Sitting of 27 July 1874

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£25,497,568) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Great Seal Offices [Salaries, &c.]*.
Ordered—First Seeding—Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Suspension* [235].
Second Reading—Vaccination Act, 1871, Amendment* [226]; Great Seal Offices* [223].
Committee—Report—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* [207]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) * [209]; Real Property Vendors and Purchasers* [137–233]; Ileal Property Limitation* [138]; Lough Corrib Navigation* [218]; Pier and liar-hour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) * [229]; Church Patronage (Scotland) * [159–234].
Considered as amended—Registration of Births and Deaths * [224]; Endowed Schools Acts Amendment* [228]; Turnpike Acts Continuance* [186]; Valuation (Ireland) Act Amendment* [134].
Third Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation * [220]; Royal (late Indian) Ordnance Corps Compensation* [219]; Boundaries of Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries * [212], and passed.
Withdrawn—Land Titles and Transfer* [136]; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) * [217]; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment * [179]; Court of Judicature (Ireland) * [168]; Tribunals of Commerce * [2].

COMMISSIONERS OF EDUCATION, IRELAND—NATIONAL SCHOOL AT ALTANAGH.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that endeavours have been made and are still being prosecuted to obstruct or prevent the establishment by the Commissioners of Education of a National School in the neighbourhood of Altanagh, county Tyrone, under the management of the Catholic clergyman of the district, such obstruction being effected by the landlord evicting or threatening to evict each holding or premises in which it has been sought from time to time so to establish a national board school, unless on the condition of the board nominating himself as manager of any such school; whether it is true that the school last or most recently opened by the national board in the district has not since been placed under notice of eviction by the landlord in prosecution of such a purpose; and, whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table, Copies of any Correspondence between the Commissioners of Education and the landlord in question in reference to those schools; and Copies of any Reports upon the subject by any of the National Board Inspectors?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that as far as he had been able to ascertain the facts, the first application made by the Roman Catholic clergyman of the district of Altanagh, county Tyrone, to the Commissioners of Education to establish a National School there under his management, was rejected because he proposed that the school should be built on a site which was deemed unsuitable for the purpose. He then applied for leave to have a school established on another
758
site which the School Inspector of the district reported to be suitable, and leave was given for the establishment of a school there; but the owner of that site objected to the erection of a school upon it, and he believed that the question of ownership would have to be decided by a Court of Law. As to the Correspondence which had passed on the subject, there would be no objection to its production, if the hon. Gentleman would move for it.

BOARD OF TRADE—LIGHTHOUSE FOR CARDIGAN BAY—QUESTION.
MR. HOLLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it has been decided to erect a Lighthouse on the mainland on the north shore of Cardigan Bay?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, that the applications made through the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Cardiganshire, for the erection of a lighthouse in the vicinity of St. Tudwall's Roads, Cardigan Bay, were now receiving the attentive consideration of Trinity House and the Board of Trade. A final decision had not yet been arrived at on the subject, but would very soon be, and it might be hoped satisfactorily.

INDIA—KIRWEE BOOTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether in the matter of the claims of the Troops to further captured property as part of the Kirwee Booty of War, Her Majesty's Government intends to follow the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Army Prize, and the precedent set in the same matter by Lord Palmerston's Administration in 1854, by submitting these claims to the decision of the High Court of Admiralty, under the Act 3 and 1 Vict. c. 65?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I must remind him that the question which Lord Palmerston referred to the High Court of Admiralty in 1864 was, what forces or portion of the Army in the field should share in the amount which had been granted by the Crown as prize-money. The question which my hon. Friend now asks us to refer is, what should be considered prize-money.

  759
  That being a matter decided on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Advisers, Lord Salisbury is not disposed to reverse the decision of his Predecessors, who refused to allow the question to be submitted to the tribunal referred to.

ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state how far he is prepared to give effect to the representations on behalf of the Army Medical Service lately made to him by Sir William Fergusson, Mr. Ernest Hart, and others, spokesmen of a deputation of the British Medical Association?
  MR. GATHOENE HARDY, in reply, said, he had answered a Question on the subject not very long ago. It would be impossible for him to state in detail what was intended to be done within the limits of a reply to a Question, and he would therefore reserve his reply until he was able to state fully the decision which had been, or might be, arrived at by the Government.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—FEVER IN MARYLEBONE.—OJJESTION.
DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether any report has been made to him respecting last year's outbreak of fever in Marylebone and neighbouring districts, supposed to be connected with infected milk; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that within the last few days he had received a detailed Report on this subject, but he had hardly had time to consider it. In his opinion, it would not be desirable to lay it on the Table of the House; but the more material portions of it would probably be published in the Appendix to the Report of the Local Government Board.

POST OFFICE—SALARIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Postmaster General, If he will inform the House when the scheme for improving the position of the employés in the minor establishments promised before the Whitsuntide Recess will be promul-
  760
  gated? The hon. Member said he asked the Question because he was informed that while the improvement had taken place in the metropolis, it had not reached the provinces. A Petition had been sent from Sheffield, complaining that the class of minor employés had received no benefit.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that an experimental scheme was first tried in the metropolitan district. It was not true that the position of the minor employés in the country was worse than it was three years ago, for since 1872 a great improvement in their pay and status had taken place; and that had been the case also with respect to Sheffield.

IRELAND—ORANGE PROCESSION-CASE OF JAMES MALLON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MCCARTHY DOWNINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Ulster Examiner" of the 14th instant, that James Mallon, while standing on the grounds of the Catholic Seminary at Armagh, and in conversation with a Catholic clergyman, was dangerously wounded by a bullet fired by one of an Orange party assembled at Armagh on the 13th instant, in the presence of County Inspector Faussett and a constabulary force; and, whether any arrests were made and an inquiry instituted, and is Mr. Faussett the same person who searched the Catholic Cathedral at Armagh for arms?
  MR. VANCEalso asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated by the "Ulster Gazette," that a perfectly legal procession in Armagh was attacked with stones by an infuriated mob, who were the aggressors, and that there was no evidence that the shot which was fired proceeded from the Orange party?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, from inquiries I have made, it would appear that on the 13th instant an Orange procession passed through Armagh at about 11 o'clock a.m. On their way to the railway station, stones were thrown at the processionists by the Roman Catholic party. The Orangemen in return threw stones at the Catholics, and fired shots—variously estimated at from 6 to 20. One shot wounded,

  761
  but not dangerously, a man named James Mallon in the left arm. When struck he was standing in a field at a considerable distance, near the Roman Catholic seminary, in company with a Catholic clergyman. It is not known from which side the stray shot proceeded; but every effort is being made to bring the person who fired the shot to justice. Should he be detected, the Government will do their best to ensure his conviction. Mr. Faussett was present and rendered every possible service in preventing a more serious collision With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I have made inquiry, and find that he has been misinformed, as Mr. Faussett did not conduct the search referred to.

THE NEW CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can give the House the names of the three new Charity Commissioners which it is the intention of the Government to appoint?
  MR. DISRAELI: I hope, Sir, to be able to follow the precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but it will not be convenient to give the names to-day. A very short time, however, will elapse before they are given.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: May I ask if the Government will not proceed with the third reading of the Bill to-morrow unless the names are given? If the right hon. Gentleman follows precedent, he will give the names before the Bill leaves this House.
  MR. DISRAELI: I do not think the course of Business ought to be interrupted by such a circumstance; but it is possible they may be given before that time.
  MR. MUNDELLA: On the Question, that the Bill be read a third time. I shall move that it is inexpedient to pass the Bill until the names of the Commissioners are given.

IRELAND—DUBLIN UNIVERSITY.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering that the Papers relating to the proposed changes in the constitution of the University of Dublin have only just
  762
  been placed in the hands of Members, the absence of many Irish Representatives, and the state of Public Business, he will be able to afford an opportunity for full discussion which, at an earlier period of the Session, the Government undertook to provide?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member was labouring under two misconceptions—first, that there was an undue absence of Irish Members from the House; and, second, that the Home Secretary had promised that the Government would afford any particular opportunity for the discussion of the question. What the Homo Secretary had stated was, that the question would be fully discussed either by the Senate of the University, or the House; and anyone who had watched the proceedings of the former body, would be aware that there had been a full discussion on the subject. He would remind the House that the proposed action consisted merely in the carrying out of the provisions of the University of Dublin Tests Act of 1873, and in the formation of a new Governing Body for the University. With regard to this latter change, the proposals made had met with the approval of all the parties prominently concerned, and he did not think it necessary to give a day for a discussion of the subject at that late period of the Session. It would be open to the hon. Member to raise the question on the Appropriation Bill.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. LOCKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is or not the fact that the law of arrest on mesne process still exists in the Channel Islands, and that an Englishman going to reside in Jersey may, without any notice or action brought, be arrested for a debt incurred in England, and to a creditor resident in England, notwithstanding the abolition in England of the law of imprisonment for debt?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he believed the Imprisonment for Debt Act was not intended to apply to the Channel Islands. Since the Question had been put on the Paper, he had taken steps to procure information on the Subject.

THE JUDICATURE BILLS—POSTPONEMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY JAMESasked, Whether the Government have considered the expediency of proceeding with at least one of the Judicature Bills this Session?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, before we came to a decision on these Bills we gave them all the consideration their importance demanded, and the opinion of Her Majesty's Government was, that it would not be to the public advantage to proceed with one only. They were so drawn and so fitted into each other, that it would have been alike inconvenient and inexpedient to have taken such a course as would have separated them from each other. From the state of Public Business, I believe it would be quite impossible, if we looked to carry both Bills this Session, that we should succeed. Were we to try to do so, I believe the Session would be procrastinated to an extent probably not desired by most hon. Members. As I am on the subject, I may say that some days before we arrived at this decision, the Lord Chancellor had informed me it would be necessary, in consequence of the delay respecting the Rules, to extend the time from the 3rd of November to the 1st of January. That was inevitable; and, of course, that was a circumstance which we took into consideration. Now, it appears to me that if these Bills are reintroduced and subjected to the advantage of a calm, and at the same time energetic and vigorous, discussion, they may be carried next year, and quite in time for the arrangements of the summer Assizes. Therefore, we shall ask for a suspension of the Bill of last year for a term not beyond November, 1875. It is probable that by May next year we shall have brought the matter to a conclusion.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I understand that the Rules have left the hands of the Judges, and have been placed before the Queen. I want to know whether they can be laid on the Table before the end of the Session?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, as my hon. and learned Friend and the House are aware, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of last Session provided for the Rules being laid on the Table of the House after they had been made by Her Majesty. As no such Rules have
764
as yet been made by Her Majesty, I am unable, in accordance with the sense in which the expression is used in the Act, to lay them on the Table; but, fully appreciating the natural anxiety of the legal profession, and of the public, to become acquainted with the Rules which have been prepared by the Judges, and submitted by them to the Lord Chancellor, I shall be happy to lay a Copy of them on the Table, if my hon. and learned Friend will move for it.

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

EPPING FOREST.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  DR. LUSHrose to call attention to the condition of the sanitary district of Epping, and to move that a Copy of the Correspondence relating to the subject be laid on the Table.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the subject was one of great difficulty. He thought he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter had now approached a point at which further delay would be avoided; but he believed it would not be conducive to the welfare of the public service to lay upon the Table the voluminous correspondence which had passed between the Local Government Board and the authorities at Epping. There could be no question that the Epping sanitary authority was under the same obligation as its predecessor to enforce a water supply in the district, and he hoped it would comply with that obligation.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—CASE OF COMMANDER CHEYNE.

  MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE.
  SIR JOHN HAY, in rising to call attention to the case of Commander J. P. Cheyne, R.N., and to move—
  "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to direct that the Pension of £200 a-year awarded to the said John Powles Cheyne be paid to him, in addition to his retired pay, without deduction, for the term of his natural life, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same,"

  765
  said, it was a subject which he had on a former occasion introduced to the notice of the House, and which had been before them by Petition. Commander Cheyne was an officer of considerable merit and distinction, who, after having served for a considerable period, and on three occasions in the Arctic expeditions, was appointed to the Simoom, one of Her Majesty's troop-ships on Indian service. His services in the Arctic regions had been so considerable that promises of promotion were held out to him. He was the first lieutenant of the Simoom during the period of the necessary hurrying out of troops to India at the time of the Mutiny. Whilst engaged in this service, which he performed with great credit to himself and advantage to his profession, Commander Cheyne, when off the Cape of Good Hope, in the attempt to save a man's life, received a severe blow upon the head, which fractured his skull and otherwise seriously injured him. His career was thus cut short, and he returned to England in impaired health. The Duke of Somerset, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, with great kindness appointed Commander (then Lieutenant) Cheyne to the guardship at Portsmouth, for the purpose of training boys. The noble Duke stated that his condition of health was such that it would be improper to promote him, but that he might render good service in the position in which he had placed him. Commander Cheyne continued to render good service there for some time, until the officers at Portsmouth under whom he acted, again recommended him for promotion. The Duke of Somerset recognizing the great suffering which he (Commander Cheyne) had endured from his wound, and his great merit as an officer, and looking at the small number of officers that he could promote, together with the fact that the medical officers had pointed out that it was impossible he could serve in the Tropics, in consequence of his serious wound, appointed him as one of the lieutenants of Plymouth Hospital for the period of his natural life. Some doubt had since existed as to whether that appointment was for life or not, although the Duke of Somerset recognized the fact in certain correspondence, as would be seen by the Returns laid on the Table of the House by the late First Lord of the
  766
  Admiralty. It would be seen that he was appointed to succeed an officer who died at the age of 78, and there was no doubt that in 1863 the officers appointed to the lieutenancies of Plymouth Hospital were continued in this service for the period of their lives. This office gave Commander Cheyne the pay of a lieutenant of the Navy of £127 15 s. a-year, and, in addition, his pay as a lieutenant of Plymouth Hospital was £200, making £327 a-year, together with a house partly furnished. In the year 1860, the Duke of Somerset being still at the Admiralty, a new regulation was passed, by which the lieutenants of the hospitals were to be retired at the age of 55; but that was not to apply, so far as Commander Cheyne was aware, to his particular case, and there was no intimation made to him that he was to be deprived of the office, which included a pension for the wound he had received. In 1869 considerable reductions were made in the Navy expenditure, and Commander Cheyne was retired from the position he occupied in the hospital. He lost his house and the duty he had to perform, but compensation was given to him of £200 a-year, which, however, was to cease on his attaining the age of 55. That was the particular part of the case to which he (Sir John Hay) wished to draw the attention of the House. This gentleman had received no pension for his wound, whereas the usual regulation was, that a person who was wounded in the service received a pension for life. Instead of that pension, he was appointed to a sort of sinecure, or light duty, for a permanency, as it was understood, but when he was deprived of the office, the pension was only given to him until the age of 55. It would be seen that that arrangement prevented him from making any proper provision for his family by insuring or by any other process, as he would have been able to do had his income been for life. When he was dismissed from the hospital in October, 1869, he appealed to the Duke of Somerset, to ascertain how it was that he was so dismissed, and there were four letters of the noble Duke now on the Table of the House, in all of which he, as First Lord of the Admiralty, asserted that Commander Cheyne was right in his view of the case, and that he had a right to receive proper compensation, as he (the

  767
  noble Duke) had intended that he should continue in the office of lieutenant of the hospital for life. The Duke of Somerset's letters extended to the 4th of June of the present year, in one of which he said—
  "I shall be glad if the Admiralty can do something for you, in compensation for the loss of the appointment, which appeared at the time the best thing I could do for you. If any application is made to me, I shall he ready to state all I know of your case to the Board of Admiralty."
  In addition to the fact that a pension had only been given to Commander Cheyne until the age of 55, this also had happened to this unfortunate officer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, then First Lord of the Admiralty, on the 4th of March, 1870, when the subject was brought before the House, having stated the figures he (Sir John Hay) had already quoted, stated that Commander Cheyne would come off very well under the now retiring arrangement. But what happened immediately after that? Commander Cheyne was retired as a commander, and so promoted; but, instead of getting a benefit from that arrangement, the pension was reduced by the amount of the pay. He had £200 a-year pension, which was increased by £100, but that was reduced by £120, so that he now had a pay of £275 a-year for life and a pension of £80 2s. 6d., which would stop at the age of 55. The matter had been brought before the House on several occasions. The late Mr. Corry, who was First Lord of the Admiralty, took a very strong view of this case, as also did Lord Hampton, and every person who had investigated it with impartiality must see that Commander Cheyne had been extremely unfortunate in having received no pension for his wound. Two other officers were stated to be placed on the same footing as Commander Cheyne, but with this difference, that they were not wounded officers, whereas Commander Cheyne was hardly capable of doing anything for himself. He (Sir John Hay) should be sorry to detain the House on a question of this kind. He regretted that neither his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty nor the Secretary of the Admiralty were present to state their views on the question, and would conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will he graciously pleased to direct that the Pension of £200 a-year awarded to John Powles Cheyne, Commander, R.N., he paid to him, in addition to his retired pay, without deduction, for the term of his natural life; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same,"—(Sir John Hay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could assure his right hon. and gallant Friend and the House, that the Government exceedingly regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary to the Admiralty were not present. They were absent on official business at Portsmouth, and the uncertainty attaching to the progress of Public Business in the House rendered it impossible for them to anticipate when the Motion would be reached. Not having himself paid any special attention to the matter, he was unwilling to express any opinion on the merits of the case in the absence of those better acquainted with it, and he therefore hoped the right hon. and gallant Baronet would be satisfied with a promise on the part of the Government, that they would consult the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that the case should receive candid and careful consideration. While the circumstances stated in a case of the kind, relating as it did to a matter of pension, might appear to constitute a strong claim upon the liberality, and even the justice, of the Government, yet those circumstances were often so complicated, and so much affected by the decisions taken in other cases more or loss similar, that it would be rash in any one to pronounce an opinion off-hand. Certainly, the authorities to whom the right hon. and gallant Baronet had referred were such as to render it due to the gallant officer that the case should be carefully considered, and the right hon. and gallant Baronet might rely upon that being done.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, if his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, who sat next the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were consulted, he would be able

  769
  to explain his views of the case—views which no doubt would be shared by his Colleagues. He trusted that this blot on our naval administration would be removed before long.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Afterwards,
  MR. HUNTexplained that he had not been present to reply to his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) on the subject, in consequence of his having been under the impression that the question was not to be brought forward that evening. He wished to state that his absence was not from any want of courtesy either towards his right hon. and gallant Friend, or the gallant officer in question.

