Sitting of 16 June 1871

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Thames Embankment, appointed.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* [203]; Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* [204].
Second Reading—Canada* [192]; Treasurers of Rates* [120].
Select Committee—New Mint Building Site* [176], nominated.
Committee—Report—Life Assurance Companies Act (1870) Amendment* [183]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* [140].
Report—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations* [144–202].
The House met at Two of the clock.

IRELAND—MOUNTJOY GOVERNMENT PRISON.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report of a trial at the late assizes for the county of Wicklow, before Mr. Justice Morris, whereat it was given in evidence, and not contradicted—
"That certain 'official reports' of the physician of Mountjoy Government Prison relating to the prevalence of incipient insanity among the 'untried' prisoners, brought on by the cellular system, and which in due course should have been laid before the Chief Secretary, were from him withheld and suppressed by one of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland;"
whether any explanation of this statement has been by the Irish Government sought from the Prison Director referred to; and, whether he still holds his office; and, if so, are the Government prepared to institute an inquiry into the truth of a charge of so grave a nature?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, his attention had been called to a report of the trial in question. It appeared to him that the word "suppressed" was too strong a description of the circumstances which occurred.

139
It was true, however, that the report was not laid before the Chief Secretary for a period of a month or six weeks, and when that circumstance was brought to the knowledge of Lord Naas, he expressed his extreme regret that a report of that nature was not laid before him. Lord Naas thereupon ordered a full inquiry into all the circumstances, and the result was that almost immediately a change respecting the treatment of untried prisoners was made. The Director of Convict Prisons referred to still held office; but considering that the circumstances were fully inquired into by Lord Naas three years ago, and that the result arrived at was what he (the Marquess of Hartington) had just stated, he did not see how it was possible for him to make any further inquiry into the matter.

ARMY—LEICESTERSHIRE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Officer commanding the Leicestershire Militia gave due notice prior to the training that his regiment would be ready to take part in a field day, and that the time and place were arranged by the General Officer commanding the district, naming May 22nd as the time, and Northampton as the place for such brigade field day; whether the estimate of the cost (under £100), was forwarded to the Horse Guards on May 17th, and the blank ammunition sent down to Northampton, and for what reason he stopped further proceedings by telegram, received at Leicester on the evening of Sunday May 21st; and, whether he is aware that the Officers of the Leicestershire Militia, have been thus put to much fruitless expense and inconvenience, and seriously discouraged attempting to carry out the instructions embodied in the Reserve Forces Circular issued by the War Office?
  MR. CARDWELL: I have made inquiry, Sir, and am informed that the telegram from Manchester was received at the War Office on Saturday, the 20th, after office hours, and that on Monday morning, the 22nd, telegrams were sent to the general officer commanding the Northern District, and to the officers commanding the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Militia, to the effect that
  140
  the application had been received too late.

EDUCATION—POWERS OF SCHOOL BOARDS.—QUESTION.
MR. BULKELEY HUGHESasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether in a district provided with the requisite accommodation, within the distance prescribed in a Public Elementary School managed by a committee of ratepayers, can the School Board borrow money on the security of the school fund and local rate towards obtaining an additional school house; and, if they can, what limit (if any), would be placed by the Education Department to their borrowing powers or to the dimensions of such unnecessary building, and can the deficiency of the school fund in respect of such school house be raised out of the rates?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Education Department did not require school accommodation to be provided in any place until they were convinced there was a deficiency of such accommodation; and, with reference to a school board borrowing money for the purpose of increasing school accommodation, the district for which such accommodation must be provided was limited by the boundary of the school district, whatever that might be.

EDUCATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Paper issued by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, containing the general rules upon which they will deal with endowments now applicable to Elementary Education?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that he was very anxious that every information should be given by the Department of which he was the head; but he felt considerable difficulty with regard to the document referred to, which was neither headed nor signed, so that it was impossible to make it a Parliamentary Paper without giving it an importance which it was not intended to have. It was not an official statement drawn up for publication, nor was it addressed to the public, but formed part of an explanatory

141
letter adapted to the circumstances of each case.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought that the document, together with the correspondence with which it was accompanied, would form an interesting Parliamentary Paper, and he therefore hoped it would be laid before the House.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, some limit must be put on the production of documents of this nature. If documents which were a mere statement of views and were devoid of official responsibility were to be laid before the House, there would be no end of such Parliamentary Papers.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER—NOTICES.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in rising to take the direction of the Speaker on a point of Order, which was of great consequence as regarded the conduct of Public Business in that House, said, he would have asked the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman last night, had not the right hon. Gentleman unfortunately been unavoidably absent from his place. After the dinner hour yesterday Her Majesty's Government determined to proceed with the consideration of the Report of the Committee on Public Business. But the Resolutions which Her Majesty's Government decided on presenting to the House were not handed in at the Table until, he believed, after midnight, and when very few hon. Members were present. At an early hour that morning—after 2 o'clock—he (Mr. C. Bentinck) protested against that course, and urged upon Her Majesty's Government the unfairness of such a proceeding in the certainty of the absence of a great number of hon. Members of the House, and a large proportion of those who had attended to this question, and who had also sat on the Committee. He also pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he had given a distinct undertaking to himself (Mr. C. Bentinck) that ample notice of discussion on this question would be given. He ventured to submit that that undertaking had not been redeemed. That morning he had seen his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who held what was ordinarily termed the office of Leader of the Opposition. His right hon. Friend stated that he left the House after 8 o'clock
142
last night, when no distinct decision had been come to by the Government as to what was to be done at the Morning Sitting that day; that he, too, was under the impression that ample notice would be given, and that he did not consider that even 24 hours' notice would be all that was required.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he rose to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to be opening up a question of good or bad faith, which, he submitted, was not a point of Order.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven will state the point of Order, I will be happy to give my opinion on it.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, if out of Order he would submit to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, not to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven has stated that he wished to raise a distinct question relating to the Orders of the House, but much of the matter introduced by the hon. Member is not of that nature.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would proceed at once to the point of Order. As far as his experience in that House had given him any means of forming a judgment, the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in that matter was a breach, if not of the Rules of the House, at least of the rules of etiquette. He apprehended that, according to the understanding that existed between the two sides of the House, no question could be set down for discussion unless there was sufficient time to enable Amendments to that question to be duly placed upon the Paper also. In that case the rule, whether it was a Rule of the House or a rule of etiquette, had not been observed by Her Majesty's Government, and he would cite as an argument in favour of the position for which he was contending, the almost analogous case of an Amendment upon the Report of a Bill as amended in Committee. Hon. Members know that it was a Rule of the House, for which the Standing Orders provided, that no material alterations could be proposed on the Report of a Bill, as amended in Committee, except upon notice of 24 hours, and for the very obvious reason that the House ought to know beforehand when any such Amendments

143
should be considered, and that it was only proper that there should be ample notice. He apprehended that the Resolutions stood in exactly the same category, because a Resolution would not be read twice or three times; there would be only one discussion, and one opportunity for the House to express an opinion upon it. Therefore, according to common sense, justice and precedent, he contended that when Resolutions of such importance, dealing with the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, were to be considered, there should be no attempt, as it were, by a side-wind, to go through them without full discussion. That was the point of Order which he desired to place before the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. SPEAKER: The question of the hon. Member for Whitehaven, as I understand, includes two points—first, the point of Order as to Notice; and, secondly, the question of what is, under the circumstances, sufficient Notice. The rule with regard to Notice is, that Notice must be given on the previous day, and this was done in the instance under discussion. With regard to the sufficiency of the Notice, that is a matter of opinion upon which a difference of judgment may exist, and which may vary with the nature of the case; but as far as the strict rules of order go there is nothing, in my opinion, in them to prevent the House from proceeding with the considerations of the Resolutions.
MR. BOUVERIE: The object of the Rules with regard to Notice is, that Members may have full intimation of what is to be proposed, and that those who wish to move Amendments may be able to give Notice to that effect. The Rule of the House as regards public Notices of Motion is that they should be given at a quarter-past 4, when Members are generally in attendance, and there are means of knowing what is to be done. Generally, important Notices are given at that time; but no doubt it is the practice constantly that Notices of Motion are given privately to the Clerk at the Table after that hour, but that is for a subsequent day, and then they appear on the Paper as Notices of Motion given for a future day. I presume, however, that strictly they are supposed to be given at a quarter-past 4, and not at any time during the evening to the Clerk at the Table. I was myself
144
here until 2 o'clock this morning, and was not aware that airy Notice for discussing these Resolutions had been given. I was anxious myself to give Notice of one or two Amendments to the Resolutions. I understand that when Notice was given, my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bentinck), who was more wide awake than I was, did ask a question of the Leader of the House as to what was to be done. It was not until this morning, after my breakfast hour, that I saw that some Notice of these Resolutions had been given. I would submit to the candour of the Leader of the House, whether, upon an important question on which hon. Members of this House feel strongly, it would not be proper that adequate Notice should be given, so that those hon. Members who have a desire to move Amendments should have a fair opportunity of doing so.
MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to answer the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). In the first place, I do not know upon what authority my right hon. Friend has stated that the Rule of the House is, that Notice should be given at a quarter-past 4. I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon, there is no such Rule. At least, as at present advised, I am disposed to say no such Rule exists. The practice is to give Notice at that time, or in the course of the evening, for next day or a future day, so that hon. Gentlemen when they see the Paper in the morning may be aware what business is coming on in the course of the day. The history of the matter before the House is this—There has been a great pressure on the Government, and questions have been put to us to know when we could proceed with these Resolutions. We have hitherto been very reluctantly obliged to baulk the natural desire of many hon. Members to have these Resolutions proceeded with. What happened yesterday was as follows:—The business began with the consideration of the Army Bill, and in the course of the evening communications were made to us from the other side of the House and the opponents of the Bill generally, to the effect that it would be extremely agreeable to them if the Government would consent to take the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) on Monday. Under the circumstances, there

145
being every expectation that the Army Bill would be disposed of last night, it naturally occurred that, having acceded to that wish, we should take Supply this morning; but we took into account the fact that the Government had long ago considered the Resolutions of the Committee on Public Business, and that we had actually made up our minds as to the proposals which we should submit to the House on the subject, although our Resolutions were not actually drawn up. Now, of the three Resolutions which we intended to lay before the House, two were not in the slightest degree connected with our own interests. One of them is intimately connected with the concurrences of independent Members and the other with the propriety of certain proceedings in this House. The latter is that which relates to the power which every hon. Member possesses to call summarily and peremptorily for the exclusion of strangers from the House. Now, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) has announced his intention positively to introduce a Bill for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act on Tuesday next, and under the circumstances it appeared to us not in our own interest, but in the interest of the House itself, that this question with regard to the exclusion of strangers should be disposed of at a Morning Sitting before that day. That is the reason why we determined to propose the Resolution to which I am referring. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven was, I think, perfectly satisfied when I made a somewhat similar statement at half-past 2 this morning. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No!] The other Resolution which we intended to propose sit this Sitting is that which relates to counting out when the House meets at 9 o'clock. During the last few weeks, although on those occasions the Government formed one-third, and sometimes one-half, of the Members present, yet the House has been counted out at an early period after 9 o'clock, because independent Members and the champions of the rights of independent Members have not thought fit to be in their places for the purpose of making a quorum. We have done what we could by personal attendance to secure that object, and we thought it was really important that we should settle the question without delay, and in a manner generally approved, by a proposal
146
to delay the count for half-an-hour after 9 o'clock, in the interests of independent Members, not our own, because, personally, it would frequently be more convenient to us to go home than to sit here.
MR. CRAUFURDrose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman was doing that which he had no right to do; he was discussing the Resolutions under circumstances which would preclude any answer being given to his remarks.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not speaking to the point of Order, but in reply to an appeal from my right hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Kilmarnock, and if the House does not wish me to proceed I have no desire to do so. I have now stated the reasons which induced us to fix the consideration of those two Resolutions at a Morning Sitting to-day. As to the other Resolution which relates to Supply, I said last night that we should not proceed with it this morning, and my right hon. Friend near me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will not proceed with it, but it will remain on the Paper. If the House should not deem it right to proceed with the other Resolutions also, we shall not press them. We simply took a course which we thought would be for the convenience of hon. Members generally.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he had had the honour of sitting on the Committee upstairs, and he was under the impression due Notice would be given as to the time when the Resolutions founded on their Report would be brought before the House. Hon. Members had, in his opinion, some right to complain that the 3rd of the Resolutions now proposed was not that of the Committee. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had moved in the Committee that the hour before which a count-out could not be moved when the House met at 9 o'clock should be half-past; but the proposal of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), fixing the hour at a quarter-past 9, had been almost unanimously adopted. He thought it, therefore, extremely unfair of the Government to propose a different Resolution from that of the Committee, after only 10 or 12 hours' notice. If the Government thought the change which they suggested an improvement, they ought not, nevertheless, to take the House by surprise. As to the 1st Resolution, with

147
which it was proposed to proceed, he would merely say that it was, he believed, only by the casting vote of the Chairman that the Committee had determined there should be no debate on the question whether strangers should be ordered to withdraw. Under these circumstances, he hoped the discussion of the Resolutions would not be persisted in on the present occasion; but that another occasion would be taken advantage of, when they would receive that share of the attention of the House as to discussion, to which he (Mr. Collins) considered them fully entitled. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Collins.)
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought the main point raised in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock had not been answered by the Prime Minister, He (Mr. B. Hope) referred to the impossibility of putting any Amendments on the Paper, owing to the shortness of Notice, and he maintained that—putting aside all technicalities, and looking at matters from a common-sense point of view and with fairness, as he trusted they would always be looked upon in an assembly of Gentlemen like the House of Commons, who would disdain to take any advantage of one another—ample Notice ought always be given to Members upon any important business which was to be brought forward, so as to enable them to put their Amendments down. The points raised in the Resolutions were, after all, of the utmost importance to themselves, intimately connected as they were with forms of procedure which had long existed. The right to insist on the exclusion of strangers might be a somewhat obsolete privilege; but it was a very ancient one, and ought not to be parted with without debate. Of the power of "counting-out" the House, it could not be said that it was obsolete, and it certainty was a question on which both sides of the House ought to have ample opportunity afforded them to express an opinion. He himself must strongly protest against the notion that those who were anxious to protect the rights of private Members had any interest in interfering with that privilege. The power of "counting out" he regarded
148
as a special privilege of private Members, and a Palladium of the proceedings of the House. It was a great protection against bores, and contributed to the saving- of the health and lives of Members, as every hon. Gentleman must feel who, like himself, had been in the House this week at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, as well as the whole of Wednesday. He did not mean to contend that it might not be desirable to put some restriction on the privilege of "counting out;" but the question was one which ought not, in his opinion, to be decided without mature consideration. The Resolution of the Government on the subject was not that of the Committee; so he trusted they would show their confidence in their own proposal by allowing it to run the gauntlet of free discussion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: These proposals are of very small consequence, indeed, to the Government, although we look upon them as of consequence to the convenience of the House. It was, therefore, for that the Government went out of their way to bring them forward. The view of many hon. Gentlemen, however, seems to be that everybody ought to discuss them except the persons who are responsible for framing them. In that view I, for one, cannot acquiesce. We have done what we can to meet the convenience of the House; but we cannot afford to waste time in wrangling over the question. The Government will not proceed with the Resolutions to-day, and we shall put them down for Tuesday; but I cannot give any promise that they will come on for discussion on that day. Whether they do or not will depend on the state of the Public Business. It will not be our fault if, when the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) comes on on Tuesday evening, strangers are obliged to withdraw.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, as a Member of the Committee, said, he wished to say a few words on the subject. He was not present at the discussion which had occurred after 2 o'clock that morning; but he could not help characterizing the mode in which it was proposed to proceed in the present instance as eminently unsatisfactory. Fair Notice ought, he thought, always to be given of the business which was to be

