Sitting of 13 May 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Second Report—Public Accounts [No. 198].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [May 9] reported—Ordered—Colonial Governors [Pensions]*.
Ordered—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* [162]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) and Act (No. 2, 1864) Amendment* [163]; Limited Owners Residence Law Amendment* [165]; Clerks of the Peace and Justices Clerks' Salaries and Fees* [164]; Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment* [168]; Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation* [166]; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland)* [167].
Second Reading—Thames Embankment (Land)* [82]; Juries* [114]; Parish Constables Abolition* [97]; Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4)* [155]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [158]; Cattle Disease (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [159].
Committee—Court of Chancery (Funds) (re-comm.) [43]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Charitable Trustees Incorporation (re-comm.)* [120].
Considered as amended—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [139–160]; Infant Life Protection* [146–161].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [143], and passed.
Third Reading—Irish Church Act Amendment* [87], and passed.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—INSPECTORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENinquired, Whether the Lord Advocate's attention has been called to the fact that, the local Poor Law authorities in Stromness having unanimously appointed a woman to be In-
  650
  spector of the Poor for that parish, the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh cancelled the appointment, although the woman had performed all the duties to the entire satisfaction of the parish for several years previously, in place of her father, who nominally held the office, but from the state of his health could not perform the duties; and, to inquire whether there is any Law disqualifying a woman from being appointed to the office of Poor Law Inspector in such a parish as Stromness?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he was not in possession of the requisite information, but had sent for it; and, if his hon. Friend would repeat the Question on a future day, he hoped he would be able to answer it.

IMPORTATION OF SHEEP AND CATTLE —ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1871.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITH (for Mr. JACOB BRIGHT)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether in consequence of the agricultural Returns, which show a great decrease in sheep and cattle, and the high price of meat resulting therefrom, he will reconsider the Order in Council, of December 20th, 1871, with the view of allowing imported sheep to pass to the inland towns when free from disease; and, whether Prussia might not, in regard to horned cattle, be put in the same position as Spain, Holland, Norway, and Sweden?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the instructions issued under the Order in question provided for the slaughter at the port of landing of all sheep in case any of the cargo had the foot and mouth disease; and the Government did not feel that they could depart from that Order. A very important deputation, however, which had waited upon him from the Northern towns, had complained of the effect of that Order, stating that it caused a large number of sheep to be slaughtered. He might, in answer to that, observe that the total number of sheep imported had not been diminished by the regulation, for the total import of sheep into great Britain for the first quarter of the year from the Continent was about 123,000, as against 64,000 for the first quarter of last year. It was certainly true that there had been a smaller import into the Northern towns

  651
  in proportion, than there had been into London; but the reason of that was, that there had been much more disease amongst the sheep which came into the North, for only 6 per cent of the ships which came into London had diseased animals on board, whereas in the case of Hull and several other of the Northern towns, the per-centage was not far from 50. That was owing, he believed, to greater care being taken in London with regard to having ships free from infection, and also with regard to the selection of the animals. It was also stated by the deputation, that the inspection was more severe and stringent in the North than in London, but that, he believed, was not the case, for he had ascertained that the regulations were precisely the same in London and the North. It had further been stated that several sheep had been slaughtered which had not the foot and mouth disease, but were merely footsore. From inquiries that had been made, however, he was satisfied that that statement was without foundation. The Government had been strongly urged to allow sheep to go under proper regulations from the port of landing to inland towns. He thought the regulations for that purpose would be exceedingly difficult; but the Government were prepared to try the experiment whether that import could or could not be permitted. In doing so, however, it would not be surprising if the restrictions placed upon it were onerous; to be safe, they could not be otherwise. But the local authorities of large inland towns would be informed that if they liked to make application for a license for sheep to be taken under those conditions to inland towns, it would be granted. With regard to the second Question put to him, it was impossible for the Government safely to do what was suggested, having the present facts regarding the cattle plague before them.

BROADMOOR ASYLUM—MAINTENANCE OF CRIMINAL LUNATICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why, or on what grounds, he has consented to relieve the Wells Union from the cost of maintenance, at Broadmoor Asylum, of William Bisgrove, sentenced to death for murder, and after such sentence certified
  652
  to be insane, when he has refused to relieve the ratepayers of Brighton from the burthen of the maintenance at the Broadmoor Asylum of Christiana Edmunds, alike sentenced to death for murder, and who also as in the case of Bisgrove, was subsequently certified to be insane?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the practice was for the Treasury to bear the costs of the maintenance of lunatics under sentence of penal servitude, but not of other persons becoming lunatics. William Bisgrove was, and Christina Edmunds had never been, under such sentence. Moreover, Christiana Edmunds had relations who were able to pay for her support. The Home Office was not able to compel them to do so—the parochial authorities were able, and he thought they ought to see to it.

INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX ON SHOOTINGS.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNTZasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If any one paying an annual sum for the shooting over another person's property would have a right to deduct Income Tax from such payment?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the rule is, that a person who lets an annual shooting should return the profits he makes on it under Schedule D, and the person who hires the shooting from him has no right to deduct income tax from the payment he made for it.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—DOMINION OF CANADA.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can explain why the Despatch from Lord Lisgar, which enclosed the Report of the Committee of the Privy Council of the Dominion, expressing the general dissatisfaction which the publication of the Treaty of Washington had produced in Canada, which was received at the Colonial Office on the 30th August, was not answered until the 23rd of November; and, whether between those dates, a period of nearly three months, no communications passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, the Despatch in question was one in answer to Lord Kimberley's Despatch of the 17th June enclosing copies of the Treaty. As nothing could be done until the meeting of the Dominion Parliament in April, it was thought advisable to give time for further consideration of the subject in Canada, and therefore no immediate rejoinder was sent. With regard to the second Question, I would state that as we were anxious not to delay producing the Correspondence, we ascertained by telegraph what Papers the Canadian Government had presented to their Parliament, and we then presented the same Papers, which contain all the essential documents. There are three or four Despatches of minor importance, two of which passed between the dates mentioned by my hon. Friend, and which we have no objection to produce, and also some Correspondence with Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland.

METROPOLITAN POLICE—STRIKE OF SEAMEN AT SOUTHAMPTON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was proposed to charge the pay and expenses of the one hundred men of the Metropolitan Police Force recently sent to Southampton to preserve order during a strike of Seamen at that Port, to the metropolitan ratepayers; and, if not, out of what fund are such pay and expenses to be discharged?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that no part of the expenses of sending the metropolitan police to Southampton would be borne by the metropolitan ratepayers. Before they were sent, it was ascertained that they might be spared without inconvenience from the metropolis for a short time, and an assurance was obtained that the whole of the expense would be defrayed by the borough of Southampton.

EAST AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GILPINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have taken any, and what steps, towards carrying out the recom-
  654
  mendations of the Committee of last Session on the East African Slave Trade?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee of last Session on the East African Slave Trade, the Governments of Germany, France, America, and Portugal have been invited to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in the suppression of the slave traffic; and both the United States and France have expressed their willingness to assist in the work. The German Goverment expresses sympathy with this object, and has referred the matter to the Hamburg Senate for a Report, as the merchants of that place are chiefly interested in the Zanzibar trade. From Portugal no answer has yet been received.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have fore-borne to place upon the Notice Paper for this evening any Notice of my intention to make at half-past 4 o'clock the usual Motion with regard to the Adjournment of the House over the Whitsuntide holidays from fear that, had I done so, it might have been thought the Government were disposed to exercise pressure upon the House with regard to the course which it may think fit to take after it has heard the explanation I am about to make with reference to the Treaty of Washington. For the same reason I shall forbear to make any Motion for the Adjournment in offering that statement to the House, because it is a matter which we shall leave entirely in the hands of the House itself and of individual Members. I shall, therefore, simply appeal to the indulgence of hon. Members to allow me to make a statement in respect of a subject of great and general interest. I may also say that Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a conclusion—the reasons for which I am about to lay before the House—that the time has not yet come for laying Papers in reference to this subject upon the Tables of the two Houses of Parliament. In what I have to say I shall not enter into any controversial or defensive matters. The House has with remarkable and, as we think, most wise—but, certainly, with very signal—for-

  655
  bearance, refrained from discussing a variety of matters with regard to the Treaty of Washington which are admitted to be of general interest, which are collateral to the issue under discussion with the United States, and which may form, either now or at some future time, the subject of detail, and, possibly, of hostile comment. But that forbearance which has been practised on both sides of the House—by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends, and likewise by those who sit behind me—has relieved the Government from any difficulty which they might have felt had they appeared on the present occasion as parties accused; and, therefore, I hold it to be no part of my duty under these circumstances to perplex the House or load the brief statement which I have to make with reference to matters of that class. I therefore will give a very brief narrative to the House, commencing from the time when Her Majesty's Government, assembled in Cabinet on the 18th of January, took this question into their consideration. I will not refer to the preliminary communications which had passed between my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Legal Advisers of the Crown, and afterwards between him and myself, as well as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor; but I will begin, as I before observed, from the 18th of January, on which day the whole subject raised by the American Case, and by those parts of it which referred to the Indirect Claims in particular, came under the consideration of the Cabinet. On that day we arrived at the conclusion that those Indirect Claims were not within the scope of the Arbitration to which we had agreed, and therefore we felt that it would not be possible for us to be parties to their submission to the Arbitrators at Geneva. On the 3rd of February, as is known to the House, we addressed a friendly communication to the Government of the United States, in which it was stated that according to the holding of Her Majesty's Government those Claims were not included within the limits of the reference, and the purport of that communication—the essential part of it—was made known to Parliament in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session. These declarations and these
  656
  opinions formed within the Cabinet have been the basis of the whole of our subsequent proceedings. We have not found it necessary, in a formal manner, to go beyond them, and at no time up to the moment at which I speak have we in the slightest degree receded or departed from them. Now, subsequently to the despatch of the 3rd of February, the House is aware that several communications relating to the general argument had passed between the two Governments, and I will not scruple to state, for the information of the House, the general purport of those communications, and especially as I can undertake to do this in a very few words. The despatch of the 3rd of February did little more than communicate the opinions and the convictions entertained by the British Government, and the despatch of the American Government in reply, which I think was addressed to us on a late day in February, and which was received by us about the 12th or the 14th of March, in like manner did not enter into the argument at large, but it signified the dissent of the President of the United States from the conclusions of the British Government as to the legitimacy of the topic of the Indirect Claims as a portion of the American Claims to be submitted to the Arbitrators at Geneva. In that despatch the President observed that he was in ignorance of the grounds and reasons upon which the opinion of the British Government had been founded, and we, interpreting that expression on the part of the President as a friendly invitation to us to give an explanation of those reasons, considered the despatch which was addressed by Lord Granville on the 20th of March to General Schenck, in which we went into them at length. The heads of our argument were these—We contended that the reference of the Indirect Claims to the Arbitrators at Geneva was not within the Treaty of Washington as it stood; we contended that, separately from the terms of that Treaty, as it was not within its terms so neither had it been within the intention of the parties that those claims should be referred; and, apart from these two contentions, we endeavoured to show that as it was not within the terms of the Treaty nor within the intention of the parties that they should be so referred, so likewise there were considerations, drawn from the reason of the

  657
  Case considered more at large, which fortified the same conclusion and supported us in the general doctrine that these Indirect Claims formed no part of the subject-matter which we had agreed to refer. Besides these branches of the argument, of which I have given a very rude and small outline, there was a portion of the despatch, or rather a memorandum annexed to it, in which we thought it wise to indicate that these Claims, if they could he entertained at all in principle—and it was the question of principle on which we had really joined issue—were likewise of an amount warranting, and more than warranting, the largest statement that had been made with respect to them, although some of those statements appear to have caused astonishment on the other side of the water. Of course, we did not allow it to be supposed that our objection was based upon a question of amount, although we referred to that point, and gave some evidence from American sources of authority which supported the opinions which we gave utterance to in regard to it. That was on the 20th of March. On the 16th of April Mr. Fish sent an answer in the nature of an argumentative reply to the despatch. With some portions of the argument advanced by us he dealt in detail; with respect to others he was content to state only that, according to the view of the Government of the United States, the whole subject was a fit and proper one to be argued before the Arbitrators at Geneva. The tone of this answer, I am bound to say, was friendly throughout; but on the receipt of it we felt it to be our duty to communicate to Parliament—and we did communicate to Parliament—that, as far as its terms were concerned, it had not afforded to us any opening which would advance a friendly and honourable settlement of this great question. But before the answer was in the hands of the British Government, a new opening had been found. A communication had been made by the Minister of the United States to Lord Granville, which was to the effect that, in the opinion of his Government, there was a method of settlement which, if it were proposed by the Government of Her Majesty, it might be open to the Government of the United States to consider and to accept, and which, in the view of the United States' Government,
  658
  would be perfectly honourable and satisfactory to both countries. This suggestion of the Minister of the United States contemplated a proceeding not by any new international engagement in the nature of a Treaty, but by correspondence between the two Governments, or by what is commonly called an exchange of Notes. Upon this information we immediately entered on a consideration of the detailed proceedings which might be adopted, and, as was to be expected in the development of those details, various points emerged and came more fully into view as the matter matured which, although there never was a departure on the part of either party from the general basis sketched out by the Minister of the United States, yet, on the whole, tended to give to the contemplated proceeding more of a substantive character than had been in the view of the American Government when it was originally projected and suggested on their part. That being so, upon the 8th of May—that is to say, upon Wednesday last, we learnt, on the direct authority of the American Government, that, in order to meet the views which had been stated on our part, it would be necessary, as they exceeded the powers of the President, that a reference should be made to the Senate, and that that power also should be called in aid, with a view to a satisfactory and complete settlement of the case. This was upon the 8th instant, and the House will recollect that I am now upon a series of communications which have been conducted entirely by telegraph; and that valuable and all important as that instrument is for certain purposes, all who have been concerned in difficult matters of business are very well aware that the conveyance of explanations, of motives, of those shadings of thought and impression which are very often vital to the true comprehension of the matter at issue becomes extremely difficult when that mode of communication is adopted. We were not made precisely aware on the 8th of May of the grounds on which this reference to the Senate would be requisite. The explanations, however, of which we were in possession by the evening of the 9th made it perfectly clear to us; and, as I have stated, it was a project as it had been sketched by the British Government on the basis suggested by General Schenck which