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSION—AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN GRAY, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the Accounts of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities, Ireland, and to move—
  "That it is the opinion of the House, that careful attention should be paid to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the Accounts of the Irish Church Temporalities Commission,"
  said, he had endeavoured to understand the accounts, but could not, and that was not surprising, because the Auditor General declared he could not understand them. It was no part of his object to bring any charge against the Commissioners; but the Irish people had a large interest in the funds they were administering, totally apart from the mere accuracy of their accounts. It would be remembered that when the Irish Church Bill was introduced, the capitalized value of the temporalities of the Church was estimated at £16,000,000, and it was computed that £8,000,000 would satisfy all reasonable demands of those who had life interests in that property. Further, the late Prime Minister and the late President of the Board of Trade enlarged upon the advantages Ireland would derive from the allocation of the surplus of £8,000,000. Therefore, the people of Ireland had a reasonable claim to have the accounts properly kept. From the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, however, it appeared that, on applying to
  770
  inspect mortgage deeds, he found many of them were not executed; other records were so insufficiently kept as to render it totally impossible for him to certify to the accuracy of the accounts; and under the heading of Tithe Rent Charge, it was stated that the annual statement was not completed, and had not been deposited in the Record Office; and when he asked whether a similar document for the previous year had been deposited, the reply he received from the Irish Church Commission Office merely stated that the Commissioners "did not think it necessary to supply the information asked for," because the amounts were so very small. In reference to the See of Armagh, there was a deduction of £4,100 from the revenue, and the Auditor General considered it necessary to call the attention of the Commissioners to it. Going through the Report, he found, not one, but 20 passages indicating the same result—no accurate accounts were given. In one instance an income derived from tithe rent charge, amounting to £1,300 a-year, had not been scheduled. No return was given of it; and the Auditor General had not been able to give any account of the matter at all. The state of the accounts was such, that the Comptroller felt utterly unable, with respect to some of these matters, to report to the Treasury, and the consequence was, that the necessary information could not be laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Irish Church Act. That was not a satisfactory state of things. Such laxity of conduct in connection with the business of a large public Department should not be permitted. The officers under the Church Commissioners ought to give all the necessary information for the purpose of seeing if the accounts were accurately and carefully kept, and the fund properly distributed. He trusted the whole subject would receive the attention of Government. In that hope, he begged to move the Resolution.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Member might not think it necessary to press his Motion, as it would, if acceded to, be inconvenient, and prevent the House proceeding with Supply. Neither did he think it would be for the convenience of the House that he should enter into any detail relative to the ques-

  771
  tions raised by the hon. Member. The matter was one of great importance, undoubtedly, and the hon. Gentleman had been exercising his right and doing good service in calling attention to the subject. The matter stood thus—in the Irish Church Act a clause was inserted, directing that the accounts of the Commissioners should be periodically sent to the Treasury, to be forwarded to the Auditor and Comptroller General for report, and that the Report should be laid before Parliament within proper time. That course had been adopted, and they had now before them the first Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It must be frankly admitted that, so far as the Report had gone, there were matters in it which seemed to challenge further investigation. It was impossible to carry on that investigation in a discussion in the whole House, and probably they would be of opinion that it would be most convenient to take the step which was usually taken with regard to public expenditure and the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General on that expenditure—namely, to refer the Report to the Standing Committee of the House on Public Accounts. If that course were taken, the Committee, which was exceedingly well qualified for the business, would investigate the matter and report to the House whether, in their opinion, there was anything in the case which required further attention on the part of the House. If the hon. Member would move to-morrow to refer the Report to the Committee, no objection would be made on the part of the Government.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, his only object had been to call the attention of the House to the subject, and he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He would withdraw the Resolution.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COAL MINES—ASTLEY DEEP PIT (DUKINFIELD) EXPLOSION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. SIDEBOTTOM, in rising pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the accident in the Astley Deep Pit Colliery in Dukinfield in April last; and to move—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously
  772
  pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire whether a better system of colliery inspection can be established, with a view to prevent such deplorable accidents in Collieries,"
  said, that in making a few observations on that very serious and important matter, he hoped the House would extend to him its indulgence, for he should not have attempted to occupy its attention if he had not felt compelled to do so by a paramount and overwhelming sense of duty as being the Representative of the place where the dreadful accident occurred. He visited the scene of the catastrophe the day after its occurrence, ere the mutilated remains of the poor creatures who had met their doom had been all collected and brought to the surface; but he would not distress the House, or harrow the feelings of hon. Gentlemen by attempting to depict what he there saw. Suffice it to say that the scone was one which any person possessing the ordinary feelings of humanity must remember to the last day of his existence. Now, this colliery was one of the deepest in the Kingdom, he believed, indeed, in the world. The shaft, at the foot of which the explosion took place, was upwards of 2,000 feet deep, and the seam of coal which was being worked, called the Black Mine, about four feet in thickness, trended away at an incline about the same pitch as the roof of a house to a very great distance, and pointing deeper and deeper still. The roof of a portion of the mine called the Half Moon Tunnel had some time previously been on fire; and this fire, together with several falls or slippings in of the earth subsequently, had caused a large cavity to be formed immediately above; but the roof of the Half Moon Tunnel had been made good with timber, and the cavity above partially filled up with earth. On the day of the accident some of this timber was observed to be giving way, and the repairs which seemed necessary were being proceeded with, when suddenly a large portion of the roof fell in. An immense mass of earth and other debris followed. Simultaneously a tremendous explosion occurred, and upwards of 50 human beings were at once launched into eternity. Now, there had been some difference of opinion as to whether the timbers used were of sufficient strength. The official Inspectors gave it as their opinion that, taking into account the existence of the

  773
  cavity above, they were not of sufficient strength, and that also was the conclusion arrived at by the jury and expressed in their verdict. He thought it right, however, to say that on the other hand it was also stated in evidence that no timbers of any reasonable strength could have withstood the strain to which they were subjected, or borne the weight of such an immense mass of earth and rock as fell upon them at the time of the accident; nor could the Half Moon Tunnel have been arched with bricks, from the impossibility of finding any secure foundation upon which to rest the arch. There seemed, indeed, no doubt that the real cause of the accident was this—A quantity of gas had accumulated in this cavity and in an old, abandoned working connected with it above, called the. Smithy Mine, and by a singular, and, as the event proved, but too fatal an error of judgment, an aperture or mouthing opening from the Smithy Mine into the main shaft, by which the gas had kept gradually escaping, had been walled up, so that, in effect, there was a large reservoir of highly inflammable and explosive gas penned up, and, as it were, hermetically sealed immediately above the lower mine and the heads of the men working there. And when the roof fell in, and a communication was thus established between the two mines, this gas rushing down into the lower mine, and meeting there the lights which were perfectly naked and exposed, the explosion followed as the necessary consequence; and probably the first question the House might be disposed to ask would be—How did it happen that these lights were perfectly naked and exposed? What was the use of passing Acts of Parliament for the regulation of mines, if these Acts were to be systematically treated as a dead letter, scientific appliances to be ignored, and naked lights, such prolific causes of accidents in colleries, were still to be the rule? He confessed that those were the thoughts which first presented themselves to his mind, but it appeared that that portion of the mine was considered so safe, so absolutely beyond the reach of danger, that it was the very part selected for the establishment of two permanent fixed furnaces which were situated within about 35 yards—the one for what was technically known as the "upcast" shaft, that is for creating a
  774
  draught of air giving ventilation to the nine, and the other the furnace of a boilor for an engine employed in hailing waggons up the steep incline already referred to, and both these furnaces being necessarily perfectly open and exposed, there was no object whatever in the other lights around being encased in Davy lamps. It was an important question, and one upon which considerable difference of opinion existed, as to whether these open furnaces ought to be permitted at the bottom of coal mines yet to be opened. Mr. Bell, one of the official Inspectors, emphatically stated it as his opinion at the inquest, that they ought never to be allowed, but that the fans necessary for ventilation, and the engines employed for various purposes, ought to be driven by compressed air or steam conveyed from the surface in pipes. That was a matter, however, of far too technical a nature for him (Mr. Side-bottom) to express a decided opinion upon; but he submitted it might be considered with great advantage to the public interest by the Commission he was then asking for. Well, both the House and the country heard with the greatest satisfaction the promise of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that a full and searching investigation should be made into the cause of this accident; and they must have felt also that that promise was redeemed when it became known that a man of such eminence as Mr. Horatio Lloyd, Q.C. and Recorder of Chester, had been appointed to represent the Government at the inquest. But there was also another and a further guarantee for this inquiry being a perfectly satisfactory inquiry, in the composition of the jury, and the characters of the foreman of the jury and the coroner. The jury was not composed, as was generally the case with coroners' juries, of small shopkeepers and other persons of the same class, but of the gentry of the neighbourhood; and throughout the whole of the long and protracted inquiry, they devoted to it the most patient and unwearied attention, and several times descended the mine for the purpose of satisfying themselves, by personal inspection, of its real state and condition. He had the pleasure of knowing several of them, as well as the coroner and the foreman. Mr. Johnson, the coroner, was a solicitor of eminence and of the highest respectability;

  775
  and Mr. Aspland, the foreman of the jury, had for many years been an active county magistrate, who had often taken the Chair in one of the Courts for the trial of prisoners at the Salford Hundred Quarter Sessions; so that, with Mr. Lloyd representing the Government, with a jury of such high respectability and intelligence, with the coroner a solicitor accustomed to sifting evidence, and with such a man as Mr. Aspland the foreman of the jury, both the House and the country might be perfectly satisfied that the promise of the Government had been redeemed, and that the inquiry into this sad affair had been as full, as ample, as strict, and as searching as any such inquiry could possibly be. Well, the verdict of this inquest had now been recorded, and, after such a thorough and exhaustive inquiry, he apprehended it must be accepted in its entirety. It cast very grave reflections, indeed very severe censure, upon the management of the colliery, both as regarded one of the lessees and also the officials employed. It was, however, in the hands of hon. Members, and spoke for itself, and therefore it would be quite unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any remarks in reference to this part of it. No doubt, it would receive the most serious and attentive consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and it would ill become him to anticipate their judgment. It was perfectly clear that great blame was to be attached to some one, but he wished to draw the attention of the House more particularly to the general lessons which seemed to him to arise from it in reference to the future. He thought the jury had arrived at a perfectly correct conclusion in reference to the present system of inspection, and he submitted that far above and beyond the immediate interests involved in this inquiry, great and important as those interests undoubtedly were, the true and direct logical inference to be drawn from it, and from the facts generally, was that the present system of colliery inspection was utterly inefficacious for protecting the lives of the persons employed, which ought to be its primary and chief object. Here for years had been a huge reservoir of highly inflammable and noxious gas suspended like the sword of Damocles above the heads of the poor fellows working in this mine. By-and-by it burst its bounds,
  776
  and like a mighty avalanche descending from the mountain top, swept with resistless force down into the lower mine, leaving death and destruction in its wake, and the result was one of the most terrible accidents of modern times. Well, what had the Inspector of this colliery been about? It was perfectly clear that the state of affairs which culminated in this accident had been in existence for a considerable time; that it might easily have been prevented—nay, that but for the gross and culpable ignorance, or rather downright insanity of the person or persons responsible for walling up this mouthing, it would never have occurred at all. Surely, a system of inspection powerless under these circumstances to prevent such an appalling loss of life, could be nothing but a delusion and a sham; and it was upon those broad grounds that he founded his Motion, in order that a competent authority might inquire whether any better system could be established. It might be that there were insurmountable difficulties in the way, and that the present state of matters must be accepted as inevitable; but even if that were so, by acceding to the terms of the Motion, the House would, at all events, have the satisfaction of reflecting that it had endeavoured to amend it. But it might be said.—How could you expect an Inspector to know anything about this cavity or this mouthing, when the pit authorities themselves knew nothing about them? Well, in the first place, it was extremely difficult to understand how the pit authorities, or some of them, could possibly be ignorant of them. There was, however, a frequent change of managers, and no proper account appeared to have been kept of important events for the information of a new manager on his commencing duty, so that it was just possible they were realty not aware of their existence; but, so far as he knew, the Inspectors had not been changed, and really that consideration afforded one of the strongest arguments that could be adduced in favour of a more efficient system of inspection, for these concealed dangers would then have been infallibly discovered, and their immediate removal insisted upon; and one of the first subjects he would suggest for the consideration of the Commission was, whether a kind of log-book should not be kept at each colliery, in which an entry should

  777
  be made of every important event as it occurred, and this book be submitted for the signature of the Inspector at every visit. A book of this description had now to be kept under the provisions of the present existing law, in which, under certain circumstances, entries had to be made, and he would extend and amplify that provision; and, if he was not trespassing on the attention of the House too long, he should also like to indicate very briefly one or two other points which it appeared to him a Royal Commission might consider with advantage. First, whether it should not be made incumbent on Colliery Inspectors, at certain intervals, themselves to descend the various mines under their charge, in order personally to examine the state of the workings. He believed that, except under extraordinary circumstances, they rarely now performed this duty, and, that, as a matter of fact, between the accident in March, 1870, and April last, the Astley Deep Pit was descended by a Government Inspector on one occasion only. He understood that Mr. Wynne, the Inspector of the district, had 240 pits under his charge, and he considered—and with good reason—his present duties so onerous as to be quite unable to perform this duty also; but if that be so, surely additional Inspectors ought to be appointed, as it seemed perfectly obvious that for the pro-pier and efficient inspection of a coal mine 2,000 feet below the surface, that mine must be regularly descended, and the workings examined. It was all very well to say the managers ought to be responsible. Undoubtedly they ought, but their responsibility, so far, had availed nothing to prevent these frightful accidents. He by no means wished to relieve them from that responsibility, but on the contrary, to increase and augment it; and at the same time also, to establish a system of inspection which would insure them against a repetition of such miserable blunders and inexcusable acts of folly as had been witnessed in the present case. He frankly admitted that the subject was surrounded with grave difficulties, for it was quite possible to err in the opposite direction, and one might conceive a system of inspection so elaborate as, practically, to place all the responsibility on the Inspectors, and relieve colliery proprietors and their managers from it, at the expense of the taxpayers.
  778
  That, indeed, would be a result eminently unsatisfactory. But then, what was to be done? Were they to make no effort to amend the present state of things? He thought few hon. Gentlemen would say that, and really the very existence of that and other difficulties afforded to his mind an irresistible argument in favour of a Royal Commission, in order that Gentlemen of great experience, after hearing evidence, after full inquiry, and full time for consideration, might report upon what was the best course to be adopted. It might also be considered whether, if the sons or other near relatives of Colliery Inspectors were precluded from occupying situations as colliery managers, that might not give the authority of the Inspectors more weight both with employers and employed. He did not wish either to suggest or insinuate that the fact of any of the present Colliery Inspectors having relatives in such situations had really at all influenced their conduct; but it must be remembered that they were by law entrusted with very extensive powers and very great, not to say arbitrary, authority, and that therefore they ought to be placed above the very faintest shadow of suspicion. The very important question of open furnaces at the bottom of mines might also well be considered. No one, he apprehended, would wish to entail on colliery proprietors the well-nigh ruinous cost of removing those already in existence; but it might, perhaps, be considered wise to prohibit them as far as possible in the new collieries which were being opened throughout the country in so many places. The Prime Minister stated at Manchester, in one of the most magnificent speeches that even he ever delivered, that "the health of the people was one of the most important subjects that could engage the attention of statesmen;"and they had lately been considering the details of a measure for promoting the health of women and children employed in textile factories, by limiting the duration of their hours of labour; and surely their responsibility was not less in reference to matters upon which men's lives immediately and directly depended. He himself heard Mr. Bell, one of the official Inspectors, declare on oath that a considerable portion of this mine was so unsafe—in such an extremely dangerous state—that he should not be in the least

  779
  surprised if it collapsed and closed up like a fan. He understood that it had now been made secure; but if Mr. Bell's fears had been realized previously, the House might readily conceive how dreadful would have been the fate of those employed! Each would have found a living' tomb! But, when such a statement as that was made by a gentleman in an official position, and speaking under a sense of official responsibility, it deserved the most serious, the most careful, and the most attentive consideration, for was it not possible—nay, was it not probable—that a similar state of things might also prevail in other collieries, though, perhaps, it might not be brought to light till some fresh accident and the sacrifice of a fresh hecatomb of victims aroused them from their false security. He ventured to hope, therefore, that the House would not refuse to accede to the terms of his Motion, for he was sure hon. Gentlemen, whether they sat on this side or whether they sat on that, must agree that the frequent recurrence of these dreadful accidents rendered it more and more clear every day that those who worked in coal mines ought to be protected by every enactment, and surrounded by every safeguard, the Legislature could devise; for their case appeared to him to differ from that of any other class of persons who under the primeval sentence of their race, "had to eat bread by the sweat of their brow." The collier did not carry on his work in a commodious, airy, well-ventilated, comfortably-heated, modern, textile factory, where the risk of loss to life or limb was really infinitesimally small; but under circumstances of the greatest danger—and where? Why, far away beneath their feet, in the very bowels of the earth, in perfect darkness, exposed to numerous accidents from fire, water, deleterious gases, and other causes too numerous to mention. In short, he carried, as it were, his life in his hand, and not his own life only, but the lives also of hundreds of his fellow-workmen; and one instant's thoughtlessness, one instant's carelessness, rashness, recklessness—call it what they would—might be the means of consigning both himself and them to a sudden and untimely end. He begged to thank the House for the consideration it had extended to him. He had no personal object whatever in bringing the subject forward, still less did he de-
  780
  sire to throw obstacles or difficulties in the way of colliery proprietors. He was an owner of colliery property himself, and also an extensive consumer of coal; but he made the Motion solely and entirely in the interest of a large portion of his constituents, and because he honestly and sincerely believed some change in the present system of inspection to be most imperatively required.
  COLONEL LEIGH, in seconding the Motion, said, that scarcely a month passed without some colliery accident occurring, and that their very frequency familiarized people with them and prevented them from fully appreciating their enormity. They had got so accustomed to hear of them that they did not take those precautions to prevent them which lay within their reach. The accident to which his hon. Friend called the attention of the House was most lamentable, and unhappily not one of very rare occurrence, and something should be clone at once to prevent them wherever it was practicable. His (Colonel Leigh's) opinion was, that colliery proprietors ought to be made to pay all that was necessary in order to make their mines safe. Coal had been very dear, and the coal proprietors had been making enormous fortunes. The least thing in return that the coalowners could do was to spend every farthing that was required to make their collieries as safe as possible.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will he graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire whether a better system of colliery inspection can he established, with a view to prevent deplorable accidents in collieries,"—(Mr. Side-bottom,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."
  MR. M'DONALDsaid, he thought anyone would excuse him when he said he had a very strong desire to see that the lives as well as the limbs of the working miners of this country should be protected, and he would most heartily support the proposition made by the hon. Member in favour of a Royal Commission, if he saw that such a proposal was going in any way to promote that

