Sitting of 15 May 1874

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) (No. 2)* [114].
Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* [112]; Municipal Elections (Cumulative Vote) * [113].
First Reading—Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction* [111].
Referred to 'Select Committee—Holyhead Old Harbour Road, Lord George Cavendish discharged, Mr. Shaw Lefevre added.
Report—Building Societies (re-comm.)* [55–110].

PRISONS ACT—EDUCATION IN PRISONS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there would be any objection to make education compulsory amongst all prisoners in Prisons and Houses of Correction, except those confined for a less period than twenty days?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that in County and Borough Prisons the Act of Parliament, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 126, required provision to be made for the instruction of prisoners in reading, writing, and arithmetic out of the hours of labour, such as the justices might deem expedient. The Act did not apply to Government prisons, but the practice was in force. If there was anything wanted which could be supplied, he should be glad to receive a suggestion from the hon. and gallant Member.

LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (IRELAND.)

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRUENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any steps
  310
  have been taken, since the month of July 1873, by the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, to obtain from their local inspectors answers to queries similar to those embodied in the Reports of Inspectors under the Local Government Board on the subject of Labourers' Dwellings, and which were placed upon the Table of the House last Session; and, in the event of such information having been obtained, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the Commissioners of Public Works had received from their local Inspectors, Reports upon the subject, and he would look into them, and see if they could be laid on the Table.

SALARIES OF METROPOLITAN POLICE MAGISTRATES.—QUESTIONS.
MR. COOPEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consideration of the great extra amount of work which has been imposed on the Metropolitan police magistrates by several Acts of Parliament since 1838, at which time their stipends were fixed, he is prepared to make any, and what augmentation to their salaries?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he was not at present prepared to answer the Question.
MR. FORSYTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to recommend an increase of the salaries paid to the Magistrates of the Police Courts of the Metropolis?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Government were quite aware that the salaries of the police magistrates were fixed a long time since, and that other Law Officers who now performed functions certainly not more important than those magistrates, were in receipt of much higher salaries. They thought the matter was one which deserved the greatest consideration, and it was at the present moment under their consideration.

POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND)— CLERKS OF UNIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DOWNINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he is aware that a deputation composed of the chairmen, vice-chairmen, and other guardians

  311
  of Poor Law Unions in Ireland, had an interview with the late Secretary, in Dublin, in the month of November, with the object of influencing the then Government to relieve the poor's rate from the additional burdens cast upon them, by imposing on the clerks of unions the transacting of business of a national and imperial character, as under the Juries, and Parliamentary and Municipal Acts; and, whether the Government have considered the alleged grievances, and are prepared to apply a remedy?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, his attention was called to the subject by the Notice of the Question, and he had not received any representation with reference to it. The payment for business under the Juries Acts was not yet settled for England, and, therefore, he was not prepared to give any answer in relation to Ireland.

CHILI—ARREST OF A BRITISH SUBJECT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNTZasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could give any explanation relative to the proceedings of the British Minister in Chili, in demanding the immediate release of a British subject who had been imprisoned on a charge for an offence alleged to have been committed in Chilian waters, whereby the lives of many innocent persons were sacrificed?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, our information as to the transaction in question is at present incomplete. It is, however, perfectly true that the British Minister in Chili has demanded the release of Captain Hyde, imprisoned by the Chilian authorities, on the ground that the arrest was illegal; but we are not informed as to the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by Captain Hyde. Further than that we have no information.

GUATEMALA—OUTRAGE ON A BRITISH VICE-CONSUL.—QUESTION.
MR. W. LOWTHERasked if the Government has received any information on this subject?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, information has been received at the Foreign Office, from which it appears that a gross outrage has been committed on Vice Consul
312
Magee, by a person in the employ of the Government of Guatemala. The telegram which contains this information also states that the Guatemala Government has since offered an indemnity, and every possible reparation. No further details have been received at the Foreign Office.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY— LANDSEER'S PORTRAIT OF SIR WALTER SCOTT.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: I wish, Sir, to mention a communication that has been received this afternoon on a subject of interest, upon which the hon. Member for Wexford has given Notice of a Question. I will read the letter I have received from Mr. George Scharf, Keeper and Secretary of the National Portrait Gallery. Writing to-day, he says—
"I am directed by Earl Stanhope, Chairman of the Trustees of this Gallery, to transmit, with a view of some announcement being made in the House of Commons, a copy of a letter from Mr. Albert Grant, munificently offering to present the Landseer Portrait of Sir Walter Scott to the nation. It was Lot 312 in the catalogue, and the price paid for it was £840. The picture is now, I hope, deposited in the Gallery."
The letter enclosed is as follows—
"41, Queen's Gate Terrace, South
Kensington, W., May 12.
"Sir,—At the sale of the late Sir Edwin Landseer's works on Saturday last, the well-known portrait of Sir Walter Scott, painted by Sir Edwin Landseer when on a visit to Abbotsford, was included among the pictures to be sold, and was purchased by me. The object I had in acquiring it was to present it to the National Portrait Gallery on behalf of the nation, it being considered the most remarkable portrait of Sir Walter Scott extant.
"Accordingly, I hold the picture at the disposition of the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, and on hearing from you of their acceptance of the same, will forward it in accordance with their directions.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
ALBERT GRANT.
"George Scharf, Esq., F.S.A., Secretary
and Keeper, National Portrait Gallery."

THE GOLD COAST.—QUESTION.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can conveniently state the date on which he proposes to give the House of Commons that opportunity of canvassing the policy of this Country on the Gold Coast which he promised should be afforded to it without delay?
MR. DISRAELI: The policy, Sir, of the Government with regard to the Gold Coast has been stated in Parliament by the Secretary of State, and when all the details are matured, it will be necessary for us to appeal to this House for a Vote—not for a considerable sum, but still a Vote—which will necessitate a full exposition of policy on our part, and give this House an opportunity of taking any part in regard to our policy that they may desire. That is the usual and Parliamentary mode in which the matter should be brought before the House; and I think, therefore, I have fulfilled my engagement on the subject. At the same time, if the hon. Member does not wish to stay for that accustomed opportunity, and challenges our policy in a manner which renders it on his part a duty to bring it before the House, I will give him every facility for taking that course.
MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the hon. Baronet wishes to challenge the policy of the Government, he must make a Motion on the subject, and that he will give him an opportunity of so doing; but at the present moment the House knows nothing of the policy of the Government on the Gold Coast. The assurance formerly given to my hon. Friend was, that the moment the Government came to a definite conclusion, it should be communicated to Parliament. Now, in this House we know nothing whatever of what takes place in the other. We are in official ignorance of what is the policy of the Government, and therefore, if we wait until we go into Committee of Supply, we shall have to raise a discussion in ignorance of the question before us. I venture to suggest that this House ought to have made to it an announcement similar to that which has been made to the other.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the regular course—and the course we shall be prepared to follow—will be when we come to the Committee of Supply to state the policy of the Government before asking for the Vote. That is the occasion upon which the opinion of the House will be taken. I did say, perhaps, that I wished to give the hon. Baronet every facility for raising a discussion on the subject; but I think that the hon. Baronet ought to see that the Constitutional and Par-
314
liamentary opportunity of taking the opinion of the House of Commons upon the policy of the Government is when, in consequence of that policy, we appeal to the House of Commons to support us. Supply will not be asked for without the fullest Notice, and a complete explanation being given.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that his promise was, as soon as the Government had come to a conclusion as to the policy to be pursued on the Gold Coast, they would make a statement to both Houses of Parliament. That had not been done. Information had been solely given to the other House of Parliament, but not to this House, and they were utterly ignorant of its nature.
MR. DISRAELI: There will be a statement made in both Houses of Parliament.
MR. HORSMANrose again to quote from the Report the words used by Mr. Disraeli on the occasion referred to, but was called to Order by the House.
MR. SPEAKERinformed the right hon. Gentleman that his Question had been put and answered.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the words used by the right hon. Gentleman were, that the moment the Government had arrived at a conclusion on the subject, the Ministers who were responsible would expound in Parliament the colonial policy of the Government.

SPAIN— CAPTURE OF THE "VIRGINIUS."

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Under Secretary of State for For reign Affairs, Whether there will be any objection to lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the capture of the ship "Virginius?"
  MR. BOURKE: There will, Sir, be no objection to the production of these Papers. They are ready, and will be presented in a few days with some other Papers which have been received since the present Government came into office.

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

RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—LOCAL GUARANTEES .—RESOLUTION.
THE O'CONOR DONrose to call attention to the system of guaranteeing dividends out of the local rates in Ireland on capital invested in railways in that country; and to move a Resolution. The hon. Member said, at the present time there were certain railways in Ireland, the dividends on the capital, or part of the capital, of which were guaranteed, and guaranteed from exclusively Irish sources, although the possibility of such an arrangement seemed to be called in question in the debate on the Motion for the purchase of the Irish railways. The practice of guaranteeing dividends on Irish railways had grown up unperceived. He believed it had never received the formal sanction of Parliament, and it had been gradually increasing to such an extent that soon no railways in Ireland would be made without a guarantee. The first case he could find was that of the Galway Extension Railway, the Act for which passed in 1849, guaranteeing a dividend on a capital of £500,000. The Act in this case was a public and not a private Act, and the money was advanced by the Treasury. Then came the Killarney Junction Railway to which a guarantee on a capital of £125,000 was given; the Limerick and Ennis Railway £75,000; the Tralee Line £55,000; and the West Cork Line £66,000. All those Acts, down to 1871, had this characteristic—that the guaranteed capital was the borrowed capital, and was the first charge on the receipts from the railway, and it was not till 1871 that a guarantee on the ordinary share capital of a railway company was first heard of. In 1871, the first Bill was introduced proposing to make the ratepayers of a county responsible for dividends on the share capital of an Irish railway. Since the system of guaranteeing dividends on the capital employed in the construction of railways was becoming general, and, so far as appeared, was likely to be continued, he thought it should be placed on some intelligible and satisfactory basis, and that Rules should be laid down for the guidance both of the promoters and opponents of these Bills. He believed at the present time guarantee clauses might be introduced into any Irish Railway Bill without any approval or assent being asked for from the ratepayers.
316
As a general rule, the assent of the Grand Jury of the County was sought for; but as a matter of fact the constitution of the Grand Juries was such that their assent could not be taken as the assent of the ratepayers, who had to bear the responsibility. The two bodies in Ireland, who acted on behalf of the ratepayers, were the Grand Jury and the Presentment Sessions. The Irish Grand Jury, as a rule, represented the landed proprietors of the county; while the Presentment Sessions consisted of the whole magistrates of the county, with whom were associated a certain number of the ratepayers. No great weight was due to the assent of such bodies, but even this small protection was not afforded under the present Rules of Parliament. That was certainly a very unsatisfactory state of things, and he objected to the system in the first instance, because the assent of the ratepayers was not made a necessary preliminary step. He objected to it also on another ground—namely, that the ratepayers had no control whatever over the company in respect of the works for which a guarantee was given, and that was likely to lead to extravagance and waste. As he had before said, the Grand Juries were composed of the landed proprietors of the county and the Presentment Sessions of the magistrates, and a certain number of what were called the "highest cesspayers." Those highest cess or ratepayers were selected by the Grand Jury, who also fixed the number to be associated with the magistrates at each baronial sessions. It was evident that a body thus constituted did not represent the ratepayers. In the first place they were liable to be out-numbered by the magistrates, and in the second, even if they were equal in numbers, they were not the representatives of the whole body of ratepayers, being merely the nominees of the Grand Jury; and yet they had the power of giving their assent to guarantees which might impose heavy financial burdens upon them. Would such a state of things be tolerated in this country? There was this further grievance in the matter. The Bills on which guarantees were thus granted were introduced under the guise of Private Bills, although they imposed a tax upon the general body of ratepayers. Had they been introduced as Public Bills the

