtain the sense of the House of Commons with respect to it, leaving the responsibility of rejecting it on the other House of Parliament, if they desire to exercise the right to do so.
  That remark was challenged, and here is Mr. Forster's explanation—
  "He did not say that the Bill would be rejected in 'another place.' He spoke of the responsibility of its rejection, if it were passed by the House of Commons, being thrown on the other House of Parliament."
  Now that is what I said. The Government take up this position—"We are unable to pass this Bill; let us pass it here, and throw the responsibility of rejecting it on the House of Lords; it will be for them to deliver us from the difficulty in which we find ourselves." And now let me say one word more. The noble Earl has accused me of interrupting a noble and gallant Lord, and calling him to Order on a previous occasion.
  376
  I beg to say that I did not interrupt him; but the question raised then was different from the one before us now, when a statement is made by the Government calling for an explanation which we have a perfect right to give. On the previous occasion referred to the noble and gallant Lord was reading a speech which had been delivered in the other House for the purpose of adopting it, and enforcing his own speech by arguments founded upon it.

THE PROTESTANT ELECTORAL UNION—CASE OF MR. GEORGE MACKIE AND OTHERS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. George Mackie, now a prisoner in Winchester Gaol; also, to the prosecution by the Solicitor of the Treasury of Mr. R. Steele; and to the assault on Mr. Murphy at Whitehaven; and to move for Copies of any Correspondence that has taken place on these subjects between Her Majesty's Government and the different local authorities, said, he wished to protest against religious intolerance being brought in to act on the administration of justice in this country. Before entering on the subject, he wished to say he was not in any way connected with the Protestant Electoral Union, and only desired equal justice for all religious organizations. The case of Mr. Mackie was simply this—Mr. Mackie was prosecuted for distributing a certain book called The Confessional Unmasked, which had been previously published, and which had been found by the Court of Queen's Bench to be an obscene publication, and the Chairman of the Hants Quarter Sessions submitted the case to the jury on the strength of that decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, saying that the book had been found to be an obscene book, and that that was all they had to consider. There was also this point in the case—that it was very doubtful whether the jury had been legally sworn; but Mr. Mackie was condemned to three months' imprisonment, and to give security for his good behaviour for twelve months. There was one curious fact with regard to The Confessional Unmasked. He had looked through that book, and he had no hesitation in saying that it

  377
  contained matter of an extremely objectionable character; but it was still more objectionable that the matter which it contained should be published and taught in all Roman Catholic schools, as there was no doubt it was, and distributed by Roman Catholic clergymen, than that it should be distributed for the purpose of confutation. All the persons whose names he had included in the Notice of Motion which he had given were members of the society called the Electoral Protestant Union. The case of Mr. Steele was heard before a London magistrate, who was a lawyer, and that magistrate granted an appeal to the higher Courts; but it was refused in Mr. Mackie's case by the Chairman of the Hants Quarter Sessions, although that Chairman was not a lawyer. Mr. Mackie had been tried on a previous occasion for circulating The Confessional Unmasked, but the jury were unable to agree, though it was understood that all but one of them wished to acquit him. What he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) complained of was that while Her Majesty's Government felt themselves justified in liberating, in the case of the Fenians, criminals who had been convicted of some of the gravest crimes, they did not feel themselves justified in liberating that unfortunate man, even after he had completed his sentence, merely because from conscientious scruples he refused to give his own bail for his good conduct. The case of Mr. Murphy differed from the others in that it involved the right of freedom of discussion, and so demanded the serious attention of Parliament. Mr. Murphy was a gentleman of, no doubt, extreme opinions, and who put forward those views in an extreme manner; but he always did so in a room hired for the purpose, and not in a public thoroughfare or public place, where he might give offence to passers by; and in which case, if attacked while so occupied, no one would be surprised at his being ill-treated, but his lectures being delivered in a room where no one was obliged to hear them, and where those who did hear them went for that purpose by their own free will, he had a right to the protection of the Executive; if, under those circumstances, a man was not justified in stating his opinions, however disagreeable those opinions might be to other parties, freedom of discussion
  378
  had altogether ceased. What he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) complained of was that, although Chief Baron Kelly laid it down on the recent trial that Mr. Murphy was only liable to punishment in case his lectures were proved to be seditious or immoral, yet the Executive Government, instead of using the force of the country to protect Mr. Murphy in his own private lecture room, interfered on more than occasion to prevent his lecturing at all, and at Whitehaven, though they had full warning of what might be expected, they waited until Mr. Murphy had been attacked, and handled very severely indeed before they interfered to protect him. Their Lordships had now seen what was the course pursued by the Government with regard to these unprotected Protestant lecturers; but what course did they take with regard to great Roman Catholic bodies? One such body assembled in the spring at St. James's Hall, under the presidency of Archbishop Manning, and expressed the opinion that their loyalty to the Government of the country was wholly dependent on that Government adopting a certain foreign policy. He (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had recently spent an evening in travelling to Scotland with a very distinguished member of the Church of Rome, Monsignore Capel, a very able and agreeable gentleman, who had taken a leading part in carrying people out of the Protestant communion, though he had not converted him. If such measures were resorted to against Monsignore Capel as had been used against Mr. Murphy, what would be said of such a case, and what would be the feeling of that House? Because Mr. Murphy was a poor unpolished man he was altogether unworthy of notice; but if he had been a man in Monsignore Capel's position, the greatest disapproval and disgust would have been shown against the treatment to which he was subjected. Mr. Murphy had as good a right to advocate Protestant views as Monsignore Capel and Archbishop Manning had to advocate the extension of the Roman Catholic religion, but he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) believed that the Government, in dealing with these matters, considered their political ends, rather than the ends of justice. The conduct of the Roman Catholics was carried on under an organized system. Cardinal