  781
  object. But lie recollected that two years ago that House, after the gravest consideration, passed a Bill which contained certain stringent resolutions and provisions, and those stringent provisions, he ventured to say, if they had been carried out, would have prevented the occurrence of this disaster. He therefore thought the House should impress upon the Government the necessity of seeing that the Acts which had been passed by it were carried out, and when those Acts were seen to be defective, then would be the time to ask for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into such disasters as these. In his opinion they did not want Royal Commissions to inquire into mine disasters. What they wanted was, that these accidents should be prevented, and Royal Commissions would not do that. If they took the Inspector's Report with regard to that particular accident, they would find that on the face, and in the body of it, gross neglect was proved to have existed, and neglect of such a character that no Royal Commission could prevent it. The Inspector said he had long been of opinion that the ventilation of the mine had been very defective, and had expressed his opinions; but although he considered the mine dangerous, he did not think that danger so imminent as to justify him in going to the extreme length of arbitration. What did the law say? Why, it said that the gas in every mine should be diluted, and so rendered harmless. Had that been done in the present instance there would have been no accident. Reference had been made to naked lights, but no naked lights would cause an explosion, if the law were properly carried out. All that being true, he repeated that there was no need of a Commission. What was needed was, that the Home Office should instruct the Inspectors that where they found defective ventilation, they should direct the attention of the owners to it, and see that it was remedied, under pain of being prosecuted. The result, he had no doubt, would be entirely satisfactory. He should most willingly support the proposition for a Royal Commission; but while he felt desirous that the miner should be protected he saw no use in going to the expense of a Commission.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he had received a mass of information upon the subject, and the conclusion he had arrived at
  782
  was, that the question could not be satisfactorily dealt with by a Royal Commission. But from the conflict of opinion which prevailed upon the subject, he quite agreed that it demanded the assiduous attention of the Government. He was very thankful to the hon. Gentleman for having called the attention of the Government to it, which was all that could be done, as he presumed the Motion could not be carried that evening; for, if it were, Supply could not come on. The hon. Member for Stafford had referred to the diluting of the gas; but he ought to have known that it was not always practicable to do so. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed, but that the hon. Member who moved it, would be content with an assurance from the Government that the laws would be imperatively carried out, for in his (Mr. Hermon's) opinion, that was the only way of effecting any improvement.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that the general opinion of those who were most acquainted with the working of collieries was, that the work of inspection, as at present carried on, was a perfect farce. It was costly; it produced no beneficial results; and it ought to be conducted differently. The Motion of the hon. Member for Staleybridge had been rather misunderstood. It was not intended so much to inquire into the cause of the accident at Astley Pit, as to see whether or not the present system of inspection could not be improved; and with reference to it, he believed that, if an inquiry were made, almost all colliers could point out the mode by which these accidents might be prevented. He himself knew a Colliery Inspector who had not been down a particular pit for the last 35 years. How was it possible for Inspectors under such circumstances to be able to know what was the condition of the ventilation of a mine? He sincerely hoped that some change would be effected, and with that view, should support the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he also had to thank the hon. Member for Staleybridge for having brought the matter before the House. He knew it was a matter on which the hon. Member had for a long time taken a deep interest, and the careful way in which he had studied it, was shown by the able way in which he had brought it before the House. When this unfortu-

  783
  nate accident occurred, he (Mr. Cross) stated in the House that a most full and most searching inquiry should take place into the causes of it. As to the jury who had inquired into the matter, he believed that no jury could have carried on that inquiry more carefully or more ably. In their verdict, they said the primary cause of the explosion was the blocking up the mouthing leading to the Smithy mine, and that that was an act of gross ignorance or culpable negligence. The jury found that the secondary cause of the explosion was the unsafe condition of the Half Moon Tunnel owing to insufficient timbering. There was evidence, moreover, that the Astley Deep Pit had been for a certain period "in a state of complete anarchy owing to the interference of Mr. Benjamin Ashton and his' constituting conflicting authorities in the mine." The jury also found that there was distinct evidence as to the employment of incompetent persons and placing them in authority. They added—"The evidence of the authorities in the pit has been given with great hesitation, and with an evident desire to conceal important facts." If a coroner and jury found that difficulty, the House would see how much more difficult it was for the Inspectors of Mines to get the information necessary to enable them to deal with these cases and prevent accidents. The most important portion of the verdict was that in which the jury desired to express "their strong opinion that the present system of inspection is imperfect, and requires full inquiry, with a view to amendment." He agreed that the subject of inspection did require considerable investigation with a view to amendment; but at the same time, he thought there were two dangers which would require to be guarded against when taking that course. He meant that it should not be made so slight as not to form any check upon the managers, but, on the other hand, the House would not wish to put the whole responsibility for mining accidents on the Inspector. It would be most undesirable to shift the responsibility from the shoulders of the owner, who made the profit and worked the mine. Upon the whole, he did not think that a case had been made out for the appointment of a Royal Commission. Parliament had instituted already many inquiries on the subject.
  784
  Select Committees sat in 1865, and again in 1866 and 1867, and had fully reported on the subject. The whole subject was afterwards fully discussed when the Mines Act of 1872 was passed, and a sufficient interval had not yet elapsed to judge of its Operation. He would, however, on his own responsibility undertake to go through the question carefully during the Recess, to see whether some fresh regulations could not be laid down, so that, wihout removing the responsibility from the owner, which he for one would never consent to do, some further guarantees might be obtained that all due precautions should be taken against accidents in mines, and that the very large sum of money expended on the inspection of mines bore the fruit it ought to bear. That pledge he would redeem as fairly as he could next Session.
  MR. SIDEBOTTOMsaid, that after the satisfactory assurance of his right hon. Friend, he would not press his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE.—WICK AND THURSO MAILS.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRin-rising pursuant to Notice,
  "To move for a Copy of the Correspondence between the directors of the Highland and Sutherland and Caithness Railway Company and the Postmaster General on the subject of the arrangements for the transmission of the mails from Helmsdale to Wick and Thurso, and to call attention to the very serious inconvenience and loss which will result to the counties of Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney, if the Post Office authorities persist in the determination which they have expressed, not to continue the present mail service beyond Helmsdale, but to send the mail bags by ordinary trains as parcels,"
  said, the directors of the Highland and Sutherland and Caithness Railway Company had applied to the Post Office authorities to know what arrangements they desired to make for the transmission of mails on their line, and the answer they received was, they intended to send the mail bags as parcels by the ordinary trains; and on a subsequent occasion they informed them that not only did they not intend to improve the mail service, but that they intended to discontinue the sending of the mails from

  785
  Helmsdale to Wick and Thurso. In consequence of that, he asked a Question of the Postmaster General, and received what he must characterize as an evasive and unsatisfactory reply. The answer was, that there was no information before the Post Office that the line was open, and that they wore not able to state when it would be open. Now, in answer to that, he had to state that he had received a telegram to say that the line had been opened; that it had been passed by the Government Inspector; and that to-morrow morning the trains would run. The inhabitants of the district had a right to expect that when the line was opened, there would be an improvement in the mail service, and the directors of the Highland, Sutherland, and Caithness Company offered to undertake to run the trains at a speed that would ensure the delivery of the mail the following night after it was despatched from London, and thus it would have been accelerated by 24 hours. But under the arrangements which had been made, instead of an acceleration, there would be a retardation. It was notorious that no train could be run on Sunday without loss, unless it received a Post Office subsidy; and as this railway simply was to receive no subsidy, the result would be that the district would be deprived altogether of the Sunday mail. The Post Office authorities would be compelled to run a coach by the side of the railway on Sundays, which would involve a delay of several hours, Now he was sure that it was not the opinion of the House or of the country, that the Post Office service should be deteriorated. If the Post Office were to lay down the principle that no Post Office accommodation could be granted which could not be paid for out of the postal receipts of the district, then hundreds of districts must be deprived of it. But that had not been the guiding principle of the Post Office administration of this country. The Government undertook the safe delivery of registered letters and packets, and was it right that such valuable things as the contents of registered letters should be sent in ordinary parcels by train? He thought that was not the way in which the service of the Post Office of this country should be conducted. He trusted that the Government would
  786
  make no difficulty in producing the Correspondence that he moved for; but he must say he thought some attention should be called to the course which the Post Office authorities had adopted, not only in this, but in other districts. He found by the Report of the Royal Commission on Railways, that a town in Hampshire was deprived of a day post for nine years, because the railway company demanded the extortionate price of 8d. a-day for conveying the bag, the Post Office authorities thinking that 4d. a-day was sufficient. He found that on other occasions, the Post Office authorities had expressed opinions with reference to the rates at which the mails should be carried, which appeared to him to be most unjust to the railway companies. For instance, they said that the mail bags should be conveyed for a halfpenny per hundredweight. If these were the pretensions of the Post Office authorities, it was not to be wondered at there should be great difficulty in making arrangements between them and the directors of the different railway companies. The directors of this company merely wished that the terms on which they should carry the mails should be put to arbitration, and he did not know why the Post Office authorities should refuse so reasonable a pro-position. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for the Correspondence set forth in the Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Correspondence between the Directors of the Highland and Sutherland and Caithness Railway Company and the Postmaster General on the subject of the arrangements for the transmission of the mails from Helmsdale to Wick and Thurso,"—(Sir Tollemache Sinclair,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had had the pleasure of reading in the columns of a morning paper the speech just delivered in the form of a letter; but there was one sentence in the letter which was omitted from the speech—he meant that in which the hon. Baronet said he preferred writing a letter to a newspaper to delivering a speech in the House of Commons.
  SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRdenied that he said anything of the kind. What he said was, that the pressure of Public Business would probably prevent him from saying what he wished to say in Parliament.
  LORD JOHN MANNERScontinued: At all events the hon. Baronet wished to have two barrels to his gun, and one of them had just been fired off. He had no objection to produce the Correspondence which had been moved for. The contract which the hon. Baronet referred to expired naturally, and of itself, and a notification to that effect was given in the course of last autumn. With regard to the statement in the letter to which he had just alluded, that the conduct of the Postal Department must have originated in the animosity which the present Government felt against the three northern counties of Scotland in consequence of the character of their representation in the House of Commons—
  SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIR: Sir, I rise to Order. The Postmaster General has no right to allude to what is not before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the remarks of the Postmaster General were relevant.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, such a motive as that which was attributed to them could not possibly have actuated the Government, the notice having been given by that distinguished Representative of North Britain, the late Postmaster General. If, however, any real difficulty of a grievance were felt under the Act of last Session, the Post Office would not object to a reference to arbitration. The main point of the hon. Baronet's speech was, that there should be arbitration, and the Post Office would not object to that course. As regarded the conveyance of mails by ordinary passenger trains, he might observe that that had been done in the ease of the mail services from Manchester, Birmingham, and other largo towns of England and Ireland, and he could not for the life of him understand why it should not be satisfactory in the case under consideration. What the hon. Baronet appeared to desire did not seem to him (Lord J. Manners) of the slightest practical importance. The main delivery of letters at Wick and Thurso must still take place early in the morning, and the increased cost to the public
  788
  would be of no advantage to those towns. The only result would be the payment of a very considerable subsidy for a special mail service. The Postal Department was of opinion that the circumstances were not such as would justify such a payment, especially as without it the mail service could be conducted with regularity and efficiency.
  SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, the Postmaster General had not informed the House by what means the Sunday mails were to be conveyed. As a director of the Highland, Sutherland, and Caithness Railway, he could state that his brother directors were determined that no train should run on Sundays.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must leave the hon. Baronet and his colleagues to settle that question with the Company.

THE JUDICATURE BILLS—POSTPONEMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Government to give some further information as to the reasons which induced them to postpone the measures with reference to Law Reform. Those Bills were down on the Paper for that evening, but he supposed it was with the intention of discharging the Orders. Last year a measure was passed by Parliament relating to the Appellate Jurisdiction, which should have come into operation that year. However, not only had they made no progress in law reform that year; but if they discharged these Orders they would be making progress in the fashion of the crab, because they would be going backwards and postponing the action which they had matured last year. No one desired to interpose a single obstacle to the passing of such a measure as would allow the English Act of 1873 to come into operation this year. That Act was very carefully framed, and was only passed after very careful deliberation, and there were Rules to be made in accordance with it. He believed those Rules had been prepared and laid before Her Majesty, and therefore he saw no reason why the Act should not come into operation. He was not surprised that the Government did not proceed with the voluminous Irish Bill in the face of the Irish difficulties; but that Bill was altogether outside the corners of the Act

789
of 1873. Surety, then, they might go on with the Act of 1873 as far as it affected England, or, at all events, in reference to the inferior Courts. They were making a retrograde step in law reform, which was not a very creditable thing for a new Parliament to do. The postponement of the Judicature Bill was worse than the Massacre of the Innocents—it was the murder of an adult. He hoped some better reason would be given for not proceeding with the Bill than they had yet had. Why was it to be done? It was not because of any factious opposition from his side of the House. They were anxious to give every assistance in passing that Bill, that the Act of 1873 might come into force. If the new Rules were laid on the Table, they might pass the Bill with the necessary alterations through Committee in a very few hours, and then they would not hang up that important system of law reform.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was quite content to accept the observations of his hon. and learned Friend as having been made in no spirit of hostility, but with a desire to aid the Government in their proposed legislation, if they could see their way to carry it through. There were five Bills among the Orders of the Day, three of them having reference to the transfer of land and two to the system of Judicature. As to the first three, his hon. and learned Friend had not suggested that they should or could be proceeded with. He (the Attorney General), however, would rather limit the observation to that which formed the subject of the first Order of the Bay, because, though there were three Bills relating to Land Titles and Transfer, it was the first which was the important one; it was a long Bill, which would doubtless occupy much time whenever it was dealt with in Committee. It had, however, been very fully discussed on the second reading, and a variety of suggestions had been made, which would assist them greatly in dealing with it on a future occasion. With regard to the two other Bills, the Real Property Vendors and Purchasers Bill, and the Real Property Limitation Bill, there was no substantial opposition in the House to them, and they might perhaps be carried through with the assistance which he was sure he should receive
790
from his hon. Friends; he should certainly endeavour to pass them. If passed, they would effect a valuable improvement in the state of the law, and also render it more easy to deal with the subject of land transfer in a future Session. He now came to the other two Bills, with respect to Judicature. Although his hon. and learned Friend had spoken of the Act of last year as having been passed after a great amount of deliberation, he (the Attorney General) thought it was the opinion of the majority of the House that that Act required amendment. The question was, whether the Act of last Session should be allowed to come into operation on the 1st of November next unamended, or whether its operation should be postponed until such time as those Amendments, which would make it really a valuable measure, were passed. He thought he should have the concurrence of a large proportion of the House in saying, that it was not desirable to bring the Act of last Session into operation, unless they also brought into operation the Bill now before the House. If the Act of last year came into force alone, they would have the House of Lords no longer continuing as a Court of Appeal for English cases, but continuing as a Court of Appeal for Irish and Scotch cases. That, he thought, would be extremely undesirable, for many reasons, which he need not now particularly mention, and there was no question that the Act of last year was passed on the faith that, before it was brought into operation, another Bill would be passed, which would enable the appellate jurisdiction in Scotch and Irish cases to be removed from the House of Lords to the Imperial Court of Appeal. His hon. and learned Friend suggested that they could strike out of the Judicature Bill the reference to Scotland and Ireland; but, if they did that, they would have the Judicature Act of last Session coming into force, abolishing the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal for English cases, but leaving it still a Court of Appeal for Scotch and Irish cases, the undesirableness of which he had already adverted to. The House was aware that the present Bill, as far as regarded the removal of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords in Irish matters, was very strongly opposed

791
by a large number of the Representatives of Ireland in that House. The observations made by those hon. Gentlemen, in the course of the discussion on the Bill, and the Amendments they had put on the Paper, clearly showed that they intended to oppose the proposal to do away with the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords in Irish matters. Again, it was not desirable to carry that portion of the amendment of their system of judicature which would create a now Court of Appeal, as far as regarded Irish cases, when they were not able to proceed with the other Judicature Bill, the effect of which would be to re-arrange and improve the whole system of judicature in Ireland? He thought the whole scheme ought to go together, and it was quite clear that there would be no chance of their passing that Session the second of those measures, the Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill. Therefore, because it was not desirable to alter the Ultimate Court of Appeal, as far as Ireland was concerned, unless they also altered the whole form of procedure in Ireland; and, likewise, because it was not desirable to bring the new appellate tribunal into operation as far as regarded England until it was also brought into operation for Scotland and Ireland—on both or either of these grounds, it was unadvisable to proceed with the Bill to which his hon. and learned Friend particularly referred. The Government, and he personally, had been very desirous that the Bills to which he had referred should be passed, and they had hoped that they would have had an opportunity of passing thorn; but he was bound to admit that, within the last few days, he had had communications from several of his hon. Friends who represented Irish constituencies, which made it perfectly clear to him that there was no prospect, within any reasonable duration of the present Session, of carrying either of those measures, and therefore he thought the course the Government was pursuing was the only one they could adopt. As to the charge of the Session being wasted, it should be remembered that the present was not a Session of ordinary duration; the time at the disposal of the House had been much curtailed by circumstances over which they had no control. He did not believe, however, that the time spent in the discus-
792
sion and consideration of those measures had been lost, and he trusted that in the ensuing Session an opportunity would be given them for effecting that amendment and reform of the law which they all desired.