317
ratepayers could object to them through their Representatives; but being introduced as Private Bills, they were passed, almost as matter of course, through the first and second stages without any opposition or debate, and then referred to Select Committees upstairs; and the only opportunity the ratepayers had of objecting to them was by feeing counsel and going to all the expense of a Parliamentary opposition. The ratepayers, however, were a scattered body, without organization—was it to be expected that a number of ratepayers scattered all over a county or a barony would unite for such a purpose? As a matter of fact, unless some three or four wealthy persons, who had a direct interest in the matter, put their hands in their pockets and paid the costs of an opposition, there was no chance of preventing a Bill, however unpopular it might be, passing through Parliament unopposed. Under the Standing Orders relative to Railway Bills in this country no Bill could be promoted by an existing railway company unless it had the assent of shareholders representing three-fourths of the capital of that company; and what he proposed was that no Bill granting a guarantee for the construction of a railway in Ireland should be proceeded with unless it were shown that the assent of three-fourths of the ratepayers had been given—or at all events a majority of the ratepayers eligible to act with the magistrates at the Presentment Sessions. He was fully aware that that would not be a complete or satisfactory plan, and that the most satisfactory way would be to act through the medium of elective and representative bodies. The best mode in which the desired reform could be effected would be by the reform of the Grand Jury laws, which successive Governments had year after year promised to inaugurate, and had year after year neglected to perform. He was afraid they might have a long time to wait before the Grand Jury laws were reformed; but, meanwhile, if his proposal for obtaining the assent of the ratepayers was not approved of, he thought that the system of guarantees ought to be stopped altogether. He would only say that, desirous as he was of seeing railways extended in Ireland, he did not think they were going the right way to promote that extension by giving
318
these guarantees; on the contrary, they were proceeding in a course which must promote jobbery and extravagance. The practice took away every incentive to good management, for shareholders who knew that their dividends were guaranteed were not so likely to insist on careful management as they would be if the amount of their dividends depended upon the mode in which the affairs of the company were conducted. In most of the Irish railways which had not been financially successful the cause was to be found in the fact that there had been great waste and great expense in what was called "financing the line." He had a very great objection to "financing," and nothing could promote "financing" so much as saddling a district with a fixed interest on the capital of a railway, whether the line paid or not. He believed that no greater boon could be conferred upon Ireland than the extension and completion of the railway system, if economically, fairly, and satisfactorily carried out. He believed that could best be done by the local governing bodies raising the capital themselves, and getting the line made by cash. Under this system the lines could be cheaply made; contractors would be readily found to take them; and, when made, they could be let out on lease to existing companies. If the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would direct his attention to see how money could be advanced to local governing bodies rather than to the raising of money to pay off the existing debts upon Irish railways, it would be a better thing both for the ratepayers and for the country at large. He, for one, contended that if the ratepayers were to bear the burden, they ought to reap all the benefit that might accrue; and as they had no practical experience of how these guarantees would work, he believed they ought, at least, to be discouraged until such time as the ratepayers, through some representative body, could control them. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
CAPTAIN NOLAN, in seconding the Motion, pointed out that there was a great difference between the poor rate and the county cess in Ireland. The poor rate was paid equally by the landlord and the tenant, and was levied by an elective and representative body. But with respect to the county cess, the

319
ratepayer had practically no representation at all—the whole power rested with the magistrates and with the small number of highest ratepayers selected in the way described by his hon. Friend. The magistrates were men of such high position that the cesspayers had no influence over them, and the highest ratepayers were not elected, but selected. The consequence was that, while there was general satisfaction with respect to the poor rates, there was general dissatisfaction with regard to the county cess. From what he had said, the House would perceive that the cesspayers were not properly represented on the sessions, with which rested the power of giving the guarantee for the construction of railroads. To a certain extent he agreed with both the Resolution and the Amendment of which Notice had been given, and should like to see both carried; but as that could not be, he should prefer the adoption of the original Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the existing system under which dividends chargeable on the Local Rates are guaranteed on capital invested in the construction of Railways in Ireland is unsatisfactory, and that no Bill containing local guarantee Clauses ought to be entertained, unless in the first instance the assent be proved of at least a majority of the ratepayers eligible for association with the magistrates at each of the immediately preceding baronial sessions of the county, and that in all future cases when the rates are thus pledged for the payment of dividends, the local governing bodies should be empowered to raise on behalf of the ratepayers the capital necessary for the construction of the Railway,"—(The O'Conor Don,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. CONOLLYthought that the hon. Member's Resolution had attacked the great blot on the Irish system of railway legislation. The granting of these guarantees to railways was a vicious system, which had arisen out of one irregular proceeding—namely, the guarantee granted to the Great Western of Ireland, in order to continue their line from Athlone to Gralway. This had been used as a precedent, and there was no law authorizing this vicious procedure. These Bills passed through this House instead of allowing the rate-
320
payers to decide for themselves. The consequence was that a number of useless and unprofitable schemes were projected and brought before Parliament, and the ratepayers were fixed with the liability of guarantees granted by bodies on which they were not represented. He maintained that primâ facie the promoters of railways in Ireland had no more right than they had in England to call upon the ratepayers to assist them. County rates were raised for county purposes, and ought not, in his opinion, to be diverted to any other object. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who now so ably filled the office of Chief Secretary, would take care that this system was not allowed to continue—it was a most vicious one. Any line, however unpromising, could be promoted and carried out by means of these local guarantees, and the business had now become the nucleus of jobbing professional "promoters" of railways, wandering from county to county, seeking for guarantees to enable them to construct railways that otherwise would not be constructed at all. A case in point had recently occurred in Parliament. A Bill, authorizing a projected line of railway, was recently before a Committee of the House of Lords, which had been bolstered up by guarantees from various counties through which the line was to run. The guarantees had been sought of the Grand Juries of the counties of Fermanagh, Leitrim, and Sligo, and not from the ratepayers of those counties; but the Committee having refused to sanction those guarantees the Bill had dropped through. He was himself connected with an opposition line which, without guarantees of any sort, but solely by the energy and enterprise of its shareholders, had constructed a line of 37 miles, and had successfully worked it. They now desired an extension of that line; but they were unable to undertake it by reason of this opposition line, which had been foisted on the House by means of these vicious guarantees. Nothing could be more prejudicial to Irish railways than such a system. He could not entirely concur in the terms of the Resolution, inasmuch as while denouncing the system of guarantees in one part it proposed to restore them in another form. He objected to guarantees altogether, and he believed that if the sense of the ratepayers

321
was fairly taken they would never be given. The county rates should be applied for county purposes, and not for aiding impracticable railway schemes. They in Ireland had hitherto avoided the serious calamity which existed in England, and which had been so well brought before the House by the hon. Member for Devonshire, of having every description of charge placed upon the county rates. And they, with this example before them, did not intend to fall into such a mess, for which even here in England it had puzzled the Government to devise a remedy.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he entirely agreed with the first part of the Resolution, that the mode in which guarantees on capital were now given was not satisfactory; but his hon. Friend was not well informed as to the manner in which they were obtained. He was mistaken in supposing that the Bills in question passed through this House without inquiry, and almost as a matter of course. On the contrary, he could assure his hon. Friend that there were several instances in which such Bills had been thrown out because the assent of the Presentment Sessions had not been obtained. In one instance, a railway was proposed to be made through a district for the benefit of the landed proprietors; and these proprietors imposed the whole of the rate on the occupiers, relieving themselves from all liability in the matter. It was no wonder such a Bill should be thrown out. Several Select Committees had sat on the subject of these local guarantees, and he thought the Irish people had reason to complain that the Government had neglected to act on their recommendations. The root of the evil was that the ratepayers who were associated with the magistrates in the Presentment Sessions were selected by the Grand Jurors, who could nominate their own tenants, instead of being elected by the ratepayers, who therefore had no real representation; and the only remedy would be found in legislation to improve the constitution of the Presentment Sessions. There were four companies in Ireland which had, open and at work, 151 miles of railway, and who had not demanded a shilling of the guarantee without which the capital for their construction could not have been raised; and the probable effect of the proposed
322
Resolution, if it had been in force, would have been to prevent the making of those lines at all. The local governing bodies referred to could raise money if it were required, but he would not trust them to do so—he would prefer to rely on magistrates and representative ratepayers associated with them. But without guarantees Ireland could not have the railways which were essential to her development. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, if he had not time to inquire into the whole subject, to bring in a short Bill altering the system of Presentment Sessions so as to give protection against jobbery, and render it acceptable to the people of Ireland. For the rest, let him leave the guarantees alone, without them, necessary railways must be made, only make provision that the ratepayers should not be held responsible for taxation without representation.
MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, that since the decision come to by Parliament in the present Session on the subject of Irish Railways, there was no resource left to the promoters of railways in Ireland but guarantees; and yet Irish Members seemed anxious to cut off that resource if they could. It would now be more difficult to get guarantees than ever it had been before. He did not believe that the relation between the magistrates and the ratepayers was such as it had been represented to be—he did not believe that the magistrates overpowered the ratepayers. In his own county, at any rate, the magistrates and ratepayers understood each other, and the guarantees that had been given by both parties, share and share alike, had operated most beneficially for the interests of both.
MR. BRUENthought it would be obvious to the House, from the discussion which had been held, that the system of guarantees had not led to any abuse. But he must go further, and say that the principle of these guarantees was an unfair one. The associated ratepayers should certainly have a voice in these matters, and no taxation should be initiated without their consent. He hoped the question would attract the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
MR. COGANthought it would be most unfortunate for the extension of railways in Ireland if the principle of

323
guarantees were discountenanced. At the same time, he considered that no guarantee should be enforced on a district except with the full assent of those who would have to pay it; and, therefore, he agreed in the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Taxation should never be allowed to fall on the occupier alone. He could not, however support the latter portion of the Resolution of his hon. Friend. He thought that the entire capital should be guaranteed on the district for all time, instead of for a limited period.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, that there was really no law in the matter, but it was open to the promoters of any railway to bring in a Bill containing a clause for a guarantee to be given by the county. There was no fixed or settled rule as to the guarantees to be authorized by the Grand Juries or Presentment Sessions, and formerly they were confined to giving assistance to a certain specified amount. A practice had, however, gradually grown up of extending the guarantee from debenture or borrowed capital to original capital. This was a change of very dangerous tendency. He could confirm the statement that there was now no legal necessity for obtaining the consent of the county, and no way in which the assent of the ratepayers would be ascertained; nor was there any instance of a Bill containing a guarantee clause being thrown out unless upon opposition before the Committee upstairs. Cases had been known in which individual cesspayers had been obliged to pay down the cost of opposing a Bill before the Parliamentary Committee, in the hope of being recouped afterwards by their brother cesspayers. The Private Bill Committees ought to have some guide in regard to dealing with these guarantees. It had been insisted on that some sort of consent on the part of the county should be put in, and it was the practice of Lord Redesdale to ask whether the Grand Jury and the Presentment Sessions had passed a Resolution in favour of the Bill. No security, however, existed that the Grand Jury at any particular Sessions had been duly authorized to give the guarantee in question, or that notice, even, had been given prior to the meetings of these bodies that a Resolution would be proposed in favour of a guarantee to a railway. He trusted that one result of
324
this debate would be that in future no reliance would be placed on these resolutions. If the practice of guarantees was to be continued, it ought to be systematized and definite, and explicit rules should be drawn up. He admitted the advantage of promoting railway extension in Ireland by a system of well-considered guarantees, but he thought the House ought not to be altogether blind to the results to which it might lead. It might tend to making the company careless of the interests of those who paid the guarantee; it might induce the construction of speculative lines to be constructed by guarantees, and lead to the most disastrous consequences in the Irish railway system. So long as adequate securities were taken that the opinion of the localities which were to be made liable were fairly consulted, and their assent obtained before any Bill could be passed by a Committee, he could not see any objection to the system of guarantees; but he thought it was the duty of the responsible Government to take up the matter, and devise some distinct plan for the attainment of the object in view, and that this should be done in time for the Private Bill legislation of next year.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that without entering into the abstract question of the desirability of guarantees, he thought that in many instances they might, no doubt, be, and and had been, abused; but, on the other hand, useful railways had been made by the aid of this system which otherwise would not have been constructed. He was of opinion that it ought to be left to the Select Committee to form their own judgment upon each particular case whenever it arose, and that it was utterly unnecessary for the House to adopt any general conclusion as to the advisability of guarantees. It appeared to him that there need be no difficulty in agreeing to the first part of the Resolution, which declared the existing system to be unsatisfactory. It was unsatisfactory from two points of view. In the first place, guarantees which ought not to be given might be obtained without sufficient information being laid before the Committee who considered the Bill, whether they had been obtained from the cesspayers, after full information as to the extent of the liabilities they were about to undertake.