  379
  Wiseman, laid down a policy by which he wished to bring the Roman Catholic minority of the country so to act upon elections as to have a weight far beyond their real claims, and he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had been told by many Members of the other House that they dare not express their real feelings openly, because there was a small united body of Roman Catholics in their constituency which was sufficient to carry the balance one way or the other. He did not say that that was not a perfectly legitimate use of the power which these people possessed, but it was one which ought to be carefully guarded against. Day by day the Legislature was giving to the Roman Catholic priesthood powers which were refused to them in every other country in the world, and were repealing statutes made long before the Reformation as checks on the Roman Catholic system. They had a system of education paid for, but uncontrolled, by Government, such as was not allowed in any Roman Catholic country of Europe. To remhove wat as swtyled a sentimental grievance in their favour, the Established Church of Ireland had been disestablished, and only this year there was a Bill before Parliament, called the Glebe Loans Bill, which was for the purpose of enabling what used to be the Church funds of Ireland to be lent for the purpose of building convents, and paying off loans upon them. Great privileges and power had thus been intrusted to a minority consisting of no more than a fifteenth part of the people, and the least that could be done on the other side of the question was that political influence should be so guarded as to secure for the poor Protestant lecturer the same protection and consideration as for the Roman Catholic Archbishop or priest. He would conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of correspondence respecting the imprisonment of Mr. George Mackie, now a prisoner in Winchester Gaol; also respecting the prosecution by the Solicitor of the Treasury of Mr. R. Steele; and also respecting the assault on Mr. Murphy at TVhitehaven.—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had travelled over very wide ground, through the whole question of religious
  380
  toleration, and had brought forward several charges against the Government of a partial administration of the law. He (the Earl of Morley) must beg to decline following the noble Lord over that very wide ground, and need scarcely detain their Lordships by examining many of those charges, inasmuch as they were founded on misconception and inaccuracy in regard to the facts. He must at once say that he was unable to accede to the noble Lord's request that Papers should be laid before the House, for it was an unusual course to lay such Papers upon the Table, and in none of the three cases mentioned in the noble Lord's Notice was there anything which would justify a departure from the usual line of procedure. Mackie was tried at Winchester for publishing and selling a book called The Confessional Unmasked, an obscene book condemned by the Court of Queen's Bench.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: It was not the same.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: The alteration was a very slight one, and substantially the book was the same. The noble Lord said the Chairman of Quarter Sessions took out of the hands of the jury the question whether the book was obscene. On the contrary, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions directed the jury to consider whether the book was obscene, quoting the precise words used by the Lord Chief Justice in the Queen's Bench in pointing out various passages for their consideration. Nothing could be fairer than the way in which the question was left to the jury. Nor was there any informality as alleged in the swearing in of the jury, for they were sworn in the usual way, and, though the prisoner's counsel was present, no objection was made till some days afterwards. Mackie was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and to find sureties for his good behaviour during 12 months, and he was now in gaol merely because he refused to find these sureties. If the prisoner found the sureties, he would be at once released, and under such circumstances there was no reason why the Executive should interfere. As to the case of Murphy, the noble Lord complained that no attempt whatever had been made to prevent him from being severely handled at Whitehaven. The statement was entirely inaccurate, for Murphy was rescued