COLONIAL OFFICE—THE OFFICIAL STAFF.—QUESTION.
MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to put a Question of which he had given Notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Up to 1867—that was during the time when the Colonial Office administered the government of all the colonies of the British Crown—the staff of that office consisted of one Secretary of State, one Parliamentary Under Secretary, a permanent Under Secretary, and one Assistant Secretary. In 1867, Sir Henry Holland was appointed as legal adviser to the Colonial Office at a salary of £1,000 or £1,200. In 1870 Lord Granville applied to the Treasury to turn the appointment of legal advisor into an assistant Secretaryship, pointing out that there was not sufficient work to occupy the legal adviser's time. That change was agreed to on behalf of the Treasury, and Sir Henry Holland was appointed as a second Assistant Secretary at £1,500 a-year. With that he believed there was no fault to find. The next step was, that less than two years ago, it was necessary to place the Colonial Office under the new Order in Council with regard to competition, and the office was rather weakened at the lower and strengthened at the upper parts, a third Assistant Secretary being appointed; so that whereas when the Colonial Office governed all the colonies it had only one Assistant Secretary; now that the colonies governed themselves, it had three. Moreover, the Home Office, which governed England, and had something to say to Scotch and Irish affairs, had no Assistant Secretary at all. If that third Assistant Secretary was unnecessary, there was not only a waste of £1,500 a-year, but the arrangement was fraught with other evil consequences, because the Parliamentary officials were relieved from the proper work of that office, and were only "crammed" for particular cases. Thus they lost a most powerful and useful means of educating future statesmen. The right

793
hon. Gentleman concluded by asking Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain why a third Assistant Secretary had been appointed to the Colonial Office, although the number and salaries of the persons employed in that office were settled by agreement between the Treasury and the Secretary of State on very liberal terms less than two years ago?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the appointment had been made, because it was very strongly represented to the Treasury by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that though the establishment which had been arranged for the Colonial Office was strong enough in the clerical department, the secretariat, and particularly the legal branch of it, was not sufficiently strong for the duties it had to perform. It had also been strongly urged upon the Government that the duties of the office could not be effectually discharged without further assistance. The fact that certain of our colonies were self-governing had in some respects increased, rather than diminished, the amount of correspondence and the difficulty of questions arising between the colonies and the mother-country. It was comparatively simple to arrange questions in which the Crown was supreme, but not so easy when—as in the case of the Dominion of Canada, for instance—the colony had almost the power of an independent State. In such cases assistance of a superior character was required, and an efficient staff was necessary in order to secure despatch and accuracy. Therefore, when the Earl of Carnarvon asked for the extra assistance, the Treasury took into consideration the recent re-organization of the Department, and it occurred to them that the salaries paid to the principal clerks were such that the holders of the offices ought to be able to render such assistance as would make it unnecessary to add to the secretarial staff. The answer was, that the gentlemen likely to fill the offices of principal clerks would not possess the legal qualifications necessary to meet the case. The Treasury, while disappointed at the fact that the re-organization of the Department had not strengthened the office to the degree that was expected, were not prepared to take the responsibility of refusing the assistance which Lord Carnarvon said was necessary; but at the
794
same time they expressed an opinion that the re-organization ought to be reconsidered, especially in reference to the appointment of principal clerks. They had in consenting to the increase now asked, stipulated that the fourth principal clerkship should not be filled up till the total cost of the office had been reduced by a certain amount, and that no one of the offices should in future be filled without a special reference to the Treasury, who should consider whether the appointment was necessary.
SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he wished before the House went into Committee, to express his opinion that the Attorney General's explanation of the course of the Government in reference to the Judicature Act and the Amendment Bills was very unsatisfactory. The whole statement amounted to this—that there was not time in the present Session to pass the Amending Bill; but if that was so, the Government was alone responsible. The Bill was one of the measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and as late as the 8th of Juno, the Prime Minister mentioned it as one of those which the Government intended to press forward and pass this Session. The fact, however, was, that the Government had preferred to push forward legislation in reference to which no promise had been given, and to drop that which the House and the country expected to see proceeded with. Already the House had dealt with the greater part of the Bill in Committee, and if it was to be dropped, the time had been wasted. As he had suggested on Saturday, there would be ample time to pass the Bill by the 10th or 12th of August, if the question as it affected Ireland was postponed until next Session.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)contended that the last suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman could not be carried out. The Bill was not intended to amend the Act of last year, but to constitute one Imperial Court for the Three Kingdoms, and it was of great importance that that Court should be constituted by one Bill, and not by separate measures. He objected to any discussion or consideration of the question of the appellate jurisdiction separately for England.
SIR HENRY JAMESobserved that he had not suggested that the cases of the three countries should be taken sepa-

795
rately. If the amending Bill were proceeded with, the Imperial Court which it proposed would be a perfectly good one, without reference to the Judicature of Ireland Bill.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, there was a proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that the clauses relating to Ireland should be left out; but that was impossible, because, in whatever manner the Imperial Court of Appeal was constituted, it would remain the final Court for all three countries, and therefore although Ireland might at present be omitted, its form and character yet were of vital importance to Ireland. He could not assent to the suggestion that a Bill relating to this country should be passed, even with the undertaking that it should be afterwards extended to Ireland and Scotland. When the Government came to appoint the Judges of the Imperial Court, they must be influenced by the consideration whether appeals from Ireland and Scotland were to be disposed of by it. They could not proceed with the Bill, therefore, under the idea that it was one in which the Irish Members had no interest. That being so, the questions which arose on the several Amendments on the Paper—and some of them were of great importance—must be discussed, and it was obvious that they could not be adequately considered at this period of the Session.
MR. BUTTrose to address the House, when—
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind hon. Members that to discuss the provisions of a Bill on the Question for going into Committee of Supply was irregular.
MR. THOMSON HANKEY, referring to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the Colonial Office, said, that the arrangement proposed would work injuriously to the clerks in the office, who had a right to expect preferment in the order of their appointment. A slur would be cast upon their character, if they were passed over and a gentleman from another Department promoted over their heads.
SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFFhoped the Government would not act upon the economic suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London. The office
796
in question was not overmanned, and when the alterations which had been referred to were made, the offices of chief clerk and précis writer were abolished, and no additional expenditure had been entailed. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the answer he had given to the Colonial Office, and that he would not tie down the additional Under Secretary with any economical suggestions.
MR. M'LARENsaid, with reference to colonial matters, he had the honour of being a Member of the Committee that received evidence on the subject. The hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that he believed that no additional expense was incurred in the reconstruction of that office. Well, he (Mr. M'Laren) remembered that the evidence given before the Committee showed that there was a small addition to the expense; but it was alleged that the benefits were so great of the supposed reconstruction, that eventually savings would arise therefrom, and the Committee, although with some apparent reluctance, did not report upon that subject. But the Committee were at the same time told that in order to effect the so-called economical reconstruction or arrangement, two gentlemen had agreed to retire, though the witness could not tell them what were to be the retiring allowances. He found, however, by the Papers before the House, that one of those gentlemen (Sir George Barrow, Bart.) retired on £1,063 13 s. 4d., and the other (Sir Henry Taylor) retired on £1,160; so that, first of all, there was a small increase in the expenditure of the office, even as reconstructed, and then there were those two sums amounting to £2,200 as an additional expense, and now there was a third additional expenditure by the officer now appointed—an appointment which the Committee were led to think would not be necessary. He thought it right that the House should know these circumstances as regarded the retiring allowance.
Question put, and agreed to.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £170,000, Supplementary sum, Rating of certain Government Property, &c.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he hoped that before the Vote was agreed to, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some explanation with respect to the Supplemental Estimates. The Committee were called upon to vote something like £600,000 on those Estimates, and yet, according to what he had said in the course of his Financial Statement, the right hon. Gentleman had estimated the surplus for the year at £350,000, and since that statement had been made, the Revenue Returns, according to his own admission, had not exceeded his expectations. He therefore wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he had in the shape of additional Revenue to set against these Supplemental Estimates, so as to prevent the country having to face a deficiency in its finances at the end of the year? As he understood the matter, the Committee was to be called upon to vote £350,000 towards the local expenses for the police, and £250,000 towards the local expenses for lunatics; but next year those sums would be doubled, and the result would be that unless the Revenue far exceeded their expectations, a very serious and important deficit would have to be met. It seemed to him that in calling upon the Committee to vote these Supplementary Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman was adopting the dangerous principle of promising certain remissions of taxation, the full effect of which would not come into operation during the present financial year. He wished it to be distinctly understood, however, that in voting the present Estimates he (Mr. Fawcett) was not pledged to the practice of making grants from the Imperial funds to local purposes. He looked upon such a practice as mischievous, and he believed it was fraught with future evils to the country. Further, he thought they were about to vote money which in the present state of the Revenue they could not properly afford.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYthought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a perfectly satisfactory expla-
  798
  nation of the point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney on a previous occasion, when he showed that there was no probability of their being any excess of expenditure over revenue, even after these Supplementary Estimates had been taken into account. He must, however, enter his protest against the general idea that all Government property should be rated, without their knowing exactly what they were about. They had no Papers before them to show in what way the local taxation was to be relieved; they only knew that £170,000 was to be paid in aid of that taxation. It was clear that that money was paid by the whole nation; but who was to receive the benefit of this expenditure? His own opinion was that, in most instances, the benefit derived from the presence of Government property in a locality outweighed any injury sustained by reason of its exemption from rating.
  MR. BOORDsaid, the question of the taxation of Government property having been decided last year, the hon. Member for Hackney ought not to attempt to re-open the question now. He (Mr. Boord) could assure the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) that in his borough, the neighbourhood of Government property was a disadvantage rather than au advantage to the locality, the rates being enormously increased by the wear and tear of the roads caused by the transit of heavy guns and materials, by injury to the drains, and by the increase of pauperism consequent upon the number of persons employed in the Government works. He suggested that by taking a percentage on the cost of construction, a basis of assessment might be easily obtained for rating such public property. On a previous occasion, when the question was before the Committee, he understood the Government to have pledged themselves to place the matter on a permanent footing at the first opportunity.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHstated that that was their intention.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, before the Vote was taken, the Committee ought to know what the Government were going to do with the money. Here was a large sum of £170,000 to be voted by the House, and yet nothing had been stated as to its disposal. There might be Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side who had made themselves obnoxious and whose constituents would get very

  799
  little, while those of other Gentlemen would get a good deal. It was a very-dangerous precedent to vote money in this way en bloc, without being told on what principle it was to be distributed.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that the hon. Member had forgotten that the Budget speech distinctly provided for this Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) has put a Question which he would hardly have put had he been a Member of this House at the time the Budget was brought forward, because then he would have remembered that the financial arrangements were founded on the proposals to which the Committee is now asked to give effect. We included in the calculations for the year a certain amount of expenditure for purposes embraced in these Estimates which are called, and which, to a certain extent are, Supplementary; but as far as they relate to the Vote in aid of local contributions for police and lunatics now under consideration, they are not truly Supplementary Estimates, but are part of the regular financial arrangements. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says we are asking for a large sum which goes beyond the margin provided for in the Budget, and that he does not see how that large sum is to be found, he is mistaking the character of the arrangements for the year. Now, those hon. Gentlemen who were present when the Financial Statement was made are aware that the Statement was of this character. Certain taxes were remitted and certain arrangements made, and then it was stated that it was the intention of the Government to propose that various sums should be voted in aid of local taxation. These sums were to be applied partly to the expense of the police, partly of pauper lunatics, and partly in the nature of an addition to the contributions made for Government property; and the amount it was proposed to take for these purposes came to £1,010,000. Taking the Revenue and Expenditure as then estimated, and calculating that part of the Expenditure to which I have just referred at £1,010,000, I reckoned there would remain a surplus of £462,000. Of course, if the Revenue falls short, that surplus will not be realized. I have no reason to fear that the Revenue will fall short. At all events, that is a ques-
  800
  tion which I do not discuss, and the hon. Gentleman does not raise it. Well, then, how are we to meet the expenditure which we are called upon to defray? With regard to this expenditure, if we called upon the Committee to vote £1,010,000, the surplus would remain as it was estimated, £462,000. But we are not asking the Committee to vote so largo a sum. Instead of £1,010,000 we are asking the Committee only for £706,000 for the three items which I have mentioned. The amount in aid of local rates for Government property is £170,000, the same as the Budget Estimate. The amount for police, instead of being £600,000 as at first estimated, is only £315,000; and the amount for lunatics, which I estimated at £240,000, is now £221,692. We are therefore asking only £706,692 instead of £1,010,000, being a difference of £304,000 in our favour. Instead, therefore, of the surplus being £462,000, as was anticipated, we have a margin of £766,000 for the present year to go upon. But out of that we have had to ask for some strictly Supplementary Estimates—£150,000 for the Navy; in fact, about £369,000 altogether in the way of additional Estimates. So that out of our margin of £766,000 we are going to take £369,000, which will leave us still with an anticipated surplus for the present year of £397,000, or within £3,000 of £400,000. That can hardly be considered an unsatisfactory provision for a Session like the present. We have noticed in former years that the surplus estimated at the time of the Budget has been materially diminished by Supplementary Estimates, and if we are able to close the year with an anticipated surplus of some £400,000, I think we are not in an unsatisfactory position as far as this year is concerned. The hon. Gentleman, however, very truly says—" Though you are levying a surplus for the present year, you are making a very heavy draught on the next year." I admit that is an observation to a great extent justified. On the last occasion of a financial discussion in this House a week or two ago, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) made a remark about my having asked in the Budget Statement for £600,000 for the police, whereas I expected that a considerable portion of that sum would not be required until next year. That is true; but I was not

  801
  sure at the time how much would be required; and I was anxious that the House should bear in mind that in asking for those Votes we were asking for something which would not only exhaust the money at our command this year, but would make a demand on next year. Now, I am not afraid, as far as I can judge, if everything goes on reasonably, and we are fairly prosperous, that the surplus of next year will be insufficient to meet the charge which we are throwing upon it. But, at the same time, I frankly own that it may be necessary next year to consider our position, and to see whether any further arrangements may be required with a view to make the finances of that year entirely satisfactory. If there should be any grounds for an increase of expenditure; if we should see any reason to expect a declining Revenue; if we should think it desirable to make any change in taxation, with a view to the relief of local burdens, or take any other steps, the Government would be prepared to make the necessary proposals. But, supposing we make no change at all next year, that our expenditure continues as it is at present, and that there is the normal increase of Revenue, we may fairly expect that what we ask the House to do this year and to undertake for next year will be easily done. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) has made some remarks with which I cordially coincide. I think the House ought very carefully to consider how far it ought to go in the way of making contributions to local taxation and local rates in places where the Government has property. The question, however, is one of very great difficulty. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) says—"I cannot trust the Government. I don't know what they may do with this money, and it would be better to leave the matter to the ordinary rating authorities." I do not know that. I feel sure that if the ordinary rating authorities in places to which the Government property gives their value, were called upon to say what the Government property should contribute, they would take care to make it pay, as the saying is, "both in meal and in malt." They would get their own property enhanced by the presence of Government property, and a good slice besides from the public in aid of their
  802
  rates. Therefore, it is exceedingly difficult to lay down any such general rule as the hon. Gentleman suggested. We are, therefore, obliged to ask the Committee to do for this year certain things done in former years. We are not in this matter proposing anything new, for the principle is the same as that upon which the sum of £63,000 has, for several years, been applied with certain limitations to contributions in regard to Government property. The limitations were, in effect, that the contributions were only to be made in the case of the Government property amounting to about one-sixth in value of the whole property of the parish, and that the contributions should only be made in proportion to that one-sixth, in respect of that portion of the rates which is expended in the bonâ fide relief of the poor. We propose to do two things. In the first place, we propose to do away with the limit of one-sixth, and to say that the Government contributions shall be given in all cases where the Government have any property in a parish; and next, we propose that they shall be given not only in aid of the poor rate proper, but in aid of the local rates generally. Then, the mode in which the payments are to be made will not be according to the discretion of the Treasury as heretofore. A Minute has been passed by the Treasury, and laid upon the Table of the House about a month ago in reference to this subject. It proposes that the payments should be made in the manner therein described, and that as soon as possible, a Return shall be completed and laid before Parliament, setting forth the name of every parish in which the Government occupies property, the rateable value of the parish, exclusive of such property, the value and character of such property, and any special Acts of Parliament which may be applicable to each case. With such a Return as that before them, Parliament will be able to exercise a sufficient control, and to hold the balance fairly between the two parties. Let the hon. Gentleman remember there are two parties in this case. There is, in point of fact, always a possible danger of what the hon. Gentleman is afraid of—namely, something in the nature of a job or of unfair expenditure of public money on the part of the Government. But, on the other hand, there is a much greater danger of the

  803
  application of public money by local authorities unduly and unfairly; and what Parliament ought to be especially jealous of is, the application of this money, which is entrusted to the Treasury, in undue proportion in aid of any particular locality. However, with such lie-turns as those, and with the control which the Auditor General and hon. Members who take an interest in finance may exercise, there will really be little fear of the Government going astray. I think I have now answered all the questions that were put to me, and I can assure the hon. Member for Hackney, there is no fear that in voting this money we are going beyond the amount which Parliament has placed at our disposal in the present year.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that in order that there might be no misunderstanding on the subject, he wished to know whether he was correct in saying that the new Supplementary Estimates which it was proposed to discuss to-night amounted to £219,000 or £220,000? In other words, did the total of £220,000 now submitted to the Committee represent the new Supplementary Estimates in addition to the Supplementary Estimates which were voted before, and which amounted to about £160,000?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the only Supplementary Estimate already voted was for the Navy, and it amounted to £150,000. Another Estimate of £170,000 was proposed to the House, but it was withdrawn. That was the Vote which was now under discussion.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that therefore the total Supplementary Estimate amounted to £150,000 for the Navy and £220,000 to be proposed that evening, exclusive of what might be termed the Budget Supplementary Estimates—namely, those which were indicated to the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech. As he understood the matter, while there was on the one hand about £370,000 of additional expenditure of an Imperial character; on the other, there was a saving, if it could be called a saving, of about £330,000, which would be paid less in relief of local taxation than was anticipated at the time of the Budget. The ratepayers would receive £350,000 less than they were led to expect by the Budget Speech in respect of the police, and £20,000 less in respect of
  804
  pauper lunatics. On the one hand, there was a certain increase in the Supplementary Estimates for Imperial purposes; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, from causes which he explained on a previous occasion, been able to save £350,000 of the sum which was to be devoted to the relief of local taxation. This saving had been effected by postponing the time when the relief would be given.
  MR. W. H. SMITH, interposing, said that was not so.
  MR. GOSCHENunderstood that the ratepayers would receive so much more in the next year. This was the point on which he required information.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the ratepayers would neither lose anything nor would they get next year a larger sum than was promised them this year. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Financial Statement, endeavoured to make it clear that the intention of the Government was, that these additional contributions should be contributions for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1875. It must be perfectly well known to his right hon. Friend opposite, that the amounts paid during a financial year did not necessarily represent the whole cost of that year. In point of fact, the police and the lunatics, to the expense of whose maintenance the Government intended to contribute, would be chargeable as from the 1st of April, 1874, but the whole of the accounts could not be paid during the financial year which ended on the 31st of March, 1875. The Government would pay as much as they could according to the arrangements of the local bodies. Nine months' accounts would be paid for the metropolis, and six months for the counties and boroughs. Of course, the Government could only ask for the amount which would come in course of payment during the current financial year.
  MR. RAMSAYwished that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some explanation on certain points in the Votes affecting Scotland? The Committee were called upon to vote £166,000 for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in England, and £56,000 for a similar purpose in Ireland. He did not perceive that there was any sum put down for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Scotland. He feared