325
Again, it was unsatisfactory because guarantees might appear to be refused when they had in reality been given. By a Standing Order of the House of Lords, the guarantee clauses of a Bill would be struck out unless it were proved that the assent given was unanimous. However, he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought that quite sufficient had been done by the attention that had been called to the matter in both Houses of Parliament, and he trusted that it would receive the consideration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the President of the Board of Trade. If the first part of the Resolution were adopted, the question might, he thought, be safely left in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. A new Standing Order would probably suffice for all that was wanted. They ought to secure full publicity, and the assent ought to be procured in some specified manner, and every opportunity be afforded for protest and examination. Besides, all this ought not to be left to the mere chance of its being an opposed Bill. In all cases, whether a Bill were opposed or not, it ought to be fully provided that all the prescribed proceedings had been gone through before that House sanctioned these guarantees. Probably the preparation of a Standing Order to that effect would not be beyond the powers of the Board of Trade, assisted by the authority of that House; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would be induced for the present to leave the matter in the hands of that Department. It was quite unnecessary at the present moment to enter into the question of the Irish Jury laws, although he could not help regretting that the Irish cesspayers were not better represented. This question was becoming a matter of more pressing importance than had been supposed, and he trusted that before taking any steps in the matter the House would wait for a complete reform being made in the Grand Jury laws.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was satisfied that all would admit the importance of this subject, which had been brought before the House with so much knowledge and ability by the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don), and which had undoubtedly assumed far greater importance since the decisive Resolution at which the House had arrived this Session with re-
326
gard to the purchase of the Irish railways. Having declined to entertain that proposal, Parliament was all the more bound to consider what could be done to promote the extension and completion of the Irish railways. He did not wish to enter into the question of the advantage or disadvantage of the system of guarantees as a whole. Undoubtedly, there was much to be said against the system. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) had properly pointed out the very considerable distinction between guarantees of interest upon share capital and similar guarantees upon loan capital—the latter being far less a source of evil than the former. Guarantees were always liable to the objection that they might be dealt in by contractors, lawyers, and engineers for their own benefit rather than for the interest of the country through which the proposed line would run; and therefore if they were to be allowed, Parliament should take care, when sanctioning them, that those who would have to pay under them should have the fullest opportunity of giving or refusing their assent to them. On the other hand, however, it must be admitted that without the system of guarantees many railways now producing considerable benefit to Ireland would never have been constructed. It would not be right, therefore, too hastily to condemn the system, but they should do all that could be done to prevent or lessen the evils to which it might be liable. What was the Irish system of guarantees? The hon. Member for Longford had very properly described it as being no system at all. Thanks to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in "another place" (Lord Redesdale), whose services had been of so much advantage to the country, no Bill containing a guarantee had passed Parliament, if opposed by the cesspayers, nor unless it was sanctioned by the Grand Jury of the County. It, however, by no means followed that the assent of the Grand Jury implied the assent of the cesspayers. Having held office for so short a time, he had no desire at the present moment to enter into the merits or the demerits of the Grand Jury system of Ireland; but he might remind the House that the system was described by the Committee over which the hon. Member for Roscommon had presided

327
in 1867 as a pure and economical one. He could, however, see no reason why the opinion of the county Grand Jury on such a matter should represent more than the opinion of the individual landowners, of which it was composed. The mere expression of opinion by that body should not be regarded as sufficient to lead Parliament to bind the cesspayers of that part of the country to be liable to pay large sums for an indefinite number of years, in order to secure the interest on the capital of a railway company. In other matters, it was not in the power of a Grand Jury to initiate taxation at all. But while, on the one hand, the opinion of a County Grand Jury had been held as sufficient proof of the assent of the cesspayers, a very little opposition from a few cesspayers had induced Parliament to reject Bills which were widely approved of. In the case of the Sligo and Leitrim Railway Bill, which came before a Committee of the House of Lords a short time ago, there was evidence of a very large amount of popular support of the scheme. Yet that proposal was rejected by a Committee of the other House on the ground that no similar proposal had been assented to when it was opposed by any of the ratepayers. So that the case at present stood thus—that whereas a county Grand Jury, acting without proper authority, had been sometimes held sufficient to give a sanction to those guarantees, in other instances the mere opposition of a few ratepayers, who might have been set in motion by a railway company fearing competition, might cause the rejection of a guarantee. The House would admit that such a state of things was not only unsatisfactory, as the hon. Member for Roscommon put it in his Resolution, but urgently required a remedy. And when he heard the remedy suggested by the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), and by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, he felt that they were entitled to call on the Government to take up that question with a view to its solution. The noble Lord had suggested that it might be possible, in the course of the present Session, to frame a Standing Order by which it should be required that notice should be given in the localities affected of any proposal for these guarantees; that full opportunity should be afforded for all the cesspayers who
328
were interested to make themselves acquainted with what was actually proposed; that opportunity should also be afforded for objections to be taken in the localities, instead of compelling persons to come at great trouble and expense before a Committee of that or the other House of Parliament;—and, in fact, that some scheme should be adopted for really ascertaining the opinions of the places concerned, before Parliament took any step on so important a matter. There was much in that suggestion which required careful consideration; but he would point out that at present there were no means of obtaining, through any recognized assembly, the opinions of the cesspayers on such a matter as this. He was disposed to think that the more that question was gone into the more it would be found that, for its real, fair, and proper solution, they must wait for a reform of the Grand Jury laws. Personally he should be extremely ready to devote his best and immediate attention to the subject, and, in concert with those who had had so much experience as the hon. and gallant Member for Longford and others, he would endeavour to secure, if possible, that such a Standing Order as had been suggested should be framed in the present Session. But he could hold out no promise on the subject, for the reason he had already stated. As to the proposal then actually before the House, and contained in the Resolution of the hon. Member for Roscommon, he understood that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to press it. He thought his hon. Friend would rest content with the discussion which he had raised, and with the assurance he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given on the part of the Government. It was possible that some solution might be arrived at this Session which, if it did not place the matter on a thoroughly satisfactory basis, might do away with a good many of the objections to the present most illogical system.
THE O'CONOR DONexpressed himself satisfied with the result of the debate, and thanked the right hon. Gentleman for promising to give the subject his consideration. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not think it right that the present anomalous state of things should go on indefinitely in the prospect of its being remedied when they

329
had a reform of the Grand Jury system. After what had been said he was willing to withdraw his Motion.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped the right hon. Baronet would devote his immediate attention to that subject, in which case the Irish Members would be extremely grateful to him and the Government.
MR. MACARTNEYalso expressed his extreme satisfaction at the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and hoped that representation of the ratepayers, now a mere shadow, would be converted into a substance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BOARD OF TRADE—RAILWAY INSPECTORS— CAPTAIN TYLER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMID, in rising to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any precedent for an Inspector of Railways under the Board of Trade taking employment under private persons in connection with Railways, whether during leave of absence or at any other time, and to call attention to the subject, said, he could assure the House that until he had put his Notice on the Paper he had no acquaintance with Captain Tyler, to whom he was about to refer, and further, that he had no interest whatever in the railway with respect to the condition of which Captain Tyler had been employed to report. It was well known that the Erie Railway Company was one of the most speculative undertakings in the United States, and its shares had for years past been the sport of "the bulls "and "the bears," being run up one day and down the next by the one party or the other, for the purpose of realizing profits. A considerable number of persons in this country were greatly interested in it; and by one party of them Captain Tyler, one of the Government Inspectors, had been retained and had obtained leave of absence, with a view that he should proceed to America and examine into and report upon, the condition of the railway in question. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade stated the other evening that he had nothing whatever to do with the manner in which Captain Tyler was
  330
  about to employ his holiday, and that after two years' constant work he was entitled to a holiday. He (Mr. Goldsmid) did not at all dispute that fact; but what he said was, that a Government Inspector, although on a holiday, was a Government Inspector still, and that anything he did—particularly in reference to a railway—would, on account of his official character, carry all the more weight with it. Why, he asked, had Captain Tyler been so employed? It could not be for want of eminent engineers in America or in England fit to undertake the duty. He believed it was, because whatever Captain Tyler did would carry the Government mark about it, and would be calculated to induce people either to buy or to sell shares. His report, would, in short, be marked with the Government broad arrow. It was, therefore, he thought, the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to see how Captain Tyler proposed to employ himself during his holiday, as it was obvious that the Board of Trade itself might be compromised. Officers of the Army or Navy could not accept private employment without the assent of the Commander-in-Chief, and it would be desirable to lay down some such rule in reference to Civil Servants. In any case, a gentleman whose official duties might require him to sit in judgment upon the great railway companies of this country ought not to be mixed up in any way, directly or indirectly, in a concern in which directors of those companies might be interested. He had no doubt whatever that Captain Tyler would report fully and truly what he believed to be the case; but still it could scarcely be, that suspicion would not be thrown upon his report, or that it would not be used for the purposes of speculation. Up to within the last few years, it was the well-understood practice that no person should be employed as an Inspector under the Board of Trade who was a director of a railway company, or even indirectly connected with a railway company, or who held shares in one. That rule had been departed from in the case of Captain Tyler, because he was deputy-chairman of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and was also a director of the Piræus Railway Company. He did not desire or mean to attack the honour of Captain Tyler, who, he believed, had

