Sitting of 25 April 1873

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Fishery Inspectors (Ireland)* [136].
Committee—Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment* [7]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Canonries* [18].

AFRICA—WEST COAST SETTLEMENTS—THE ASHANTEE INVASION.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any authentic information of the defeat of the forces of the British Protectorate on the Gold Coast by the Ashantee army; And, what steps are being taken to resist the invasion and to protect the British settlements at Cape Coast Castle? He also asked (for Mr. M'Arthur), What steps Her Majesty's Government had taken to repel the Ashantee invasion of the protected territories on the Gold Coast, the army of that power being, by last accounts, within twenty miles of Cape Coast Castle; and, if it be true that Mr. Salmon has been sent to Cape Coast; and, if so, with what instructions?
  MR. KNATCHBULL HUGESSEN: Sir, Mr. Salmon is Collector of Customs at the Gold Coast, and he had been on leave in this country. He was sent back in consequence of the illness of Colonel Harley, the Administrator of the Gold Coast, who, however, had happily recovered. Mr. Salmon's instructions were to resume his duties and assist the Administrator, but I regret to say that he has been seized with illness on the journey, and has turned homewards from Madeira. Our last accounts of the Ashantee invasion were to the effect that there had been an engagement between the Fantee tribes and the invading army at a place called Yankumassie, distant 30 miles from Cape Coast Castle. That engagement had terminated favourably to the invaders, but they appeared to have suffered considerably, and had not advanced further at the date of our Despatches. As to the steps which have been taken "to resist the invasion and to protect the settlements," I will read to the House the Instructions given in 1864 in a similar case of Ashantee invasion by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) before I state those steps. Writing to Governor Pine, Mr. Cardwell said—
  "The duty of defending the extensive territory included in the Protectorate can only be satisfactorily discharged if the chiefs to whom it belongs are united and resolute in their own defence. The proper course, therefore, is to take every possible means for bringing the chiefs to

  971
  an united and decided system of defence, and for this purpose to give them advice, to supply them judiciously with military stores, and in concert with the officer in command of the forces, to furnish them with such assistance as he may be able to afford, without exposing his officers and men to any protracted residence in the interior, and without weakening his force upon the coast so as to endanger the safety of the settlements themselves."
  Now, Sir, for the steps which have been taken. A reinforcement of 100 men of the 2nd West India Regiment has arrived from Sierra Leone; 150 of the Houssa Police—a most serviceable force—have also been sent to the Gold Coast. Colonel Harley, who has had long experience of that coast, and in whose ability and military skill we have the highest confidence, has taken every possible step to unite and combine the tribes of the Protectorate. Supplies of arms and ammunition were already in the forts—further supplies were sent some time since, and additional large supplies have lately been sent, while active steps have been taken to prevent arms and ammunition reaching the invaders. Two ships of war—the Seagull and the Decoy—are at Cape Coast, and a paddle steamer has been sent out as being more generally useful than screw steamers. Colonel Harley reports that the forts both at Cape Coast and Elmira are strong and well-provisioned, and we sent out some time since further large stores of provisions to guard against any possible contingency. I may add that Colonel Harley had arrested the King of Elmina, who had refused to take the oath of allegiance, which step had been well received by the loyal population, and which, together with the other prompt and active steps taken by the Administrator, has the full approval of Her Majesty's Government.

AFRICA (WEST COAST)—LAGOS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that from existing disruptions at Lagos and on the neighbouring continent the commerce of those districts has greatly diminished; exports, imports, and the public revenue being all seriously reduced in amounts; whether any reasonable or early restoration of the means of resuming business may be expected; if he would state to the House whether Lagos, with its
  972
  British residents and their property, retains its usual defence, or has been deprived of that defence; and, whether Negroes under persecution and in slavery, having taken refuge in Lagos, have been surrendered to their assumed owners?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, it is quite true that there has been much interruption of the commerce and trade of Lagos, owing to the action of the neighbouring tribes, though there has been such a considerable receipt of duties at the Custom House, in spite of all difficulties, as to prove that peace and tranquility are alone needed to render Lagos a most flourishing settlement. When we are dealing with fickle and savage tribes, it is hardly safe to prophecy as to their course of action; but the judicious attitude maintained by Administrator Berkeley opens out a prospect of better things. In his last letter he states that he had received a communication from the Egbas and Jebus, which was likely to lead to explanations which it is hoped would bring about a more satisfactory condition of affairs. As to the question of defence, it is true that 150 of the Houssa Police had been sent to the Gold Coast, but steps were being taken to maintain the local detachment at its full strength, and no apprehension was entertained of any attack on the settlement. A ship of war had, however, gone to Lagos. Mr. Berkeley had made an expedition to a part of the country where difficulties had been reported to exist, and had found those difficulties to have been greatly exaggerated. As to negroes having been returned to slavery from Lagos, it was true that complaints had been made, which, on careful inquiry having been instituted, turned out to be somewhat exaggerated, but not without foundation. Nothing of the kind, however, had occurred since the arrival of the present administrator, and the most stringent order had been sent out from home to the effect that British territory must in every part of the world be free territory; in which the slave might find a safe harbour of refuge.

FISHERIES (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is his intention to take any steps, in accordance with the

  973
  assurance given last Session, to apply the balance of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund in aid of the Irish Fisheries; and, whether any other, and if so what, appropriation of that balance, or any portion of it, has been proposed to the Irish Government?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, the language he used last Session did not warrant the statement that he gave an assurance that the balance of the fund should be applied to the Irish fisheries. All he said was, there was just a possibility of its being done; but he stated that legislation would, probably, be necessary for the purpose. Having inquired further, he found that no part of that fund could be applied to this purpose without legislation. He, accordingly, made a proposition to the Treasury on the subject—in reference to the introduction of a Bill; but to his letter no official reply had as yet been received, he had, however, ascertained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had the subject under consideration, and he did not think it would be desirable to legislate on the subject of this fund in the limited manner suggested; indeed, he considered the whole system of the management and application of this fund highly objectionable, and that some means should be adopted for relieving the Treasury altogether from the management and application of it. The subject was now under the consideration of the Government. He was not aware that any application for a proportion of the balance had been made—certainly not to the Irish Government.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—WRECK OF THE "ATLANTIC."—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the investigation lately held at Halifax into the loss of the steamship "Atlantic," was held by the officer of Customs there on his own mere motion and responsibility, or under the authority and directions of the Governor in Council of the Dominion; whether it was held in accordance with the requirements of any and what Colonial Ordinance regulating the conduct of inquiries into wrecks; and, whether, in the event of the Halifax inquiry having been illegal and invalid, the Board of Trade will order another
  974
  inquiry into the circumstances of the loss of the ship?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, I am unable to give a complete answer to the right hon. Baronet in consequence of the absence of the official Minutes of the inquiry at Halifax, and until they have been received I can only say what we know at present. The inquiry lately held at Halifax purported to have been held under the powers of a Colonial Act passed under the authority of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, under which the Dominion authorities have the power to hold inquiries in all respects similar to the inquiries held in this country under the direct authority of the Merchant Shipping Act. Whether all proceedings in connection with the inquiry at Halifax were regular or not I am not able positively to say. I must at the same time say, according to our experience, Canadian inquiries of this kind are generally well looked after. The result of this inquiry has been that the captain's certificate has been suspended for two years. If that inquiry has not been regular, it can be had over again in this country; if it has been regular, and in strict accordance with the law, the captain, cannot be tried over again so far as his certificate is concerned. Whether any further proceedings should take place affecting the captain or officers, it will be impossible for us to say until the official Minutes shall have been received. There is, however, another separate subject which can only, and must be inquired into in this country—namely, the allegations that the quantity of fuel and provisions on board the Atlantic was insufficient, and that this circumstance necessitated her going out of her course. This affected, in the first place, the conduct of her owners, and also the conduct of the officers of the Board of Trade; and into this matter, which can only be properly investigated at Liverpool, I have ordered a full and searching inquiry to be held. I may add that a wish that such an inquiry should be instituted was strongly expressed by the owners of the Atlantic.

POLICE INTERFERENCE WITH POLITICAL PLACARDS—NOTTINGHAM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home

  975
  Department, If his attention has been called to the conduct of the chief constable of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary, in destroying a posting bill in which a meeting of persons holding Republican opinions was announced; and, what power the Secretary of State possesses of censuring the conduct of a chief constable of County Constabulary?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I believe the facts of the case are these—A gentleman who is chief constable of the county of Nottingham, being in the town of Nottingham, where he has no jurisdiction, put his stick through a placard which purported to call a meeting of those who held Republican opinions. He was summoned for malicious trespass; but the case was dismissed, on the ground that the wall on which the placard had been posted belonged to the Corporation, and that the Corporation had not given their permission for the posting of the placard. At the same time, I am bound to say I cannot approve the conduct of the chief constable in acting as he did. Either such a placard was legal or illegal; and if it were illegal means ought to have been taken to indict the persons who had committed an offence against the law. On the other hand, if it were legal, however offensive the contents of the placard might be to the feelings of this gentleman, he, as a representative of the law, ought not to have allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have to remark that the Secretary of State has no direct means of censuring a chief constable of county constabulary.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—PURCHASE OF THE MIDLAND RAILWAY SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PLUNKETasked the Postmaster General, If he would state to the House what amount of money was paid by the Post Office to the Electric Telegraph Company for its rights over the Midland Railway system; when the agreement under which such rights were enjoyed by the Electric Telegraph Company will terminate; and, the amount (if any) which has been claimed by the Midland Railway Company from the Post Office in respect of their reversionary interests on the termination of such agreement?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to the Schedule, he will find that the Electric Telegraph Company received, under the Telegraphs Act of 1868, 20 years' purchase of their entire net profits over the whole system during the year ending June, 1868. The amount of the purchase money is stated in the Telegraphs Act of 1869—namely, £2,938,826. The claims of the Midland Railway Company are disputed by the Post Office, and will be the subject of arbitration. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that no information respecting them ought to be given pending the arbitration.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated when the agreement would terminate.
  MR. MONSELL: That is one of the things which I think ought not to be stated during the arbitration.