  805
  that if some explanation was not given on this point, a misapprehension might arise in the North. As they were now discussing general matters in connection with the Votes, he thought that the most convenient time to ask for information.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact, that the Vote before the Committee did not touch upon the question of pauper lunatics, and suggested that it would be better to postpone the question till the Vote relating to that matter came on for consideration.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and could assure him that though he had not the happiness to be in the House when the Financial Statement was made, he had carefully studied it since, and had understood from that study, that certain of these payments had been provided for. This year the Supplementary Estimates not mentioned in the Budget amounted to £370,000. Suppose, then, that everything connected with the financial condition of the country remained the same, what was the position in which we were placed? Everything had been run so extremely fine, that, taking into account these Supplementary Estimates, the surplus would be reduced to nothing. The Secretary of the Treasury had explained that we should not have to make all the payments for local charges in the present year, but all the responsibilities would be incurred. We should owe the money, and therefore he thought his contention was just—that in considering these Supplementary Estimates, we must bear in mind that our financial position was such that we should commence the financial year with a surplus of not more than £50,000 or £60,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to get his surplus of £450,000, had taken from his account Telegraph expenditure amounting to about £350,000. As he understood, the revenue from the Telegraphs would be £1,230,000, and the expenditure £930,000, leaving a surplus of £300,000, which, with another £100,000, would make a total of £400,000. When the revenue and the expenditure were so finely balanced it seemed to him that the proceedings of the Government were characterized by want of caution. They had credited themselves with a certain amount of revenue on Telegraphs
  806
  account, and he (Mr. Fawcett) was informed that there were claims of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 under arbitration, which were made by the railway companies in consequence of extraordinary blunders committed when the telegraphs were bought by the Government. A considerable amount had been paid by the Government upon these claims, and he believed it was admitted a certain amount more would inevitably have to be paid; the arbitrators had not to consider whether anything should be paid, but only to assess the sums that should be paid. That being the case, there seemed to him to be a want of caution in not reserving a single sixpence in order to meet the possible results of that claim. In voting large sums of money in aid of local rates from Imperial funds, he felt they were doing an extremely perilous thing, not only on financial grounds, but also on the grounds which influenced those who were now represented by the Government in rejecting the rating Bill of last year because the whole subject of local Government had not been considered. They were now making grants from Imperial funds to local rates, and common prudence required that they should take additional security for the economical expenditure of the money which was thus given. He would not trouble the Committee to divide; but he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think he had occupied time unnecessarily.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, it was desirable that some one should recall the exact figures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, estimated that the expenditure on account of local rates would be £1,010,000, and he now found it would be £704,000, leaving a balance of £306,000. Therefore, with that Supplemental Estimate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was still within a few thousand pounds of his original Estimate; and according to these figures the hon. Member for Hackney was wrong. [Mr. FAWCETT said, he spoke of next year.] They had to do with this; the statement made was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced his estimated surplus to a sum of £50,000; that was not the case, and the estimated surplus still remained. The claims of the railway companies with regard to telegraphs had been known

  807
  for years; they had been before the Committee on Public Accounts; and when the money was paid, it would go to capital, and not to revenue account. By the first Telegraphs Act, the expenditure was limited; by a second, an additional £1,000,000 was granted; and it might be necessary by another Act, still further to increase the capital; but the amount of the claims named by the hon. Member for Hackney was higher than he had before heard it stated. The question of local taxation had been fully considered and discussed. The principle of relieving it had been debated ever since 1839; and it was adopted in the Police Bill of 1856, on the unanimous recommendation of the Committee of 1853. The allocation now proposed did not affect the surplus which was estimated in the Budget speech—they were dealing with savings realized, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to the good what covered the Supplemental Estimates.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the claims of the railway companies respecting telegraphs were transmitted to the late Government by their Predecessors, and therefore he was surprised to have heard that these claims had arisen suddenly. He pointed out to the Committee, at the time of purchase, that the same right of telegraphy was being paid for four times over; but such was the excessive desire to acquire the telegraphs at any cost, that there appeared to be perfect blindness on this point, and he divided the Committee several times only to find himself in a minority of 1. As regarded the aid to local rates, he wished to know what the ratepayers would have to pay this year, whether the same rates, less £600,000, or less £300,000?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The intention of the Government in the proposal made was this—that relief should be given to the local ratepayers from the commencement of the Imperial financial year—the 1st of April, 1874, for a certain amount. That relief would, of course, be given in the form in which the Government subsidies have been always paid. Taking the case of the police as an example, where in former periods we paid one-fourth, we now propose to pay one-half. That one-half will be paid in respect of expenditure incurred by the locality in the year commencing the 1st of April, 1874.
  808
  But the time when these payments are made varies in different cases. In some cases they are paid twice in the year. In these cases—those of counties and boroughs—the first payment will fall within the financial year ending 1874–75; the second payment will fall just after the termination of the financial year 1874–75. The amount which the ratepayers will receive will be precisely the amount which was intended to be given them by the Government when the Financial Statement was made; and as to the effect upon the Imperial finances of the year, it will not affect to the full extent the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1875. The amount which will be paid to the ratepayers will be precisely what was promised; it will be paid at the time at which they are accustomed to receive it; and the charge upon the Imperial revenue will be precisely the same in the end. The hon. Member for Hackney says—"We are told you will leave a surplus; but remember you are drawing a bill upon next year." Exactly; that is just what we are doing, but to what extent? According to the calculations I have given to the House—which are moderate, for I have omitted something I expect to receive from another direction—we estimate a surplus for the present year of £400,000. Supposing, therefore, there is no improvement in the Revenue, we shall next year have a surplus of £400,000 to start with, against claims to the amount of £540,000; and I think I am justified in relying on the normal increase of the Revenue to make up the deficiency. With regard to the Telegraphs, that subject certainly seems to be, with some hon. Gentlemen, a skeleton in the closet. We really know very little about it; but a decision lately given in the Court of Exchequer, with regard to what is known as the Isle of Wight case, has very materially relieved the Government, and when the net result is arrived at, I believe the apprehensions entertained will be found very much exaggerated. At all events, it would be absurd, and quite out of the question, to ask the Committee to reserve a of millions with a view to meet such a contingency. I believe the Government has taken a wise course in considering what the expenditure ought to be, and what the income of the country is likely to be, and then remitting as much

  809
  taxation as they could. That course, I believe, will be found to be, on the whole, beneficial to the taxpayers of the country.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £15,000, Supplementary sum, Post Office and Inland Revenue Buildings.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject of Post Office telegraphs, which was the next Vote proposed. They were asked to vote about £50,000 for the maintenance of Post Office telegraphs and constructions. He was desirous of knowing how much of these allowances was chargeable to capital and how much to revenue? After quoting certain figures, the hon. Gentleman declared that the whole accounts were in a state of chaos, and that there was no means of ascertaining what was capital and what was revenue. In the present Vote, £7,000 was charged for ordinary maintenance and repairs that were plainly chargeable against revenue. He believed that the telegraph service, if the accounts were properly stated, as between revenue and capital, never did pay one shilling of revenue, and would not do so for some years.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he said the sum of £7,000 should be charged against revenue. By the Re-solution of the late Government, all new works and all charges of whatever description were to be charged against revenue. That particular Vote, however, had been omitted in the preparation of the Estimates for the current year. It was decided by the late Government that the new works, alterations, and maintenance of Telegraph buildings should be undertaken by the Office of Works, and they made the present estimate; but owing to some misconception, it was not presented in March, and was not included in the charges for the year. The Telegraph account was not now before the Committee; but when the Vote was in the Chairman's hands, he should be happy to give any explanation that might be required.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £35,600, Supplementary sum, New Buildings for County Courts, &c.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman, if it were a
  810
  fact that in England, the whole cost of the County Courts was paid by the Government; and, if that were so, if he could explain how it was that in Scotland the County Courts had to be paid for by the localities? One-half was allowed by the Government, and the other half had to be paid by the localities. Surely, there ought not to be such disparity in such a matter as that.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that undoubtedly in England the whole charge for County Court buildings, whore these were Government property, fell on the Government; but, on the other hand, all fees paid in County Courts wont to the Imperial Exchequer. In Scotland the County Courts were not of the same character as in England. County Courts in England were for purely judicial business. The Courts were Courts of Justice where trials where conducted under the direction of a Judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor. County Courts in Scotland were places where the business of the county was conducted. [Mr. ANDERSON: Sheriff Courts.] The cost is borne in England by the Imperial Exchequer but all the fees are paid in there.
  MR. ANDERSON: The hon. Gentleman is not aware that the Sheriff Courts in Scotland have a wider jurisdiction than the County Courts in England. They have criminal jurisdiction, which the County Courts have not, and that is an additional reason why the cost should be paid by the State.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the hon. Gentleman had answered himself. The Sheriff Courts were used for local at well as Imperial purposes. These were analogous to the quarter sessions and petty sessions in England, the costs of which were borne by the localities. He would add that an Act of Parliament laid down the proportion to be paid out of Imperial and local funds for the Sheriff Courts which were used for both purposes.
  MR. ANDERSONrepeated that the Sheriff Courts had criminal jurisdiction as well as civil, which the County Courts had not.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that the counties in England defrayed the expense of the petty session and quarter session buildings.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £13,800, Supplementary sum, Constructing certain Harbours, &c.
  MR. GOSCHENinquired what steps the Government proposed to take with regard to Dover Harbour?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the only sum asked for this year for Dover Harbour was £2,050 to pay the salaries of certain officials. That sum had no connection with the harbour works. When the present Government came into office they found a scheme for extending the harbour, which had been approved by the late Government, involving an expenditure of £970,000. The Government did not think it right to adopt so considerable a plan without due consideration. A vote of £10,000 on account had been taken last year, but no portion of it had been expended by the present Government, and the money had been surrendered to the Exchequer. The Government had under its consideration a similar scheme to that of the late Government, and although no decision had been come to, it was very possible some similar measure would be proposed next year. But nothing would be done without giving the House an opportunity of coming to a decision.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £2,225, Supplementary sum, Lighthouses Abroad.
  (6.) £166,000, Supplementary sum, Local Government Board.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation of the fact that there was no Vote for Scotland? They were asked to vote a sum of £166,000 as a contribution for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in England, and £56,000 for Ireland, and he feared that, unless some explanation were given of the cause which induced the Government to refrain from asking a Vote for Scotland, there would be some misapprehension in the North, and he desired to avoid that. He understood it was intended that a Vote should be allowed for Scotland, calculated on the same principle as that for England, and dating from the same time. If that were the case, the half-year's payment for pauper lunatics would be due to the parochial authorities in Scotland at the same time as in England. But he had understood from remarks by the right hon. Gentleman, that
  812
  it was not usual to pay contributions of this kind to Scotland more than once in a year. He could see no good reason why Scotland in that instance should be an exception, seeing that contributions of this kind were altogether new. He asked therefore that the payment should be made to Scotland at the same time as to England. Another inquiry, and one which he regarded as of greater importance than the date at which the contribution would become due, was this—the right hon. Gentleman was quite aware that there was considerable diversity in the practice as to the mode of treatment of pauper lunatics in England and Scotland; and the practice as established in Scotland was deemed by eminent medical authorities in Scotland, and by most eminent psychologists, to be the best for promoting the recovery and comfort of patients. It was therefore desirable that this mode of practice should not be disturbed or interfered with in any way. Those who administered the statutes regarding the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Scotland wished to be allowed to follow hereafter that course of treatment which they had hitherto followed. They desired that the sums allocated to Scotland should be granted without interfering with that mode. It was therefore proposed that instead of paying the sum as in England, that paid in Scotland should be handed over to the Lunacy Boards of the several counties, in order that the parochial authorities might receive each their share without reference to the place in which the lunatics might be maintained. He could bring abundant evidence to support this application, but he did not believe anything he could do would alter the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He merely wished now that the matter should be explained.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcordially agreed in supporting the application. He ventured to hope that time would be given to allow the people of Scotland to express an opinion on the subject. It was desirable to allow patients to remain in poor-houses or at farm-houses, where the mode of treatment was preferable to that in largo asylums.
  MR. MARK STEWARTagreed that there was a strong feeling in Scotland on the subject, and was quite sure from the

  813
  attention which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had always given to Scotch subjects, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) on that head were uncalled for, and might be liable to misconstruction.
  MR. RAMSAYexplained that what he meant was, he could add nothing here to what he had told the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he did not put any adverse construction on the remarks of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay). With reference to the first question, the hon. Member had himself supplied the answer. There was no Vote proposed for Scotland in this Estimate, the reason being that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board having made inquiries, was informed that the proper and convenient time would be to pay at the period when the Scotch make up their accounts, and that was on the 15th of May, and therefore the sum would not come in the course of payment in the present financial year. There was no question that the Vote would be submitted next year, and that payment would be made on the same principle as in Ireland. Whether there might be a change made in the future as to that time—the time of payment to Scotland—was a subject he could not venture on now. In the present arrangements, which were of a temporary character, they had desired to disturb as little as possible the ordinary course of things as they found them, and they had made their arrangements accordingly. A sum of about £35,000 would, however, have to be provided for Scotland to put it on the same footing as England and Ireland. With regard to distributing the grant in Scotland on a somewhat different principle from that adopted in England, as desired by the hon. Gentleman, the arguments adduced on that point by many of the Scotch Representatives whom he had seen were not without weight, and it might be well worthy of consideration whether in future some different arrangements could not be made regarding it; but for the present year, he was not disposed to encourage the introduction of that system. Anything that they did in that matter involved consequences and laid down precedents of which it was not easy to see the ulti-
  814
  mate result, and it would be time enough to consider the matter when they came to the Vote next year. In Scotland, no doubt, they had to consider the different classes of lunatic asylums, and make provision for a class which did not come within the category of the English asylums—namely, the parochial asylums, which came properly within the scope of that Vote. But when they were asked to go beyond that, and make provision for lunatics in fatuous wards and also in private residences, very difficult questions arose. Questions might arise between one locality and another; and if they distributed the grant through the Commissioners in Lunacy according to principles they might adopt, which included paupers in fatuous wards and other places, those counties which were now reckoning on getting the whole would only get a portion of that Vote. The questions involved were difficult and delicate, and required to be carefully considered before they adopted a final system with regard to the matter. No doubt, a simple plan could be devised to meet the case. It must be borne in mind that the rates of contribution ought not to be the same, because in some cases there was a much lower weekly payment than in others. Boards of Guardians with regard to some of these institutions were responsible for the control and expenditure; whereas in other cases, the patients were taken entirely out of their hands, and they had nothing at all to do with the expenditure. The House might adopt the principle of paying a certain proportion—half, or what they pleased—of the cost of a lunatic; but that principle the Government were loth to adopt, as they were afraid it might lead to extravagance. They preferred the principle of the capitation grant to it. He trusted that the Committee would agree at the present moment to the view of the matter taken by the Government.
  MR. RAMSAYfound that, from an excessive desire not to detain the Committee, he had not made himself properly understood. He did not intend to ask that the Vote for Scotland should be made upon any other principle than that which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down as applicable to England. His object was to secure that the system of treatment which was adopted, and which was considered the best, should

  815
  not be interfered with by any decision the right hon. Gentleman might come to regarding the mode of payment in Scotland. He begged to state that the Board of Lunacy in Scotland had a record, or rather a register, of the names of all the pauper lunatics, and the number of days they were maintained by the parish, and they had therefore a complete control over the expenditure which was incurred on account of each pauper lunatic—as to his dietary and mode of treatment.
  MR. SCOURFIELDpointed out that the principle on which lunatics of different classes should be dealt with was equally important in England and Scotland, and hoped that no system would be adopted in either country which would militate against the adoption of the most perfect form of treatment.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he would have liked to know whether the experiment of the Government was to be confined to the mere apportionment of the grants; because, if so, as far as he could see, the scheme could not be carried out consistently with the curative treatment which had been so successful in Scotland.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £4,500, Supplementary sum, Mint.
  (8.) £55,692, Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
  (9.) £155,200, Supplementary sum, Metropolitan Police.
  MR. WHITWELLasked, why the metropolitan police was dealt with differently to the county and borough police, by giving a quarter of the actual expenditure incurred? The Vote was for nine months, and was equal to £206,000 for the year. The county and borough Vote was for £160,000, or £320,000 for the year. The Government was about to give £206,000 for a population of about 3,000,000, and only £320,000 for a population of 20,000,000. It was giving an immense advantage to the metropolis, that had already got so many advantages over the country generally.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained that, as there were three periods for making up the police accounts for the country, Scotland would be a great loser on this occasion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the principle on which
  816
  the metropolitan police were paid had long since been laid down by law. They were much more under the immediate control of the Home Office than the county or borough police were.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £160,000, Supplementary sum, Police in Counties and Boroughs (England and Wales).
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that unless in Scotland they received some contribution in aid of the police in respect of the period between 26th March and the 15th May, they certainly would not get a contribution of equal amount to that which would be given for England, and he would therefore suggest that the same allowance ought to be made for Scotland in respect of those 50 clays which was made for this country. He could see no reason why one country should be treated differently to the other. In Scotland they paid the same taxes as in England, and in all other respects contributed in an equal degree to the national Exchequer; and if his present demand was not acceded to, he should feel inclined to resist the Vote.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the matter should receive the fullest consideration on the part of the Government, and that any practicable concession that the justice of the case might be found to require, would be granted.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, there should be a detailed statement of the amounts to be contributed out of the Consolidated Fund to the local rates.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be contained in the elaborate Returns that had been moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract.
  MR. RAMSAYconsidered the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. W. H. Smith) conveyed an unsatisfactory assurance. They ought to have an assurance that the money would be paid, and unless it were given, he must again say he should resist the Vote.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably be able to give a more distinct answer on the Report.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it would be impossible to make the arrangement proposed this year, as it would interfere with the Esti-