  381
  from the rioters by a large body of police about 10 minutes after the commencement of the attack, and no less than 15 men, Roman Catholic miners, had been arrested, and seven were committed for trial at the Assizes, of whom five had been sentenced to 12, and two to eight months' imprisonment. He did not know how the Executive could have acted otherwise. As to the case of Mr. Steele, it had been investigated at Bow Street, and all that need be said of it was that the magistrate had granted a case which would come in due time before the Court of Queen's Bench.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had exercised a wise discretion in the matter of Mackie. He was indicted for circulating a book undoubtedly of a very obscene character, though nominally used for theological purposes. In prosecuting the case, two distinct trials had taken place, in one of which the jury were unable to agree; while in the other the jury were unanimous, and the prisoner was sentenced as already mentioned. Now, there was no difficulty in finding the necessary sureties; but the prisoner, wishing to appear a martyr, had declined to accept the sureties which were ready for him. Under such circumstances, it was unreasonable to expect a Secretary of State to exercise the Royal Prerogative in his favour. The noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had been not quite fair towards the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Though not a lawyer, no man paid greater attention to the cases brought before him, and no man was more competent to decide them. His summing up, too, followed that of the Lord Chief Justice in a similar case. Having some connection with Winchester, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) was quite as desirous of getting rid of Mackie as the noble Lord was of setting him free, for, besides the expense to the county, Mackie had been during the last two or three months a very insubordinate prisoner, and had been punished two or three times for breach of the prison regulations. He was a perfectly voluntary martyr, free to accept the sureties at any moment, when he could be released, and the case was not one in which the Royal Prerogative should be used in his favour.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

ST. KATHERINE'S HOSPITAL.

  PETITION. MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL NELSON, having presented a Petition of Clergy of the rural deanery of Stepnoy—
  "That in any scheme for the re-arrangement of the Hospital of St. Katherine near the Tower the spiritual character of the foundation and the local claims of the original precincts may be recognised,"
  proceeded to move the Address of which he had given Notice. He said he was directly at variance with the 29th clause of the Report of the Commission, which stated, with regard to those schemes relating to the local application of the fund—that it would not be expedient to fix on the property a merely local character, inasmuch as the Hospital never had such a character when it was originally instituted. As far as he understood, from the very first foundation of the Hospital, notwithstanding an order for the praying for souls, it had a local character. It was perfectly true that in 1545, in Henry VIII.'s reign, there was a Commission issued, when the property of the Hospital was seized for a time, and an inventory was made of it. By the first alteration in the original constitution of the Hospital, Catherine Parr nominated laymen, and in Edward VI.'s reign a layman was nominated, and in Elizabeth's reign another layman was nominated, named Dr. Wilson. But even Dr. Wilson, who tried to make it a lay institution more than any others, was obliged, and his lay successors had been obliged, and the present master—at least the late master—had been also obliged to acknowledge a clause which showed that the head of the Hospital was ecclesiastical. Dr. Wilson was actually sued for non-payment of tenths, and he succeeded in defending himself, by pleading that the Hospital was for the relief of poor men and women. But in 1640 an action was brought by one master of the Hospital against the executor of another master, and in the pleadings of both sides it was stated to be a beneficium ecclesiasticum. It began again to take its own character, and in 1681 the clerical brothers re-appeared. It was classed in the same list with the collegiate church of Westminster and others, and they all stood in the same category. Another strong proof of its local character was, that there was attached to the Hospital