149
brought on, and the Notice Paper should contain a true record of that business, which was not the case with that which hon. Members received that morning.
MR. NEWDEGATEthanked the Government for postponing the consideration of the Resolutions, as it would have been very unfair to have passed Resolutions which would have been equivalent to Standing Orders without ample Notice having been given. There were several of the Resolutions of the Committee, and especially that which related to taking no opposed business after half-past 12 o'clock, which ought to be submitted to the House. That particular recommendation bore reforence to the health of the Speaker and to the health of every hon. Member of the House, and it ought to receive full consideration.
MR. CRAUFURDdesired, as the Prime Minister had called in question the propriety of the course which he had deemed it to be his duty to take last Session, to say that he had informed the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers), and others that he would not move that strangers should be ordered to withdraw when the Motion which had been alluded to came on on Tuesday next.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had made no reference whatever to the hon. Gentleman.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £9,817, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board, Scotland.
MR. CRAUFURD MR. CRAUFURD moved that the Vote be omitted. No doubt in the Report made by the Commissioners who had inquired into the Civil Departments in Scotland no distinct recommendation was made as to the Fishery Board; but he thought that anyone who had read the evidence would agree that the Fishery Board was not one which it was necessary to retain. The business of that Board consisted of two main branches—the management of the brand of herrings and the administration of the grant to the harbours. The harbour grant amounted to £3,000 a-year. It might
150
be said with regard to the branding that that was not a charge upon the country, but that it was paid out of the fees. The principle, however, was the same. It was the last remnant of a system of protective Government guarantee that in old times was much approved, but which had since been thoroughly denounced, and had been departed from in every other case except this. It was true that the Commissioners reported that they were not prepared to recommend the abolition of the brand; but careful consideration of the evidence could not fail to prove that it would be very beneficial to the fishery trade if the brand were removed. As to the other branch of the business of the Fishery Board—the administration of these small grants out of the £3,000 for harbours, this grant had been in existence since the Act of George IV. The Treasury had no control whatever over the application of the grant, and no Report was made to the Treasury or to that House on the subject. All that was done was that Parliament voted the sum every year and the Board spent it. The hon. and learned Member instanced the case of the harbour of Anstruther, for the construction of which Parliament had authorized the expenditure of £35,000. Of this sum, £16,500 had been advanced by the Public Loan Commissioners, and the Fishery Board had been authorized to grant a further loan of £6,500 and to expend a further sum not exceeding £12,000 out of the monies annually voted by Parliament. But the Board, without any sanction from the Treasury have for the last ten years applied the whole of the annual grant of £3,000 for this harbour, and thus have spent upon this harbour £11,000 or £12,000 more than they were authorized to do. Every penny of this money had been thrown away, for the whole of the works had been swept away in a late gale. If branding were abolished and the grant discontinued the raison d'étre of the Fishery Board was gone. There was another matter. The Secretary to the Fishery Board, who was a valuable public servant, ought not be prejudiced by any such change. But he was also Secretary to the Board of Manufactures, and derived a portion of his salary from each Board. Now he (Mr. Craufurd) would suggest that if the Fishery Board were abolished, there was no reason why

151
the Secretary should not continue to receive his whole salary as Secretary of the of the Board of Manufactures, or, as that Board should be more properly called, the Board of Arts and Science. The hon. and learned Member then moved the rejection of the Vote.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that as to the question of the herring brand, a Paper had been laid upon the Table, from which it appeared that the first suggestion for its abolition came from the Government of the Netherlands, who stated, through their Ambassador in London, that they were ready to do away with the brand provided the British Government simultaneously abolished their brand. The Board of Trade replied—
"I have to request that you will state to his Lordship that the Board of Trade hold opinions against the principle of branding herrings. They will be disposed to agree with the Dutch Government that the system should be put an end to by both Governments; but they cannot do that without reference to the Treasury, which is directed by the Lords Commissioners to say that they hold the system of branding in Scotland to be quite indefensible. But they fear that press of business will preclude them for taking measures for its abolition."
Now, when a foreign Government condemned that system, and our own declared it to be quite indefensible, and the Treasury said they kept it up temporarily only because they had not time to abolish it, their course was clear—they had only to stop the Supplies, and he should support his hon. and learned Friend in his Motion to leave out the whole Estimate.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) that this Vote for branding was the last lingering remnant of protection. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it would be very beneficial if the herring brand were abolished—the Scotch herring fishery would exist in spite of brands—and he was glad to find that persons who had formerly been opposed to the abolition of the brand now said that they thought that if due notice were given the Government would take a wise step in getting rid of it. What the hon. Member for Edinburgh had said in respect of the official correspondence with the Netherlands Government was quite correct. He felt it to be quite impossible for the present Government to defend the brand. He proposed that two years'
152
notice should be given of its abolition, so that the trade might make the necessary arrangements for its cessation. With respect to the grant for harbours, he was not quite sure that he could agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr. The grant had been the means of doing a great deal of good, and he was not at all disposed to go to the length of his hon. and learned Friend and abolish the Board altogether; but he did think that expenditure of this kind should be laid before the House, and that they should know from year to year what was done by those who were spending the public money; and the more so because he admitted that the administration of the grant by the Scotch Fishery Board for the last two or three years certainly required investigation. The Scotch Fishery Board had spent in various ways about £45,000 for Anstruther Harbour; but they were in debt, the harbour was not finished, and, what was worse, it was tumbling to pieces. Mr. Hawkshaw had been sent to examine the works and see what should be done; and, although he had not yet presented his Report, which would probably be in the hands of the Treasury in a few days, he had written a letter stating—apart altogether from his other recommendations, which he had not had time fully to consider—that it was absolutely necessary to spend about £8,000 at once on the harbour, in order to prevent the pier and harbour works from tumbling into the sea. He (Mr. Baxter) had replied to Mr. Hawkshaw's letter that it was quite out of his power to sanction that, that too much money had already been spent on that harbour without the authority of Parliament, and that he could not authorize the outlay of a shilling upon it until the opinion of the House of Commons had been expressed. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not think it necessary to oppose the Vote this year. He promised that steps would be taken to abolish branding in two years; and that before the Estimates were again presented to Parliament they would consider what measures it was requisite to adopt in regard to the duties hitherto performed by the Scotch Fishery Board.
MR. GORDONsaid, he certainly was not surprised at the willingness shown by the Secretary to the Treasury to make a change with reference to branding and

153
also to the Fishery Board, because when about 18 months ago, upon the representation of his hon. Friends the Members for Ayr and Edinburgh, a Commission was issued by the Government to investigate, among other matters, the necessity of maintaining the Fishery Board and what were its duties, the present Secretary of the Treasury was one of the chief accusers of the Board, and gave the Commissioners to understand that his view was that it might be altogether superseded and its functions intrusted to other authorities. He might, however, state that the duties of the Board were not confined to the branding of herrings and superintending the application of the grant for harbours, but extended to the police to be maintained at the different stations of the herring-fishery, to the numbering of the boats, the charge of the nets, and also matters under a recent Act relating to the navigation. The duties were important. He might mention also a curious matter. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, being then Secretary to the Admiralty, stated, in his evidence before the Commission, that the police duties might be performed efficiently and at no expense under the superintendence of the Admiralty, and that the other duties connected with the numbering of the boats and taking charge of the nets could be performed by persons under the Board of Trade or the Customs. When, however, the Board of Customs were applied to on the matter, the answer it gave was that those duties could not be transferred to its officers without necessitating a great addition to the force of that department, and probably an expense not less than that paid by the Crown under the present system. Then as to the transfer of the police duties to the Admiralty—the First Lord was applied to—and the answer received was that—
"He (the writer) was commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to say that the question had been considered by their Lordships, but that it appeared to them that if any change was made in the present arrangement it should be in the opposite direction to that proposed, as the duties of police were at variance with ideas in accordance with which H.M.'s ships were manned, and such employment of the men in H.M.'s ships would be neither economical nor in accordance with the interests of the service. Their Lordships would therefore prefer that these duties should be performed in some other way."
154
That, he thought, was tolerably conclusive. There was nothing like giving a dog a bad name, and on that principle "branding" had been called "the last rag of Protection." The effect of the process was not to give any "protection," but merely to provide an authorized certificate from competent officers that herring had been properly cured. Branded herring fetched a higher price, was sold without trouble or expense, and an excllent trade was thus carried on without litigation. Branding involved no expense to the country, inasmuch as the herring curers paid for it, and the pecuniary result of the transaction was to leave a balance in the hands of the Fishery Board. It would create very considerable discontent in Scotland if the Treasury bench persevered in their determination to abolish the system of branding. The herring trade in Scotland was a very important one, and furnished employment to upwards of 70,000 persons—a large number of whom were boatmen, who would be available for our Navy in time of war.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he did not rise either to support or oppose the branding system—but he did say that the system had worked admirably in times past, and the herring trade had prospered greatly under it; nor was he aware that any dissatisfaction had been expressed by any of the parties interested in the trade—and many of those most largely interested were amongst his constituents. Although he felt that it would be of but little use for him to gainsay the decision of the Government, he only hoped that the course they had adopted in this matter would not prejudicially affect a trade which gave employment to such a large number of the poorer classes of Scotland. It had been stated that by branding the herring casks the Government were preserving the last rag of Protection; but he, on the contrary, regarded the branding of those casks in the same light as he did the branding of gun barrels. The latter stamped the character of the weapon, and the former the character of the contents of the cask. The stamping of the gun barrels was paid for by the manufacturers, and was a certificate that the gun might be safely used, and the herring brand was paid for by the curer, and was a certificate that the contents of the barrel were wholesome food. As to the economical

155
argument in favour of the abolition of the system, all he could say was, that while the whole expense of the Fishery Board of Scotland was £5,837, the fees paid to the Government for branding amounted to £5,003 per annum. Therefore, in the event of the system of branding being abolished, the result would be that the Fishery Board, which would be obliged to be kept up for other purposes, would have to be paid by a sum to be voted by the House. Then as to the question of the harbour grant, in his opinion the amount of the grant for forming, repairing, and maintaining the small tidal harbours along the eastern coast of Scotland, which were of so much importance to the preservation of the lives and boats of the fishermen engaged in this hazardous trade, so far from being diminished, ought rather to be largely increased. They had to deal with a very large, a very poor, and a most industrious population, on whom a most important supply of wholesome food to the general community depended. The persons who risked their lives in that hazardous calling were all poor people, and one of the chief duties of any Government intrusted with the affairs of this country was, it seemed to him, to encourage and protect that useful class of persona. It had been the policy of the Government for many years past to spend a small sum only—in his opinion a great deal too small a sum—in erecting, repairing, and preserving small harbours of refuge for the fisheries of those people. It was perfectly well known to hon. Members that the whole east coast of Scotland, on which the fisheries chiefly lay, was wholly open and unprotected by any natural harbours, and that it was upon these small fishery harbours, which were mostly tidal, that the safety of the boats and the fishermen engaged depended. And he must say that, as far as he was aware, the Fishery Board of Scotland had expended the small and inadequate funds placed at their disposal in a manner that had given general satisfaction. With respect to the harbour of Anstruther, for the construction of which sums had been borrowed on the authority of Acts of Parliament, he trusted that some satisfactory explanation would be able to be given for the partial failure of the works that had been commenced
156
there. Looking to the eminence and character of the Government engineers employed, he had no doubt such an explanation could be given; but the result had been that over £50,000 had been expended; there was a considerable sum still due to the contractors; and a further sum was required to put the works in such a state that they would afford adequate protection. When the Anstruther Harbour was completed it would be of the greatest advantage to the population of that coast. It ought to have been completed in three or four years; but the engineers had been controlled by a want of funds. As the Government made a bargain with the people of Anstruther, and took possession of the only harbour they had for the purpose of constructing a new harbour, it was the duty of the Government to see that no further delay should occur in the completion of that harbour.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he rose to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's. He would not have the Committee suppose that this was a case in which the inhabitants and fishermen of Anstruther alone were concerned. The whole of the very large fishing population upon the cast coast of Scotland, and upon the cast of Fifeshire and the Lothians, was exposed to very severe weather, yet along the whole of those shores there was but one harbour—Dunbar—to which fishing boats could run for shelter. Up to the present time no doubt the Anstruther Harbour was a lamentable failure; but as about £49,000 had been expended upon it, energetic efforts ought to be made to complete the harbour. The very fact that the harbour works had so signally failed was a proof of the violence of the storms to which those coasts were exposed. As to the question of branding, it was not denied that the whole expense was paid by the fish curers and fishermen themselves. Had it been paid by the public he might have had considerable doubt whether they should have been called upon to continue a system which gave a manifest advantage to those who dealt in the articles marked by this particular brand. But as the expense was borne by the dealers themselves, and they were willing to pay for what they considered a certificate of character, there was nothing unreasonable in continuing it.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaw no reason why the Fishery Board should be attacked. On the contrary, he thought it one of those institutions which ought to be very much strengthened; and if Her Majesty's Government had proposed to make it a large grant of money he would have supported the proposal. Probably one cause of the failure at Anstruther was the attempt to project now piers into the sea instead of excavating the harbour behind the piers already in existence If the latter plan had been adopted the Government might, with the expenditure of one-tenth of the sum which had been already laid out, have now had a practical and useful harbour; whereas by attempting to run the piers into the sea they met with or occasioned seas or cross-currents the force of which they had not calculated. There was another thing connected with our fisheries which he should like to see the Fishery Board employed in carrying out. He should like to see the Fishery Board supplied with funds to enable them to place model fishing boats at particular points on the coast, so that the fishermen might be gradually induced to abandon the low freeboard boats which were the cause of so much loss of life. When the Duke of Richmond was at the Board of Trade he had the pleasure of communicating with him on the subject, and he had no doubt that if the noble Duke had remained in office a little longer the suggestion would have been carried out. There was a third point, and that was the police which it was necessary to maintain at these harbours. His hon. Friend the Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Loch) would bear him out as to the enormous number of fishing boats which went to sea every night, and that almost every casualty arose from collisions. Sometimes no fewer than 1,100 or 1,200 boats went to sea at night—so that the necessity of maintaining a police along the coast became apparent. There was also the encroachment of foreigners to guard against. As the Fishery Board was within a very narrow amount of being a profit to Government he could not conceive any good reason for reducing or altering its scope or making the changes asked for. On the contrary, he saw good cause for granting more money to carry out its objects, and he felt quite sure it would be to the advantage
158
of the community if such additional grant were made. The discussion as to the brand had been exhausted, except as to one point, and that was the anxiety of the Dutch Government to get rid of the brand. The Dutch were famous as a nation for perseverance, astuteness and other good qualities, and especially for looking after their own interest, and as the Dutch herrings were the only her-rings which competed with ours in foreign ports it was a matter of the greatest importance if they could get us to abandon the brand. As long as our herrings went to the Continent with the Government brand, they were looked upon as equal to the Dutch; but if you abolished the brand the Dutch herrings would bring a higher price. The Dutch honing brand spoke for itself as the Scotch herring brand did. He should cortainly oppose the Amendment.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, the question of the brand was a most important one. He was decidedly opposed to its removal. Confidence was given to consumers in all parts of the world by the present system; but if the brand were taken away the confidence of the consumer was shaken or abandoned, and consequently the consumption was reduced He believed it to be a fact that no less than 10,000 boats went out from Wick fishing every year, and he maintained it was an act of public policy to encourage a fishery which produced seamen in such numbers and of such a character; because in a case of emergency no better man-of-war's men could be found than the men who were engaged in herring fishing in Scotland.
MR. LOCHsaid, he did not think the Government could have given the brand question the attention which its importance demanded, else they could not have arrived at any such conclusion, as that to which they appeared to have come. The experiment was a very dangerous one, for it affected a class of the population who could but little afford to stand the risks attending it. The Northern districts of Scotland were in habited by a very poor and humble class of persons, who had few resources of their own, and but limited means of obtaining labour at home; and it was to the herring trade they looked for their means of living from year to year. It was with the interests of those poor and helpless people that this experiment would come