  659
  rendered the reference necessary. It was at a late hour on Thursday evening—indeed, I believe the withdrawal of Members of the Cabinet from this bench after midnight was noticed by hon. Members of the House—that we proceeded to contemplate the question on that precise point. On the next day—that is to say, on Friday last, acting on the suggestion of the Government of the United States, that they were perfectly willing to deal with the question in this aspect, as a matter requiring the assistance of the Senate, we placed our views in the shape of that which might become an Article, and might be the subject of an International contract between the two countries. This draft, together with a covering letter, was forwarded on Friday evening by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister, and though it was a document, with the covering letter, of some length, it was immediately telegraphed by him to the Government of the United States. It was taken into consideration by that Government on Saturday, and yesterday morning the Minister of the United States was in a condition to inform my noble Friend that that proposition of the British Government, framed as I have stated, was entertained by the President of the United States, and would be submitted by him to the Senate for its approval. Now, let it be understood that, while I have stated the exact and literal truth upon this matter, I am anxious not to overstate anything. The communication between the President and Senate of the United States is a strictly confidential communication. It is entertained by the Senate not in its legislative, but in its executive, capacity, and it is entertained by it not as a public body, but almost, if I may so say, as a portion of the Cabinet of the President pro hâc vice, and in what is termed in America a secret Session. Consequently, although in possession of the Senate, the proposition in its terms is at this time a strictly confidential communication. This much, however, we are justified in stating—that the course taken by the President in making known this draft to the Senate distinctly implies his approval, conditional only on the concurrence and approval of the Senate. I may also state that we have no reason to complain of the slightest disposition to delay on the
  660
  part of the Government of the United States, for this proposal, which was received through the telegraph in America on Saturday, is at this moment that I am now speaking under the consideration of the Senate. Of course, it is not for us to say at what time that consideration will terminate; but we are told that probably in two or three days a decision will be arrived at by the Senate on its general character and import. The Senate, I need hardly remind the House, is the perfectly free deliberative organ of a perfectly free as well as great country. I cannot forestall its judgment. It must be for the House, taking into view the action of the President and the whole facts of the case as furnished by the description I have given, to consider what are the present circumstances and aspects of the negotiation. I hope the House will not think me unreasonable in observing that we have not the same opportunity of communicating confidentially with the Houses of Parliament as the President has with the Senate; and I hope also that I shall not go beyond the bounds of due respect when I express the opinion, not on my own part merely, but on the part of the Government as a whole, that we trust nothing will be said or done to interfere with the perfectly free and dispassionate consideration by the Senate of this great matter, now advanced, as we trust, so near to its maturity. I have said we shall not move the Adjournment of the House for the Recess in any manner which might appear to show a disposition to press our opinion unduly upon the House; but we wish, notwithstanding, to make an appeal to the perfectly free judgment of the House. We feel, and feel deeply, that in these matters it is not only the Executive Governments on both sides of the water that are concerned, but that it is only by concurrent prudence and circumspection on the part of all the great Powers that act for and influence the destinies of free peoples that delicate and difficult negotiations of this kind can be conducted to a happy issue. I will say nothing for ourselves, for I could say nothing beyond that which all men know of every British Government—that under all circumstances they will do their best; but I will venture to say this—that the House of Commons, by its remarkable prudence and self-restraint, has powerfully contributed to a favourable result;

  661
  and that if that favourable result shall happily he attained, it will in no small degree be due to the wisdom, circumspection, and self-restraint of the body which I have the honour to address. Let me say, also, that we shall not do justice to the case if we do not express the strong sense we entertain of the friendly feeling which has prompted the conduct of the Government of the United States, and which in a degree certainly not less remarkable has actuated that great and free-speaking people. Had this House thought fit, by the exhibition of menaces and threats, by premature declarations of what we would do and would not do in contingencies which had not arrived, to arouse the patriotism and public spirit of that great country beyond the Atlantic into a temper of exasperation, I certainly do not think we should have reached the point at which we now happily stand; and I feel confident that the House which has so long, under circumstances so difficult, and now for a period of very nearly four months, exercised that self-command, will at the moment when already it appears to reap its reward persist in that line of conduct even to the end. I trust, therefore, there will be an opinion that while the free judgment of the House upon the whole proceedings of the Government from first to last must be reserved, and may at any fit time be freely expressed, the position of the question at the present moment, when it is no longer in the hands of those who are responsible to you—when their definite proposal, by which in spirit and in letter they are bound, has passed across the ocean, and is now before the tribunal on which, as far as America is concerned, it depends authoritatively to decide—the position of the question is such that it would not be by the debates of Parliament, if I may presume to say so, that Members of Parliament should desire to exercise an opinion upon their deliberations. I think that, feeling towards the United States the respect which we should desire them to feel towards us, we should be ambitious of signalizing in every way our anxiety that not even a semblance of interference by those expressions should pass from among us to appear in any or the slightest degree to derogate from the positive, absolute, and perfect political and moral liberty with which the authorities of America will now arrive, I trust, at a very early conclusion. I take leave
  662
  again to tender on the part of the Government the expression of our thanks to Parliament for this remarkable forbearance, together with the assurance that we do not misunderstand it—that we do not take it as a compliment, or as implying in the slightest degree anything more than an enlightened regard to the great public interests which are involved in the present issue. For this is, after all, a very great issue, for it is an issue upon a matter which in itself is of very great importance between two of the most powerful and free and energetic nations upon the face of the earth; and great in itself as between them, it is greater yet, because it involves the interests of every other country, and therefore that extraordinary liveliness and movement of mind which we cannot but have witnessed in the Press of the Continent with respect to this diplomatic controversy is easily accounted for when we bear in mind that they know as well as we do that, mutatis mutandis, any other two Powers in the world may at any time stand in the position which England and America now occupy with respect to the principles at issue. But this importance is greatest of all with respect to its bearing on the subject of arbitration, and upon the future interests of the world, for England and America undertook a great responsibility in the face of all other nations, when they attempted to apply, after some recent discouragements, this principle of amicable settlement to a great controversy between two high-spirited nations; and if these two nations succeed in giving effect to what undoubtedly is the desire sincerely entertained, and cordially entertained alike on the one side and on the other, something, I think, will be achieved for the benefit of the cause of peace. If, on the other hand, they should fail, however the case may stand as between the parties, they conjointly will suffer great discredit in the face of all civilized nations; and their failure in this great case of peaceful settlement will be nothing less in our judgment than a misfortune to mankind. It is, therefore, that we earnestly hope that that admirable control of feeling and temper, by which such free scope and such ample advantage have thus far been left to the Government as the trustees of the public interest in their endeavours to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this matter,

  663
  may still be continued. I have stated in brief terms, but in terms which. I hope were not devoid of meaning, the basis on which the proceedings were commenced in the months of January and February last. From that basis we have not departed; from that basis—practicable, as we trust, for the views of the two Governments to be placed in substantial harmony and conciliation—and with that prospect before them, we trust we may make the suggestion to the House—which, undoubtedly for our own sakes, we should have no title whatever to prefer—that they will be contented to wait, for the short time that yet remains, the result, which can hardly be otherwise than decisive; and which I hope it is not too sanguine a temper on my part if I venture to say that there is every probability that we may be enabled to recognize as honourable and satisfactory.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, in the critical state of affairs as regards our relations with the United States of America, and which now has subsisted for five months, I think there have been two duties for Parliament to fulfil. The first was to give fair play to the Government, constituted of whatever party or materials, placed in such a situation—and I may say, without at all binding ourselves to any approbation of the course they have pursued, or as to our ultimate decision, that we have given them that constitutional support which they had a right, I think, in their difficult position to look forward to. Our second part has been at the same time, consistently with that line, to assert the policy with respect to the matters in question on which I believe the great majority of the people of this country are decided. I have, Sir, myself been influenced by these two feelings, and I believe I may say that I represent accurately the feelings of hon. Gentlemen generally on this side of the House. Whatever may be our opinions as to the general policy of the Government in this matter, when once the great embarrassment had occurred we resolved to give them the utmost indulgence so far as the forms of the House and the general conduct of party proceedings are concerned; and at the same time we wished to assert the policy which we think, generally speaking, they ought to have followed. I collect to-night, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Colleagues have
  664
  prepared a distinct proposition, which has been made to the Government of the United States—that that proposition has been accepted by the President of the United States; and that in order that it may be ultimately adopted as the solution of these difficulties, it is at this moment submitted to the Senate of the United States. That is what I collect generally from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. That being the case, I cannot for a moment hesitate to express my own opinion—and so far as my opinion can influence others I wish to express it most distinctly—that we are in duty bound to continue that forbearance which we have already shown. It is quite clear from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that it is utterly impossible for us to give any opinion, under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, as to the course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued. It is quite clear from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there have been perhaps even voluminous despatches, and everyone must feel that our opinion as to the policy of the Government must depend upon the precise language contained in the propositions which they have made to the Government of the United States. Everyone, therefore, must feel that it is totally out of our power, without we were in possession of the precise contents of those authentic documents, to offer an opinion at this moment. At the same time, I must express my hope that these Papers will be placed upon the Table of the House without any unnecessary delay, for when we are in possession of these documents, we shall be able to form an opinion as to the course of Her Majesty's Government. I trust, however, that, whatever difference of opinion as to that course may prevail, only one result will accrue from these labours of Her Majesty's Government and from this forbearance of Parliament—I trust we shall find a settlement of the question which will be satisfactory, not only to the interests of both countries, but which will in every respect satisfy the honour of England. I must again hope there will be no unnecessary delay in the production of these Papers, for until we are in possession of them, we can form no opinion as to the course of Her Majesty's Government; but until then I am clear, under the circumstances de-

  665
  tailed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the conduct of Parliament should he—as it has been for a considerable period, one of complete forbearance.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the desire of the Government will be to lay the Papers on the Table at the earliest possible moment. ["The Adjournment!"] I think it would be irregular to propose the Motion for the Adjournment now; but I will propose it, when it comes on in its turn.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 139.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 139.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Further Proceeding on Consideration of Bill, as amended, resumed.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in proposing to amend the Amendment to the First Schedule, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, by leaving out the words "and certificate," said, his object was to relieve magistrates of the duty sought to be imposed upon them—namely, that of giving to a voter who declared himself unable to read a certificate to that effect. He therefore begged to move to leave out in page 23, line 14, Rule 26 of the First Schedule, the words "and certificate."
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment, which was proposed to be made in page 23, line 14, by inserting after the word "Act," the words "or of any voter who produces such a declaration and certificate as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read,"—(Mr. William Edward Forster,)—namely, to leave out the words "and certificate."—(Mr. Cross.)
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that he could not see the necessity of requiring the voter to go before the magistrate at all, for quite sufficient security would, in his opinion, be provided by a declaration before the presiding officer, the same penalties being attached to a false declaration as if it were made before a magistrate. They could determine whether a man could read by making him read, but they could not make a man read who said he was un-
  666
  able; and from what he had heard of Irish witnesses, he did not see that it would be very easy to make an Irishman acknowledge that he could read, if he was determined to declare that he could not. Why was it necessary, moreover, to oblige a man to make two declarations, one before a magistrate and the other at the poll? At present it was hard enough to get electors to go before the revising barrister. Many would lose their votes sooner than do so, and the House might be sure that men would not be readily got to go before a magistrate to make this declaration, because there was an atmosphere of summary conviction about him. They would never get a man to go before a magistrate unless the agent took him there. But in addition to those objections, the voter whom they wanted to protect from influence would first of all have to go with the agent to a magistrate, and then to declare to the Returning Officer, in the hearing of the agent, how he was going to vote, and that was not a good machinery either for getting rid of influence or securing secrecy.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he could give a very good idea of the considerable additional duty that would be imposed upon magistrates by means of the question at issue, for he was a few years ago Secretary to the Great Yarmouth Commission, and he had to take receipts from every one examined before it. There were 700 witnesses examined, of whom 300 had to make their marks. Now, if between the nomination day and the day of polling the magistrates were to be engaged in giving certificates in such a borough as Great Yarmouth, it would be utterly impossible that the work could be got through.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would be a very dangerous one in Ireland, because there every agent of a large proprietor was a magistrate. He did not mean to state that anything improper would be done by a magistrate; but where party feeling ran so high, all the voters on the proprietors estate might be taken to a justice of the peace, and for one that could read 40 would declare they could not. That declaration would be made before the agent, the men would then be taken to the presiding officer, and how they would vote could be easily