  IRELAND—PURCHASE OF IRISH RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton) a Question of which he had given him private Notice. Considering that the question of the purchase of the Irish Railways was involved in the question of the purchase of all the Railways by the State, a Notice relating to which subject had been given by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lea), would it not be desirable for the noble Lord to postpone the Motion which he had on the Paper for Tuesday next in reference to the purchase of the Irish Railways?
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON,in reply, said, he thought not, for the reason that a different principle applied to Irish railways. He did not see that there was any close connection between them and the railways of England and Scotland. If the Irish railways had been in the same state of prosperity as those of England and Scotland, he should never have given Notice of his Motion.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'CONOR,in rising to call attention to the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in Dublin in the case of the late Galway Election Petition, and to the state of the Law relating to the trial of Parliamentary Election Petitions; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of trying Election Petitions is unsatisfactory and requires alteration,"
  said, he should not make any long remarks on the judgment delivered in Galway by Mr. Justice Keogh, as it had already been fully discussed by the House and the country; but between Mr. Justice Keogh's judgment and that of the Court of Common Pleas in Dublin there was a wide distinction, and it was to the latter judgment that he should for the most part confine his remarks. He had not the slightest wish to challenge the right of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Trench) to a seat in that House, but thought it would have been much better if he had been elected by a majority of the constituency than seated by a decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Dublin. Now the fact was, that out of a constituency of 4,000, more than 3,000 voted for Captain Nolan, whilst only 658 voted for Major Trench, to whom the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas gave the seat, notwithstanding that he polled only a small fraction of the constituency. In the course of the last Session during the discussion on the Ballot Bill, the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) moved an Amendment to the effect that when the candidate at the head of the poll was guilty of corrupt practices, and where the second candidate on the poll received one-third of the votes of the constituency, he should be declared to be the sitting Member. During that discussion several strong expressions of opinion were uttered by influential Members, and the Solicitor General said it was contrary to the practice and law of Election Petitions that any Member should be allowed to take his seat unless he had polled a majority of votes. He (Mr. O'Conor) was well pleased when he found that the Attorney General and the Vice President of the Council expressed simi-
  978
  lar sentiments, and that the House, acting on that view, rejected the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Reading. Within two months afterwards, however, the Galway trial came up and shattered the Solicitor General's law, and the principle was introduced which the House had condemned and the Government had thought it undesirable for the House to adopt. Hitherto he had no opportunity of discussing the matter; beyond that he had expected to be told early in the present Session that the Government intended to bring in a Bill to make the Act permanent, which enabled the Judges to try Election Petitions. The Attorney General, however, informed him that he had no intention to do anything of the sort, and the only course open to him accordingly was to bring the subject before the House by moving the present Resolution. Under the Act of 1868 giving power to the Judges to try Election Petitions they were declared to be Judges both of law and fact. From the decision as Judges of fact there was no appeal, from their decision as Judges of law there was practically no appeal either; but under the 12th section power was given to them to reserve questions of law, if they saw fit, to the Court of Common Pleas. Now, it occurred, that in the Galway case, Mr. Justice Keogh decided that Captain Nolan was not duly elected, and further, that previous to the election, he was not a qualified candidate, but he reserved two questions for the Court of Common Pleas—first, were the electors who formed the majority fixed with sufficient knowledge of Captain Nolan's incapacity, and should they have acted upon it; and, secondly, whether, supposing the first question were decided in the affirmative, Major (then Captain) Trench was entitled to the seat? It was doubtful whether the first question ought to have been reserved at all, because the Act did not give the Judge the power to reserve questions of fact, but only of law, and accordingly it was the opinion of Chief Justice Monahan that the question whether the electors were aware of the incapacity of Captain Nolan ought not to have been submitted to the Court above, and the Chief Justice hoped that the legislature would take into consideration the Report in the Clitheroe case, and establish some principle for the Courts to go upon when such

  979
  cases arose. The Judges having declared that they could not find in the decisions of Election Committees any principle on which they could depend, formed their conclusion upon the broad principles of common law, that if an elector, knowing a candidate to be disqualified, deliberately voted for him, he thereby threw away his vote. Nobody, however, believed, as a matter of fact, that the great body of the Galway electors, in voting for Captain Nolan, had the least idea that they were throwing away their votes; and it was, he thought, in itself sufficient to show that the Government ought to legislate on this subject when they remembered that they had in that House a gentleman who, without polling more than 650 electors, sat as the nominal representative of 4,000 voters, by virtue of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, the Chief Justice of which had declared him not entitled to the seat. It might, perhaps, be suggested—indeed the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had given Notice of a Motion upon the subject—that it ought to be referred to a Select Committee, with a view to their recommending a remedy. To that he had no objection, so long as its reference to a Select Committee was not made a pretext for postponing legislation, for there was no question that legislation upon the subject was necessary; and required to be immediate. He could not help thinking, however, that whatever course were adopted in cases where reserved questions of law came before the full Court, and where the Judges were divided in opinion, there ought to be some further tribunals to which such cases should be submitted. There ought also to be a provision by which litigants in Election Petitions should be entitled to demand a case in points of law as a matter of right. There could be no doubt that the present system of trying Election Petitions was unsatisfactory, although he was quite prepared to admit that the Galway case standing by itself, or even in company with one or two others, would not be sufficient to justify such a change as that for which he was pleading. It could not, he believed, be pretended that the public placed much confidence in the decisions of the present tribunals, their chief effect, as had been well said, being to furnish the corrupt practiser with charts and compass by which to steer
  980
  his vessel. Indeed, when the new jurisdiction was created it was protested against in the strongest manner by the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and by the other Judges; and certainly if any confidence were reposed in it now, that confidence had been of very recent growth, for when the Election Petitions began to be tried under the Judges, there were complaints of the new tribunal from every part of the country. No doubt, the old tribunals were not always free from suspicion of party influence, and in the change which had been made, so far as England was concerned, they had secured a tribunal which might be said on the whole to be free from that reproach. In Ireland, however, the tribunals were composed of strong party men—for it was owing to the services which they had rendered their party that they had attained their judicial position—and it was easy to understand how difficult it was, when a Judge had all his friends arrayed on one side and all his foes on the other, to avoid being swayed by feelings in favour of his friends. It was not fair to the constituencies, to the candidates, or to themselves that the Judges should be placed in such a position, for by the present system a single Judge was sent to decide both the law and the fact, and from his decision there was no appeal. That was too much power to give to give to a Judge in important cases like these. By the ordinary principles of law a single Judge was never allowed to decide questions of fact without appeal, and in matters of this important character it would be well to adopt the same principle. In short, he knew no branch of English law in which the same procedure was adopted as in Election Petitions. The other evening, on the discussion of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, objection was taken to the proposal to vest the Commissioners with power to decide on questions of law and fact, on the ground that no such power existed in any other tribunal. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, however, defended the provision, and pointed to what he termed the precedent of the Court of Chancery. The hon. and. learned Gentleman, however, forgot that the decisions of the Court of Chancery could be, and were in fact, constantly appealed from, and that they were bound down by rules of evidence and of procedure. Such was not the case as regarded

  981
  the Election Judges. They might receive evidence that was not legal and reject evidence that was legal, and no means existed of revising their decision. This he submitted was a state of things which should not be allowed to exist if they wished the people of the country to have confidence in the decisions of the tribunal in question. From what he had said the House might imagine that he ought to conclude with moving that the old system of Election Petitions should be reverted to. He confessed that, in his opinion, that would be the best course; but he did not intend to make any such Motion, for he knew it would be hopeless to get the House to acknowledge that it had been in the wrong, by resorting to the method which existed previous to 1868. All he would do was to ask the House to consider carefully whether it would not be advisable to make a change in the principle of trying the Election Petitions by one Judge. It would be productive of the greatest possible advantage if some system were devised which would take from the shoulders of one single Judge the responsibility which now lay upon them, and he was fortified in that opinion by the views expressed by some of the Judges themselves. For instance, when Mr. Justice Wines was examined before the Select Committee in 1869, in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) as to whether it would be convenient or satisfactory to the Judges to have four Members of Parliament associated with them on the trial of Election Petitions, he said—"I think two would be sufficient; four would be too many. It would be be the greatest relief to me personally, and would, I think, fortify the tribunal." Mr. Justice Blackburn replied to the same effect—" If two Members of Parliament would serve, it would greatly improve the tribunal and and be an immense relief to me." An effort therefore should, he thought, be made to carry out that Amendment of the law. He would also suggest that, as to questions of law, there should be an appeal, and that in case the Court of Appeal was equally divided in opinion, an appeal to a higher Court should be provided. It was important that time should not be lost in this matter. They were probably on the eve of a General Election, and no hon. Member could tell
  982
  how soon he might find himself before an election tribunal, sought to be made responsible for the acts of some person who was no agent of his—acts which he would be the first to repudiate and condemn. He therefore hoped the House would concur in the terms of the Resolution he had the honour to lay before them.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the present system of trying Election Petitions is unsatisfactory and requires alteration,"—(Mr. O'Conor,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it a very undesirable course for the House to pursue, to proceed to condemn an Act of Parliament, unless they were prepared at the same time to amend it. I would have been far wiser if his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor) had brought in a Bill to amend the law by introducing a new tribunal, instead of proposing an abstract Resolution, the passing of which must weaken the authority of the House without effecting any change. At the same time, he concurred with his hon. Friend that it would be a hopeless attempt to try to bring back the old system of trying Election Petitions. That system was gone for ever, and there was hardly an hon. Member in the House who could wish to see it revived. The law of the House on this question had always been in a state of great doubt and difficulty, and the questions which had arisen in Committees of the House of Commons depended mainly upon the point whether a candidate was disqualified from the date on which his offence was committed, or whether his disqualification took place from the date of conviction. Although he (Mr. Collins) should have thought that the former view ought to have been taken by the legal portion of the House, yet on this point the most contradictory opinions had prevailed, as the cases of the Cheltenham and Horsham Petitions in 1848 testified. In that year two Select Committees came to conflicting decisions. In both cases the sitting Member had been guilty of bribery at a previous election, but the Cheltenham Committee, while unseating Mr. Berkeley, did not give the seat to his opponent, whereas the Horsham Committee not