  383
  a peculiar jurisdiction, whereby all causes were tried within the precincts by the Chancellor; and though this was not acted on till the end, he believed that that peculiar jurisdiction was not repealed until 1846, when the Act was passed for abolishing old and peculiar jurisdictions. But he also found that up to the time of the removal of the Hospital the brothers regularly performed the pastoral duties of the parish, acting as pastoral clergy within the precincts. Under the 148th section of the Dock Act the Hospital was removed from its position, and the terms of the clause showed that up to the time of its removal it had been specially connected with the locality where it was placed. And here he wished to say that the remarks which he made two years ago in reference to the maladministration of the funds of the Hospital ought not to be held to reflect on those who filled offices therein, and he was happy to state that when he went to Stepney the other day he found that the lay master of the Hospital was doing a great work for the benefit of the eastern parts of London, at St. John's, Bethnal Green. In the new scheme it should therefore be placed again in a locality where it was capable of being of use, and he thought he was not asking too much, in requiring that it should be restored to the neighbourhood of the now dense locality from which it had been originally removed. The new scheme, which was to have an enlarged school in the Regent's Park, could not, he maintained, be carried out beneficially in the locality in which the Hospital was at present placed. There were there very few children to go to the schools, and very few persons among whom the master and the brothers and sisters would be able to minister. There was no use, therefore, in making them resident, if they were obliged to reside in a place where they could do little or no good. He was pleading on behalf of the eastern parts of the Metropolis, which required some persons who would deal with the spiritual destitution of the district. He had a dear friend, Mr. Edward Denison, whose death all who knew him must deeply deplore, and who found the best way to relieve those who lived in that quarter was not to give them money, but to go and live among them; and if the Hospital were only removed to the old place, the master, with £800 a-year,
  384
  and the brothers and sisters with their £400 a-year, would be just the stamp of persons whose presence in the district was most required. They would effect a great deal of good, which could not be accomplished in the locality in which the Hospital was now situated; and it was for those reasons he now moved the Address of which he had given Notice.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for having presented to Parliament the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into several matters relative to the Royal Hospital of St. Katherine near the Tower, and now situate in the Regent's Park; and praying Her Majesty that in any scheme founded on this Report due attention may be paid to the spiritual and educational necessities of the parishes adjacent to the old precincts of the Hospital.—(The Earl Nelson.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, as one of the Commissioners who had made the recommendation in favour of the present scheme, said, he felt it his duty to state how and why it was that the Commissioners, after much consideration of the various schemes which were presented, reported that they would not be justified in recommending the re-transfer of the Hospital to the locality from which it had been for upwards of 40 years removed. Looking into the early foundation of this charity—a charity of a very singular description—of which the Queen Consort, when there was one, was the patron, he saw that it was founded a good deal earlier than the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) appeared to suppose, for the foundress was Matilda, widow of King Stephen. There was an augmentation of the charity by Eleanor, wife of Henry III.; but the original documents in regard, to the foundress and Queen Eleanor had not been discovered, and all that was known of them was obtained from charters of a later date, granted in the reigns of the Edwards and Henry VI. It did not, moreover, from the first, appear to be a charity that was localized in the sense in which the noble Earl seemed to speak, for it was not a charity which had its origin in any particular regard or affection for the particular place in which it happened to be situated. It was a charity of a special class, and Queen Philippa extended the scope of the duties of the kind of college or body which had been established by the foundress, and precribed that they must see the poor, visit