  331
  endeavoured to carry out his duties to the best of his ability; but every one, even unconsciously, was liable to prejudice, and was more inclined to speak well of a friend than of an enemy. If Captain Tyler might take service under private persons and receive pay from them, why should not other Government officials do the same? and where would it end? The principle acted on in this case he believed to be a mistaken one, and therefore he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Question which stood in his name, and to add to it the query whether there were any precedents for such employment?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that though he was sensible that the employment of leave of absence given to public officers, in particular ways might be open to serious question, yet he believed it would be difficult to lay down such a rule as the hon. Gentleman suggested. There existed no regulation on the subject of permanent officers of the Civil Service not taking employment if they so thought fit, during the time at their disposal when on leave of absence. The subject was a difficult one, and deserved consideration; but, for his part, he thought that no hard-and-fast line should be laid down in reference to it. Each case should, in his opinion, rest on the discretion of the responsible head of the particular Department in which the officer was employed, and he was willing to bear the responsibility in this case. The principle which he had laid down for himself, and acting on which he had given his sanction to Captain Tyler employing his holiday in the manner referred to, was that no officer of the Civil Service should take any employment which was at all inconsistent with his duty to the Government, or which would occupy time or strength due to Government, or which would in any way compromise his relations to the Government, of which he was a servant, but that when the employment he undertook was not inconsistent with such duty, and could not lead to any such compromise, his engaging in it was not only justifiable, but might be extremely desirable. He could quite conceive that brief employment, such as that in question, of a Royal Engineer in the line of his own profession in another country might very much improve his knowledge of his business, and it might, therefore,
  332
  be even detrimental to the public service if he were refused the leave which in this instance had been asked for and granted. [Mr. GOLDSMID: I did not ask you to refuse.] The whole question was, whether properly or not, he (Sir Charles Adderley) had sanctioned it. However that might be, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the whole time and strength of a public servant was so completely due to the Government that either he should have no holiday at all, or should spend it in complete idleness to recruit his strength. A man of active mind would be none the better if compelled to spend his holiday in absolute idleness. The hon. Gentleman's argument in that respect reminded him of the Yankee employer, who, finding his workman in a long fit of sneezing, exclaimed—"I do not give you a dollar a-day to waste my time in sneezing." He seemed to forget that by such a rigid rule an officer might be tempted to escape to freer life and occupation just at the moment when his services had become most desirable. As regarded precedents for the particular case in point, he could cite a number of cases in which officers of the Board of Trade, and even the President of the Board himself, had acted as arbitrators even between railway companies in this country. The Erie Railway had been described as a speculative concern. Well, no doubt, it was formerly in bad hands; but it was now trying to get itself into good hands, and competent investigation and publication of its affairs was one of the modes by which it was endeavouring to attain that object. The company desired to get the report of an eminent engineer on the state of the works and plant, and accordingly, they consulted the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce), who recommended Captain Tyler as the most impartial and competent man to make the report, and the company acted upon his suggestion. As the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) admitted, nobody could suspect Captain Tyler of giving an unfair or biassed report, and how, then, could a true and authoritative report damage any honest interest? According to the report, the shares of the railway would either go up or down, and a statement of actual facts would promote only the interest of those who wanted daylight and truth. Surely the

  333
  hon. Gentleman did not represent any interests that would fear a plain statement of facts. Under those circumstances, he certainly did not feel called upon to refuse leave of absence to Captain Tyler, or to make any objection because he intended to occupy his time in inspecting the Erie Railway. On the contrary, he thought that officer could hardly spend his holiday better, for the interests both of the railway and of the Board of Trade. It might be desirable to lay down a rule to regulate the Civil Service in this particular; but he could not suggest any; and if any were made, it should be an elastic one, and laying down general principles, as he had attempted to do, leave each case to the discretion of the responsible head of the Department.
  MR. MACDONALDthought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was highly unsatisfactory, for, in his opinion, the permission ought not to have been given, neither ought the engagement to have been undertaken by Captain Tyler. However, the affairs of the Erie Railway Company would for the first time be in good hands. He failed to perceive that Captain Tyler's undertaking could be a laudable one, unless we were to allow all our Railway Inspectors to inquire into bankrupt lines in America, which would be very reprehensible.
  MR. GREENEsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Rochester had done right in bringing the question before the House, for he certainly objected to any Government Inspector of Railways holding property in any railway company; but, taking a common-sense view of the subject, he could not see that the Government had a right to dictate to a public servant how he should spend his holiday, as long as the duties he undertook did not affect the office he held in England. In America matters were not conducted quite so carefully as in England, and it was not unnatural that the Erie Railway Company should ask a gentleman holding a high official position to report on the affairs of the line.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, there was not a more able man in England than Captain Tyler, whom he had known for many years, and he warmly approved of the permission granted to him. The House ought to be thankful to him for going to America, for however eminent
  334
  a man might be, there was always something for him to learn, and in this case he had no doubt that Captain Tyler would return to this country with some new and useful ideas. There was just another point on which he wished to say a word. Captain Tyler was not half paid by the Government, not half so well paid as many men were by the railway companies who employed them, and of whom he was the equal in every respect.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, there was not a more able man in the service than Captain Tyler, but, on the whole, he did not think it was desirable that Railway Inspectors should be employed in work of this kind. During the time he was at the Board of Trade, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was at the head of that Department, this subject was accidentally discussed, with reference to Captain Tyler himself. At that time he was Deputy Chairman of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The conclusion at which his right hon. Friend arrived was, that it was not desirable that a Railway Inspector should be connected with railway companies, even if they were foreign. But as the permission had been granted by a former President, and as it was represented that the office which he held was only temporary, therefore no action was taken on the occasion. His right hon. Friend, however, gave instructions that it was not desirable that Railway Inspectors should be employed in that manner. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend opposite that it was desirable that Railway Inspectors should be employed in such work as he had referred to. Captain Tyler, he was sure, would give an impartial report, but it would have the official stamp of an Inspector of the Board of Trade. It was true that there was no general rule laid down at the Board of Trade, and, indeed, it was not desirable that there should be such a rule; but he could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) had thought more about it, he would in this case have withheld his consent.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he agreed very much with what had been said by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre). It was known that the railway company referred to was the

  335
  most speculative affair going. As Captain Tyler had received permission from his right hon. Friend, he exonerated that gentleman from blame; but the discussion, he thought, would do good, as it was a subject which deserved serious consideration.
  MR. T. C. BRUCEsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet had mentioned his name as having recommended Captain Tyler, he must explain how it came about. He had no sort of interest in the Erie Railway, and did not care whether the shares went up or down; but it happened that the present directors of the Erie Railway Company, being desirous that their books should be examined, and the condition of their line inquired into, asked him if he knew anyone whom he could recommend to undertake the task. He told them at first that if they wished to have an impartial report of the state of their affairs, the best thing they could do was to apply to the Board of Trade to allow one of the Railway Inspectors to go out to Canada. He gave them that advice because Railway Inspectors were accustomed to that kind of work, and were men of integrity. Afterwards, remembering that Captain Tyler had had connection with American railways, he mentioned that gentleman's name, and on being applied to, he said he could do the work during his holidays. He knew it was not the first time Captain Tyler had done something of that kind. Captain Tyler was now, and had been for some time, a director of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and at one time that company's stock was a subject of very considerable speculation. No application was made to the Board of Trade; but an arrangement was at once entered into with Captain Tyler. This was only a question of degree, and he (Mr. Bruce) thought if Railway Inspectors were employed abroad during their holidays on business similar to that which was their regular work, their usefulness in this country would be increased. He did not think that the fact of Captain Tyler being a Government Inspector would make much difference in the value of his report upon the Erie Railway Company's affairs. Captain Tyler's experience in conducting such investigations was greater than that of any gentleman. Moreover, his connection with the Grand Trunk Railway Company had made him ac-
  336
  quainted with the American system of railways.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question raised by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) was really part of a very large and very difficult question, which was continually cropping up—namely, how far gentlemen who were in the employ of the Government were to be held entitled to take other employments. As far as he could see at present, no rule could be laid down, and the matter must be left to the discretion of the heads of Departments. He should be glad, if it were possible, to lay down a rule on the subject; but the difficulties were so great, and cases shaded off so in relation to each other, that he did not see how it was to be done. The question had arisen with reference to the writing of books, sometimes containing information derived from official sources, and deriving importance and value from the position the writer held in the public service. We might go on from one thing to another, and lay down positions which would render it difficult indeed to take a stand and say we were not to advance to the next position. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), when his attention was called to the matter, did not think it necessary to require Captain Tyler to give up his connection with the Grand Trunk Railway, or to lay down a rule that no one should take such an appointment hereafter. The hon. Member for Rochester seemed to think the later engagement undertaken by Captain Tyler was the more objectionable, and accordingly rested his case upon it; but, comparing the two, and considering the second merely as an undertaking to report on a foreign line, apart from its particular character, the temporary undertaking seemed less questionable than the permanent appointment. Of course, no one doubted the questionable character of the Erie Railway; but, according to the explanation just given by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce), the intentions of those who were now charged with the management of it appeared to be unobjectionable. The question was, whether it was prudent that a Government officer should be allowed to render a service which in itself was by no means open to censure or question. That was of course a question

  337
  of discretion. It was put to his right hon. Friend in this way—"I am going abroad; have you any objection to my undertaking this job?" And it could never have appeared to him that in saying, "We have no objection," he was in any way giving the sanction of the Government to what Captain Tyler was about to do. It would be unfortunate if it should be supposed that there was any Government sanction for Captain Tyler undertaking this business. Nothing could be more unfortunate than having it supposed that when officers of the Government undertook private business they carried with them their official character. In the matter of books, remonstrances had been made against expressions and arguments used by gentlemen connected with the public Departments by which those Departments were supposed to be compromised. The conclusion he drew was that, if we allowed public servants to take part in private business, we ought as far as possible to make it clear that they undertook it on their own private account, and that the Government was in no way responsible. We must make it clear that such business was undertaken by them in their private capacity, and not as representing their offices. If the application had been made to the President of the Board of Trade for an officer to inquire and report, it would have been impossible that the application could have been entertained; but it was a different thing when the officer said—"I am going abroad; I mean to do so and so," and the Minister replied—"I do not object, but you must do it on your own responsibility." It was quite right that attention should have been called to the subject by the hon. Gentleman, and he could assure him it was one that continually caused the Government thought and anxiety.

INDIA—THE AMIR OF KASHGAR.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in rising to call attention to the necessity of a recognition of the Independence of the Amir of Kashgar, and of a delimitation of his territory, said, the subject was brought before the House a year ago; and therefore he would now speak only of the present and the future not of the past. A few days ago, in reply
  338
  to a Question, he was informed by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India (Lord George Hamilton) that Mr. Forsyth had concluded a Commercial Treaty with the Amir, but that it had not yet reached this country, and therefore it could not be stated whether the Treaty recognized the Amir's independence; but the noble Lord must have been aware that such a question could not have been left entirely to Mr. Forsyth, who must have been explicitly instructed either from the Foreign Office, the India Office, or Calcutta. We had taken immense pains to close our Indian Empire on the side of Afghanistan, as it were, with a side-door, to which the territory of Kashgar was the front door, and beyond that, the great importance the Russians attached to questions of boundary, and the way in which they watched our proceedings on this side of India quite as much as they did on the other, invested this matter with more importance than many which occupied the attention of the House. With reference to the independence of Yakoob Khan, the Amir of Kashgar, it must be remembered that he was looked upon officially as a mere rebel against the Chinese power, and that our Government, by making a Commercial Treaty with Yakoob, did not by that act alone recognize his independence. In dealing with European Powers, a Commercial Treaty would have been a recognition; but a very different state of things was found in Central Asia. Russia, for instance, made arrangements, called Treaties, with the small Princes on her boundaries, whose sovereignty at other times of her history, she entirely repudiated. Our recognition only showed that we regarded him as a successful rebel or robber chief; and Russia also took distinctly that view of his position. The Chinese Government, so far from abandoning the territory, had appointed a Governor of the Amir of Kashgar's dominion, a commander-in-chief, and there was an army which, however, existed only on paper. It would be found, on consulting the latest maps, that the position of Yakoob Khan was most precarious. An elaborate map in the last number of The Edinburgh Review marked the Russian frontier round the Amir of Kashgar's dominions as running along the tops of mountains and through the centre of the passes; but since then