  983
  only unseated Mr. (now Sir) Seymour Fitzgerald, but declared his rival duly elected. When the point was again argued in 1853, the Clitheroe Committee, presided over by Mr. Milnes Gaskell, decided in the same way as the Cheltenham Committee, and in view of the contradictory decisions on record, recommended that the law should be distinctly defined. The last House of Commons, of which he was not a Member, unwisely evaded the responsibility of settling the question, though it must have been aware that it would continue to crop up. For himself, he did not think the candidate of the minority should in all cases be entitled to the seat, but it might be well, as suggested by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid), to give it to him if he had polled a certain proportion of the constituency, for that would discourage improper practices. At present English Judges might decide one way and Irish Judges another. He hoped that early next Session—for, unlike his hon. Friend opposite, he did not anticipate a Dissolution prior to that time—the Government would introduce a Bill defining under what circumstances votes were thrown away.
  MR. BUTT,who had a Notice of Motion on the Paper for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the law on the subject, said, that two questions had been brought before the House in the course of the debate. One was the general question as to the unsatisfactory nature of the tribunal, a question which could very well be settled when the House would renew the power of the Crown with respect to Election Petitions which expired during the present Session; and the other, which was a subordinate one, related to the state of the law as to the votes given to disqualified candidates. On the second of these points he wished to say a few words. Twenty years ago he had been one of the Members of the Committee on the Clitheroe Election, in which case the Member returned was impeached on the ground that he had been guilty of treating at the previous election. After sitting three weeks the Committee found that he had been guilty of treating. The seat was claimed for the other candidate, and the Committee came to the decision that the candidate of the minority was elected. It was true the Galway case went on an-
  984
  other principle. Chief Justice Monahan, in dissenting from the rest of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, quoted the Report of the Clitheroe Election Committee with approval, and said it expressed the principles of the common law. When an elector went and voted for a candidate whom he perfectly well knew to be disqualified, he no more discharged the duty cast upon him by the law than if he voted for a dead person or the man in the moon, and his vote was thrown away. But, on the other hand, if the vote was to be deemed to have been thrown away, it should be shown that the voter had the disqualification distinctly in his mind, and his vote must have amounted to an act of wilfulness or perversity. To extend that principle of the law to doubtful cases, where the candidate's disqualification could only be deduced from a long inquiry into a variety of facts, appeared to him a perversion of the law. The decision of the Irish Court of Common Pleas in the Galway case was, he believed, disapproved by the entire voice of the profession both in Ireland and in England. The Court held not only that a large number of the voters must have had notice of the fact that there had been spiritual intimidation exercised, but that the person exercising it was the agent of the candidate. How, in many instances, were the electors to know that? Why, the elector who had a notice in English, telling him that the person for whom he was about to vote was disqualified, might not even know the English language. With a view to remedy such cases, the Clitheroe Committee recommended that a declaratory Act should be passed, providing that a vote should not be deemed to have been thrown away unless it had been perversely and wilfully given for a candidate who the voter knew could not sit in Parliament. He (Mr. Butt) had himself brought in a Bill for that purpose, but he failed to carry it owing to the opposition of his hon. and learned Friend who spoke last. It was, however, not too late to deal with the matter now, and he would suggest as an Amendment, that they should appoint a Select Committee, consisting of persons who were most likely to be acquainted with the law applicable to elections, to consider the existing law as to disqualified candidates. He did not know that he should be able formally to

  985
  move such an Amendment; but he had no doubt that when the question was settled, it would be settled in accordance with the view of the Clitheroe Committee. As to the tribunal which was now vested with the power of trying Election Petitions, he thought that it was scarcely a satisfactory tribunal. He, therefore, concurred with his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken in earnestly hoping that when the Bill for continuing the existence of this tribunal should be brought forward, it would be in such a shape that it would afford full opportunity for considering whether the tribunal could be improved, and that it would not be a mere Continuance Bill.
  DR. BALLsaid, that two views might be presented of the rule of law which enabled a candidate who had a minority of votes to take the seat under certain circumstances. One was, that the power of seating a person who had only a minority of votes might operate as a great discouragement to improper practices; because without such power it would be very small terror to a person of great influence that he might himself be liable to be unseated for bribery, when he knew that the effect of that very bribery would at another election operate in favour of his nominee. He had stated last year, that it would be rather a strong measure, where a few had been bribed, to seat the candidate of the minority, who might not have the slightest knowledge of the bribery on the other side. The whole question really depended on the circumstances of the case. If there was any transaction about which it was the interest of the parties concerned to keep silence, it was bribery, nor had the minority in all cases an opportunity of knowing whether bribery had been committed or not. But if the matter of disqualification was or might fairly be inferred to be patent to all, a different rule was applicable. And here he must say, according to his understanding of the case, that Mr. Justice Lawson, who was one of the ablest, most learned, and most impartial of the Irish Judges, did not found his judgment on the circumstance that a paper was placed in the hands of voters alleging that a particular candidate was disqualified, but upon the fact that from what came before Mr. Justice Keogh there was reason to believe that intimidation, not operating in isolated districts or particular cases, but general,
  986
  extending as embodied influence and affecting the whole country, was patent and notorious. It was on that, coupled with the fact that it was reported by the Judge that the agents of the candidate in the minority were unable to give notice of intimidation in every case, that Mr. Justice Lawson founded his judgment. He (Dr. Ball) was not prepared to say upon principle that any wrong had been done in the Galway case; and, indeed, the matter could not be dealt with upon abstract principle. All the Judges agreed upon principle, and that principle was this—that if there were disqualification accompanied by actual knowledge by the voter who chose to give his vote for the disqualified candidate, it was not unreasonable that the candidate of the minority should be seated. Three of the Judges drew the inference that all the elements were present which ought to go to make up disqualification—namely, notoriety, knowledge arising from the notoriety, prevention of actual service by violence at the moment the voter was entering the booth; and therefore they came to the conclusion in favour of the application of the rule. The other Judge did not, for he was not convinced that knowledge of the disqualification was brought home to the voter in such a manner that his vote should be considered as thrown away. In reality, therefore, the disagreement arose rather from an inference of fact than of law. Now, every tribunal was liable to error, and this liability would be just as great in a tribunal of five as of one, and all that could be done in law was to lay down a principle in itself correct, but the application of that principle by the Judges themselves could not be guarded from error. The other question, where the jurisdiction should be placed, was an important one. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor), that the Irish Judges were open to suspicion in this matter, because they reached the bench almost always through being Law Officers; but surely a man might be a Law Officer as well as a politician, and a politician without being a violent politician, and need not carry to the bench that ardour which distinguished young gentlemen who were just entering upon their career, to whom it might naturally appear a matter of import as to whether there was one hon.

  987
  Member more or less on either side of the House. In fact, he had never heard any imputation upon the Judges in election matters, until the Galway Election case arose, when no doubt, by agitation, a very strong feeling was got up. Indeed, even before the Court of Common Pleas had decided what the effect of the judgment was, a meeting was called in Dublin by the highest religious authority in a certain denomination for the purpose of condemning the Judge. Then, again, there was no mode of testing or judging this matter as regarded the general question, for the judgments hitherto given, according to his experience, had given general satisfaction, and surely no one would say that the decisions under the old system had given general satisfaction, for those decisions had been most discordant and inconsistent. A question of this kind, however, should not be brought forward on the basis of an isolated case, nor by a private Member; it should be dealt with in connection with the whole system, and be undertaken on the responsibility of the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought that no one could complain of the hon. Members for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor), and Limerick (Mr. Butt), for bringing the question under the consideration of the House, for, whether rightly or wrongly, a large amount of public excitement had been created by it, and, indeed, in regard to the Galway Election Petition, he did not wonder at the attention of the public being directed to the tribunal referred to, neither did he regret it. If he should have said anything having the appearance of discourtesy towards his hon. Friends, he could assure them that it was totally unintentional on his part to give them the slightest offence, and he hoped after that explanation his hon. Friends would dismiss any such impression from their minds, but he must say he saw no ground for the present Motions. The first Motion raised the question of the tribunal which Parliament had elected to try these Petitions, and the second, the state of the law in regard to the disqualification of candidates. He would consider the last question first, because there was less to be said upon it. The law was perfectly clear, though the application of the law, he confessed, was somewhat difficult. It was not sim-
  988
  ply because a vote had been given for a disqualified person that that vote should be thrown away. There must be also a knowledge in the mind of the voter, or an express notice of disqualification conveyed to his mind, of the party for whom he was about to vote being disqualified. Under what particular circumstances knowledge would be held to exist and express notice of disqualification conveyed to the voter was a question of a very different character. He could, therefore, understand how differently constituted minds could arrive at different conclusions. Speaking for himself, he candidly confessed he felt he could not have arrived at the same conclusion upon the facts of the case in question as had been arrived at by the tribunal referred to. That was, however, a very different thing from saying that the tribunal which had arrived at such a conclusion as that under their immediate consideration should be immediately put an end to or be discredited by the votes of that House. There was, moreover, no doubt that the principle was acted upon much further in the Galway case than it ever was before; but errors were incidental to all tribunals, and while they had perfect confidence in the uprightness, integrity, and impartiality of the Judges, they must submit to having important questions like these occasionally decided by a majority of one. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) did not like the idea of a Member being seated by the majority of a divided Court. The Act, however, required the Judges to decide who should sit, and since Parliament had resolved, after deliberation, to require this from them, the position should not be hastily withdrawn from. Indeed, the same thing might have occurred as the result of an inquiry by an Election Committee under the old system. The existing tribunal was erected after great deliberation and argument in that House. It was constituted in the face of the remonstrances of many hon. Members whose opinions were justly entitled to great weight, and he must confess that it was constituted against his own judgment, and that he had considerable misgivings of its success. He thought, therefore, that there was great force in the protest offered to it by the Lord Chief Justice of England with all his great power and force of language. That tribunal, however, was set up, as

  989
  late as 1868. Only one General Election had since taken place, and only one set of Election Petitions had been tried by those Judges, and whatever might be said of their decisions, nobody could charge those Judges with being either corrupt, partial, or dishonest in pronouncing those decisions. He said, therefore, from the insufficient nature of the experience they had as yet acquired, that there was no case shown for the alteration of the law, and he would be no party to restoring the jurisdiction to that House, which deliberately parted with it in 1868. But the hon. and learned Member proposed to amend the law by giving an appeal to the Exchequer Chamber. Now, the expense and delay attending such a proceeding would be very considerable, and as to an appeal to the other House, he frankly confessed he had an invincible objection to submit the question whether an hon. Member should or should not sit in that House to the decision of the other House of Parliament. On the whole, therefore, he did not see that any good would be got from the suggestions offered for the amendment of the existing tribunal; and though the question was a grave one, he did not think the House yet had any materials for a salutary change in the law. As to the appointment of a Committee for the purposes of inquiry, the law was perfectly clear as it stood, though its application to complicated facts was exceedingly difficult; and he did not think that any good would come from inquiry. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Mover would not press this question to a division.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, there was another point of view from which he thought the question ought to be regarded. The tribunal for the trial of Election Petitions was changed and the jurisdiction removed from the House of Commons for the express purpose of increasing the confidence of the public in the decisions arrived at. But would anyone say that the results of the Galway election had had any other effect than that of overthrowing all public confidence in the new tribunal, or that, rightly or wrongly, it had not produced a widespread impression in Ireland that the decisions in election cases depended very much on the political complexion of the Judge? The appeal to the Court of Com-
  990
  mon Pleas was a farce. It was no appeal at all. The Judge who tried the Petition stated the case in such a form as to leave no option to the Court, and the majority delivered a judgment which all the lawyers in England, and in Ireland, almost without exception, declared to to be in manifest opposition to the declared wishes of Parliament, when it legislated on the subject. The point was whether sufficient notice had been given to the electors of the supposed disqualification of the successful candidate; but this, which was the essence of the case, never came before the Court of Common Pleas at all. The Judge found as a fact that the electors had notice, and then asked the Court above to decide whether the candidate who polled so small a number of votes should or should not have the seat. The Chief Justice took the constitutional view and decided against the claim, but the other three Judges thought otherwise. It was high time, therefore, that Parliament should step in and declare the will of the nation. If there had been an appeal on the facts as well as on the law it would have been another matter, and this scandal and absurdity would probably not have arisen. In reality what had to be decided was a mixed question of fact and law—namely, what constituted due notice of disqualification, and then what legal consequences followed if due notice had been given? But the first point never came before the tribunal at all, but was decided adversely to all reasonable theories of representation by the voice of one man in an impassioned judgment which had set the whole country in a flame. He regretted very much that the Government held out no hope that it would review the operation of the existing Act, and he believed that if there had been any Irish Law Officers in the House, who knew and could interpret the general feeling of the country a different decision would have been arrived at.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

THE WORKSHOPS ACT.