159
into contact if the Government persisted. The brand was of very great value to the fish curers. Our principal foreign customers were the Germans, and the herrings were sent to them certified with the Government brand. Now, in those countries the Government brand was looked upon as of far greater importance than any private brand would over be. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Baxter) had spoken about some communication between this Government and the Dutch Government. He said the Dutch Government were prepared to put an end to their brand, on condition that we put an end to ours. The offer was simply ridiculous. The Committee would be surprised when he told them the proportion between the herring trades of the two countries. In 1855 the Scotch herrings exported to Germany measured 388,000 barrels, while the Dutch herrings were only 1,800 barrels; yet with such a difference, it was proposed that we should meet them half way. It had been argued that the effect of the brand was to remove the inducement of the Scotch curer to improve the quality of his herrings. That was a mistake—it was the interest of the curer as it was of every other manufacturer to produce the best article he could. The effect of the brand was to certify that the barrel contained a properly prepared article; and without it the barrels would have to be opened individually to ascertain the quality. The brand was of most importance to the poor fisherman, for it enabled him to get the same price for his article as his wealthier rivals. If he complied with the conditions of the Government and got the brand, his herings were as valuable, and commanded as high a price in Germany as the herrings of any of the great curers. Do away with the brand, and they would confine the traffic to the great curers.
MR. MACFIEsaid, his constituents were interested in this question, and they had shown their interest in two ways. In the first place, they intrusted him with a Petition to the House in favour of the maintenance of the herring brand, and in the next place they had deputed a gentleman thoroughly conversant with the entire subject, to make the Government acquainted with their feelings respecting it. That gentleman had told him that the abolition of the brand
160
would cause a depreciation of £100,000 a-year in the herring trade. It was not a question of protection—it was the principle of maintaining for the advantage of a very important existing trade the benefit of a trade-mark which had been established almost from time immemorial. If they took away that, they would greatly depreciate the value of the Scotch herrings, and they had the truth of that in the statement in the correspondence with the Dutch Government—that the continuance of the brand would lead to the price of Dutch herrings being as much below the Scotch as the Norwegian. Not a single Commission had ventured to recommend abolishing the brand. On the contrary, they had had the most emphatic testimony as to the advantage and almost the necessity of maintaining the brand. When they found that a system of business had been established, and had succeeded, 6urely it was a piece of infatuation to make a change.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that it was not to be wondered at that the Members for the Northern fishery burghs should oppose any proposition for removing this remnant of protection; but history showed that the parties most interested in the events were always the worst judges of what was good for them. He should support the abolition of the branding, believing that it was opposed to the principles of free trade, and that it was of no real advantage, but rather the contrary, to those whose interests it was supposed to protect. The Dutch had used a brand, and if it was the cause of the herring trade flourishing in Scotland, why should it not render the Dutch trade also flourishing? Yet the Dutch trade was rapidly declining. The last census showed that the population of Wick was declining. That did not look as if the system was doing them much good. The abolition of the brand would give an impetus to free trade principles and explode an antiquated notion. The superior quality of the article would, he maintained, continue to bring the best price after the brand was abolished.
VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCE, knowing something of an Irish fishery connected with Howth, could bear testimony to the fact that the system of branding was regarded as extremely advantageous.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that after the reply which had been given by the Secretary

161
to the Treasury, he would not press his Motion to a division. He hoped his hon. Friend would at once issue the notice to which he referred.
MR. ELLICE, referring to the remarks which had been made with respect to Anstruther Harbour, pointed out that the Board were constantly in communication with the Treasury, and that they could not spend 6d. out of the annual Vote which they received without the consent of the Government. Some portion of the works were very magnificent and substantial—only some parts were inferior, and it was these that had given way.
MR. ROBERTSONwished the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Baxter) and the Mover of the Motion for the omission of this Vote (Mr. Craufurd) to distinctly understand that there was not a general concurrence of opinion amongst the Scotch Members in what they were about to do, and if the brands were to be removed, it was not to be supposed that such was the general desire of the Scotch Members.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £23,800, to complete the sum for the General Register Office and Census, Scotland.
(3.) £4,503, to complete the sum for the Board of Lunacy, Scotland.
(4.) £13,286, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Scotland.
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,731, 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 Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
MR. RYLANDSrose to move the rejection of the item for Queen's Plates. It appeared indefensible in regard to the administration of the public revenue to vote this sum of money in the Estimates. They had got rid of a similar Vote for England, and last year they abolished the Vote for the Queen's Plates in Scotland. He therefore moved that the present Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,562 6s. 2d., the amount proposed to be given for Queen's Plates in Ireland.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £ 1,562 6s. 2d., for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Rylands.)
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his statement that Queen's Plates had been given up so far as England was concerned. No Vote was ever taken for Queen's Plates in England, as the money came out of Her Majesty's Privy Purse; and, as for the Queen's Plates in Scotland, they were abandoned at the request of the representatives for Scotland. It was a matter of considerable importance to maintain the breed of horses in Ireland for the purpose of mounting the cavalry, and, consequently, he objected to the withdrawal of the item for the Queen's Plates.
SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he would vote for disallowing this item; for if it was wrong to vote money for Queen's Plates in Scotland, it must be equally wrong to vote money for Queen's Plates in Ireland.
MR. BAXTERobserved, that the simple reason why the Government allowed the Queen's Plates as respects Scotland to be removed from the Estimates last year was because the general opinion of Scotch Members appeared to be in favour of that course. Not a single Member from Scotland, in fact, rose in his place to object to the omission. No similar opinion, however, had been expressed on the part of the Irish Members, and therefore the Government had retained the Vote.
MR. ROBERTSONwas in favour of continuing the Queen's Plates in Ireland, and he hoped to see them restored to Scotland. The omission had occasioned the greatest possible dissatisfaction.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that the Vote for Queen's Plates in Scotland was struck out of the Estimates without a division; and he and the few Scotch Members present assented on the distinct understanding that the same principle was to be applied to Ireland. The Vote for Ireland had, however, re-appeared in the Estimates, and he should Vote against it, for he thought that it would now be most unjust to make the Scotch people contribute towards the expense of Queen's Plates in Ireland.
MR. HERMONhoped that the hon. Member for Warrington would insist on the omission of the item for Queen's Plates in Ireland, which had nothing to do with the encouragement of a good breed of horses. If the Irish Members desired to have a prize offered for racing in that country, let them subscribe the money out of their own pockets, and let the prize be called "The Irish Members' Plato."
VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCEconsidered that it would be peculiarly inopportune to negative the Vote in the present year, since there had been, in consequence of the late war on the Continent, a great drain of horses from Ireland.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had no objection to Queen's Plates in the abstract, nor to racing—on the contrary, he was rather fond of the latter—but had a great objection to Parliament voting money for horse-racing in Ireland when it voted none for that purpose either in England or Scotland. If Irishmen or Scotchmen wanted to have Queen's Plates, let them go to the Queen and ask for them.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, if the hon. Member for Berwick shire (Mr. Robertson) brought on a Motion to restore the Scotch Vote he had no doubt he would be supported by a majority by the Irish Members. The omission of the Scotch Vote had not given satisfaction, because he had himself heard certain Scotch Members say that one or two Scotch representatives had been a great deal too ready to take money out of the country against the wishes of the people. The Irish were a sensitive people, who had, rightly or wrongly, a feeling that frequent attempts were made in that House to diminish the few privileges they enjoyed; and he did not think it was worth while, for the sake of the small sum now in question, to lend any countenance to that feeling.
MR. STACPOOLEapproved these Votes, and recommended their more equal distribution.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was astonished at Irish Members coming there for that paltry sum; and asked why, if they wanted Plates, they did not put their hands in their own pockets like gentlemen and subscribe for them.
MR. MURPHYsaid, he would certainly vote for the restoration of the
164
Scotch Vote, as he objected to its withdrawal last year; and he hoped the Scotch Members would to-day support the Irish Vote. Moreover, it would be unjust to withdraw it this year, as a Queen's Plato had, on the faith of it, been advertised to be run for at Cork some two months henco.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for Warrington had moved the reduction of this Vote on the ground that a similar Motion had been carried for Scotland last year. In his opinion, however, that was a piece of gross hypocrisy on the part of his countrymen last year; and it was no reason why they should do an act of injustice to Ireland now. He would vote with the Irish Members in favour of these Queen's Plates; and hoped they would support the proposal to restore them to Scotland when brought forward next year.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that not only was a Queen's Plate advertised to be run for at Cork two months hence, but two or three of those Plates had already been actually won by horses this year; and as they could not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money out of his own pocket, he asked from what fund the winners were to be paid? It was a great pity that the Scotch Plates had been abolished; and it was rather a singular circumstance that the first gentleman to raise the question of their abolition was an Irishman, the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim). He agreed in much that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) wished to do in the way of economy, but hoped he would not persevere in his present Motion—a very unsportsmanlike proceeding. That Vote did a great amount of good in creating sport, of which the Irish were very fond, and in bringing people together at a social gathering from various parts of the country; and it would be very unwise, suddenly and almost without notice, to take away a paltry sum like that given for such ft purpose. Many hon. Members who were interested in this question were absent, and he believed that the hon. Member for Warrington would best consult the wishes of his Irish friends about him by withdrawing his Motion.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped that the Government would announce some

165
decided line of policy with regard to this matter, and would either restore the Vote for the Scotch Queen's Plates or abolish the Votes for Queen's Plates altogether.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the conduct of the Government had been perfectly consistent in the matter, inasmuch as they had consented to omit the Vote for the Scotch Queen's Plates, because the Scotch Members wished them to do so, and they proposed to retain the Vote for the Irish Queen's Plates in deference to the wishes of the Irish Members.
MR. KINNAIRDcould hardly believe his ears. He was astonished to find that anyone professing to be such an economist as the right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to get the Committee to agree to the Vote under discussion by such a low subterfuge as he had resorted to. And he would observe that it was not on the Motion of a Scotch Member that the Votes for the Queen's Plates in Scotland had been withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMANdrew the hon. Member's attention to the fact that it was un-Parliamentary to charge an hon. Member with having had recourse to a low subterfuge. [Laughter.]
MR. KINNAIRDexplained that he had applied the expression to the right hon. Gentleman's argument and not to his person. The right hon. Gentleman was totally incapable of being low. It would be easy enough to meet the objection of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) by adopting the course which had been taken last year with regard to the Scotch Queen's Plates, and bringing in a supplemental Estimate to enable the Government to find the funds for those Queen's Plates which had already been either run for or advertised.
MR. MONKalso thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down would meet the difficulty which had been pointed out.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks upon the subject under discussion before the Committee went to a division. It was unfortunate that the withdrawal of the Vote for the Scotch Queen's Plates had been supported by one or two Scotch Members who were supposed to represent the voice of the Scotch Members generally, who, in fact, had no real objection to the Vote, while the great bulk of the Scotch people
166
regarded the abolition of these Queen's Plates with regret. A distinction was to be drawn between the great assemblages of gamblers and blackguards at race meetings in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis and the social gatherings of the peasantry and the farmers at the races in Ireland to witness an innocent English sport. The chief defence of this Vote was that as regarded both Scotland and Ireland these Queen's Plates were formerly a charge upon the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which, having been now brought into the public Exchequer, the charges upon them had to be voted by Parliament every year. He should vote in favour of granting the money for the Plates, because he thought that our Irish fellow-countrymen did not get a great deal in this way—and that, although we were always anxious to show our sympathy with them in many respects as a nation, they did not get the same advantages as we did, such as the benefit derived from a Royal residence. While we were spending thousands upon the embellishment of the Metropolis it was unfair to begrudge the Irish people a paltiy £1,500 per annum for their amusement. He trusted that the House of Commons would not be indisposed to continue the grant.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that he would just remind hon. Members on the Conservative bench that he had been told on the highest authority (Mr. Disraeli), that one reason why "the Irish were not contented was that they are not amused." There was much more truth in this saying than at first sight might appear, as was often the case with, what fell from the right hon. Gentleman. It was true enough that Ireland was too sad to be amused, and a little reflection would show that the national games and sports of the great mass of the people took their tone and in a great measure depended on the presence and examples of those in higher stations of life. In England and in Scotland, in every village there were rural sports in which the residents of the neighbourhood took their part; but in Ireland there was but little of the kind. There were so many non-resident proprietors, and so much of the soil belonged to absentee landlords and public companies, that these social influences were greatly wanting, and perhaps races might be said to form the only national pastime. Racing in Ireland