  339
  the Russians had penetrated to the southern slope of the mountains, and they commanded the whole of the passes, and might be at the capital of Kashgar only five days after a declaration of war. The Russians had forces at Fort Naryn, at Kouldja, and at Fort Vernoe, so that there were 8,000 Russian troops within distances varying from three to 10 days' march from Yakoob Khan's capital. It was true that Russia had of late appeared friendly to the ruler of Kashgar; but she had never recognized him, and it was quite possible that a change for the worse might arise from the expected appointment of a new Governor of Turkestan, in which case, the Treaty said to have been made with the Amir by Russia might, like many others, be only an arrangement which might be repudiated at any moment. There was no expectation that Russia would occupy Kashgar ostensibly on her own account, but it was conceivable that she might do so on behalf of China, and it would come to the same thing, for such an occupation would equally excite the native mind in India, as if Russia had occupied Kashgar herself. In fact, whether the occupation was by Russia or China, the tranquillity of British India would be equally menaced. The object he had in view in calling attention to this subject was to give the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India an opportunity of explaining how far Her Majesty's Government were aware of the importance of preserving Yakoob Khan's power in Central Asia, and of stating whether they were prepared to recognize his independence more formally than they had hitherto done.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, the Question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) seemed to imply that he did not consider the present Ruler of Kashgar independent; but the very fact of our having sent an envoy to the Amir proved the independence of that country, for we should not send an envoy to what the hon. Baronet called a "robber chief." [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE said, he put the expression into other people's mouths. He did not use it as his own.] He understood the hon. Baronet to infer that the Chinese looked upon Kashgar as their own, and the Amir as a mere usurper; but the fact was that with regard to the Chinese they had been themselves mere usurpers,
  340
  having conquered the territory about a hundred years ago, and been at last expelled by a rising of the people. When the Chinese domination came to an end, a member of the old ruling family was set on the throne; but he proved himself so utterly unfit for the position that one of his chief officers—no other than Yakoob Khan—was placed by the people at the head of affairs. Since that time Yakoob Khan had been the undisputed Ruler of the country, and the Chinese were regarded by the people as having had no right to be there at all. The hon. Baronet seemed to be very much afraid of the approach of Russia, but anyone who looked at the map would see that Russia was separated from Kashgar by a series of almost impassable mountains. On three sides Kashgar was bordered by lofty mountains, not less, perhaps, than 18,000 feet high, and to the East there was a trackless desert; while the passes nearest to the capital, on the Russian side, were at least seven marches off. His (Mr. Forsyth's) brother, who was now returning from a Mission to Kashgar, had written a private letter to him, in which he said that he had the most complete assurance the Amir would give no just cause of offence to his neighbours; that the British Mission was perfectly understood by him to be a mission of peace, in which unfriendly feelings towards Russia had no part; and that care had been taken to impress upon him that England, Russia, and Turkey, with whom he had now entered into friendly relations, would treat him with consideration only so long as he acted strictly up to engagements, ruled with justice and mercy, and treated all traders with equality. He would further say that the people of Kashgar were strict Mussulmans. They looked up to the Sultan of Turkey and were not at all likely to throw themselves into the arms of Russia, and he could assure the hon. Baronet that there was no cause for alarm about the present position of that country. There was a vigorous and able Ruler at Kashgar who was perfectly willing to treat both with England and Russia, and the only rivalry between the countries ought to be a peaceful commercial one.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had, in the first place, to congratulate his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Forsyth)

  341
  on the success which, through the energy, tact, and ability of his brother, had attended the Mission to Kashgar. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) the other night put a Question with regard to the Treaty which had been concluded with the Amir, the text of that Treaty had not been received at the India Office, and he (Lord George Hamilton) thought it best to be cautious in what he said, because there were at times difficulties in interpreting Treaties, and he wanted to defer his Answer until he had had an opportunity of seeing it. It had now been received, and if it was moved for, there would be no objection to lay it on the Table. In the Preamble of the Treaty the Amir was recognized as distinctly as words could do it, for it was there stated that the engagements were entered into with the Amir of Kashgar and his heirs and successors. That fact afforded a sufficient answer to a leading part of the inquiry of the hon. Baronet. If the hon. Baronet would refer to the Correspondence laid on the Table last Session, he would find, at page 11, that Sir Alexander Buchanan, writing on the 2nd of November, 1869, to Lord Clarendon said, he had a conversation with Prince Gortehakoff, in the course of which Prince Gortehakoff told him that Mr. Forsyth had—
  "Spoken to him of the expediency of establishing friendly relations with Kashgaria, and the Government of the Atalik Ghazee, but he said that though that Ruler might have established a Government de facto, Russia had Treaties with China, and could not enter into diplomatic relations with a successful insurgent against the authority of the Chinese Emperor."
  Sir Alexander Buchanan somewhat combated that view, and Prince Gortehakoff replied that—
  "The Atalik Ghazee had nothing to fear from Russia; but, as the Government had no relations with him, and the Government of India appear to have dealings with him, 'you can assure him on my authority that Russia has no hostile intentions towards him, or any desire to make conquests in his territories.'"
  And in a despatch of the same date, signed by Mr. Forsyth, that gentleman reported an interview he had had with Prince Gortehakoff, in which the Prince said to him that—
  "If Yakoob Bey proved a good neighbour, the Russians would be happy to trade with him, and possibly hereafter, if he entirely established his independence, they might be induced to enter into negotiations with him."
  342
  He had so far established his independence that Russia, it was to be supposed, had felt itself justified in 1872 in entering into a commercial treaty with the Atalik Ghazee. The hon. Baronet asserted that commercial treaties in Asia did not mean very much. That was a view which it was somewhat difficult to combat; but he (Lord George Hamilton) might, at all events, answer that commercial treaties in Asia were valued and meant as much as any other class of treaty. With regard to the delimitation of the Atalik Ghazee's territories, the hon. Baronet would admit that only under certain circumstances was the delimitation of territory possible; one condition rendering it possible was that they should have the consent of the Ruler whose territory it was sought to define. Now, the Atalik Ghazee had not intimated to the Government of India any wish that his territory should be defined. Moreover, he was informed that the Chinese Government had recently sent an army with the view of recovering certain territories which the Amir of Kashgaria had acquired, and thus at that moment the Amir was at war with China. Therefore, under present circumstances, it would be impossible for the Government of India to act independently, without the sanction of the Amir of Kashgaria, and suggest to him that it should define his territory when, very possibly, that course might not be palatable to him; and even if it were palatable, the fact that he was engaged in a war with the Chinese placed insuperable difficulties in the way of such a proceeding. He trusted the explanation would be perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Baronet, for he thought it would show that, at least, the first portion of the hon. Baronet's Question had been complied with; while with regard to the second portion, the difficulties interposing had been shown to be such that he hoped the matter would not be pressed further.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
(1.) £18,827, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Department.
(2.) £19,481, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.
(3.) £3,926, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commissioners and West India Islands Relief Commissioners.
(4.) £36,455, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
(5.) £363,380, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
(6.) £20,697, to complete the sum for the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c.
(7.) £37,159, to complete the sum for the Office of Works and Public Buildings.
(8.) £20,000, to complete the sum for Secret Services.
(9.) £5,330, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and other Offices in Scotland.
(10.) £10,475, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board (Scotland).
(11.) £4,930, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commissioners (Scotland).
(12.) £5,605, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
(13.) £15,248, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Heath, Scotland.
(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,941, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
MR. ANDERSONsaid, Queen's Plates came under the Vote, and since it was last discussed a Committee on the subject of Horses had sat in "another place," and the evidence given before it went to show that the money spent in Queen's Plates was of no use whatever in improving the breed of horses, and that it was doubtful if it contributed even to the amusement of the people. Stronger evidence they could not possibly have, and as the only ground on which these Queen's Plates had been defended was that they improved the breed of horses, he thought they might now be done away with. He should, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by £1,562, being the amount given for Queen's Plates in Ireland.
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,929, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Anderson.)
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was glad to find that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had been awakened when the Irish Votes were reached. They had just cantered through the Scotch Votes without a single question or objection from the hon. Gentleman, or any quarter of the House; but the moment the Irish Votes were reached, the hon. Gentleman's conscience appeared to be touched. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow Irish Members to settle for themselves what was most in consonance with the wishes of the Irish people as to their public amusements; and it was, to say the least, questionable taste on the part of the hon. Member to renew this conflict year after year. For his part, he had little sympathy with the sporting world, and thought the money might be better applied in Ireland; but the question here was, whether it should not be disallowed altogether. It was not conducive to the interests of Ireland that her interests should be watched over by the hon. Member for Glasgow, and he protested against the intermeddling of would-be economists from the North in the internal affairs of that country.
MR. MONKdissented from the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member who had just spoken. That was a question of principle and not one as between Scotland and Ireland, or between Scotch and Irish Members. It was, also, one which had been repeatedly discussed during many years past by English and Scotch as well as by Irish Members. There was no Vote for Queen's Plates in England, and if the Committee should decide to refuse the Vote for Irish. Plates, he would, on the Report, move for the rejection of the Vote of £218 for the Scotch Plates. The Report of the Select Committee which had sat in "another place" to inquire into the subject of the horse supply, showed that no good in reference to the breeding of horses had resulted from the Queen's Plates, one half of which were walked over for by celebrated racers.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYwas glad to believe that now that they had a Conservative and sporting Government in power, the Vote could not be successfully attacked. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government once said, and said with great truth, that the Irish people were discontented because they were not amused. The amusement of horse-racing was all the more acceptable to them, that the race-course was the only place in Ireland where all classes, rich and poor, met together; and if it did not with them possess all the virtues of the sport, it certainly was deprived of many of the vices which attended it in England. The wise Government which was now in power would certainly not lend its countenance to the striking out of the Vote.
MR. BRUENsupported the Vote, remarking that there was perfect unanimity of opinion among the Irish Members on the subject.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, a Blue Book had been published, the result of an elaborate investigation in "another place," from which it appeared that some of the best breeders in Ireland had given evidence that these Plates were a discouragement to the breeding of good horses. He had had experience of what a good Irish horse really was, and would recommend the Chief Secretary to see whether in future years a larger sum might not be applied in a manner which would be more likely to further the object which these Queen's Plates were originally intended to promote.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, that Scotch views and Irish views by no means coincided, and that, he supposed, arose from a difference in the nature of things. The whole of Scotland could not produce a race worth going to; but in Ireland were to be seen many admirable races, and admirable horses, and large crowds of every class looking at them. When people came to legislate for a country, they should legislate for it according to its tastes and habits. He had not that Scotch objection to racing which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had. There was scarcely a more charming sight than might be seen on the Curragh, with a number of first-rate horses contending together, and charming ladies looking on, assisted by enthusiastic crowds of people. He had not
346
the economical spirit of the hon. Member for Glasgow; but even if he had, he should think that a few hundred pounds might be very well spent in the encouragement of this popular sport.
MR. CALLANdoubted whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had ever been at the Curragh Races. He had himself been at the Curragh, and, though an Irishman, he must say he had never seen charming ladies there, neither did he think them well attended. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" but he would tell them that at the Punchestown Races and the Ward Hunt Cup Race, he had seen more charming ladies than either at Epsom or Glasgow. He would suggest that half the money should be allocated to heavy weight-for-age races, for the Vote, as it was now applied, tended to produce a class of weeds not at all creditable to the country.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he did not know whether races improved the breed of ladies, but they certainly did the breed of horses. As a master of hounds, he must say he was very much indebted to Irish horses. An hon. Friend of his intended to bring under the notice of the House the whole subject of the breed of horses, for it was a question whether it had deteriorated or not. He should support the continuance of the present Vote, at all events, until the subject could be inquired into by a Committee or Commission; but it might be doubted whether it would not be better to devote the sum hitherto given to Queen's Plates to the establishment of a really good stud in Ireland.
MR. ALEXANDER BROWNsuggested that the money voted for Queen's Plates would be much better applied in prizes for superior stallions and brood mares at agricultural shows, of which there was a short supply in England as well as in Ireland. He would vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).
MR. GREENE, as one who was sensible of the advantage derived from good Irish horses, would support the vote, and at the same time, he must protest against any hon. Member for Ireland objecting to Scotch Members opposing this Vote. It was an united Parliament, and every hon. Member had a right to take part in its discussions. If that was not so, he would ask his hon. Friends