  OBSERVATIONS. RESOLUTION.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLE,in rising to call attention to the evasions and failures in the enforcement of the Workshops Act in different populous districts of the Country, and to move—"That, in the opinion of this House, the present staff of Inspectors is altogether inadequate to carry out the provisions of the Acts," said, that already during the present Session the subject had in various ways directly or indirectly, been brought before the House, and he himself had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the 14th February, the reply to which made him think it was advisable to bring the subject still further before the public. His object was that the Workshops Act should no longer be a dead letter, for want of anything which Parliament could do to remedy the existing evil, but to ensure that it should be enforced, and give to populous districts all the benefits it was intended to produce. Two things out to be stated at the outset. In the first place, he did not bring this subject forward in hostility to the Inspectors, of whom as a body he knew nothing but what was favourable to them; and if there had been failures in the enforcement of the Act, it was because the Inspectors were unable to be everywhere at once. One Inspector who had volunteered to him (Mr. Dalrymple) some valuable evidence, wrote to this effect—"We do not shrink from work, but it is disheartening to see a greater amount of it imposed upon us than it is physically possible to carry out." Further, it was said that the evasions of the Act were of a casual nature, and due to local causes, but the instances which he intended to mention to the House were not of an exceptional character, and he believed that many similar ones might be discovered. Ever since the Amendment Act of 1871, by which the duty of inspection was transferred from local authorities to the Inspectors and sub-Inspectors of factories, had become law, there had been an insufficient number of Inspectors. As an illustration, he might refer to Leek, in Staffordshire, where the inhabitants themselves had volunteered to come forward, rather than allow the law, in this respect, to be a dead letter. The number
  992
  of workshops therein was 320, and of factories 42. It was true that there the Act was in full operation, but it was due to local zeal, and not to the state of the law that such was the state of things. The point which it was right to insist on was that legislation beneficent in its intention and useful in operation was a dead letter in many districts; and without dwelling on the loss to such places of having the law inoperative; what was to be said of the evil of having the law at once unrepealed and unenforced? Thus he had been himself told by the Vicar of a populous district in the Black Country that they knew what the law was, but they had begun to find out that it would not be enforced. He would first mention to the House a district of 7,000 inhabitants, between Stourbridge and Halesowen, near Birmingham, where there were 700 nail and chain shops, in which the children sometimes began to work before they were 12 years of age, and were engaged in blowing, which was very exhausting work; and, strange to say, there were no half-timers at school throughout that district. The violation of the Act there was not confined exclusively to small shops, but there was the instance of a large shop where the Act was regularly broken. That was really a typical case, because the district in which it occurred was a new one; it was neither town nor country, but was just the place where evasions of the law might be expected, unless there was proper inspection. In Bromsgrove the Act was also to a great extent unenforced, and the Vicar of that place, in his communication to him, said that some authority was wanted to rescue the Act from becoming a dead letter. The case of Bromsgrove was notable, because at one time the Act had been enforced there, and at the present time, through laxity of inspection, it was inoperative and required immediate attention. Similar complaints were made with regard to Oldbury and Halesowen; in fact with regard to the former place he had been informed that the half-timers had lain in wait for their schoolmaster and pelted him with brickbats because he had made an example of one of their number. At Luton, where the straw manufacture was carried on, a better state of things appeared to exist, arising from the advantage of increased inspection. The vicar stated that until lately the Workshops

  993
  Act was a dead letter there, but within the last three months the Inspector, who had been recently appointed to enforce the Act in that town, had been the means of bringing into the girls' school of the parish 112 half-timers, in addition to the number that previously attended it; and that he had caused an increased attendance at the boys' school. From Houghton Regis in the same neighbourhood, the Rev. Mr. Smyth, the vicar, informed him that there were 300 children under instruction; but that there was a deficiency of regular inspection. The Home Secretary admitted on a former occasion, in answer to a Question which he had put to him, that the Workshops Act had not been enforced so much as he could have wished, and he mentioned illness among the sub-Inspectors as probably the cause, and he expressed a hope that by the adoption of School Boards, armed with the principle of compulsory attendance, and their cooperation with Inspectors the number of Inspectors would not require to be increased. In 1871, however, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question from him (Mr. Dalrymple), said that he was afraid the Act could not be carried out effectually without the appointment of more Inspectors, and he supposed he must assume that the Education Act having come into operation, the Home Secretary did not now consider the increase of Inspectors necessary, but so far as experience went, unfortunately, the Education Act and the Workshops Act were rather conflicting upon this subject. In fact it had been pointed out to him that while one body of Inspectors were endeavouring to drive children into school, another body of Inspectors were trying to drive them out. The general result of the communications that had been sent to him was, that the Education Act would not supply the deficiency of the Workshops Act. Both in fact were needed. The Workshops Act ought to do—if he might so express it—in the gross, what the Education Act, happily elastic in its application to varied circumstances and places, could only do in detail, here and there as opportunity offered. One defect in the Workshops Act was, that it released parents or employers from the necessity of sending to school children who were not employed during all the week, and it had been pointed out to him that
  994
  if a man spent the first working day of the week in drinking, but kept a child employed from Tuesday every day up to Saturday, he had a legal right to withhold that child from school. Here was apparently a fatal defect in the Act, and he did not know whether it had been before noticed. What he asked for was, that the Workshops Act, as it stood, should be enforced, for when as was the case, our factory legislation was the object of admiration and of imitation even in other countries, it would be highly discreditable if it were allowed to get out of gear at home. He did not, as a rule, think it was of much importance to quote the example of foreign countries; but he had lately seen an interesting volume—a translation from the German of a work on English factory legislation—by Herr Von Plener, to which a preface was subjoined from the pen of the hon. Member for Sheffield. In that book it appeared that in Germany, in Switzerland, in Sweden, in France, and elsewhere, our factory legislation had been carefully imitated. He had noticed, too, that the Danish correspondent of The Times had lately mentioned that a Bill was before the Parliament of Denmark, having for its object the promotion of factory and workshops regulation. His Motion indicated what he considered to be necessary; all his correspondents were agreed in desiring increased inspection as the remedy for the cases of non-enforcement of the Act. He could not help hoping that good might have been done by again calling attention to the subject, but of how much greater importance would it be, if those who had charge of the factory legislation of the country would determine that the Act should for the future be everywhere enforced; if they would but determine by increased inspection, by turning the light of authority full upon places where the Act had been hitherto neglected, that for the future it should be a dead letter nowhere, but that it should be everywhere in operation to the full extent of its benevolent intention, and to the incalculable advantage of large and populous districts of the country. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that as the original Motion had been carried, that he do leave the Chair, the hon. Member

  995
  was precluded by the forms of the House from moving his Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. C. Dalrymple), for having brought forward the subject, and at the same time to compliment him on the able manner in which he had done it. For himself, he must say that with one or two exceptions the local authorities had neglected their duty in not putting the Act into force. It was true the Inspectors had reported that the Act had begun to work here and there, and Nottingham was referred to as a place where it was working admirably; but the fact was, that in the small workshops outside the town, and outside the reach of the local authorities, the state of the children had become worse there than it was before. In 1871, the Home Secretary introduced a measure which was a step in the right direction, but it had not been thoroughly enforced—owing to the want of more vigour in the Factory department—by the appointment of more Inspectors. In Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, and Derbyshire there were no Inspectors. In many places within those counties, children were kept to work as late as eleven o'clock at night towards the close of the week, and from many places not a child was sent to school under the Workshops Act. The appointment of superannuated policemen to enforce the Act would be a great advantage, and would not incur a large expense. The honour of initiating factory legislation belonged to this country, and at first it was useful and beneficial in its operation; but foreign countries were now surpassing us in the liberality and effectiveness of their legislation on this subject. Our education and labour laws wore in conflict instead of in harmony with each other, and the result was, that the Workshops Acts often operated as a hindrance to the working of the Education Act, inasmuch as the Education Board were always met with the remark that they had no power over the children employed in workshops, seeing that they came within the operation of the former statute. From the Report of a Commission on the employment of women and children in France lately issued, it was found that the most deplorable consequences issued from the neglect and overwork of children. The annual concsription tested the physical results of
  996
  this neglect and overwork. In rural districts 14,000 conscripts were required to furnish 10,000 recruits; in the towns, where the physical conditions were worse, no less than 24,000 conscripts were required to get 10,000 efficient recruits. That arose from the wretchedness, the infirmity, and the diminished stature and general debility educed by overwork and want of proper sanitary conditions. In fact, nothing could be more painful or humiliating than the report of the French people, and the remedy which was recommended by the French Commission was to prohibit entirely the employment of French children up to 10 years of age, and to allow them to be employed halftime only whilst between 10 and 13. That was, in fact, a close approximation to the system which prevailed in Germany and Switzerland, which had been found beneficial in its operation. No more important question could occupy the attention of the Government or Parliament than were the measures which wore necessary to give the rising generation of workers a healthy physique and a good education, and he hoped that the Government would see that the provisions of the Workshops Act would be rigorously carried out. That would be impossible if there were no additional Inspectors; and if it cost a few thousands a year, it would be nothing compared with the beneficial results to the education, training, and health of the future generation.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, with regard to the assertion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that the Workshops Act of 1871 had fallen into universal neglect, he was afraid it was owing to the fact that it was one of the cases in which the Treasury had refused to sanction useful expenditure. He regretted that the number of Inspectors had not been increased, for unless the number was excessive prior to the extension of the Acts in 1871, it was obviously insufficient now, and he disapproved the intention to have only one Chief Inspector, whenever either of the present Inspector-ships became vacant. A Recorder who was once presented with a pair of white gloves by the borough authorities rebuked them for their negligence in not detecting crime when he knew a vast amount of it existed, and those who supposed these Acts were being enforced were similarly ignorant of the actual