  385
  the sick, and educate children. But that was not for the benefit of any particular district. The building had been placed at St. Katherine's, but not for the special benefit of the particular district. The charity had twice been the subject of decrees of the Court of Chancery — one in the time of Lord Somers, when several regulations for the purpose of preventing the taking of large fines and granting leases were made. Provision was also made for the education of a certain number of boys and girls. The second investigation in Chancery was in the time of Lord Lyndhurst, owing to what had taken place in reference to St. Katherine's Docks and the removal of the institution. St. Katherine's Docks not only swallowed up the local habitation of the foundation, but it also swallowed up the habitations of many poor almspeople, and their houses were removed and a large amount of population entirely destroyed. At that time it would, no doubt, have been a very good and seasonable opportunity for saying—"We will raise the question whether this charity should not be continued in this place where it has been for so many years." All that, however, was discussed in the scheme which came before Lord Lyndhurst, and it was ultimately resolved in Chancery, 46 years ago, that the institution should be placed in the situation it now occupied in Regent's Park. The arrangement which was then made was not, perhaps, quite that which the Commissioners would desire. The master had too liberal an allowance, which it was proposed to reduce from £1,200 to £800, and it was proposed that the master's house should be turned into a school. Many suggestions had been made as to the purpose to which the funds might be made applicable. One plan was for building a church in the parish of St. Greorge's-in-the-East, another was for founding a sisterhood in the locality. There was nothing in the statutes to show that it was designed that this institution should benefit a particular locality, and the present neighbourhood in which it was founded had partaken of its benefits for the last 46 years. Lord Lyndhurst's scheme increased the number of boys and girls to be placed in the school, and in that position the Commissioners found the Hospital. They thought that the funds of the institution might be greatly
  386
  increased, and so they could be at once by £2,000 a-year, or, if more time were given, by £4,000 a-year. The Commissioners were also of opinion that a valuable boarding-school might be established in connection with the day school, and scholarships were founded, which were to be supported out of the increased funds. Having arrived at these conclusions, they did not deem it desirable that the boarding-school should be located near St. Katherine's Docks where the children should dwell. They believed the Regent's Park to be a more healthy residence, and when the noble Earl said the same amount of good could not be done there, he would observe that while no one could dispute that there were a greater number of cases of distress at the East-end of the town, yet it must not be supposed there were no destitute poor in the vicinity of Regent's Park, or no persons standing in need of religious ministration. He should also bear in mind that children might be sent to the boarding-school from the East-end, and that they would be better located in the Regent's Park on the score of health. In a word, the Commissioners found nothing to show that the charity was originally provided for the benefit of a particular district, and that its having been situated at St. Katherine's Docks was simply an accidental circumstance, and they accordingly did not feel in a position to advise Her Majesty to recognize any local claims such as those which the noble Earl advocated. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would not assent to the Motion, and would abstain from doing anything which would tend to overthrow a scheme which had been decided on after long and anxious consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON, having expressed his regret at the absence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who took a great interest in the subject, said, he felt it to be his duty to support the Motion. The real point at issue was, he contended, a very narrow one, and resolved itself into the question where the charity ought to be established; and in connection with that part of the subject he must maintain there was nothing in the statutes to lead to the belief that it was not the intention of the founder to benefit the locality in which the Hospital was founded. There was no doubt that in the beginning of that century, before

  387
  the Hospital was removed, there was in the neighbourhood of St. Katherine's a cure of souls, a church, a minister's house, and there was also a large population who had no other church to go to. The first persons to be attended to should be those who lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the original foundation, and there was the more reason for it in this particular instance because the formation of the Docks brought into the place a class of people who stood peculiarly in need of temporal and spiritual assistance. He knew none who stood more in need of such assistance than the class of dock labourers. He did not agree altogether with the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) that there were no poor to be found in the vicinity of Regent's Park; but he did agree with him in thinking that the needs of those around St. Katherine's Docks were very much greater. He, for one, thought the money might be better distributed than by the scheme which the Commissioners recommended, for it appeared from the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that a large school was to be built in a neighbourhood which was able to supply its own wants. But what was asked by the noble Earl and himself was, that the school should be in the neighbourhood of the original foundation, where the people were not able to supply their own wants.
  LORD DE ROS, as one perfectly acquainted with the locality to which the Motion referred, said, he could bear testimony to the wants of the district. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said that when the Hospital was originally founded the place was not very populous; but the same could not be said to be the case now, for Wapping, Shadwell, East Smithfield, and the neighbouring districts were among the most populous places of London, and this charity was established for the benefit of the people who lived there. It would certainly be of much greater use in the neighbourhood of St. Katherine's Docks now than it could possibly be at the Regent's Park.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-contents 20: Majority 2.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SASINES REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)
SASINES REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 200.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that at present the registration of lands situated where several counties met was very defective. A long description was usually given of the lands, which were stated to be in two or three different counties, but it was not said in which county each portion of land was situated. The consequence was that very great confusion had arisen. The object of the Bill was to enable registration to be refused, unless the particular county in which each portion of land was situated should be specified. He had received that morning a communication from certain Writers to the Signet suggesting two modifications: first, that the time for the Bill coming into operation should be postponed to the commencement of next year; and, secondly, that an alternative should be given to those who were anxious to register their writs in the Sasines—that they should specify in what county each portion of land was situate, or if that was impossible, that they should state that after due inquiry they did not find it possible to do so.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
  LORD COLONSAYsaid, he would not oppose the second reading, on the understanding that he reserved to himself the right of stating objections to it at another stage. The Bill had been hurried through the House of Commons, and full opportunity had not been given to the parties interested to consider its provisions. He hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) would give those who were interested time to understand the true nature of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY (STRATEGICAL EDUCATION).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNrose to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of any measures that may have been taken for the remedy of or copies of