167
was not like race meetings in England—an occasion for extensive gambling and drunkenness; but the people took the greatest interest in the sport itself, and very often you may see their ministers of religion watching over and participating in the pastimes of their flocks, and by their presence preventing much that was evil, and showing that religion and amusement were not necessarily divorced from each other. He did hope, and, indeed, did not doubt, but that the Committee would confirm this grant, and not in a narrow-minded spirit interfere with national pastimes, to which the people were much attached.
MR. CONOLLYthanked the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for the generous sentiments he had expressed towards Ireland.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 75; Noes 133: Majority 58.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(6.) £20,935, to complete the sum for the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland.
(7.) £300, to complete the sum for the Expenses of the Boundary Survey, Ireland.
(8.) £1,793, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
(9.) £27,168, to complete the sum for the General Register Office and Census, Ireland.
(10.) £77,211, to complete the sum for the Poor Law Commission, Ireland.
(11.) £3,514, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office, &c., Ireland.
(12.) £ 19,822, to complete the sum for the Office of Public Works, Ireland.
(13.) £33,810, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Department of Solicitor to the Treasury.
(14.) £157,173, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
MR. G. B. GREGORYobserved that the Vote included £3,000 for clerks of assize, and about £5,000 for officers of the same character called Judges' associates. The clerks of assize performed duties on circuit, and the associates performed duties in town. They were gentlemanly, easy offices, and it was not surprising that some of the
168
holders of them bore the names of eminent Judges who presided over the Courts to which they were attached. He did not mean to complain of those officers; but he hoped that in any now scheme that might be introduced for the administration of the law, these offices, which were in the nature of sinecures, would be abolished, and that any person taking one of those offices in future would be informed that he took it upon the understanding that it would probably be abolished, in which case he would not be entitled to compensation.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that inquiry would be necessary before anything could be done with regard to this subject. He would, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject should not be lost sight of.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the subject had been already investigated, and the Government had sufficient information.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that having regard to the great changes that might be made in the administration of the law, it might be desirable to introduce a Bill providing that persons who might be appointed to offices in that Department should not be entitled to large claims for compensation in case of the abolition of their offices.
MR. DENMANsaid, he must deny that the appointments referred to by the hon. and learned Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory) were appointments in the nature of sinecures. One of the gentlemen referred to bore the same name as himself. He happened to go the very circuit to which that gentleman was attached, and, so far from his office being a sinecure, he had a great deal to do, and did a great deal. The salaries of these offices, if they were revised, might probably be reduced; but it was a great advantage to the public that these offices were held by gentlemen of some position. They were the heads of large staffs—of some six or seven persons engaged in the administration of the law, and they caused the work to be done expeditiously, harmoniously, and courteously to all concerned.
MR. G. B. GREGORYexplained that he did not say that these gentlemen had no duties to perform.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he must complain of the hardship inflicted on jurors, who were required to give their

169
services for days, or weeks, or it might be even months, and at the end of that time only received the remuneration of a single sovereign. It was not just to take men from their business without some sort of compensation.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £133,202, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery.
MR. HUNT, as Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, said, he wished to call attention to a matter which had transpired in the course of their investigations. It appeared that, notwithstanding the Act passed in 1869 that the Treasury was to be a party to all alterations of salary in connection with the Court of Chancery, the Lord Chancellor, under previous Acts, claimed the right to make alterations without the consent of the Treasury. The salary of a Chief Clerk of one of the Judges in Chancery had been increased from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year without the three years' probation required by one of the Acts. It was pointed out to the Lord Chancellor that a subsequent Act had been passed which, in his (Mr. Hunt's) view, modified the operation of the previous Act, allowing the increase of salary without any probation whatever; and it was stated that in a certain case a clerk had his salary raised from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year after a fortnight's service, on the certificate of the Judge that the clerk had discharged his duty to his entire satisfaction. That was a great scandal, and the Committee wished to prevent its recurrence. The Lord Chancellor, however, gave reasons why the proceeding might be defended, if a competent person could not be obtained at less than the maximum salary. But in that case the Lord Chancellor ought to get an Act passed to increase the salary of Chief Clerks. He wished to ask whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to that paragraph in the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts which said that it was desirable that the Treasury should be a party to all alterations of salaries and office expenses of the Courts of Law, and which recommended that the Treasury should institute an inquiry into the operations of the Act on the subject?
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, that 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, empowered the Lord
170
Chancellor to direct that the salary of any Chief Clerk might be increased from time to time until it amounted to £1,500, provided no such increase was given until the Chief Clerk had been in office three years, and had obtained a certificate that he had conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Judge, the increase to be by annual sums of £100. By 23 & 24 Vict. c. 49, s. 12, the Lord Chancellor was empowered, upon certificate of the Judge, to order that the salary should be increased to the full amount in a somewhat different manner. The Lord Chancellor took the view that by 23 & 24 Vict, he was enabled to increase the salary without any probation whatever. The opinion of the Controller and Auditor General, however, was different, and was to the effect that the Lord Chancellor might, on the proper certificate, make the entire increase, not by separate hundreds running over a period of three years, but at once, after a probation of three years, and that appeared to him the correct view. It appeared monstrous to argue that a clerk, if he obtained the required certificate, might have his salary increased to the full amount after only 14 days' service. He regretted that the Committee of Accounts had not expressed in stronger language their sense of the unpopularity of the transaction. In his opinion, it was nothing less than a misapplication of the public money.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sure the Committee would feel very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and to the Committee over which he so ably presided, for the statement which he had made respecting the existence of a state of things which no one would wish to continue. He should take care that inquiries should be instituted into the matter, and he might say that he would do so with the utmost confidence, as there was no one more willing to listen to reason than the present Lord Chancellor, or one more anxious for the good of the public service. Some little inquiry had been made already, but it could not be completed until after the passing of the Chancery Funds Bill.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again this day.
And, it being now five minutes to Seven 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."

LOTTERY ACTS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. CHARLEYrose to call attention to the existence of Illegal Lotteries, and to move—
"That the provisions of the Lottery Acts ought to be impartially enforced by Her Majesty's Government against illegal Lotteries, irrespective of their objects, in all parts of the United Kingdom."
In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman remarked that the law pronounced all lotteries, of whatever kind, and in whatever part of the country they were established, to be illegal, with the exception only of those in connection with Art Unions, and even these had to be approved by the Privy Council, or carried on under Royal Charter; and in connection with that part of his subject, he was only asking the House to re-affirm a principle of which it has always been a strenuous advocate—namely, that the laws be impartially enforced without fear or favour. Moreover, the laws made no distinction between lotteries for religious and secular objects, as all lotteries were pronounced by the State to be illegal, because they had a direct tendency to promote gambling, and to swell the tide of pauperism and vice. It was true that an Act passed in 1856 deprived private persons of the right to sue promoters of lotteries for the recovery of deposits or penalties; but that was done in order that the prosecution of offenders should rest in the hands of responsible officers of the Crown, and should not be left to the caprice of individuals. Nothing, however, could be more capricious than the proceedings of the Government in carrying out the Lotteries Act; the Home Secretary had made distinction between lotteries without any legal authority, and he had even expressed regret that the Lord Advocate had by a circular secured the withdrawal of lottery tickets in Scotland
172
—against which country he (Mr Charley) had nothing to complain of on account of the occurrence of the practice—because he thought it would be better to allow the law to be violated than deprive certain benevolent institutions of the profits arising from the lottery. The Home Secretary, in fact, seemed to think the end sanctified the means; but the principles of Ignatius Loyola ill-became a Minister of the British Crown. Passing from Scotland to England, he found that the law had been very strictly enforced in England also with reference to lotteries unconnected with so-called religious objects. Two cases had recently come before the metropolitan police magistrates, one of which concerned what was described as the South London Art Union. The other was the case of a lottery promoted during the Franco-German War for the benefit of the Gorman wounded, and honoured by a communication from Count Bismarck. The promoter was informed by a detective that lotteries in England were illegal, and upon the promoter saying that he would write to the Foreign Secretary, the reply was that he might if he pleased; but the answer would appear, if made, not to have been in any way favourable, for both speculations were alike remorselessly suppressed. If the promoters, however, had endeavoured to get up a lottery in favour of some Roman Catholic institution, the threat of an application to a Secretary of State might not have been regarded as so hopeless. He now desired to call the attention of the House to the case of a lottery at Oldham, advertised to be held in support of some day and Sunday schools, with a view to the enlargement of premises and keeping them out of the hands of the school board. The lottery was stated by its promoters to be conducted on the principle of the Art Union, under the patronage of the Bishop of Manchester, and among the prizes to be distributed were a bust of Napoleon, a set of Mr. Disraeli's novels, including, he presumed, a copy of Lothair, a likeness of the Bishop of Manchester, and an excellent portrait of the late Earl of Derby. The announcements about this lottery, which were widely distributed throughout Wales, especially among Sunday school teachers and servants of clergymen, gave details of the poverty of the "parish," and purported to come from the "rector;"

173
but if ever there was a lottery got up on false pretences it was this one, for it might surprise the House to know that the lottery was in aid of Roman Catholic schools, and the "rector" from whom they proceeded was a priest of that Church. It would be found by a Return for which he moved last year, that the attention of the Home Secretary was drawn to this, as well as to other lotteries, by the Secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society, and in answer, it was stated on behalf of Mr. Bruce that the Treasury Solicitor had already been instructed to warn the parties concerned of the illegality of the scheme in which they were engaged. In the subsequent correspondence it was stated that on the receipt of the first notice the promoters of the lottery had recalled the tickets and stopped the affair; but, despite the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, there were many who had been unable, after having subscribed, to obtain the return of their money. The "rector," as he called himself, or, in other words, the promoter, a Mr. Brinton, had inserted an advertisement in a local Oldham paper, stating that those who applied for their money would have it returned; but there were many who would not see the advertisement, and who, failing to make the application, would never get their money back. In Ireland he believed there had been 55 lotteries of late years, and that 16,000,000 tickets, representing £400,000, had been sold, and in most of these lotteries a supplementary ticket in a lottery, to consist of all prizes, had been offered to those who disposed of a certain number of tickets as a bribe to induce them to exert themselves to sell these tickets. In one of the announcements of these lotteries was a quotation, excellent enough except as regarded its neighbourhood, from a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and close by was an advertisement about a foreign lottery, where one of the prizes amounted to £20,000, although the insertion of these advertisements was forbidden under a penalty of £50. Moreover, some of these lotteries appeared to be annual lotteries. When he had, on a former occasion, put a Question on this subject to the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. C. Fortescue), he had received a very unsatisfactory reply, for that right hon.
174
Gentleman's answer was, that those lotteries had no tendency to increase gambling, and if anybody deemed them contrary to the letter of the law the Courts were open and the question might be tried. The noble Lord the present Chief Secretary, in the same way, in reply to another Question, said that if the lotteries were illegal there was no difficulty in bringing qui tam actions against the promoters. A qui tam action was one in which a person sued as well for himself as for the Queen; and as by the Act of 1806 the forfeiture was taken from the informer and given entirely to the Crown, it was practically impossible to bring an action of this description at the present time. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland practically said to the Irish Protestants that they might violate the law if they chose, but as one of the promoters of the Irish Church Sustentation Fund he (Mr. Charley) should be very sorry to resort to any such mode of raising the wind. It would be most unfair after they had disendowed the Church in Ireland to allow the clergy to gamble for endowments. There were some persons whose practice fell short of their preaching, but the Home Secretary was an exception to this rule, for in his case the preaching fell short of the practice, as exemplified in certain rules laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in the last Session of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman laid it down that it was better for the law to be violated than that the promoters of these lotteries should be deprived of the benefit to be obtained from them, and that, therefore, the Secretary of State ought to possess the power of allowing the holding of lotteries for objects which he approved; he also said that the practice had been to threaten the promoters of these illegal lotteries, but not to carry out the threat in cases where the object of the lottery was a charitable one—a line of conduct which, in his (Mr. Charley's) opinion, was rather calculated to bring the administration of the law into contempt. The right hon. Gentleman not only did this, but he laid down the extraordinary distinction already referred to between religious and secular lotteries, thus producing an agglomeration of principles which needed only to be enunciated to be condemned. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, appeared to forget that it required two sets of persons to form a

175
lottery—the promoters and the persons who purchased the chances; and though the promoters might desire to confer benefit upon very desirable objects, it was self-evident that they appealed to motives beyond or other than charitable ones. If the person buying chances in a lottery were a friend of the promoter or of the object promoted, he would be willing to give as a subscription as large a sum as he paid for chances; but if he were—as was the fact in the majority of cases—unknown to the promoters and cared little or nothing' for the objects sought to be gained by the lottery, he would be simply a man possessed by the gambling spirit, and desiring to enrich himself by a small pecuniary outlay at the expense of the promoter, who in his turn was laughing in his sleeve at the gullibility of his would-be victimizer. Again, as in the case of the Oldham lottery, false pretences were sometimes resorted to, and persons were trapped into supporting by the purchase of tickets objects to which they were altogether hostile. It might be said that the maxim caveat emptor applied, and that the purchasers of lottery tickets must look out for themselves; but in his opinion the principle upon which later legislation on the subject had been founded was that of protecting the public against extreme recklessness in speculation and consequent ruin. Only a short time ago the case was related of two highly-respectable young women, who had gained a scanty livelihood by needlework, but one of them falling ill they were reduced to poverty, and the other risked their little all in the purchase of a lottery ticket, hoping to retrieve their position. The chance failed, however, and they were ruined. He would say, in concluding, that as State lotteries had been prohibited by Parliament so far back as 1806, he wished to know if it was now to be said that the Church had a less scrupulous conscience than the State, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the provisions of the Lottery Acts ought to be impartially enforced by Her Majesty's Government against illegal Lotteries, irrespective of their objects, in all parts of the United Kingdom,"—(Mr. Charley.)
—instead thereof.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that while the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) spoke of the Acts being "impartially" enforced, the whole scope of his arguments went to prove that they ought to be enforced indiscriminately. This was the point of difference between them, and his (Mr. Bruce's) contention was, that the fact of the Legislature having taken lottery prosecutions out of the hands of common informers and vested them in the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown, showed that it was intended to give the Executive Government a discretionary power, to be exercised according to circumstances, in regard to the holding of these lotteries. If that were not so, why was the power taken from the informer at all? Then came the real question—Was that power so removed wisely exercised? So far as his own line of conduct was concerned, it was that which had been pursued by his predecessors in office, of whatever party, and he believed it was a line consistent with the intentions of the Legislature, and approved by the majority of the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman maintained that there was no power now to bring qui tam actions. That contention was quite correct; but it was no less true that a remedy might be found in an indictment for a nuisance, or by summary proceedings before a magistrate. The original lottery statute passed in 1802 was severely penal upon those who offended against its provisions, imposing penalties to the extent of £500, or in default of payment a term of three months' imprisonment; but in 1806 another Lottery Act was passed, for the purpose of granting to the Crown a sum of money to be raised by lotteries, and fixing strict rules as to the mode in which the lotteries should be conducted. He confessed that the object of the statute seemed to be rather to keep in the hands of the State the sole power of holding lotteries than to abolish them altogether; but, however that might be, the law existed, and it was the duty of the Government to apply it for the protection of public morality. Some lotteries were conducted solely for the purpose of gain, generally by persons who resorted to the most dishonest means, and swindled weak-minded and ignorant individuals. Against such lotteries the power of the law was always unsparingly