  997
  state of the case. Under the Factory Act, the Inspectors had to deal with large factories under one general management; but under the Workshops Act the inspection of workshops was much more difficult, owing to their small size and out-of-the-way situation; and the wide range of hours of labour—they might begin at 5 a.m. and need not close till 9 p.m.—threw a difficulty in the way of the Inspectors, who could not after an exhaustive day see that they closed at the last-named hour. The Inspectors were being employed to a certain extent by School Boards as visiting agents; whether this was in accordance with the intentions of the Government he did not know. On the passing of the Act of 1871, the Inspectors were increased from 45 to 53, but 100,000 workshops and 3,000 brickfields were added to their charge, so that the increase was insufficient for the additional duties imposed, and that fact, Mr. Baker, in his recent Reports had brought out very distinctly. Pressure was being put on the Members of that House by the industrial classes to obtain an extension of the Factory Act and a further limitation of the hours of labour. Whether it would be wise or unwise in Parliament to yield to that pressure he would not take on himself to pronounce, but this at least he would say—the working people of this country were entitled to insist that the laws which had been enacted should be firmly and effectively carried out.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he felt perfectly certain that if the complaints made respecting the insufficient operation of the Workshops' Act were correct, it could not be from any lack of sympathy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He humbly conceived the cause was to be found somewhere else. There had been, he feared, a reluctance to spend money in carrying out this Act. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Not the least in the world.] He was delighted to hear it. Then there was no reason why the Act should not be brought into successful operation. The Legislature having given its sanction to these remedial Acts, it would be far better for the Government to carry them into legitimate execution, and give the Workshops' Act, in particular, a fair chance of seeing how far it was calculated to mitigate the evils against which
  998
  it was directed. That there had been a reluctance to put the Act into effective operation in many districts there was no question, it being abundantly proved by the fact that many School Boards had brought it to the knowledge of the Inspectors that there were a great many more children in their various districts than attended the school, and as they were not in the streets they must be employed in the workshops. He cordially supported the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. C. Dalrymple), and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them how far the Act had been brought into operation, how many Inspectors had been added to the staff since 1871, and would also give the House some information as to what had been done in relation to labour in brickfields. A considerable number of Inspectors, even of lower qualifications than those they had been in the habit of considering essential to the operation of the Factory Act, should be appointed, and all the energies of the Department be brought to bear in carrying into execution these Acts, which, he agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), constituted a most glorious chapter in the history of the country, but which certainly those who passed them were in hopes would be carried into more full operation.
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, that, like many hon. Members who were not present, he thought this a most important discussion, and he was of opinion there were two questions at the foot of the matter. The first was, was it right for Parliament to legislate for the prevention of overwork and other grievances? The second was, could they provide the machinery for enforcing that legislation? To the first question Parliament had replied by passing several Acts directly intended to put an end to the specific evils arising from overwork by women and children; to the second, they had endeavoured to reply by creating a staff of Inspectors to see that the regulations enacted in these Acts should be properly operative. The complaint now made was this—with every desire and every effort on the part of the Government to do its duty with reference to seeing that these Acts were observed, they were not enforced. In fact, they were evaded too frequently as they saw by the newspapers—infa-

  999
  mously evaded—and he attributed this in many respects to the Government too often asking, "How much will it cost?" Moreover, the penalties inflicted were insufficient to deter interested employers from violating the law. He quite agreed that they ought to have a staff of Inspectors equal to the work to be done, and if it cost a few hundreds or thousands more, the money could not be better spent than in enforcing the humane statutes passed by the benevolence of Parliament. He trusted the Government would take the subject into their careful consideration, so that the public might be satisfied and the real object of the Acts carried into effect.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had great pleasure in acknowledging the moderate and dispassionate nature of the language used by the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. C. Dalrymple) and other hon. Members in treating on the subject, and would venture to give a slight sketch of the legislation that had occurred with regard to it. Our factory legislation had remained without extension for many years, and from 1833 to 1864 it was entirely confined to textile manufactures in great establishments, the supervision of which was comparatively easy, although it took several years to bring the Acts into effective operation. In 1867 the late Government endeavoured to extend the operation of the Factory Acts to a still more considerable number of the working classes, and the Workshops' Regulation Act was passed with that view. He agreed that the time must come when that legislation, careful and cautious as it was at first, would require revision, and that every day was showing what its weak points were. The Act of 1867 made no provision for an inspection similar to that provided by the Factory Acts, but left the matter in the hands of the local authorities. What was the result? In a few places, such as Leek, for instance, the Act was vigorously and usefully enforced, but in general it was entirely neglected; and it was in consequence of his being dissatisfied with the enforcement of the law being left to the local authorities that the Government introduced their measure in 1871 to place the workshops under the charge of the Inspectors of Factories. In the autumn of that year it was his duty to consider how inspection could be best applied to
  1000
  the extended number of establishments, and after full deliberation he applied for an addition of eight Junior Inspectors, being assured by those most competent to judge that with that addition the Acts could within a short time be thoroughly enforced. He had no doubt great progress had been made—so much, indeed, that it was idle to talk of the law being a dead letter. The hon. Member for Bute (Mr. C. Dalrymple), who used that term, had himself shown that the law was by no means a dead letter in one district; and he (Mr Bruce) might charitably suppose that what had taken place in that district had also taken place in others, which was, indeed, the fact. In 1864, when the first considerable amendment of the law was made, the number of sub-Inspectors was 22; the number added then was six; in 1867, 17 more were appointed; in 1871, eight; and recently he obtained the permission of the Treasury to appoint three more. The Reports of Inspectors in the hands of hon. Members came down to April, 1872, when there had not been time for new arrangements to take effect; and Reports to be issued soon would bring the work down to October, 1872, when it would be seen that, although all workshops had not been reached, the law was far from being a dead letter. There were 16,361 factories, and to these had been paid 18,011 visits. There were 63,431 workshops, and during the last six months 17,000 visits had been paid: but it would not be accurate to assume that all the 63,000 were workshops requiring inspection. In many, neither women nor young persons, nor children were employed; and in many, too, the hours fell short of those allowed by the Act. There were 1,739 brickfields, and 1,321 visits had been paid. With regard to them, it must not be supposed that every brickfield unvisited was also uninfluenced, for the news of what happened in respect of any of them travelled very fast, and a conviction in one case soon produced a wholesome effect in others. He must further observe that it could not be necessary that all the children under the operation of the Acts should be visited, or else the number of Inspectors required would be truly formidable. The Inspectors had a right to expect, and were daily receiving valuable assistance from workpeople, local authorities, the

  1001
  clergy, school boards, and the general public; and one of the Reports about to be issued contained important testimony on this head which indicated what might be expected in a not remote future. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) had suggested that an inferior class of Inspectors might be appointed; but he should be very reluctant to entrust the duty of inspection to uneducated persons, or to change a system that had worked on the whole so successfully. In conclusion, he would assure hon. Gentlemen that his anxiety as to the enforcement of the Acts and as to their importance continued as strong as ever; but his opinion was that it was best to proceed with caution, and not too rapidly.

  IRELAND—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. M'ALEESE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN GRAY,in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. M'Aleese, now suffering imprisonment in the prison of the County Antrim, under sentence for contempt of Court; and to ask if the Inspectors General of prisons have taken any step with reference to the treatment to which he is subjected, said, Mr. M'Aleese, the editor of The Ulster Examiner, a newspaper published at Belfast, was recently sentenced to four months' imprisonment and to pay a heavy fine, for having commented on a trial which had taken place before Mr. Justice Lawson and had terminated, and complained of the severity of the sentence which had been passed. It should be remarked that the comments were not published till after the close of the trial.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR JOHN GRAYthen resumed—He admitted that the Judge was perfectly right in sustaining the authority of the Court, and did not find fault with the severity of the sentence; but what he complained of was the treatment to which he had been subjected in prison—a treatment which the prison rules never contemplated in the case of persons who had not been convicted of crime, who had never been tried, and who had simply been sentenced to be imprisoned for con-
  1002
  tempt of Court. While he had been in prison his friends had been denied admission to see him; his request to allow him to supply his own food had been refused; his request for wine had been refused; and even a request that he might have a copy of the prison rules had been refused. His wife had certainly been allowed to see him, but always in the presence of some of the gaol officials, so that no private conversation could pass between them. At 5 o'clock every evening, Mr. M'Aleese was locked up in his cell without a fire, and he was not let out of his cell until 9 o'clock in the morning. He was not allowed to send away any letters until they had been submitted to the supervision of the gaol officials, and he was not allowed to have any bed beyond a straw bed. That was the way in which a gentleman, against whom no crime was alleged, was treated in a civilized nation. He (Sir John Gray) did not ask the House to interfere in the matter in any way, but all he asked for was whether the Inspectors General of Prisons had inquired into the case; and, if so, whether the treatment accorded to Mr. M'Aleese was considered to be proper treatment for a man charged with no crime, and only supposed to be held in safe custody?
  The MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he regretted that, as no Notice of the Question had been given him, he was unable to give the hon. Gentleman much information, as the Reports were in Dublin. It was not necessary to follow the hon. Gentleman into any discussion of the propriety of the sentence passed by Mr. Justice Lawson, as a Return moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) would place the House in full possession of the facts. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the comment in question had been made on a trial which was over, and was not then pending. Technically, that was true; but he must remind the hon. Gentleman that although the article for which Mr. Justice Lawson summoned Mr. M'Aleese to appear before him was upon an individual case that was over, yet that the Assizes were not over, and there were other cases of a similar kind to be tried. Statements having appeared in the newspapers as to the treatment of Mr. M'Aleese, inquiry had been made and official reports contradicted those

  1003
  statements in almost every particular, declaring that, though there was no fire, his room was warmed by hot water, that he was allowed to provide food, was also allowed the use of books and papers, and could see his friends. Further statements having appeared in the newspapers as to the treatment of Mr. M'Aleese, further inquiry was made, and an hour or two ago he had received a telegram which stated that a warder was always present at interviews between the defendant and those who visited him, except his solicitor and the Roman Catholic priest, and that, subject to certain restrictions, he was allowed to receive newspapers and letters. That was all the information he could furnish to the House. The Papers which had been moved for would give fuller information, and if the Reports received were not deemed satisfactory, one of the Inspectors General would be deputed to visit the prison. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no wish on the part of the Executive to treat Mr. M'Aleese with any unnecessary severity. It must be borne in mind, however, that the prison in which Mr. M'Aleese was confined was not under the control of Government, but under the control of the Board of Superintendence, and the Government Inspectors had no power to order any changes, even if they thought them necessary, but only to recommend them.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £7,500, to complete the sum for Works at Anstruther Harbour.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he had no particular objection to the amount being voted, but there were other harbours which deserved consideration. He alluded to Newhaven Harbour, where the fishermen were exposed to very great dangers from the want of sufficient protection. He had had communication with the Scotch Fishery Board, but they said they had no funds at their disposal to execute any works. Now, the harbour was a subject eminently worth the attention of the Government, and it ought no longer to be neglected.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he considered the money hitherto spent on Anstruther Harbour had been very badly
  1004
  laid out, and he hoped that future expenditure would be of some more public benefit than past.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, no doubt the money had hitherto been badly spent on that harbour, and the works reflected very little credit on those in charge. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, taken the trouble to inspect the locality, and steps had been taken to put matters on a more satisfactory footing. There was great force in the remarks of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) respecting Newhaven Harbour; but the large sums spent on Anstruther Harbour had prevented any money being voted to the other harbours.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £763, for Grant in aid of Expenses of Ramsgate Harbour.
  (3.) £130,308, to complete the sum for Public Buildings in the Department of Public Works in Ireland.
  MR. MONKsaid, there was an item of £7,129 in the Vote for the maintenance of the Phœnix Park, Dublin, and of that sum £4,535 was taken for keeping the roads and the deer-park in a proper state. That seemed to be an enormous charge, and he would like to hear some explanation in reference to it. He should like also to have some explanation as to the item of £500 for contingencies under the same Vote.
  MR. M'LARENtook exception to the sum of £17,036, for furnishing the 60 public offices in Ireland. In Scotland there were not a dozen public offices, and their expenses for furniture were not more than £4,000 a-year. £1,000,000 more revenue was obtained every year from Scotland than from Ireland, yet in several respects she got much less money out of the public purse than Ireland did.
  SIR JOHN GRAYhoped that Scotland would soon be relieved of any part of the charge for furnishing Irish offices. All they wanted was to be allowed to manage their own affairs and expend their own revenue, and they would very gladly on those terms furnish their own offices.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that considering the vast sums spent on the London Parks as compared with the sums spent for like purposes in Ireland, there was no