  667
  ascertained. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not persist in his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal, moreover, would not touch the question of those voters who wished for a little assistance in order to record their votes.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would remind the House that when last year he brought forward a proposal for the introduction of a system of voting papers, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that they would not have magistrates enough to execute the duties that would be thrown on them. That argument was conclusive against the right hon. Gentleman's own scheme now. The machinery of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was so cumbrous that he believed voters would grope about in the dark rather than avail themselves of it. It was, in point of fact, a proposal which would take away with the left hand what was given with the right. The voter would be taken to the polling-booth, and having committed some trumpery inaccuracy in voting, in consequence of the involved nature of the process through which he had to go, would be met at the door of the booth by the right hon. Gentleman's favourite conveyance—the prison van, and taken away to undergo a term of imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman generally treated his suggestions with suspicion, but still he would offer him another, which if adopted would help him out of his difficulty. It was that in boroughs the polling-places should be the gaol, and that, on the receipt of the writ, every registered elector should be committed to solitary confinement until the return of the writ to the Crown Office.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Wharton) that the presiding officer and the Returning Officer would not, as he seemed to suppose, be one and the same person. Under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) it was proposed to make voting as easy in future as it was now, when a man in a state of drunkenness was taken to the the poll as a free and independent elector. He (Mr. Rylands), however, looked upon the Ballot as a preventive against such voters recording their votes; and if they wanted by the Bill to be able to coach
  668
  such men up to the poll, he would be no party to it.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Rylands') argument appeared to be based on the assumption that if an English voter was not able to read, he was ignorant and vicious, but he (Lord John Manners) objected to that assumption. The objection to the proposal of the right hon Gentleman was not with the view of disfranchisement, but that the machinery would be found in practice to be so difficult and so complicated that in reality the voter would not be able to record his vote. He hoped, therefore, the House would assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwest Lancashire.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he must object to the word "certificate" being left out of the Amendment. The magistrates could not obtain information as to the inability of the voter to read, except by means of a declaration; and therefore he ought to have full power to receive and act upon such declarations. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, there was a grave objection to taking these voters before magistrates. During the cattle plague the same sort of provision existed, and it was found impossible in many districts for two justices to sign the certificates within a given time. He knew a parish that contained a large number of illiterate inhabitants, and he felt convinced that it would be impossible to take the voters first before a magistrate and then to the poll in time for them to record their votes. Not only that, but a magistrate would probably be ignorant of the voters residing out of his own parish, and the certificate, therefore, to be of any value, should be signed by some one residing in the parish where the voter lived—either the clergyman or the churchwarden, and not by a magistrate who would probably reside at a distance.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the Government proposition would be found to be impracticable without adopting a double conveyance—one to the magistrate and the other to the poll, and on different days, for they would have to make special arrangements for "ticketing the dunces." They would be also obliged to have a separate canvass to ascertain

  669
  the number likely to require certificates. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) evidently desired to disfranchise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham once called "the residuum," but the experience of Yarmouth showed that it was not always the most ignorant who were the most corrupt. He would suggest that the most competent persons to give the required certificate would be the certificated schoolmasters. It would not be open to such objection as going before a magistrate, and a man did not like to have thrown in his teeth the statement that he had been before a magistrate, so as to imply a slur that he had been in trouble.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, what reason he had for supposing that a man who could read would say that he could not?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped hon. Members would excuse his not answering all the observations that had been addressed to the House in the course of the debate that afternoon, and must decline further to treat of them, except to say there was no desire to disfranchise in any part of the House. The Government, in their original proposition, had provided for the case of the illiterate voter; but there was a difference of opinion on that matter; and as it was not a vital point, they had conceded to the wish of many hon. Gentlemen. The question of examination by the magistrate into ability to read was not one on which it was worth while to take a division, though he still thought the proposal of the Government the better plan.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to their Amendment, for there had been already too much yielding on important points of the Bill. In South Australia, where universal suffrage existed, a great number of illiterate persons came to the poll to vote; but in that country there was no such provision as that to be provided by this Bill for voters to record their votes, and in practice it had been found to be totally unnecessary. Almost every man who could not read letters was able to read figures up to "nine," and by that means in Australia a man was able to mark the name of the candidate for whom he wished to vote. If necessary
  670
  colours might be used; and if a man who could not read perfectly was so stupid as not to be able to distinguish colours, it would be no great detriment to him or to the community if he were disfranchised. The presiding officer too, in many instances, was not the man to be entrusted with the power of marking voting papers, for it would give him an opportunity, in many instances, of turning the election. With regard to the proposed Amendments of the Government, he thought it would be impossible to take the number of declarations that would have to be made in the progress of an election.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that in each of the four colonies of Australia, according to the Reports of the Governors, provision was made for illiterate voters. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), and those who acted with him, evidently wanted to disfranchise as many voters as they could. Why was it the Christians were to be obliged to make all those declarations, and the Jews were relieved from the obligation? How was the Jewish voter to be identified? Surely the order of things had been changed, and the Christian must now say that "Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe." He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would suggest that the word "certificate" be left out altogether.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was willing to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, if it was clearly understood that it would not preclude their raising the question at a future stage.
  DR. BALLsaid, a certificate would be of use only for the information of the returning Officer, in case the declaration were made before a magistrate, for if the declaration were made before the Returning Officer the certificate would be useless. But if the Returning Officer's time were to be taken up by receiving these declarations, how was he to discharge his ordinary duties?
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he thought a very short way might perhaps be found, by which to avoid all the loss of time and inconvenience likely to arise from these certificates and declarations. Why not have a distinct polling-booth, which might be called the "illiterate booth?"
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think he could persist in putting upon the magistrate the duty of satisfying himself by examination that the voter was unable to read. It seemed, however, to be necessary that the magistrate, or whoever it was before whom the declaration might be taken, should give a certificate that the declaration had been made. But to retain the words of the Amendment "and certificate" would in effect imply that the magistrate had satisfied himself that the voter was unable to read, and he was therefore prepared to allow the exclusion of the words on the understanding that when he came to his next Amendment he should move the insertion of the words to show that a certified declaration had been made by the voter, in the presence of the person to whom it was given.
  MR. DENISONsaid, he was unable to accept the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, for he maintained that no certificate was necessary, since the declaration before the presiding officer would be sufficient.
  Question, "That the words 'and certificate' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had given Notice of words which he believed would meet a wish very generally expressed by the House—namely, that all voters, Jew or Gentile, should be placed on an equal footing. If the opinion, however, should be in favour of the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), he would not press his Amendment. He only wished it to be distinctly understood that the words he proposed were a protest against any other authority than that of the presiding officer being brought into requisition. He moved that the words "or who states to the presiding officer" be inserted.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in page 23, line 14, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "or who states to the presiding officer."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the words would not be pressed. If they were, he should vote against
  672
  them. He thought there ought to be a recorded statement which might be marked, and that would take no more time than the verification of a declaration made before a magistrate.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it was the opinion of the House that there ought to be an actual declaration. If so, it was also of very great importance that the whole of these declarations should be filed. The presiding officer, therefore, would in every case enclose them to the Returning Officer, who would forward them to the Clerk of the Crown.
  MR. HUNTobserved that the Amendment would not only place Jew and Gentile on a par, but it would place the Jew on a par with himself; for if a Jew who could not read voted on Saturday, he might vote without a declaration, whereas, if he voted on the Monday he must make a declaration.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was of opinion there should be no declaration except before the presiding officer. There was nothing more uncertain in description than a person's being able to read; but the presiding officer could at once test the fact by asking the voter whether he could read the paper he held in his hand.
  Amendment to the said proposed Amendment withdrawn.
  Original Question, "That the words 'or of any voter who produces such a declaration as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read' be inserted after the word 'Act,' in page 23, fine 14," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he thought the clause in its present shape would put in jeopardy two of the main conditions of a satisfactory election—that every elector when he voted should be certain that his vote was given to the proper candidate, and that the conduct of the Returning Officer should be above suspicion. As long as votes were given by blind and illiterate people, great distrust would be felt of the conduct of the presiding officer, especially when the majority at an election was not large; and he proposed to cure this defect in the Bill by proposing that the declaration of the voter should be made in the presence of the agents of the candidates, and not in a hole-and-corner way to the presiding officer. He therefore moved

  673
  to insert in page 23, line 14, after "shall," the words "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 14, after the word "shall," to insert the words "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."—(Mr. Assheton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JAMESsaid, he felt compelled to support the Amendment. He had protested—in a manner, he had been told, not wanting in earnestness—against the provision permitting the presiding officer to assist illiterate voters; but, now that the provision had been introduced, he desired to see the best arrangements made for carrying it out. Practically, he submitted, it was absolutely necessary to adopt the Amendment. It would, in fact, be unavoidable that the voter should receive the required assistance in the presence of the agents of the candidates, for there would be no separate place where he could get it, and he could not be compelled to speak in a whisper. If the agents were to become aware in that way what candidate the voter favoured, they might also, very properly, be allowed to see that the presiding officer carried out the voter's wishes. Moreover, if there was no check, a serious amount of power would be placed in the hands of the presiding officer. He looked upon the proposed Amendment as an antidote in some measure to the provision against which he had protested.
  MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, that if the House divided he would vote in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought it would be a check upon a dishonest presiding officer if the declaration were made in the presence of the agents and the presiding officer.
  MR. DENISONsaid, that at present they did not trust the presiding officer to record votes without the presence of the agents, and therefore the Amendment would make no change in that respect.
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not accept the Amendment, because he believed it would be fatal to the Bill.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought that a very important part of the Bill. He did not think that the Returning Officer
  674
  could retire with the voter; for who was to look after the ballot box and the security of the ballot papers, for which the Returning Officer was responsible? In order to enable illiterate men to vote, he had suggested a resort to colour, and in that way what was felt to be a difficulty could, he thought, be got rid of. But that was rejected; and he, therefore, agreed that it was necessary, if the Government proposal was persisted in, that it should be amended in the form suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe.
  MR. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, that when the Returning Officers and the voters retired together bribery would be as easy as now. And so would coercion. What so easy as to say to a man—"You can't read. Go and vote in the presence of the agents." The whole affair of the voting would then become known. All difficulty in this direction would have been obviated by the adoption of a mechanical contrivance which he had without success recommended to the Committee last year.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the Bill was one to promote secret voting. The House, however, had been told by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) that 20 per cent of the voters in Ireland would vote under the declaration that they could not read, and in the presence of the agents; but, if so, the Bill might as well be given up. He should not vote for the Amendment, as he believed it would be far better to employ colours as aids in this matter, and would reserve his vote for that question, which he saw was to come on later.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there could be no doubt whatever as to the difficulty embraced in the question under discussion. He, however, believed that the proportion of illiterate voters had been greatly exaggerated, and was quickly diminishing. He might remind the House that in every colony but one where the Ballot was in use provision was made for the case of the illiterate voter. He was not much afraid that the presiding officer would misuse his power; but, on the other hand, he could see that it was advisable not to leave him without any check. It was a choice of evils; but the balance was probably in favour of placing a check upon the presiding officer. After a great deal of thought, therefore, he believed it would be better

  675
  to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 59: Majority 101.
  Amendment made.
  MR. ASSHETONproposed, in line 15, to leave out the word "secretly," for a vote given in the presence of the presiding officer and two other persons could not be said to be given "secretly."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved the insertion of words, the object of which was first to secure a list of all voters whose votes were marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why they were so marked. Then came the question of the declaration; and his amended Amendment would provide that the declaration of inability to read should be made by the voter before a justice of the peace, who should attest it in a form hereinafter mentioned, which would include a statement by the magistrate that the declaration was made in his presence.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 23, line 16, to leave out from the words "Provided further," to the words "returning officer," in line 23, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "and the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act called 'the list of votes marked by the presiding officer.'
  The said declaration, in this Act referred to as 'the declaration of inability to read,' shall be made by the voter alter the expiration of the time during which candidates can be nominated, before a justice of the peace, who shall attest it in the form hereinafter mentioned, and no fee or other payment shall be charged in respect of such declaration or certificate, and the said declaration shall be given to the presiding officer at the time of voting."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the Amendment raised the question whether the declaration should be made before the magistrate or presiding, officer? It had been already agreed that the presiding officer should mark the vote; and if he was to be trusted to do that, was he not a fit man to receive the declaration? The Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which he now
  676
  moved, would enable the presiding officer to take the declaration of the illiterate voter at the polling station.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words
  'And the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act called 'the list of votes marked by the presiding officer.'
  The said declaration, in this Act referred to as 'the declaration of inability to read,' shall be made by the voter after the expiration of the time during which candidates can be nominated, before a justice of the peace, who shall attest it in the form hereinafter mentioned, and no fee or other payment shall be charged in respect of such declaration or certificate, and the said declaration shall be given to the presiding officer at the time of voting,'
  be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  After the word "voter," in line 6 of the said proposed Amendment, to insert the words "shall be made at the polling station before the presiding officer in the manner hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, he hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), as the intervention of a magistrate in taking the declaration of the illiterate voter would be a safeguard against corrupt practices on the part of the presiding officer.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he objected to the Amendment, on the ground that the illiterate voter would rather make the declaration of his ignorance before a magistrate than before the presiding officer; and also because the magistrate would be less likely than the presiding officer to receive such a declaration on insufficient grounds. He also thought the illiterate voter was much more likely to be known to the magistrate of his locality than to the presiding officer; and, moreover, it would greatly delay the polling if the latter had not only to take the votes, but also to receive those declarations.
  MR. MONKsaid, he thought that it was of very little importance what became of the Amendment, or what became of the Bill; whether it passed that House, or whether it ever returned from