177
applied; but there were also cases in which the attractions of chance were used for religious or educational purposes. The course he had in such cases pursued, in imitation, he was bound to say, of his predecessors at the Home Office, was as follows:—When a case was brought under his notice, he warned the persons who were conducting the lottery that their proceedings were illegal, and as far as he was aware the warning had never been given in vain. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a lottery got up for some religious purpose at Oldham. Now, it was remarkable that information respecting lotteries of this kind was never given either by Englishmen or Irishmen. The Attorney General had assured him that no complaint respecting them had ever been made to the Government by any person residing in Ireland. Indeed, the sole informant against these lotteries in Ireland was the Secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society. On the reception of the information respecting the lottery at Oldham, he at once communicated with the persons conducting it, and informed them that if they proceeded further with it they would subject themselves to prosecution. They promised to relinquish the scheme; but shortly afterwards he received another communication from the Secretary to the Scottish Reformation Society, who said he believed that, in spite of the assurance which had been given, the lottery was actually being proceeded with. Thereupon he made inquiries of the Mayor of Oldham as to whether this was so, and he might remark that he should certainly have caused a prosecution to be instituted against the promoters of the project if, after the warning, they had persisted in it. The Mayor of Oldham informed him, however, that they had abandoned the scheme, and returned the money received from the subscribers. This, he submitted, was a course which could not fail to commend itself to the good sense of the House, as it must be obvious that cases of this kind called for a warning rather than a prosecution by the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that it was very strange that people would not give their money directly for a charitable object, instead of advancing it indirectly by lotteries or bazaars. Well, it was no
178
doubt a very curious trait of human nature that persons would give large sums of money at bazaars for articles which were not of the slightest value, the prices they paid depending far more on the rank or personal attractions of the conductors of the bazaar than on the intrinsic value of the articles sold. And it would be further found that when the generosity of the customers was exhausted the proceedings almost invariably terminated with a raffle, in which everybody present took part, without imagining for a moment that the transaction was an illegal one. Surely no one would maintain that the Attorney General ought to prosecute in such cases. There was a rational distinction to be drawn between lotteries got up for mere purposes of gain and those which were got up for the purpose of promoting a good object; and the good sense of the House would readily determine that the moral consequences were less injurious in one case than in the other. At the same time, he admitted that a great many of the latter kind of lotteries came within the rule he had laid down, which would subject them to prosecution—namely, those which appealed very strongly to the mere love of gain. In the cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, where hopes were hold out to the subscribers of obtaining a considerable sum of money, or articles of great value, such as a pair of ponies, piano, and a cottage, the principle, and what might be assumed to be the object of the law were violated, and the action of of the Crown might be fairly demanded. All he claimed on the part of the Crown was the right to discriminate between different kinds of lotteries. In cases where the object was clearly bad he instituted a prosecution at once; but where the object was not bad, he acted by giving a warning in the first instance, and prosecuting only in the event of that warning not being heeded. He believed the House would not think it was the duty of the Government to pursue any other course than that which he had indicated.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was not less bound by the terms of the law than any other person. In determining questions of degree, value must be taken into account, and the right hon. Gentleman had himself pointed out

179
cases in which ponies, pianos, and cottages were raffled for. In that, as in other cases, the right hon. Gentleman was apt to interpret his obligations very loosely, for there was nothing in the Act of Parliament which warranted the exercise of the discretion he claimed. He (Mr. Newdegate), moreover, did not think that if the Home Secretary considered himself entitled to dispense with the law, he set a good example to the other officers of the Government. Why, he would ask, should the law be restrained in the case of quasi-monastic institutions? In his own county large numbers of lottery tickets had been received from Ireland, and he had been repeatedly asked why any lotteries were permitted, except those which were sanctioned by law, such as the Art Union lotteries. The fact that certain exceptions were made by the law militated very strongly against the wise discretion which the right hon. Gentleman assumed the right to exercise.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he must call attention to the fact that the law had been more widely interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, than it was three years ago by the then Attorney General.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 33: Majority 27.
Main Question proposed.

REVENUES, &c., OF GIBRALTAR.

  OBSERVATION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN, in rising to call attention to the local revenue and expenditure of Gibraltar, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to take measures by amendment of the tariff, or otherwise, to put an end to the contraband traffic now carried on between Gibraltar and Spain,"
  said, that his object was to indicate that very important reforms might be effected in that military colony, if certain changes were made in the method of raising the revenue, without either increasing or diminishing its total amount. Little, indeed, could be urged against the amount of civil expenditure in a colony which had no Debt, and which had for years
  180
  shown a good surplus, that of 1869 being £8,108, out of a Revenue of £37,833. The salary of the Civil Governor—£;5,000 a-year—did, however, appear to be excessive; and it was not easy to see what duties he could have to perform among a civil population of 20,000, aided as he was by a colonial secretary, engineer, auditor, collector of Revenues, inspector of Revenues, supervisor of markets, all drawing fair salaries. On the other hand, the item for Education was £222 16 s. 2d. There was one special matter in which a great reform might be carried out by the suppression of the numerous low wineshops, where drink of the worst quality was obtained by the sailors and soldiers. A discretionary power was enjoyed by officers commanding regiments on foreign stations, of permitting the sale of spirituous liquors in the regimental canteens, which were, of course, under strict regulations; but at Gibraltar that power was frustrated by local regulations. The rates for spirit licences were so high that it was almost impossible to afford one for each canteen when a regiment was divided, as at Gibraltar, among three or four barracks, and licences had actually been refused to regimental canteens upon the ground that "if granted a number of wineshops, licensed for the soldiers only, would be closed, and the revenue thereby diminished." Those who know the nature of these wineshops, the company who frequented them, and the quality of the liquor there furnished, would no doubt consider any increase of revenue derived from their maintenance as very dearly purchased at the expense of the health, and morals of their soldiers. More than £5,000 a-year was raised at Gibraltar from licences, but a Government financially so properous, had no excuse for maintaining such a system; and even if the money was required, a reasonable duty on tobacco, now free, would answer the two-fold purpose of raising revenue, and checking the contraband traffic now carried on with Spain. The fact was, that the position of Gibraltar, a free port, except as regarded wines and spirits, rose a very grave international question affecting the character of Great Britain as a good neighbour not merely to Spain, but to the many great nations whose neighbour she was by virtue of her island fortresses and

  181
  other outlying possessions. The present time seemed peculiarly appropriate for considering their position as possessors of Gibraltar, the only territory which, they held upon the Continent of Europe. Many thought that they were bound to show cause not only to the British taxpayer but also to friendly foreign Powers, why they kept possession of any European territory beyond the limits of the United Kingdom, but upon so wide a question he would not now enter. It might be doubtful how far Gibraltar was necessary to us as a coaling depôt, a naval station, or a connecting link with India; but all those points might fairly be urged in favour of its retention. On the other hand, it would hardly be maintained in that country, that although Gibraltar did not pay for any other purpose, it was well worth keeping as an entrepót for smuggling—an assertion freely made by foreign writers. No imperious demand had been made, nor was likely to be made, for the surrender of Gibraltar, but now and then they heard of rumoured proposals as to purchase, or exchange for Ceuta, the Spanish fortress in Africa. Such proposals could not be for a moment entertained; Ceuta would simply be Gibraltar, without strength or prestige, and if they ever parted with the Rock it must not be by sale or barter, but as a free gift from one great nation to another. The present question was whether, admitting the necessity of their retaining the great fortress, they could not prevent its being more than a sentimental grievance to the proud, high-spirited people, from whom they wrested it, and against whom they had held it for more than a century and a-half. They were told that at Gibraltar the sight of their flag and the report of their guns were painful to Spanish feelings, and that was not surprising, when they recollected that that flag and those guns had long protected a system of contraband traffic, injurious alike to the Spanish revenue and the British reputation. Spain had recently shown herself worthy of the esteem and sympathy of free nations, and in no way could they better prove their friendliness towards her and her Government than by exerting themselves to repress smuggling, as they were bound by treaty to do. In Spain, as in all countries where the Press was free, great stress was laid upon the public opinion
  182
  and the conduct of that country. Their journals were constantly quoted in Spanish newspapers, and particular satisfaction was produced by the friendly sentiments towards Spain expressed in the gracious Speech from the Throne. There was reason to believe that the kindly feeling of Spanish Liberals towards England had conduced to their recent silence upon a question which touched every patriotic Spaniard so nearly as did the foreign occupation of Gibraltar. It was true that smuggling was no longer so crying an evil at Gibraltar as it once was; and that was due chiefly to amendment of the Spanish tariff, a process which, carried out conjointly with their own Government, might put an end altogether to the traffic. As a free port, Gibraltar afforded special facilities to smugglers, in spite of lines of sentries and squadrons of guarda costas. It was, of course, impossible to obtain accurate statistics of smuggling; but it was a significant fact that within three years 30,000 cwt. of American tobacco was imported into Gibraltar, according to recent Returns, and of that more than 29,000 cwt. again exported within the same period, finding its way undoubtedly into Spain, where tobacco had long been a Government monopoly. The Spanish tariff was vexatious, and there was corruption in the preventive service, so that a large proportion probably passed with official connivance; but many smugglers preferred taking their chance to giving a bribe, and not unfrequently they paid the penalty with their lives. Great recklessness of life and property, and general demoralization had resulted from that traffic throughout a large portion of Andalusia; and the brigands, of whom so much had lately been heard, might be nearly identified with contrabandists. Not long ago a similar state of matters existed on the northern frontier of Spain. An old douanier, who was his guide on the Pyrenees, described armed bands of contrabandists as so numerous that it was impossible to resist them, but added—"Since the Emperor altered the tariffs there have been no smugglers to speak of in the Pyrenees." He believed that, in the South the same results would follow from a similar policy; but without joint action on their part all efforts of the Spaniards would be fruitless. Smuggling was hardly an offence which could

  183
  be made the subject of an extradition treaty; but it was difficult, if not impossible, to draw the line between organized smuggling and piracy, or brigandage The existence of an asylum within the "Neutral Ground" for various sorts of outlaws was a grievance repeatedly urged against them by the Spanish authorities, as in the recent case of the supposed capture by brigands of the British subjects, where serious suspicions of collusion were entertained. If Her Majesty's Government would co-operate heartily with that of Spain in this matter, a great injustice might be redressed, and much might be done towards establishing a cordial understanding between two nations, who had in common many great interests for the future, as well as glorious traditions in the past. In conclusion, he would say, that although the forms of the House would not allow him to make the Motion of which he had given Notice, he trusted that the Government would give him some assurance that it was their wish to meet the Spanish Government at least half way in the matter.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn), that the salary of the Governor of Gibraltar was too high; because they must not judge from the number of the population, but from the geographical position of the place, the number of troops stationed there, its essential importance to this country, and the necessity of its being under the command of a man of high character. With regard to the cession of Gibraltar, he would not enter into that subject, except to say that he believed the opinion of that House and of the country would be very much against such a step. All, therefore, that could be done was, that while they hold Gibraltar they should endeavour to make their occupation as little offensive as possible to any friendly Power. No doubt, the contraband traffic spoken of by the hon. Baronet did exist; but he did not know that they were to blame for that, for the high protective duties of Spain were principally responsible for the encouragement of contraband dealing. Gibraltar was commonly spoken of as a free port; but it was only so in the sense that duties were only levied on wines and spirits. Upon wine the duty was 7½d. per half-dozen bottles,
  184
  and upon spirits $1 a gallon. In 1869 about £11,000 was raised from these sources; and he doubted whether either lowering or raising the duties would exercise a beneficial effect in repressing contraband trade, because the smuggling arose rather from the tariff of Spain. With high protective duties there was sure to be smuggling, and in Spain the ad valorem duty of from 30 to 35 per cent pressed heavily upon merchants. He was not sorry that the hon. Baronet had called attention to that contraband trade, and, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, they would do all that they could to put it down, and to promote a friendly feeling between that country and Spain. A check on the traffic was at present in operation, vessels of a certain size trading from Gibraltar being required to have a licence, which could be revoked on misconduct. Already the attention of the Admiralty and the Foreign and Colonial Offices had been directed to the subject, and it would not be the fault of the Government if they did not succeed in their efforts.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), that he was not prepared to give any encouragement to the idea that we wove about to give up Gibraltar, which had been bought so dearly by this country, and which was associated with some of the most glorious episodes of our history. He knew something of Gibraltar, and wished to express his dissent from much which had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had brought the subject under the notice of the House. It was perfectly well known that when a contraband trade was profitable to a certain extent it was almost impossible to put a stop to it. We had abundant proof of that at home, notwithstanding the integrity and effectiveness of our preventive force; and what, therefore, must be the case in Spain, where the smuggler had a friend not only at the port from which he sailed, but in that at which he arrived, it was easy to imagine. When it was borne in mind that the Spanish colonies produced some of the finest tobacco in the world, it was somewhat strange to find that a Spaniard could hardly get a good cigar at any price. The fact was, that the profit was so large that a great smuggling trade was almost necessarily

  185
  created. He quite agreed in the opinion that the tariff should be reformed; but it was not that of Gibraltar, but that which prevailed in Spain. The laws were fairly carried out in Gibraltar; and if Spain put her laws into execution with equal fairness smuggling would soon disappear. He also concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) in thinking that the Governor of Gibraltar was not paid too high a salary. The post was a very delicate one, and had generally been filled in a manner well calculated to maintain the character and honour of England.