  817
  mates, but next year the question could be more fully considered.
  MR. M'LARENwas of opinion that the same rule ought to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, England was to be paid in this Vote for four extra days, and why should not Scotland be paid for the 50 days?
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £7,523, Supplementary sum, Miscellaneous Legal Charges, Ireland.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGcomplained that the county of Cork, which was the largest in Ireland, was not placed in the list in the appointment of its chairman of quarter sessions as a first-class county, and that the chairmen of other smaller counties, such as Kilkenny, Monaghan, and Armagh had larger salaries, which was, he thought, a great injustice. He also wished to draw attention especially to the meagre payment vouchsafed to clerks of the peace in the county, the result of which was that when an able man was found there, he was generally removed from the county as a reward for his merits.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the chairman of quarter sessions in the West Riding of the county of Cork being entitled to rank in the first class, but the present was not the time to raise the question. It could not fail, however, to be taken into consideration hereafter.
  MR. BUTT, although he usually distrusted any proposal to increase the salaries of officials in Ireland, thought that it would only be an act of justice to place the chairman of the division in question in the first class.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £3,068, Supplementary sum, British Museum.
  (13.) Supplementary sum, National Gallery.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he had understood the Prime Minister to promise a statement on this Vote, as to the purchase of a picture to which he (Mr. Hankey) called attention some time ago. He wished now to ask, under what circumstances pictures were bought? Although the Director had a duty to
  818
  perform in bringing under the notice of the Government such pictures as it was desirable the nation should acquire, yet it was very properly on the responsibility of the Prime Minister that the pictures were bought. It would be well, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should consult the Trustees, comprising as they did men of eminence in society, such as Lord Overstone, Sir William James, Mr. Gregory, and others. A statement had been published that the picture to which he had referred was trash, but the right hon. Gentleman said it was one of rare merit, and congratulated the country on its possession. In fact, the opinion of Mr. Robertson did not appear to be generally shared, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was correct in his view. That was the only opportunity afforded to hon. Members for considering the condition of national pictures, and therefore he desired to call attention to the disgraceful state of two great works of art in the long gallery of the House of Lords, painted by Mr. Maclise, which were now rotting away and peeling off the walls.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that in a Vote of that kind the hon. Gentleman was out of Order in alluding to the condition of pictures in the House of Lords.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he was sorry if he was out of Order, as he could not on any other occasion allude to the matter. He hoped that some means would be adopted for stopping the further progress of decay, and in that view would request the Commissioner of Works to take the opinion, during the Recess, of men of taste as to the condition of those pictures.
  THE CHAIRMANagain called the hon. Member to Order, and informed him that the subject under consideration was the pictures in the National Gallery, and not those in the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. DISRAELI: My hon. Friend opposite is labouring under several misconceptions. In the first place, he is labouring under a misconception, when he supposes I said I would make a statement with respect to the purchase of these pictures. A statement was made by my hon. Friend, to the effect that one of the pictures out of several was worthless, and I expressed a contrary opinion. No doubt, when the sub-

  819
  ject comes before us, it is the duty of the Government to give any information I that may be required. The next misconception is to suppose that the pictures are bought on the responsibility and under the direction of the Chief Minister. Nothing of the kind. The House allows £10,000 a-year for the purchase of pictures, and that sum is expended according to the judgment of the Director of the National Gallery—a post which has been filled by very eminent men and is now filled by a gentleman only recently promoted to it by the late Government, but who is in every way fitted to discharge its duties. The Director has the advantage of consulting the Trustees of the National Gallery; they are his council, and whenever he has an opportunity of purchasing pictures it is his duty to consult his council, which consists of gentlemen appointed by the Government of the day. The Director, however, is not bound by their advice, any more than the Secretary of State for India is bound by the advice of his Council. He has usually the power of purchasing up to £10,000 a-year on his own responsibility. Some four or five years ago, however, the National Gallery purchased the collection of the late Sir Robert Peel for £75,000. It was a most valuable collection—a most desirable purchase for the Government to make. I believe, if sold by public auction, it would have fetched, I will not say double that sum, but a sum much more considerable than that paid for it. The pictures are all of the highest class of the school to which they belong, and are a great addition to the national collection. But then the Government who wisely made that purchase, made an arrangement which I did not approve at the time. They did not quite make up their minds to buy this collection at once for £75,000, which I humbly submit it was their duty to have done, but said they would mortgage the £10,000 a-year which is given to the Trustees of the National Gallery for the purchase of pictures, until the £75,000 was paid off. The consequence was, that of late years the Trustees of the National Gallery and their Director have made very few purchases for the nation, and whenever they do, they have to come to Parliament. Of course, when they come to Parliament, the Prime Minister is responsible, for it is upon his judgment and decision that
  820
  they determine whether they shall make the purchase or not. This year and last year the National Gallery was denuded of funds. Then there came to the hammer a collection well known to the curious, the collection of Mr. Barker, containing pictures of a peculiar character, and an opportunity was given to the nation of obtaining specimens of art of a rare character, such as probably would never occur again. Under these circumstances, the Director of the National Gallery, feeling the responsibility of allowing such an opportunity to be lost to the country, made strong representations to the Government that, notwithstanding the arrangement made at the time of the purchase of Sir Robert Peel's collection, they ought to consider the circumstances and come to a decision in favour of purchasing. Of course, the Government adopted every possible means of making themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and they came to the resolution that it was their duty to take the responsibility of purchasing a certain number of the pictures before the public. These were all pictures by early Italian masters—the great masters of the "Renaissance;" they were fine specimens of masters very difficult to obtain. I think there were 12 pictures—some say 14, for one was in three compartments; but they were all specimens, as I have said, of very early Italian masters, and, I think, specimens of the highest class. One of these pictures, by Piero della Francesca, fetched a considerable sum, and the country purchased it with the full consent of the Government, under the advice of the Director, who is quite competent to fill the responsible post he occupies. The House is acquainted with the fact that there were attacks in the public journals, by an individual, very much decrying that picture, saying that it was of no value, that it was entirely repainted, and that the country had made a bad purchase. It was in consequence of that, that my hon. Friend addressed a Question to me in this House to which I responded by expressing what was my opinion, and what still is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. There is a story, which is quite authentic, of the Great Napoleon, who was always thinking of fame and posterity. He one day asked Baron Denon how long a picture would

  821
  last, for at the time, he was speculating on all the ways by which a man's name and fame might be best perpetuated. Baron Denon said a picture might last for 500 years, at which the great Emperor scoffed, expressed his contempt for a fame which would last only 500 years, and would not entrust his recollection to that branch of Art. But I would remind the Committee that the picture which has been called in question is a picture of nearly 500 years. It was painted at the beginning of the 15th century, and we are now near the end of the 19th. Of course, in paintings of this kind you do not expect technical perfection. You purchase them for their sentiment, their design, their powerful expression, and for their originality. This picture is described as a corpus vile—I will not say by an anonymous writer, for his name was always signed, but by a volunteer critic. It was described as a corpus vile, void of all feeling, and was denounced as a picture which had been entirely re-painted, and it was said that no portion of the original was extant. The answer could be given by many hon. Gentlemen present, for it has been now for some time exhibited in the National Gallery, and before that, many hon. Gentlemen must have seen it in the rooms of Messrs. Christie and Manson. It is one of those pictures so peculiar that there is no one who sees it for the first time, whether he be artist, connoisseur, or one of the uncultured crowd, but must feel involuntary admiration and even enthusiasm for its Idyllic grace, delicacy, and beauty. It so happened when these attacks were made upon this picture—as the truth always comes out—that there was furnished to the Government by a most accomplished lady, a memorandum made by Sir Charles Eastlake when he was in Italy, and saw this picture on its being offered for sale. Sir Charles Eastlake admired it so much that he intended to purchase it, and, thinking he had done so, he pursued his journey in Italy. When he returned to Florence he claimed the picture, but found that Mr. Barker had seen it in the meantime and tempted the owner with a higher price, who we must charitably suppose misconceived the nature of the contract, and parted with it to Mr. Barker. But we have the description of the picture by Sir Charles Eastlake in 1861. It was painted on
  822
  vertical panels; the panels were warped and greatly disjointed; and so it would have been totally impossible to re-paint the picture. Therefore, all that had been done to the picture in the way of modern restoration must have been during the 12 or 13 years which have elapsed since 1861. The fact is that the vertical panels have been put again in form, joined together, and what is called "masked," and that a portion of no great importance has been painted over, the same portion that has been restored. But I believe the great body of the picture has been painted by Piero della Francesca. Indeed, that, I think, can be proved. I may add that the description I have given of this picture as being a picture painted upon panels is applicable to some of the chefs d'æuvre of the galleries of Europe, and many of them have been treated in the same manner as this. Allowing for the natural result of time, the picture is really in excellent condition. It must be that many hon. Gentlemen who hear me have seen it, and can speak of it for themselves; and all those whose opinions on such subjects ought to influence us must, I am sure, regard it as one of the most exquisite specimens of one of the rarest artists that exists. As to the price, I would merely observe that, although it cost £2,400, it must be borne in mind that when we buy works of art we must consider whether they be first-rate works, and not consider price. The country ought to purchase all the best works of art, as far as possible, whether they be pictures, statues, or gems. No private collectors would hesitate to take that course, knowing that the prices which they give for such works would, in the long run, more than remunerate them. It was quite impossible, therefore, for the Government, when they made up their mind that the picture should be purchased, to hesitate about giving a sum of £1,500 or £1,600 more or less. And how was it purchased? It was purchased under all the strictness of competition with the agents of many foreign galleries, and with only an advance of £50 on the sum which had been offered by a competitor. The purchase has, therefore, been made by the country under the most legitimate circumstances. It includes specimens of Benvenuto di San Georgio, Carlo Crivelli, the great name of Piero della Fran-

  823
  cesca, Luca Signorelli, who was one of his pupils; Pinturiechio, and Botticelli. Those are masters whose works it must be admitted will he a great addition to our Gallery, which was not sufficiently strong in specimens of their style. I have only further to add that, although fierce attacks have been made on the national collection—a very reckless assertion was made on the subject in The Times newspaper (I do not say by The Times itself) as to its being unequal and being vamped up in a very illegitimate manner—I have the highest authority for saying that no other collection in Europe containing so many pictures as the National Gallery of England is characterized by so much intactness. I hope, therefore, the House will sanction the course which, under the circumstances, the Government have deemed it to be their duty to take, the National Gallery having no funds. We made the purchase believing it was made wisely and discreetly, and in the belief that the mere value of these pictures will be found to exceed the price which has been given for them.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £1,000, Sub-Wealden Exploration.
  MR. GOSCHENasked what were the special circumstances which had induced the Government to give this sum?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that while he was of opinion that great caution should be exercised in such matters, he thought the House would approve the course which had been taken by the Government in the present instance. In the course of the inquiry of the Royal Commission which had been appointed to examine into the supply of coals, it had been ascertained that there was reason to suppose that a vein of coal which was found in Belgium might probably underlie the Weald of the South-east of England. The Commission therefore recommended that some investigation should be made into the subject. One of the associations had consequently visited Sussex, and a spot was selected at Netherfield, near Battle, for the purpose of proving the question. At that place, boring had taken place, and had been carried on to the depth of 1,000 feet, at a cost of £3,000, provided by
  824
  private subscription. The work however had proved to be heavier and more costly than was anticipated, and far advanced as it was, would have to be abandoned, unless it was assisted in some way. It had at the same time been reported to the Government that all that had been done was consistent with the theory on which the work had originally been undertaken, and that coal might be found at a lower stratum. The Government having communicated with several gentlemen of high scientific knowledge on the matter, and deeming the experiment to be worth trying, and that it had a national character, had thought it their duty to make the present proposal. The amount of the Vote was to be applied in the proportion of £100 for every 100 feet advanced.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he also supported the Vote as being a national experiment which might be productive of the best possible results. It appeared probable that when the boring had been carried 100 or 200 feet further, it being now already pushed below the Oxford clay, the object which scientific men had in making it would be ascertained. Those men, however, out of whose pockets the £3,000 already expended had come, had exhausted their resources, and the experiment would have to be abandoned, if the Government did not come, to the rescue. The expenditure of the public money proposed was, therefore, in his opinion, under the circumstances, a good one, and it would be a pity if the enterprize were relinquished for want of funds.
  MR. FAWCETTthanked the Government for making the grant. The exploration had been started and carried on partly by a very public spirited man in Brighton—Mr. Willett—who had not the smallest pecuniary interest in the matter, aided by others, who had done everything they could to avoid such an appeal as the present, and whose efforts must cease unless they received assistance. The experiment was of the utmost scientific value, although no coal might be discovered. He did not think the most ardent friend of economy could blame the Government for carrying out the experiment.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not make any objection to the Vote, but had thought it desirable that the Govern-

  825
  ment should have an opportunity of stating the circumstances.
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) £5,000, Supplementary sum, Temporary Commissions.
  (16.) £800, Supplementary sum, Miscellaneous expenses.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought this was an extraordinary charge and required further explanation than was given in the Parliamentary Papers. It appeared that the Duke of Abercorn on his appointment to his present office had to pay a stamp duty of £1,000, whereas his Predecessor had to pay a stamp duty only of £200, and the Government proposed to pay the difference of £800. He should like to know why the Puke of Abercorn was to be treated differently from other persons who received a valuable appointment, and who had to pay a stamp duty in proportion to the value of their appointment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that under the old Stamp Duties Act certain duties were charged upon various public appointments, and at the time the last Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was appointed the amount of stamp duties payable in respect of that office was about £200. In 1870, the Stamp Acts were revised and a duty at the rate of 5 per cent upon the salary attached to an office was imposed upon the person who was appointed to the office. That enactment came rather suddenly upon certain classes of appointments. As to the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and perhaps he might add that of the Governor General of India, though their nominal salaries were very considerable, yet in point of fact, the amount of remuneration which they actually received was by no means in proportion to the amount of their salaries. It appeared to be an oversight of Parliament, that the full gross salaries in these cases were taken as the units of taxation, and as a practical injustice seemed to be committed in the case of the stamp duty pabable by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Government felt that a sum of £800 should be voted to defray the amount of stamp duty which had become payable under the new Stamp Act by the Lord Lieutenant in excess of the amount payable by his Predecessor.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not object to the Vote, but he thought it would be better if the matter were placed on a legal footing. A great many of the fines, under the disguise of fees and stamps, imposed on the acceptance of office seemed to him to be a mistake. Some years ago, a Committee, of which his right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Goschen) was Chairman, was appointed to consider the matter; but owing to a change of Government nothing was done, and he suggested whether the inquiry might not be taken up now and carried out.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, that it was unjust that persons when appointed to an office which they might hold for a short time should have to pay a large stamp duty. When he was appointed on a previous occasion to the office he now held, he had to pay in stamp duty the same amount as if he had been appointed to an office which he could hold for life, and he held office only for a few days, the Government having within that time after, resigned.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that military officers ought to be exempted from such a tax.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, that was a subject well worthy of the attention of the Government. He had long been of opinion that nothing could be more unworthy of a great country than to levy fines upon persons who received offices of dignity or emolument, or titles of honour.
  MR. ANDERSONwas of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not shown why the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be treated exceptionally with reference to this stamp duty.
  MR. SULLIVANwarned the Committee against believing that the Viceroys of Ireland invariably spent their £20,000 a-year in that country. There was a considerable amount of poetry in that statement; but he felt it due to the present Lord Lieutenant to say that public opinion did not point to him as one of those to whom these remarks applied.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was the intention of the Government to institute a departmental inquiry, or an inquiry by Committee of the House of Commons, into this subject, as it affected all classes of public servants.
  Vote agreed to.
  (17.) £5,883, Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he perceived that the grant included the sum of £300 as a contribution towards illuminating Edinburgh. He should like to know why money for such a purpose was asked for in the case of Edinburgh, any more than in the cases of other large towns?
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the item referred to was in no sense a contribution to Edinburgh on the marriage of the Duke of Edinburgh. The inhabitants agreed to illuminate all the public buildings belonging to the town. They asked the Government to illuminate all the public buildings belonging to the country, and accordingly £300 was expended for that purpose. He repeated that that was not a contribution to the City of Edinburgh, and he might add that as the £300 did not suffice to pay the cost of illuminating the Government buildings, it was supplemented from local sources.
  Vote agreed to.
  (18.) £4,404, Family of the late Dr. Livingstone, &c.
  MR. SULLIVANinquired, whether that Vote would supersede the necessity of granting £100 a-year to members of Dr. Livingstone's family? adding that he saw the proposal of that grant with pleasure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that the present proposal was an addition to that grant.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, whether it was true that Dr. Livingstone had been buried at the expense of a wealthy merchant of the City of London?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Treasury had at first promised to grant £250 for the funeral of Dr. Livingtone, that sum having been estimated to cover all expenses. It was afterwards found that a larger amount was required, and in informing the Government of the circumstance, the Geographical Society added that a wealthy merchant in the City offered to make up the difference, but the Treasury felt that to accept the offer would not be in accordance with the wishes of the country.
  MR. KINNAIRDbelieved the Treasury had exercised a wise discretion in making an allowance to Dr. Living-
  828
  stone's family. He was only sorry the sum was not larger.
  Vote agreed to.
  (19.) £71,500, Supplementary sum, Post Office Services, &c.
  MR. GOLDNETcalled attention to the various offices now included in the Post Office, and amongst them those of the Savings Banks and Telegraph, the latter of which, he was informed, was not productive of any profit. He considered that reform in the management of the Post Office departments ought to be effected, and that a Bill ought to be brought in to place them all under a Board with one head.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEmade an appeal to the Postmaster General on behalf of the provincial letter-carriers, whose salaries were very small, and totally inadequate as remuneration for their very laborious duties.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the position of the provincial letter-carriers would be taken into consideration with a view to a revision of the rate of pay.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked if the same scale of increase would be applied to the letter-carriers of Edinburgh and Dublin as of London?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the amount asked for the salaries for suburban letter-carriers in London was £46,270 for the year, against £43,606 last year; and that the new scale of pay applied to Edinburgh and Dublin.
  In reply to Mr. GUILDERS,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it had been the practice that the sum paid for the acquisition of freehold land for the purpose of the Post Office should be carried to the account of that Department, while the cost of erecting the actual building should be carried to the account of the Office of Works.
  Vote agreed to.
  (20.) £37,687, Supplementary sum, Post Office Telegraph Service.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, the sum was a very large one, and he wished to know why it had not been included in the original Estimate?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was owing to a change in the system of accounts, which had only recently been introduced, and which he thought was a very desirable one. Until that year it had been the custom to charge the amount of the