  677
  the other one. He had always been a warm supporter of the Ballot, but the Government had now given up the whole principle of secret voting, and nothing that remained in the Bill was worth contesting about.
  MR. RYLANDStrusted that the Government would not accede to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Harcourt).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the balance of argument was decidedly in favour of the proposition as he had first made it. They ought to guard against the danger, which he thought was exaggerated, but which without doubt existed—that the voter who was most likely to be bribed and intimidated would be brought up under cover of being unable to read, and made to vote under pressure. The declaration before a magistrate was likely to be a more effectual check upon that than a mere statement made in the polling-booth. Therefore, if the hon. Member (Mr. Harcourt) pushed his Amendment to a division, he should be compelled to vote against it. With regard to the fears of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he believed they were exaggerated; and if the evils which he dreaded were found really to arise, something would probably soon be done to correct them.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he was afraid the result of the clause, whether they adopted one kind of cumbrous machinery or another, would be that the illiterate voter would be disfranchised.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought the House was under a delusion—and more especially with regard to Ireland—as to the amount of exertion the illiterate voter would make, if they thought he would search for a magistrate before the day of election to enable himself to vote. It would also be very difficult in Ireland to get a magistrate to remain in the booth all day during the polling. Then, again, the penalty on making a false declaration would be the same, whether it was made before the magistrate or before the presiding officer. The illiterate voters would not only complain of the additional labour that would be imposed upon them by requiring them to make a declaration before a magistrate, but they would also expect that the candidates would pay their travelling expenses, an item of election expenditure
  678
  which in the case of some Irish constituencies had amounted to upwards of £1,000. He thought that the presiding officer might well be trusted to receive the declaration himself.
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, he was glad that a point had been found beyond which the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would not go. It was important that the mode of making this declaration should be as little onerous as possible. Had his proposal to have coloured voting papers been adopted, all the difficulties that were now started would have been swept away.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he must also urge upon the Government the necessity of permitting the presiding officer to take these declarations, on the ground of the difficulty that would be experienced in finding a magistrate before whom they could be made.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had supported the Government until they had betrayed themselves, and now he thought that the Bill had been so greatly impaired during its passage through that House that many friends of the Ballot were scarcely anxious that it should receive the Royal Assent. The various duties which the measure would impose upon the Returning Officer were very heavy, he having to make out lists of the blind, of those who could not read, and of the Jews, whose consciences would not permit them to vote on Saturdays, besides having to stamp every ballot paper with a secret stamp, and to keep everything generally in order. He was satisfied that the only remedy for the difficulties that had been suggested was that the Government should retrace their steps, and adopt the proposition for having coloured printing on the voting papers.
  MR. GORDONsaid, the Government would find it difficult to retrace their steps on this question; and that being so, the next thing was, how best to carry into effect what had been passed? His own experience had shown him how difficult it was to settle such a question. The Government seemed to have accepted a conclusion, and they must abide by that conclusion. He, however, thought that the presiding officer, who would be a respectable person, might well be trusted to deal with the illiterate voter, without the intervention of a magistrate.
  MR. M'MAHONtrusted that the Government would resist the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 112: Majority 69.
  Amendments made to the said proposed Amendment.
  Question, "That the words
  'And the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act called 'the list of votes marked by the presiding officer.'
  The said declaration, in this Act referred to as 'the declaration of inability to read,' shall be made by the voter after the expiration of the time during which candidates can be nominated, before a justice of the peace, who shall attest it in the form hereinafter mentioned, and no fee, stamp, or other payment shall be charged in respect of such declaration, and the said declaration shall be given to the presiding officer at the time of voting,'
  be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask, whether it was now competent for him to move the rejection of the Rule just adopted? If it was not, he should endeavour at a future stage to get rid of it, for it was one of the most mischievous parts of the Bill. Every hon. Member must be convinced that the House had got into inextricable confusion in this matter. Secrecy had been done away with. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he could not on a point of Order enter into a general discussion of the Bill.
  MR. MAGUIREwished to know whether he could move the rejection of the Rule?
  MR. SPEAKERin reply, said, that the House was now considering the First Schedule of the Bill, of which this Rule formed part. Had the hon. Gentleman wished to propose the omission of the Schedule, he should have given Notice thereof before the Schedule was entered into; and so, also, had he wished the Rule omitted, he should have intimated his desire before it was entered upon. It was now too late for him to move the omission of the Rule; but he could, if he thought proper, propose the re-committal of the Bill at the third reading for that purpose.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, in that case, he intended to move the re-committal of the
  680
  Bill for the purpose of having this Rule struck out.
  MR. HUNTmoved, in Rule 43, page 26, line 40, to insert after "law," the words—
  "And the returning officer shall deliver the writ with such certificate endorsed to the postmaster of the principal post office of the place of election, or his deputy, and shall take a receipt from the postmaster or his deputy for the same; and such postmaster or his deputy shall forward the same by the first post, under cover, to the Clerk of the Crown, with the words 'Election Writ and Return' endorsed thereon."
  He said the Amendment was proposed to enable the writ to go back, if it should be thought desirable, in the same way as it had come, and was desirable for purposes of economy.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENmoved, in page 29, after Rule 61, to insert the following Rule:—
  "A presiding officer at a polling station in a county in Ireland need not be a freeholder of the county."
  He said, that by the law as it stood at present with regard to county elections in Ireland, every presiding officer must have a freehold of £50 a-year in the county. It was impossible, however, to get a sufficient number of persons so qualified to act, as the remuneration was only two guineas, and the result was that persons not duly qualified were frequently appointed as deputy Returning Officers. It was better to get rid of the qualification.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in moving, in page 36, line 1, to omit the words "as to," and insert "guidance of the voter," said, that by inserting these words at the head of the Schedule it would be shown that the words which followed were intended as directions to the voter, and not as positive enactments. When it was proposed that the voter should make a cross simply, an objection was taken to it; and he stated that if there was any danger that the vote would be lost on that account he would introduce on the Report the words "or other mark." He had been informed, however, that there would be some danger if those words were introduced, and he thought that if the words which he now moved were inserted it would be clear that this was a directing and not an enacting Schedule.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, as he understood, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in making this proposal was that any mark made by the voter—and not a cross simply—should be taken as sufficient indication how he wished to vote, and should be accepted by the Returning Officer. But if such were the case, why not say so in plain words? Since the Amendment was put on the Paper he had taken the trouble to inquire how persons voted at charitable institutions, and he found that while in some cases it was by a tick, in others by a line, it was never by a cross.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that a man might denote his initials in a flourish, and that it would be unfair to make that a punishable offence.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 24, after the word "characters," to insert the words "in different colours, to be determined by the returning officer."—(Mr. Charley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday 30th May, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

COURT OF CHANCERY (FUNDS) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 43.]—COMMITTEE.
(Mr. Baxter, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. William Henry Gladstone.)
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Baxter.)
SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAY, in moving that the Order for going into Committee upon the Bill be discharged, and that it be referred to a Select Committee, said, his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had moved for Copies of Correspondence which had passed between Sir William Dunbar and the Lords of the Treasury in reference to this subject. That Correspondence pointed out the numerous difficulties in the way of carrying out the Bill in its present form, and required the most careful consideration. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not press it forward before hon.
682
Members had had an opportunity of considering that important Correspondence. In moving, as he was about to do, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, his object was not to throw any obstacles in its way so as to prevent its passing, but simply to secure the introduction of provisions which would give full protection to the suitors in the Court of Chancery. The Bill dealt with funds amounting to between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000, which had heretofore been taken charge of by an officer of the Court of Chancery, who only owed allegiance to that Court; but it was now proposed to hand over the management of these enormous funds to an officer of the Treasury, and it would be idle to ignore the fact that the design of the Bill was to allow the Treasury to deal with and make a profit out of them. On the 1st of October last year the funds of the Court of Chancery amounted to upwards of £62,000,000, all being invested in Three per Cent Consols and other securities with the exception of £3,000,000, which was in the form of cash, although of the latter sum about £2,500,000 was invested in securities as far as the Court of Chancery was concerned; and in the year ending October 30, 1871, the amount of the funds paid into the Court was close upon £20,000,000, and the amount transferred from the Court was about £18,000,000. These figures would show the magnitude of the interests which it was proposed to deal with. Again, on referring to the Schedule of the Bill he found it was proposed to repeal six or seven Acts of Parliament wholly, and 10 partially. One of the latter was a statute passed in the 36th year of the reign of George III., which contained a very valuable clause, providing that executors or persons having legacies to pay might, when the recipients were persons under age or beyond seas, pay the amount of such legacies into the Court of Chancery, to the credit of the Accountant General, whereupon the money was invested in Three per Cent Consols, and accumulated for the benefit of the legatees. The Bill would repeal so much of that clause as related to the investment of the money. It was true that a clause in the Bill provided for the making of rules for regulating the investment of the funds, and there was a provision under which the Court of

683
Chancery could make an Order for their investment; but under the Act which was to be repealed the Order of the Court was not necessary, and the investment was made immediately on the certificate of the Accountant General, that the money had been paid to his credit. This change in the mode of dealing with the funds might prove very detrimental to the legatees. He gave that as illustrative of the Acts which it had been thought desirable to repeal, and of the necessity for careful consideration of those Acts, and of the consequences of their repeal. It was also proposed that the provisions of the Bill should come into operation soon, and simultaneously, but that would be found impracticable; and it was necessary to consider what clauses should come into operation early, and what should take effect at a later period. Sir William Dunbar, in reply to a letter from the Lords of the Treasury, had mentioned many points in which the scheme of the Bill would fail to work efficiently. The matter was one to which it could not be expected that hon. Members generally had given that amount of attention which would enable them to discuss it in Committee of the Whole House, and he should therefore move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "The Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Sir Richard Baggallay,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALearnestly hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee, a course only adopted in special cases, whereas there was nothing special, difficult, or intricate about this Bill to render it necessary to send it upstairs. Originally there were on the Paper two pages of Notices of Amendments to be moved in Committee; but those who gave them had been conferred with, and the result was that the number of Amendments had been reduced to two, the others having been either accepted by the Government and embodied in the Bill as amended, or withdrawn on
684
the receipt of satisfactory explanations from the Government. The two Amendments that were left might very well be disposed of in Committee. Committees appointed by the Law Societies sent in a long list of objections to the original Bill, but the objections of the committees had been met or removed; and the partial repeal of Acts had received careful consideration, both on the part of the Government and of the Law Societies. With regard to the time proposed for inaugurating the change, it was decided that the Long Vacation was the proper time for doing so, and the only question was, whether it should operate from October in this year or October next year. Attention had also been given to the framing of rules, and, although they were not finally settled, they were in a forward state. The supposed difficulty about the Controller General and the audit was provided for by an Amendment, and the other difficulties brought forward would, he believed, disappear if the House were allowed to go into Committee.
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he never heard such unsatisfactory reasons for a Bill as those that were adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury when he moved the second reading of this Bill. He said, indeed, that the reasons for introducing it had been stated last year in the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and on reference to Hansard it would be found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments were, that considerable inconvenience was occasioned to suitors having money in this fund, by reason of the holidays lasting two months, and that the proposed measure might be made a means of reducing the National Debt. It appeared to him (Mr. Aytoun), however, that the alleged inconvenience could have been remedied without altering the mode in which the fund was managed; and it was absurd to suppose that the Bill was promoted with any intention to confer a benefit on the suitor, the real object being to place a large fund at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out the system of Terminable Annuities, to which he confessed he in common with some other hon. Members was entirely opposed. The Secretary to the Treasury had stated on a former occasion, that although this measure might be made a

685
powerful lever for the reduction of the National Debt, the conversion of Stock into Terminable Annuities could not be carried out till another Act was passed; but he (Mr. Aytoun) believed, that was not the case, for by the operation of 29 Vict., c. 5, s. 4, it would be in the power of the Government at once to create Terminable Annuities. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had stated that under that Act not more than £5,000,000 of Stock could be converted into Terminable Annuities. But on reference to the finance accounts of the year 1870–71, at page 55, he found under date the 31st of March, that a sum of £7,000,000 had been converted. How the Solicitor General could have arrived at the conclusion that only £5,000,000 of Stock could be converted, when £7,000,000 had been converted, he was at a loss to understand. The Solicitor General had informed the House that he had given up two-thirds of his private practice in order to enable him the better to perform the duties of his office; but if they were to judge by the statement he had made upon this subject, the public had not gained much by the generous abandonment of the hon. and learned Gentleman's private practice. He repeated he (Mr. Aytoun) was strongly opposed to the system of reducing the Debt by creating Terminable Annuities, for it only introduced confusion and mystification into the public accounts. He thought the control of that part of finance should be retained in the hands of Parliament, who should determine how much out of the surplus of each year should be disposed of in the reduction of Debt; and in order to show the mystification which prevailed on this subject he might remind the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the large amount of the National Debt he had reduced; but when asked whether that amount of Debt had been really paid off, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was merely turned into Terminable Annuities. The public, therefore, were under a complete misapprehension on the matter when informed that so much Debt had been paid off. Being opposed to that system of mystification, he should support the Motion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would state a further, and he thought a sufficient,
686
reason to those that had been already adduced why the Government should consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It was this—it was proposed to abolish the office of Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, and the gentleman now holding that office was to retire on his full pay. It might, however, be necessary to appoint another officer to discharge partly the same duties as were now discharged by the Accountant General, for he held in his hand a letter of the Controller General, that had not yet been delivered to hon. Members; in which he found that Sir William Dunbar distinctly stated that the appointment of a Second Assistant Controller of Audit would be required. The answer of the Treasury was not yet in type—it was only in manuscript. The Treasury stated that they could not assent to that view. Which was right or which was wrong on that point, he (Mr. Hunt) was unable to say; but it was not a matter which could be settled in that House, and might well be inquired into by a Select Committee. On that ground he was in favour of the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee; and the Bill would be in no worse position if that course were adopted, as its principle had already been agreed to.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he thought the reason just given for referring the Bill to a Select Committee eminently unsatisfactory. He was not of opinion that a Select Committee would be in a better position than that House to determine whether or not any officer occupying a high position such as the Accountant General would be required. His own impression was that no officer of the kind would be needed, and the Treasury authorities were unanimously of that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) said that the Bill would be in no worse position by being referred to a Select Committee; but it must be borne in mind that they were now in the middle of May, and that most important Business would have to be discussed on the re-assembling of the House after the holidays; and, therefore, it was desirable that the present measure, which was one of the most valuable Bills ever presented to the House, should now be considered. In reply to the observations of the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, he had to state that the Government could not deal with these funds in