  1005
  reason to complain of the Vote in question. He assured the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) that he had carefully gone into each of the items composing the sum of £500 to which he referred.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £19,560, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, that since the year 1868 sums amounting to £5,000 per annum had been voted for a lighthouse on the Bird Rocks at the Bahamas, the estimated cost of which was only £10,000. They were now asked for £4,500 for the same purpose. He hoped some explanation on the subject would be given by the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he could not defend the delay which had existed in the construction of the lighthouse on the Bird Rocks. It was, however, not the fault of the Treasury, and he had himself written a strong letter, calling upon the Board of Trade not to ask the Treasury to provide money which they were not going to expend. The cause of the delay in the erection of this lighthouse was, in the first place, the absence, and in the next the illness of the architect; but he hoped the expression of opinion in the House to-night would stimulate the Board of Trade to more activity in the matter. The money voted had not, however, been expended, but had been from year to year returned to the Treasury.
  MR. BOWRINGwas glad to have received the explanation just given, as, if it had not been made, it might be thought that between £30,000 and £40,000 would ultimately be expended on a work the total estimated cost of which was £10,000.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKinquired how it was that we had to contribute to the erection of lighthouses at Barbadoes, the Cape of Good Hope, and Cape Bon, and what progress was making, as we had this Vote every year?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, with regard to the lighthouse on Ragged Point, Barbadoes, the Colonial Government had agreed to erect it at a cost of £3,400, and all that Her Majesty's Government was asked to do was to supply the lighting apparatus at a cost of £2,300. Con-
  1006
  sidering that the greater portion of the vessels that passed the Point were British and not Colonial, he thought that that was a fair expenditure of public money. The total cost of the lighthouse at Cape L'Agulhas, near the Cape of Good Hope, was £12,800, and the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to that was simply £2,200, the cost of the lighting apparatus. Lastly, the Bey of Tunis had agreed to erect a lighthouse on Cape Bon, and this country was asked to supply the light. This lighthouse was rendered necessary by the opening of the Suez Canal, and, as the Committee was aware 80 per cent of the vessels passing through that Canal were British. It was proposed that they should ask Foreign Governments to contribute a part of the £4,000 which would be required for the light; but their proportion would have been so infinitesimally small that he thought it would be beneath the dignity of this country to ask it, and he had therefore sanctioned this expenditure of £4,000 without the least hesitation.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £700, to complete the sum for Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad.
  (6.) £51,863, to complete the sum for British Embassy Houses, &c., Constantinople, China, Japan, and Tehran.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKinquired what the total cost of the Consular buildings at Tehran would be, and whether the sum now required for the Embassy House at Constantinople was for building or furnishing?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the estimate was for refurnishing the portion that was rebuilt after being burnt of the Embassy at Constantinople. In the case of Tehran the work to be done had been placed in the hands of an Indian officer, who—as often happened in such cases—had probably never undertaken a service of the kind before, and a building at Tehran with all the modern improvements of a house in London was of course rather expensive, besides which a great many casualties, such as the famine in Persia, had occurred, and had contributed to increase the cost.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that buildings

  1007
  in distant countries constituted a difficulty to the Government in this country; but he asked whether they might not have employed Persian architects? With respect to the sum of £2,000 for buildings at Constantinople, no doubt great inconvenience was felt from the constant practice of asking for re-Votes. If there was a reasonable probability of the whole sum being required during the year, then it was unfortunate that for the sake of lessening the estimate for the amount, the sum of £2,000 had been struck off.
  MR. MUNTZprotested against the slur which had been cast upon the Indian Service by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £37,675, to complete the sum for the Offices of the House of Lords.
  (8.) £40,482, to complete the sum for the Offices of the House of Commons.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, they had had a very important debate that week on the subject of Central Asia, and very elaborate details were presented to the House, which it was very important for the public interest should have been preserved. The newspapers had not very fully reported these elaborate details, Now, he saw a sum of £2,500 put down for shorthand writers reporting the proceedings of the Committees, and it had never appeared to him to be wise to take such accurate reports of the Committees while no official reports were taken of speeches in the House such as he had referred to. Would it not be judicious to increase this item next year, so as to have shorthand reports of the speeches which were delivered in the House preserved, and that the public might have the benefit of them?
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £46,713, to complete the sum for the Treasury Department.
  (10.) £77,330, to complete the sum for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices.
  MR. HEYGATEurged the desirability of a more satisfactory inspection in the case of burial grounds.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, a change in the matter could only be made by altering the Act of Parliament which dealt with it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £51,585, to complete the sum for the Foreign Department.
  (12.) £26,282, to complete the sum for the Colonial Department.
  (13.) £26,075, to complete the sum for the Privy Council and Subordinate Department.
  (14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £84,778, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  MR. BOWRINGafter expressing his regret at the absence of both the President and the Secretary of the Board of Trade at the time when the Estimates for that Department came on for discussion, said, that although the Vote had not materially increased in amount as compared with that of last year, yet the form in which the Estimates were presented was such as not to give to the House the amount of clear information which ought to be afforded to it in respect to the changes which had been made in the establishment of the Board of Trade. He should, therefore, like to have some further information upon the subject, since a foot-note in the estimate said "the establishment has been so completely remodelled that a detailed comparison between the estimates for the years 1872–3 and 1873–4 is impossible." The Estimates stated that the total staff for this year was to be 152, as compared with 150 last year, whereas on referring to the Estimates for 1872–3, it would be seen that it was then only 103. There was therefore an increase of 50 per cent in the permanent Establishment. A close investigation showed that the discrepancy arose from the transfer to the permanent staff of a great number of temporary clerks, involving a large eventual charge to the public for superannuation. From the way in which the estimate was made out, that important fact was concealed from the House of Commons altogether. Last year there were 55 clerks on the Establishment this year there were 110, and a much higher scale of salaries had been adopted. In regard to the upper staff, also, the Department had been remodelled; and the Estimates again did

  1009
  not convey proper information to Parliament on that subject. The Board of Trade had an invaluable Economical Library, consisting of some 30,000 or 40,000 volumes, which was inaccessible and useless to the public, although it cost for salaries and expenses not much less than £1,000 a-year. A Committee had been sitting on that matter for two or three years, and as he had often before directed attention to the desirability of making the library more useful to the public, he should be glad to know the result of their labours. It appeared that the librarian's office was to be abolished, and that there would be nobody to look after that valuable collection.
  MR. MACFIEcalled attention to the sum of £1,777 for salaries in the Design Office, and inquired how much was received from designs to counterbalance that charge?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in regard to the Library, the Committee had recommended—and effect had been given to their recommendation—that it should be placed in the Foreign Office and taken care of for the benefit of the Civil Service generally, instead of being the library of only one Department. He believed his hon. Friend (Mr. Bowring) was correct in his statements as to the changes at the Board of Trade. A very large number of persons had been employed nominally as "writers," but really in discharging the functions of clerks, to which they were quite equal, and their pay rose by increments according to length of service. They were not, however, within the rule of the Order in Council, which regulated the competition for admission to the Civil Service; and it was competent for the head of the Department to appoint them and regulate their salaries as he pleased. It was found that if that were to go on, it might afford an opportunity for defeating the intention of Parliament and the Government in throwing the Civil Service open to competition; because a man might say—"This is a duty which has not to be discharged by a clerk: a writer will do. My son or my nephew will do for the situation. I have to regulate his increment and he will gradually rise to a certain point." The only way to get rid of that was to make the writers who really did the work of clerks what they actually were. If they had given satisfaction to the heads of
  1010
  their Departments and were competent, they had been accordingly transferred from the position of writers to that of clerks. They were not put to the ordinary competitive examination, but went before the Civil Service Commissioners, and obtained a certificate of competency. Future vacancies, however, would be competed for in the ordinary way. As far as he was aware, it was only in the Departments of the Board of Trade and the Admiralty where a number of these writers were doing the work of clerks. He had not the necessary information to enable him to answer the question of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie).
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked whether the promotion of writers who did the duty of clerks to the position of clerks had been made since last Session, when attention was called by himself and others to the subject? If so, he should consider it very satisfactory.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that was so. Whenever the heads of Departments thought the writers fit, they placed them in the position of clerks.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that fault had lately been found with some of the officers of this Department, but he begged for himself to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the business of the Board of Trade was conducted by its permanent officials.
  MR. BOWRINGasked whether this great change in the position of the temporary clerks in the Board of Trade had been made throughout the whole service? That would be a serious matter, for all these clerks would have a right to superannuation, and the charge on the public would be very large, whilst the Estimates gave no information on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that the Board of Trade and the Admiralty were the Departments to which he had referred. He was not aware that the change had been made in other Departments.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he saw there was a charge for Inspector of Oyster Fisheries of £500 a-year. Why was this? It was to be supposed that the owners of those fisheries would be able to pay for an Inspector.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he was afraid there were some offices not actually necessary which were charged on the