THE LICENSING BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALK, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the new Licensing Bill will be framed as a complete measure with a view to its being a permanent settlement of the question, or whether it is intended that it should be merely a portion of a more extensive scheme hereafter to be introduced? to call attention to the great loss and deterioration of property that will accrue from any uncertainty on this point; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to pass any measure that does not afford a permanent and definite settlement of the Regulations and Licences affecting the property invested, directly or indirectly, in the Liquor Trade,"
  said, that since he first placed Notice of the Question on the Paper, it had almost been answered by the course of events. A Bill on the subject had that Session been brought in, which was of the greatest pretensions, and which had caused a great depreciation in all the property which was either directly or indirectly connected with the licensing trade of the country. It was, therefore, extremely desirable to ascertain from the Government, if possible, whether that part of their scheme which, after ten years, would throw the licences of all the houses in the trade open to competition, was to be persevered with or not. For himself, he could conceive no principle so disastrous as that applied to property, whether its value were £50,000 or merely the value of a common publichouse. There were two great principles involved in the question—one being that the ratepapers of a district should under certain circumstances be enabled to prevent
  186
  the sale of any intoxicating liquors within its limits, and the other that licences should be granted very much as hitherto. Everyone admitted that the present licensing system was very bad, and that it should be reformed; he therefore thought it was much to be deplored that the Government, after having made so many promises on the subject, should have withdrawn the Bill, and merely contented themselves with stating that they meant to propose some temporary regulations for the future. The fact was that if the measures of the Government had been better matured at the commencement of the Session, the waste of the time of the House, which was so much to be deplored, would not have occurred, and it would have been spared the miserable, fiasco of the Budget, the equally miserable fiasco of the Licensing Bill—which was one of the first innocents murdered this Session—and that wretched abortion of a measure, the Local Taxation Bill. As to the question of licences, he, for one, did not see why the ratepayers who felt themselves aggrieved by the existing state of things should not be allowed to exercise the authority which they might legitimately obtain; while, on the other hand, he knew of no good reason why the licensed victuallers should not be permitted to carry their principle, which he thought an equally good one, into effect—that of buying up existing interests from a fund created by themselves, and so diminish the number of publichouses in the country. He thought that a good measure with respect to licensing might have been carried during the present Session, but when a Bill assailing indiscriminately a powerful interest was brought in, no one could be surprised that it failed to receive a favourable reception. That, measure was most injurious to the higher class of houses in which liquor was sold, and hardly touched that lower class of houses which all wished to get rid of. Legislation, he believed, might do much to encourage sobriety. It might be done by diminishing the present competition for publichouses; they might place the liquor trade on a sound foundation if both sides would yield a little. A man, in England, sneaked into a publichouse. Abroad, gaiety and conviviality were the characteristics of the places where liquor was sold. And the reason of the

  187
  difference was, that in England the keeper of the house was not made responsible for the consequences of supplying his customers with more than was good for them. They were now promised a Bill simply to regulate the liquor traffic; but no one could say what its provisions were to be. He was a landowner himself, and it was his custom in laying out land to be built upon to apportion, as far as possible to the circumstances of the case, the houses which, under certain restrictions, were to be used for the sale of beer and other liquors; but such a Bill as the Government introduced would render all his efforts nugatory, because at the termination of ten years anyone, in spite of the arrangements he had made, might obtain a licence without even having a house at the time to carry on the trade. Nothing could be more objectionable than the course winch the Government seemed prepared to adopt—namely, to hang up this matter for another year, and leave it uncertain whether that unjust principle respecting the ten years' licence was or was not to be adopted. He should have been content to have seen some portion, though not the extreme portion, of the Permissive Prohibitory Bill carried into law, but all the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department now proposed to do was to establish some regulations in reference to the conduct of business in publichouses. This delay in dealing with the subject of licensing was to be deplored, because large interests were involved, the revenue derived from the liquor trade amounting to £25,000,000. A trade of that magnitude deserved better treatment than it had received, and it was very much to be desired that the intentions of the Government on the subject should be known this year, because the House would be called on to make up any deficit in the Revenue which might be produced by any Bill intended to be introduced by the Government. Surely it would only have been wise and fair at the beginning of the Session either to have brought in a Bill which the Government were resolved to pass, or to have left the question untouched. He believed that the country generally was agreed on the main principles on which legislation should be based, so that the hesitation or failure of the Government were the less to be explained. The
  188
  hon. Baronet concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, if the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devon (Sir Lawrence Palk) had established one thing by his speech, it was that he had entirely failed to appreciate the magnitude of the question to be dealt with. He called upon the Government not only to introduce a fresh measure, but to introduce one which should deal with the whole subject at once—or, as he said, which should deal with the licensing system as well as with the regulation of houses. The hon. Baronet must know that the licensing system was one of the most difficult problems to deal with; over and over again successive statesmen had attempted to deal with it, and had shrunk from the difficult task; and if the hon. Baronet had undertaken the task himself he would have found the difficulties such that he might have considered even failure was no disgrace. The hon. Baronet called upon the Government at this period of the Session, with a large portion of the Estimates unvoted, and with measures they were pledged to carry unearned, to bring forward a measure dealing with the whole question, or to inform the House on what principles any measure they might introduce subsequently would be based. He thought the House would be prepared for the statement that he declined to give the required answer. He was quite willing to learn by experience, and, having discovered the shoals and rocks by which the question was surrounded, he would endeavour to avoid them in the future To all offers and suggestions coming from the licensed victuallers and from others he was willing to pay the most careful attention; and he was ready to admit that in the suggestions which were made after the introduction of his Bill, and not before, he had discerned elements of usefulness in the settlement of the question. From the hon. Baronet they had heard expressions of sympathy with distillers, brewers, and owners of publichouse property, and honestly and sincerely he lamented the injury which undoubtedly had been inflicted upon them by uncertainty as to possible legislation; but there was another portion of the community on behalf of whom he did not hear a single word of sympathy, for whom he felt much more, and that was those who suffered in morals and happiness, and all that

  189
  made life more desirable and respectable, from the present condition of our licensing-laws. He had spoken of the present number of licences as if he forgot that, excluding London, there were of publichouses and beerhouses one for every 150 of the population—men, women, and children. [Sir LAWRENCE PALK said, on the contrary, he was in favour of diminishing the number.] The hon. Baronet would find he could not diminish the number without in some way affecting or injuring the interests of those whose rights he so strongly advocated. He called upon the Government to do that which was utterly impossible—to bring in a measure which should be easily carried—without affecting in any way the interests of the proprietors and keepers of publichouses, and that was impossible. He could only repeat that he was willing to learn by experience; but he should be injuring the cause he had at heart if he were to state, which, indeed, he was not prepared to do, what was the policy of the Government with respect to the licensing part of the question. The progress of Business did not inspire him with hope, but if the opportunity offered in the course of the Session he should be prepared to bring in a Bill to deal with matters of police and regulation; but the discussions which had arisen upon the licensing question imposed upon the Government the duty of re-considering the whole matter and seeing what fresh proposition could be made.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the question could not be treated as it ought to be treated at the end of a Session like this; and, if it were touched at all, it could only be by a measure suspending for a time any further increase in the number of publichouses, for if they went further and dealt with police clauses they would only prejudice a more comprehensive measure in the future. He should like to see the Government take a strong line without attempting to meet the views of either of the extreme parties to the controversy—a line which would gradually reduce the number of houses, without at the same time dealing with them so violently as they were dealt with in the Bill of the Government. This might be done by raising the rateable value of the houses, by restricting the discretion of magistrates to grant licences, and by curtailing the hours that they were open. It
  190
  was impossible to lay down any fixed rule based upon population; because one house to 1,000 persons might be sufficient in one place, while in another one to 400 or 500 might be insufficient, on account of markets and other causes of influx, which could not be temporarily provided for. The attempt to deal with the subject, other than as a whole, would be injurious to the object all had in view—namely, the diminution of the deplorable amount of drunkenness now prevalent among the working classes.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had answered the question put to him. Let him say boldly that the Bill he had withdrawn provoked so much opposition that he was obliged to leave the matter alone for the Session. The question to which it was desirable that the Government should give an answer was this—Did they mean, in any Bill which they intended to bring forward, to confiscate the property in which a large body of persons were directly and indirectly interested, as they had proposed to do in their measure so recently withdrawn? He thought a fairer answer ought to have been given by the right hon. Gentleman to that question, for this reason — that people ought to know whether the large amount of property invested in the trade was safe or not; and in connection with that part of the question he would remind the House, that in addition to the money actually invested in the trade itself, there were large sums of money invested in mortgages upon the houses used for carrying on the trade.
  MR. HARVEY LEWIS, while he thought the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Lawrence Palk) was perfectly justified in putting his Question, conceived that there was no reason to find fault with the Home Secretary for the answer he had given to it. All parties, however, were agreed that some remedy should be applied to the existing state of things, and this being so he had no doubt that some remedy would be found. The licensed victuallers had no interest in the increase of the number of publichouses; and if too many licences had been granted by the magistrates, it would be hard to visit upon the victuallers the fault of those who had to carry out the law. A great many licences must continually fall in by effluxion of time,

  191
  and with the increase of population, and the transfer of licences from one district to another, it would be easy to control the number of licences. He hoped that in any future Bill the right hon. Gentleman would recollect what he stated on the 13th of July, 1870, that it would be very unjust to deprive those engaged in this trade of their right to sell without giving them compensation. The ten years' clause in the last Bill was looked upon in the light of confiscation, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had thrown aside his pre-conceived ideas, and would endeavour to do justice to all parties.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he believed that many of the persons who signed the Petitions presented to that House in favour of the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill were actuated by a feeling very similar to that which influenced many of those who signed Petitions for the Ballot—namely, that they were dissatisfied with the present state of things, and wished for some improvement in it, they could hardly tell how or what. He regarded the feeling now existing among the working classes on this subject as a very healthy sign, and as the growth of public opinion rather than the result of any legislation, had put down drunkenness in higher ranks of society, so he hoped they would gradually see the same salutary change effected among the working class, He could not view the measure introduced and abandoned this year by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as one that offered the basis of a satisfactory settlement of that question; and he trusted that for their own sakes as well as for the sake of the public interest, the Government would be able at the commencement of next Session to lay a well-considered and matured Bill dealing with that important subject on the Table, with a full determination to submit it to the judgment of the House. With the enormous amount of property invested in the trade, it was not fair that the matter should be hung up, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make up his mind during the Recess as to the nature of the Bill to be introduced, and, coute qui coute, take the judgment of the House upon it. It was a ground, too, of just complaint that an opportunity had not during the present Session been afforded
  192
  for a full discussion of the Government proposal, as the opinion of Parliament might have assisted the Government in the framing of their measure. But the interests of the public at large, and the interests of the trade concerned, were equally opposed to any trifling with the subject, and both parties, he believed, would willingly see a fair and liberal measure adopted; such a one, for instance, as, while it contented the publicans, would remove temptation from the working man.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had exercised a wise discretion when he withdrew the Bill, because he could not conceive the pleasure of discussing a measure that was universally condemned. They had discussed the principle of the Permissive Bill, and there could be nothing more plain, clear, and decisive than to say that because drinking beer to a great extent was a bad thing nobody should have any to drink at all. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)had been agitating that principle for twelve years, and, notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary, the state of the country with regard to drink had gone on improving. Everybody said a Bill must be brought in, but nobody did it. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was the only person who had sketched out a plan which, by any possibility could be carried out, and as he had been so successful with his small beer Bill, he hoped he would attempt something with respect to the large beerhouses. The hon. Baronet had caused a panic amongst the beer-shop keepers, and although he had deprived them of many of their privileges they made no complaint, but great advantage had arisen from the legislation he had adopted. Although the hon. Baronet's course had been, to a certain extent, severe, still, at the same time, it had been extremely mild in comparison with the Permissive Bill and the Home Secretary's Bill, which were two extremes in opposite directions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would mature a plan during the Recess and submit it at the Sitting of Parliament next Session, in order that it might be fully discussed.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was not dissatisfied with the position of

  193
  this great drink question, because where formerly nobody appeared to take any interest in it, everybody now had a remedy of some kind or other, and that showed him that drinking could not be diminishing in the satisfactory manner they would wish the public to believe. He would not discuss the Bill of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) until he had seen it, but he would take that opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for the efforts he had made this year to deal with the question. The right hon. Gentleman had been attacked on all sides, but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished to pay his tribute to the honest and earnest attention he had paid to the subject. He was not surprised the right hon. Gentleman had failed, because of the difficulty of the subject. It would be impossible to bring in a measure which should be satisfactory to everyone. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman's Bill failed was because he did not excite the enthusiasm of the country, which he might have done had he trusted to his fellow-countrymen in this matter.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he must point out that it was strange that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should complain of the unreasonableness of his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Lawrence Palk), when for the last three years this subject had been under his consideration. That morning at an advanced hour a Bill—Intoxicating Liquors (New Licences) Bill—was read a second time which had reference to this subject, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to leave the solution of this question in the hands of Gentlemen whose names were at the back of that Bill. He hoped that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman would teach him how difficult it was to deal with vested interests.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he wished it to be clearly understood that when they talked about the drink question they really meant excessive drinking, and it was with that the Government were called upon to deal. The people never would submit to have the power taken from them of saying what they would drink or how they should drink it. Habits of drunkenness were not on the increase, and in the Army the soldiers were becoming increasingly sober as
  194
  more amusements were being opened up to them, a fact which pointed out the way they should take in reforming the habits of the people generally.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought at the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had great reason to complain of the course taken by the powerful association of which his hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was the head, for they had given the right hon. Gentleman no encouragement in regard to the measure he brought forward at an early period of the Session. He believed that, however defective it might be in details, that measure was an honest attempt to solve a very difficult problem, and as such was entitled to the cordial support of the party which advocated temperance. The financial as well as the moral aspect of this question must be considered, for large bodies who had invested capital in this trade, in accordance with the legislation of the country, could not be expected to relinquish a lucrative business without receiving compensation. There was a general feeling that the number of beershops and publichouses was in excess of the requirements of the population, but he thought that before these could be removed compensation must be given. He hoped the Government would either support the measure of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Anstruther), which was read a second time at an early hour that morning, or would introduce a similar Bill to prevent the acquisition of new rights.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he thought it might be assumed that the right hon. Gentleman after withdrawing his Bill would not in any future measure neglect to provide for adequate compensation, but he hoped the Government would distrust the proposals of so-called philanthropists. He was sure the Bill mentioned, putting an end to licences in the current year, would receive support from licensed victuallers.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, it was desirable that if the Home Secretary proposed to bring in a Bill this Session to regulate the police department of the licensing system, he should give notice of his intention, rather than leave the matter in uncertainty, He trusted that whatever measure the right hon. Gentleman introduced he would take measures to ascertain the real feeling of the

  195
  country, and if necessary appoint a Royal Commission, or institute an inquiry of that kind. His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-lbbetson), who could not again speak in the debate, had received statistics from various parts of England showing that there had been an absolute increase of convictions for drunkenness; but the police explained this by saying that keepers of houses being now afraid of danger from harbouring drunken people, turned them more readily into the streets, where they were arrested, so that there was no actual increase.

REPRESENTATION OF IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENcalled attention to the vacancies existing in the representation of Ireland, and pointed out that in consequence of the disfranchisement in 1869 of the boroughs of Cashel and Sligo, Ireland had not had during the last three years her full complement of Members in the House, the number having been 103 only instead of 105, the number Ireland was entitled to by the covenant between the two countries Considering that no Irish measure, except that for the protection of life and property in Westmeath, had occupied attention this Session, he had hoped that the Government, with the majority they had at their back, would have attempted to dispose of the two vacant seats; and he brought forward the matter now with the hope of extracting a pledge from the Government with regard to next Session, because he wished the seats to be disposed of by the present Government. He trusted the seats would be given to boroughs, the representation of which was less adequate than that of the counties. If the Government would only fix upon the places they could easily carry a Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the Government were desirous as soon as possible, of providing for the allocation of the vacant seats; but he declined to give any pledge on the part of the Government as to the time when and the manner in which the Government would attempt to dispose of them. There had been no general re-distribution of seats in Ireland as there had been in England, and many hon. Members were of opinion that there ought
  196
  to be such a re-distribution; and it was therefore a question whether the allocation of these vacant seats ought not to be postponed until there had been a favourable opportunity of considering the wider question. As to the claims of particular boroughs, it mitigate that there were other constituents which would have still greater claims. He could assure the hon. and learned Baronet that the political complexion of any proposed constituency was a matter that had never crossed the minds of the Government at all.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

CONVENTUAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.
MR. NEWDEGATE MR. NEWDEGATE moved—
"That Mr. Thomas Chambers be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions."
MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, he must object to the Motion on the ground that the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had attended all the investigations of the Committee, and that all the Committee had to do was to prepare the Report.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was at the express desire of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone that he had made the Motion before the House.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, it would not be fair to the other Members of the Committee to allow such a course to be pursued, and he must therefore oppose the Motion.
Question put, and negatived.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. LEEMAN, Bill to authorise the application of the Borough Fund of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. GOLDNEY, and Mr. CANDLISH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 203.]