  829
  annuities payable to the servants of the late telegraph companies to capital account; but as that was thought an objectionable arrangement, it was necessary that a Supplementary Estimate should be prepared.
  MR. FAWCETTwished to know how much the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken credit for under the head of telegraph revenue in his Financial statement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not give the precise figures, but he was informed that the amount of business that was being done was largely in excess of that done last year, and that there was at present no reason to fear that the estimate which was given to him for the telegraph revenues for this year would not be realized.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that taking last month, there were 200,000 more telegrams despatched and received than were despatched and received during the corresponding month of 1873, a gratifying proof of the immense development of this particular branch of the Post Office system.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that in 1873–4 there were 268 officers of the old companies in receipt of annuities, whereas in 1874–5 there were only 185, the amount asked for in the former year being £25,000, as against £12,500 asked for in the present year. He wished to know whether that difference in the number of officers was owing to their having been absorbed into the service, or to their having commuted?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the difference in the numbers was chiefly owing to the persons referred to having commuted, and the cost of such commutation had been charged to capital account.
  Vote agreed to.
  On Motion, "That the Chairman report the Resolutions to the House,"
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state what portion of the remission of taxation which had been made in the course of the Session would take effect this year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he scarcely understood the question of the hon. Member. The remission of the sugar duties and of the licence duty on horses came into operation at once, and that of the income tax
  830
  of course covered the whole of the financial year.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed; Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

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

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEmoved for an Address for Copies and Translations of any Laws, Ordinances, or regulations relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions connected with the Church of Rome, and to the inmates or members thereof, especially to the regular Orders of the Church of Rome, which may be enforced by the authority of the State, and are at present operative in France, in the German Empire, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the Russian Empire, in Italy, in Sweden and Norway, in Belgium, in Spain, in Portugal, and in Switzerland.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will he graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies and Translations of any Laws, Ordinances, or Regulations relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions connected with the Church of Rome, and to the inmates or members thereof, especially to the regular Orders of the Church of Rome, which may be enforced by the authority of the State, and are at present operative in France, in the German Empire, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the Russian Empire, in Italy, in Sweden and Norway, in Belgium, in Spain, in Portugal, and in Switzerland,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ERRINGTONhoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would state, whether he was prepared to accept the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) had placed upon the Paper, and which was to extend the inquiry to the

  831
  United States and the Dominion of Canada? If the hon. Member was not prepared to accept the Amendment, he (Mr. Errington) should be obliged, however unwillingly, to oppose the Motion, in order to be able to put the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, they had received no intimation as to whether the addition to the Motion would be agreed to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who proposed to ransack the whole world for some precedent for that particular kind of legislation which he had so long sought to force on the House. If the hon. Member were indeed labouring in the interests of civil and religious liberty, he should recollect that there was such a portion of the world as the United States of America, in which the institutions which fostered civil and religious liberty had just as strong a hold as in any part of the world. He hoped there would be no objection to asking whether in the Dominion of Canada like Returns could be found. The Catholic Members of that House were quite content that the Motion should be acceded to, for they would welcome any information in relation to Catholic practice or affairs, collected in good faith. They only asked that the inquiry should be made without bias, and that it should be made as wide as possible—in fact, as wide as the civilized world itself.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not object to the Motion, because he did not think the information would in any way be prejudicial to Roman Catholics. But he must say that the hon. Gentleman had chosen those countries where at present persecution was going on under peculiar circumstances. He did not think the object which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) had in view would be assented to by the people of England, because the regulations which existed in the countries to which the hon. Member's Motion referred were contrary to that principle of freedom and civil and religious liberty which this country greatly valued. The Returns would he of no use as an analogy for any legislation in this country. He wished the Return to be ex-
  832
  tended to Malta, a portion of the British Dominions. He thought the Return would show that in the countries named there was no regulation in force which would be objected to in England; but he objected to the notion which now existed in Germany, under the dictation of one particular statesman, whose name he need not mention, that anything of that sort should be introduced into this country, because he thought that any attempt to introduce into England such laws as were in force in Germany, would be repudiated by both parties in this country.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGobjected to both the Motion and the Amendment proposed to be made upon it, and would ask, supposing an application for this information made to the authorities in France and Spain and other countries were refused, how was the Resolution of that House to be carried out?
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that early in the Session he informed the hon. Member for North Warwickshire there would be no objection on the part of the Government to obtaining the information he desired, and placing it in the Library; but he thought it would be a useless expenditure of public money to translate and print all the documents. They had got together the laws of the countries named, and he thought there was scholarship enough in the House to obviate the necessity for translations. There could be no objection on the part of the Government to add the countries named in the Amendment; but the Constitution of the United States rendered it almost impossible they could have any laws on the subject, and, in fact, an interesting book in the Library showed that they had none. Canada had two or three old laws on the subject. He would gladly put all the available information on the Table of the Library; but he thought that it would be a useless expenditure of public time and money to make translations.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he should be glad to second the request of the hon. Member for the county of Wexford (Sir George Bowyer). The more information they could have upon the subject the better. But why did his hon. Friend interpose a certain expression about a certain individual in the German Empire? He meant the legisla-

  833
  tion of Prince Bismarck. He wished the hon. Baronet had spoken boldly out. His hon. Friend was a very old Friend—they had never quarrelled. For himself, he wished to endorse the Prince's policy, and to express the opinion that the attempt on his life should rally all their sympathies. At all events, he was delighted the Prince had escaped the hand of the assassin, and he believed the hon. Baronet would rejoice that the Prince had escaped. The more information they had the better; and, as they were all at one, the sooner they dropped the subject the better.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been told by the Under Foreign Secretary that the Return would be voluminous, and therefore he had confined himself to countries in Europe in which there had been legislation since 1829, when there was legislation in this country. With regard to America, it was well known there was no written law on this subject, but there was an unwritten Code which controlled institutions of this sort. In Canada there existed regulations on this subject, but they were under the Treaty of Quebec, and not the voluntary product of the Legislature. So also with regard to Malta.
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Member that, having made his Motion, he could not speak again till the Amendment was moved.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, it appeared to be the wish of the House that this Return should be as comprehensive as possible, and he would suggest that in addition to Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Palestine, and the Australian Colonies should be included.
  MR. ERRINGTONmoved the addition to the Resolution of the words "and in the United States of America and in the Dominion of Canada."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by adding at the end thereof the words "and in the United States of America and in the Dominion of Canada."—(Mr. Errington.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he should also move the addition of Malta.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not know whether the Government intended to assent to the Amendment. The proposed addition was perfectly unnecessary. The information could be obtained upstairs with regard to America,
  834
  Canada, and Malta. But if America was included, he should propose to add the Empire of Brazil and the Republics of South America. He should have been content with information relating to Europe.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthen moved the addition of "the Empire of Brazil."
  MAJOR O'GORMANproposed to add Peru and Chili.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had clearly shown that what he wanted was not to have general information on the subject, but sufficient to suit his purpose. He made a Motion just to get what he wanted—information as to the law in those countries in which there at present existed persecution against the Roman Catholic Church. The hon. Member had most reluctantly consented to have that information extended, showing, as he (Sir George Bowyer) thought, for what malignant purposes he wanted the information.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "Canada," to add the words "and in the Empire of Brazil."
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies and Translations of any Laws, Ordinances, or Regulations relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions connected with the Church of Rome, and to the inmates or members thereof, especially to the regular Orders of the Church of Rome, which may be enforced by the authority of the State, and are at present operative in France, in the German Empire, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the Russian Empire, in Italy, in Sweden and Norway, in Belgium, in Spain, in Portugal, in Switzerland, in the United States of America, in the Dominion of Canada, and in the Empire of Brazil.

  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Ways and Means.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.— [BILL 224.]
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Head, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.— [BILL 224.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. MUNTZremarked that he did not wish to offer any factious opposition to it but he could not help feeling that the measure would leave the House in a very imperfect condition. There had been too little time devoted to its consideration, if regard were had to its great importance. For instance, he had to complain that three months might pass away before the registration of a birth was absolutely necessary; and that no provision was made for the registration of still-born children, which he thought would tend to encourage infanticide. A great number of children died in the first three months, and the births of many of those would escape registration, although their deaths would be registered. He did not, however, wish to move any Amendment on the subject; all he hoped for was that the Bill might work smoothly, but he was very much afraid it would not.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved the insertion of the following new clause, after Clause 18:—
  (Notice where coffin contains more than one body.)
  Where there is in the coffin in which any deceased person is brought for burial the body of any other deceased person, or the body of any still-born child, the undertaker or other person who has charge of the funeral shall deliver to the person who buries or performs any funeral or religious service for the burial of such body or bodies notice in writing signed by such undertaker or other person, and stating to the best of his knowledge and belief with respect to each such body the following particulars:—(a) If the body is the body of a deceased person, the name, sex, and place of abode of the said deceased person; (b) If the body has been found exposed and the name and place of abode are unknown, the fact of the body having been so found and of the said particulars being unknown; and (c) If the body is that of a deceased child without a name, or a still-born child, the name and place of abode of the father, or, if it is illegitimate, of the mother of such child. Every person who fails to comply with this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ton pounds.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that such a proposal as that involved in the Amendment had better be given effect to in a Burials Bill; but he would not offer any objection if it was thought de-
  836
  sirable to have such a provision inserted in this measure.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

VACCINATION ACT, 1871, AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 226.]
(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
VACCINATION ACT, 1871, AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 226.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it had been introduced for the purpose of amending certain defects in the Act of 1871, relative to the person who should put the Act in operation and to the recovery of penalties for neglecting to comply with its provisions. The simple object of the Bill was to provide that the Local Government Board should have power to control the proceedings of Boards of Guardians with respect to putting the law into force, and that it should not be possible for those bodies to set themselves against the law. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  MR. P. A. TAYLORdeprecated extending the power of coercion under these laws, and expressed a wish that greater discretion should be allowed to Boards of Guardians to act in accordance with the peculiar circumstance of each case. Of course, he did not know anything about vaccination; but in many parts of the country a strong and bitter hostility was growing up against the Acts. As a matter of policy, he thought it would be better not to stimulate what might create a superstition by enforcing penalties, but to endeavour to persuade people of the advantage of vaccination, and to ensure that the nature of the lymph should be of an unexceptionable character. He thought they had better relax the force of our legal penalties than increase them. He should, therefore, oppose the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATErejoiced that the Government had brought in the Bill. Although every possible liberty should be given to parents it was necessary, for the safety of the public, that prejudices

  837
  should be overcome. He thought, how-ever, that the use of bad lymph should be rendered penal.
  DR. LUSHsupported the Bill on the ground that the disease was infectious, and that the general law must be enforced for the general good.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRalso supported the measure, the object of which was not to permit Guardians to make partial what Parliament had intended to be a general law.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 159.]
(The Lord Advocate.)
CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 159.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4 (Compensation to private patrons).
  MR. ANDERSON, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from "Her Majesty" to end of clause, said, patronage was held in three hands—the Crown, certain municipalities, and private persons. Parliament was entitled of right to deal with patronage in the hands of the Crown as national property. With patronage in the hands of municipalities and private individuals, Parliament was not entitled so to deal, and if they desired compensation, it ought to be given them. He did not believe that every municipality would want compensation, but he thought it better not to leave the question an open one.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from the words "Her Majesty," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that in the Irish Church Act, no compensation was to be given to Her Majesty or to any corporation for loss of patronage. For that reason, he thought the Government were justified in putting these provisions into the Bill. He also opposed the Amendment on the ground that no
  838
  application for compensation had been made by any corporation, and further, that in Scotland, no corporation could sell patronage, because it was held in trust for the "common good."
  MR. RAMSAYexpressed his surprise that the Lord Advocate should have quoted the Irish Church Act, which he, when in opposition, had regarded as an act of spoliation. He trusted the hon. Member for Glasgow would persevere with his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 15: Majority 119.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANinquired if the Lord Advocate could inform the Committee what the "rules and regulations "were that were referred to?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it would be left to the General Assembly to frame them. His object was to suspend the operation of the Act till the General Assembly should take action.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought the amended clauses would not meet the case of the parishes with less than 25 communicants, unless they gave instructions to the General Assembly.
  MR. R. REID, in moving the omission of the clause from the Bill, said, it had been said when the Bill was first spoken of, that it was introduced in compliance with the wishes of the great mass of the people of Scotland, and that Parliament would not do that from an English, but rather from a Scottish point of view. All information on the subject went to prove that the people of Scotland looked with disfavour on the system of private patronage which the Bill was meant to remove, and even all the patrons themselves who had spoken on the subject refused to treat their privilege from a money point of view. On the contrary, they had thanked the Government for proposing to take a disagreeable responsibility off their hands, and it was generally acknowledged that this patronage had no marketable value; so that really there was not only no reason why the compensation should be provided for, but the patrons themselves had not asked for it. Any money value that was ever set upon private patronage was taken away by the Act of Lord Aberdeen, which gave congregations the right to object to any minister that a

  839
  patron might present to a living. He objected also to the form in which the compensation was offered and the manner in which it was to be paid.
  MR. MARK STEWARTopposed the Amendment, on the ground that a great diversity of opinion existed on the subject, and that there were some persons who had gone so far as to designate the Bill as a measure of compensation. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed, and that the Government would adhere to the clause.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that it was not exactly correct to say that private patronage possessed no marketable value in Scotland. He knew of one living which in 1862 was sold for £580, which was worth about £270 a-year. This was a matter of nearly three years' purchase. He thought, however, that as the Committee had confiscated the rights of municipalities, they might also confiscate the rights of private patrons.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Procedure before sheriff).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 6, after "petitioner," to insert—
  "and in making this inquiry the sheriff shall have regard to the amount of teinds already enjoyed by the present patron, and by former patrons under the Acts of 1690 and 1093, which allowed these teinds in compensation for the abolition of patronage, but which patronage was re-established under the Act of the tenth year of Queen Anne, chapter twelve, but without giving up the."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in opposing the Amendment, said, that it would be very difficult to carry it out.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 12, after "entitled," to insert "unless the sum shall be otherwise provided," expressing a hope that both a general and local fund would be provided, which would prevent the security of patrons from having to rest on the income of the clergyman of the parish.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought that no kind of security could be worse than that, and hoped the public spirit of Scotland would obviate the necessity for it.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, it would be far better for the Go-
  840
  vernment to pay the whole £45,000 required to compensate patrons.
  COLONEL MUREobserved that by the law of Scotland any contract that encumbered the income of a clergyman was simoniacal.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, such an arrangement would be like the old Popish practice of holding livings in commendam. He reserved to himself perfect liberty to bring forward a distinct proposition on the Report.
  MR. ORR-EWINGdid not think that any grievance would arise under the clause.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHbelieved that when the Bill passed, a central fund would be raised for the purpose of purchasing the rights of presentees, and hoped the Lord Advocate would adhere to the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELLthought that some further explanation should be given in regard to what was exactly intended by the Church of Scotland in this matter. The form of security proposed by the clause was very objectionable.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the difficulty would be met by giving power to the congregation to buy the patronage up at one year's purchase.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Sheriff's judgment final).
  MR. VANS AGNEWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the word "not," the object of which was to provide that the judgment of the sheriff-substitute in the matter should, as in all other cases, be liable to be reviewed by the principal Sheriff.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the provision was really to prevent any unnecessary or prolonged litigation; but he had no objection to an appeal being made to the Sheriff, as it was possible that mistakes might be made by the sheriff-substitute.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Word struck out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Appointment by presbytery tanquam jure devoluto).
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthen moved an Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 41, after the word "devolute," to insert the words "and the appointment by the presbytery shall be equivalent to an appointment by the congregation in terms of section three hereof. If at any time after the passing of this Act it shall appear to the presbytery of the bounds that the number of the communicants of any vacant church and parish, to which no presentation had been issued before the passing hereof, is less than twenty-five, it shall not be lawful to take any proceedings for the appointment, admission, and settlement of a minister, except under and until after the issue of rules and regulations to be framed by the general assembly subsequent to the commencement of this Act; the jus devolutum in the case of any such vacancy shall not come into operation until after the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, although more than six months may have elapsed from the occurrence of such vacancy."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RAMSAYsuggested that the clause should be postponed, until he had had an opportunity of bringing forward the new clause of which he had given Notice.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause having been amended could not be postponed.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought they were giving too extensive powers to the General Assembly, and submitted that some security should be given that the right of patronage would be allowed to be exercised by the people.
  MR. LEITHalso objected to the unlimited power given by this clause to the General Assembly. The terms of the rules and regulations ought to be inserted in the clause.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked, if the Amendment was not irregular, in the same way that his own was on Friday night—namely, that it contained a recommendation to the General Assembly? He objected to such an arbitrary power being given to any body.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment was not irregular, inasmuch as it was enacting, whereas the Amendment of the hon. and gallant General had been only recommendatory.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that if such rules were laid down by Parliament, it would probably lead to a second Disruption.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANobjected to the proposal, on the ground
  842
  that it was not sufficiently definite with respect to the action which the General Assembly might take in the matter. So far as the small Highland parishes were concerned, there would be nothing to prevent any anomaly or scandal occurring.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he had received a letter from an influential constituent, saying that the great power which was left to the General Assembly-was the one blot in the Bill. He (Colonel Alexander) was quite unwilling to leave to any Church Court such enormous power, and thought that the regulations which might be made should be ratified by Parliament before they came into operation.
  MR. ANDERSONconsidered the Amendment better than the original clause. It would not do to leave the provision for the making of rules as it was.
  MR. M'LAGANsuggested that the rules should be the same as in Clause 3.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was too late to make the suggested Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 22: Majority 67.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRproposed a further Amendment, in the shape of a Proviso, making it necessary for the rules to be submitted to Parliament and approved before the clause could come into operation.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected, and said he could not imagine anything more certain to give offence to the Free Church.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, there would otherwise be no guarantee that the rules would be framed.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, rather than have such a rule, the Church of Scotland would have patronage continued.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmaintained that Parliament should decide on the rules.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Repeal of inconsistent statutes) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Interpretation clause).
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR, in moving as an Amendment in page 4, line 7, after "include," to insert "persons having a right to sittings, and persons