347
from Ireland, whether they had not sometimes better abstain from coming there. There were divisions at times when he should feel the absence very agreeable. He objected to steeple-chasing; but he liked to find Irish gentlemen at least united in riding over the land, and he should therefore prefer voting the money for fox-hunting.
MR. BUTTquite admitted the point made by the hon. Member who had just sat down, with reference to the absence of the Irish Members. The Irish Member would certainly not object to withdraw altogether—indeed, that was what they wanted—to go back to their own country and attend to their own affairs. He should, therefore, calculate with confidence on the vote of the hon. Member when the subject of Home Rule was brought forward.
MR. ANDERSONthought the discussion had shown one thing, and that was the marvellous ignorance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland on the subject of racing. He seemed to think they knew nothing of horses or horse-racing in Scotland; but there were at least as good races in Scotland as any in Ireland, and it was seldom that the Derby was run without a Scotch horse being among the favourites, if, indeed, a Scotch horse was not the winner. He made the Motion not because he grudged the money, or because the Vote was an Irish one; and if a pledge were given that the destination of the money should be reconsidered, with a view to give it in a direction that would really improve the breed of horses in Ireland, he would willingly withdraw it. If not, he must press it to a division.
MR. STARKIEsupported the Vote, thinking that the money ought to continue to be applied as it had been hitherto.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 146: Majority 118.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(15.) £21,989, to complete the sum for the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices.
MR. BUTTcalled attention to the recent decision of the House in favour of assistance being given to Irish fisheries, and asked, in what way effect was to be given to it?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was not in a position to give an answer at present.
MR. BUTTinquired whether the Irish Government were prepared to treat the Resolution as a nullity?
MR. GOLDSMIDthought it would be more courteous of the hon. and learned Member not to press for an answer, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. BUTTsaid, he did not know why the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester interfered. He (Mr. Butt) was quite as competent to judge of what was courteous as the hon. Member, and must decline to accept the instructions of a new Chesterfield. He meant nothing discourteous, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would acquit him of any such intention.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHrepeated that he could not give an offhand answer.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £350, to complete the sum for the Boundary Survey, Ireland.
(17.) £1,987, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
MR. BUTTobserved that there was scarcely a Board for public purposes in Ireland of which the Judges were not ex officio members. That was not the case in England, and it ought not to be the case in Ireland. The Judges were on seven charitable Boards out of 13. In his opinion, the Judges ought to be strictly confined to the functions to which they were appointed, and in that case they would be more appreciated. They might be called upon on the Bench to review their own decisions, and this fact was calculated to shake the confidence of the Irish people in the administration of justice in Ireland.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, he would admit that in the case of the Education Board the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick ought to be considered; but he could not conceive any public body of which it was more important that some of the Judges should be members than the Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests. The decision of the Commissioners on all questions arising at the Board was final, and

349
it, was therefore of importance that the ablest men should take part in its deliberations.
MR. BUTTsaid, he entirely disagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentle-man in that view. Were the Judges sitting at that and other Boards to decide without counsel? If they were to, that very practice would destroy their fitness for their proper functions. A Judge, too, might give advice to the Board, and, if that advice were wrong, how could he sit on a case in which the consequences of his own wrong advice would come before him? He knew of a more important matter in which a Judge had been a party to the proclamation of a district, and afterwards sat on circuit in a Court in which the legality of the proclamation was called in question. Such a practice was a degradation of justice, and he protested against it.
MR. LAWsympathised with the objection taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick, but remarked that the Judges acted as Commissioners under an Act of Parliament.
MR. CALLANinquired whether it was not the case that other Judges besides those appointed by the Act were members of the Board?
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that; four other Judges did so act. The English Judges were not placed in such anomalous positions, and the Irish Judges only were so, in consequence of the strange system of Government which existed in the country. Every Government appointed its own political partizans, and thus those Boards acquired a political character.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that the question before the Committee was the Vote for Charitable Donations and Bequests, and that a discussion as to the Judicial Bench in Ireland was not germane to the subject.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he would confine his remarks to the Board of Charitable Bequests. Many questions would come before that Board as to the allocation of charitable funds to Protestant or Roman Catholic charities; and the appointments made, if not really tinged by political influences, were believed to be so tinged by the people of Ireland. For that reason, he thought the Judges ought to be relieved from that particular function.
MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, the Board performed in Ireland the same functions as were discharged by the Charity Commissioners of England. No counsels' fees could be charged before them, though their jurisdiction extended over hundreds of thousands of pounds, and there was no litigation. The grievance of hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be that Irish Judges were appointed to the Board; but the practice in England was to appoint Judges to various Commissions directed by the Crown. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick was also trying to make a grievance out of the Board of Donations and Bequests, but with very bad effect, because if he could not trust his own Friends for such a purpose, how could he trust them for the higher national purposes to which he desired that they should be called?
MR. BUTTdid not say that Irish Judges were not as fit to be members of the Board of Charitable Bequests as English Judges to be Charity Commissioners. But as an Irish barrister, he wished to see Irish Judges, like the Judges in England, secluded from everything but their proper duties, and then they would be removed from all suspicion and distrust.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £91,297, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board, Ireland.
(19.) £4,364, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office (Ireland) and Keeper of State Papers, Dublin.
MR. SULLIVANcalled attention to the necessity of applying without loss of time a sum of money to the translation of Gaelic manuscripts, such as the "Annals of Ulster," the "Boyle Annals," and the "Annals of Innisfallen." They had lost those eminent Irish scholars, Dr. Todd, Professor O'Currie. Professor O'Donovan, and Dr. Petrie, and if the translation was not soon proceeded with they would have no persons left able to do the work.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the subject had not before been brought under his notice. It was one of great national interest, which he should be most anxious to promote, and he could assure the hon. Member it should have his best attention.
Vote agreed to.
(20.) £22,917, to complete the sum for the Office of Public Works, Ireland.
MR. BUTTcalled attention to the circumstance that a third Commissioner had not been appointed. Sir Richard Griffiths had retired on a superannuation allowance, and was nominally one of the Commissioners, but since his retirement there had never been a meeting of the Board. He should wish that these Boards should be presided over by an officer having a seat in the House.
Vote agreed to.

(21.) £19,617, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, &c. Ireland.

(22.) £43,323, to complete the sum for Law Charges.

(23.) £154,398, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.

(24.) £143,945, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery.

(25.) £59,895, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts.

(26.) £37,617, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.

(27.) £359,600, to complete the sum for the County Courts.

(28.) £76,332, to complete the sum for the Courts of Probate and Divorce.

(29.) £10,335, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry.

(30.) £4,370, to complete the sum for the Land Registry Office.

(31.) £11,898, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, London and Sheerness.

(32.) £197,227, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply to an hon. Member, explained that before the additional charge for the metropolitan police could be asked for from the Committee, a Bill must be brought in sanctioning that charge. A measure for that purpose would be introduced shortly.
Vote agreed to.

(33.) £310,098, to complete the sum for the Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).

(34.) £386,224, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.

(35.) £87,420, to complete the sum for County Prisons, &c. (Great Britain).

352

(36.) £175,543, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Great Britain).

(37.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £26,724, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England."
MR. MITCHELL HENRY, in rising to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £14,834, in order to place it on the same scale as the similar State Criminal Lunatic Asylum in Ireland, said, that until 1849 criminal lunatics in Ireland were always treated as prisoners, and were confined in the ordinary convict prisons; but in that year the Irish Government proposed to establish a separate lunatic asylum for them, and accordingly the asylum at Dundrum was established, and had proved a great blessing to the country and had done its work admirably. The consequence of its success was that a similar establishment was set up for England at Broadmoor. That criminal lunatic asylum contained 563 inmates, whereas the Irish Asylum contained only 180 inmates, but the expenses of the Broadmoor Asylum were£33,724 a-year, whereas those of the Irish Asylum were only £5,371 per annum. Thus, while the number of patients in the English establishment was only three times that of the Irish establishment, the expenses were six times as great. Therefore, no candid Member of the Committee who knew the circumstances, would deny that there was something to complain of in the matter. He did not intend to criticize the management or the condition of the Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. It would suffice to say that its management had been exceedingly expensive and unsatisfactory for a number of years. It was formerly under the management of the Director of Convict Prisons, and that management drew forth the remonstrances of the Lunatic Commissioners. Of late years, however, a great change had been made in its management. One hon. Member of that House, who would doubtless make some observations on the subject-had taken great interest in the establishment, and the last report was that the institution was managed as well as it

353
possibly could be. With regard to the expenses, however, he could only say that, seeing that the same class of persons were confined in the English and Irish establishments, it was a mystery how so large an expenditure should be required for the support of the English institution when so much smaller a sum sufficed for the maintenance of the Irish institution. At Broadmoor there was one attendant for every three or four patients. He did not say that was too many. That was a point on which he would rather take the opinion of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Walter). These attendants had very onerous, difficult, and dangerous duties to perform, and it was necessary that such officers should be highly paid; but if they were highly paid in England, why should they not also be adequately paid in Ireland? In Ireland they had only one attendant to between seven and eight patients, whereas at Broadmoor, as he had before observed, there was one attendant for every three or four patients. Again, at Dundrum the salaries were quite inadequate, the salary of the highest attendant being only £40; while at Broadmoor the chief attendant had £160, seven principal attendants had £74 each, and the lowest attendant, £34. At Broadmoor there was a chaplain having a salary of £400 a-year, while in Ireland the chaplain had only £60; the Roman Catholic chaplain at Broadmoor had £50, while in Ireland the Roman Catholic chaplain had only £40. There was a steward at Broadmoor with a salary of £300, while the corresponding officer at Dundrum received only £45, and in conclusion, he must repeat that at Broadmoor the patients were three times as many as at Dundrum, while the expenditure was six times as much. Two years ago when he brought forward this question the Government promised to give their attention to it, but nothing had come of that promise. He quite understood that the management of a criminal lunatic asylum required a large expenditure, and it was no doubt in consequence of the high salaries that were paid at Broadmoor that they were not troubled with those changes of officers which were perpetually occurring at Dundrum. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £14,834.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £11,890, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic "Asylum, England."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was very much surprised that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) made the Motion on the Vote for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. He admitted that he had nothing to find fault with; he had done nothing but commend the management at Broadmoor. He did not say there were too many officers, or that their salaries were too high, and yet he asked the Committee to reduce the vote by the sum of £14,834. He must repeat that the hon. Member for Galway, who only wished to raise the expenditure at Dundrum, ought to have brought forward his Motion on the Vote for Dundrum. At the same time, he (Colonel Barttelot) could not help thinking that the expenditure for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum was enormously large. Each criminal lunatic at Broadmoor cost the sum of £57 per annum; at Dundrum the cost per head was £30; while in the Sussex County Asylum each lunatic was kept for £25 14 s., and the average cost throughout the country was £26 5s. Last year they were promised that careful attention would be given to the subject; but instead of a diminution, there had been an increase of expenditure—the estimate this year being £31,724 against £30,492 last year. He would call the attention of his hon. Friend who had the management of the matter to the importance of something being done to reduce the expenditure at Broadmoor. Something was said about the farm last year; he supposed it had been this year a losing concern; at all events they should have a debtor and creditor account with regard to it
MR. WALTERbelieved his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) referred to him as having, as he supposed, taken some interest in Broadmoor, being on the Council of Supervision of that asylum, and he thought he could give the Committee some little explanation regarding it. He must say he almost wished that the Forms of the House had permitted