THAMES EMBANKMENT.
Select Committee appointed, "to inquire whether, having regard to the various rights and interests involved it is expedient that the land reclaimed from the Thames, and lying between Whitehall Gardens and Whitehall Place should, in whole or in part, be appropriated for the advantage of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and, in such case, in what manner such appropriation should be effected."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
And, on July 3, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Sir WILLIAM TITE, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. VERNON HARCOURT, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. JOHN LOCKE, Mr. LAIRD, and Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

NEW MINT BUILDING SITE BILL.
Select Committee on the New Mint Building Site Bill nominated:—Mr. BAXTER, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. MUXTZ, and Mr. CROSS, and Three Members to be added by the Committee of Selection:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.
Ordered, That all Petitions presented during the present Session against the Bill be referred to the Committee; and such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions.—(Mr. Ayrton.)

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Bill to amend "The Public Schools Act, 1868," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary BRUCE and Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 204.]
House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Justices of the Peace Qualification* (188); Petroleum* (189).
Second Reading — Lunacy Regulation Amendment (171); Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, Amendment (185).
Third Reading—Citation Amendment (Scotland)* (177); East India Stocks (Dividends)* (178); Postage* (179), and passed.
Royal Assent—University Tests [34 Viet. c. 26]; Protection of Life and Property in certain Parts of Ireland [34 Viet. c. 25]; Ewelme Rectory [34 Viet. c. 23]; Presbyterian Church (Ireland) [34 Viet. c. 24].

FRANCE—THE COMMUNIST INSURRECTION—ENGLISH PRISONERS AT SATORY.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not see present the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie), who recently put a Question to him as to the number of Englishmen compromised in the late unfortunate events at Paris; but he thought it right to give the House the latest information in his possession with regard to Englishmen now prisoners in Paris. The unfortunate boy, William Lowe, who was found with a pistol in his hand behind a barricade, had since been released. The fullest inquiry which could be instituted as to the persons who were, or were represented to be, British subjects, and who had been arrested on the charge of complicity in the insurrection, showed that of 19 persons who were known to
122
have been arrested 10 had been released, and nine were still in confinement; while two persons were missing from their homes whom our Consul had not yet found. He wished to take the opportunity of correcting a very natural misreport which happened on his recently reading a despatch describing the conduct of Mr. Saumerez, which their Lordships seemed to think exceedingly creditable. His observation on the judgment and discretion of the writer of the despatch, Mr. Malet, was inadvertently attributed to Mr. Saumerez, whereas he wished to do both gentlemen the justice they deserved.

HER MAJESTY'S SHIP "CAPTAIN."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALErose to call attention to the Minute by the late First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to H.M.S. "Captain." He thought the issue of this Minute a great mistake, inasmuch as it was published without the knowledge of some of the late First Lord's Colleagues, upon whom, and especially upon Sir Spencer Robinson and the officers of the Controller's Department, it, by implication, cast much blame, because it reflected upon matters in which they were personally and officially concerned. That this blame was not justly deserved was evidenced by the finding of the Court Martial that had sat to inquire into the loss of the Captain, and who found that the ship capsized by pressure of sail, assisted by the heave of the sea; and that the sail carried at the time of her loss—regard being had to the force of the wind and state of the sea—was insufficient to have endangered a ship endued with a proper amount of stability—and they added—
  "That the Court, before separating, find it their duty to record their conviction that the Captain was built in deference to public opinion, expressed in Parliament, and in opposition to the views and opinions of the Controller and his Department, and that the evidence all tends to show that they generally disapproved of her construction."
  That finding he (the Earl of Lauderdale) thought was just and proper, for no man could have been more opposed to the plans of this vessel than Sir Spencer Robinson and Mr. Reed. The experiment was strongly urged upon the Admiralty by speeches in Parliament, and by letters in the public Press. Mr. Childers,

  123
  he thought, ought to have allowed the matter to rest on that finding. Instead of that, Mr. Childers issued the Minute to which he was calling their Lordships' attention. On examining the Minute, he found it to be very inaccurate in its statements. For instance, the history of the circumstances which led to the ordering of the Captain was imperfect and one-sided, and the extract from the Report of the Committee of Naval Officers, of which he (the Earl of Lauderdale) had the honour to be Chairman, was so selected as to suggest that the Committee recommended that a conclusive trial should be given to a sea-going turret-ship similar to the Captain; whereas the plan of which they recommended a trial contemplated a vessel only half the size of the Captain, and with 10 feet freeboard; whereas the Captain was intended to have 8 feet freeboard, but when launched had only 6 feet 6 inches. That the Admiralty comprehended their recommendation was shown by their building the Monarch, a ship with 14 feet freeboard, and with two turrets. The Monarch was intended to carry out Captain Coles' views as to turret-ships; but the Admiralty gave up an essential part of Captain Coles' original plan, for they gave up the all-round fire, and put a forecastle on her; and this, no doubt, made her a better sea-going vessel. Captain Coles, however, objected to these parts of the design as discarding some of the chief merits of the turret system. He was then allowed to build a ship on his own plan:—when, however, the plan was laid before the Admiralty she had both a poop and forecastle, thus sacrificing the all-round fire he (Captain Coles) had up to that time so strongly advocated. The Controller's Department was consulted on the plan of the Captain, and they reported that they saw nothing to lead them to believe there was any deficiency in the stability of the vessel; but the plan they reported on had a freeboard of eight feet. The ship was ordered to be constructed by Sir John Pakington, as First Lord of the Admiralty, who was succeeded in his office by Mr. Corry. Mr. Childers had nothing to do with the building of the Captain; but she was received into the service during his tenure of office, and it was impossible to read the Minute without being led to believe that blame was thrown on the
  124
  Controller's Department for not expressing strongly enough their objections to the plan. It was perfectly clear the Admiralty intended that the Captain should be built according to the plans of Captain Coles and Mr. Laird, the builder, and that they did not wish to take any responsibility on themselves unless the Constructor's Department reported she was totally unfit for sea. Now, it never entered the heads of the Department that that was the case, and though they totally disapproved of the plan, they did not think she was unfit to go to sea. He had, however, reason to believe that every bit of information known to the Controller's Department was known also to Captain Coles and Mr. Laird, the builder. The only point they were unaware of was the result of the final calculations after the heeling over alongside of Portsmouth Dockyard just before her final departure. That experiment of heeling over was made in the presence of Captain Coles, and he belioved all were satisfied about her centre of gravity. Mr. Laird had stated that the results almost exactly tallied with his estimate, and that had the final calculations been made known to him they would not have made him doubt her fitness to go to sea. Nor was this doubted by the Controller's Department, although they disapproved the plan. Both Mr. Reed and Mr. Scott Russell had previously urged the danger of low freeboards; and after the launching of the Captain, when the freeboard proved to be only 6½ feet, the former gentleman stated that she was unsafe without a breastwork. What he supposed Mr. Reed meant was, that she was quite unfit for a sea-going ship, and that sooner or later she would come to grief. His opinion, however, did not prevent the vessel from going to sea. Indeed, public feeling was so strongly in favour of the trial that nothing could have prevented this. One of Mr. Childers' complaints was, that the Controller's Department did not give him full information upon the subject, and that they did not urge their objections with sufficient strength. When, however, he proposed to build other ships something like the Captain, Mr. Reed informed him that it would not be safe to build low freeboard ships with masts; and when he found his remonstrance useless, he retired from his office. All the sea

  125
  Lords, Mr. Reed said, were opposed to the construction of low freeboard ships—especially with masts; and, so far as he (the Earl of Lauderdale) could understand from the Minute, the only person in favour of low freeboard ships when the Captain was received into the Navy was Mr. Childers himself. It was a professional question, and it was not right in Mr. Childers to throw the blame on the professional men who were opposed to the construction of such vessels. The building of the Captain was a national experiment, and nothing could be known without subjecting such a vessel to a full trial. But it must be remembered that such experiments could not be made without danger. The real point of a trial commenced at the point of danger, and it was no use arguing, for sailors would not believe in words. The danger attending such trials was illustrated by the indiarubber boats carrying a 13-inch mortar, which were tested at Spithead during the Crimean War, and after promising well, split in halves on the mortar being fired, all but one of those on board happily escaping. The Court Martial reported that the Captain was capsized from want of stability, and the public wished to know to what it was owing: but no report of that kind had been made, and Mr. Childers had stated that he hoped more ships of the same character would be built. Since her loss various reasons had been given for the accident. It had been said that she had too low a freeboard — that she had too high a centre of gravity — that she had not beam enough, and that she carried 800 tons more than she was designed for. Those were points which the public wanted settled — because either one of them was sufficient to capsize a vessel like the Captain. Mr. Childers, in the third part of the Minute, appeared to have proposed to construct a double turret-ship, with a low freeboard, with limited sail power. Mr. Reed objected to this proposal, and it was abandoned; but after discussion it was agreed to build two two-turreted ships, without masts, following out very nearly Mr. Reed's original designs. These were the Thunderer and the Devastation. He thought that a doubtful experiment, and the late First Lord was wrong in building more than one of those ships until the plan had been fairly tried and tested. He distinctly stated that he did not approve
  126
  of those ships. He objected to their want of masts, to their low freeboard, and to their draught of water. The new principle of sea-going ships like the Monitor was a low freeboard, its advocates arguing that the old principle of a ship rising on the top of the waves was a mistake—that it was better that ships should be built so as to enable them to cut through the waves, and so avoid pitching and rolling. It seemed to him that sailing in such a ship would be submarine navigation, and would be worse than travelling by an underground railway. In the railway you did now and then come to the surface and get a breath of fresh air; but in such a vessel you must be close shut up and live by artificial ventilation. He hoped that only one of those vessels would be completed at first, in order that its powers might be fully tested by a fair trial before the whole expenditure was incurred for the completion of the remainder of them. This low freeboard question was a most serious one. Being a gunnery man himself he was quite aware of the value of a low freeboard and the turret for gunnery purposes; but it was of far greater importance to secure the safety of the men on board. In regard to merchant ships the Legislature was acting differently, inasmuch as it was trying to prevent low freeboards as much as possible—for a low freeboard meant overloading, and no merchant vessels were built with low freeboards. But men-of-war were laden with coal and iron, and with a low freeboard would be much less safe than merchant ships. In the latter the centre of gravity might be low; but the centre of gravity in men-of-war could not be low. The noble Earl read a letter from a sailor to his sweetheart, on the eve of his departure on board a merchant ship which was overladen—the writer stating that he did not at all like the look of the vessel, but that he was not one to show the white feather; but he supposed that if it were good for the captain it was equally good for him, and hoping that she would keep up her heart and pray for his safe return. Now, that vessel was never heard of again. He knew also of a case of an officer of an iron-clad vessel going to insure his life for £ 1,000; but the authorities at the insurance office, on hearing that his ship was an iron-clad, refused to accept him. In

  127
  conclusion, he would urge upon the Government the views he had expressed with regard to the Captain. He trusted also they would consider the point he had urged as to the overloading of merchant vessels, and the propriety of introducing into the Merchant Shipping Act provisions to prevent this practice.
  LORD DUNSANY, a shipmate of Sir Spencer Robinson's 48 years ago, said, it was no exaggeration to say that Sir Spencer was a distinguished officer, who deserved well of his country, and could not be fairly blamed for the loss of the Captain; under no circumstances could he be held accountable for the occurrence. But, at the same time, he acquitted Mr. Childers of any desire to shuffle off responsibility from his own shoulders. The fault lay in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, which was characterized by responsibility without professional experience, and so full of anomalies that he should not be surprised to hear of a "Battle of Dorking" any day. He anticipated that great disaster would result in the future from the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty possessed almost unlimited powers to build ships of whatever design pleased him best, even though in doing so he might be acting contrary to the advice of his professional colleagues. These unprofessional First Lords were, to his thinking, to be regarded in the light of national misfortunes. The late Sir James Graham, for instance, commenced his naval reforms by depriving the officers and architects of the means of technical education—he then reduced the Navy of the country to a state of utter impotence, and he abolished the Marine Artillery—one of the finest and most useful corps in the service He regretted, however, to find that the Court Martial had travelled out of the inquiry which was specially committed to them—they had nothing to do in the finding except what had been brought before them in evidence. He meant nothing personal against Mr. Childers; but he wished to point out the difficulty of non-professional First Lords when dealing with strictly naval questions.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that when a great national loss, such as that of the Captain, one of the finest ships in the Navy, occurred, and several hundreds of lives were sacrificed by the catastrophe, the subject was one which
  128
  undoubtedly deserved the attention of their Lordships, and all the papers and documents calculated to throw any light upon it would receive their most careful consideration. In bringing this subject forward the noble Earl (the Earl of Lauderdale) had referred to several naval questions which were, no doubt, of great interest and importance; but it would perhaps be more convenient if he (the Earl of Camperdown) were to confine himself strictly to the noble Earl's Notice as it appeared on the Paper—namely, the Minute relating to the loss of the Captain. The noble Earl had criticized two matters which were recorded in that Minute, the first being the reply of the Admiralty to the finding of the Court Martial, and the second the proceedings of the Admiralty in ascribing a portion of the blame for the loss of the Captain to the Controller's Department. And here it should be remembered that besides the reputation of the officers who sat on the Court Martial and those in the Controller's Department there was also involved the reputation of the officers who were lost in the ship. As to the reply of the Admiralty on the finding of the Court Martial, the noble Earl said that the Admiralty were scarcely justified in expressing their extreme surprise that so grave a reflection on public opinion and on the Board of Admiralty which in 1866 ordered the building of the Captain, should have been recorded by a Court Martial. But the reason why their Lordships objected to the finding—or to that part of the finding—was that though the statement made by the Court Martial might be perfectly true, it did not rest upon anything that had been set forth in the evidence that had been laid before them. The Court Martial referred in their decision to what they called "a proper amount of stability;" but, as the Admiralty pointed out, it must have been known to the officers of the fleet, and to the Court that a turret-ship with a low-freeboard had not the same conditions of stability as a broadside ship with a high freeboard. That was a fair matter for remark by the Admiralty. But, independently of that, the Lords of the Admiralty called attention—as he thought they had a perfect right to do—to the fact that the Controller of the Navy was not called before the Court. Now, the Lords of the Admiralty had not the slightest wish