687
the way mentioned without the sanction of an Act of Parliament.
MR. GREGORYsaid, it was incumbent on the House to discharge its responsibility in that important matter, and not to shift it on the shoulders of a Department of the State. It was a question essentially for the House to settle; and they could not do that until they had had a fair opportunity of discussing the Treasury Minute on the subject.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he should be sorry to delay a measure of that nature, after its principle had been approved by a large majority; but he conceived that sufficient reasons had been stated for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. Very large liabilities were imposed by the Bill on the Consolidated Fund, which was made liable, under certain contingencies, for any deficiencies which might arise in working out the Bill; and he did not like seeing the whole of those large liabilities cast on the Consolidated Fund without a more full examination given to the matter than could possibly be instituted in that House, for there were various matters of great intricacy and detail which a Committee composed of Gentlemen thoroughly experienced, could alone satisfactorily work out. The Bill proposed that the Accountant General should be allowed to retire with a pension. Mr. Russell had been Accountant General for 33 or 34 years, and was well entitled, he understood, to the retiring pension provided by the Bill; but no provision was made for the broker on account of the loss of his office. Previous to 1854 the broker of the Court of Chancery charged 2s. 6d. per cent upon all purchases and sales, out of which 1s. 6d. went to the Accountant General; but when the office of Accountant General was regulated in that year the broker retained 1s. out of the 2s. 6d., and paid the remaining 1s. 6d. to the Suitors' Pee Fund. In 1863 that gentleman died, and his nephew, Mr. Mortimer, was appointed his successor, an arrangement being then made that he should pay over the whole amount of brokerage to the Fund, and should receive a salary of £2,000 a-year. A sum not far short of half that salary went to clerks whom it was necessary to engage to carry out the special duties connected with the purchase and sale of Stock. Since 1868, when the charges of the Court of Chancery were placed on the
688
Votes of Parliament, he had paid the brokerage to the Paymaster General, the average amount during the last few years having been about £10,000 a-year. Last year it was £11,000, leaving a profit to the State of £9,000, which he presumed went to the miscellaneous Revenue of the country. Therefore, as a salaried officer of the Court, Mr. Mortimer by all precedent was entitled to compensation on the abolition of his office. His claim was certainly as strong as that of the Proctors practising in the Ecclesiastical Courts, who were awarded compensation; and he hoped it would be considered by the Government. There were other objections to which he wished to refer; but he would deal with them when the Bill got into Committee. For instance, he observed in the Bill no provision for securing the "effects" of the suitors, which included some valuable property now in the custody of the Bank of England; but he presumed it was intended to provide for their security. If the hon. Gentleman who had moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee pressed his Motion to a division he would vote with him.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he knew of instances in which suitors, on making inquiries, had been astonished to find that their property in Chancery had not been invested at interest. The Bill would provide a remedy for that state of things, and in other respects would act beneficially. He hoped and trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed, for it would involve delay, and the Bill appeared carefully drawn, the 18th clause giving the Lord Chancellor power, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to draw up the most complete rules, which would be laid before Parliament for sanction or modification. The measure would give suitors 2 per cent for the money deposited, whereas they had hitherto had no interest, and it would facilitate their obtaining payments, a process which was at present troublesome.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was sorry that the Government had not accepted the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, for by its means, with a strong hand, they intended to constitute themselves trustees of a sum of £60,000,000 of money without the consent of the suitors interested in the money. The hon. and learned Gentle-

689
man the Solicitor General had told the House that this was a large sum of money, and that was true. He had also told the House that the proposition of the Government had satisfied a great many of the suitors, and that was also true; but that was not a reason for objecting to the Motion for referring the whole subject to a Select Committee. In a case of this kind the Government should have only one object in view, and that was to give every security and every satisfaction in their power. But what was the feeling entertained by suitors on the subject? He had spoken to many of them, and the result was this—no one doubted that the ultimate security for the money was sufficient, but very grave doubts were entertained as to whether they could get their money when the Courts which had the making of the orders for the payment said they should receive it. When the Courts ordered the payment of the money hitherto, it was like giving a cheque on bankers. But people did not get their money out of Chancery quickly; and if a delay of a month or two months occurred, that did not make the matter more pleasant. The mode, however, in which the Bill proposed to deal with the property in Chancery was somewhat roundabout, for if a suitor did not get his money, he would have to apply to the Lord Chancellor, and the latter in his turn to the Treasury, which when satisfied, would order the Paymaster General to pay it out of the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund; but these great men could not be moved very quickly, and whether the Court of Chancery and the Accountant General's office, though like another place they were said to be always open, were really so, he was not sure. Moreover, the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund was sometimes anticipated, Deficiency Bills being now and then heard of. There did not, then, appear such a certainty of prompt payment as at present; but if this view was a mistaken one, it would be easy for the Solicitor General to satisfy the Select Committee on the point. If the Bill had been at first sent to a Select Committee, it would by this time have been considered there. As it was, a great deal of soreness had been caused among the suitors by the course of the Government, and that was as bad as cheating them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that two pages of Amendments had been set down on this Bill, and the Government had satisfied all but two of the Movers of those Amendments. He did not know whether a Select Committee would be more successful in dealing with the details of the Bill. The fact was, that upon this Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee the principle of the measure had been again discussed; but hon. Gentlemen ought to show that the objections they made would be more likely to be removed in a Select Committee than in a Committee of that House; and they had really shown nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said that the Accountant General's office and the Court of Chancery, like another place, were always open; but the very complaint made was, that for three months in the year those places were not open, and that, whatever the emergencies of the suitors, they could not during that time get a shilling of their money, while just before the Long Vacation there was a run upon the office and £300,000 or £400,000 were drawn out. That was the way the present system worked. Then the right hon. Gentleman said something as to the security. What was the security at present? The Accountant General had the absolute disposal of the money of the suitors, and the effect of the Bill was to substitute the whole amount of Stock and the Consolidated Fund for the security of the Accountant General. As to the audit, no doubt when you took a new Department under the Government that was an important question. But was it possible to settle that point in either a Select Committee or a Committee of that House? They had had an Exchequer and Audit Act. Did the House of Commons itself attempt to regulate the audit? No, it delegated the duty to the Treasury, which introduced a system of audit now extended with great advantage to all the Departments except the Army and Navy, into which they were about to be introduced. The Controller and Auditor General were of opinion that a new officer must be appointed. Even if that were so, such an officer, at, say, £1,500 a-year, replacing one whose salary and emoluments amounted to £4,600 a-year, would effect a saving; but he demurred entirely to the statement that such an officer at

691
a high salary was necessary, although it probably might be necessary to increase the staff of inferior officers. The proper course would be to find out in practice what was wanted, and then, no doubt, at the instance of the Treasury, the House would supply what was wanted. Again, it was not to be taken for granted that there should be no audit at all, but merely an examination before payment. Such a system was not equivalent to an examination after payment. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of London, as to the gentleman who acted as broker, it would not be advisable to deal with his case in the Bill, but it would be carefully considered and liberally dealt with.
DR. BALLsaid, he had made no objection to the proposed transfer, and to the proposal that the Government should have the use of this money; but he thought it desirable that the accounts of the Court of Chancery should be kept by officers of the Court, while the Government kept their own account of the money paid over to them. That was the system adopted in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, and it had worked well, ensuring the greatest certainty and accuracy. The proposal in the Bill, however, would make the Government masters not only of the money, but of the accounts, without any corresponding check upon them; for you could not reach Government officials as officers of the Court of Chancery could be reached by the orders of the Court. In a Select Committee, these points might be fully considered.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he was not much enamoured of the principle of the Bill, which applied for the public benefit in money as much private property as the that he held in his hand. But the principle having been adopted, a reference of the Bill to a Select Committee would secure no good which could not equally be gained by discussing the Bill in a Committee of the Whole House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 18 (Rules for regulating proceedings).
MR. GREGORY, in moving that the rules under this Bill should be framed, not by the Treasury, but by—
"The Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, the Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, and the Vice Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, or any three of them,"
said, the Amendment he proposed was consistent with all recent analogous legislation—and it was desirable to make it so, because of the extent to which the interests of suitors might be affected, and because the natural guardians of the suitors' rights were the Judges of the Courts of Chancery.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he trusted the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. The Court of Chancery in its administrative capacity was the best guardian that could be found, having lost less than £1,000 by fraud and negligence in 150 years. The great objection to the Government scheme was, that it gave to the debtor—the Government, the power of dictating the terms on which their own securities might be enforced; and, further, there was no reason why, in this instance, there should be a departure from the usual practice of allowing rules to be drawn up by the permanent Judges.
MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he could not agree with the Amendment as it was drawn, because it would exclude the Treasury from the superintendence and control of the funds; at the same time, however, the object of the Amendment—the greater protection of the suitors by the authority of the Judges, ought to be attained. The Lord Chancellor and the Treasury sometimes had conflicting interests; and that would appear to be the case with reference to deposits. Therefore, he wished "shall" to be substituted for "may" in the deposit clause, so as to make it imperative that in all cases 2 per cent interest should be paid to suitors.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, there was great force in the remarks just made, which the Government ought to consider. The Amendment before the Committee might be inserted in another part of the clause after the words "Lord Chancellor," and it might be provided that the rules should be made by the Lord Chan-

693
cellor, the Judges, or any three of them with the concurrence of the Treasury.
SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYsaid, the suggestion just offered would meet the case.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was impossible to accept the Amendment. The Bill simply proposed that certain financial arrangements which ever since the Court of Chancery existed had been left to the Lord Chancellor should remain with him. What was said on the other side was, that in some modern Acts of Parliament relating to legal procedure, the making of rules had been left to the Lord Chancellor and the other Judges. Now, however, they were dealing not with matters of law at all, but simply with the best mode of carrying out a new financial arrangement. It had nothing to do with the office of Judge of the Court of Chancery, and therefore the Judges ought not to be called upon to make regulations on a subject with which they were not familiar. The persons charged with these duties were Ministers of the Crown, who were responsible to the House of Commons; and he might remark that the Judges named in the Amendment could not possibly be as familiarly acquainted as the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor with the working of the Accountant General's Department. There was no ground, moreover, for distrusting the Lord Chancellor, who had had similar duties imposed upon him since the reign of George I. In conclusion, he trusted the Committee would allow the rules to be made by persons who were responsible to that House.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he thought there was no weight in the Solicitor General's argument against the Amendment, which would give the Lord Chancellor additional strength in protecting the interests of the suitors.
DR. BALLsaid, he was of opinion that the Lord Chancellor would be glad to have the assistance of one or two Judges, who were brought daily into contact with the minutiæ and detail of Chancery practice. He would, moreover, remind the Solicitor General that the Lord Chancellor possessed a jurisdiction more of an appellate than of an originating character, and therefore he approved of the Amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was highly desirable that
694
the rules which were intended to protect the suitors on the one hand and the public on the other, should be framed by persons who were responsible to the House of Commons, and not by Judges who could not be compelled to attend to the expressed wishes of the House.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and would move another—namely, at page 8, line 9, after the word "Chancellor," to insert—
"With the advice and assistance of the Master of the Rolls, the Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, and the Vice Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, or any two of them."
The Amendment was quite in harmony with the whole tendency of modern legislation, for in matters affecting the interests of the suitors the Judges of the Court of Chancery should have a voice.
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 9, after the word "Chancellor," to insert the words "with the advice and assistance of the Master of the Rolls, the Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, and the Vice Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, or any two of them, and,"—(Mr. Gregory.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it would be most unfortunate if those orders should be so made that they would become the subject of any discussion in that House. They could not forget that the Lord Chancellor was a political as well as a judicial officer; and leaving the rules to be made by two political officers would not be so likely to give satisfaction to the suitors as if an independent judicial authority was joined with them. He could not see what objection the Government could possibly have to the reasonable proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman was wholly unsound in principle, and took a false view of the position of Judges to that House. As to the argument just adduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), the Lord Chancellor had always possessed the power, and the Government thought it right that he should continue to possess it. How could the Judges give security to suitors? The Judges were not to be made liable; it was the public that were to be liable; and therefore the House of Commons should exercise all control in the public interest. Besides, it must be