  1011
  Estimates. This was an Inspector under an Act of Parliament.
  MR. HEYGATEsuggested that the agricultural statistics, for collecting which Parliament allowed a certain sum of money every year, might be rendered more valuable if a column should be given, to be filled up by occupiers and owners of land, showing the number of animals which had been attacked by contagious diseases during the preceding year, the percentage of deaths, and, perhaps, also, an estimate of the loss sustained by those deaths. He instanced the counties of Hereford and Chester, where statistics of this character had been collected, as an indication of the value attached to the information. About two-thirds of the occupiers of the soil in those counties had made voluntary Returns, the necessary forms having been distributed by way wardens in the case of Herefordshire, and by the Chief Inspector in that of Cheshire. In Hereford, and during 1872, 27,061 head of cattle were attacked by disease, and of these about 5 per cent died; the proportion being about the same in Cheshire.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwished to know whether the President of the Board Trade, after the experience of the last two years, was satisfied of the accuracy and value of the agricultural statistics? Letters had recently appeared in the public papers throwing great doubt on the value of these Returns; and unless some better system could be adopted, it would be a pity to spend so large a sum as £15,300 in carrying out the present one.
  MR. F. S. POWELLrepeated his objection to the Board of Trade retaining control over the registration of designs, which was essentially a Patent Office matter, and pointed out that, although the agricultural statistics furnished by the Board gave ample information about the grain produce of European States, the information respecting the United Kingdom was meagre and inaccurate. He suggested that if the Board had not sufficient power to enable it to collect the information required, it should take steps to secure such powers.
  MR. M'LARENmoved the reduction of the Vote by £500 the salary of the Inspector of Oyster Fisheries. The Act under which he was appointed never contemplated that he should be a permanent officer, for it ordered that all the
  1012
  expenses attending the granting of Provisional Orders to proprietors of oyster beds should be borne by the promoters of such Orders.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £500, for the Salary of the Inspector of Oyster Fisheries, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that modest £500 a-year was paid to a very efficient gentleman, who made able Reports to the Board of Trade on Oyster Fisheries from time to time. No objection had hitherto been made to the appointment of this officer, but beyond that the Board of Trade was unable to form an opinion upon some points, without being furnished with the result of an inquiry on the spot by a thoroughly competent person. He agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell), that the registration of designs and the Patent Office should be under one head with regard to agricultural statistics. The duty of the Board of Trade, however, in the latter respect commenced with the receipt of the statistics, and had control only over their tabulation and publication. He would consider whether any change could be made in the mode of obtaining the Returns or in tabulating and publishing them.
  LORD JOHN MANNERScould not agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that the proprietors of oyster beds alone benefited by the action of the Board of Trade. The public largely gained by the system of of which the Inspector formed a part; the public should therefore contribute to the cost. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. F. S. Powell) as to the agricultural statistics was one deserving consideration.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must again refer to the agricultural Returns, of the accuracy of which grave complaints were made. When a public department was paid £15,000 a-year for agricultural information it became a question whether it was worth while to go on furnishing it unless some improvement could be made in the matter. They should be either placed on a satisfactory footing or given up altogether.
  MR. BAXTERwas induced to believe, from what he heard from leading agriculturists, that these statistics were

  1013
  of considerable value. The whole subject, however, would be considered by the Government, with a view, if possible, to insure greater accuracy.
  MR. MONKthought with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that the payment for the Inspectorship of Oyster Fisheries should not be borne by the public.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 87: Majority 64.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,385, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
  MR. CUBITTcalled attention to the increased work which had been thrown upon the Charity Commission by recent legislation, and which caused it in one branch of its duties to act as a Nonconformist Ecclesiastical Commission. He disclaimed any desire of attacking the endowments of Nonconformists believing that it would be advantageous both for them and the country if they spent more in the endowment, or at any rate the sustenance of their ministers, and less in bricks and mortar and agitation. As the Charity Commission was a department of the Government paid from the produces of taxation, Dissenters were in using it, directly benefitting by State assistance. He referred more especially to an Act of the present Parliament 32 & 33 Vict. c. 110, under which a very great additional amount of property belonging to Nonconformists had been brought under the cognizance of the Commissioners, and he quoted instances of schemes recently issued by them, one of which authorized raising money to furnish and finish a chapel belonging to the Particular Baptists. He instanced also the Charities Incorporation Act of last Session, under which the Calvinistic Methodists of Wales were appearing as suitors at a public office, and asking for schemes to be prepared at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. He did not wish in any way to complain of this legislation, but he charged the
  1014
  Nonconformists with inconsistency in obtaining the passage of small acts which placed their different sects in a position akin to establishment, and, on the other hand, in bringing in Resolutions here in favour of disestablishing the Church of England, and in going about the country denouncing the horrors of a State Church. He left it to hon. Members opposite to object to the Vote.
  MR. MONKwished to ask on a point of Order, whether Vote 9 for the Privy Seal Office, which had been passed over, should not have first been put to the Committee and postponed by consent.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, although, generally speaking it was not the practice to withdraw a Vote without some notice, yet there was no necessity for the Votes to be put from the Chair in the order in which they appeared in the Estimates.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had good ground of complaint in reference to this matter, because, when particular Votes were passed over in this manner by private arrangement between those who sat on the Treasury bench and their immediate Friends, they were frequently brought on at inconvenient times, when hon. Members who were interested in them were unable to be present. Great dissatisfaction had been caused last year by the Government arranging with private Members who had given Notices of Motions on Votes not to bring on those particular Votes on particular days, and not giving the House any intimation of the arrangement.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, when an attempt was made to count out the House that evening the side on which the hon. Gentleman sat only contributed two Members to discuss Supply, and it was not considered desirable to discuss an important Motion in a very thin House.
  MR. DILLWYN(who had given Notice of a Motion to reduce Vote 9) confirmed the statement of the Prime Minister, and said he had assented to the suggestion when it was made to him.
  MR. NEVILLE GRENVILLEhoped to see the day when the Vote now before the Committee would be negatived, and the charities taxed to pay for their own management, in pursuance of a

  1015
  Resolution carried five years ago, but not yet carried into effect.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. A. Johnston) had already given Notice of his intention to move for a Select Committee to consider how best to give effect to the Resolution of five years ago, and a subsequent one to the same effect.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he observed from a foot-note attached to the estimate that the office of third Commissioner was to remain temporarily vacant. Now, he thought it was desirable the Committee should know definitely whether the office was or was not vacant, and in order to test the question, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,200, the salary of the third Commissioner.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,185, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the circumstances of the case were these—when a vacancy occurred in the office the Government were anxious, in the interests of public economy, to effect a saving by reducing the number of the Charity Commissioners. The present arrangement had been consequently made, by which two Commissioners were discharging the work, but that work had considerably increased, and the arrangement must therefore be regarded as experimental. The Government were desirous of dispensing with the services of a third Commissioner if possible; but then they were also anxious not to be obliged to refer again to the House for his salary, if it should be found necessary to fill up the appointment.
  MR. RYLANDShoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would persist in his intention to divide the Committee upon his Amendment. In that event, he should support him.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 76: Majority 9.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (16.) £17,421, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
  MR. MONKasked for an explanation of the item of £2,500, charged in this Vote as paid by the Civil Service Commission for writers' holidays.
  MR. BAXTERexplained that the Government had been induced by the representations made both in and outside the House, to allow the Civil Service Commission to grant the writers employed in the various Departments a holiday without deducting it from their pay, and the item in question was the result.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHcould not help thinking that altogether an improper function for the Civil Service Commission to discharge. He did not see why they should interfere at all in regulating the pay of any of the public Departments.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that it was the duty of the Civil Service Commission to keep a list of writers, to examine them, and supply them as wanted to the different Departments. The writers were paid on a uniform scale by the Civil Service Commission, and not by the Departments.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that the Civil Service Commission had no business to interfere in this way with the different Departments. It was altogether beyond their proper functions. He wished to know whether the Government meant to adhere to the system.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpromised to inquire into the matter, and unless they found some good reason for the practice they would be very glad to reconsider it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (17.) £15,354, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
  (18.) £7,150, to complete the sum for Imprest Expenses under the Inclosure and Drainage Acts.
  (19.) £36,476, to complete the sum for the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer.
  (20.) £1,995, to complete the sum for Offices of Registrars of Friendly Societies.
  (21.) £46,450, to complete the sum for the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c. England.
  In reply to Mr. F. S. POWELL,
  MR. BAXTERstated that the publication of the Census Returns would be

  1017
  completed this year, though the whole charge was not included in the Vote.
  (22.) £339,803, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
  MR. C. E. LEWIScomplained that the sum of £487 for the inspection of metropolitan vagrant wards was included in the Estimates.
  MR. HIBBERTexplained that the charge was thrown on the Estimates by Act of Parliament. The Government had appointed special Inspectors to visit the vagrant wards of the metropolis, at the request of the Commissioners of Police, and the change had been beneficial, the police no longer visiting the wards. He was happy to say that there were at least a third less vagrants in the metropolitan wards now than at this time last year.
  MR. M'LARENcomplained of a charge of £20,000, the expense of Parliamentary Returns.
  MR. COLLINSthought a good precedent had thus been established, and he hoped that in future years the system would be extended. He hoped that the expenses of the Inspectors of Health and Nuisances would be put on the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, the President of the Local Government Board some time ago gave the House a strong assurance that the expense of his Department would not be materially increased; but if hon. Gentlemen would look at the items of this Vote they would find that that expense had been very seriously increased. The item for Inspectors of Health and Nuisances had caused a very considerable increase of this Vote. He thought it was most undesirable to throw upon the Consolidated Fund local charges. If such charges were thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, he believed that in a very short time we should have all our towns superintended by Government officials.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, this Vote contained an item of £100,000 for Inspectors of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances. Who were these Inspectors? He had been informed that in many cases these appointments had not been sanctioned, and therefore the Government were too hasty in putting down so large a sum for the expenses of these Inspectors. There was a growing ten-
  1018
  dency on the part of the Home Office, and on the part of the Poor Law and Lunacy Inspectors who were not responsible to that House, and who had no interest in economy, to force an increased expenditure on the local districts, and the tendency to economy came from the local authorities. There was also in that Vote an item of £20,000 for obtaining a Return of the landowners of England, and he could not see how such a sum was necessary for finding out the landed proprietors in England. He should like to know whether it was true, as had been stated the other day, that in consequence of the Act passed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy), throwing the cost of the sick and lunatic poor over the whole metropolis, an expenditure of £500,000 had been brought upon the common funds of the metropolis. He himself thought that a large portion of that sum was due to the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty, in which he threw upon the general funds a charge of 4s. per head for the maintenance of in-door poor in the workhouses of the metropolis.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was not able to give a direct answer to the last question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), but if he put it on another occasion he would be able to give him the information for which he asked. He had little doubt, however, that some of the increased expenditure on the establishments of the metropolis arose in consequence of the Act passed by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman had found fault with two items in the Vote. The one was the item of £20,000 for obtaining a Return of the landowners in England. Now, the expenditure which it was proposed to incur in obtaining a now Domesday Book had originated in the House of Lords, for it had been suggested by the present Earl of Derby. He did not know if the Government could be held entirely responsible for that Vote, but he had no doubt that the money would be well laid out in obtaining the information which the Return would give. The other item to which the hon. Member took exception was the sum of £100,000 for Medical Officers and Inspectors of Nuisances. The estimate might be an excessive one for carrying out an Act like the Public Health