  843
  occupying seats allocated by or rented from persons having such rights, and," said, its object was to restore to landowners the interest in the Church which was taken from them by the Bill. His proposal was to allow persons to vote who had seats in virtue of their properties.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 37, after the word "include," to insert the words "persons having a right to sittings and persons occupying seats allocated by or rented from persons having such rights and."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobjected to the Amendment.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he would refer the House to Dr. Cook's opinion in favour of the proposed change.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, Dr; Cook's opinion was not of much value with him, because he was one of a minority of seven or eight who lately opposed the Bill.
  MR. VANS AGNEWappealed to the Lord Advocate to accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 72: Majority 42.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), being contradictory to Clause 7, could not be proposed in its present form.
  Preamble.
  MR. M'LAGAN, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 9, after "Scotland," to insert—
  "Whereas there have been secessions from the Church of Scotland, as by law established, which have been more or loss directly caused by the operation of the first recited Act, and the continuance thereof is an obstacle to the reunion of Presbyterian Churches in Scotland which agree in doctrine, discipline, and worship,"
  said, he did so with the object of inducing the General Assembly to frame the rules in a liberal manner.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he preferred the Preamble as it stood.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELLsuggested that his own Amend-
  844
  ment was better than the hon. Member's (Mr. M'Lagan's). It was to insert—
  "And whereas the removal of an ancient cause of controversy may tend to bring about a union between the various Presbyterian Churches of Scotland."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAX-WELLmoved his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 9, after the word "and," to insert the words "in order to remove an ancient cause of controversy and an obstacle to union among the Presbyterians in Scotland."—(Sir William Stirling Maxwell.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 83: Majority 67.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]

PUBLIC SALARIES, PENSIONS, GRANTS, &c.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  MR. MELLORmoved for Returns of all persons in this country and our possessions abroad in receipt of less, and of persons in receipt of more, than £150 in salary, pension, or other emoluments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House Returns of all Persons in England, Scotland, Ireland, the Channel Islands, Colonies, and British Possessions abroad, receiving Salaries, Pensions, Pay, Profits, Fees, Emoluments, Allowances, or Grants of Public Money in the year ending the 31st day of March 1874, to the amount of £150 and upwards:
  "And, of the total number of Persons in each Department in receipt of less than £150, with the aggregate amount paid to them, the form and particulars to be in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 100, of Session 1862, with the additions specified as to the number of persons in receipt of less than £150 per annum."—(Mr. Mellor.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH, on behalf of the Government, said, he could not consent to incurring expense for such Returns.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 68: Majority 54.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, the sum of £25,497,568 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to he reported To-morrow.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) SUSPENSION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill for delaying the coming into operation of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 235.]
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Alderney Harbour* (196); Shannon Navigation * (189); Statute Law Revision (No. 2) * (147); Public Health (Ireland) * (195).
Report—Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) (No. 2) * (174).
Third Reading—Revising Barristers (Payment)* (175); Mersey Channels* (182), and passed.
Withdrawn—Poor Law Amendment (Removal) (168).

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE LORDS LIEUTENANT—QUESTION.
LORD CARLINGFORD, in asking Her Majesty's Government, What they con-

747
sider to be the position of Lieutenants of Counties in Ireland as regards their responsibility for the appointment of gentlemen to the commission of the peace? said, before putting his Question he wished to make a few remarks in justification for doing so, and to explain why he thought the responsibility of the Lords Lieutenant had been affected by the course taken by the Lords Commissioners. On the 21st of May last a Question was asked in that House by his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Lismore), the Lieutenant for the county Tipperary, who had previously recommended three gentlemen to the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland for appointment to the magistracy—two for one petty sessional division of the county, and one for another; and he understood from the answer given, that only one out of the three was appointed?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: What are the names of the others?
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he had not got them, but there was no doubt about the facts. His noble Friend asked why there should have been a selection from the names recommended, as it was an unusual course to take, and one which during his 17 years' lieutenancy had not occurred before. The answer his noble Friend got was, that the Lords Commissioners did not think it necessary to appoint more than one to the division named, and that there were sufficient justices at the other place. About a month later, a similar Question was asked in the House of Commons; and there the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that of the two rejected gentlemen one was an agent and the other a doctor, and that there was an order in existence of the late Government that no agents or doctors should be appointed to the bench. He (Lord Carlingford) had never hoard of any such rule, but he knew it had been a common thing to appoint agents, and he believed many noble Lords were aware that agents had frequently been placed in the commission of the peace. He thought also that it was expedient that the appointments to the magistracy should not be confined to one class—namely, the landed gentry. It was sometimes impossible in Ireland to find sufficient persons amongst the landed gentry of a county qualified for the position; and in his opinion it was better, for sufficient
748
cause, to depart from the rigid rule, and, provided other persons than landed gentry could be found, who were fit and proper for the position, who were men of intelligence and independence, to appoint them, rather than that the bench should be unmanned or insufficiently manned, or composed exclusively of persons of one particular class or creed. When that course was taken, it could not be alleged that any persons of any particular class were excluded from the bench, and the result was, that the action of the magistrates was received with more confidence on the part of the people. He could not say whether it was in this case necessary to go outside the landed gentry, but the Lieutenant of the county, who was responsible, considered that there was a necessity, and the Commissioners of the Great Seal took it upon themselves to override his opinion. How many other cases of the sort there had been he did not know, but two similar cases had come to his knowledge. The noble Marquess the Lieutenant for the county of Meath (the Marquess Conyngham) had, as he understood, sent in the usual way the re-commendation of three gentlemen for the commission of the peace; one of them was rejected, and the reason given for such rejection was, that the Commissioners considered there were already too many justices for the divisional district named. Now the noble Marquess had been previously informed on good authority that the justices for the division in question were too limited in number. The third case was that of Viscount Monck, the Lieutenant of the county Dublin. He sent in the names of five gentlemen for the commission of the peace—that number was explained by the fact that the late Lieutenant had not recommended anyone for a long time—and the whole were rejected by the Lords Commissioners. As to one gentleman the reason given was, that he was a member of the medical profession. He (Lord Carlingford) had made inquiries, and had been assured that great inconvenience would result from the course which the Commissioners had followed. The only reason given for rejecting the other four gentlemen was that there was no necessity for increasing the number on the bench for the district named. Now, it appeared to him that all these cases, taken together, showed a

749
remarkable departure from the usual practice—whether in regard to England or Ireland—in reference to the recommendations of Lieutenants of counties. He did not question the legality of the course pursued by the Lords Commissioners—moreover, he fully admitted that there were exceptional occasions when it was the duty of the Lord Chancellor to interfere—perhaps more frequently in Ireland than in this country—and refuse to make the appointment; and he could imagine that sometimes it would be his duty to make appointments where Lieu-tenants did not recommend names, in case the public interest imperatively required it. But this admission did not cover the cases which he had described in reference to the practice of the Commissioners of the Great Seal. It appeared to him that their practice was, to say the least of it, novel, and that, if it should be continued, it would seriously interfere with the due responsibility of Lieutenants in Ireland. The serious danger was not, as the Commissioners seemed to think, that there might be too many magistrates, but too few, and if the practice should be drawn into a precedent, and be followed by future Chancellors, that would be the result, for Lieutenants would not feel inclined to make any recommmendations, not being willing to subject themselves to such rebuffs as those he had referred to, and every Lieutenant of a county would imagine that his turn would come. Therefore, without going any further, and without imputing any motives to the Commissioners, he wished to ask the Question of which he had given Notice to the Government.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not at all sorry the noble Lord had brought the subject under the notice of their Lordships—though the subject had been brought forward by the noble Viscount (Viscount Lismore) with reference to the Tipperary case at an earlier period of the Session—for he thought he should be able to show their Lordships that the Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland had not been actuated by the motives which the noble Lord had—not attributed to them—but which the statements he had made, if not answered, might encourage other persons to impute to those learned personages. As to the Question of which the noble Lord had given Notice, and which he had just put
750
—what the Government consider to be the position of Lieutenants of counties in Ireland as regards their responsibility for the appointment of gentlemen to the commission of the peace?—he should have thought from the noble Lord's long connection with Ireland and the high official position he had held in that country, he would have been able to answer it himself without putting it to any Member of the present Government. He would, however, answer the question—no doubt the position of Lieutenants of counties was this—that if they thought more magistrates were required, it was their duty to inform the Lord Chancellor that such was their opinion, and at the same time to forward names for appointment. The noble Lord must know that on the form which the Lieutenants of counties filled up when making application for the appointment of magistrates, there were a number of questions to be answered. One of these was, "Whether he (the candidate) is an agent, and, if so, to whom?" He mentioned that in reference to the noble Lord's remark about the objection to a gentleman on the ground of his being an agent; but he referred to the queries generally to show that the matter was not regarded as one of mere formal recommendation to be followed by an appointment. The appointment was really made on the joint responsibility of the Lieutenant and the holder or holders of the Great Seal. Otherwise, why that paper of queries? The state of the case, he took to be this—that the Lieutenant of the county recommended on what he thought to be good and sufficient grounds; and on these having been laid before the Lords Commissioners, it was their duty to investigate the circumstances with a view of determining whether the grounds were good and sufficient; and if they thought they were not, they declined to make the appointment. Now, as to the particular cases referred to by the noble Lord, he was informed that the noble Viscount the Lieutenant of Tipperary sent up in May last the names of three gentlemen, named Hackett, O' Meara, and Ryan. Mr. Hackett was not appointed because the Commissioners were of the opinion that there were a sufficient number of magistrates in the division for which he was recommended. He was informed that a refusal to appoint based on that ground was by no means

751
an uncommon occurrence. Mr. O' Meara was appointed—and as the noble Lord, while not himself imputing bad motives, spoke of what might be said if Roman Catholics were not appointed, he might observe that Mr. O' Meara was a Roman Catholic. Dr. Ryan was not appointed because he was the doctor of a dispensing district.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he understood Dr. Ryan had at one time been the medical officer of a dispensing district, but had ceased to be so for the previous 12 months.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas giving the reason assigned by the Lords Commissioners; and he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O' Hagan) who was now in his place, had declined to appoint to the Commission of the Peace doctors of dispensary districts, and had caused that fact to be notified to Lieutenants, and had almost gone the length of turning in his mind whether he should not remove such gentlemen from the list of the magistracy already appointed if they still continued to be dispensing.
VISCOUNT LISMOREsaid Dr. Ryan was not a dispensing doctor when he recommended him.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas informed that Dr. Ryan was not appointed because he was a dispensing doctor.
VISCOUNT LISMORE: No.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDtrusted the noble Viscount would allow him to make his statement, and address to their Lordships any observations which he might think necessary when it came to his turn to speak. He had stated what he had been informed were the facts in respect to Tipperary. As regarded the case of the County Meath, his noble Relative the Lieutenant of that county (the Marquess Conyngham) recommended five gentlemen—three at one time, and two at another. Four were appointed, one of them being stated to be a brother of Cardinal Cullen. The fifth, who was not appointed, was Mr. Delaney. He was a nephew of Cardinal Cullen; but of course that had nothing to do with his not being appointed, but he had an uncle on the bench—which was regarded as an objection. These appointments wore for the Navan petty sessions bench, and the Lords Commissioners considered that there were already a sufficient
752
number of magistrates there. He (the Duke of Richmond) believed the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal had every reason to conclude that his noble Relative was satisfied with the course they adopted in this case, and he could not but think himself that his noble Relative was satisfied. Now, as to the case of the county of Dublin. The application was for the appointment of five magistrates, two of whom were to be of the sessional district of Cabinteely and two for the sessional district of Swords. In each of these districts there were already 10 magistrates, and there had been no instance of the adjournment of the sessions in either place owing to a want of attendance of magistrates. Under those circumstances the Commissioners of the Great Seal arrived at the conclusion that additional magistrates were not required for Cabinteely and Swords, and they did not appoint any of the four gentlemen whose names had been sent in for those districts. The fifth name sent in by the Lieutenant was that of Dr. Eustace—the reason he was not appointed was this—their Lordships were aware that the summary jurisdiction in cases of lunacy vested in one magistrate. Dr. Eustace was the manager of two lunatic asylums, and it was thought that summary jurisdiction in cases of lunacy would be rather a strong power to put in the hands of a gentleman who was manager of two lunatic asylums. He would observe that the course of not appointing additional magistrates in districts in which the bench was already sufficiently strong did not prevail in Ireland only. The Lord Chancellor of England would decline to appoint in such a case; and he could state from his own experience that his noble Friend the Lieutenant of Sussex (the Earl of Chichester) had declined to recommend some gentlemen, friends of his, on the ground that there were already a sufficient number of magistrates in the district. He trusted he had shown that the Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland were perfectly justified in the course they had adopted in all the cases brought forward by the noble Lord; and on their part, he ought to thank the noble Lord for the opportunity he had afforded them of making the facts known to their Lordships and the public.
VISCOUNT LISMOREsaid, he had to acknowledge the uniform courtesy of

753
the noble Duke; but the explanation given in the other House of Parliament with reference to the non-appointment of two of the gentlemen he had recommended to the commission for Tipperary was not the same as that which the noble Duke had given on a previous occasion to their Lordships. The explanation of the noble Duke and that given in the letter of the Commissioners of the Great Seal was that additional magistrates were not required. In their Lordships' House, he was told it was because additional magistrates were not wanted; but in the other House it was stated that one gentleman had been rejected because he was a doctor, and the other because he was an agent. As to Dr. Ryan, he had ceased to hold any medical appointment at the time he (Viscount Lismore) recommended him; and as to the exclusion of agents, it was a very extraordinary reason to adduce, seeing how many agents there were actually on the Bench. Several noble Lords, who had large estates in Ireland, placed them under the management of agents, who were very able men, and almost all of them were in the commission of the peace. He remembered that when a former agent of the late Earl of Derby retired, and his successor was appointed, that noble Earl wrote to him, as Lieutenant of the county of Tipperary, requesting him to recommend the new agent for the commission of the peace. He did so, and the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland at once appointed him. As to doctors, he did not know the rule, but he heard that one was appointed to the commission not very long ago. The gentleman whom he had recommended had retired from the dispensary practice before he recommended him. As to the sufficiency of the number of magistrates, without being presumptuous, he thought that, as a resident proprietor, he ought to be as good a judge of that as the Commissioners could possibly be. Before their refusal, his recommendations had never been rejected.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that when he referred to possible cases, in which too many of one creed might get upon the Bench, he made no allusion whatever to any particular appointments or rejections by the Commissioners of the Great Seal. He was referring to cases in which a departure from the
754
rule of appointing from the landed gentry only might be desirable, and to cases in which the action of the holder of the Great Seal might be necessary by way of interference. He made no charge whatever, except that interference with the recommendations of the Lieutenants of Counties had been carried by the Commissioners to a pitch it had never been carried before, and he hoped, never would be again.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT (REMOVAL) BILL—(No. 168.)
(The Lord Henniker.)
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (REMOVAL) BILL—(No. 168.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HENNIKER, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, observed that the noble Duke the Lord President had very properly said the other day that he disapproved Bills being brought in which were not intended to pass. He must apologize to their Lord-ships for bringing in this Bill at such a late period of the Session; but the subject it proposed to deal with was a very difficult and a very important one, and it really was almost impossible for him to bring it in sooner. However, it was a Bill which was meant to pass, and he could not expect, as a private Member of the House, to pass it in one Session, even if he had been able to bring it in sooner; and so he had thought it best to ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, in order that it might be well considered throughout the country during the winter, and that he might be able to bring in a Bill, drafted in the most complete manner, early next Session. He was aware that, short as the Bill was, it had its faults in detail, and he had no doubt whatever he could frame a Bill far more complete, far more satisfactory, by postponing it till another year; but it would secure a full discussion during the Recess if it were read a second time. He did not even wish to pledge their Lordships to the principle of the Bill, except to the extent that legislation of late years had taken the right direction on this question, and that if a satisfactory plan could be proposed, they would not be unwilling to entertain it, particularly after what he had said as to the probability of its being made a far better Bill by giving

  755
  more time for the consideration of its provisions. Some noble Lords might say it would establish the principle of the Bill to the full extent to read it a second time. If it were the general opinion of the House that such a course would establish the principle of the Bill to a greater extent than was desirable at the present time, he would withdraw it at once; but being anxious to have it fully discussed, to gain opinions from all quarters, so that he might bring in a complete measure, he should be extremely glad to have it read a second time. All he could say was, he believed the feeling of the country generally would be in favour of the change, even if some large towns were not so. He hoped their Lordships would allow him to withdraw the Bill, if they would not allow it to be read a second time, for he had but one object in view—to be of service in the matter, and it might prejudice the full discussion of the question next year, were the Motion negatived. The Bill was simply intended to make an alteration as far as the removal of paupers was concerned, and to improve the operation of the Poor Law generally. This was a question which had cropped up from time to time, and no doubt legislation tended in the direction the Bill took. Within a short period, the time when a pauper was irremovable had been reduced from five to three years, and from three years to one year. These changes had caused little, if any inconvenience, and the change proposed now was proposed in 1865 by Mr. Henley, whose judgment could hardly be disputed in matters of this kind—even before the changes in question had been fully tried. The Bill was simply to do away with removal, and not to deal with the law of settlement of the poor. The clauses were based on 9 and 10 Vic. cap. 66—the Act which was, perhaps, the most important of all the Acts in the present state of the law. The Bill only sought to do away with removal in England, leaving Ireland and Scotland un-touched. Of course, that would affect the law of settlement, but although some thought it did so altogether, he maintained removal and settlement were two distinct questions in many respects. With these remarks he would ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, and he, on his part, would undertake to place the matter in a proper
  756
  form before the House, to the best of his ability, next Session.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Henniker.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would ask his noble Friend not to press the second reading. Except under very special circumstances, it was not desirable to read a Bill a second time if there was no intention of proceeding with it till another Session. He saw no object in reading this Bill a second time in the present Session; but he saw great inconvenience attending such a course. Though the Bill was a small one, it treated with a part of what was a very large subject. Other questions besides that of removal would have to be considered in dealing with it. He did not think their Lordships should commit themselves to the principle of the Bill; and they would be doing so if they gave it a second reading. He would therefore recommend his noble Friend to withdraw the Bill.
  Lord EGERTON OF TATTON and Earl FORTESOUE concurred in the request that the Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session.
  LORD HENNIKERassented.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Order for the Second Reading discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.