695
remembered the proper business of the Judges was to decide causes, and not to take care of funds. In fact, the House had burnt its fingers in former days, having been asked to vote money for the supply of defalcations arising out of Orders imposed by Judges—and quite right too, as it was the business of the House to give security for moneys deposited in public custody pending litigation. On those grounds, the Government could not give way on the question.
SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYreminded the Committee that the Judges were constantly called upon to exercise a discretion in regard to the investment of those moneys, and that that would continue to be the case after the passing of the Bill.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 105: Majority 57.
MR. CRAWFORDwished to know, what was the meaning of that part of the clause which declared that the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury should determine the mode of computing the interest? Were any unusual elements to enter into the calculation?
MR. BAXTERsaid, he did not understand it, and could not give an answer.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 (Pension to present Accountant General).
MR. DICKINSONmoved that the clause, which provided that on the abolition of his office Mr. William Russell, the Accountant General, should retire on his full salary, should be amended by substituting the words "two-thirds" in place of "full."
MR. HUNTsaid, the Amendment was in accordance with the practice of former years, which was, when an officer retired and was relieved from the whole of his duties, to give him two-thirds of his salary. It was only in cases where sinecure offices were abolished that the full salary was given as a pension. If the clause were passed as it stood, it would be setting a very bad precedent, and it would be utterly impossible to avoid following it in all future cases of a similar character.
MR. CRAWFORDhoped the Government would adhere to the proposition contained in the clause. The office of
696
Mr. Russell, the Accountant General, had been by no means a sinecure office.
MR. MAGNIACsaid, that in making this change for the public benefit, Mr. Russell's claim ought not to be overlooked. The question must depend upon the character of the appointment.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he considered that Mr. Russell ought to be satisfied with a pension of two-thirds of his salary.
MR. RYLANDSasked why, in granting this pension, the usual course had been departed from? No cause had been shown for making that change.
MR. MONKsaid, from what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for London (Mr. Crawford), this gentleman did not stand on any different footing with regard to pensions from the holders of other offices, and who retired on two-thirds of their salaries.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that 20 years ago, when the Masters in Chancery were abolished, they retired on full salaries. Mr. Russell was at that time a Master in Chancery, and it was considered only fair that that principle should now be applied to him. That was the best answer he could give to the question. Whenever the Government attempted to make reductions, they had to yield their opinions to those expressed by the House.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it was high time for the House to set its face against paying men the same for doing nothing as they did when they were occupied. They had got a long way from the precedent of 1852. He should support the Amendment.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he could give a precedent that dated back beyond that referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Twenty years before the period alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the clerks in Chancery retired on their full salaries.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought it important that in such cases the House should follow recent precedents. There had been a vast number of abolitions of offices and consequent compensations during the last 10 years, and the Committee ought to be cautious as to the establishment of any new rules which might give rise to new claims. He should like to know, therefore, whether the gentleman who held the office under discussion was absolutely entitled to hold

697
it during the remainder of his life; whether he was able to discharge its duties or not, because in that event he would be entitled to his full salary, while if it were otherwise, he would have no such claim?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the office not being a sinecure, of course, the person holding it could only do so as long as he was able to perform its duties.
MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, he wished to point out, that whatever decision the Committee arrived at in the present instance would form a precedent for the case of the Irish Accountant General. He, for one, was of opinion that two-thirds of the salary was a sufficient amount to give.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 22 (Existing officers of Accountant General).
MR. SALTsaid, he hoped some change would be made whereby the inconvenience of the Long Vacation would be got rid of. He also hoped some assurance would be given that economy would be practised in the administration of the Office. The individual and aggregate salaries were very large.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he had great pleasure in being able to inform the hon. Gentleman that eventually there would be a considerable saving in the number and salaries of the clerks. At present, it was not proposed to make any change.
MR. GREGORYreminded the Committee that the clerks had great responsibilities thrown on them, and it was essential that they should be well paid.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 30th May.

IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 87.]
(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 87.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene), I rise to move the Amendment of which he has given Notice, that this Bill be re-committed. I believe some notice was taken on a former occasion of the point to which I wish to call the attention of the House; but from all I can gather of what then took place, I do not think that point was so fairly submitted to the House as it ought to have been. This Bill proposes to alter the substance of the 3rd clause of the Irish Church Act. In that 3rd clause the Commissioners are appointed, who are to administer all the affairs of the Irish Church as disestablished—that is, disestablished in so far as regards its connection with the State—and also disendowed; some portions of its property being thrown into a common fund, which was to be administered by the Commissioners under this section of the Irish Church Act. The powers of those Commissioners are most extensive. They have power to deal with the whole of the property remaining to the Irish Church, and their proceedings are not subject to be cheeked by any Court whatever. It is expressly stated that their proceedings shall not be removed by certiorari into any other Court; that their decisions shall have the power of acts of the Court of Chancery; and that those decisions shall be absolutely final. These are far more extensive powers than Parliament is wont to confer. The Commissioners were Viscount Monck, Mr. Justice Lawson, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and my lamented Friend the late Mr. George Alexander Hamilton. Many of us remember him. He was one of the Representatives of the University of Dublin, and a better man than he was I do not know. He was afterwards appointed Secretary to the Treasury, and successive Prime Ministers have testified to his excellence and efficiency as a public officer. When the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister proposed Mr. Hamilton as one of the Commissioners, it was quite evident that he nominated him in addition to Mr. Justice Lawson and Lord Monck, as a person in whom the members of the Irish Church might place implicit confidence. He distinctly stated in this House, that Mr. Hamilton had written

  699
  to him, to the effect that his consenting to serve on the Commission was not to be taken to imply his acquiescence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in disestablishing the Irish Church; and in those words, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister conveyed to this side of the House, who were opposd to it, an assurance that in Mr. Hamilton, there would be one Commissioner, who, if feeling was to have anything to do with the proceedings of the Commission, would he absolutely with the Irish Church. I come now to the Bill before the House. That Bill, instead of allowing the vacancy created in the Commission by the lamented death of Mr. Hamilton to be filled up according to the course prescribed in the Irish Church Act of 1870, proposes to vary the proceedings in relation to the constitution of the Commission; and here I would add, that, although we were aware in 1870 that each of the Commissioners was a member of the Irish Church, as it is still termed in the Act, when the Bill reached the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury moved the insertion of words, specifying that the persons, who were to be, or who should succeed the Commissioners, appointed under the 3rd clause of the Act, should each be thus qualified—as being a member either of the said Church or of the said United Church—that is, either of the Irish Church or of the United Church of England and Ireland as it existed at that time. That Amendment was accepted without opposition by the House of Lords, and also without question in this House. Well, I do not understand the reasons for it, but it happens that in the present measure that principle is to be departed from. The words proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and accepted by Parliament, are to be set aside by this Bill. The Bill proposes that the third Commissionership—that vacated by the death of Mr. Hamilton, should be filled by one of the Irish Judges in certain events—that is, in cases in which there is an appeal from the decision of one of the Commissioners—for the Commissioners are empowered to act singly, but with an appeal from a single Commissioner to the full Bench of Commissioners in contested cases. Therefore, the person who is to be successor to the late Mr. George Alexander Hamilton is to come in and take part as
  700
  a Commissioner, and share in all the powers of the Commission, the decisions of which are to be final in such contested cases. Now, a single Commissioner may transact the business, which is not contested, in which no serious objection is raised; but by this Bill it is not necessary that the third person, who is to be one of the Judges, and who is to be called on to assist in deciding contested business as the third Commissioner—it is not rendered necessary by this Bill, as it was in the original Act, that he should be a member of the Irish Church. So a Roman Catholic, if the Bill remain unaltered, could dispose of the property of the Protestant Church. I can scarcely think it is the intention of the House to allow this qualification to be dispensed with. I have shown that it will be in the most critical business of this Commission, in cases in which it will be dealing absolutely with the various interests created under the Irish Church Act of 1870, that this third Commissioner will be called in; and I hold that for that very reason, the third Commissioner should have the same qualification as is required of the other two Commissioners, and as was required of all three by the unanimous consent of Parliament in 1870. I have no means of carrying out that intention, except by moving that the Bill be re-committed; and I trust the House will accept the statement I have made as evincing the strong feeling which was entertained of the great importance of the late Mr. Hamilton's qualifications and services when he was appointed to the Commission, a feeling entertained by many others as well as myself. I have now to move that the Bill be re-committed.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "re-committed,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he trusted the House would not consider it necessary to re-commit the Bill, for the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was under a misconception when he stated that it was the duty of the Commissioners to administer the affairs of the Disestab-

  701
  lished Irish Church. But that was not so. Their duty was to superintend the operation of the transfer of the property of the Irish Church to the State, and to deal with all questions arising out of that transfer, such as the commutation of life interests, and other matters affecting existing incumbents. A further duty of the Commissioners was to take charge of the property of the Disestablished Church until it could be converted into ready money and be disposed of by Parliament. As had been stated the other day in Committee on the Bill, almost all the questions affecting the interests of the incumbents of the Irish Church had been disposed of; and even were that not the case, the introduction of a third Member for a particular purpose would not in the least prejudice their interests. A judicial Member of the Privy Council, as this Judge might be, who might be called upon to act, might, no doubt, be a Roman Catholic, or not a member either of the Disestablished Church or the Church of England; but he would be called upon to take no part whatever in the administrative business of the Commission, but only to act judicially.
  Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 35: Majority 51.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

JURIES BILL— [BILL 111.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
JURIES BILL— [BILL 111.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said he proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He proposed that course because the matters contained in it were of a complicated character, and better to be dealt with in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House. He might, however, say that his main object in framing the Bill had been to bring in as many men as possible to serve on juries, and thereby to diminish the pressure of the service on each individual. It had, however, been found necessary to deal separately with the City of London, the object in view being to get the same
  702
  class of persons to serve on common and special juries there as elsewhere. In some cases, disqualifications would be extended. For instance, persons who had been convicted of felony would be no longer qualified to serve on juries; but, on the other hand, many classes now exempted would in future be liable to serve. Clergymen of the various religious denominations would no longer be exempt, and the Bill also proposed that the absolute exemption in favour of Members of the House of Commons should not extend beyond the Sitting of Parliament. ["No, no!"] Of course, it was quite possible that the House of Commons might entertain a different opinion on that point. Then the Bill would reduce the number of jurors, except in cases of murder, from 12 to seven, and in civil cases two out of the seven would be special jurors; but while doing so, it would in no way interfere with coroners' or grand juries. As he should propose to refer the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee, he would not now enter into its details, but would merely move the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he must protest against a Bill which proposed such important changes of the law, and which had not been circulated among hon. Members many days, being discussed at so late an hour (12·45 A.M.). The alteration in the number of jurors assigning different numbers to different classes of crimes was quite novel, and in his opinion the House ought not to sanction the principle of the Bill without further consideration.
  MR. A. YOUNGsaid, he must admit that the Bill would introduce important alterations in the jury system, but thought its provisions could be better dealt with by a Select Committee than by the House at large. He could say that in the Australian colony with which he was formerly connected the number of jurors for the trial of civil issues had been reduced from 12 to 4, and that the change had proved beneficial. He was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had not thought fit to introduce into the Bill the principle of not requiring complete unanimity in the case of

  703
  the decisions of juries in civil cases, because the present system was sometimes productive of results which were perfectly absurd.
  MR. LOPEShoped the Bill would be read a second time that evening, for otherwise it was doubtful whether it would become law that Session. The question had been frequently discussed by Committees of that House; and the only new proposal was the reduction of jurymen, which, he believed, would give relief to the general body of jurymen without depreciating the tribunal.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENtrusted that, in assenting to the second reading, the House would not be considered as pledging itself to the affirmation of the principle of reducing the number of a jury. That principle ought not to be accepted without full discussion.
  MR. HOLTsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate. The subject was one of great importance, and more time should, in his opinion, be given to consider it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could testify to the interest felt by the public in the question, and would entreat the House to read the Bill a second time, in order that it might go before a Select Committee. There would afterwards be ample time to discuss its main provisions.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERhoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would not be pressed. He wished also to point out that great inconvenience was sometimes experienced in the City of London from the fact that jurymen were summoned to attend at two or even three Courts on the same day. As to the exemption of Members of that House from serving on juries, it would not, he trusted, be taken away.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, the qualification for jurors in this Bill was so high that it would throw the work upon a very limited number of persons. He had no objection to see the details of the Bill referred to a Select Committee provided certain constitutional questions which it involved were reserved for the decision of the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought there would be some difficulty in withholding the constitutional points of the Bill from the consideration of a Committee. He must, moreover, remind hon. Members that they were dealing
  704
  with one of the fundamental institutions of the country, and would contend that it was not right to shuffle off a measure of such importance to a Select Committee at 1 o'clock in the morning.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Holt,)—put, and negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  COLONIAL GOVERNORS [PENSIONS] BILL.
  Resolution [May 9] reported;
  "That it is expedient to increase the reduced rate of Pension now payable to certain Colonial Governors under the Act of the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and thirteen, and to amend the said Act."
  Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, and Mr. BAXTER.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the burgh of Brechin, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 162.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 2) AND ACT (NO. 2, 1864) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the districts of East Barnet, Banbury, Glastonbury, Knaresborough and Tentergate, Nottingham, Shipley, Soothill Upper, and Swadlincote; and to amend "The Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) Act, 1864," ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. STANSFELD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 163.]

  LIMITED OWNERS RESIDENCE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Bill to amend the provisions of "The Limited Owners Residence Act, 1870," and "The Limited Owners Residence Act (1870) Amendment Act, 1871," ordered to be brought in by Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE and Mr. MACEVOY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 165.]

  CLERKS OF THE PEACE AND JUSTICES CLERKS' SALARIES AND FEES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to render compulsory the payment of Clerks of the Peace, Clerks of Special and Petty Sessions, and Clerks of Justices of the Peace by Salary in lieu

  705
  of Fees, and to amend the Law with respect to the fixing of the amount of such Fees, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 164.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHARLES REED, Bill to amend the Elementary Education Act, 1870, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHARLES REED, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. MORLEY, and Viscount MAHON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 168.]

  UNION OFFICERS (IRELAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to amend the Act providing Superannuation Allowances to Officers of Unions in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 166.]

  CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to amend the Laws for the Regulation of Charitable Loan Societies in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 167.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday 27th May.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision* (107); Prisons (Ireland* (108); Juries Act Amendment (Ireland)* (109).
Committee—Report—Epping Forest* (82–112).
Report—Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads* (94).
Third Reading—Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal* (87); Pacific Islanders Protection* (100); Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2)* (98), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000) [35 Vict. c. 11]; Public Parks (Ireland) [35 Vict. c. 6]; County Buildings (Loans) [35 Vict. c. 7]; Deans and Canons Resignation [35 Vict. c. 8]; West Indies (Incumbered Estates) [35 Vict. c. 9]; Marriages (Society of Friends) [35 Vict. c. 10]; Pensions [35 Vict. c. 12].

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that this day week I made an appeal to my noble Friend the noble Earl

  633
  (Earl Russell) to postpone the Motion which then stood in his name on the Minutes of the House. I did not make that appeal for the third time, as has been generally supposed; I made it for the first time. I think it necessary to say that in justice to my noble Friend, whose previous postponements had been made at no request of mine. At the same time, I gave an assurance to the House that either to-day or before this day I should be prepared to lay Papers on your Lordships' Table, or that, at all events, I would make a statement to your Lordships on the present state and prospects of the negotiations. My Lords, in that statement I wish particularly to avoid all irrelevant matter. I do not mean to touch on the general question of the Washington Treaty, though I may, perhaps, be allowed, after the disparaging language which has been held by some persons with respect to an omission in it, to say that, though I deeply regret and always have regretted that omission, I think it was inevitable. I think the Treaty is a great work, healing with regard to the past, good for the present, and highly advantageous to the interests of both countries in the future. I shall confine myself to a statement of what has passed since the presentation of the Oases in December last; but there is a subject into which I should have been ashamed to go in detail, unless some of my noble Friends had told me it was one of the great causes of that apparent want of confidence in the steadfast course of the Government. That has been manifested to a certain degree in this House. Our Case was presented, and so was the Case of the American Government, in the middle of December. If there was any person guilty of delay in dealing with the American Case it was necessarily myself as connected with the Foreign Office; next, it was the gentlemen charged with drawing up our Case and the duty of answering that of America; and, finally, it was the Cabinet itself. My Lords, I was very ill at the time, and should not have felt it necessary to apologize to your Lordships if, considering that I did not know that this Case was otherwise than a business-like dry document bike that presented by ourselves, considering that we had four months to deal with it, and considering I was not aware it was intended by the American Government
  634
  to publish it—I say that, under all these circumstances, I should not have apologized for not having read the Case until it had been inquired into and reported upon by the very competent persons to whom I have alluded; which in due course would have had to be done before it was necessary for me to take the responsibility of any decision on the matter. As it happened, my Lords, as soon as I was able I read the Case, and I will not describe the feelings with which I read it. I will only say that they were not a specific for the gout. At the introduction of the Indirect Claims I was greatly surprised. I was also greatly annoyed at the chapter relating to the Motives. It appeared to me to be incongruous and out of harmony with those statesmanlike and conciliatory feelings which I believed actuated, and which now at this moment I firmly believe, actuate the Government and the Commissioners of America in the negotiations and the conclusion of the Treaty. My Lords, I had some private correspondence on the subject, and I cannot help expressing my sense of the obligation to a noble and learned Friend behind me for the letters he has written on the subject. About the same time—on the 9th of January—I thought it right, before troubling the Prime Minister with crude opinions in dealing with this case, to possess myself of the views of the eminent man who had consented to act as our own counsel in the case, and I think it will be more interesting if your Lordships will allow me to read the note which he wrote to me in answer to a query I had addressed to him. His note was in these terms—
  "30, Portland Place, W., May 5, 1872.
  "Dear Lord Granville—The facts as to time (so far as I have to do with them) are as follows:—
  "I saw and read the United States 'Case' at the very earliest moment at which it was possible for me to do so, and my impression from the first was that it very materially transgressed the limits of the Reference, both by introducing the Indirect Claims and in other respects, and that, in preparing the Counter Case (which was the duty to which my own mind was naturally, in the first instance, directed), it would be necessary for us to separate what was within the province of the Arbitrators from what was beyond their authority.
  "The preparation of the British Case had, as you may suppose, been a work of considerable labour and anxiety, especially to Mr. Bernard, on whom (both in this work and in the preparation of the Counter Case afterwards) the principal

  635
  share of labour devolved, according to the arrangements made by the Government."
  My Lords, I take the liberty to interrupt the reading of the note to bear my testimony also to Mr. Bernard, that, though other Members of the High Commission possessed legal attainments, he was eminently fitted to be one of the legal Commissioners whom we appointed. I cannot avoid reminding your Lordships how short a time ago it was since the Government were exposed to certain severe criticisms as to the presentation of a Counter Case, even sub modo. I believe that most of your Lordships are now of opinion that we did well to present the Counter Case in that conditional manner; and I believe that when you read the Counter Case all your Lordships will be of opinion that it is a document not unworthy of the country from which it proceeds. I cannot help saying that while that Counter Case was prepared by the legal Commissioners at Washington, its preparation was aided by the Secretary to the Commissioners, Lord Tenterden, whom I remember the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) recommended to me as one of the three best international lawyers in the country. It was minutely revised by Sir Roundell Palmer and corrected by the Cabinet, comprising most of the persons who have been described as inexperienced, ignorant, and inapt in the drafting of the original Treaty. My Lords, I now resume the reading of Sir Roundell Palmer's letter—
  "All concerned, however, had taken their share, and, with four months before us for the next step, and the Christmas holidays approaching, we wanted (and we thought ourselves entitled to take) a little breathing-time. We first met to consider the American 'Case' on the 5th or 6th of January (Mr. Bernard had then just lost a very near relative—in fact, his mother), and it was agreed at that meeting that he should prepare the draft Counter Case, and should distinguish, in doing so, between those matters which were within the Reference and those which were not.
  "Down to that time I had not communicated with you on the subject, my original impression being that, although it was clear that the American 'Case' contained important deviations from what I understood as the limits of the Treaty, yet it might possibly be sufficient for us to define our own position when we presented the 'Counter Case.'
  "A little further consideration made me very doubtful on this point, and very desirous that the Government should be advised by their Law Officers as to the two questions (1), whether the American 'Case' did (as I considered it to do)
  636
  exceed the limits of the Reference agreed upon; and (2), if so, what would be the proper course for; he Government to take in order to keep the Reference within its proper limits. It was, I think, natural that you, having intrusted us with the conduct of what I may call the 'defence,' should have looked for some assistance or suggestions from us upon any question of importance arising in the 'Case' upon which Her Majesty's Government might have to form a practical judgment; and you did, in fact, do me the honour, on the 9th or 10th of January, to ask for my opinion on this very subject, to which your own attention had been then already directed; and I, on the 10th of January (at the same time that I requested you to use your influence in favour of such arrangements being made as to the time of my attending at Geneva for the oral arguments as might be most consistent with my other duties), entered into a pretty full explanation in writing of my views of the whole matter; and I have reason to know that you afterwards lost no time in obtaining the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon it in the ordinary way.
  "I may add that I felt the matter to be one of extreme gravity and importance, and requiring great and careful deliberation as to the proper course of proceeding; but that my own judgment (from the time that it been me fully matured on the point) was altogether in favour of the course which the Government actually took.—Believe me ever, my dear Lord Granville, yours faithfully,
  "ROUNDELL PALMER."
  My Lords, I may state that when I was in possession of these views, and not until then, I wrote to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack and to Mr. Gladstone on the subject. A very few days after—namely, on the 18th of January—at the first meeting of the Cabinet, I brought the subject before them for their deliberation. At that meeting we were of opinion that it was impossible for this country to submit those Indirect Claims to arbitration. We have never swerved from that opinion. We have never done or said anything which could weaken our position with regard to that matter. I am really ashamed to go into this matter; but it was settled at that Cabinet meeting that the Lord Chancellor should be requested to again communicate with the Law Officers. On the 25th my noble and learned Friend, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and myself met Sir Roundell Palmer to consider the best way of preventing illegitimate matter from being brought before the Tribunal at Geneva. On the 30th the matter was virtually settled; and on the 2nd of February a decision was taken, and the terms of the Note which I was to address to General Schenck were settled and approved. My Lords, I can only repeat what I said on the

  637
  first day of the Session—although you may think it presumptuous in me to do so—namely, that if the thing was to be done over again, notwithstanding all the adverse criticism which has been passed upon it, I should deeply regret if we had taken action in the Case earlier than we did. I believe that, both in substance and appearance, nothing was so much to be deprecated as appearing to act under the impulse of temper or pique, instead of after full and very careful deliberation. My Lords, the letter I wrote to General Schenck was very short. It was courteous in terms—courteous towards the American Government—and it also expressed a strong desire to maintain the Treaty. In short, I think it deserved the description which has been somewhat commented on, but from which I do not shrink—that of a "friendly communication." In it we went back and used almost exactly the same words which we advised Her Majesty to use in Her Speech from the Throne, with regard to our understanding of the scope of the Treaty with reference to these Indirect Claims. As far as I remember, the only difference between them was, that instead of the word "understanding" we used the word "hold." That Note was courteously acknowledged by General Schenck, and in due course he communicated to me a despatch from Mr. Fish in reply. That despatch objected to the position held by us, and, adhering to the position which the Government of the United States had taken up, it maintained that the Indirect Claims were matter to go before the Arbitrators. In short, the Government of the United States adhered to the position it had at first taken, and gave reasons at no inordinate length for the views they had put forward. My Lords, to that letter Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to make a full and comprehensive reply—we thought it only fair that the Government of the United States should be put in possession of the reasons which had induced us to come to the determination at which we had arrived. Accordingly, my despatch was a long one—an excessively long one. I hope it will not tax your Lordships' patience to read it; but it would be impossible in the compass of a statement like this for me to give you an accurate and detailed account of the arguments we brought for-
  638
  ward. I think it will be sufficient for me to say that in that despatch your Lordships will find a fulfilment of the assurance given to Parliament on the first night of the Session. None of your Lordships can doubt that it had always been our intention that the Indirect Claims should be excluded by the terms of the Treaty. We stated in the despatch that not only had such been our intention, but we had some grounds for supposing that the same had been the intention of the United States; and we stated further—that which has been very much doubted—our opinion that when the case came to be argued it would be found that the Treaty absolutely excludes these Claims. My Lords, I think the next step in the proceedings was the presentation of the Counter Case, without prejudice, in the manner to which I have alluded. That Case is included in the Papers already laid before the House. Next came the despatch of Mr. Fish to General Schenck. I have already apprised the House of its character. In it the Government of the United States still adhered to the position they had taken. It gave an answer to a portion—but a portion only—of the arguments we had advanced, but it left the Case exactly where it was. I am not sorry for this correspondence, because, when you read the case on both sides your Lordships will be the better able to come to an accurate conclusion; but it left the Case exactly where it was, and showed an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two sides, and did not in any degree further the negotiations. My Lords, I will go a little back. I am sure your Lordships do not think it likely that during these two or three anxious months General Schenck and I held aloof from each other, and were not in frequent communication. We were in constant communication, endeavouring to find a solution honourable and satisfactory to both countries. And here I feel bound to bear testimony to the American Minister that, although he always strenuously supported the views of his Government, as he was bound to do, he has throughout these negotiations evinced an earnest and sincere desire to maintain the Treaty, and prevent any disturbance of the most friendly relations between the two countries. My Lords, as regards these communications, they came to

  639
  nothing. I made some suggestions to the American Minister; but he seemed to think they were too much of one character, and were not likely to be acceptable to the American Government. He made me a large number of suggestions as to the mode of settling the difficulty. Some of these were obviously of a character perfectly unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government. There were others which, at all events, deserved the careful consideration of the Government: although all on examination failed to meet the exigencies of the case. I am bound to say as to General Schenck, with regard to some of those which were most obviously unacceptable, they generally followed some suggestions which had been made in this country as to the mode of settling these difficulties. For instance, no sooner had it been suggested that we might settle the matter by a trifling payment of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, or something of that kind, than the very next day General Schenck came to sound me as to whether some arrangement for a small sum might not solve the difficulty. I will now come to the time when, without giving an assurance, I informed your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government had ground for hopes as to a satisfactory settlement of the misunderstanding. The statement to your Lordships arose from a communication made to me I think on the 28th of April—in the first place confidentially, and afterwards officially—by the American Minister. It was a proposal which in several points could not have been accepted by the Government; but it was a proposal which did appear to afford a basis of some satisfactory settlement. The United States proposed that the arrangement could be carried out by an interchange of Notes. Acting on that, we prepared a Note stating our views as to the possible limits within which a settlement could be carried out. That was revised and altered, we wishing nothing but to keep our meaning perfectly clear, while at the same time desiring to propose nothing which the United States might find it difficult to adopt. When we had finally settled that Note—I think it was on the 8th of May—I got a communication from General Schenck in which he informed me that he had received a telegram from Mr. Fish stating that, although the President thought it possibly within his
  640
  constitutional powers to agree to the Note we had sketched out, yet he thought our Note went beyond what, in his individual capacity, he could accept: he thought it preferable to frame an additional Article to the Treaty, which might effect the object we had in view, and which he might submit to the Senate for their sanction. We found some difficulty in acceding to the proposition to frame a Note on the suggestion of others; but we thought that any question of punctilio would have been perfectly ridiculous, and that if we were able to accomplish our object we ought to do so. The difficulty was great, and it took considerable time. We thought it better that we should clearly and at once show that to which we were willing to consent, and the limits of that consent. That draft Article was sent by me to General Schenck, and was by him transmitted to Mr. Fish, with the declaration that if the United States Government were prepared to adopt such an Article, we on our parts were ready to accept it. I was informed yesterday by General Schenck that he had received a telegram from Mr. Fish, stating that he had submitted that Article to the President, and that it was the intention of the President to submit it to the Senate. I understand that at this moment the Senate are in secret executive Session to consider that Article. My Lords, your Lordships will perceive that it is impossible for me to give your Lordships any assurance of the settlement of this affair, because it is impossible for me to speak of what the action of the Senate may be; but what I understand is that, according to all the rules and practices of the American Constitution, the fact of the President having submitted this proposal to the Senate indicates that he is willing, if the Senate will agree, to carry out the Article. Your Lordships will feel that it would be improper for me to give your Lordships further details at a time when this Article is under the consideration—not of a legislative body like the House of Lords or the House of Commons—but of the Senate, which in its peculiar position becomes a part of the Executive Government for this purpose. My Lords, I cannot but think that our hopes are greatly increased of arriving at a settlement which, I believe in my heart, will be satisfactory to your Lord-