  389
  correspondence respecting the want of a system of strategical education and instruction in the army and reserve forces; for movements or reviews of large bodies, whether of the regular or reserve forces; and for camps of instruction for the practice of manœuvres representing operations in actual warfare."
  The noble and gallant Lord said, he begged to submit a few brief observations in explanation of the object of the Papers for which he now moved. Recent debates in their Lordships' House proved two acknowledged facts: first, the inefficiency of their military system of education in service essentials; secondly, the unfortunate results of these deficiencies in operations of war; and as the instruction of their auxiliary forces was dependent on the same system, it was, of course, characterized by similar defects. In his Report of the last Easter Monday Volunteer Review, the General Officer commanding (Sir Hope Grant) strongly recommended the discontinuance of great Volunteer reviews, for a reason which he (Lord Strathnairn) ventured to think was unanswerable — namely, that it was a mistake to attempt to exercise troops in the movements of large bodies, and the higher ranges of the art of war, who were imperfectly, if at all, instructed in its preliminaries, the movements of brigades, or small bodies; and if that were true, a second consideration presented itself. These extensive concentrations were very expensive, and consumed the savings made by Volunteers on their allowances, which would be much more advantageously laid out in providing essentials for their health and efficiency—great coats, knapsacks, or canteens for cooking. To move from 15,000 to 20,000 Volunteers to great distances from their homes, with no protection against bad weather, wet clothes, and hunger, with only the questionable commissariat of publichouses and ginshops, was to compromise the health and efficiency of these valuable troops, exposing the one to risk, and the other to irregularities and undue temptations. The gallant officer, in his Report, added another to the long list of the results of an erroneous system of military training which, it was to be hoped, would have moved the War Department, in the terms of the Royal Speech, to efforts more decisive than heretofore at practical improvement. He said that, so false were the positions taken up on the heights by large bodies
  390
  of troops, that if it had been real warfare whole brigades would have been utterly annihilated by the enemy's artillery. In the interest of discipline, of the feeling and esprit de corps of the Volunteer force, he much regretted that that Report should have been published to the world by the War Department. It occasioned and drew forth counter-statements as to which he was sure that the authorities on reflection would frankly acknowledge and regret that they must be prejudicial to discipline. He had no right to constitute himself an arbiter of these differences; but the occupation of dangerous positions by various brigades was admitted by both parties. It was this and numerous other instances of a neglected art of war which had induced him, especially on the eve of the establishment of a new and very large camp of instruction, to ask for Papers which would show whether any and what steps had been taken by the War Department to correct past errors, and introduce a system which would teach the British Army and its Reserves the strategy and realities of war. He must express his firm conviction that, unless there were some improved method of teaching strategy, the coming camp of instruction, large and expensive as it would be, would turn out to be simply a great evil, and, in conclusion, would beg to move the Address which stood in his name.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of any measures that may have been taken for the remedy of or copies of correspondence respecting the want of a system of strategical education and instruction in the army and reserve forces; for movements or reviews of large bodies, whether of the regular or reserve forces; and for camps of instruction for the practice of manœuvres representing operations in actual warfare.—(The Lord Strathnairn.)
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, there were no Papers of that kind to produce. Her Majesty's Government were alive to the necessity of encouraging the instruction of officers of the Army on the points alluded to by the noble and gallant Lord, and it was for that reason that manœuvres had been ordered to be made in the autumn in a camp somewhere up the Thames, on the model of the system which had been practised with so much success in Prussia. Regulations had been issued as to the appointment of umpires to decide upon the movements of the troops in this mimic

  391
  campaign, during which the attention of the War Office would be seriously directed to those improvements which the noble and gallant Lord had so zealously advocated during the last two or three years. He hoped the noble and gallant Lord would not press his Motion.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, he hoped the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for the War Department (Lord Northbrook) would receive the thanks due to him for his courtesy in answering the Motion; and, being entirely satisfied with the reply, he (Lord Strathnairn) would beg leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for facilitating the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existing state of the Law relating to Friendly Societies—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 284.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.