355
his hon. Friend to make his Motion in the form of an addition to, rather than a subtraction from the Vote, because it was quite clear from the whole tone of his speech that what he was really driving at was not so much to dimmish the expenditure at Broadmoor, as to make some addition to the expenditure at Dundrum. And he was bound to say, if he had taken that line even more strongly, he would have had some justification for the proceeding; because it was perfectly true the Lunacy Commission in their Report spoke in very strong language of the inadequate salaries at Dundrum, and attributed to these small salaries the constant annoyance and inconvenience of the resignations of their offices by the servants of that establishment. On the other hand, the Lunacy Commission spoke in high terms of the effect produced on the officers of Broadmoor by the more liberal salaries received there, and stated that it was no doubt chiefly owing to that circumstance that the authorities of Broadmoor were spared the trouble and the country the inconvenience and risk of a frequent change of officials. He must correct one mistake his hon. Friend had made in his figures. He stated that the whole expenditure at Broadmoor was £32,000, while at Dundrum it was only £5,400, in round numbers; but his hon. Friend did not seem to have had his attention called to the fact that in the £5,400, £2,400 was not included, which would be found debited to Dundrum in the estimate of "works on public buildings, for fuel, rent, and furniture." That item, however, was included in the Broadmoor estimate; so that the sum actually voted for Dundrum was not £5,400, but £7,800. That was the sum paid for the maintenance of Dundrum Asylum. That would alter the rate of cost per head of the inmates at Dundrum from £31 to £43, leaving an excess of cost for the patients at Broadmoor over Dundrum of only £14 per head. Therefore if his hon. Friend desired to make an exactly just comparison, so as to equalize the rate per head of the two establishments, his proposed reduction should be only £7,800, instead of £14,834. The truth was, Broadmoor was a costly establishment, and he would tell the Committee why. There were two quite different classes of criminal lunatics. There was the criminal lunatic
356
who committed crime because he was a lunatic—who murdered, perhaps, his wife and family because he was insane. At Broadmoor a very large portion of the inmates were convicts—men who had become mad in consequence of their crimes while undergoing their sentences at Pentonville and other places, and had been sent to Broadmoor. Those were the most formidable class that had to be dealt with. That dangerous element was at Broadmoor in the proportion of 25 per cent. whereas it was only 10 per cent at Dundrum. That necessitated a much larger staff of attendants. It was by far the most serious element in the expenses, and, in fact, the charge for attendance amounted to about £9 6s. a-head in excess of the other charges at Broadmoor. The cost of the patients or criminals at Broadmoor was about £14 a-head more than the cost per head at Dundrum. He should be glad if the expense at Broadmoor could be largely reduced, but he very much feared there was no probability of that. With regard to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Barttelot) as to the increase in the charge for Broadmoor this year, that arose from the increase in the price of coal, and it could not be helped. Those were the material points which he wished to mention to the Committee. He believed it might be highly desirable to increase the salaries of the officers at Dundrum, but that was not the question before the Committee. After the explanation he had given, he trusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to persevere in his Motion.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that what he really wished to impress upon the attention of the Government was the extremely low salaries at Dundrum, which varied from £18 to £25 a-year for the attendance, while at Broadmoor they ranged from £38 to £55.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had an opportunity, of which he gladly availed himself, when in Ireland not long ago, of inspecting the asylum at Dundrum. As far as he was able to judge, no institution could be better conducted. The whole matter with regard to the salaries of the various officers employed at Dundrum Asylum, their numbers and position, had been already inquired into by the Departmental Committee of the Treasury appointed by the late Government. Recommendations

357
had been made by that Committee as to the necessity of mating some alteration in the constitution of the various departments of the asylum, and the matter at present was in the usual course of Correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury.
MR. RAMSAYsaid, he could not understand why criminal lunatics cost £57 a-head, while in Scotland the average cost of ordinary pauper lunatics was from £26 to £27 a-year. He thought the Committee should have some clearer explanation of the causes of this great difference.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYexpressed his readiness to withdraw his Motion.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not go fully into the expenses at Broadmoor Asylum that night. His hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), who was connected with the asylum, had made an interesting statement on that subject. There was a very great difference between the expense attending the safeguard of dangerous and criminal lunatics at Broadmoor and the expense of maintaining ordinary pauper lunatics. At the same time, he could assure his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and also his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot), that this question of the expense of the asylum at Broadmoor had been lately brought under his notice, although not in time to enable him to make a thorough inquiry into the whole matter, as he should have liked, before this Vote was presented to the Committee. He would consider whether steps should be taken to remove the dangerous part of the lunatics from the asylum, in order that they might be taken care of elsewhere, and more cheaply. Before the Vote was presented to the Committee next year, he would do all he could to ascertain whether any expense could be saved in this matter, and he would state next year what had occurred.
MR. FLOYERsaid, the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had given very valuable information to the Committee with regard to the asylum at Broadmoor. At the same time, he thought the outlay on that institution should be largely reduced. What he specially objected to was the number of clerks in it, as compared with the number of clerks in ordinary lunatic asylums. If there were dangerous lunatics in
358
Broadmoor, the stores in it were not more dangerous than the stores in ordinary lunatic asylums, but the number of officials connected with the store department at Broadmoor was double the number of officials connected with the store department in ordinary lunatic asylums, and he thought half of the officials must be helping the other half to do nothing.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(38.) £15,480, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges.
(39.) £58,420, to complete the sum for Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
MR. DILLWYNcomplained that the salaries of the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General, and other officials were spread over different Votes, and their amounts were not easily seen.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the point should be considered in preparing the Estimates next year.
Vote agreed to.
(40.) £50,375, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
MR. DILLWYNasked the reason for the great increase in Sheriff Courts?
MR. RAMSAYinquired whether Sheriffs' clerks were paid for their whole services by the Treasury, or were at liberty to charge fees for their services at Parliamentary elections?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood the increase on Sheriff Courts was due to a change of arrangement, by which certain salaries had been removed from the Consolidated Fund, and placed on the Votes. Also certain officers, hitherto paid by fees, were in future to be paid by salaries, but as the fees were to be paid into the Exchequer, there would be no real increase in expenditure, although the Vote was increased. The other question was new to him, and he could not answer it.
Vote agreed to.
(41.) £26,254, to complete the sum for the Register House Departments, Edinburgh.
(42.) £20,497, to complete the sum for Prisons and Judicial Statistics, Scotland.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £65,153, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

359
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
MR. SULLIVANexpressed a hope that the consideration of the Vote would be postponed on account of the absence of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. He desired to pass some comments on it, which he would prefer to make in the presence of the noble Marquess.
MR. BUTTsaid, that was really a very serious matter, and in the absence of the noble Marquess the Vote ought not to be taken. In it there was a very large sum, he believed £5,000, for expenses and charges in actions brought against the police, and amongst others against the noble Marquess and Colonel Lake, Chief Commissioner of Police in Dublin, arising out of the attacks made upon people assembled in public meeting in the Phœnix Park, Dublin. It would be impossible to allow the Vote to pass without considerable discussion, and at that late hour—half-past 11 o'clock—it would be impossible to discuss it, and he should therefore move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Butt.)
MR. W. H. SMITHhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow the Vote to be taken. Looking into the Vote, he saw that there was a decrease of £22,000 in the Vote that year, and, therefore, it was hardly probable it included any of the expense to which reference had been made. If Notice had been given of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention to object to the Vote being taken, he was sure the noble Marquess would have been present.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Vote having been put could not be postponed.
MR. BUTTassured the hon. Gentleman that the expense was really included.
MR. W. H. SMITHpointed out that there was nothing to prevent hon. Members discussing the matter on the Report, and expressed a hope that the business in which they were now engaged would not be interrupted.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, the sum voted last year was £71,922, and the sum asked for this year was £49,922. The sum referred to had reference to the Vote of last year. He agreed that the question could be discussed on the Report.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would inquire about the £5,000. He did not think there was any portion of it in the Vote.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he also thought it would be better to take the Vote, and challenge it on the Report.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, the Vote involved the question of the propriety and validity of taking a Vote of Indemnity in that House for an illegality committed by persons serving under the Crown.
MR. DODSONsaid, it was to be regretted that Notice had not been given of the intention of hon. Members to challenge the Vote, and then the noble Marquess would have been present, and the Government would have made the necessary inquiries. He suggested that the Vote should be withdrawn.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, the decision of the Exchequer Chamber in Ireland was in favour of the Marquess of Hartington.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would postpone the Vote.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(43.) £37,497, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery, Ireland.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked, what became of the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland when the Great Seal was in Commission?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)replied that it was kept in the Exchequer for the benefit of the nation.
Vote agreed to.

(44.) £24,088, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts, Ireland.

(45.) £6,840, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.

(46.) £10,692, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.

(47.) £9,663, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate, Ireland,

361

(48.) £1,690, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.

(49.) £13,875, to complete the sum for the Registry of Deeds, Ireland.

(50.) £2,643, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland.

(51.) £113,231, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.

(52.) £885,268, to complete the sum for the Constabulary of Ireland.

MR. WHITWELLpointed out that there was a decrease of seven in the number of sub-inspectors, of 29 in the number of head-constables, and of 1,155, or 10 per cent. in the number of constables this year as compared with last year.
Vote agreed to.
(53.) £34,350, to complete the sum for Government Prisons and Department of the Registrar of Habitual Criminals, Ireland.
MR. SULLIVANcalled attention to the importance of having medical officers of perfect independence and public reputation in their profession to see that no undue severity was practised towards the inmates of convict prisons; for the present treatment, in some instances, was, it appeared from official reports, calculated to make the prisoners insane. He had no charge or imputation to make against individuals, but he had against the system, and the system alone. Take one instance. The former medical officer of Mountjoy Prison—a man of great eminence in his profession—having fearlessly discharged his duty in that respect, had been shelved, and another medical officer appointed in his place who, having no practice or professional status outside at stake, and being resident in the prison, was—he used the words in no sense to disparage the individual gentleman in question, but to describe the position—a mere medical warder or officer under the control of, and, in fact, the creature of the prison authorities, in so far as he was totally dependent upon them. It was desirable that they should have medical officers who possessed a professional character outside of those establishments, and whose bread and butter did not altogether depend upon their official position. He trusted that the Committee would remember that the light of day in the shape of public opinion never penetrated into a Government
362
convict prison, and that it was a living tomb for the prisoners.
MR. BULWERsaid, he congratulated the Committee on the advent of certain hon. Members from Ireland, who found nothing too high or too low for their vituperation. On one night it was directed against a learned and distinguished Judge upon the Irish Bench; on this, the hon. Gentleman opposite had singled out a more humble person, the surgeon of a convict prison for his attack. In neither case was the victim present to defend himself, and, under such circumstances, to make attacks, was neither generous nor manly.
MR. SULLIVANdenied that a single phrase offensive to the gentleman in question had fallen from his lips. ["Oh, oh!"] He had only spoken of the system.
MR. BULWERreminded the hon. Gentleman that, among other assertions, he had asserted that the gentleman could not do his duty, because he was the creature of the prison officials.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he had never heard a more unfair attack than that made by the hon. Member for Louth, who, without alleging a single definite charge against an officer whom he had not even named to the Committee, said that officer was a creature of the officials of the prison, and that he had no out-door character at stake; and then endeavoured to shield himself by saying that he had made no personal charges against the officer. After that, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would leave it to the Committee to decide what value could be placed upon statements of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYcontended that his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had spoken only of the system, though he had mentioned one particular prison. When he practised as a member of the medical profession, one of the fundamental rules was that the Government always appointed an independent medical officer outside to visit Millbank and see that the regulations were carried out. The medical officer resident within a prison was usually a young gentleman, and he could not be so independent as a medical practitioner in private practice. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had so soon caught the unworthy tone given to