  641
  ships and the country, and which, moreover, I am of opinion will be honourable to the Government of the United States. If we do succeed, Her Majesty's Government will take no credit for the fact of that success. We have been considerably helped by circumstances in the course of these negotiations. I may mention in the first instance the forbearance of this House and also the forbearance of the other House of Parliament. I may further mention that while public opinion has been singularly firm and united, there has been great moderation both in speeches and in the Press with respect to this case; whereas, had another course been pursued great irritation might have been infused into our relations with the United States. I believe that, with some exceptions, the tone has been admirable in this respect. We owe also much to the manner in which the matter has been discussed in the United States. There was, perhaps, not the same temptation to discuss it in open Session of the two Houses there; but they also have shown great forbearance; and it is impossible to have read the newspapers, to have read the declarations, to have read the remarkable letters which we have all read and know of, without feeling that the United States, if they make concessions on this subject, do it from a feeling of fairness and justice, and are actuated by a strong desire to maintain the most cordial and friendly relations, such as ought to exist between two great kindred nations. If I take no credit to the Government or myself, I must, nevertheless, say that this is the first fruits of the Treaty of Washington. I believe from the time of the close of the Rebellion up to the beginning of these negotiations, if any difference had arisen between the two countries, of which one thought there was a question of great injustice to itself, and the other thought it was a question, even if only as a matter of form, of making any concession—I believe the irritation in this country and more especially in America was such that it would have been impossible to make the progress we have now done towards a settlement, which I think will be satisfactory to this country, honourable to the United States, and of great advantage to the best interests of both countries. I have now only to offer my personal thanks to your Lordships on
  642
  both sides of the House for the indulgence you have extended to me, and I am sure you will allow me to make an appeal to you—that so critical a moment as the present is not the one when we should go into a discussion of this case.
  No noble Lord rising to address the House—
  EARL GRANVILLEagain rose and said: I am sure the House would like to know the course my noble Friend (Earl Russell) proposes to adopt if my noble Friend would be kind enough to state it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Before the noble Earl (Earl Russell) rises, perhaps my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will state how long it is likely to be before he can lay on the Table or state the exact contents of the Supplemental Article which is now the subject of negotiation?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I hope the House will not think there is any relucance on my part to afford information when I say it is impossible for me to answer the Question of my noble Friend. I have put the House in possession of all the facts; but it is impossible for me to state when an answer to our terms will be received from the United States. The Senate will very likely take two or three days to consider the Supplemental Article, but I am unable to give anything like certain information on the point.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has sat down without giving the House any information as to the course which he will pursue if those Indirect Claims are not withdrawn, and it is under these circumstances that he has appealed to your Lordships against any discussion of this question. Now, in the first place, let me state that I have no doubt whatever my noble Friend has been perfectly sincere in all his endeavours to make a Treaty with the United States which would be honourable to both countries, and that he never intended that such Claims as those that have been put forward by the American Government should have been included in the Treaty signed at Washington. Now, my Lords, I shall not refer to dates anterior to the Treaty of Washington; but I must refer for a few moments to circumstances which occurred in this House on the 12th of June last year,

  643
  and to what was then stated by a noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), who, whether as an advocate or a Judge, has had perhaps as much experience, or greater experience, than any other Member of this House, and who, likewise, is second to none in his capacity for judging of the value of the terms of a treaty. The noble and learned Lord, referring to the allegation that these preposterous Claims could have been made under the Treaty negotiated by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) who succeeded me in the Foreign Office, went on to say he had examined the Protocols and had examined the new Treaty, and he perceived that those same Claims might be set up under the Treaty of Washington. That was an important statement coming from such an authority, and I should have thought that it would have produced a great impression. Treaties have been signed by Plenipotentiaries which have often afterwards been rejected by the Governments in whose name they have been made, and I should have supposed that in the case of such a Treaty as this, taking warning from the statement of the noble and learned Lord, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) would have taken further advice after the debate in this House had concluded, and when he still had it in his power to advise Her Majesty to ratify this Treaty or to refuse to ratify it. He might have asked the United States Minister whether he was right in understanding that the Indirect Claims had disappeared, and would not be brought forward under the Treaty? My noble Friend might have waited to have a distinct declaration on that point; and then possibly he might have been told by the Government of the United States—"You are mistaken in your comprehension of the Treaty; these Indirect Claims are by no means surrendered, and we think we are at liberty to set them up whenever, in pursuance of the Treaty, our Case is presented." My noble Friend did not ask any such question, or express any such doubt. On the other hand, the American Government did not set us at ease by declaring either that the Indirect Claims had disappeared or that they had not. Her Majesty's Government did not enter into negotiations for any Supplemental Articles to be inserted in the Treaty. Nothing of that kind was done on either side; and months elapsed before we heard any-
  644
  thing more on the subject. The American Minister having left the House before the speech of my noble Friend was spoken on the 12th of June last, may not have thought it necessary to make any statement in reply to it; but that speech having appeared in print with the correctness which usually characterizes the report of the debates in this House, it is wonderful that the statement of my noble Friend should have received no rectification from the American Government, and that the ratification of the Treaty should have taken place, the whole of the people of England being allowed to continue in the belief that the Indirect Claims had altogether disappeared. It may, indeed, be said with truth, that these Indirect Claims are of a most fantastic character. One of the demands made under this head is that we should be made answerable, and should pay damages to the United States, for the prolongation of the war. There have been many instances of the payment of damages for injury to the commercial marine of a country. General Washington was in correspondence with Lord Grenville under somewhat similar circumstances. General Washington had a notion that a Treaty of Commerce between France and the United States justified the fitting out by those countries of ships to act against the commerce of either belligerents; but Lord Grenville remonstrated, and General Washington, with that fairness and sense of justice for which he was so distinguished, saw he was wrong. Finding that he had misunderstood the meaning of the Treaty of Commerce, and that privateers and armed ships had been fitted out in New York and Boston to act against English commerce, he gave compensation for the injury done. But if it had been said by the Representative of England to the United States—"Under this Treaty you are answerable for the capture of British ships, for the prolongation of the war, and all the expenses of the war from that time must be paid by you"—what would have been the reply? Yet that is the extravagance of the nature of the Claims now put forward by the United States. Another case was that of the injury inflicted on Spanish and Portuguese commerce during another war. In that case it was said—just as I said afterwards—"Produce your evidence, and we will give

  645
  you compensation for the injury done." Never, I believe, in the history of nations has there been so preposterous a claim, put forward, as was put forward by the American Government in their Case presented at the end of December or the beginning of January. Let it now be added—for I do not think it ought to be disguised any longer—that the first demands of the American Government were couched in the most offensive terms personally towards the Ministry of this country. Lord Palmerston was at the head of that Government; I was its Foreign Secretary; and I say that no swindler or pickpocket ever had worse terms applied to him than those which were applied to us by the American Government. Could anything be more offensive than the conduct of the American Government in making such charges as they did with respect to a matter in which such men as Lord Palmerston, Sir Roundell Palmer, and Sir Thomas Fremantle were concerned? Now, it appears to me that immediately the Government of the United States put forward these Indirect Claims, my noble Friend ought to have made a direct representation to that Government. I think he should have said plainly and directly that the British Government could not go into arbitration on these Claims, and that it would not send any person to appear before the Arbitrators till the Indirect Claims were withdrawn. It appears to me that position ought to have been taken at the time. After the Government had received the American Case, and had perused it and made up their minds on it—after they found that it was in direct contradiction of all my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said in this House, and in direct contradiction of all that had been declared in Her Majesty's Speech to the two Houses of Parliament, they should have said at once—"Unless these Indirect Claims are withdrawn we cannot go into arbitration." But, my Lords, are we sure that such language has been held, even up to this day? We do not know. Up to this day the Government have never condescended to inform Parliament as to what has been going on. This business has all been conducted by what is known as "secret diplomacy." My own opinion is that if the ordinary mode of diplomacy had been adopted in this case,
  646
  it would not have failed. I believe that if Sir Edward Thornton, who is a most able man, and one who understands perfectly the art of arranging difficulties—I believe that if he had been united with my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon), we should have had a Treaty under which these Indirect Claims could not have been made. There is a vast mass of obscure language in this Treaty, and in the Protocols which preceded it. It is said of the Alabama that she "escaped;" and no doubt she did "escape," from Liverpool, but she did not receive her armament until after she had escaped. Afterwards there is a reference to another ship which is said to have "escaped" from the Thames. Now, she was a regular merchant ship, and left the Thames with a regular clearance to go to Bombay, and therefore it cannot be properly said that she "escaped." With respect to this vessel, an extraordinary document has been put forth by the American Government, which has much the character of a work of fiction. I find it stated in the American documents that she ought to have been seized and not having been seized, the British Government is responsible, because her owner, Mr. Wright, was father-in-law to a leading partner in a firm engaged in trade with the Southern Confederacy. What is called the "escape" of this ship is alleged as a charge against the Government of this country. Now, ought we to instruct Sir Roundell Palmer to go before a court of justice and institute proceedings for the seizure of a vessel on such a ground as that? We should have to pay damages if we had adopted such a course. That is a specimen of the alleged misconduct of the English Government in allowing these vessels to "escape." I do not, however, wish to go more fully into this question on the present occasion; but I hope my noble Friend will not allow any unreasonable time to elapse before he informs the House whether this Additional Convention or this Additional Article will be added to the Treaty of Washington. And this I can say, my Lords, that unless those Indirect Claims are positively withdrawn—unless they are withdrawn by a formal act and not by a hint or an evasion, in which the American Government seems to delight—unless by a formal act these Claims are entirely set aside, and "disappear

  647
  altogether"—to use the phrase employed by my noble Friend last year—unless we are assured that no Representative of Her Majesty shall appear in a room on the table of which those mendacious Claims are lying—I shall certainly renew again and again before the 15th of June the Motion which stands on the Minutes in my name. I believe if my noble Friend had said—"Unless this arrangement is come to, and these Claims are withdrawn, we shall not allow a representative of Her Majesty to appear before the Arbitrators," these Claims would have been withdrawn. The case appears to me to be one between the honour of the Crown of this country and the election of General Grant as President of the United States. For my part, I prefer the honour of Her Majesty—I prefer the honour and reputation of this country—to any prospects of the re-election of General Grant.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of protracting this debate, partly because I understand there is no Motion before the House, and partly because this does not appear a convenient time to discuss either the merits of the Treaty of Washington or the conduct of the negotiations which preceded that Treaty, and which have followed the misunderstanding that has arisen with reference to its provisions. What I gather, and what I think the House has gathered, from the statement of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to-night is, that the Cabinet have made a proposal which has the concurrence of the American Executive for a modification of the Treaty, and that that proposal is now under the consideration of the Senate. We are, therefore, in this position—we do not know what reception will be given to the proposition. I apprehend that is a matter on which we are altogether unable to speculate. Interference by either House of Parliament pending negotiations is a very delicate and extreme measure to adopt; but even if we desired to interfere we should be too late for any practical purpose that could be answered by taking such a course. Moreover, we have received from the noble Earl—speaking on behalf of the Government—the strongest possible assurance that the New or Indirect or Consequential Claims, from which all these difficulties have arisen, will not in any form be submitted
  648
  to Arbitration. We have also the assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they have never swerved from their opinion on this point. Indeed, the statement of the noble Earl is as clear and explicit as could be fairly asked for. In the absence—the necessary absence—of the Papers on which a judgment can be formed, and considering the very limited knowledge we possess of the nature and character of the proposition itself, I do not think it would serve any public purpose to carry this discussion further at present. Everybody in this country, and, I hope, in America also, wishes this matter to be brought to an amicable settlement; but we have a right to utter one word of warning, and to say—"Let us have no more 'understandings.'" We have a right to ask that this new engagement, which is about or likely to be entered into, and which, as I understand, is to supersede and control the former provisions of the Treaty, should be couched in perfectly clear, precise, and unmistakable terms; because if this is not done we shall be exposed to have over again all the trouble and misunderstanding which have caused us so much anxiety.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had communicated with the noble Earl near him (Earl Russell) and with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) in reference to the Adjournment of the House, and they agreed with him that it was not desirable to vary the Notice he had already given; and therefore, in accordance with that Notice, he moved the Adjournment of the House to Friday, the 31st instant.
  EARL RUSSELLexpressed his concurrence in the statement made by the noble Earl, and said, that in giving Notice of his Amendment for the Adjournment of the House to the 24th instant, he did not mean to press it if it should appear that there was no necessity for doing so.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The Lord CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 107.)
  PRISON'S (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further and better provision for the custody of Prisoners, and to amend the law relating to Prisons in Ireland—Was presented by The Marquess of LANSDOWNE; read 1a. (No. 108.)

  JURIES ACT AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Juries Act (Ireland), 1871—Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read 1a. (No. 109.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Friday the 31st instant, at a quarter before Five o'clock.