  129
  to interfere with the independence of the proceedings of the Court; but when a ship like the Captain was lost, and the Controller of the Navy—the head of the constructive department of the Admiralty, within whose period of office the ship had been built, and with the building of which he had been to a certain degree connected—was not examined before a Court Martial which was inquiring into the circumstance of the ship's loss, he thought the Lords of the Admiralty were not only justified in calling attention to the circumstance, but that they would hardly have been justified if they had not done so. He would observe that the Minute was published by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the words "By order of the Board of Admiralty" were printed upon it by the Stationery Office without authority—and that the Minute was not the Minute of the Board, but of the First Lord alone, and was written by him in consequence of decided opinions he held on the subject of the individual responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown for the business connected with their departments. When this matter occurred, the First Lord made his own inquiry, and, attributing the fault to certain officers in the Department, he wrote his Minute. The Minute consisted of 42 pages of facts and 73 pages of Appendix.
  He would confine himself to the positive statements therein made. It was set forth in the document that—
  "When Sir John Pakington's Board approved of the design, Captain Coles and the Messrs. Laird accepted the entire responsibility, and the Controller of the Navy and other officers of the Navy were for a time relieved from it."
  That—
  "It was also clear that, when the Captain was completed and sent for trial to sea, although the responsibility of Captain Coles and the Messrs. Laird for the construction of the ship continued, yet the Controller of the Navy and the other officers became responsible for the ship's fitness to go to sea."
  It could not be denied that if the Controller of the Navy entertained the opinion that a ship was not fit to go to sea, he ought to make a direct representation to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject. In that view Sir Spencer Robinson himself concurred, when he stated in his reply that the Constructor's Department had no responsibility, either technical or moral; but that they had no apprehensions that a trial at sea would subject
  130
  the ship to imminent danger, and that if the Chief Constructor had apprehended any such danger the department would have felt itself under an irresistible moral obligation to point out its apprehensions.>Sir Spencer Robinson went on to say that neither he nor Mr. Reed considered the ship to be unsafe for trial "if properly handled." Mr. Reed in his report, though he considered that no satisfactory result would be obtained from the trial of the ship, did not express any anticipation of the Captain going to the bottom. This was before the loss of the ship; but at the Court Martial he said, in reply to questions as to the stability and seaworthiness of the vessel, that owing to the want of stability shown in the design and construction of the ship he had for some time entertained doubts as to her seaworthiness. Mr. Reed was asked whether he did not think it was necessary to give that information to Captain Burgoyne; and his reply was that he did not think it was necessary for him to do anything which he did not do. Now, Mr. Childers absolved the Controller in the first instance from responsibility, but went on to say that he became responsible for the ship's fitness to go to sea at a certain period—by which was meant that he ought to have reported to him the vessel's unworthiness to go to sea. Mr. Childers went on to say that he could not believe Mr. Reed's memory was correct when he gave those answers, for if they described accurately Mr. Reed's position it was one of very heavy responsibility. Either he knew the ship was unfit to be sent to sea or not. In the former case he was bound to represent his opinion in the strongest way to Sir Spencer Robinson, who would have been bound by his sense of official responsibility to lay the matter before Mr. Childers; if, on the other hand, Mr. Reed was unaware of the fact, the evidence he gave before the Court Martial was very unfortunate. It was true that Mr. Reed, in a lecture delivered at the Institute of Naval Architects, expressed the same views as were contained in his evidence before the Court Martial; but if he really entertained those opinions, it was an unfortunate circumstance that he did not present a Report on the subject to Sir Spencer Robinson, his superior officer. At all events, Mr. Reed's lecture could hardly be taken as a Report to the Board of Admiralty that the

  131
  ship was not fit to be sent to sea. He conceived that when a vessel of this importance went to sea, carring with it hundreds of precious lives, it was a duty imperative on any person connected with the Constructive Department of the Navy to represent to his superior officer all facts within his knowledge as to its unworthiness. All the Constructors, he presumed, were responsible to the Controller; for if they possessed information which they did not give to the Controller, the latter would be placed in a very unfair position. Messrs. Laird asked in February that experiments should be made with regard to the centre of gravity of the Captain. This was deferred by "the Chief Constructor until after the steam trial, and when the vessel had gone to sea and was lost Mr. Childers expressed his opinion that the centre of gravity ought to have been ascertained at an earlier period than it actually was. Now, he (the Earl of Camperdown) did not mean to assert that if the centre of gravity had been earlier ascertained the Captain would have been saved; but, at the same time, he ventured to submit that Mr. Childers was justified in making such a statement. The curve of stability of the Capiain was not ascertained until after that vessel had gone to sea for the last time—though within a month after the centre of gravity had been discovered by experiment. Without knowing the centre of gravity it was impossible to find the curve of stability. If, in February, the centre of gravity had been ascertained, it would have been possible to discover the curve of stability long before the ship left England on her last voyage, and the calculations would have served as a caution to the officer commanding the ship. With regard to an omission in the Minute of some words at the beginning of a Report of the Controller, no person could regret more than Mr. Childers did that any words which appeared in a Report of the Controller to him, and especially on such a subject, should not also have appeared in the Report as printed in the Minute, and the result of the inquiry as to the way in which the omission occurred was that it was due to an error on the part of a copyist; but the omission did not, in fact, alter the case. The portion of the Report which dealt with facts, as distinguished from observations, was shown by Mr. Childers to two of his Colleagues,
  132
  and therefore Sir Spencer Robinson might have seen this particular portion of the Report. He wished to call special attention to the bearing of the words which were omitted in the remainder of the letter. If Sir Spencer Robinson had stated the conclusion that the Captain was unseaworthy, and had specially called the attention of Mr. Childers to the fact, then Sir Spencer Robinson was quite free even from constructive responsibility; but what Sir Spencer Robinson wrote was that, although under certain conditions the stability of the Captain was not quite satisfactory, the ship might be accepted; and their Lordships had, therefore, given instructions for the final payment of the account, waiving a condition which had been imposed that Messrs. Laird should hold themselves responsible for making such alterations as might be deemed necessary; and therefore the words omitted had reference, not to the question whether the Captain was or was not a seaworthy ship, but entirely to payment of the claim of Messrs. Laird. The attention of Mr. Childers was called to the matter with reference to the Question of payment, and the seaworthiness of the Captain was a secondary question. If the Controller was impressed with the idea that the Captain was not seaworthy, he ought to have specially called the attention of the First Lord to the question of unseaworthiness. He might have been expected to say—"I should really wish you to consider the question whether the Captain should go to sea or not;" and he ought also to have addressed the First Sea Lord, without whose order the ship could not go to sea. The question had been considered only from the side of the Court Martial and from that of the Controller. It might be that if the calculations had been sent to Captain Burgoyne he would have been more on his guard. He (the Earl of Camperdown) thought he need go no further into the question than to remark that a considerable portion of the public maintained that these calculations should have been forwarded to him; and therefore it must be remembered that there was a third side to be taken into consideration, and that involved the reputation of Captain Burgoyne. In reply to the question whether there had been any Report by the Constructor since the accident, such Report had been submitted to the Committee on the loss of the Captain,

  133
  presided over by his noble Friend (Lord Dufferin), and the Report of the Committee had been laid on the Table. ["No, no!] He was not aware that that Report had not been laid on their Lordships' Table. He should be unwilling to allude to any document which was not in the possession of their Lordships: he must, therefore, close the remarks he felt himself able on this occasion to make. He would simply recapitulate in few words the reasons which appeared to have led Mr. Childers to draw the conclusions he did in this Minute. Mr. Childers had a strong idea of individual responsibility in each of his Colleagues at the Admiralty to himself. He saw that evidence had been given on this Court Martial which did not tally with the Reports which had been presented to the Board. He was of opinion that the centre of gravity and stability should have been calculated earlier than they were, and that his attention had not been sufficiently called to the question of the liability of the Captain to be upset on the idea that existed in the Constructor's Department. For these reasons Mr. Childers wrote this Minute, and he must leave it in their Lordships' hands to form their opinion upon it.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it appeared to him that there would be very little advantage in their Lordships' attempting in that House to go into the reasons winch led to the loss of the Captain. With regard to the Minute of Mr. Childers, he had already stated his objections to it. He objected to any person being the judge in his own cause. Mr. Childers had over and over declared that for everything that occurred at the Admiralty he would be responsible. This was one of the first things that had occurred;—was he responsible or was he not? If he wished to have a fair report, the question should have been submitted to an independent tribunal. He would not go into the Minute. He objected to it on principle. One great complaint Mr. Childers had against the Constructor was that he did not appoint Captain Coles to that department—Mr. Childers had such faith in Captain Coles that he wished to place him in the Constructor's Department. He repeated, this was not a subject their Lordships could inquire into—there must be an independent tribunal: but it was important for them to know who was responsible
  134
  for our ships—such as the Cyclops. Certainly not Sir Spencer Robinson, nor the Constructor, who had been away for 11 months. Who, then, was responsible? They had 12 or 14 men of science sitting together endeavouring to devise a vessel which would not turn bottom upwards. Who was responsible? Were they again to have a Minute from the First Lord dividing responsibility according to his own fancy? This system must be brought to an end. Sir Spencer Robinson and Mr. Reed for four or five years had told him continually that such a ship as the Captain, with a low freeboard and with tall masts and sails, would not be a safe ship—it might be an excellent vessel for coast defensive purposes, but not a good or safe sea-going vessel; and he had himself so stated over and over again in that House. But there was a great wish to try the experiment, and he said it should be tried. Captain Coles undertook to produce a vessel of that description which should be seaworthy, and he went down to Messrs. Laird, great shipbuilders, who undertook the business. He (the Duke of Somerset) left the Admiralty without having seen the plans and without having given an opinion on the subject. But Messrs. Laird certainly did not fulfil the promise they made. The vessel they produced was totally unseaworthy. If the Captain had survived the storm, it would have been described as one of the finest vessels in the world, and Obtain Coles would have come back to re-organize all the navies in the world. It would also have been said that but for the former Board of Admiralty the country might have had eight or ten of these fine vessels instead of only one. He thought, however, that the obstinacy of that Board was not unwise, and certainly he had not from first to last any confidence in those ships.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEobjected to the expression that the Captain was not unsafe "if properly handled." This appeared to reflect on Captain Burgoyne, who was one of the best officers in the service. If there had been anything improper in the handling of the Captain, it must have come out in the Court Martial; but there was nothing of the sort. The vessel, no doubt, was capsized in a sudden squall; but the blame ought not to be laid on the captain, who, after being on deck all day with the

  135
  Admiral, was probably at the time she was struck with the squall lying down on his sofa. The captain was not responsible during ordinary weather at night, the ship being then placed in charge of a commissioned officer, who had orders to shorten sail when necessary, or call the captain. Even the lieutenant might not be blamed—the squall came on so suddenly, and ships were often most pressed, just before the end of the watch.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, be would only say a very few words in order to do away with the impression which appeared to have been made on the noble Earl's mind that the Admiralty had passed any censure upon Captain Burgoyne. The expression to which objection was taken was an à priori opinion given by Sir Spencer Robinson. Neither Sir Spencer Robinson nor Mr. Reed ever said beforehand that they thought the ship was unsafe, but only that she would be a bad cruiser, and could not properly fight her guns. Nothing could be clearer than the paragraph which had been quoted by his noble Friend near him from Sir Spencer Robinson's reply to Mr. Childer's Minute, that neither he nor the Chief Constructor thought for a moment that the ship would be unsafe "if properly handled." There was no anticipation on the part of the Admiralty, or indeed of anybody else, that the ship would prove unsafe, and no blame had ever been imputed by that department to Captain Burgoyne.

FOUR COURTS MARSHALSEA PRISON (DUBLIN)—IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved for a Return of the cost of maintaining the Four Courts Marshalsea Prison in Dublin, specifying the salaries of each official, the cost of allowances to pauper debtors, and all other expenses; and stating from, what funds such expenditure is defrayed. He complained that although imprisonment for debt had been abolished in England, it was still allowed to prevail in Ireland, notwithstanding that for years hopes of abolition had been held out to the people of that country. There were now two Bills on the subject before the House of Commons; but they had been postponed so many times, that he did not believe they would pass this Session.
  136
  This was not only an injustice to the public of Ireland, but it was also imposing a charge on the public funds which was entirely wasted.
  Motion agreed to.

LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 171.) SECOND READING.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
Order of the Day for the (Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to afford protection to "persons of weak mind"—that was to say, persons whose mental capacity is so affected by sickness or any other temporary cause as to render them incapable of managing themselves or their affairs. On more than one occasion he had experienced a difficulty in dealing with such cases, because the persons were not so bad as to render it necessary that a commission of lunacy should be issued. Under the Bill the Lord Chancellor, on summary petition, it being established to his satisfaction that the person in question is of weak mind, is empowered in a summary way and without directing an inquiry under a commission of lunacy, to appoint a guardian of the person or property, or of both, of such person. In order to secure that this summary interference should be of a temporary character it was provided that no order should be of force for a longer period than six months, nor was it to be renewed more than once. By one clause it would be necessary for the Commissioners in Lunacy to visit each patient twice a-year, and at such other times as the Court should appoint.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LAND LORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870, AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 185.)
(The Lord Cairns.)
LAND LORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870, AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 185.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CAIRNS, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said,

  137
  its object was to settle certain doubts that had arisen whether rights secured by the Irish Land Act of 1870 to occupying tenants might not be endangered by the omission to specify or refer to such rights in conveyances or assignments executed by the Landed Estates Court. The Bill therefore enacted that every occupying tenant and those claiming under him shall have as incident to the tenancy all rights to which he might be entitled, under the first part of the Act; and that any sale, declaration, or convey on the part of the Landed Estate Courts shall be subject to all such rights, although such rights may not be specified or referred to in the conveyance or assignment executed by the Court.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Cairns.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORentirely agreed with the bringing forward of this measure by his noble and learned Friend, to whom he was much obliged for suggesting a means of obviating a not inconsiderable difficulty. Contrary to the notion that prevailed in some quarters, this Bill did not express any opinion upon the legal point that had arisen in one of the Courts in Ireland. Its object was simple, and its clauses were neatly arranged.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had avoided making any reference in the Bill to what had occurred in Ireland, as to which he had only imperfect information. Whatever had been said, it was clear there was much anxiety in the minds of persons in the northern part of Ireland, and it was proper that their doubts should be removed by legislation.
  LORD LURGANthanked the noble and learned Lord for introducing the Bill, which would be approved by all who were tenants under the custom of Ulster.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to repeal the Qualification required by the Act George the second, chapter twenty, for the Office of justice of the Peace—Was presented by The Earl of ALBEMARLE; read 1a. (No. 188.)

PETROLEUM BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for the safe keeping of Petroleum and other substances of a like nature—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 189.)
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.