363
the debate by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bulwer), who said that nothing was too high or too low for the vituperation of the Irish Members. It was all very well for hon. Members opposite who disappeared from the House about 7 o'clock to dinner, and re-appeared about midnight, to indulge in inarticulate animal noises. ["Order," and "Chair!"]
THE CHAIRMANhoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the expression, for he must feel that it was hardly a proper remark to address to the Committee.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was willing to withdraw the word "animal," although he did not think there was much to complain of. The noises to which he referred were not articulate, and they proceeded from human beings, and, as human beings, were animals, he thought they were fittingly described as inarticulate animal noises when they interfered with the freedom of debate, but his hon. Friend (Mr. Sullivan) was quite justified in complaining of the removal of the medical officer, and the appointment of a resident surgeon directly responsible to the Executive. Such a proceeding would not be permitted in England, and, in his opinion, nothing could be more unwise.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTcould appeal to every Member of the Committee whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had not always used the most courteous and conciliatory language where Irish Members were concerned. The course taken by those Members, however, was such as to alienate from them the sympathies of those who sincerely desired the well-being of Ireland.
MR. DODSONthought that the hon. Member for Louth did not deserve the attack made on him. He had disclaimed making any personal attack upon the medical officer, and only found fault with the system of not having a medical officer resident outside of the prison, and responsible to public opinion.
MR. HUNTsaid, that the assertion that this medical officer was only the creature of the prison officials was not an attack upon the system, but an expression directed against a gentleman which would have been resented if he had been present, and which was calculated to give great pain to a member of
364
an honourable profession. For that reason, hon. Members who had heard it used were perfectly justified in objecting to it. He, however, fully accepted the hon. Member's disclaimer, when he said that he intended no personal attack.
MR. DILLWYNthought that the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the meeting—[Laughter]—he begged the Committee's pardon for calling it a "meeting," but he was sure that the hon. Member for Louth who addressed the meeting—[Renewed laughter]—meant only to attack the system, and not the character of the medical officer. He contended that the effect of the system was to destroy the independence of the medical officer.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that misunderstandings would occasionally arise; but it was the practice of the House to accept such a disclaimer as had been given by the hon. Member for Louth, who, although he had expressed himself with a good deal of vehemence, did not intend to cast a personal reflection upon the medical officer in question, and therefore did not deserve the severe censure which had been passed upon him.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENdesired to reply to a remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Bulwer). The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that no man, from a Judge to the humblest person in the land, was safe from vituperation in this House. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Motion which he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had brought forward a few nights since in relation to Mr. Justice Lawson. He wished, in answer to that observation, to say, with every respect to the hon. and learned Member, that he considered himself the best judge of his own conduct, and while he had the honour of a seat in that House he would always discharge what he believed to be his duty.
MR. BULWERsaid, he could assure the right hon. Baronet that he had not heard his speech the other evening. All he had heard was the speech of the hon. Member for Louth, who appeared to him to have been very unjustifiably severe upon the learned Judge. However, as he understood the observations made by the hon. Member to-night, were intended to be used only in a "Parliamentary sense," he would express a

365
hope that anything he might have said would receive the same interpretation.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)complained that the present Government had to defend the transactions of the late Government. The salary of this medical officer was voted last year; but no objection was was made by the patriots who now took exception to the appointment. Not one whisper was heard so long as the Government responsible for these acts remained in power; but the moment a change took place, he and his right hon. Friend were treated as the authors of these proceedings. He doubted the sincerity of those who had sat silent on the former occasion; but the remark did not apply to the hon. Member for Louth, who was not in the House at the time.
MR. MACARTNEYthought he had a right to complain that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on the opposite (the Opposition) side assumed to themselves the exclusive privilege of representing their country, for there was a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side who represented Irish constituencies, and who did not concur in the opinions expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, or approve of the uncalled-for attack which had been made upon the Chief Secretary. He had risen to say that every Member of that House, who was interested in Irish public affairs, spoke uniformly in praise of the right hon. Gentleman, for his constant courtesy, and the ability with which he performed his duties.
MR. BUTTsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the only attack made upon the right hon. Baronet existed in the mind of the hon. Gentleman himself. He regarded the system complained of as unfortunate; but it was absurd to look at the raising of a discussion of the kind as a party question, or as an attack upon the Government.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had not for one moment supposed that any attack was intended, either upon Her Majesty's Government, or upon himself. The attack appeared to be made upon a Gentleman who was absent, and who seemed to have discharged his duty well, and that circumstance led him to resent it with a little greater warmth than was perhaps called for. On the general question, he quite understood that some objection might be
366
felt in Ireland to the discontinuance of visiting physicians, and the matter should on that account have his attention.
MR. SULLIVANbegged most unreservedly to withdraw the word "creature," which had given so much offence, and to say—as he had most distinctly declared when using it—that he had not intended to apply it in any way to the derogation of the dignity or character of a gentleman of whose name even he was ignorant.
Vote agreed to.

(54.) £74,174, to complete the sum for County Prisons and Reformatories, Ireland.

(55.) £4,371, to complete the sum for Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.

(56.) £1,841, to complete the sum for the Four Courts Marshalsea.

(57.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £57,156, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses in Ireland."
MR. CALLANcomplained of the sums of money given to Chairmen of Counties, and moved that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £7,300.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £49,856, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses in Ireland."—(Mr. Callan.)
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Vote was settled by the late Government, under whoso consideration the matter had been for some time.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the Vote was increased by the allowance made to Chairmen of Counties for discharging certain duties under the Land Act.
MR. C E. LEWISurged the expediency of doing justice to clerks of the peace, whose claims he was glad to know the Government were willing to consider.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexpressed the desire of the Government to

367
do what they could to meet the justice of the case.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL. LEAVE.

  FIRST READING.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in moving "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Ireland," said, that at that late hour he would not detain the House by any explanation of the measure, but he hoped hon. Members would allow the Bill to be introduced, and he would not take the second reading until after Whitsuntide.
  MR. SULLIVANhoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them as long a day as he could to consider the Bill in Ireland.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.—[Bill 114.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CLARE READ, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the districts of Barmouth, Ealing, Holyhead, the City of Lincoln, Mileham, Walton on the Hill, and Waterloo with Seaforth, and to the City of Oxford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CLARE READ and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 112.]

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CUMULATIVE VOTE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HEYGATE, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Election of Aldermen in Municipal Boroughs, by the application
  368
  thereto of the cumulative vote, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HEYGATE, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. FAWCETT, and Mr. WHEELHOUSE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 113.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Thurlow, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Parochial Records (Ireland) * (68).
Second Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (52).
Report—Real Property Limitation * (39): Land Titles and Transfer* (17); Real Property Vendors and Purchasers * (55); Boundaries of Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries* (28); Betting* (47).
Third Reading—Colonial Clergy * (43); Consolidated Fund (£13,000,000),* and passed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—GELLIGAER SCHOOL.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The EARL BEAUCHAMP)reported The Queen's Answer to the Address of Friday last, as follows:—
  "MY LORDS,
  "I have received your Address, praying that I will refuse my assent to the proviso in the 56th clause of the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, for the management of the Foundation of Edward Lewis for a school at Gelligaer, in the county of Glamorgan, and for other charitable objects.
  "I will withhold my assent from the proviso in conformity with your desire."

SLIGO, LEITRIM, AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.

  MOTION FOR RE-COMMITTAL.
  THE EARL OF BANDONmoved that the Bill be re-committed. The Select Committee before whom it had been sent, felt, in the absence of any Standing Order on the subject, that they were not entitled to inquire into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee clauses which the Bill contained. It had, however, been the practice of Parliament for the last 25 years to sanction such guarantees in all cases in which they were in accordance with the wishes of the counties interested. Without them some of the most useful railways in Ireland would not have been made, and he therefore hoped that the House would allow the Bill to be re-committed in order that the Committee might inquire into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee proposed to be given by it.
  Moved to resolve, That whereas the Committee to which the Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern Counties Railway Bill was referred, have, in the absence of any Standing Order on the subject, not felt themselves bound to inquire into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee clauses; and whereas the practice of Parliament for twenty-five years has been to sanction such guarantees in cases where they have been shown to be the general wish of the counties interested, it is expedient that the said Bill be re-committed with a view to further inquiry into the nature and extent of the opposition to the guarantee.—(The Earl of Bandon.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that he was a member of the Select Committee before whom the Bill came. When they came to the consideration of the guarantee clauses, they found that in no case had any guarantee been sanctioned to which opposition of a bonâ fide character had been offered. They further found that the opposition to the guarantee in question was of that kind. Nevertheless, looking to the importance of opening up railway communication in Ireland, he was quite prepared to vote for the recommittal of the Bill, if it should appear to their Lordships that such a course was desirable.
  LORD WAVENEYquestioned whether the Irish grand juries had any legal power to bind the ratepayers to guarantees. He thought the House should not consent to the re-committal of the Bill unless the consideration of the Committee were limited to the merits of the Bill.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he fully admitted the usefulness of guarantees in the case of Irish railways, but he thought that if this Bill were re-committed for the purpose of inquiry into the nature of the opposition to the guarantee clauses, they were bound to give the ratepayers, who were to be made liable to the guarantee, every opportunity of making known to the Committee their opinions in respect to it. Further, he thought their Lordships would do well to establish some principle on which these guarantees might be given, so as to have some rules to guide them when Bills of this nature came before them for their sanction.
  LORD REDESDALEwished to point out that in all cases where it was proposed to re-commit a Bill the form of the Motion simply was that the Bill be re-committed to the same or some other Committee. The Preamble of the Resolution was, therefore, objectionable, and the admissions of the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) furnished the strongest arguments that could be urged against it. He had every desire to conform to the wish of the House, but at the same time they should be extremely cautious how they upset the decision of a Committee when once arrived at after due inquiry.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think that their Lordships ought to recommit this Bill. Many of them, no doubt, differed from the conclusion to which the Committee had come; but, on the other hand many railways in Ireland would not have been, nor would be, made but for a guarantee. He wished, however, to guard himself against expressing any opinion on the important question whether guarantees should be sanctioned or not. He would suggest that the Government should institute an inquiry as to whether guarantees should be given or not in any case, and if so, under what conditions. He thought that the Select Committees should have some general principles to act upon when they had to consider the question of guarantees.
  LORD COLCHESTER, as a member of the Select Committee, who considered the Bill, said, he thought the re-committal of the Bill would be advisable. The Committee came to a Resolution that there ought to be strong reasons on the ground of public policy for sanctioning a guarantee; and the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) who presided
  308
  over the Committee said that interest ought to be national, and not merely local. The Committee did not hear the evidence of the opponents of the Bill, and he himself was strongly in favour of a re-committal of it.
  LORD CARLINGFORDconsidered that the action of the Committee was unsatisfactory, mainly because it proceeded upon principles and assumptions which appeared to be erroneous, and which had never been accepted by Parliament. The Committee seemed to have been afraid of making a precedent, while in fact they had made one, and this, a precedent which, if followed, would render the system of guarantees, in constructing Irish railways quite impossible. He felt bound to express his conviction that the majority of the Committee had for the first time laid down a new principle for application to Irish railways—namely, that the ratepayers of a county should be almost or quite unanimous in favour of a guarantee before it should be sanctioned.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that he regretted he had to trouble their Lordships again in reference to this Bill, but he must repeat what he said on a former evening, that it did appear to the majority of the Committee that there was a great difference of opinion amongst the ratepayers in regard to this guarantee, and that therefore it should not be sanctioned. The Committee had made no new precedent; but if they had reported in favour of the Bill they would have made a novel and dangerous precedent. He considered that the ratepayers should be protected, and that the ratepayers who had opposed this Bill should not be put to the trouble and expense of opposing it a second time. He could see no reason why the Bill should be re-committed, and therefore he hoped that their Lordships would not agree to the Motion.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMpointed out that the county town of Leitrim would be 35 miles distant from this proposed railway, and that in fact the railway would be of little or no advantage to the county. He should oppose the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then it was moved that the said Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee.
  On Question? their Lordships divided; Contents 59, Not-Contents 54: Majority 5.
  Resolved in the affirmative: Bill recommitted accordingly.

  PAROCHIAL RECORDS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision for keeping safety certain Parochial Records in Ireland—Was presented by The Earl of BELMORE; read 1a. (No. 68.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.