  1019
  Act; but he would remind the hon. Member that the the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said at Manchester that sanitas sanitatum was the great question of the day. He did not think, therefore, that the incurring of this great expense could be thrown upon the Government. The Sanitary Commission which was appointed some years ago made certain proposals, and the Act passed last year gave effect to some of these suggestions. The Government did not at first propose to give any aid to the local authority towards the payment of the Medical Officers of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) proposed that the Government should agree to pay a certain proportion of the salaries of these officers, and that proposal was supported by a great number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and accepted by the Government. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) complained that the President of the Local Government Board had not carried on the great combination of the several departments under the Local Government Board at a smaller expenditure than before. He (Mr. Hibbert) wished to point out that of the increase of £138,000, £100,000 was due to Medical Officers of Health, and £20,000 was due to Returns, and that the remainder of the increase was caused by the appointment of 12 additional Inspectors to carry out the Public Health Act, and by an increase in the sum for Poor Law Medical men, over which the Government had no control. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Department had endeavoured to carry out the combination of the different departments under the Local Government Board not only with efficiency, but with economy.
  MR. COLLINSthought that all matters connected with health and sanitary improvement should be left to the local authorities. If, however, the Government imposed certain duties on the local authorities, it was quite fair that they should pay a part of the cost.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, there was little use complaining, but as they had incurred the Bill they must pay it.
  MR. CORRANCEpointed out that in this item of £100,000, they had only half of the expense which had been occasioned by the public, allowed, and that
  1020
  the expense of these Medical Officers and Inspectors was not nearly what it would be when they were fully appointed. What hope or expectation did the hon. Gentleman entertain that the appointment would be completed? He would certainly ask for an explanation how it was that this large sum should be at present required, and upon what data he based it?
  MR. CAWLEYwould be glad if the hon. Gentleman would state what proportion of Medical Officers who had been appointed had elected to take the contribution from the Government, and how much of the £100,000 would be required? He would also like to hear an explanation of the large increase in law expenses—from £700 to £3,675.
  MR. HIBBERT,in replying, said, that that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would agree with him that it was impossible for him to carry in his head the Returns of the different local authorities in the country. He could not tell him how many authorities had refused to accept the Government aid; but from day to day there were from 50 to 60 different applications to deal with, and it was impossible, however much he tried to ascertain the number, to keep a correct note of them. The last time he had any Return showed that 150 authorities had appointed Officers of Health, and 145 authorities had appointed Inspectors of Nuisances; and, in addition to that, there were seven combinations of whole counties which had appointed Officers of Health. That, he thought, was a very satisfactory state of matters. He could not state the number of local authorities who had declined to accept the Government aid. It was the wish of the Government to make the system as elastic as possible, and by that means it had tended very greatly to carry out the intentions of the Act. With regard to the law charges, the increase was put down in consequence of the cases coming from local authorities on which daily consultation was required.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE,as a member of the Sanitary Commission, was willing to share with the Government the responsibility of the increased cost in respect of medical officers. He wished to know on what data the £100,000 had been charged; whether it was merely an estimate, or whether it was based upon expenses which had been already

  1021
  ascertained from each locality? With respect, however, to the Inspectors of alkali, he asked what prospect there was of being free for the future from this Vote, and he expressed an opinion that the expenses under the Alkali Act should for the future be borne by the alkali manufacturers themselves.
  MR. HIBBERTreplied, that the Local Act Inspectors were only transferred to the Board from the 1st of January, and the various questions arising in connection therewith had not been yet considered. The £100,000 was a more estimate.
  (23.) £12,335, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission.
  (24.) £43,850, to complete the sum for the Mint.
  (25.) £14,795, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
  (26.) £23,456, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.
  MR. HINDE PALMERasked whether the salary given as compensation to the Law Officers of the Crown under the Act of 1852 was to be considered as attached to the offices of the Law Officers, or whether it was to be paid only to the gentlemen who held the offices when the salary was created? He thought that in the case of the Attorney General for Ireland, the Lord Advocate for Scotland, &c., the compensation should have merged in the salary of the appointment. So far as he could construe the Act, it was never intended to apply this compensation to the offices, but that the compensation should be given to gentlemen who at the time held the offices and lost the fees.
  MR. MACFIEtrusted that the Government would carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, a Bill to carry out certain reforms in the Patent-office was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and would, no doubt, soon be presented to Parliament.
  (27.) £21,506, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
  (28.) £19,081, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.
  (29.) £3,764, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissioners.
  (30.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £365,703, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Public Departments in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
  MR. SCOURFIELDsuggested that the printing and stationery account might be reduced by issuing fewer Reports, and said there were so many at present that they wore never read.
  MR. CALLANmoved that the same account should be reduced by £13,000, being the amount of certain defalcations in parchments, vellums, and skins recently discovered in Ireland. His reason for doing so was that no satisfactory explanation had been given of how the defalcations had been allowed to escape previous detection.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £352,703, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Public Departments in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (31.) £20,381, to complete the sum for the Office of Woods, Forests, &c.
  (32.) £35,072, to complete the sum for the Office of Works and Public Buildings.
  (33.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  MR. RYLANDSobjected to the useless expenditure incurred under this Vote, and would therefore move its rejection. It belonged to an age gone past.
  MR. MONKcomplained of the magnitude of the Vote, although it was not so large as formerly.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he regretted that from the very nature of the Vote he was unable to offer any explanation. He thought, however, that valuable information was obtained by means of its expenditure.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the noble Lord's first reason was a very good one for the rejection of the Vote.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 22: Majority 61.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Portpatick Harbour (71).
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (46), and passed.

ARTILLERY—FOREIGN BREECH-LOADING GUNS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE,according to Notice, rose to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government relative to the late improvements in foreign breech-loading guns. No doubt their Lordships were aware that great changes and improvements had been effected within the last two or three years both in field pieces and great guns, and it was therefore the more necessary that we should keep a look-out for what was being done
966
by other nations—more particularly as some of them appeared to be adopting a system which we had given up and discarded—namely, the breech-loading plan. We were the first to take up the system of breech-loading artillery, and we gave it up after what he did not consider a sufficiently long trial. It was odd that other nations should be adopting it after, of course, having considered the reasons which had induced us to give it up. No doubt they adopted it because they were of opinion that it afforded much greater facility for loading, and consequently gave a greater quickness of fire, and that the men who served breech-loading guns could be perfectly out of rifle shot. He admitted that a system which would answer very well for field guns would not necessarily answer for guns of 25, 30, or 40 tons—that was his opinion; but we ought not to omit paying due attention to the fact that guns of 35, 40, and, he was told, 50 tons were being manufactured by other nations on the breech-loading principle. Ever since armour-plating was brought into use for ships and forts there had been a constant race going on between plates and guns. We had been building guns of 12, 18, and 25 tons, until at last we turned out what was regarded by us to be a wonder of the world—this was "the Woolwich Infant," which was manufactured about three years ago—at which time it was supposed to be the most powerful gun that any country possessed—but judging from what he saw in the newspapers it was exceeded by something manufactured elsewhere. The only 35-ton guns we had for sea service—and he believed they were four in number—were on board the Devastation, which for her armament entirely depended on those guns. In his opinion, and that of several naval officers and artillery officers whose opinion was entitled to respect, the plan of rifling now in practice with us was not the best one. Foreign nations were adopting a different plan. In our large guns the shot was rotated by a small stud, which was not more than half an inch in diameter. Now in a 35-ton gun throwing a shot of 700 1b., and fired with 110 1b. of powder, such a stud could not last very long. The French were said to be manufacturing a gun which was to be an improvement on our 35-ton gun, which it had been supposed nothing could beat.

967
The new French gun was said to have a 12½-inch bore, which was half an inch greater than ours; it weighed a ton less than ours—34 tons, instead of 35 tons—and it threw a shot of 850 1b. fired with 137 1b. of powder. The result was an initial velocity and a range much exceeding ours. As to rifling, while he did not believe Captain Scott's plan was perfect, he did believe it was much superior to that in use for our guns. As to the length and weight of guns there was no limit on these points as far as artillery on shore was concerned; but in the naval service length was of much importance, because the longer the gun the larger the turret required. He hoped to hear from the noble Marquess the Under Secretary for War that Her Majesty's Government were alive to the importance of what was being done by other nations in respect to improvements in artillery.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he had no doubt that in placing his own opinion on record the noble and gallant Earl had attained one of the objects which had induced him to make the inquiry which he had just addressed to the Government because he gathered from his concluding words that his purpose in asking these questions was simply to obtain an assurance that the War Department was exercising due vigilance with regard to the experiments of continental artillerists, and was prepared to profit by the experience of other countries. In reply he could assure the noble and gallant Earl that the Department had not only very ample but very accurate information as to the progress of the science of artillery by other nations; but, as the noble and gallant Earl must no doubt be aware, a considerable portion of the information obtained on such subjects for the use of the Government was such as it was customary to treat as confidential, and therefore he would not expect him to depart from usage by entering into details as to the information to which his question had reference. As to the technical matters discussed by the noble and gallant Earl, he hoped he would excuse him from following him over that ground, and allow him to express his opinion that questions of that kind were better relegated to the responsible Department of the Government than dealt with by discussion in either of the Houses of Par-
968
liament. He should not, however, like it to be supposed that experiments recently made had led to any mistrust of or dissatisfaction with the guns now in use in our service. On the contrary, he was in a position to say that not only in the opinion of the highest English authorities, but also in that of distinguished foreign officers of artillery, both our field-guns and our heavy guns were eminently satisfactory. He might add that there was no well-grounded apprehension of our being left behind in any competition with foreign artillery. He believed that we were able to make larger forgings of metal than any other country. We had recently erected at Woolwich a steam-hammer, the power of which was in excess of that possessed by any other nation. Then, in the article of powder, we could hold our own. For every type of gun, as he understood, there was a particular kind of powder. He was informed that to the particular kind of powder with which the gun was fired some of the results alluded to by the noble and gallant Earl were to be attributed, and that we were able to make powder of any kind as well as any other nation. Again, we enjoyed another great advantage—namely, that in no other country were experiments conducted on so large and complete a scale as in England. He was happy to say that recently an officer accredited by the War Department had been allowed to be present at a series of experiments in France, and that he had been very courteously received by the French Government. If the noble and gallant Earl required for his own satisfaction any further information which it was in the power of the War Department to give him, the Department would be happy to communicate it to one so able and experienced in matters relating to ships and guns.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEwas understood to say he doubted that we could turn out any gun equal to Krupp's gun manufactory at Essen.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that two years ago the Superintendent of the Woolwich factory said he was prepared to make a 60-ton gun if the Government required it. He believed that at the present moment the Superintendent would be prepared to undertake the manufacture of one of 100 tons.

PORTPATRICK HARBOUR BILL. (No. 71.)
(The Earl Cowper.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE(on behalf of Earl Cowper) in moving the Second Reading of the Bill explained that its object was to relieve the Board of Trade from the statutory liability to maintain the works at Portpatrick Harbour, which was vested in them because that harbour had been a station for packets between Portpatrick and Donaghadee. Now that it was no longer a packet station the Board of Trade wished to be relieved of it.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, there would be no objection to the Bill if any means of maintaining the harbour when the Board of Trade was relieved of it were provided. Could the noble Marquess state who was to take charge of its maintenance. If there were no authority to undertake that charge, the harbour would go to ruin when the Board of Trade was relieved of it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he could not then answer the question in a positive manner; but many harbours were maintained by local authorities, and he supposed that would be the case in this instance. He would, however, make inquiry on the subject, and at the next stage of the Bill would be prepared to give their Lordships some definite information on the point.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.